Afghanistan: The night fairies

quote:

---

Sarah Chayes

Last fall, an elderly gentleman came by my house, located on a dirt street near the Kandahar bazaar. His eyes were a little rheumier than I remembered, his white beard wispier. A shawl was draped across the top of his turban and around his shoulders to protect against the autumn chill.

He is the village elder of a hamlet I used to visit regularly, located in a tangle of pomegranate orchards just beyond a line of rocky hills that looks like the crenelated back of a dinosaur. The dairy cooperative I was running then used to collect milk there every morning, two liters from one family, five from another, carried to our truck by children and oldsters in a riot of receptacles. Now, in fulfillment of a year-old promise, I wanted to buy pomegranates from this village.

I apologized to the old man for sending my staff to fetch him. "I didn't want to come see you myself," I said, "for fear of causing you trouble."

"No, no," he answered with a frank smile. "I wouldn't have given you permission to come."

This is the second Kandahar-area farmer who has broken with the deep-rooted local tradition of hospitality--as well as the lure of a higher price for his produce--and asked me not to approach his village, for fear of retaliation once I leave. Even more than the frequent explosions aimed at U.S. or Canadian military convoys, the ambushes, and the murders in mosques, these polite refusals of concrete assistance by struggling villagers signal how far the security situation has deteriorated in the past year.

Parliamentary elections last fall, hailed as free and fair--or at least as free and fair as anyone could expect in a place like Afghanistan--have allowed many Western observers to regard the nation-building process here as a success. In Kandahar, those elections were considered a joke--even by the people who won. Less than a quarter of the population voted, and, as most locals predicted, the counting process functioned like a bazaar with plenty of extra zeros for sale.

In reality, the four years since the Taliban's demise have been characterized by a steady erosion of security in distinct phases. The most recent phase, signaled by the rebuffs I received from the farmers, may represent a point of no return. These rebuffs are the consequence of a highly effective intimidation campaign that has been carried out in tightening circles around Kandahar by, for lack of a better term, resurgent Taliban. Handbills appear in village mosques threatening anyone who dares collaborate with foreigners or the Afghan government. Homes receive armed visitors, demanding provisions or other assistance. One of my farmer friends, afraid even to pronounce their name, refers to them as "fairies who come at night."

A word about fear. Afghans, legendary for their tenacity in battle, have had their courage shattered by the gruesome bloodletting of recent decades. The odds were stacked so heavily against them, the weapons so mismatched, the perpetrators--Afghan and foreign alike--so insensitive to the strictures of honorable conflict, that courage became irrelevant. Afghans are now internally injured. They constitute an entire society suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. And so, it does not take much to intimidate them.

A scattering of menacing handbills, some judiciously executed murders--outrageous enough in the choice of victims or venues, such as the night watchman who was hanged on the grounds of the middle school he protected just east of Kandahar--suffice to scare ordinary Afghans. They no longer have the psychological resources to take risks. And so, the arduous task of rebuilding one of the most isolated, war-shattered, and strategic countries in the world is now complicated not just by the danger to those delivering the aid, but also because the beneficiaries are growing afraid to be seen receiving the help.

---

[ 21 April 2006: Message edited by: majorvictory64 ]

quote:

---

Sarah Chayes runs Arghand, a cooperative business in Kandahar, where she has lived since late 2001. She was a Paris-based reporter for National Public Radio from 1997-2001.

---

its creepy as hell. Apparently, Harper paid for some subway adverts in DC to remind the Pentagon & Senate that Canada is a FRIEND of CorporateWar.

The U.S. War in Afghanistan

quote:

---

Is Stephen Harper's Conservative minority government supporting another Oil War? This would yield enormous profits for greed-driven investors, and the atmosphere will continue to dangerously heat from the increasing use of those fossil fuels.

by David Michael Smith

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush declared that the United States would launch a "War on Terrorism." In early October, U.S. airplanes began bombing Afghanistan and providing assistance to the Northern Alliance and other groups opposed to the Taliban regime. Within a few months, U.S. troops and their Afghan allies had succeeded in ousting the Taliban and installing a new regime. Although Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants apparently escaped, U.S. officials proclaimed that a significant blow had been dealt to the al-Qa'ida network.

Traumatized and outraged by the horrific events of September 11, the majority of Americans supported the war in Afghanistan. Most people believed the U.S. Commander-in-Chief when he said that the replacement of the Taliban regime was required to safeguard our country against another catastrophic attack by al-Qa'ida forces. Even Princeton Professor Richard Falk, a longtime anti-war activist, wrote in The Nation ("Defining a Just War," Oct. 29, 2001) that the war in Afghanistan was "the first truly just war since World War II." But was it?

Since last October, thousands of people have participated in anti-war rallies, marches, and teach-ins in New York City, Washington, San Francisco, Houston, and other cities. People opposed to the war have made clear that they condemn the atrocity of September 11. But they also condemn the U.S. role in the deaths of thousands of Afghan people who had nothing to do with the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

In the British Guardian ("The innocent dead in a coward's war," Dec. 20, 2001), journalist Seumas Milne estimated that about ten thousand Afghan soldiers may have died in the war and cited University of New Hampshire Professor Marc Herold's estimate that about four thousand civilians have also died.

Moreover, anti-war activists and progressive writers argue that the war in Afghanistan has been, in large part, another "oil war." The September 11 attacks provided a compelling pretext for military action against the al-Qa'ida forces in Afghanistan. But a growing body of research by journalists and scholars reveals that the Bush Administration's decision in favour of a regime change and all-out war in Afghanistan was significantly influenced by the desire to install a new government that would be more sympathetic to U.S. economic interests in Central Asia.

Has Prime Minister Harper risked the lives of Canadians for an "Oil War" in Afghanistan under the guise of a "War on Terrorism"?

Although Afghanistan itself has no significant oil or natural gas reserves, it is strategically located in a region which does. As Eric Margolis observed in the Toronto Sun ("The U.S. is Determined to Dominate the World's Richest New Source," Jan. 13, 2002), Central Asia's Caspian Basin, over which sit the former Soviet states of Uzbekistan, Tajikstan, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan, is the world's "richest new source of oil." In the Jurist ("The Deadly Pipeline War," Dec. 8, 2001), Marjorie Cohn noted that some analysts have estimated the potential value of Caspian oil and natural gas reserves at four trillion dollars. Phil Gasper recalled in the Socialist Worker ("The Politics of Oil," Jan. 25, 2002) that the Middle East Economic Digest editors have described Central Asia as "the Middle East of the twenty-first century."

---

"A scattering of menacing handbills, some judiciously executed murders--outrageous enough in the choice of victims or venues, such as the night watchman who was hanged on the grounds of the middle school he protected just east of Kandahar--suffice to scare ordinary Afghans. They no longer have the psychological resources to take risks. And so, the arduous task of rebuilding one of the most isolated, war-shattered, and strategic countries in the world is now complicated not just by the danger to those delivering the aid, but also because the beneficiaries are growing afraid to be seen receiving the help."

quote:

---

Brett Mann

Sarah Chayes wrote:

"A scattering of menacing handbills, some judiciously executed murders--outrageous enough in the choice of victims or venues, such as the night watchman who was hanged on the grounds of the middle school he protected just east of Kandahar--suffice to scare ordinary Afghans. They no longer have the psychological resources to take risks. And so, the arduous task of rebuilding one of the most isolated, war-shattered, and strategic countries in the world is now complicated not just by the danger to those delivering the aid, but also because the beneficiaries are growing afraid to be seen receiving the help."

This seems to me like an argument for staying in Afghanistan, not abandoning the Afghanis.

---

One problem with Afghanistan and our involvement is that it is the kind of situation where there is likely no good military solution, and where an attempt at one only makes things worse in the long run.

The issues in Afghanistant are social and cultural, until the culture is changed the problems will persist. There are ways to change culture, but by military force is probably not one of the best ones, particularly when it is a war of convenience for the invading powers who will eventually toss in the towel when the expenses outweigh any perceived advantage.

In these types of situations you are dealing with:

1. A few locals who truly support the invaders and want to change their culture;

2. A whole bunch more who see a financial opportunity and put on smiley faces for the invaders as the milk them for all that they can get;

3. More locals who hate the invaders but put on a smiley face for the invaders while working for the resistance; and

4. Locals who are plain outright belligerent and active against the invaders.

Unless you have an overwhelming majority of Number 1s the enterprise is circling the toilet bowl, the only question is how fast.

quote:

---

My support for our involvement in Afghanistan is predicated on the assumption that a substantial majority of Afghanis support our presence.

---

I don't think there is really any way to know that this is true.

But even if it is, I think it is inevitable that the appetite for a permanent occupation of Afghanistan by foreign troops will decline, no matter whether it is today 70% or 25%.

Whether Canada announces the date or not, we should be aware that there is a "best before" date, after which there will be hell to pay.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
My support for our involvement in Afghanistan is predicated on the assumption that a substantial majority of Afghanis support our presence.

---

There's no good reason to be holding that view; Afghanistan is FAR from a unitary state, and has been in a state of civil war for nearly 30 years, with brief intervals of foreign occupation, hotly resisted.

None of the intervals of occupation have done a thing to hasten the day that Afghan civil society reasserts itself, and in fact the destruction and passivity created by foreign troops probably does more damage to civil society than anything else.

In fact, as nasty as the taliban was, it's probably a necessary stage in the development of afghan civil society. The country had endured five or so years of more or less peace in some two thirds of the country. That's huge. If they'd been left alone, the population would have started feeling like a nation again, and started demanding the freedoms THEY wanted. In time, they'd have got them.

And then the US bombed them back to the stone age again, and sent the country back to war, occupation, and foreign puppet administrations. None of those are nation-building processes: they're nation-wrecking. The sacrifices of the Taliban era, and the psychological ground gained from living in a nation unified (more or less) and at peace, and from being Afghans in control of their own destiny were destroyed, setting real nation-building back to square one, yet again.

And Canada's now participating in this. For as long as we're there, we're preventing the Afghans from choosing their own destiny and keeping them demoralized, subjugated, & at war. We're doing no good at all, in the long run.

[ 25 April 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]

quote:

---

Brett Mann:

My support for our involvement in Afghanistan is predicated on the assumption that a substantial majority of Afghanis support our presence.

