quote:

---

Brett Mann:
Fortunately for me, I don't have to go far to see leftists dismissing the threat of international terrorism. Jerry West, above, was kind enough to supply these statements:

"The war on terror is really a war between terrorists and Islamic terrorism is a convenient boogeyman used by the corporate world order and US nutbars to generate fear and loathing and create mob support for their expansionist polices."

and :

"The realtiy of Islamic extremist terrorism is that it is highly over rated for one, and for two it is not a military problem."

I'm sorry Jerry, but this is pure, blind, ideological nonsense.

---

What is your point? It is not clear.

Are you saying that only the Islamic extremists are terrorists and that the US and others do not engage in actions that terrorize people?

Are you saying that the US administration and its collaborators do not use fear and loathing of Islamic extremists to motivate people in a certain direction?

Are you saying that the corporate world is not expansionist and that the US administration and collaborators do not serve its interests?

Are you saying that Islamic terrorism is more important than many of the other issues that face us?

Do you really think that roots of terrorism which are cultural and economic are something that can be dealt with successfully by military means short of genocide?

And, is it your normal modus operandi to avoid issues that you fear to examine by labeling those who argue the points you do not like as blind, etc?

Show us the proof, Brett, that:

a) The practice of terrorism is limited to Islamic extremists;

b) That the US and company do not use fear and loathing to motivate people to support their so called "war" on terrorism;

c) That the international corporate world is not expansionist and that it has no influence over governments;

d) That there is nothing more important today than Islamic terrorism; and

e) That terrorism has its roots in military issues rather than in cultural and economic ones.

I suggest for anyone wanting to get a better understanding of terrorism in the world today they start by studying the history of US foreign interventions over the past 110 years or so, and pay attention to US Marine Corps Major General Smedley D. Butler and what he had to say about his role in about 30 years of that history.

One could also bone up on the history of the CIA and take a look at the works of William Blum:

Afghan leaders steal half of all aid

quote:

---

Corrupt police and tribal leaders are stealing vast quantities of reconstruction aid that is intended to improve the lives of ordinary Afghans and turn them away from the Taliban, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

In some cases, all the aid earmarked for an area has ended up in the wrong hands. Defence officials in the United States and Britain estimate that up to half of all aid in Afghanistan is failing to reach the right people.

In one recent example in Kandahar province, aid distribution went ahead despite fears that it would be stolen. Sergeant Major Denis Tondreau, in charge of delivering Canadian army aid to the Pashmul area, said the Afghan police unit in one village was known for corruption and extortion. "I have been told that if I bring aid to Pasab the police will steal it," he said. "They are just a bad, bad unit… extortion, corruption and use of drugs."

But people in the area said tribal and mosque elders were also guilty of stealing aid. In the nearby town of Panjwaii, workers said aid distributed by Nato's provincial reconstruction teams had not reached the ordinary people.

Abdul Ghany, 20, said: "When the soldiers came here they gave things to the rich people. The elders took things for themselves and we received nothing."

---

Imagine us only helping out the rich and well connected, wherever they may be.

ETA: It says a lot about our media's self censorship when one has to read a British paper to find a quote from a Canadian soldier complaining about the rampant corruption of the regime we are supposed to be "assisting".

[ 27 January 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

US adds US$10.6bn to Afghan aid

That should satisfy all those greedy warlords and hopefully leave some left to trickle down to the peasants.

And who says they aren't the "smartest guys in the room"?

[ 27 January 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

A lonely worker:
Imagine us only helping out the rich and well connected, wherever they may be.

---

And they say there is no comparison to Vietnam!

quote:

---

The Canadian military effort in Afghanistan will be complete when Afghan security forces are established and the Afghan government gains full control of the area, says a new document from the military's chief of defence staff.

---

Has any Afghan government ever had full control of the country for very long, if ever?

Of course the following statement puts it a little differently:

quote:

---

* when new Afghan security forces "are established" and "fully controlled" by the Afghan government.

* when those forces are trained and can conduct their own "counter-insurgency operations."

* when the forces can defend against foreign fighters and "effectively control borders."

* and when "terrorist groups are denied sanctuary within Afghanistan."

---

Forces fully controlled by the government are not anywhere near the same as Afghanistan fully controlled by the government. And the rest of the conditions are very subjective and depend on how one defines terms like foreign fighter, effective and so on.

The Canadian government is projecting a very long war. Most likely the defining criteria for Canadian disengagement will be the patience of the Canadian people, not any set of goals or criteria on the ground in Afghanistan.

quote:

---

KABUL (AP) - Parliament has voted for an amnesty for leaders accused of war crimes during a quarter-century of fighting, arguing that it would help heal the deep divisions in Afghanistan.

The amnesty resolution, passed in the lower house Wednesday, covers the mujahedeen leaders who led the resistance against the Soviet occupation of the 1980s and later turned their weapons on one another, plunging the country into civil war.

[snip]

The resolution follows a report from New York-based Human Rights Watch calling for Afghan officials - including Vice-President Karim Khalili and Army Chief of Staff Abdul Rashid Dostum - to face trial before a special court.

Human Rights Watch also listed Energy Minister Ismail Khan, parliamentarians Abdul Rasul Sayyaf and Mohammed Qasim Fahim and former president Burhanuddin Rabbani as among the "worst perpetrators."

---

ETA: I doubt there'll be much response to this from Canada, judging from past comments by Gen. Hillier and Minister O'Connor:

quote:

---

Gen R.J. Hillier:

Everybody in that country was involved in the violence at one point and everybody is described from one angle, agenda, or perception or another as something else: either as a warlord or as a good guy or a bad guy, etc. So some of those descriptions are in the past, and many of the people who were engaged and called warlords in the past have come into the political process. Many of them play a very positive part. So it's not all bad.

---

quote:

---

Hon. Gordon O'Connor:
Afghanistan and the parliament of Afghanistan have people you would categorize as former warlords. They also have a lot of women and the parliament is quite a mixture of their society and their culture. So it's not unusual to have to deal with people you call former warlords. That's the way it is in Afghanistan.

---

[ 01 February 2007: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
I doubt there'll be much response to this from Canada, judging from past comments by Gen. Hillier and Minister O'Connor:

---

Probably about as much response as Jerry got from Brett!

Now, this is shameful, truly shameful, how the people they vicitimized must feeel. And talk about giving them permission to do it again and again.

"Are you saying that only the Islamic extremists are terrorists and that the US and others do not engage in actions that terrorize people?"

No. I'm not saying this.

"Are you saying that the corporate world is not expansionist and that the US administration and collaborators do not serve its interests?"

Again, no.

"Are you saying that Islamic terrorism is more important than many of the other issues that face us?"

A qualified no. It may not be more threatening than say, global warming or the nuclear arms race, but it is more salient, in that it is occuring right now, people are dying right now, and it is more emotional for most people. Knowing that your house could burn down is not the same thing as knowing that someone out there is deliberately planning to burn down your house. It kind of makes it a priority.

"Do you really think that roots of terrorism which are cultural and economic are something that can be dealt with successfully by military means short of genocide?"

No, I have repeatedly argued on Babble that a military response is necessary at times, but not sufficient. In Afghanistan, at the moment, the international community is engaged in military confrontation against a militarily trained and equipped enemy. In these circumstances a military response is justified and inescapable.

"And, is it your normal modus operandi to avoid issues that you fear to examine by labeling those who argue the points you do not like as blind, etc?"

No, I reserve these labels for when they are justified, as in the present case. Not just you, Jerry, but a whole lot of my brothers and sisters on the left are absolutely wrong about Afghanistan. You are absolutely right about Iraq, and US imperialism, but you are mapping one situation on the other, and the closer you look, and the more time goes on, the more you will see that I was right about Afghanistan. I think calling for an immediate withdrawal of ISAF forces from Afghanistan right now would be a hideous, shameful cowardly betrayal of everything the left stands for.

"Show us the proof, Brett, that:

a) The practice of terrorism is limited to Islamic extremists;

b) That the US and company do not use fear and loathing to motivate people to support their so called "war" on terrorism;

c) That the international corporate world is not expansionist and that it has no influence over governments;

d) That there is nothing more important today than Islamic terrorism; and

e) That terrorism has its roots in military issues rather than in cultural and economic ones."

quote:

---

Ms. Joya, known for standing up to the jihadi commanders who occupy many of the seats in parliament, said the draft was unjust and went "against the will of the people."

"National unity cannot be achieved through forgiving national traitors," she said. "They must be tried. In fact, they have already been tried in the minds and hearts of people and they should be tried officially."

---

quote:

---

But the United Nations reacted coolly. For national reconciliation to succeed, "the suffering of victims must be acknowledged and impunity tackled," the UN mission in Afghanistan said. "No one has the right to forgive those responsible for human-rights violations other than the victims themselves."

"Afghans will see this as a sign that their parliament is more concerned with protecting its own members than the people," said Sam Zarifi of Human Rights Watch.

---

quote:

---

Trying to fit the Afghanistan mission into a "colonialist -imperialist" model is ridiculous, as I have already pointed out. -Brett Mann

---

You did point out that the mission does not fit into a colonialist-imperialist model. But what you did't identify any particular moded in which you are suggesting it does fit.

quote:

---

Afghan peace in tatters as Taliban seize district
GRAEME SMITH

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Taliban fighters smashed government buildings, frightened away villagers and declared a new round of hostilities with foreign troops on Friday as the only peace deal in southern Afghanistan crumbled.

In a district touted by some military officials and Afghan leaders as a model for pacifying the volatile region, insurgents on tractors hauled down walls in a cluster of buildings that housed the police headquarters and district administration of Musa Qala, where a fragile agreement with the Taliban had endured for three months.

“Now the Taliban control Musa Qala, and the people are afraid,” said Rahmatullah, one of several local residents who described the scene by telephone. “All the shops are empty, the houses are empty.”

.................................

The insurgent also blamed the breakdown of the deal on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's bombing of a mosque in Musa Qala district on Jan. 25. Western military statements have said that a U.S.B-1B Lancer dropped a precision-guided bomb on a “known insurgent command post” near Musa Qala on that date, but NATO said the target was outside the zone of the peace deal.

In nearby Kandahar, provincial councillor Haji Mohammed Qassam said that elders from Musa Qala had recently visited the city to complain that neither side seemed interested in keeping the peace.

“The Taliban were all over Musa Qala, and the elders were here complaining,” Mr. Qassam said. “NATO also was trying to end this deal.

“There was a bombing, and that ended it.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:

“Now the Taliban control Musa Qala, and the people are afraid,” said Rahmatullah, one of several local residents who described the scene by telephone.

---

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
But I think the hunting down of human rights abusers in Afghanistan will have to wait until the Taliban threat is severely diminished.

---

Supporting one group of evil thugs against another is support of thuggery. We compromise our morals by doing so, not to mention our reputation and credibility.

Our actions point out that human rights abuse and progressive social organization are not important for us here unless they can be used selectively against the Taliban or other designated enemies of the day.

quote:

---

At the moment, the central government, no matter how compromised, is the only hope for a way forward for Afghanistan.

---

That is a bit extreme for one, and calls into question the meaning of way forward.

quote:

---

Identifying warlords and criminals in the government is made difficult by the tribal nature of Afghanistan.

---

This is an excuse for not doing it?

quote:

---

Going after a corrupt tribal leader could lead to fractioning of the central government and Taliban victory.

---

How do you see that? Perhaps it would drive the Taliban and warlords into an alliance again, but that is no guarantee that the Taliban would come out on top.