---

That is a huge assumption. Chances are that the happiest people we are dealing with fit category 2 in my previous post, and are total untrustworthy but more than willing to do whatever it takes to squeeze as much out of us as they can and use us to help squeeze their fellow country people too for their own personal benefit.

In the end if not already parts of the foreign element will be in on the squeeze too, and policy decisions at some levels will be influenced by the desire to maintain that squeeze.

The risks in these kind of interventions go much deeper than just risk to life.

quote:

---

Given enough time and resources, I think the NATO forces can accomplish their mission and convince enough of those fighting against them that they are there to help, not occupy.

---

But is the mission really to "help" Afghanis? What does "help" translate into for those at the very top of the food chain behind this? Afghanistan is a pawn in a bigger geo-political game, "helping Afganis," "democracy," etc. are empty buzz words when push comes to shove. Despite all of their regressive policies the US would be supporting the Taliban today if it suited their purpose.

quote:

---

....how much we value the Afghanis' right to live free of Taliban dictatorship.

---

You and I might value that, but history tells us that such concerns are not major issues for those deciding the policy on Afghanistan. For them those are throw-away issues which can be used when convenient to gather support and tossed when they get in the way.

The Taliban were despicable and regressive, but they brought security and order of sorts, and clamped down on the drug trade. As S1mOn indicates there were better ways to deal with them than throwing the country back into total chaos and killing thousands of people.

Anybody fighting with NATO in Afghanistan to make life better for the Afghanis maybe fighting in vain.

quote:

---

And of course, how important we think it is to keep international terrorists from once again using Afghanistan as a base of training and operations.

---

That was an excuse, not a reason. If the US and company really cared about international terrorism they would have cut off support to Saudi Arabia and all of the other countries that supply finances and other aid. They would also not bankroll their own terrorists nor support dictators and repressive regimes.

quote:

---

....how much we value the Afghanis' right to live free of Taliban dictatorship.

---

The people of Afghanistan--or the largest plurality of them--chose the Taliban, because even they were preferable to yet more civil war.

Think about that for a second. They didn't see the Taliban a dictatorship, they saw them as peace.

Canadian troops take great care to avoid damaging farmers' poppy fields while the coalition's aim is eradication of poppies.

Karzai's government committed to reducing poppy production by 20% in 2005.Instead it has grown.

The coalition doe not have a plan or funding to wean farmers off poppy production and back to grains but are determined to eradicate the poppy.

So,with typical half measures,the coalition plan will leave the farmers hanging out to dry.

Presently,the Taliban uses drug money to attract and pay recruits while the Afghan National Police are not paid by the Karzai government because corrupt officials steal the pay.The ANP are corrupt because the receive no pay.They resort to theft and extortion in order to survive.

While the National Police are under equipped and unpaid,the Afghan National Army are paid and equipped through the US military but it is the National Police's mandate to protect civilians while the ANA pursues Taliban.

I support nationbuilding when the bulk of resources are directed at the civilian population and the military is tasked with protection,not projection.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
I doubt the people of Afghanistan chose the Taliban.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

Doubt away, but every pre-war account of modern afghan history that I've seen has agreed that the war-weary population welcomed the arrival of the Taliban, because for the first time in 20 years, they brought peace and order to southern afghanistan.

---

Nothing says peace like stoning a woman for showing a little ankle under the burka. Or imprisoning for life a teenager for listening to music. Or closing all schools but those that teach a perverted form of Islam to only boys.

Every state that is ruled in such a way is peaceful. Speaking out gets you disappeared. The people "welcomed" the Taliban at the barrels of many guns, and on the lies that the Taliban would bring them peace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

Doubt away, but every pre-war account of modern afghan history that I've seen has agreed that the war-weary population welcomed the arrival of the Taliban, because for the first time in 20 years, they brought peace and order to southern afghanistan.

---

Perhaps your problem is that every account you have seen was written by middle-aged white guys driving Hummers

The link below gives great insight into the "peace and order" your chums in the Taliban bring.

http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm

Some of the restrictions imposed by Taliban on women in Afghanistan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

Nothing says peace like stoning a woman for showing a little ankle under the burka. Or imprisoning for life a teenager for listening to music. Or closing all schools but those that teach a perverted form of Islam to only boys.

Every state that is ruled in such a way is peaceful. Speaking out gets you disappeared. The people "welcomed" the Taliban at the barrels of many guns, and on the lies that the Taliban would bring them peace.

The atrocities of the Taliban are well documented by AI, ICRC, UNHCR, and the world media to name a few. Are they all lying?

---

Who said they're lying? You appear to be operating in a peculairly binary world, in which the enemies of something bad must therefore be good.

~~

But are you attempting to argue that Canada, NATO, the UN, or the USA are in Afghanistan out of concern for the status of women in Afghan society?

Because this is most emphatically not the case. Our interest in the status of women in Afghanistan is rhetorical only--we were blithely unconcerned until our ox was gored on 911, and then we were shocked, SHOCKED, to discover that the oppression of women was going on.

Our real interest in the status of afghan women could not be shallower; we're doing nothing at all on the ground to alleviate their plight, and we've already abandoned the token steps we'd taken, such as insisting on female representation in the Loya Jurga.

Similarly, our interest in the other issues you name consists primarily of their propaganda value in selling the war to a domestic audience, and that alone.

~~

Once we've sacrificed enough of our soldiers, we'll do what ever otehr occupying army has done and bug out, leaving the afghan women to their fate, whatever it is to be. You and I both know this to be the truth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

Who said they're lying? You appear to be operating in a peculairly binary world, in which the enemies of something bad must therefore be good.

~~

But are you attempting to argue that Canada, NATO, the UN, or the USA are in Afghanistan out of concern for the status of women in Afghan society?

---

Nope, never did, just demonstrating the fallacy of your claim that the Taliban was welcomed into power.

quote:

---

Because this is most emphatically not the case. Our interest in the status of women in Afghanistan is rhetorical only--we were blithely unconcerned until our ox was gored on 911, and then we were shocked, SHOCKED, to discover that the oppression of women was going on.

---

You are absolutly right on this point. The general population of the world didn't really care much. Including you.

quote:

---

Our real interest in the status of afghan women could not be shallower; we're doing nothing at all on the ground to alleviate their plight, and we've already abandoned the token steps we'd taken, such as insisting on female representation in the Loya Jurga.

---

Really? What percentage of the Canadian Parliament is female? The US House? Compare these numbers to 30% in Afghanistan. 30% of Afghan MPs are female.

Yup... Token steps.

quote:

---

Similarly, our interest in the other issues you name consists primarily of their propaganda value in selling the war to a domestic audience, and that alone.

---

You are engaging in propaganda right now. We are very serious about rebuilding Afghanistan. Very serious. I know you don't beleive me, but hey, how could you. You only read half of what is out there, and half of that you dismiss as propaganda.

Propaganda is simply information. As it happens, Canada deals in truth. Will we word the facts in such a way to influence thinking? It is possible I guess. But at this stage, from what I have seen in the media, and what my friends deployed currently are doing mesh one hundred percent.

Dismiss away, I know the truth of it.

quote:

---

~~

Once we've sacrificed enough of our soldiers, we'll do what ever otehr occupying army has done and bug out, leaving the afghan women to their fate, whatever it is to be. You and I both know this to be the truth.

---

Yee of so little faith. First, we are not as easy to kill as all that. Second, we are tenacious. I can assure you that though we are bruised, our moral and conviction remains strong.

You are right, eventually we will leave... As we left Bosnia. Question is, will we leave before a safe and secure environment has been set up? Will we leave before the ANA and ANP have completed training (including moral and ethical training WRT international laws, as well as Afghan law). The soldiers of the CF do not want to leave until this training is complete, so the nightmare you invision does not happen. We leave now as you suggest, we throw all Afghans back to the warlords and the Taliban.

quote:

---

What we'll have accomplished is to delay the establishment of Afghan civil society by another generation. That's the process by which afghan women lives could be bettered. As unlikely as it seems, the Taliban could have been the foundation of such a process, until the US bombs started landing and the troops followed.

---

It's not unlikely. It is impossible. The Taliban view women as being a lower form of life then a pack mule. That is a fact. The Taliban are very simply the nazis of this generation. To suggest as you have above, clearly indicates a COMPLETE lack of understanding on the subject. Time for you to go out and do some research.

quote:

---

The Taliban are very simply the nazis of this generation.

---

Yaaaayyy! Dingdingdingding! We have a winner!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:

Yaaaayyy! Dingdingdingding! We have a winner!

Is the world really just a series of old war movies for you?

---

Nope, is it for you? How else would you discribe an organisation that went out of it's way to murder it's own people?

I suppose you would give the Taliban the Nobel for putting done serious uprising of rebelious teenagers (rock and roll is the devil's work you know).

quote:

---

How else would you discribe an organisation that went out of it's way to murder it's own people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:

Texan?

---

Damn... you made me laugh! And not sarcastically either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:

Texan?

---

quote:

---

Reason:

Yee of so little faith. First, we are not as easy to kill as all that. Second, we are tenacious. I can assure you that though we are bruised, our moral and conviction remains strong.

---

Probably so did those of the Waffen SS in 1941. The point being that having a strong morale and conviction do not necessarily equate to anything other than a strong morale and conviction whether the task at hand is good or bad.

quote:

---

The soldiers of the CF do not want to leave until this training is complete, so the nightmare you invision does not happen. We leave now as you suggest, we throw all Afghans back to the warlords and the Taliban.

---

If it doesn't work at what point do we leave anyway? Where is the line on how much money we should spend on this, or how many lives lost is one too many? I think that the reality is that we will remain in Afghanistan as long as there is political capital to be gained from it, and bugger off when there is not, no matter what the state of the country is.

Besides, what does it matter what the members of the CF want? Their job is to do what they are told to do. It would only really matter if they refused to do the job.

quote:

---

How else would you discribe an organisation that went out of it's way to murder it's own people?

---

Scumbags, but the Taliban have little to do with the reasons for being in Afghanistan, those creatures of our friends in the Pakistani military.

To say that we are in Afghanistan to save the country from the Taliban or terrorists, or to help women and so on is hilarious. Of course many sincerely believe this, but many also believed the same thing about Vietnam in 1965, just for one historical example.

We can't do more than stick bandaids on a sucking chest wound using the military option to make the changes that need to be made in Afghanistan. In fact we stand to make things worse in the long run.

quote:

---

Funny how Afghans here support us... I would say that Afghans in Afghanistan support us too, as they do...

---

Fact is, we are not in Afghanistan alone. Last count there are a total of 32 countries involved in Afghanistan in some way shape or form in the mission of ISAF. We all see the common ground that if we screw this up, we will all pay in the future in many ways. So, the rhetoric of the moment is that we will not leave until the task is complete.

Even when the insurgency can be handled by the ANP (the ANA should not be used internally except under exceptional circumstances), the world community may withdraw much of the military forces, but our collective nations will be involved in the reconstruction for generations. Not years, but decades. The world finacial contributions and humanitarian aid contributions all echo this sentiment. By 2009, Canada alone will have contributed 650 million CAD to reconstruction.

If someone can find Wilf Day's thread on the Afghani election fraud, Reason might want to read it. They used "indelible" ink to mark voters fingers so they could not vote more than once. But the ink was easily removable.

There were accusations of vote tampering.

Election observers said they saw candidates bringing ballot boxes into their homes. A female candidate was threatened with her life. Millions of voters could not identify candidates on ballots because they're illiterate. Women were told how to vote by their husbands and threatened with violence and so on. These were not legitimate elections, Reason. Like Nicaraguan, Salvadoran and Honduran elections managed or influenced by Uncle Sam in the past, democracy in Afghanistan is a complete sham.

A fraud?. Some of us may want to know more about U.S. choices for ambassador to Iraq at the same time. John Negroponte headed the USian embassy in Honduras for a time during the death squad years and the CIA's proxy war with Sandinistas in Nicaragua. John said he never noticed any killings in Honduras despite several unidentified bodies being discovered within spitting distance of the US embassy in that country. And believe it or not, some people were saying that the "Salvador option" was being considered for Iraq. John now heads up the largest US embassy in the world in Baghdad. Democracy is just a word to ultra right-rightists who work the shadow government in the U.S.A., Reason. And to put it mildly, the Pentagon/CIA/shadow gov has "influenced" elections around the world.

But back to Afghanistan. In fact, the economy in that country is largely an illegal operation of poppy crop exports to Pakistan where a similar underground economy tranforms it into heroin for export of the illicit drug trade to cities in North America where it's cut and watered-down by god knows what into bathroom concoctions. It's a multi-billion dollar global industry, and some say our right-rightist politicos are in for a cut themselves. Afghani infant mortality is bottom of the barrel, and so is adult longevity. Adult literacy rates are terrible, and religious fundamentalists have no intention of allowing women, who represent two-thirds of the population, work as much-needed education or health care professionals in that country. Real social democracy was never on the CIA's agenda for any country, including Afghanistan, Reason.

I hear you like old war movies?. Dare to diff and watch an oldie but a goodie, "Three Days of the Condor." And take note of what the CIA official tells Joe Turner what it's all about near the end of the movie before Joubert shoots him to death.

[ 27 April 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Fidel:

In fact, the economy in that country is largely an illegal operation of poppy crop exports to Pakistan where a similar underground economy tranforms it into heroin for export of the illicit drug trade to cities in North America where it's cut and watered-down by god knows what into bathroom concoctions. It's a multi-billion dollar global industry, and some say our right-rightist politicos are in for a cut themselves.

---

The banks, big corporations and politicians are heavily invested in the drug trade in one way or another, it accounts for about 7% of the world economy. Too much is at stake to end it. We do not have a war on drugs but a war between drug dealers.

A Failing System Hooked On Drugs

quote:

---

Reason:
10.5 million people vited in the Afghan election.

---

And what were the voter turnouts in Saddam's Iraq, the Soviet Union or a number of other such places? Voter turnout alone does not indicate democracy.

quote:

---

Fact is, we are not in Afghanistan alone. Last count there are a total of 32 countries involved in Afghanistan in some way shape or form in the mission of ISAF. We all see the common ground that if we screw this up, we will all pay in the future in many ways. So, the rhetoric of the moment is that we will not leave until the task is complete.

---

That rhetoric could be little more than cheerleading. What we say we are there for and what reality is may not be the same thing, but it makes the people who pay the taxes and the ones who waste their lives in the process feel better about it.

According to Graeme Smith in the G&M things aren't all that rosy despite Gen. Fraser's smiley faced pronouncements. Conditions getting worse in Kandahar.... a lack of confidence about the international community and the new government....

One also has to ask, behind the rhetoric, what's in it for the countries involved, and who is making a profit off of this adventure, and what politicians do they control.

One has to be very skeptical of generals and politicians (a redundancy, generals are politicians) who have a vested interest in happy news. I remember Westmoreland who was winning his war right up until the day that they relieved him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

That rhetoric could be little more than cheerleading. What we say we are there for and what reality is may not be the same thing, but it makes the people who pay the taxes and the ones who waste their lives in the process feel better about it.

According to Graeme Smith in the G&M things aren't all that rosy despite Gen. Fraser's smiley faced pronouncements. Conditions getting worse in Kandahar.... a lack of confidence about the international community and the new government....

One also has to ask, behind the rhetoric, what's in it for the countries involved, and who is making a profit off of this adventure, and what politicians do they control.

One has to be very skeptical of generals and politicians (a redundancy, generals are politicians) who have a vested interest in happy news. I remember Westmoreland who was winning his war right up until the day that they relieved him.

The G&M story

---

I am well aware of the reality on the ground. There, and the reality on the ground does NOT reflect what is being said here. There is a difference between forming an opinion after dismissing half of all media sources, and actually taking them all in, and supplanting them all with a LIVE feed direct from the source.

Dismiss away. There is a huge difference between your truth and ground truth.

EDIT TO ADD: Actually, this is no potential for profit in the question of Afghanistan. None. Some will say "The pipline!" Well, the one country that might profit from that is Russia, and Russia is not in Afghanistan.

Why is it everyone one of you nay sayers are of the opinion that a safe and secure environment happens the second we hit the ground? That is a fantasy. It takes years if not decades to produce such a thing. Leaving now would produce chaos on an epic scale. As the remaining waring factions would try to tear eachother apart, and the new Pakistani Taliban would try to take control. It is important to note that not all Pashtu even remotly support the Taliban. And Pashtu are only one of many different ethnic groups in Afghanistan.

[ 27 April 2006: Message edited by: Reason ]

Brave terrorists attack schools for teaching girls.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nister:
We and 32 other countries are there, and this systematic targetting of schools happens? Just what good are we doing with our presence, then?

---

Hop a flight, and ask for yourself. Kabul is almost a secured environment. Safe enought for rebuilding to start (though some of the buildings going up cause me to gnash my teeth).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Black Dog:
just out of curiosity, didn't the PDPA also build schools and try to lead Afghanistan into the 20th Century? And weren't these reforms oppossed by a good percentage of the population, which led to that whole "Soviet invasion" thing?

---

Ah! It seems that some of us here will tell you the same and agree with you - that it was the "Afghani people" who bombed schools and hospitals in Kabul. Soviet forces were called upon by Kabul gradually as CIA-backed mujihaden began laying siege to the capital and outlying areas. Ordinary people, who weren't in the pay of warlords and foreign-based militias, had other things to do then, like the daily struggle for survival.

A funny thing happened in Latin America though in the 1970's and 80's when hospitals and schools built by Marxists were also bombed and torched. The Contras were also for-hire proxy soldiers recruited from all over Latin America and Caribbean and trained in terrorism. They targetted civilians instead of confronting the Sandinistas. The US military sold weapons to a country they listed as a terrorist state in order to fund an illegal war against poor people in tiny Nicaragua. Similarly, hypocrisy and lies were used to fund another illegal, immoral war in Afghanistan.

Proxy soldiers and mercenaries were recruited by the CIA and General Zia's illegit Pakistani militia government in the fight against 'domino effect' in the 1980's. The CIA realized that Marxists were prepared to deliver on the promise of schools and hospitals to poor people. How could liberal democracy compete with that and their never-ending promise of an "economic longrun" that never arrives for billions of poor people in the democratic capitalist third world ?. The answer was with more Keynesian-militarism with US taxpayers on the hook for whatever amount the Pentagon couldn't raise through covert funding.

Foreign fighters came and went from terrorist training camps in Pakistan and surrounding countries as militant Islamists surrounded Kabul and Jalalabad. The men and women volunteers of the PDPA defeated the mujihaden at Jalabad in a major dustup before having to surrender and flee their own country to barbarism and foreign-based fighters not long after.

Few people mention the women and men volunteers of the PDPA army who held-out against the CIA-Saudi-Pakistani-funded and armed mujihaden and foreign proxies alone for over two years while the world stood by and did nothing.

[ 27 April 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Reason:
I am well aware of the reality on the ground. There, and the reality on the ground does NOT reflect what is being said here. There is a difference between forming an opinion after dismissing half of all media sources, and actually taking them all in, and supplanting them all with a LIVE feed direct from the source.

---

There are often multiple realities, and the part of any reality that one person sees may be different from anothers, and all of them together may draw yet another picture altogether. To start with, "the reality on the ground" as observed by various sources is highly dependent exactly upon which small piece of ground one is looking at. Same can be said for which live feed one is tuned into.

Those who have a vested interest either financial, political or emotional in the success of an enterprise will only promote the happy news and ignore the bad news unless it is unavoidable.

Now the happy news may be right. The Afghanis may decide to give up their religion and change their culture, elevate women to the status of equals with men, abandon poppy culture and be really happy to be goverend by foreigners or a government controled by foreigners. I would be surprised, but it could unfold that way.

More likely whenever whatever geo-political goal of the US is attained, or when the cost of attaining it outweighs any advantage, the plug will be pulled regardless of the state the country is in, and if it is not in the state of Nirvana that the smiley faces are touting, then the blame game will begin.

Why are we in Afghanistan? Canada is there soley because the US is and we need to make points.

Why is the US there? To oust the Taliban and make life better for women? Ha, if that were the case they would have gone in long before, but history shows that they have an extensive and bloody record of creating and supporting regimes as evil as the Taliban.