It may well be that if we are serious about establishing a progressive society in Afghanistan (which I doubt that we are) we should be taking on both the Taliban and the warlords and erradicating them both together. (along with any group that does not believe in the supremecy of secular law over religious law and custom)

quote:

---

From another perspective however, eliminating corruption and human rights abuses by those in power in Afghanistan will sooner or later be a precondition of military success against Taliban insurgents.

---

Which takes us back to your point of fracturing the central government, and to my perpetual point that there is not a military solution to the situation in Afghanistan, at least in light of our official propaganda.

quote:

---

Trying to fit the Afghanistan mission into a "colonialist -imperialist" model is ridiculous, as I have already pointed out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:

You did point out that the mission does not fit into a colonialist-imperialist model. But what you did't identify any particular moded in which you are suggesting it does fit.

I will not ask you to rehash what you have already dealt with, Brett, but I wish you just identify the model in which it fits, according to you of course. Humanitarian? Liberational? Peace-keeping?

---

I see it something like this, Sidra - the US initiated this war out of a desire for revenge - blood lust - for 9/11. It fucked it up from the outset, because of flawed US military doctrine which just about ensures atrocities in every action they go into. Bin Landen and crew were allowed to escape and regroup, efforts at re-building and development were mainly a sham. But the Afghan people now were free from the Taliban, and I think anyone who looks at the opinions of average Afghans, like the comments I linked to above, and especially the story about Herat - will agree that Afghans are very glad the Taliban is gone, and really, really don't want them back.

Then the US followed its original plan, and invaded Iraq (illegally, of course.) Traditional allies (excepting Britain) were dismayed, and new alignments began to form in the world in response to this reckless American unilateralism. For Canada, a radical separation from US policies was not a realistic option. The current reality of Canada - US relations is that we are bound into close co-operation with the US on a number of fronts, and I suspect any Canadian PM would have done what Chretien did and offer support in Afghanistan as a gesture of solidarity with the US in a context which did not offend basic Canadian values. This was the original motivation from Canada's point of view, but there was another - the reality of the threat of Islamic extremism. No country in the world that was capable of responding would allow a foreign nation to be used as a training and staging base for attacks against them. Canada indeed has real security interests in the stability of Afghanistan, as does the rest of the world.

The situation continued to evolve. Elections were held, a government, albeit a US -supported one, was installed, with minimal authority and credibility. The Taliban retrenched in Kandahar province, their birthplace, and were driven out by ISAF troops. Canadian troops started to die in significant numbers. The world started paying more attention to Afghanistan, and it became less and less a private war of America's. The mission now had UN sanction and was the subject of five separate resolutions of the Security Council, I understand. Many nations now have troops and aid projects in Afghanistan, and thus, a finger in the pot of deterimining its eventual evolution.

From all the evidence I have seen, a substantial majority of Afghans still are willing to put up with the presence of ISAF forces for as long as they are necessary to eliminate the Taliban threat. This support could evaporate for a number of reasons - a US invasion of Iran, indiscriminate killing of civilians by ISAF forces ( this seems less likely under new ISAF combat doctrine).

If things go well, the central Afghan government will be strengthened, particularly in its ability to provide security protection, secular and moderate society will continue to evolve (see the Herat story) and the Taliban will come to the bargaining table and cease hostilities. Insurgent wars are difficult, but there seems a chance of success here because the majority of people do not support the insurgents. But of course, they would likely come to support them quickly if it looked like the Taliban were going to win. This would be simple self-preservation for the average Afghan.

The nation's fate will now be the responsibility of the larger international community. What began as retribution and a quasi-imperialist invasion now has morphed into a legitimate nation-building project by the international community with a good chance of success, as long as Canadians and others remain willing to put their lives and money on the line to make it work. The gains for Canada and the international community chiefly consist of eliminating Afghanistan as a base for international Islamic extremism. Obviously there still will be a lot of work to do on this front elsewhere.

A further gain for Canada and the world could be the replacement of the US at centre stage in international decision - making with a more multi-lateral approach. This could be an incalculable breakthrough for the cause of world peace, but maybe I'm indulging in wishful thinking.

And of course, a free, self-governing Afghanistan would be a happier place for Afghans than they have known for a long time.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
I see it something like this, Sidra - the US initiated this war out of a desire for revenge - blood lust - for 9/11.

---

Wrong, of course. The revenge thing was a knee jerk emotion pumped up in the American public to make it easy to do what they already planned to do. Take a look at the PNAC material where before 911 they said that they needed a catastrophic event like that to get the ball rolling. The reason that the war was initiated was to project US military presence deeper into the mid-east and give them greater control over resources.

quote:

---

I think anyone who looks at the opinions of average Afghans, like the comments I linked to above, and especially the story about Herat - will agree that Afghans are very glad the Taliban is gone, and really, really don't want them back.

---

Which is not remotely the same as wanting to be ruled by foreign armies. Of course many of them did not want the Taliban in the first place, which is why the foreign invasion amounted to taking part in an ongoing civil war in which neither side share our values, while on the other hand many did not particularly like the Taliban but were happy to have the order and security that came along with their other more odious aspects.

Of course it is all conjecture that a foreign withdrawal equates to a Taliban victory (which is pretty much the same thing as a Pakistani victory since Pakistan seems to be the power behind the Taliban).

quote:

---

Then the US followed its original plan, and invaded Iraq (illegally, of course.)

---

Afghanistan and Iraq are all part of the same war.

quote:

---

For Canada, a radical separation from US policies was not a realistic option.

---

Sure it was, and is. The we can't stand up to the US propaganda is a Quisling tactic used to support the interests of people and companies that care more about personal wealth than national independence and progressive society.

It is immoral for Canada to cooperate in military adventures with countries not signatory to the ICC.

quote:

---

but there was another - the reality of the threat of Islamic extremism.

---

A tempest in a tea pot in the greater scheme of things, and could be dealt with more effectively without military action.

quote:

---

Elections were held,

---

Meaningless under the circumstances. Another propaganda tool.

quote:

---

From all the evidence I have seen, a substantial majority of Afghans still are willing to put up with the presence of ISAF forces for as long as they are necessary to eliminate the Taliban threat.

---

A substantial number, probably, a substantial majority, hyperbole without scientific proof. And, one may find a variety of reasons for some wanting the foreigners (cash cow comes to mind) to hang around that have little to do with the Taliban in reality.

quote:

---

The nation's fate will now be the responsibility of the larger international community.

---

Ah, the whiteman's burden. Actually the nations fate is the responsibility of its citizens and we should let them sort it out, albeit with support from the sidelines.

quote:

---

The gains for Canada and the international community chiefly consist of eliminating Afghanistan as a base for international Islamic extremism.

---

Like the bases in Pakistan, Somalia, The Fillipines and elsewhere? Besides, there is no guarantee that a non-Taliban government would not make an accomodation with fellow Muslims. Perhaps you are really advocating for the establishment of a non-Islamic government that rejects Islam?

quote:

---

A further gain for Canada and the world could be the replacement of the US at centre stage in international decision - making with a more multi-lateral approach.

---

This won't happen until we stand up to them and refuse to cooperate with them until they acknowledge that multilateral decision making and the ICC trump unilateral US decision making.

As we speak they are taking over more control in Afghanistan and changing policies more in line with their own fairy tales.

Some material worth checking from today's press:

This more recent story has a different take:

quote:

---

HERAT: The influence of Iran is a source of tension between Shi`ites and Sunnis that recently exploded into deadly violence in Afghanistan`s western city of Herat, residents say.

It is even seeing some Shi`ites lean towards the hardline Taleban movement waging an insurgency that occasionally shatters the city`s calm, some say.

Herat, 160-km from the Iranian border, has long been under Persian influence. Even today most women prefer the chador to the burqa, the markets are filled with Iranian products, and mosques are financed by Tehran.

From private schools and roads to hospitals, "Iran has indeed poured millions of dollars into several major projects in this region and in Kabul," says Herat governor Sayyed Hussein Anwari. The head of the local assembly, Rafiq Shahir, says the Shi`ite neighbour favours the city`s Shi`ites."The Sunnis are very unhappy with this situation," he says.

The "support of Iran for the Shi`ite Hazaras, who are becoming more and more numerous in Herat, is helping the emergence of the Taleban," he says of the religious movement that was violently anti-Shi`ite during its 1996-2001 rule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
There is a deepening split in the Canadian left about this mission,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
What century are we in again?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Yes, as I've noted, the aggressive, murderous, indiscriminate, risk-averse nature of American combat doctrine is a real danger to the success of this mission. I was not happy to see the American General placed in charge, although this is normal rotation of personell. A great deal of pressure may be required from NATO allies to modify the US approach. But "white man's burden"? What century are we in again?

The one fact which is quite clear is that there is a very good chance, perhaps a certainty, that if ISAF forces were to withdraw now, it would plunge Afghanistan back ito Taliban control, with all that that involves. There is a deepening split in the Canadian left about this mission, between those who are realistic enough to understand the situation and refuse to deliver people we have promised to protect into the hands of the Taliban, and those who are so blinded by ideology and ridiculous claims of "imperialism" and "the white man's burden" that they are willing to sacrifice Afghans to death and religious slavery rather than admit the reality of the situation. This latter position is immoral, hypocritical and deeply unsupportable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
... one fact which is quite clear is that there is a very good chance, perhaps a certainty, that if ISAF forces were to withdraw now, it would plunge Afghanistan back ito Taliban control, with all that that involves.

There is a deepening split in the Canadian left about this mission, between those who are realistic enough to understand the situation and refuse to deliver people we have promised to protect into the hands of the Taliban, and those who are so blinded by ideology and ridiculous claims of "imperialism" and "the white man's burden" that they are willing to sacrifice Afghans to death and religious slavery rather than admit the reality of the situation. This latter position is immoral, hypocritical and deeply unsupportable.

---

I think your ignoring something here:

If we leave now, people will die.

If we stay, people will die.

The fact of the matter is that we've set in motion a very tragic sequence of events that will result in some very bad things happening in Afghanistan. The US has basically stuffed the country with black powder barrels and lit the wick. It's only a matter of time now before the sizzle at the end of the wick reaches the powder and the whole country explodes into a revolt against the occupying troops.

And you know what? When that happens, I say good on the Afghan people for finally standing up to the shit we've put them through so that people like you can feel good about how we're pretending to help them while we humiliate them, bomb them, and pacify them for the corporate agenda.

This isn't about freedom/democracy/security, that has NEVER been the result of a foreign invasion of a country.

This is about OIL. It's about the caspian oil pipeline that Enron (Kenny Lay) and Unocol (Hamid Karzai) were planning on building, and the US government was illegally negotiating with the Taliban over, until the Taliban finally told them where to go. Then they planned the invasion. BEFORE 9/11.

Want more details? Read them here, then argue.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
A great deal of pressure may be required from NATO allies to modify the US approach.

---

Think of the Americans as the Germans of 1942. Think of Canada as the Austrians. Think of the rest of the Allies as Italy and Hungary. Exactly what kind of pressure do you see happening?

Frankly, any country that is signatory to the ICC should automatically not ally with or place its troops under the command of any nation that is not. It should be standard Canadian policy that Canadian troops will not serve beside nor ever be under the command of a military or officers whose nation has not signed the ICC agreement.

What is immoral, hypocritical and deeply unsupportable is advocating an alliance with a nation guilty of war crimes that refuses to sign on to an international agreement aimed at dealing with war crimes.