To destroy Al Qaeda and defeat terrorism? Ha! again. If that were the case they would also be taking severe action against Saudi Arabia and other places that harbour and have harboured terrorists and fund them. Terrorism is a red herring, a minor problem, but convenient for pumping up the emotion among the masses to manufacture consent for military action. If defeating terrorism were a real issue the US in particular, who leads this charge, would not have been creating their own terrorists in the first place, nor supporting them, nor even today protecting them in the US.

Just one example

So, if creating democracy, helping women, or defeating terrorism are off of the menu, why is the US in Afghanistan?

quote:

---

Actually, this is no potential for profit in the question of Afghanistan. None. Some will say "The pipline!" Well, the one country that might profit from that is Russia, and Russia is not in Afghanistan.

---

It is not just the pipeline, maybe not even the pipeline, though your analysis of it ignores a lot of other reports on the issue. But there is financial profit in supplying the troops, in providing the material for development, and of course from controlling the opium. Ask Haliburton how it works. And there can be political profit which, like all political profit, is levered into financial benefit for someone, somewhere along the line. When the political costs outweigh the benefits the game will be over and a new one begun elsewhere.

quote:

---

Why is it everyone one of you nay sayers are of the opinion that a safe and secure environment happens the second we hit the ground?

---

I guess that means that you think that I am not a naysayer. From experience I can certainly tell you about secure and unsecure environments. What one has to face is that even after years and years and years using the present strategy there might not be a secure environment. Although a few deaths per day are hardly noteworthy on the scale of insecurity.

quote:

---

Leaving now would produce chaos on an epic scale.

---

As might leaving later, so what? The difference is the number of dead, particularly dead and maimed Canadians and the drain on Canadian resources that could have gone into such things as healthcare and education.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:
Nope, never did, just demonstrating the fallacy of your claim that the Taliban was welcomed into power.

---

You may have been trying to, but that wasn't what you demonstrated.

Here's the logic:

I say: as bad as the taliban were, they were still welcomed by an afghan population exhausted by 20 years of war and banditry, because at least they taliban brought a cessation from war.

You respond: They Taliban are bad; BAD!!!! BAD BAD BAD BAD!! They oppressed women! They oppressed Musicians! They destroyed Statues!!!! Bad, I say, bad!

There's no logical connection between my statemnet and your supposed refutation. Yeah, the Taliban did all these things. However, they also brought peace, and the southern Afghan people decided that peace, even an oppressive fundamentalist peace, was preferable to war.

So they tolerated the Taliban.

~~

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

Yee of so little faith. First, we are not as easy to kill as all that. Second, we are tenacious. I can assure you that though we are bruised, our moral and conviction remains strong.

---

You're not serious, shurely!

Are you attempting to argue that the soviets failed in Afghanistan because of a lack of TENACITY? They lost more soldiers in afghanistan (15,000) than we have available to send.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Black Dog:
just out of curiosity, didn't the PDPA also build schools and try to lead Afghanistan into the 20th Century? And weren't these reforms oppossed by a good percentage of the population, which led to that whole "Soviet invasion" thing?

I ask because it's one thing to build schools or legislate a certain quota of women in parliment, but changing the beliefs and attitudes that make such things remarkable in the first place is another story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

You're not serious, shurely!

Are you attempting to argue that the soviets failed in Afghanistan because of a lack of TENACITY? They lost more soldiers in afghanistan (15,000) than we have available to send.

Or is this mindless learn-nothing bluster?

---

Nope, it is reality. Huge differences between us and the then Soviets, not the least of which is the fact that we is the world body, not just Canada. Second, the nations sending soldiers are sending volunteer armies.

Lastly, as ,much as you like to beleive that the Afghans love the Taliban and the insurgents who murder school teachers, deminers, and other civilians, it is not the case. Alot of people still fear the Taliban yes, but trust and love... Not a chance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

You may have been trying to, but that wasn't what you demonstrated.

Here's the logic:

I say: as bad as the taliban were, they were still welcomed by an afghan population exhausted by 20 years of war and banditry, because at least they taliban brought a cessation from war.

You respond: They Taliban are bad; BAD!!!! BAD BAD BAD BAD!! They oppressed women! They oppressed Musicians! They destroyed Statues!!!! Bad, I say, bad!

---

If you were not so childish, you would have quoted what I said. But then that does not work with your views. I said they welcomed the Taliban at the point of many guns. Some peace offering.

quote:

---

There's no logical connection between my statemnet and your supposed refutation. Yeah, the Taliban did all these things. However, they also brought peace, and the southern Afghan people decided that peace, even an oppressive fundamentalist peace, was preferable to war.

So they tolerated the Taliban.

---

The only disconnect in logic is between those ears of yours.

quote:

---

~~

Afghanistan is, as neo-cons are only now discovering, ungovernable by force. If WE can't subdue them by force--and we can't, no more than the Soviets, the americans, the russians, the pakistanis and the british could--the neither could the Taliban. Yet they managed to govern for years, more or less at peace, except for the northern and western tribal fringe. The inescapable conclusion is that they WEREN'T perceived by the population in the same way we have protrayed them, as a bloodthirsty dictatorship by force.

---

Do you think you can wait for the crime before passing judgement? Nope... Didn't think so. And this is why the majority in this nation marginalize people like you. The vast majority oppose the war in Iraq, yes. Yet, the last dedicated anti-war demonstration dedicated to Afghanistan, I saw 10 people... Maybe 12.

Perhaps there is a reason for this... Gee, there must be. And nope, it was a nice day that Gen Hillier was speaking. So, can't blame the weather.

EDIT TO FIX QUOTES

[ 27 April 2006: Message edited by: Reason ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

During the Soviet occupation, the entire nation rose up. This is not the case now. Now, it is a bunch of Taliban terrorists. Who do not even represent thwe Pashtu tribes they come from.

---

The early stages of the soviet occupation were indistinguishable from the current status of the US occupation.

And yeah, the Soviets uttered exactly the same excuses--"it's just a few bandits hiding in the hills, the ordinary people love us!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

The early stages of the soviet occupation were indistinguishable from the current status of the US occupation.

And yeah, the Soviets uttered exactly the same excuses--"it's just a few bandits hiding in the hills, the ordinary people love us!"

Bullshit.

---

You must be right, sitting there at your desk. Meanwhile, my friends walking around Khandahar must be wrong. Guess I have to change my whole chain of thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

Guess I have to change my whole chain of thought.

Whoops, what was I thinking. Not going to happen.

---

quote:

---

Reason:
Lastly, as ,much as you like to beleive that the Afghans love the Taliban....

---

I think that he said tolerate which is a far cry from love. Are you disputing that Afghanis in the Taliban controlled areas tolerated the Taliban?

quote:

---

We are building the trust. Like it or not, and completely contrary to your beleifs, we are there to do good, and we are doing good.

---

There are many levels of good. I don't doubt for a moment that on a small personal level, project to project, village to village, a lot of "good" is being done. Been there, done that. I don't doubt that most people at the middle and lower echelons have nothing but goodness in their heart and a sincere intention to do good.

The question remains, does it all add up to a greater good, or is the relative good we do today at best futile if not outright counter productive in the larger picture, and will the lives and resources squandered in the process be worth it?

For those in the upper echelons I have no doubt that they are doing whatever they can to maximize their own advantage, good and evil are not moral considerations for them, only tactical ones. The do-gooders of course get to pay the price regardless.

quote:

---

The vast majority oppose the war in Iraq, yes. Yet, the last dedicated anti-war demonstration dedicated to Afghanistan, I saw 10 people... Maybe 12.

---

Absence of demonstrations is not proof of support. Maybe it is an indication of indifference. Polls at one time were showing public opinion against the involvement before the big propaganda push by the government. If the casualty count starts to rise I suspect the level of support will drop.

quote:

---

You must be right, sitting there at your desk. Meanwhile, my friends walking around Khandahar must be wrong. Guess I have to change my whole chain of thought.

---

Actually, how much special knowledge would one gain from walking around Khandahar about the history of the Soviet adventure compared to one who studied the reports and documents from the time?

Neither S1mOn's argument nor your rebuttal have much weight without citations to verifiable and academically reliable sources.

In my experience troops on the ground know a whole lot about the official line of propaganda which many treat as absolute truth.

Of course troops on the ground know for sure that kids like candy and other treats, where to find booze and how much a hooker costs if any are available. They may also think that they know that they have friends, though it would be a mistake to trust that knowledge too much.

I note in your responses a hostility to the Soviet intervention, why is that when the Soviets were supporting a government opposed to the same religious nut-bars and cultural Neanderthals that we are now supposedly trying to save the country from. I guess on difference is that we have split the Neanderthals and now some of those regressive cretins are our allies.

Since we are giving a lot of creedence to "on the ground" observations from Afghanistan, here is one from an anti-Taliban Afghani perspective:

quote:

---

Fourteen years have passed from the gloomy day of 28th April 1992, but our nation is being caught tighter day by day around the ankles of those who caused the pain, mourning and destruction in our land. Traitors, country-betrayers, and dark minds are in control of our nation’s fate and our country is sunk in calamities. Mr. Karzai and his foreign guardians, who have invested in fundamentalists for many years, today have given key posts in the executive, legislation and judiciary branches of government, to the most infamous and bloody elements of the Northern Alliance and other savage bands. With the passage of time, the ring of these traitors is increasing. The evil men who caused the 28th April tragedy, instead of being sued, have so much authority in the country that through the parliament they shamelessly announce this infelicitous day as a public holiday. In this manner they ridicule the people, the majority of who, according to a survey of national and international human rights defending organizations, want the prosecution and punishment of these national traitors.

Through the installation of Mr. Karzai government, our people had hoped to see the slightest positive changes in their life, but today the anti-nation policies of authorities and their foreign masters exhibit the real and anti-nation face of the government that converted this hope into disappointment and abhorrence. Mr. Karzai and his Afghan and foreign advisers have shown conspicuously that they are ready to shake hands in friendship with the filthiest individuals and parties, who now wear the bogus mask of democracy on their nasty faces. They have gone even further by giving a share of the authority to the Taliban and the terrorist and misogynist party of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Thus, for all practical purposes, they have not left any cruel and traitorous person or group out of the government mechanism. Mr. Karzai calls this kind of traitor-fondling “National Unity” but for our people it doesn’t have any other meaning other than dirtying the “Unity”.

After the ironic and fraudulent election in which around 80% of the parliamentary seats were given to the most evil enemies of our people, now they want to impose a cabinet that contains criminal, reactionary, collaborator elements that are alien to the suffering of people. Predictably, Mr. Karzai and his cabinet relied on traitorous criminals and in return the warlords and drug lords voted for them. This is not pride but abject shame for Karzai and his partners.

The circumstances of the last four years in our ill-fated country has taught a lesson to our people, that for liberation from vultures like Sayyaf, Qanoni, Muhaqiq, Rabbani, Ismail, Dustom, Khalili, Mujadidi, and Khaliqi and Parchami footmen, and interference of foreign countries, they have no other option but to come together around freedom-loving and democratic organizations, and with their thunderous strength throw away the religious criminals from power. No demon has the power to stand against the strength of the masses for long.

Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) has repeatedly mentioned that the freedom and prosperity of our people can only be substantiated by themselves and no xenophilous force or foreign power can be the messenger of peace and security in our country. One must be dedicated wholly with no collaboration and conservativeness. This is the only essential standard for any enthusiastic and honest person or group claiming to be patriotic and freedom loving.

Link

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Lots of interesting stuff here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

Yeah, that's right - you can't learn anything because you are tenacious!

---

quote:

---

Reason:
The people always "tolerate" people that are killing them...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Always? That is a pretty wild and inaccurate statement. If it were true there would never have ever been any rebellions in the world. Anyhow, the original point was that one can not equate toleration, no matter how coerced, with love, which it seems was happening here in a previous rebuttal of yours.

---

quote:

---

Reason:
Ask an Afghan what they think of the Taliban next time you get a chance to.

---

And your point is?

I suppose that it would depend upon which Afghan one asked. We certainly know what the women of RAWA think of them, and they speak for Afghanis more than any westerner. But that is irrelevant to the issue of whether they were tolerated in certain areas or not. People tolerate a lot of things that they do not like.

Of course we could play a lot of ask and Afghan games:

Ask one what they think about women's lib and the right of women to run around town in a bikini.

Ask what they think about freedom of religion and the right of people to establish houses of worship and preach to the public beliefs other than Islam.

Ask what they think about freedom of speech and the right to criticize, and satirize even historical figures like Mohammed.

Ask.... etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

"of course we could play a lot of ask and Afghan games:

Ask one what they think about women's lib and the right of women to run around town in a bikini.

Ask what they think about freedom of religion and the right of people to establish houses of worship and preach to the public beliefs other than Islam.

Ask what they think about freedom of speech and the right to criticize, and satirize even historical figures like Mohammed.

Ask.... etc.

Should we be supporting people who will not support these freedoms that we hold to be important?

---

But this is a two edged argument, no? If the foreign forces in Afghanistan were really agents of "western Imperialism" as some claim, would they not be attempting to change these Afghani values and practices you mention?

[ 27 April 2006: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:

If the foreign forces in Afghanistan were really agents of "western Imperialism" as some claim, would they not be attempting to change these Afghani values and practices you mention?

---

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
But this is a two edged argument, no? If the foreign forces in Afghanistan were really agents of "western Imperialism" as some claim, would they not be attempting to change these Afghani values and practices you mention?

---

Not necessarily. Imperialism is about profit and control. Westerners have tolerated and even encouraged and created some pretty odious regimes around the world inorder to enhance their access to both.

One of the ironies of US imperialism is that it often supports methods and practices that fly in the face of its own professed ideals. This was one of the key elements of the 60s revolt when the young idealists woke up and found that all that they had been taught about freedom and democracy and such was more window dressing than reality when it ran up against economic and political interests.

In those years we had people getting in trouble for circulating copies of the Declaration of Independence in the US, one of that country's most sacred documents.

Back to the mess in Afghanistan. To make real change there, at least if we value those things that we say we are valuing such as women's rights and freedom of speech and religion and using as an example of why we are in Afghanistan, there will have to be a pretty radical change in the culture.

The stated reasons for the US to invade and occupy Afghanistan was the presumed guilt of the Al Queda faction and bases operating in the country.

Dare I speak that there is some evidence that some in the Taliban government were more than willing to hand Osama and his crew over to the Hague and even to the Americans courts.

But we all know that the US response to 9/11 was not to marshal a case of massive criminal conspiracy and then have the defendents tried and convicted under international statutes.

That was never in the cards. Period. And then the steamroller got into high gear.

What did happen is it launched a worldwide string of American-run gulags, the Bush Doctrine, direct legal and constitutional threats to civil liberties under the aegis of 'security', an all-out occupation of a second ME country where over 100,000 people were killed, possible expansion to a third country right in the middle of the two already occupied countries...

and...and

there are still people spinning desparately the 'freedom,©' crap about how we are liberating the Afghanis and shit...too much

Look Canadian troops, at present time, are ONLY the harem enunchs protecting the Mayor of Kabul, which is the former oil and gas executive(UNOCAL). The other guy they could have been protecting was another former Afghani-American Zalmay Khalilzad, who is now, the US Ambassador to Iraq.

Canada's job there is to make sure this guy brings enough stability to the PART of the country the pipeline is running through...not to bring freedom to Afghani woman so they can wear nail polish (Rendon Group!)...

If we westerners cared about that freedom stuff, we would be considering Azerjiban, Sudan, Belorussia, Nepal (right now), Zimbabwe, etc where we could do something a little less ambitious like save lives--BUT no!...we have to be Empire builders and bring 'peace' and occupation and violence to Afghanistan.

With Afghanistan, there ain't gonna be any great change in values that would please Canadians. That's the whole point. I'll bet you the soldiers over there could tell you in a New York minute how impossible such a culture change would be. We are giving the Afghani people a chance to develop their own peaceful nation, and it won't look like most others, ever. Homosexuals will be persecuted, women will be veiled, etc. etc... sorry, it's their country, not ours. Parenthetically, I met American and Canadian women who lived in Islamic countries who reported that from the Islamic woman's point of view, they enjoyed more real freedom and power in their culture than western women do, so again we have to be careful in our cultural assumptions. Some things are clearly wrong everywhere, all the time. Some other things are not so clear. I am deeply impressed by the cultural respect I believe our Canadian forces are bringing to the mission if Afghanistan. I think they know the difference between the things they can change and the things they cannot.

"This will not happen by military force, at least not in a good way, and must be driven by Afghans free of the burden of foreign troops propping up what can easily be characterized as a puppet government whether it is or not."

quote:

---

Fear-ah:
Why are the Afghani people being brought into any of this?

---

Because it is a saleable excuse.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
what kind of salmon?

---

Chinook

quote:

---

But would you agree with me that in recent times, post WWll, certainly, that most western nations have behaved rather responsibly and humanely and that by far the most egregious violations of law and morality have been perpetrated by America? So don't conflate "western" with US.

---

Not always, I can think of the French in Vietnam and Algeria just for starters, and I won't go into the collapse of Brittsh, Portugese, Belgian and other colonies post WWII, not all of which happened in an atmosphere of sweetness and light.

I will agree that the US has been the most egregious violater amongst the western powers, but then it is the biggest kid on the block and has assumed the role of protector of western corporate interests in our trans-national, globalized economy.

quote:

---

We're talking about the US's crimes here, not those of western nations generally.

---

Of course, but the other nations are often accomplices and accessories.

quote:

---

With Afghanistan, there ain't gonna be any great change in values that would please Canadians.

---

At least not the way we are going about it, which has been one of my points all along. Of course this does not stop the smiley faces from talking BS about it. Lets hear the Prime Minister and the Generals speak the truth and say in public that we are not going to free women from their bondage, or bring basic human rights to the country, just kill everyone who gets in our way until the place is pacified.

quote:

---

We are giving the Afghani people a chance to develop their own peaceful nation,....

---

We have taken sides in tribal warfare. Peace will come when one side or the other is bled out.

quote:

---

Homosexuals will be persecuted, women will be veiled, etc. etc... sorry, it's their country, not ours.

---

That is OK if one does not believe in the UDHR and universal values. The same argument could have been made for supporting German persecution of the Jews.

quote:

---

It's not just the US in Afghanistan anymore, it's the whole world, and Canada is leading the way in a very challenging mission.

---

Only part of the world, and they would not be there had it not been for the US in the first place. Afghanistan is a safer place to curry US favour than the mess in Iraq.

I would feel better about our role if Canadians started openly investigating war crimes there, including the massacre at Mazar, and we started seeing those responsible, including US troops being taken into custody by Canadian Forces and shipped to the ICC for trial.

Then you might have a case to say that we were leading the way and not being an accessory to what you already agree is a rogue regime.

quote:

---

Well the whole point here is to see if we can build up the Afghani police and security apparatus to the point where we can get out.

---

Hmmm, like building up the ARVN until we could get out or the Iraqi forces for the same purpose? The same thinking has worked somewhat in Latin America with the copious application of death squads, although there have been some notable setbacks, and more probably on the horizon.

Of course our government has avoided laying out in specifics exactly why we are there or what we hope to accomplish or how we will know its over or the answers to a number of other concerns. The questions have been asked in Parliament, the formal and detailed replies seem to be lacking.

I point again to what the anti-Taliban Afghan women's group RAWA is saying:

That died the day we saw this:

But february made me shiver
With every paper I’d deliver.
Bad news on the doorstep;
I couldn’t take one more step.

I can’t remember if I cried
When I read about his widowed bride,
But something touched me deep inside
The day the music died.

So bye-bye, miss american pie.Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
And them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
Singin’, "this’ll be the day that I die.
"this’ll be the day that I die."

[ 27 April 2006: Message edited by: Fear-ah ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:

But this is a two edged argument, no? If the foreign forces in Afghanistan were really agents of "western Imperialism" as some claim, would they not be attempting to change these Afghani values and practices you mention?

---

No. Why would you think that? Successful empires from the Romans to the Brits have flourished by leaving local norms in place.

~~

You argument works backwards: it's only when attempting to use the "conquering them for their own good" cover story that empires have found it necessary to start doing good, whether the excuse was the imperative to teach them about Jesus or about democracy.

[ 28 April 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]

[ 28 April 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:
Here's the logic:
There's no logical connection between my statemnet and your supposed refutation. Yeah, the Taliban did all these things. However, they also brought peace, and the southern Afghan people decided that peace, even an oppressive fundamentalist peace, was preferable to war.