The facts are that:

• The US is not in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people
  
• The US is the major force in Afghanistan and NATO
  
• Serving the US/NATO mission in Afghanistan is serving US interests, not Afghan, and
  
• The things that Brett claims are the goals for conquest and occupation are not achievable by military force
  

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
Let's stop kidding ourselves here people, this isn't about American 'revenge', that could have been accmplished by a small force targetting Bin Laden and his crew, even the Taliban heads.

---

quote:

---

Let's assume that was done - no invasion or occupation, no attempt to create a new "democratic" government, but instead special forces hunting and eliminating al-Qaeda members and the Taliban who aided and abetted them.

---

Heh, already working with false assumptions in your scenario Free_Radical... The Taliban were not aiding Al Qaeda during 9/11 and were attacked a couple days after stating they would need to see the proof before going after Al Qaeda. Afghanistan, much like Lebanon, were opportunistic attacks pre-planned and for a much different intent than the everchanging reasoning thats thrown at the public afterwards. You're lying to yourself to think otherwise.

Brett - I'm still looking for the reason you think our mutli-billion dollar morale obligation with a slim chance of success that you've come up with here (5 years post-invasion of course) is worth more than any other morale obligation that you feel like arguing next. Does your morale obligation come at all cost? Would you sacrifice universal healthcare to meet this morale obligation? Would you scrap homeless programs to meet this obligation? How far are you willing to go... And do you realize how far you've gone already?

And even in the slim chance that Afghan does work out to be the shining beacon of hope that only deluded-ass westerners could even consider (when Democracy and freedom kicks in, military training camps magically turn into 6 flag theme parks don't they? Don't you misunderestimate what will happen when democracy kicks in)... Theres a much better chance that what we're doing to the climate will kill them all with drought anyway (possibly preventable, but we're much more concerned with blowing up little chunks of land in shows of power).

[ 06 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

Note the date of the article being published.

Published on Friday, November 2, 2001 in the Guardian of London

quote:

---

But the US is trying to show its muscle, score a victory and scare everyone in the world. They don't care about the suffering of the Afghans or how many people we will lose.

---

That quote comes from an anti-Taliban leader named Abdul Haq. He had some very interesting ideas about how we could defeat the Taliban without bloodshed.

If we really cared about Afghanistan, we would have exploited people like Haq for all he was worth and empowered him to try out his ideas for how to get rid of the brutal Taliban. The fact that we didn't really consult Haq is proof positive in my mind that no one ever gave a shit about Afghanistan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

The facts are that:

• The US is not in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people
• The US is the major force in Afghanistan and NATO
• Serving the US/NATO mission in Afghanistan is serving US interests, not Afghan, and
• The things that Brett claims are the goals for conquest and occupation are not achievable by military force
  

---

OK, let's look at these facts.

1. "The US is not in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people"

This goes to the question of motive, which is far from the complete story in geopolitics. Motives change and evolve. The US will help or destroy Afghanistan as it suits their purposes. If America perceives itself benefitting from a stable Afghanistan, it will attempt to create one. Notice that if this happens, the Afghan people and the rest of the world benefit, no matter what the real American motivations. Because it is now an multilateral and international mission ( I read today that the new leader of the UN is considering sending greater UN "support" to southern Afghanistan) - the ultimate outcome will be one that is decided multilaterally, rather than exclusively by the US.

2. "The US is the major force in Afghanistan and NATO". Yes, but this does not mean that either NATO or the Afghan government are complete puppets of Washington. Thirty seven nations are involved on the ground in Afghanistan. In this case and others, one could argue that multilateral military missions tend to moderate US behaviour (I hope.)

3. "Serving the US/NATO mission in Afghanistan is serving US interests, not Afghan"

The error in logic here is the assumption that US and Afghan interests cannot co-incide, when they so clearly do in many cases.

4. "The things that Brett claims are the goals for conquest and occupation are not achievable by military force"

For the fiftyth time or so, military security is a precondition of any kind of development or social justice work. Military means are necessary (at times) but not sufficient to succeed in Afghanistan or in the struggle against Islamicist extremism generally.

Joshua, your points are well taken, but dated. It is quite clear to me that if the US has not been learning its lessons in Afghanistan, the British, Dutch and Canadians have. Today's G&M has a story of a Canadian soldier ( a reservist, from Kingston) suggesting to tribal elders in the south that the government would help them build their own , moderate Madrasses so the locals would not have to send their sons to Pakistan for an education, and often, extremist indoctrination. The elders were impressed, and impressed that a Canadian soldier would offer it. We are getting much better at working with Afghans.

Quelar, I'll take a look at your reference, but I don't think anybody really takes this pipeline story very seriously, do you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:

Cueball, Unionist and M. Spector, thanks. I'm pretty sure your counterpoint of one-liners and sniping assist the reasonable reader in deciding which side of this debate has more substance.

---

Speaking for myself, I'll try to emulate your excellent example and fluff up my posts to fill more space.

ETA: Private msg to Cueball and M. Spector: Don't forget our regular "Brainstorm anti-Brett One-Liner" session at 0900 tomorrow, Caucus Room B. Whose turn to bring the muffins?

[ 06 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Cueball, Unionist and M. Spector, thanks. I'm pretty sure your counterpoint of one-liners and sniping assist the reasonable reader in deciding which side of this debate has more substance.

---

quote:

---

Brett Mann:

....the ultimate outcome will be one that is decided multilaterally, rather than exclusively by the US.

---

Just like the decision to invade Iraq was decided multilaterally, no doubt.

quote:

---

"The US is the major force in Afghanistan and NATO". Yes, but this does not mean that either NATO or the Afghan government are complete puppets of Washington.

---

No more than the Petain government in France was a puppet government of the Germans, or was the Quisling government in Norway.

quote:

---

Thirty seven nations are involved on the ground in Afghanistan. In this case and others, one could argue that multilateral military missions tend to moderate US behaviour (I hope.)

---

36 chickens dancing with an elephant.

quote:

---

The error in logic here is the assumption that US and Afghan interests cannot co-incide, when they so clearly do in many cases.

---

Some Afghan interests do not coincide with secular, progressive interests. No doubt some Afghan interests coincide with US interests, as some coincided with Soviet interests and others coincide with the interests of international drug cartels. That interests may coincide is irrelevant without establishing which interests exactly, and why.

We know that US interests are in extending US power and domination across the globe. They haven't been bashful about admitting this. Helping them do that is a mistake for the rest of us and for progressivism.

quote:

---

For the fiftyth time or so, military security is a precondition of any kind of development or social justice work.

---

Not necessarily true in all cases, for one, and how it is achieved when necessary may be crucial.

quote:

---

Military means are necessary (at times) but not sufficient to succeed in Afghanistan or in the struggle against Islamicist extremism generally.

---

As you say, military means are not sufficient. More than that, foreign military intervention may be counter-productive over the long run.

These points remain unaddressed:

• Think of the Americans as the Germans of 1942. Think of Canada as the Austrians. Think of the rest of the Allies as Italy and Hungary. Exactly what kind of pressure do you see happening?
  
• Frankly, any country that is signatory to the ICC should automatically not ally with or place its troops under the command of any nation that is not. It should be standard Canadian policy that Canadian troops will not serve beside nor ever be under the command of a military or officers whose nation has not signed the ICC agreement.
  
• What is immoral, hypocritical and deeply unsupportable is advocating an alliance with a nation guilty of war crimes that refuses to sign on to an international agreement aimed at dealing with war crimes.

I would also like to know:

• How much Canadian resources and how many Canadian lives do you think are worth the price of whatever we may gain in Afghanistan?
  
• Have you first hand experience of being on a battlefield where people are being blown to bits?

quote:

---

Ottawa silent on fate of captured terror suspects
No accounting for scores of detainees that have been handed to Americans, Afghans

PAUL KORING

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

WASHINGTON — Scores of terrorist suspects captured by Canadians have disappeared into the murky netherworld of Afghan and American prisons, but Ottawa refuses to say what has happened to them or even if it knows whether any have been tried, charged, or released, or how they are treated.

According to a Canadian Forces log of detainees, 40 had been handed over by April, 2006. From a review of a heavily excised and incomplete set of military police documents, it seems that several dozen more have been captured and handed over to Afghan police since then.

But Canada's Expeditionary Forces Command, headed by Lieutenant-General Michel Gautier, who oversees all Canadian Forces deployed abroad, refuses to account for terrorist suspects captured since May 1, 2006....

Link to article

---

- The country is not democratic ( installation of a democratic system justifies occupation)
- The country harbors or run by extremists ( elimination of the extremists is a good enough reason to level the cities they are in)
- The country system /ruling party is not following the “western” human rights codes and standards ( delivering those standards can happen with the use of some cluster bombs, and few cruise missiles)

I also noticed how extremists and terrorists (and sometimes fundamentalists) are used interchangeably. While extremism is usually a fertile ground for breeding terrorists, they are not mutually inclusive. The assumption of self righteous people seems to dominate a lot of posts in this forum. This assumption seems to be that any society that is under any of the factors listed above, must be actively seeking to get rid of those conditions and seeking that kind of change not from within, rather they must want us (US/Canada, etc..) to interfere.

I ask whoever thinks in this way to explain his rationale.

I asked few questions in some other post lately, and I didn’t get much of an answer. The questions where:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ConcernedCanadian:

What is Islamic extremism?
Who (whether it is a country or an influential group) holds Islamic extremist views?
When did Muslims extremism develop and why?
What kind of a threat do extremist Muslims pose to the western world?
If a society holds extremist views, does that warrant an attack against them?

---

Each question could occupy a whole thread by itself, but in brief:

- I'm no expert on the history of Islamic extremism, but it seems to have several roots, including Salafism in Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt, and jihadis in Afghanistan. The defining characteristic of Islamic extremism is a desire to impose a strict, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam on all Muslims, and wage war against non-Muslims. Martin Amis suggests the phenomenon began in Greeley Colorada with

Sayyid Qutb.

How dangerous is Islamic extremism to the rest of the world? Islamic extremist attacks have occurred in London England, New York, Mumbai, Madrid, Bali, and elsewhere. There have been about a dozen major al Qaida terrorist attacks since 9/11, accoriding to Infoplease.

Unlike the terrorist threat posed by the IRA and the Bader-Meinhof gang, Islamic extremists have shown a willingness to die themselves in their attacks, making defence and security more difficult. More importantly, they are known to be seeking nuclear weapons capacity, and other weapons of mass destruction. So while the threat of Islamic extremism may not be a great as say, global warming or American war-mongering, it nonetheless represents a real and current and serious threat to all nations, potentially.

Does holding extremist views warrant an attack? Only if people act on those views by planning and carrying out terrorist attacks, or supporting terrorists. Please note that I distinguish between legitimate struggles for freedom and national independence, such as those waged by Hamas, Hezzbolah, the Chechyen resistance, etc., and those groups like al Qaida whose stated goal is the destruction of western society and the imposition of an extremist Islamic caliphate across the whole world. Even though Hezbollah and the Taliban may co-operate closely with al Qaida, it is important to distinguish the nature of their respective goals. Negotiation and peace talks are possible with the Taliban, etc. With al Qaida, they are not, at least until al Qaida renounces its main, stated goals.

In the case of the Taliban, the main reason for attacking them is not to eliminate them as a people and culture because of their odious belief system, but because they co-operate closely with international terrorist groups such as al Qaida, and because they have made a project of trying to destroy the new Afghanistan and impose their rule again.

This barely scratches the surface of these questions, but it's a start.

[ 07 February 2007: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]

The man is a menace. Anna-Marie Tremonty, the host, clearly wasn't taking any crap from him. When she referred to the situation as a "war", Hillier pointedly said it wasn't. We are not at war in Afghanistan. We are there at the request of the Afghan govt.
Ok, so why does he and everyone else refer to it as the Afghan War?

She got him discussing the abused "detainees" currently in the news and asked what they do with captured combatants. He said they hand them over to the Afghans. When she pointed out that the Afghans have admitted using torture, wouldn't that make Canadian soldiers in danger of violating the Genevea Conventions? He responded by saying effectively that they follow the orders they have and that no, they aren't guilty of that. When she pressed him on it, he said they had run that idea through every scenario they could and determined that it wasn't an issue. Total dodge.

He also said he doesn't get into political commentary.

quote:

---

groups like al Qaida whose stated goal is the destruction of western society and the imposition of an extremist Islamic caliphate across the whole world.

---

Completely absurd. I find it hard to believe that anyone could subscribe to such patent nonsense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:

Quelar, I'll take a look at your reference, but I don't think anybody really takes this pipeline story very seriously, do you?

---

No, not at all. Why would I let FACTS get in the way of my logic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:

No, not at all. Why would I let FACTS get in the way of my logic.

Christ you're naive

---

quote:

---

I'm no expert on the history of Islamic extremism, but it seems to have several roots, including Salafism in Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt, and jihadis in Afghanistan

---

Jihadi's in Afghanistan? Heh, I think you've invented that one. Jihad's were originally calls to arms to defend "holy lands" from Crusaders. It's actually exceedingly appropriate to use in Afghanistan now, as us western Crusaders invade to bring civilization to them worthless heathens (civlization or death?). The 'Jihads' in Afghanistan were insurgent battles vs occupying forces (brit, russian, NATO, whomever feels like invading this decade ^^), and we quite often armed these 'extremists' to the teeth in the past (How much evidence do you need before you start questioning our motives? When it's too our advantage, we arm them... When it becomes to our advantage to kill what used to be allies, so be it).

I challenge you to find a definition of Islamic extremism that will apply to the Taliban, but not the current Afghan govt (without resorting to the key difference between the 2... That being : we support one and call the other terrorists. Their very often the same people).

Perhaps a better question to consider than 'what is Islamic Extremism?' is 'What drives a person to embrace Islamic Extremism'?

quote:

---

How dangerous is Islamic extremism to the rest of the world? Islamic extremist attacks have occurred in London England, New York, Mumbai, Madrid, Bali, and elsewhere. There have been about a dozen major al Qaida terrorist attacks since 9/11

---

London was a homegrown attack from it's own citizens in response to the Iraqi war (albeit with outside inspiration) and Newyork (9/11) was a direct result of an incompetant president who failed to get a security breifing from the CIA until a year into his reign of terror. Funny how you consider retaliations in war as "terror attacks"... Have you forgotten this is a time of war? Bombs in train tunnels terrorism while carpet bombing civilians that are trying to bury the dead from the last bombing run qualifies as completely justifiable as an act of war. You can't launch an attack vs the fundamentals of a religion and then claim 'terrorists!!' when they retaliate. An incredible double standard where we can destroy their homes (as some would suggest, we are destroying these homes in retaliation for 9/11), yet retaliation from an attack on them is obviously terrorism. Hypocracy is fun... DO you think the bombings in London still would have occoured if England wasn't at war within Iraq?

I'd also question how much priority you give 'Islamic Extremism'... If we listed the top 1000 reasons of death, 'Islamic extremism', as something you would argue is worth expending a limitless amount of resources, would likely not make the list. AIDS will kill millions in a year, while the death total since 9/11 that you've listed there is in the 5k region over a 5 year span... Yet we'll still spend billions in vengance for those 5000 deaths, and fight tooth and nail to avoid paying out a few hundred million to combat causes of death that kill millions yearly. Really, for the amount of money we've now spent in Afghanistan, we could flown every last 'non-islamic extremist' of them into Canada and housed them. What criteria have you used to determine that this risk deserves exponetial priority over other risks that claim so many more lives?

And while we're at it... The attacks listed above has no connection to the 'evil' Taliban (atleast not that I'm aware of, I'd be happy if someone could correct me on that and provide some evidence). Hmmm, this statement makes me curious... Do you know the difference between Al Qaeda and Taliban, or are you using the word interchangably? Might be some worthwhile research, I can garentee you most of our media are unable to differentiate... The biggest differentiation we make is the dead ones must have been AQ.

I would also suggest that the current means you are supporting is increasing the risk that you decree the left denies so passionately ^^

quote:

---

Negotiation and peace talks are possible with the Taliban, etc. With al Qaida, they are not, at least until al Qaida renounces its main, stated goals.

---

Hey good point... You do realize we're not engaging Al Qaeda in Afghanistan right? You're also the first pro-war I've seen refer to negotiations with the Taliban

quote:

---

In the case of the Taliban...
because they co-operate closely with international terrorist groups such as al Qaida, and because they have made a project of trying to destroy the new Afghanistan and impose their rule again.

---

We attacked them both and then declared them as allies... Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, can you find any evidence that they were working together? I can find a few peices that suggest they sure weren't (For example, the region AQ was setup pre-9/11 is completly tribal and the Taliban had very very limited authority over the tribal leaders). We declared them allies, not them.

But I want to bring up one word you've used in this quote ... The 'New Afghanistan'. Congrats Brett, you just crossed into the realm of the crusaders. Our rule, our civlization, our values, our culture... All are superior and all deserved to be enforced in the new Afghanistan, and people that resist our values and our way of life deserve nothing less than death. A person willing to enforce Islamic views upon the world is an Islamic Extremist, so what exactly should I refer to the Westerners willing to kill to enforce our values upon them? Meh, we all know our values are superior of course, so 'Western Extremist' isn't even a term we can consider.

From further up:

quote:

---

the Afghanistan mission is not about imperialism, although it may have started that way, with the US invasion.

---

I'm amazed by the number of Canadians convinced that since we are infact Canadian, we can do no wrong... Our involvement within a mission miraculously makes it righteous and justifiable. The American presence within Afghanistan is stil exceedingly heavy, yet since we're their... Imperialism suddenly dissapears apparently.

quote:

---

The error in logic here is the assumption that US and Afghan interests cannot co-incide, when they so clearly do in many cases.

---

? Think about what you've stated here for a sec... Under Taliban rule in 2001, poppy trade was nearly choked to the point of being non-existance. Since the 5 years of occupation, this number is back up to around 5* what it was in 2000. You are correct though, this interest lines up very well for both Afghan warlord and the US.

When the Karzai was put into power, he rushed through pipeline plans that the Taliban had been blocking. Now we get to see Bush come out and admit that 'we need to become less depedant on oil, so we don't have to do shit like invade Afghanistan to get access to it.'

Hey does the US lining forces along the Afghan - Iran borders qualify as US and Afghan interests

Errr, wait... Can you name one interest that both Afghan and US interests align? (Oh, I should clarify that question as the US and warlord interests align quite regularily).

quote:

---

Now we have the whole world community involved trying to rebuild the nation and bring stability.

---

Whole world? Which nations have troops in combat again?

quote:

---

This stability will undoubtedly put some money in some western pockets along the line

---

'some money' means you really have no clue what profits are being turned in by the oil and drug interests in the region. If 1 dollar ends up in Afghani pockets for every 1 million that ends in western hands, The Afghani populace would be rich.

quote:

---

but "imperialism"? This is a nonsensical and foolish and demonstrably false story

---

Define Imperialism and then define what is currently happening in Afghanistan... Prove that this is "demonstrably false", give a defination of Imperialism that you think doesn't outline what is occouring in Afghanistan. Despite the wonderful intent you display here and knowing that our magical Canadian values means we can do know wrong, it does not mean we're not taking part in Imperialistic actions within Afghanistan.

You're downplaying of the oil pipeline nobody cares about (actually re-word... Our media doesn't think should be reported on ^^) shows that you are quite ignorant as to what imperialism includes and what has happened in the first 2 years of the Afghanistan invasion.

TY for posting that Farnival, always curious what the commander is thinking:

quote:

---

When she referred to the situation as a "war", Hillier pointedly said it wasn't. We are not at war in Afghanistan.

---

He differentiates between war and anti-insurgency (in an occupied nation ^^), so he is technically correct here. Mind you, it's similar to saying 'I did not murder anyone, only manslaughter!'

quote:

---

He said they hand them over to the Afghans. When she pointed out that the Afghans have admitted using torture, wouldn't that make Canadian soldiers in danger of violating the Genevea Conventions?

---

Geneva Conventions are not valid when applied to the Western world... We can do know wrong remember?

Farmers in Afghanistan really have 2 crop choices... Food or poppies. Poppies grow in silly conditions and can survive in conditions most food crops don't stand a hope in. As the climate changes Afghan stands only to get drier, expanding the number of farmers that have no choice but to grow poppies to survive (and require warlord protection from outside forces currently burning the farmers crops).

maybe I should start doing one liner posts instead?

[ 07 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benjamin:

The pipeline rationale has been heavily discounted. It is simply not a good explanation for the US invasion of Afghanistan. Yes, it is a factor, but not a dominant factor by any means. This is not to say that access to oil would not play an important role in explaining US fp, but with respect to Afghanistan, it does not have much explanatory power.

---

added:

Nono, you're right. The Bush admin and the US in general can now come out and state that they're being crippled because of complete dependancy on foriegn oil and how badly they need to become energy independant... But what happened 5 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with the oil that we were so heavily dependant on. That type of spin is worthy of the GOP, I'm impressed it came from you Benjamin

[ 07 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

Afghanistan+Pakistan+pipeline

Afghanistan+Karachi+pipeline

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
When she referred to the situation as a "war", Hillier pointedly said it wasn't. We are not at war in Afghanistan. We are there at the request of the Afghan govt.

Ok, so why does he and everyone else refer to it as the Afghan War?

---

quote:

---

He also offered a tongue-tied analysis of his belief that Canada was not officially "at war."

"We are not at war. Canada has never declared war. We are involved in an internal war in Afghanistan," O'Connor said. "But sometimes we have to get involved in combat operations and at that stage, technically, you're at war -- or, sorry, you're in a war."

---

These points remain unaddressed:

• Think of the Americans as the Germans of 1942. Think of Canada as the Austrians. Think of the rest of the Allies as Italy and Hungary. Exactly what kind of pressure do you see happening?
  
• Frankly, any country that is signatory to the ICC should automatically not ally with or place its troops under the command of any nation that is not. It should be standard Canadian policy that Canadian troops will not serve beside nor ever be under the command of a military or officers whose nation has not signed the ICC agreement.
  
• What is immoral, hypocritical and deeply unsupportable is advocating an alliance with a nation guilty of war crimes that refuses to sign on to an international agreement aimed at dealing with war crimes.
  

• How much Canadian resources and how many Canadian lives do you think are worth the price of whatever we may gain in Afghanistan?
  
• Have you first hand experience of being on a battlefield where people are being blown to bits?
  

quote:

---

I'm no expert on the history of Islamic extremism, but it seems to have several roots, including Salafism in Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt, and jihadis in Afghanistan. The defining characteristic of Islamic extremism is a desire to impose a strict, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam on all Muslims, and wage war against non-Muslims. Martin Amis suggests the phenomenon began in Greeley Colorada with
Sayyid Qutb.