So they tolerated the Taliban.

---

It's almost clear to me now, S1m0n. The Afghani's who were left behind, meaning those who couldn't flee Afghanistan when CIA-backed fundamentalists turned U.S.-funded weaponry on each other and civilians, had no choice in the matter. The Taliban were less a legitimate government than the Soviet-backed PDPA was.

And again, people like bin Laden, Gulbeddin Hekmatyar and several more received over half a billion dollars a year each in covert CIA funding from 1980 to 1992. In fact, CIA operation 'Cyclone', cost several billion dollars more than 'operation Condor', another expansive war waged on poor people in Latin America when paid mercenaries criss-crossed borders to terrorize people living in abject poverty. I think the Pentagon and CIA had a vested interest in the Taliban for some time. The US ambassador suggested to the Lion of Panjir, Ahmed Shah Massood, that he surrender to the Taliban. But Massood had plenty of fight left in him and reserved especially for Gulby Hekmatyar and the Taliban.

The Islamo-fascist Taliban were terrible. They held public executions of women in Kabul's football stadium a la fascists in Chile. Women were raped and killed while standing at bus stops. They were buried alive for wearing nail polish. Perhaps they weren't as bad on some level compared with other militant Islam factions. But you're right, I think there comes a time when poor people hit the wall as far as oppressive rule is concerned. Sometimes there's just nothing in reserve, no will to pursue revolution, Marxism, women's rights, land reform, basic human rights in general - the butterfly effect as the source of a cyclone and the beginning of western "concern" for Afghani's from the very beginning.

The Taliban ideology is no more indigenous to Afghanistan than it was for Pakistan. They were a terrorist regime. At least the Islamo-Marxists who started the Afghani revolution against imperialism were born in that country.

Add the Saudi-Arabs and Taliban ideology to that timeless list of tribes unsucessful in conquering Afghanistan and Pakistan until now.

[ 28 April 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

They were a terrorist regime.

---

You were doing so well. "Terrorist regime" is a meaningless term, or rather, it's meaning is "we don't like them".

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

You were doing so well. "Terrorist regime" is a meaningless term, or rather, it's meaning is "we don't like them".

There is no objective definition of terrorist capable for sorting our friends from our enemies from ourseves.

---

Well, actually, terrorist regime fits perfectly in the case of the Taliban, as they activly employed the tactics of terror to keep Afghans in line. I am really starting to beleive that you are not an anti-war guy, but rather a Talib. Only way to explain your circular arguements you like to engage in and your hearty support for our generations most brutal, and horrific regime.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fear-ah:
Why are the Afghani people being brought into any of this?

---

Once again, what is your facination with Afghan currency? I mean really. The Afghani is practically worthless in western countries. The currency of choice in Afghanistan is actually the American green back, or Euro.

Now, if in your ignorance, you meant Afghans (Afghani = currency, Afghan = people), then the reson why they are brought up is we are in Afghanistan, and our policies and work there directly affects Afghans.

The fallacy of the left in this arguement, is you will continue to claim we have dehumanized Afghans, and that we do not care about them. This is a LIE. This lie is built on nothing more then your understanding of military personnel wich you have gained expertly from watching American movies.

We do care very much about Afghans. There is a huge difference between Afghans, and Taliban. Until you decide to study this, and learn exactly what a Talib is, you will not understand the crux of the debate, nor will you understand the responsibility that 32 nations have taken on to help Afghanistan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Brett, isn't this some weird kind of sophistry? Because the invaders of Afghanistan allow the most backward feudal aspects of the culture to flourish, that means they're not really imperialists? What are they, anthropologists?

---

Things never change over night. Ever. How long did it take women to get the vote in NA? How long after slavery was abolished in NA did segregation finally get abolished? No one has a magic wand to wave, and make everything all right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

Well, actually, terrorist regime fits perfectly in the case of the Taliban, as they activly employed the tactics of terror to keep Afghans in line. I am really starting to beleive that you are not an anti-war guy, but rather a Talib. Only way to explain your circular arguements you like to engage in and your hearty support for our generations most brutal, and horrific regime.

---

OK. Please explain the enormous distinctions between the tactics of our allies, the Mujahadeen (which included the Taliban) and our allies the Northern Alliance (including general Rashid Dostum, who massacred nearly 3,000 of his prisoners with the assistance of US special forces in the early days of the war) or our friend (and then enemy) the president of Azarbaijan, who's been boiling the opposition alive) and those of our enemies, the Taliban.

Because they're all using the SAME tactics, and whether we call them friends or enemies has nothing at all to do with the way they govern, and everything to do with power politics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

OK. Please explain the enormous distinctions between the tactics of our allies, the Mujahadeen (which included the Taliban) and our allies the Northern Alliance (including general Rashid Dostum, who massacred nearly 3,000 of his prisoners with the assistance of US special forces in the early days of the war) or our friend (and then enemy) the president of Azarbaijan, who's been boiling the opposition alive) and those of our enemies, the Taliban.

Because they're all using the SAME tactics, and whether we call them friends or enemies has nothing at all to do with the way they govern, and everything to do with power politics.

But go ahead: you're clear that the taliban are a terrorist regime, so there must be a difference between what they did and what everyone else in the area does, including our friends. What's that difference, exactly?

---

Is the music ever gonna stop on this merry go round?

So, you admit that the Taliban was/is a terrorist regime. Now you are making progress.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

---

Once again, what is your facination with Afghan currency?
You start your rebuttle with what you think is a typo? You can't be that stupid can you?

and our policies and work there directly affects Afghans.
Yeah we are killing them...

The fallacy of the left in this arguement, is you will continue to claim we have dehumanized Afghans, and that we do not care about them.

NO--the fallacy is people believing that war, death, instabilty and destruction could possibly be a prelude to stability, democratic norms and justice.

The LEFT is the one critizing the 'dehumanization' and want the troops to pull out? There is no moral quandry for us--the moral quandry is warmongers trying to convince people of their good intentions. Why would you even bring the Left and it's 'responsibility' into any of this? Leftwing people are not actually doing any of this...?

This is a LIE.
no it's not...there is huge wealth of material on this subject of massacre, torture, economic critiques, rendition, loss of civil rights under the various homeland security acts, warlords in the Afghani cabinet, former Taliban officials rehabilitated and given amnesty, former Taliban officials getting scholarships to Yale, etc.

This lie is built on nothing more then your understanding of military personnel wich you have gained expertly from watching American movies.

Which American movies portray military personnel as 'imperialist aggressors'? Green Berets, Black Hawk Down, Heartbreak Ridge, Red Dawn...? Are you living on the same planet? what the hell are you talking about?

Until you decide to study this, and learn exactly what a Talib is, you will not understand the crux of the debate, nor will you understand the responsibility that 32 nations have taken on to help Afghanistan.
I am far more familar with the History of Afghanistan that you could ever even conceive...that's why I wrote what I did--remember.
In fact in Northern Afghanistan, they weren't even converted to Islam until the 70s; they was still widespread animists.
Your forgetting the fact that if the Taliban (fundamentalist Islam) were the problem, then why did the US go and arm all these guys under Al Haig's 'Green Belt' Strategy.
If you recall, Osama and his pals were still being supported by the US in Bosnia as late as 2000?
If you recall, it was the US drug tsar only months before the invasion that gave the Taliban an award with financial aid because of the 'heck of job, Tali' was doing with drug interdiction.
If you recall, officials of the Taliban government met with Cheney's Energy Board pals in Crawford to discuss a pipeline.
So since we didn't really care about the Afghani people when we backed and armed the Mujaheeden and the Taliban, what has changed in our compassionate worldview exactly? Like I suggest, we don't care about anything but 'resource' extraction.

Can we really lay off on the pipe question? The pipline profits Russia. Not NATO.
Well no...just because it's not helpful for your argument, I think we'll keep it on the table, since it is still on Shrub's table--in fact, the Bush administration is threatening Pakistan and India at the moment OVER the alternative pipeline that would benefit Russia, Iran, China etc.

To belabour this point:

In November 1996 Raphel told a closed meeting of UN diplomats to work with the Taliban: "It is not in the interests of Afghanistan or any of us here that the Taliban be isolated" (Rashid, 178). A US diplomat told Ahmed Rashid two months later that "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco, pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that" (Rashid, 179).

US news stories corroborated the interest of present and former diplomats (including Henry Kissinger) in encouraging a US-Taliban agreement for a pipeline across Afghanistan, partly to preempt alternative plans for a pipeline out of Turkmenistan via Iran.

It is not about the pipline, it is about preventing Afghanistan from returning to failed state status.
Proof? I watch TV as well...you'll have to go a bit beyond that for the purposes of this discussion?

Preventing Afghanistan from turning into another Somalia. (But then, I guees you want Afghanistan to turn into another Somalia)

What the hell does Somalia have to do with anything? Bad form, old chap--if your looking for a fucked up unstable country to make an comparison with; look south....former oil executives are running that 'terror' regime as well ;-)

If you knew anything about this then you would KNOW that Afghanistan was perfectly stable for 50 years under their King Zahir Shah, who introduced a democratic constitution that excluded royal members in 1963.
Then a 'coup' was orchestrated in a royal family member at the urging of the US, concerned at the growing Soviet influence. Of course the Soviet connection was arms sales, as the US backed Pakistan and Pakistan had wanted the Pushtan regions back ever since Independence.
In fact in this period, the US backed many Pakistani 'independence' movements in order to conduct proxy wars against both India and Afghanistan.

The new 'western' monarch type waged a reign of terror, executing thousands, torturing many many more, that lasted until he was executed by the Saur Revoluntion in 1978, which was secular, democratic and gave all the Afghans any rights could ever have wanted--including the right to work!!
Then the US backed the fundamentalists...etc etc etc...

You don't remember any of this???
You never bother to look any of this up?
It's all public record dude?
We have consistently backed the worst possible terror regimes in Afghanistan for the last 30 years??
Gimme a fuckin' break...it's all public record, dude...??
I don't think I have to PROVE what our intentions really are, anywhere in the world --last time I looked we were a 'loud and proud' capitalist nation and we assist in making conditions for such capitalism in 'those' countries because as a nation and a culture, we think it's best...your TV telling you somethig different?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fear-ah:

Once again, what is your facination with Afghan currency?
You start your rebuttle with what you think is a typo? You can't be that stupid can you?