---

Brett Mann, I agree with you that each one of those questions needs a thread by itself.
I was always unsure on how to start explaining the answers to those questions, but since you have mentioned the name of Sayiid Qutb, may I suggest that we watch together a documentary by the BBC called The Power of Night Mares.

quote:

---

The rise of the politics of fear begins in 1949 with two men whose radical ideas would inspire the attack of 9/11 and influence the neo-conservative movement that dominates Washington.
Both these men believed that modern liberal freedoms were eroding the bonds that held society together.
The two movements they inspired set out, in their different ways, to rescue their societies from this decay. But in an age of growing disillusion with politics, the neo-conservatives turned to fear in order to pursue their vision

---

BBC Description

You can watch the documentary here:

PART I

PART II

PART III

quote:

---

ConcernedCanadian:
The documentary will probably save me a long post. It has its flaws, and many times it skips on important details, but it will serve the purpose as a start point to allow as a start point for this discussion.

---

A condensed, point by point summary of the documentary, or links to reviews, would save us all the tedious and painful task of trying to watch it on computer.

[ 07 February 2007: Message edited by: ConcernedCanadian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:

Each question could occupy a whole thread by itself, but in brief:

- I'm no expert on the history of Islamic extremism, but it seems to have several roots, including Salafism in Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt, and jihadis in Afghanistan. The defining characteristic of Islamic extremism is a desire to impose a strict, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam on all Muslims, and wage war against non-Muslims. Martin Amis suggests the phenomenon began in Greeley Colorada with

Sayyid Qutb.

---

Its called the "Muslim Brotherhood," and though it is from Egypt, it is an international organization started in 1904. It was for instance a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood that was started by Sheik Ahmed Yassin with the support of Israel in Gaza, before he created Hamas.

In anycase, I think we have to really tread carefully when calling groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah, the Taliban "extremist" pejoratively, as it is very clear that their goals are not merely "fundamentalist" but anti-colonialist, and that they came into being not with the sole intent of bringing into being Islamic-styled rule, but more to resists foreign intervention, invasion and occupation through adherence to an Islamic code, as embodied by the "little" Jihad.

Certainly there are in each of these organizations more extreme elements, but it has to be recognized that many are drawn to them simply because they now form the nucleus of the effective opposition to imperialism.

[ 07 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Just a little levity there folks. The refusal of so many on the left to recognize in correct proportion the reality of the threat of Islamist terrorism reminds me of that joke.

Noise, you wrote:
"Congrats Brett, you just crossed into the realm of the crusaders. Our rule, our civlization, our values, our culture... All are superior and all deserved to be enforced in the new Afghanistan, and people that resist our values and our way of life deserve nothing less than death. A person willing to enforce Islamic views upon the world is an Islamic Extremist, so what exactly should I refer to the Westerners willing to kill to enforce our values upon them? Meh, we all know our values are superior of course, so 'Western Extremist' isn't even a term we can consider."

I'm sorry Noise, but I can't read this as anything other than arrant nonsense. Who is forcing western values on the citizens of Afghanistan, who have twice elected their own government? Surely you are aware that this is now a project under UN mandate and that the goal is an independent, self-governing country with respect for human rights consistent with the UN charter. Why should this project be considered imperialistic if dozens of other UN support and intervention projects have not been? This imperialist conspiracy theory gets more tired with each passing day, especially when

"THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday he may increase the United Nations' political presence in southern Afghanistan, where resurgent Taliban militias are engaged in fierce fighting against NATO forces."

These points remain unaddressed:

* Think of the Americans as the Germans of 1942. Think of Canada as the Austrians. Think of the rest of the Allies as Italy and Hungary. Exactly what kind of pressure do you see happening?

Not a particularly apt comparison. There was no NATO, no United Nations, back then. Besides, it's not just Canada. Thirty seven nations or so are involved. America is anxious to win back, or at least not lose, more allies right now. I think the chances of influencing US policy are excellent, but maybe not optimally until the end of the Bush regime.

* Frankly, any country that is signatory to the ICC should automatically not ally with or place its troops under the command of any nation that is not. It should be standard Canadian policy that Canadian troops will not serve beside nor ever be under the command of a military or officers whose nation has not signed the ICC agreement.

I agree completely. But that is not the reality we are currently dealing with. As I have argued strenuously on this board, any precipitate action to divoce Canada from American policies in a radical way is doomed to failure without the strong support of a large majority of Canadians, conditions which don't currently exist.

* What is immoral, hypocritical and deeply unsupportable is advocating an alliance with a nation guilty of war crimes that refuses to sign on to an international agreement aimed at dealing with war crimes.

No, what is immoral is calling for a withdrawal of security forces from Afghanistan at a time when this would certainly result in delivering a whole nation we have promised to protect into the hands of the Taliban. This is an infamy that will stain the New Democratic Party to the end of its days.

I would also like to know:

* How much Canadian resources and how many Canadian lives do you think are worth the price of whatever we may gain in Afghanistan?

That decision will be made by the Canadian soldiers who continue to offer their lives, the taxpayers who fund the mission, and the desire of Afghans for our help. All these factors can and will change, as the prospect of success becomes closer or further away. The mission in Afghanistan is also one which furthers the cause of multilateral diplomacy and the international rule of law, values which have long been at the centre of Canadian foreign policy. How much are these values worth to you?

* Have you first hand experience of being on a battlefield where people are being blown to bits?

quote:

---

Brett Mann:

America is anxious to win back, or at least not lose, more allies right now. I think the chances of influencing US policy are excellent, but maybe not optimally until the end of the Bush regime.

---

America is so overstretched and vulnerable at this point that the opportunity exists for the other nations to dictate terms to it and give it the choice to comply or stand alone.

Among those terms would be the absolute demand that the US sign on to the ICC and acknowledge the sovereignity of that court over its citizens.

quote:

---

As I have argued strenuously on this board, any precipitate action to divoce Canada from American policies in a radical way is doomed to failure without the strong support of a large majority of Canadians, conditions which don't currently exist.

---

I don't think that we have adequately tested the water to see where Canadians stand on this. And, with positive publicity it may be that the majority of Canadians would support it, particularly as they are inclined to be wary of the Americans naturally.

In any event, it is immoral not to take this stand.

quote:

---

No, what is immoral is calling for a withdrawal of security forces from Afghanistan at a time when this would certainly result in delivering a whole nation we have promised to protect into the hands of the Taliban.

---

A promise made after invasion and conquest by occupying powers is not a promise but propaganda. It is naive to expect that anyone in a position to deliver on it takes it seriously. Promises will be broken when it is expedient to do so.

It is also questionable that the whole nation would be delivered into the hands of the Taliban as it is questionable that they have the power to win the civil war and control the entire country.

Then there is the fact that the Afghan alternative to the Taliban are not much better, even worse in some ways depending on what part of the country you are in. So, saving the Afghan people in this sense then means a permanent presence in the country to control puppet governments in areas directly under foreign military domination. The problems inherent in this are legion.

What does remain immoral and unsupportable for any progressive is advocating an alliance with a nation guilty of war crimes that refuses to sign on to an international agreement aimed at dealing with war crimes.

quote:

---

The mission in Afghanistan is also one which furthers the cause of multilateral diplomacy and the international rule of law

---

Not as long as it is dominated by the US and carried on as a part of US foreign policy and is the fruit of an act of aggression against a sovereign nation. Afghanistan did not attack anybody and was willing to negotiate the presence of Al Qaeda within its borders. The only remotely justifiable action would have been surgical strikes against Al Qaeda camps with no occupation, and even that is questionalble as long as the government was willing to negotiate.

We are not talking multilateral diplomacy here, but multilateral aggression.

quote:

---

No, thank God, but I did serve in a reserve forces unit in my youth,....

---

quote:

---

This imperialist conspiracy theory gets more tired with each passing day

---

It's opportunistic... It's our nature. Give an opporunity to get something you want done, you do it. Was Imperialism the entire reason behind the Afghan war? Not likey... Most likely revenge to be honest, action needed to be taken and it needs to be done now (Bush admin has a long standing record of thinking things through don't they?). Does this mean they did not take the first opporunity (like, minutes after being sworn in) to do so? It was opportunistic, not the reason behind it it. I think it kinda funny that you would consider the good people at Exxon would treat the Afghan population so much better than they treat us... Atleast here Exxon employs locals. Would the US invade Canada just to take our oil? Not likely, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't take it if they were already here. (yaya, I await the 'with NAFTA they already are' comment)

quote:

---

Did you hear the one about the two cows talking? The first cows says "I'm worried sick about this mad cow disease thing. Doesn't it bother you?"
"I never give it a moment's thought" said the second cow.
"What! How can you not be alarmed? Haven't you seen them slaughtering herds on tv?"
"Doesn't affect me," said the second cow. "I'm a duck."

---

Theres better chances of the cows getting struck by lightening, yet the first cow is so worried of Mad Cow Desease that they invade foriegn pastures to prevent it. And loot some grain while they're at it

[ 07 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]
eddited a bit to clean up my poor grammar moments.

[ 07 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Did you hear the one about the two cows talking? The first cows says "I'm worried sick about this mad cow disease thing. Doesn't it bother you?"
"I never give it a moment's thought" said the second cow.
"What! How can you not be alarmed? Haven't you seen them slaughtering herds on tv?"
"Doesn't affect me," said the second cow. "I'm a duck."

Just a little levity there folks. The refusal of so many on the left to recognize in correct proportion the reality of the threat of Islamist terrorism reminds me of that joke.

---

I have seen them slaughtering the herds of TV Brett, and the slaughtered are not nice people here in Canada and in Europe, where the death toll is infinitesimal in comparison to the dead in Iraq. A few bombs and such a few thosand deaths at most. Yet you make it out that the real problem is a few bombs im Picadilly station and that mass extermination of Muslims is justified by that.

Highly ironic since it is very probable that niether the attack in the London tube, or the attack in Madrid would have happened were it not for our insistance on stamping out the Islamic Radicals.

Both bombings being directly linked to our activties abroad, which you are zealously defending in the name of preventing such activities.

[ 07 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Brett Mann wrote:
America is anxious to win back, or at least not lose, more allies right now. I think the chances of influencing US policy are excellent, but maybe not optimally until the end of the Bush regime.

---

quote:

---

Jerry West wrote:
America is so overstretched and vulnerable at this point that the opportunity exists for the other nations to dictate terms to it and give it the choice to comply or stand alone.

Among those terms would be the absolute demand that the US sign on to the ICC and acknowledge the sovereignty of that court over its citizens.

---

So, you two have a point of unanimity, yes?

But the cow story I don't understand.

[ 08 February 2007: Message edited by: siren ]

quote:

---

Who is forcing western values on the citizens of Afghanistan, who have twice elected their own government?

---

I typed in Afghanistan+ Karzai+ pipeline into google and first article to pop up... Note the date on it.

quote:

---

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca, 23 January 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.

Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency's interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources.

---

Yes yes, they democratically elected the top advisor to an american oil firm working on the pipeline and they rushed to install the pipeline america wanted so badly as their number one priority.

quote:

---

Why should this project be considered imperialistic if dozens of other UN support and intervention projects have not been?

---

Any other UN support and intervention projects thats number 1 priority was oil pipeline construction? Hmmm, I'm curious how many other UN projects involved one of the veto holding members just finished invading it?