---

If you are going to pretend to speak for someone. You should first understand how to address that someone. Your ignorance on simple forms of address and the difference between Afghani (the currancy) and Afghan (the people) shows an utter contempt for the subject to which you write. Your further dismissal of this correction further demonstrates your utter contempt.

I am not going to pretend to like you Fear-ah. you are the one that said "4 out of 2200 is a good start" or words to that effect. I will get the exact quote on Mon, today, I have to go to work.

When you decide to actually study the situation, as opposed to your own opinion, then I will be willing to get into a long dreawn out debate with you. To date, you are running on supposition and hatred. You are blind.

EDIT TO ADD: On closer inspection, you claim to have "studied" Afghanistan. And yet you do not know how to address an Afghan? Good grief.

[ 28 April 2006: Message edited by: Reason ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

Is the music ever gonna stop on this merry go round?

So, you admit that the Taliban was/is a terrorist regime. Now you are making progress.

---

No, you're not. I asked you what the differences were. You can't even define your term, and you want to invent my agreement with it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

No, you're not. I asked you what the differences were. You can't even define your term, and you want to invent my agreement with it.

I'll ask again: What exactly do you think "terrorism" means? Be specific: terrorism is the commission of the acts of X and Y for the purpose of Z.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

Surely something like the boiling of human beings is in the news somewhere...

---

Sure. I'd mistaken the US ally; this story actually occurred in Uzbekistan (until recently a key US regional ally) rather than Azerbaijan.

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/rights/articles/eav021704.shtml

quote:

---

Avazov, 35, was a Hizb-ut-Tahrir member who, rights advocates maintain, was tortured to death in prison in August 2002. Prison authorities claimed Avazov died after fellow inmates spilled hot tea on him. But a forensic report, based on evidence studied by pathologists at Glasgow University, determined that Avazov had been immersed in boiling water. His body also showed signs of substantial bruising around his head and neck, and his fingernails were missing.

---

And here's a story about the UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who sacrificed his career because he couldn't stomach his government's complicity in supporting the Uzbekistan regime.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4000089.stm

quote:

---

A key Foreign Office (FCO) report has praised the suspended former ambassador to Uzbekistan for drawing attention to human rights abuses in the country.

Craig Murray highlighted the case of the imprisonment of the mother of a man apparently tortured to death with boiling water in 2002.

---

But hey, you actually know people in Kandahar, so your knowlege must be perfect.

[ 28 April 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

Terrorism is the act of creating terror to acheive a political aim... A la Taliban tactics.

---

And YOU accuse ME of circularity?

~~

OK, what's the difference, in your view, between this and "Shock and Awe"? What about Psyops? How about orange alerts?

[ 28 April 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

But hey, you actually know people in Kandahar, so your knowlege must be perfect.

[ 28 April 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]

---

No, not perfect, but a far cry from some crank such as yourself attempting to link this to the mission in Afghanistan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

No, not perfect, but a far cry from some crank such as yourself attempting to link this to the mission in Afghanistan.

I get real time info. The crap you are attempting to link, though true, does NOT LINK at all to the question of Afghanistan. Someone as "intelligent" as you should have figured this one out before hitting that button.

---

Nice try. The reason that the UK ambassador was being pressured to keep quite about the murderous regime was the presence of a major US airfield, a major US staging ground for the war in afghanistan in neighbouring Uzbekistan.

He was a necessary ally in the war on terror, despite being a much worse tyrant (and 'terrorist regime" by your definition) than the taliban we were ostensibly attacking for terrorism.

www.washingtonpost.com

quote:

---

U.S. Evicted From Air Base In Uzbekistan

By Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 30, 2005; Page A01

Uzbekistan formally evicted the United States yesterday from a military base that has served as a hub for combat and humanitarian missions to Afghanistan since shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Pentagon and State Department officials said yesterday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

If you are going to pretend to speak for someone. You should first understand how to address that someone.

[ 28 April 2006: Message edited by: Reason ]

---

I quoted YOU directly...and pointed out clearly where you are mistaken.

Not once do you even acknowledge in any of the other replies what people have been posting directly to your postings.

First you avoid answering anything with some childish point on grammar:

here right from Wikipedia:

1) Afghani- afghani is the currency used in Afghanistan.
2) Afghani- people are commonly referred to as "Afghani" in most South Asian languages such as Hindi and Urdu (the correct term in English is "Afghan").

Are you still going to insist I am wrong and that you are making a point that can be easily disproven by simple reference to thousands upon thousands of news articles--if you bother to read anything.

Does anyone, except yourself, THINK that your response to any of the replies would be any different?

Then you go on to tell everyone how stupid they are...huh?

Yeah your right--why would someone educated like me waste anymore time on somebody who is beyond the pale of human intelligence.

quote:

---

Reason:
(In response to Fear-ah) When you decide to actually study the situation, as opposed to your own opinion, then I will be willing to get into a long dreawn out debate with you.

---

This is funny given that Fear-ah laid out a list of facts on Afghanistan. Why not rebut his facts one at a time? This is not the first time that you have skipped over stuff that might shoot holes in your position and moved on to another topic or strawman.

quote:

---

Terrorism is the act of creating terror to acheive a political aim...

---

And it is a tactic widely used, including most frequently by some of our allies. By working with the US one condones the use of terror. This takes us back to the point that rather than being engaged in a war against terror we are engaged in a war between terrorists.

quote:

---

[
I get real time info.
/QUOTE]

And you trust it implicitly and think that there isn't anything other than what you get? I am quite familiar with "real time info" having worked with it at the highest security levels. You don't always get the whole story for one, and how you do interpret what you get is still a subjective exercise.

[QUOTE]
The crap you are attempting to link, though true, does NOT LINK at all to the question of Afghanistan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fear-ah:

I quoted YOU directly...and pointed out clearly where you are mistaken.

Not once do you even acknowledge in any of the other replies what people have been posting directly to your postings.

First you avoid answering anything with some childish point on grammar:

here right from Wikipedia:

1) Afghani- afghani is the currency used in Afghanistan.
2) Afghani- people are commonly referred to as "Afghani" in most South Asian languages such as Hindi and Urdu (the correct term in English is "Afghan").

---

My my, you are a blinding simplton eh? Well, REREAD YOUR QUOTE ABOVE. English is NOT a south east asian language. You eveen put the direct quote from wikipedia which states"(the correct term in English is "Afghan")"

To Afghans, it is not a childish point in grammer. And when you are claiming to speak for Afghans (which you do not... You are however clearly speaking for the Taliban).

quote:

---

Are you still going to insist I am wrong and that you are making a point that can be easily disproven by simple reference to thousands upon thousands of news articles--if you bother to read anything.

---

Really, thousands of news articles... and yet you link exactly ZERO. I read hundreds of news articles a month on the subject of Afghanistan, I get reports, and unofficial brief backs from friends currently there. None of which confirms a damned thing you are saying. NONE.
Does anyone, except yourself, THINK that your response to any of the replies would be any different?

quote:

---

Then you go on to tell everyone how stupid they are...huh?

---

Nope, just you and a few others.

quote:

---

Yeah your right--why would someone educated like me waste anymore time on somebody who is beyond the pale of human intelligence.

Foolishly thinking that the unsupported, grammically incorrect, gibberish you have been writing is little more than a mixture of cold war ideology and what George Jonas told you about the Arabs...is really a bit much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

That assumption is false. One hopes that it is not held by someone in the field of intelligence. You can not arrive at very good conclusions if you compartmentalize information and do not understand the complex relationships that exist between what is happening from one place to the next.

---

Um, I get my brief backs for my friends on the pointy end of the stick. In the field. Real time effects from Afghan locals, and the direct indicators of the effects of our CIMIC teams. CIMIC teams are the ones being targeted by Taliban insurgents. Not battle group elements. CIMIC teams.

By the way, CIMIC teams are not soft targets. They look and feel exactly the same as any other element leaving the gates in Afghanistan... Until they start speaking.

Use your "intelligence" back ground to tell me why CIMIC would be targeted specifically? Could it be because they are effective? Do you know what they are effective at?

Because the longer this thread's gone on, the more clear it is that you're reacting to 'impressions' of what everyone else might have said, rather than what they did say.

Your recent posts include a stream of comprehension errors, including:

1. taking my comment about your not being able to tell me from other posters, despite the fact that "s1m0n" is on all my posts as a demand that you reveal names of someone or something else.

2. Seeing the word "unsporting" and thinking it says "unsupporting".

3. Seeing in this: "2) Afghani- people are commonly referred to as "Afghani" in most South Asian languages such as Hindi and Urdu (the correct term in English is "Afghan")" a claim that English is a south asian language.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:
When you get angry you stop being able to take too much in, don't you?

Because the longer this thread's gone on, the more clear it is that you're reacting to 'impressions' of what everyone else might have said, rather than what they did say.

Your recent posts include a stream of comprehension errors, including:

1. taking my comment about your not being able to tell me from other posters, despite the fact that "s1m0n" is on all my posts as a demand that you reveal names of someone or something else.

2. Seeing the word "unsporting" and thinking it says "unsupporting".

3. Seeing in this: "2) Afghani- people are commonly referred to as "Afghani" in most South Asian languages such as Hindi and Urdu (the correct term in English is "Afghan")" a claim that English is a south asian language.

etc. I won't bother listing the rest, but it's clear to me that your comprehension is extremely inexact. You have little idea what's being said to you. I don't know if this is blind anger, or whether you're somehow stricken with a weird affliction, but it makes discussing anything with you more or less futile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Beautiful Mind of Reason:

My my, you are a blinding simplton eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fear-ah:

No...you suck!!

---

quote:

---

Reason:
Um, I get my brief backs for my friends on the pointy end of the stick....

---

And the point is? Your entire post in response to my paragraph that you quoted fails to address the point raised in it that what happens outside of Afghanistan can have a relation to what we are doing in Afghanistan. In a previous post you clearly indicated that events outside of Afghanistan, in this case Uzbekistan, were irrelevant.

As for the pointy end of the stick, I've been there and I have been on the receiving end of information from there too. Outside of very basic and narrow facts of observable events (the what, where and when) the pointy end of the stick is not necessarily the best or even a good indicator of what is happening in the bigger picture, and particularly may not be a good indicator of the why.