Added: I must admit that is amazing negotiation skills... No? Oh, we'll just invade and put our negotiater on the deal as your countries new leader.

[ 07 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

Heh, what the US troops are doing instead of caring about Al Qaeda:

quote:

---

Meanwhile, President Bush says that U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for the long haul. Far from being engaged in Afghan peacekeeping -- the Europeans are doing much of that -- our troops will effectively be guarding pipeline construction personnel that will soon be flooding into the country.

---

[ 07 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

Heh good article... How to handle AQ without an invasion ^^

quote:

---

The Clinton administration made numerous attempts to kill Bin Laden. In August 1998, Al Qaeda operatives blew up several U.S. embassies in Africa. In response, Bill Clinton ordered cruise missiles to be launched from US ships in the Persian Gulf into Afghanistan, which missed Bin Laden by a few hours. The Clinton administration also devised a plan with Pakistan's ISI to send a team of assassins into Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden. But Pakistan's government was overthrown by General Musharraf, who was viewed as particularly close to the Taliban. The CIA cancelled its plans, fearing Musharraf's ISI would tip off the Taliban and Bin Laden. . The CIA's connections to the ISI in the months before September 11 and the weeks after are also worthy of a full-blown investigation. The CIA continues to maintain an unhealthy alliance with the ISI, the organization that groomed bin Laden and the Taliban. Last September, the head of the ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed, was fired by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf for his pro-Taliban leanings and reportedly after the U.S. government presented Musharraf with disturbing intelligence linking the general to the terrorist hijackers.

---

[ 07 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Just a little levity there folks. The refusal of so many on the left to recognize in correct proportion the reality of the threat of Islamist terrorism reminds me of that joke.

---

I see you have moved from the threat of Islamist extremist to Islamist terrorist, which is a more accurate term.

Nobody denies that Islamic terrorists constitute a threat, but what is the magnitude of that threat really is and in what way are the real questions. Are you trying to tell me that the Islamic terrorists constitute a power threat to the western world? Are the Islamic terrorists the new Soviet Union? They are a scattered few ( The Muslim population is 1.4 billion, and 1/3 of the countries in the world have a Muslim majority) that are no more than a few thousand of them armed with some old hand guns , and the knowledge they got from the Americans in Afghanistan’s like car bombs to assassinations. What can a group like this possibly accomplish when its faced with nuclear armed, countries with a military budget of a few trillion dollars, more than a mere annoyance.

What else could it be? An ideology threat? The regular extremist movements have failed in almost all countries (with the possible exception of Wahabism in Saudi Arabia, and the Islamic revolution in Iran) to attract the masses within there own communities. They are almost always dormant and get revived only when you go ahead and invade Afghanistan, occupy Iraq, or when the western world colonized 90% of the Muslim world, and start to piss off the Muslim regular majority. Those are the ones who hold extremist views, let alone the terrorist factions out of them who failed miserably to attract any sympathy towards them.

When those terrorists started to bomb they didn’t bomb the western world they were killing and bombing in the Muslim world. I used to wake up to news of a bomb going off in Luxor Egypt, or a bomb in a hotel, or downtown Cairo. If there is any threat from them its right in there own countries, before they become any worry of yours.

The terrorist factions turned there guns towards the western world, after they have failed to make a rise out of the people in the Muslim world, and took that as a sign that the foreign powers were supporting the oppressive regimes in those areas. They stated there goals to cleanse the Muslim world from foreign powers, and its influence.

What happened you ask me? Those people have only succeeded in doing one thing, which is proving to most of the Muslim world that the Human rights code the western world follows is futile and applicable only to there own. With the first bomb, invasions, Guantanamo, torture camps, secret prisons, detention without trial, racism, and hatred started. All what they see in there own oppressive regimes began to be used by those countries which they thought of as haven for human rights.

Here are some examples, with my emphasis added:

quote:

---

the Afghanistan mission is not about imperialism, although it may have started that way, with the US invasion. Now we have the whole world community involved trying to rebuild the nation and bring stability. This stability will undoubtedly put some money in some western pockets along the line, but "imperialism"? This is a nonsensical and foolish and demonstrably false story the left is telling itself as it drifts further and futher away from reality and relevance.

---

quote:

---

Trying to fit the Afghanistan mission into a "colonialist -imperialist" model is ridiculous, as I have already pointed out.

---

quote:

---

There is a deepening split in the Canadian left about this mission, between those who are realistic enough to understand the situation and refuse to deliver people we have promised to protect into the hands of the Taliban, and those who are so blinded by ideology and ridiculous claims of "imperialism" and "the white man's burden" that they are willing to sacrifice Afghans to death and religious slavery rather than admit the reality of the situation.

---

quote:

---

Why should this project be considered imperialistic if dozens of other UN support and intervention projects have not been? This imperialist conspiracy theory gets more tired with each passing day

---

The vehemence of Brett Mann's rejection of the 'nonsensical,' 'foolish,' 'ridiculous' 'conspiracy theory' has surprised me.

In fact, I've found that vehemence particularly suprising given that one of Canada's foremost defenders of both the Afghanistan mission and American imperialism has described that very military mission as an example of that very imperialism.

quote:

---

The UN nation-builders all repeat the same mantra that they are here to 'build capacity' and 'to empower the local people'. This is the authentic vocabulary of the new imperialism, only it isn't as new as it sounds. The British called it 'indirect rule'. Local agents ran the day-to-day administration; local potentates exercised some power, while real decisions were made back in imperial capitals. Indirect rule is the pattern in Afghanistan; the illusion of self-government joined to the reality of imperial tutleage.

---

quote:

---

Imperialism used to be the white man's burden. This gave it a bad reputation. But imperialism doesn't stop being necessary just because it's politically incorrect. Nations sometimes fail, and when they do only outside help --imperial power-- can get them back on their feet. Nation-building is the kind of imperialism you get in a human rights era, a time when great powers believe simultaneously in the right of small nations to govern themselves and in their own right to rule the world.

---

quote:

---

These three tales [from Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan] from the frontier all describe a new exercise of imperial rule. Imperial is the word to use even if these border zones are not going to be occupied in perpetuity and ruled as colonies. Bosnia and Afghanistan are supposed to be independent states, and Kosovo is being prepared for an independent future. Yet all three are on life support, dependent for their survival on foreign troops, international aid and diplomatic protection from the great powers. The nation-building enterprise pursued in all three is imperial because its essential purpose to create order in border zones essential to the security of great powers --and because armed force, an instrument only great powers can use with impunity, is critical to the task. It is imperial, finally, because while nominal power may return to the local capital --Kabul, Sarajevo and Pristina-- real power will continue to be exercised from London, Washington and Paris

---

Yes, it's almost as if Brett Mann wrote his posts denouncing the 'conspiracy theory' of imperialism in Afghanistan without Michael Ignatieff's ever having written Empire Lite: Nation-Building in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, from which every one of those last few quotations was taken.

To be sure, Ignatieff's 2003 view of the new US-led, Western-backed humanitarian imperium is of a benign and temporary 'tutelage' that will hopefully--with Ignatieff's help--find the right balance between hubris and prudence, but he himself admits at the same time that this new 'humanitarian empire' 'is the face of an old figure: the democratic free world, the Christian West.'

(One wonders, then, just what's new and what's old: and of course Ignatieff's characteristically superficial grasp of history does not provide one with much comfort as one reads the rest of the book.)

Four killed in Quebec Jihadist attack?

Whoops, I mean car accident. No statement from Al Queda of Les Cedres claiming responsibility.

School bus hit by roadside bomb near Calgary?

Damn, there I go again. See, I figured that the Taliban hate school girls, rural busing, and our judeochristian freedom, so it makes sense that they'd be behind this. Not this time, though we must remain vigilant.

Taliban defense can't make outlet passes and Jihandist wingers won't provide puck support

Goddamn, the Oilers suck again. Only terrorists would give us a playoff run like last year and then such a pathetic follow-up season. They gotta fire that number two mastermind MacT and start fresh.

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
simple google search:

Afghanistan+Pakistan+pipeline

Afghanistan+Karachi+pipeline

covers natural gas and oil projects that have been proposed and are actively being pursued, with the war causing delays but not cancellation.

---

That a simple google search produces news of the Afghan pipeline is not rocket science, nor is it news to me. Good for you, you've identified that a wide group of interests, including the US, would like to see a pipeline built in order to tap Central Asian oil.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
Benjamin, as Quelar gets at... You're commenting on something that you've done absolutely no research on, if you had... You'd know better than to make that comment. Simply because you are unaware does not mean it's been heavily discounted.

---

quote:

---

I fail to see how this term applies if the ultimate goal of intervention is to create a free, self-governing state.

---

For the record, Taliban rule does qualify as self governing ^^ But that aside:

Thats a wonderful goal Brett, and if everyone had the morales you do... Afghan will be a different place. In a perfect world with unlimited resources, your goal is by far superior compared to any other. Unfortunately this world is far from perfect and not everyone shares your goals... The 'free self-governing state' you are going for is predominantly tribal elders and warlords protecting their self interests. The weapons we are giving them to defend their own nation when we leave are filtering through a well infiltrated military and off to the 'enemy' (Which is a silly term as well... The Afghan army is composed of the "people of Afghan" and the "people of Afghan" include the Pashtun tribes that compose the majority of the soldiers fighting for the taliban (not to single out Pashtun, as there are many other tribal setups that are being forced to side with the Taliban, err... or have us burn their cash crops). Did you see when the Pakistan President came here and he pointed out he can find cases where one family has brothers working for the Afgahn military, the Pakistan intel agency, and the insurgency?)

I agree with the morale position you've put forth Brett, and it's noble as hell... But it's meaningless in this discussion (which is the point of this thread I beleive). If you wish people to take your position, you must make the case that the morale goal is possible within the realms of our limited resources. Would it not be extremely noble to put together the morale case to desalinate the ocean (think of all the people that would have access to drinking water!)?

Added as I thought about it long after:
Is Democracy the end all of freedom in your measure Brett? There is some degree of arrogance within the western world that our democracy is the greatest (not saying you in particular, just us in the West in general)... And not only is it the greatest of what ever was, but the greatest that there will ever be. CNN enjoys starting off their forums with announcments along the lines of 'Western values are universal values and there are none greater!'... Like theres nothing beyond democracy to strive for (and democracy always ALWAYS means complete and absolute freedom).

In a warlord/fuedal setup, this is not the case... Democracy requires a base level for the populace to be at before it can possibly be effected. Without an informed electrate, a Democracy quickly becomes a dictatorship (especially under 2 party systems). Afghanistan is not yet at this level (You can put together a decent case that neither is the US or Canada for that matter)... The majority of Afghani people are not voting on issues, they are voting to which tribe they belong to (a vote in a Democracy should not produce the same results a consensus of the population by ethinic groupings would reach).

Is your (actually, correct that...) Is OUR goal within Afghanistan even something remotely possible?

Benjamin:

quote:

---

You might want to check you psychic abilities to determine the amount of research I have done on the topic.

---

You made this comment:

quote:

---

The pipeline rationale has been heavily discounted. It is simply not a good explanation for the US invasion of Afghanistan.

---

Which would suggest your research is either zero on the subject, or you've just convienently ignored it. I'm not psychic... When someone posts 3*3 = 49, it's a reasonable inference to suggest the person has not done his 'research' on how to multiply. After your comment, I beleive I made a fair call on your level of research on the topic.

quote:

---

The evidence presented in favour of the pipeline theory of the Afghanistan invasion does not support the conclusion that the pipeline was the, or even a primary, reason for the invasion.

---

Heh, and you're redefining my arguement in your post... Good job. The pipeline was not a reason to invade (nor was it stated as such), but it happened without question once they were already there (American oil companies in Canada are voracious and are trying to do everything they can to bypass much of our environmental regulation, you should see the fights they put up when asked to cap off a dry well in Alberta... Now think what these companies are doing when an ex-advisor to their projects is now the president signing the deals?). Karzai was an advisor to the oil pipeline project for the American company trying to push this through... Though it still wasn't the primary reason to invade, but to try to act like they didn't take the opportunity when it was presented... If you beleive this is not happening, you may as well be arguing Enron employees were mass shredding documents only because that makes them easier to recycle.

Just to put forward the thought... The majority on this board have been following Afghanistan (and Iraq) since the earliest days of the invasion... Correct? There seems to be a wide disconnect between the posters who have knowledge of Afghanistan pre-Canadian involvement vs those that only know the Afghan details since Canada (more over, Harper) became involved.

[ 08 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

The majority on this board have been following Afghanistan (and Iraq) since the earliest days of the invasion... Correct?[QUOTE]
Correct
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Noise:

There seems to be a wide disconnect between the posters who have knowledge of Afghanistan pre-Canadian involvement vs those that only know the Afghan details since Canada (more over, Harper) became involved.

---

I did edit my post above with a comment to the end all goal Brett posted as well, revisit if you want.

quote:

---

There is a strong tendency on this board to reduce the Afghan conflict into a single conflict, in order to situate this single conflict in the context of the larger issue of US imperialism (oil-related and otherwise).

---

Very true... I beleive the point of this thread was to point out what you've stated here anyway. Theres a large urge amoungst pro-war to overplay the threat and only concentrate on the morale aspect of the war (and also the abrupt assumption that opposition to the war means an instant and total withdrawl is the only other possibility coming from an anti-war standpoint). As much of a 'morale obligation' we may have, it's important to recognize the imperilistic abuse that occoured prior to us even showing up and that our 'goal' as stated ultimately enforces this.

[ 08 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

ConcernedCanadian:
Those people have only succeeded in doing one thing, which is proving to most of the Muslim world that the Human rights code the western world follows is futile and applicable only to there own.

---

I would dispute that it is futile. I would not dispute that many western nations are hypocritical when it come to applying it. This hypocrisy being one of the complaints on my part about Canada's relationship to the US for one, and the US's practices in relationship to its own principles for another.

This hypocrisy, in fact, was a core element in the anti-war movement 40 years ago and for many progressives since.

Those who would argue against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in favour of such benighted concepts as found in traditional Islamic, Jewish, Christian or other cultures that do not recognize the full equality of women, free speech, freedom of and from religion and so on are promoters of tyranny and oppression and religious idiocy.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
I fail to see how this term applies if the ultimate goal of intervention is to create a free, self-governing state.

---

Therein lies part of the flaw in your argument, the idea that the invasion and occupation (intervention) is to create a free, self-governing state. The reality is that the goal is to create a compliant and cooperative state. Freedom and self-government are a facade to be quickly shoved aside should compliancy cease.

quote:

---

Benjamin:
The evidence presented in favour of the pipeline theory of the Afghanistan invasion does not support the conclusion that the pipeline was the, or even a primary, reason for the invasion.

---

Oil was and is. Do you think that if there was not a drop of oil to be found anywhere a thousand miles either side of a line from Mogadishu to Omsk we would have the problems in the region that we do now?

Without a route through Afghanistan for Central Asian oil it may well be piped through either Russia or Chinal, both options having adverse implications for US power in competition with either of those societies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Those who would argue against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in favour of such benighted concepts as found in traditional Islamic, Jewish, Christian or other cultures that do not recognize the full equality of women, free speech, freedom of and from religion and so on are promoters of tyranny and oppression and religious idiocy.

---

Those who argue against the right of people to choose for themselves the system they want to be governed with (religious, secular, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or whatever) such as all sections of the people (male, female, minorities, and others) agree on that system, in favor of another system that they believe is superior are taking a new religion for themselves and imposing it on others thus promoting tyranny, oppression, and religious idiocy.

[ 08 February 2007: Message edited by: ConcernedCanadian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Did you hear the one about the two cows talking? The first cows says "I'm worried sick about this mad cow disease thing. Doesn't it bother you?"
"I never give it a moment's thought" said the second cow.
"What! How can you not be alarmed? Haven't you seen them slaughtering herds on tv?"
"Doesn't affect me," said the second cow. "I'm a duck."

Just a little levity there folks. The refusal of so many on the left to recognize in correct proportion the reality of the threat of Islamist terrorism reminds me of that joke.

---

Heh, this is a much funnier joker to point out than I first realized too Brett, TY for bringing it forward.

I'm more of an urban Albertan, so this didn't effect me quite so much... Any chance we could get someone who knows rural Alberta a bit better to fill us in on what happened when the US went overboard with fear from Mad Cow Desease? Heh, and now we get to see a joke comparing denying the 'threat' Mad Cow Desease and denying the 'threat' of Islamic extremism.

quote:

---

ConcernedCanadian:
Those who argue against the right of people to choose for themselves the system they want to be governed with (religious, secular, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or whatever) such as all sections of the people (male, female, minorities, and others) agree on that system, in favor of another system that they believe is superior are taking a new religion for themselves and imposing it on others thus promoting tyranny, oppression, and religious idiocy.

---

Is there a system in which all sections of the people agree on overwhelmingly? Is the claimed agreement free of coercion, custom, and ignorance of all possible choices? Do minorities have rights and are there certain things that all people should be inherently entitles to universally?

Are the values in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights presumptuous and without merit?

Morocco is a Kingdom. I guess that means that technically the King owns all his subjects. As quaint as this seems, I would not presume to tell the Moroccans their mode of government was unsuitable. I am far from a crusader for western values, which I find deficient to the values of many other cultures. When we speak about "democracy" in Afghanistan, I have no illusions that it will become a safe, peaceful, egalitarian, secular society. The Afghans don't want that, and neither do I necessarily. What they do want is the opportunity to practice their beliefs and cultural observances in an environment of stability and security, and evolve into the future at their own rate. I think these are achievable goals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Oil was and is. Do you think that if there was not a drop of oil to be found anywhere a thousand miles either side of a line from Mogadishu to Omsk we would have the problems in the region that we do now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Without a route through Afghanistan for Central Asian oil it may well be piped through either Russia or Chinal, both options having adverse implications for US power in competition with either of those societies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

I agree with you that it is more complex than oil, but without the oil factor or some other vital resource at play, the US and hence it vassals would be merely spectators in a clash of peasant farmers and camel drivers.

---

quote:

---

By this logic, the US would also have invaded Nigeria, Chad, and Venezuala.

---

Hey, someone wanna point out the CIA's involvement within venezula for Benjamin? He seems unaware.

And once again Benjamin, you're manipulating the arguement. Had the US already had a military presence in Nigeria, Chad, or Venezula and the opportunity to put a oil advisor to one of their companies as president of the nation... Then yes, you can garentee they would and you're exceedingly naive to think otherwise. Heh, whats kinda funny about your arguement is it's a variation of the form that the left has used in the past 'Why Afghanistan and not Chad?'

quote:

---

The argument for the importance of resources with respect to Afghanistan is weak at best.

---

The arguement that they only invaded due to resources is pretty weak... Insisting that they wouldn't exploit resources once they were already there is complete stupidity.

Brett:

It's interesting how quickly and clearly you can pick out the spirituality guiding their society, yet neglect how much it guides our own.

quote:

---

"I'll see you tomorrow, enshallah" - " if God wills it."

---

I don't see this much of a contrast between our society... How many times do you get to hear a 'god willing', 'oh my god', or other god based exclamation? Lord thunderin Jesus? One of my aunts says 'god be with you' instead of good bye.

quote:

---

It was clear to see that spiritual realities for a big part of their culture.

---

Yet you're neglecting to see how strong the spiritual realities within our culture is, no? The 'Western world' is led by a man sworn in on the bible no less (Who has said on more than one occasion that he's spoken with god... Not sure if Ahmadinejad will even try to claim that ^^)... The biggest single influence on American politics comes from the 'religious right'. Hell, our research in medical disciplines such as stem cell research lags waaay behind many other nations (yes, Iran included)... Because our relgious nuts think life begins at conception while other religious nuts put it closer to 3 months I still find it incredibly ironic that pro-life also includes pro-bomb the crap outa other life

Think of it from the Iranian citizens side who gets to see how far our religion is entrenched within our society (Terri Schaivo ring a bell?)... It won't be long before you're laughed at for denying Western Extremism exists.

quote:

---

Barring these or other unforseen developments, I think the chances are very good of establishing a peaceful and stable Afghanistan, which also will be a freer Afghanistan

---

It is possible, but the instance on 'Islamic extremism' and acting out of fear of such will ensure the unforseen occours repeatadely. What exactly, beyond dem dam dirty terrorists, is preventing us from even talking to the Taliban? I mean, even the Americans have constant underground channels to the AQ in Iraq... What reasoning could possibly lead to it being nessacary (even vital) to talk to Al Qaeda, but not the Taliban?

quote:

---

Morocco is a Kingdom. I guess that means that technically the King owns all his subjects.

---

Is a benevolent King a better thing than a corrupt Democracy? Our western answer is not at all, the corrupt Democracy ensures freedom is garenteed afterall.

quote:

---

But they admitted to having just 40 rounds of ammo left for I dunno how many rifles, and were expecting another assault on their position in the next 24 or 48 hours. I'd say it sucks to be them right now. What's going on ?. Are they receving aid money over there, or are Karzai and his pals lining their pockets ?

---

Karzai's receiving and spending it... There was most definately ammunitions purchased for these troops (actually theres very little sign of coruuption on that level currently). The problem is the degree that the Afghan military is infiltrated and the amunitions get redirected to the Taliban instead. Funny enough, theres an off chance the Ammunitions purchased for these trooops here will be used in that battle... It'll just be fired at them instead. I guess it's important to remember that the same people that make up the Taliban are the same people composing the Afghan army we support (ethinically, and often even family ties).

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Benjamin:
By this logic, the US would also have invaded Nigeria, Chad, and Venezuala. The US would not be in Haiti.

---

You will need to explain what you mean here. This appears to be a non sequitur.

quote:

---

Shocking, the US prefers a pipeline through Afghanistan.

---

Preferable to one either controlled by the Russians or Chinese unless one discounts totally the fact that there are international economic and political rivalries.

quote:

---

The argument for the importance of resources with respect to Afghanistan is weak at best.

---

Then make the argument. And, consider that it may not be the resources in Afghanistan as much as the location of Afghanistan in relation to resources elsewhere and the role that a compliant Afghanistan would play in the control of these resources. And, also, the value of a compliant Afghanistan in helping to reduce the threat to resources elsewhere.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
When we speak about "democracy" in Afghanistan, I have no illusions that it will become a safe, peaceful, egalitarian, secular society.

---

Then what is the point of killing off our soldiers on their behalf? They already had the opposite.

quote:

---

What they do want is the opportunity to practice their beliefs and cultural observances in an environment of stability and security,....

---

Like honour killings, subjection of women, laws against blasphemy and free speech, religious prohibitions and persecutions? Sounds like the Taliban. So, we are just in a civil war backing one form of Taliban against another?

quote:

---

I think the chances are very good of establishing a peaceful and stable Afghanistan, which also will be a freer Afghanistan,...