It is not unusual for soldiers to sincerely believe that they are doing X for reason Y even though after time and investigation it turns out that even though they were indoctrinated with Y the actual reason was Z. Ergo "I know why we are in Afghanistan because MCpl Soandso in Kandahar told me so" is a pretty leakey argument.

quote:

---

This is the basis of the lie that we are there to do harm. We are therre to help, at the individual soldier level, and at the strategic level.

---

There is no doubt that we doing those things, but doing them does not necessarily mean that is why we are there, it only means that they are some of the things that we do while we are there.

I am quite familiar with Hearts and Minds programs such as CIMIC, CA (Civil Affairs), Combined Action Platoons and so on. They are not reasons, they are tools, and they are in themselves not why we are there.

Are we there to do harm? One would hope not. Is our being there doing harm? Quite possibly and certainly debatable. Are we doing good? Hopefully in some way, but that is also debatable since things that are good in one way may support things that are not in another. The final answers may not be known for decades until the whole adventure can be placed in historical perspective.

quote:

---

Applying the lie of Iraq....

---

What exactly is the "lie of Iraq?" Did you mean the example of Iraq?

quote:

---

Rash Afghanistan mission produces corporate profits

By sid shniad

Publish Date: 27-Apr-2006

It is not unusual for invader-occupiers to describe their efforts as humanitarian initiatives. Britain, which waged three bloody wars to colonize Afghanistan, insisted throughout that it was supporting the country’s legitimate leaders against foreign interference.

Sixty years after the British left, the Soviets tried their hand at subduing Afghanistan. Years later, Nelofer Pazira, an Afghan author now living in Canada, travelled to Russia to interview Soviet officers who had fought in her country. These officers denied they had been part of an occupation. They firmly believed that theirs had been an effort to provide the country aid and stability.

In yet another intervention designed purely to help the people of Afghanistan, the Canadian military mission there is being expanded. Ottawa has spent more than $2 billion on the mission to date. More than 7,000 Canadian military personnel have served there during the past four years. In that time, Afghanistan has become a major focus of Canadian military and foreign policy.

Despite the Harper government’s sales job, Canadians appear skeptical about the merits of expanding the military venture. In February, a Globe and Mail/CTV poll found that 62 percent of Canadians opposed sending more troops to Afghanistan. A different poll, published in March by the Winnipeg Free Press, found that 83 percent of Canadians opposed expanding our military deployment there.

It’s essential to keep in mind that Canada’s effort in Afghanistan was initiated in the political environment that prevailed after 9/11. Like their American counterparts, important segments of this country’s corporate sector have jumped on the security bandwagon, promoting a sharp increase in the military’s influence over our politics and a beefed-up role for the arms industry in our economy. For example, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (formerly the Business Council on National Issues), whose membership includes almost 150 of the most powerful capitalists in Canada, is circulating a document entitled “North American Security and Prosperity” and argues for the creation of a “North American Defence Alliance”. According to the council, the United States is carrying a disproportionate part of the responsibility for protecting our continent. For the CEOs who make up the membership of the council, the fact that doing more to live up to Canada’s military “responsibilities” will provide their companies with lucrative investment and sales opportunities is strictly serendipitous....

Some people buy the government’s argument that Canada’s efforts are helping to bring democracy to Afghanistan. But is there reason to believe that the people who engineered the David Emerson affair are any more interested in bringing democracy to Afghanistan than they are in practising it here in Canada? Furthermore, in our excitement about the advent of formal democracy there, we should not forget that a substantial number of the members of the country’s parliament who were elected in the widely praised 2005 Afghan election are warlords.

Foreign governments are actively collaborating with these warlords. The latter control not only private armies but the production of opium in Afghanistan, which is the source of 87 percent of the world’s opium. Despite repeated promises from democracy promoters George W. Bush and Tony Blair that there would be substantial increases in foreign aid to deal with the plight of the war-ravaged country, such undertakings have been ignored in practice. As a result, a significant portion of the Afghan population has become dependent on opium production for their very survival. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, drugs generated 52 percent of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product in 2005.

As for the insufficient amount of aid that is being sent, it is being handled disastrously. Doctors Without Borders has withdrawn from Afghanistan, declaring that by dressing as civilians U.S. military personnel were undermining aid efforts. The soldiers’ behaviour—giving aid one day and attacking and killing the next—has served to discredit real aid workers in the eyes of Afghans, placing aid workers’ lives in danger....

International law obliges Canada to ensure that detainees are protected against torture, not only when they are transferred to Afghan custody but when they are sent onward to a third nation, such as the United States. Two reports released at a joint news conference held by Amnesty International and the Ottawa-based Polaris Institute this week, written by legal experts, explains that Canadian soldiers abiding by the terms of the Canada-Afghanistan prisoner-exchange agreement could be charged with war crimes in the International Criminal Court. Furthermore, if soldiers who transfer prisoners to another party even suspect that their captives could be abused or tortured, the troops and their commanders could face war-crimes charges.

Chief of Defence Staff Hillier recently announced that Canada’s mission in Afghanistan will require a commitment of at least 10 years....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

You were doing so well. "Terrorist regime" is a meaningless term, or rather, it's meaning is "we don't like them".

There is no objective definition of terrorist capable for sorting our friends from our enemies from ourseves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Ok then. From now on I'll refer to them as the politically expired, militant wing of the CIA's anti-communist jihad in Central Asia. But it's a mouthful.

---

quote:

---

As the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan in early 1989, American policymakers celebrated with champagne, while the country itself collapsed into virtual anarchy. Almost a quarter of the population was living in refugee camps and most of the country was in ruins. Different factions of the mujahideen struggled for power in the countryside, while the government of Muhammed Najibullah, the last Soviet-installed president controlled Kabul.

Eventually, in April 1992, Kabul fell to some of the mujahideen factions and Burhannudin Rabbani was de dared president, but civil war continued unabated. Hekmatyar in particular was dissatisfied with the new distribution 0 power. With his huge stock of U.S.-supplied weapons, h began an artillery and rocket assault on Kabul that lasted for almost three years, even after he was appointed prime minister in 1993. "The barrage...killed more than 10,000 Afghans [drove] hundreds of thousands into squalid refugee camps, created political chaos, and blocked millions of exiles from returning." The rest of the country disintegrated into isolated fiefdoms dominated by local warlords.

In 1994, a new group, the Taliban (Pashtun for "students"), emerged on the scene. Its members came from madrassas set up by the Pakistani government along the border and funded by the U.S., Britain, and the Saudis, where they had received theological indoctrination and military training. Thousands of young men-refugees and orphans from the war in Afghanistan-became the foot soldiers of this movement:
These boys were from a generation who had never seen their country at peace-an Afghanistan not at war with invaders and itself. They had no memories of their tribes, their elders, their neighbors nor the complex ethnic mix of peoples that made up their villages and their homeland. These boys were what the war had thrown up like the sea's surrender on the beach of history ...

---

[ 28 April 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

May 2nd CorpWatch event San Francisco

Investigative journalist Fariba Nawa has spent the last four years in Afghanistan detailing the bungled reconstruction effort, which the Bush administration touts as a success story. On Tuesday, May 2nd, Ms. Nawa and the Bay Area based non-profit CorpWatch will be rolling out the report, Afghanistan, Inc. at 111 Minna Gallery (at 2nd Street).

Fariba Nawa, an Afghan-American reporter returned to her native country to examine the progress of reconstruction. She uncovered examples of where the money has (and hasn’t) gone, how the system of international aid works (and doesn’t), and what it is really like in the villages and cities where outsiders are rebuilding the war-torn countryside.

At the 111 Minna Gallery event, Ms. Nawa and CorpWatch, Executive Director Pratap Chatterjee, who has just returned from Iraq himself, will reveal how some of the same politically connected corporations who are doing similar work in Iraq: Kellogg, Brown & Root (a subsidiary of Halliburton ), DynCorp, Blackwater, The Louis Berger Group and The Rendon Group are pocketing millions of dollars and why the Afghan people are increasingly frustrated and angry with the results.

With little or no competitive bidding on the contracts, Afghans see foreign engineers, consultants, and mercenaries make as much as $1,000 a day, while the locals they employ make $5 per day. They see a highway that is crumbling before it is finished, a school with a collapsed roof, a clinic with faulty plumbing and a farmers’ cooperative that farmers can’t use. Basic security is still not in place although high-priced foreign “experts” trained Afghan police and military.

After the journalists provide a picture of the reconstruction, the Afghan musician, Tameem will take us on another journey fusing Eastern and Western sounds; his compositions use verses by many of the great Persian poets, Rumi, Hafiz, Attar and the twentieth century woman poet Forough. Tameem’s unique sound has been influenced by his teachers, Ustad Zakir Hussain, the master percussionist of India and the Afghan master Naseem Khan.

---

quote:

---

TIM RIPLEY

BRITISH Army commanders formally took over responsibility for Afghanistan's lawless Helmand province yesterday as Britain's strategy to eradicate opium production and defeat Taleban insurgents was criticised as "doomed to failure".

A report published by the Senlis Council, an independent think tank that monitors Afghanistan's drugs trade, paints a depressing picture of the prospects for the deployment of 3,300 British troops to southern Afghanistan later this month.

It says previous efforts to eradicate poppy farming in the province have fuelled the insurgency that is threatening to overwhelm the Kabul government's control of the lawless region.

Most controversially, it recommends that forced eradication should be replaced by the legal cultivation of poppies for use in legitimate painkilling drugs, such as morphine. The leading producers of legal opium are currently India and Australia.

Serious violence flared in Helmand this weekend as Canadian troops killed up to 20 Taleban fighters who were preparing to ambush a military convoy.

The Defence Secretary, John Reid, visited Helmand's provincial capital, Lashkar Gar, last week. He reaffirmed British support for Kabul's efforts to clamp down on opium production and build up Afghan security forces in the province to counter Islamic insurgents loyal to the old Taleban regime.

Britain has been leading international efforts to counter the drugs trade in Afghanistan since 2002.

But the Senlis Council is pessimistic about the prospects of British troops. After a field visit to Helmand earlier this year, the council reported that opium was the only cash crop in Helmand, generating 50 per cent of the total economic income of the province's population.

---