---

According to your philosophy inferred from your statements we should accept a return of the Taliban if that is what they want, or any other type of oppression if that is what they want. Who are they and what rights to minorities have in your world?

If we are not willing to pursue the full equality of women, free speech, freedom of and from religion and so on universally for everyone, then what is the point?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

Hey, someone wanna point out the CIA's involvement within venezula for Benjamin? He seems unaware.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
Benjamin:

Karzai's receiving and spending it... There was most definately ammunitions purchased for these troops (actually theres very little sign of coruuption on that level currently).

---

Wilf Day posted some excellent links describing just how unfair and unfree the election was that created that government. Some accounts reported warlords bringing ballot boxes into their homes. Some candidates were threatened with death. If it wasn't for the U.S. military propping him up, the mayor of Kabul would be chased out of Afghanistan. In CTV news reports and RAWA, Afghani's are tired of seeing elaborate mansions built for Karzai's people while they go jobless and hungry. The U.S. has propped up over 36 brutal right-wing dictatorships in the last century. There is no reason to believe U.S. goals for Afghanistan are very different.

quote:

---

The problem is the degree that the Afghan military is infiltrated and the amunitions get redirected to the Taliban instead. Funny enough, theres an off chance the Ammunitions purchased for these trooops here will be used in that battle.

---

quote:

---

The CIA is in Venezuela? Who would have thunk it?

Give me a break. If I put caveats into all my posts to state blatently obvious information that most people are aware of, then they would be a little long don't you think?

---

Your quote:

quote:

---

Benjamin:
By this logic, the US would also have invaded Nigeria, Chad, and Venezuala. The US would not be in Haiti.

---

Not all invasions need to be military. Just pointing out that your list of 'Why don't they invade because they have oil' contains a country that the US has been trying to cause a coup in to get at their oil for quite some time. Sorta counter to the point I figure you are trying to make, note my post.

quote:

---

Wilf Day posted some excellent links describing just how unfair and unfree the election was that created that government

---

I had a link in one of these threads that went to an article accusing the US of purposefully failing to protect Karzai's main opposition (who was killed by the taliban. The unmanned drone the US sent in response was reported as "too little too late" by the American military. That was '02 or '03 I think. I'm pretty sure I've read Wilf's links too, though it's hard to catch every thread.

Though that aside... Funding wise, there is little evidence of upper level corruption at this time (atleast that I've seen... Always happy if someone can prove me wrong)... The corruption is further down the chain into the military we're apparently training and equipping... If you're supply officers down the chain also happen to have Taliban contacts, they can easily be funneling weapons and equipment to them (Doesn't need to be contacts either, extorting people would work as well)

I wonder how many solider have tried to go support Karzai to receive top of the line training and equipment... Only to go join the Taliban cause they pay more ^^

quote:

---

He said that the Taliban are being funded as well if not better than they ever were.

---

Any word as to how so? The funding can be coming through just so many sources it's hard to track... Opiate production is through the roof, could that account for the majority of it? Could it be some rish foriegn investor forking it up? Another country? Corruption? I'd imagine theres a combination of all 4 at work

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Though that aside... Funding wise, there is little evidence of upper level corruption at this time (atleast that I've seen... Always happy if someone can prove me wrong

---

I believe that without sources from either of us, my wild claim is just as unsubstantiated as yours. And so now I have no other option but to take what we both say with a grain of salt.

quote:

---

Afghanistan has received 12 billion dollars in aid while another 10 billion more were pledged at the London conference. But there aren’t any signs of serious reconstruction. Our people have not benefited from the billions of reconstruction dollars due to theft by the warlords or misuse by NGOs. Even a fraction of this aid has not been used for the benefit and welfare of our people. Government corruption and fraud directs billions of dollars into the pockets of high-ranking officials. It is such a big shame that the government still cannot provide electricity, food and water for its people.

---

[very unsubstantiated]An Afghani refugee living in Canada described what he saw in Kabul this decade after having fled that country in 1989. He said at least there were a few traffic lights in Kabul during PDPA rule. He said the city has gone to the dogs since he was there last.[/]

And if the new Iraqi government is anything to go by, what with a health minister allegedly diverting millions of dollars to right-wing Shiite death squads, I would tend to think anything's possible with the mayor of Kabul's partners in crime.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

For most Afghan women the burqa is the least of their problems.

Afghanistan is just about the poorest country in the world. Only Burkina Faso and Niger sometimes get worse ratings. After nearly three decades of warfare and another of drought, millions of Afghans are without safe water or sanitation or electricity, even in the capital city. Millions are without adequate food and nutrition. Millions have access only to the most rudimentary health care, or none at all.

Diseases such as TB and polio, long eradicated in most of the world, flourish here. They hit women and children hard. One in four children dies before the age of five, mostly from preventable illnesses such as cholera and diarrhea. Half of all women of childbearing age who die do so in childbirth, giving Afghanistan one of the highest maternal death rates in the world. Average life expectancy hovers around 42 years.

Notice that we're still talking women's rights here: the fundamental economic and social rights that belong to all human beings.

There are other grim statistics. About 85% of Afghan women are illiterate. About 95% are routinely subjected to violence in the home. And the home is where most Afghan women in rural areas, and many in cities, are still customarily confined. Public space and public life belong almost exclusively to men. President Karzai heads the country while his wife, a qualified gynecologist with needed skills, stays at home.

These facts are well known. During more than five years of Western occupation, they haven't changed.

Afghan women and girls are, by custom and practice, the property of men. They may be traded and sold like any commodity. Although Afghan law sets the minimum marriageable age for girls at sixteen, girls as young as eight or nine are commonly sold into marriage. Women doctors in Kabul maternity hospitals describe terrible life-threatening "wedding night" injuries that husbands inflict on child brides. In the countryside, far from medical help, such girls die.

Under the tribal code of the Pashtuns, the dominant ethnic group, men customarily hand over women and girls -- surplus sisters or widows, daughters or nieces -- to other men to make amends for some offense or to pay off some indebtedness, often to a drug lord. To Pashtuns the trade-off is a means of maintaining "justice" and social harmony, but international human rights observers define what happens to the women and girls used in such "conflict resolution" as "slavery."

Given the rigid confinement of women, a surprising number try to escape. But any woman on her own outside the home is assumed to be guilty of the crime of "zina" -- engaging in sexual activity. That's why "running away" is itself a crime. One crime presupposes the other.

When she is caught, as most runaways are, she may be taken to jail for an indefinite term or returned to her husband or father or brothers who may then murder her to restore the family honor.

The same thing happens to a rape victim, force being no excuse for sexual contact -- unless she is married to the man who raped her. In that case, she can be raped as often as he likes.

In Kabul, where women and girls move about more freely, many are snatched by traffickers and sold into sexual slavery. The traffickers are seldom pursued or punished because once a girl is abducted she is as good as dead anyway, even to loving parents bound by the code of honor. The weeping mother of a kidnapped teenage girl once told me, "I pray she does not come back because my husband will have to kill her."

---

quote:

---

Gee, it sorta sounds like Brett's humanitarian war for female liberation in Afghanistan isn't going to succeed, even if every last "Taliban" fighter ends up exterminated by our gallant troops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
ISAF is not trying to impose "western values" on Afghanistan.

---

It's trying to make Afghanistan safe for the values of the Pashtun and Northern Alliance warlords.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
If the Taliban can live peacefully in the south of the country, I see no problem with allowing those (including women) who chose this culture to maintain it.

---

I see a problem with it, the culture is a threat to human rights everywhere, if only by example that something so offensive can be tolerated.

As for women or others choosing to maintain the culture, how do you separate voluntary, informed support from coerced support?

Militarily invading and occupying the country was and is a mistake. Working to undermine and destroy the Taliban value system and replace it with a more progressive one is not.

quote:

---

I have argued before that this war is not against the Taliban per se, but because they support al Qaeda and allied groups, and are trying to sabotage the larger Afghan redevelopment project.

---

A more realistic view is that this war is against anyone, radical, repressive, progressive, democratic or whatever that will stand in the way of an Afghanistan that is compliant with US foreign policy.

quote:

---

ISAF is not trying to impose "western values" on Afghanistan. It is trying to create a climate supportive of human values.

---

It is not doing either. It is merely there to serve the interests of US policy. Everything else is empty rhetoric used to divert attention from that fact.

Dear Fausto,

I was surprised to hear that Rifondazione was preparing to vote in favour of keeping Italian troops in Afghanistan, for ‘humanitarian reasons’. I want to try and convince you that this would be a serious error, just as I argued in the last century with those on the left, who supported the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.

Big powers or surrogate states acting on their behalf have no right to occupy countries. The two big projects of the global neo-liberal order have been (1) to insist that the new capitalism is the ‘sole’ way of organising humankind from now till the planet implodes and (2) to disregard national sovereignty as a key to international relations in the name of ‘human rights’.

A few weeks after 9/11, I debated a leading Bush ideologue, Charles Krauthammer for one hour on Canadian television. He admitted that the war in Afghanistan was as I had put it ‘a crude war of revenge.’ Three days ago the CIA disbanded its special unit created to track and exterminate Osama Bin Laden, a tacit acknowledgement that the situation had changed drastically since 9/11. So what is the function of Nato armies in Afghanistan. Human Rights? Even conservative journalists in Britain (whose soldiers are being killed regularly) would laugh at any such assumption. One of them, Simon Jenkins, recently returned from a trip to Kabul and wrote a public warning to Blair:

“The debacle of Britain in Afghanistan cannot be ignored, because British troops are at risk. They were never meant to be at risk and their presence in that country has nothing to do with British security. They are sweltering and dying in Helmand not to prop up an embattled regime in Kabul, for which they are hopelessly undermanned, but to keep Nato alive in Europe, an unworthy mission…

“How did the Americans induce Nato in 2004 to become Hamid Karzai's mercenary army? What intelligence did the cabinet receive from Washington, where officials openly spoke of dumping Afghanistan on uppity Nato to teach it a lesson after the Balkan shambles?”
....

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

Afghanis need a socialist revolution. They will have to accomplish that on their own. Certainly NATO won't be helping them.

---

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
Jerry, how long has the UN been in the business of supporting US policy. What's in it for China, Russia, and the rest of the nations of the world? Is the entire world nothing more than an American fiefdom? Don't you think your argument is a tad simplistic?

---

What is in it for China and Russia? Letting the Afghans wear down and weaken their chief rival. What is in it for other nations? Brownie points and trade with the Americans.

If the Americans pulled all of their troops out tomorrow do you believe that the other nations would stay?

From the Globe & Mail article on the Senate report:

quote:

---

“We're talking about a medieval society that has a very different attitude about democracy than people who have grown up taking civic classes,” Mr. Kenny said.

Canada's presence in Kandahar was making life more perilous for people in that region, the report states, and is compounded by the civilian death toll and lack of development assistance on the ground.

“Afghanistan is only remotely connected to the modern world,” it says. “Anyone expecting to see the emergence in Afghanistan within the next several decades of a recognizable modern democracy capable of delivering justice and amenities to its people is dreaming in Technicolor.

“Are Canadians willing to commit themselves to decades of involvement in Afghanistan, which could cost hundreds of Canadian lives and billions of dollars with no guarantee of ending up with anything like the kind of society that makes sense to us?”

---

And that is optimistic. Thousands of lives is more like it if we persist at any level more then we are now.