Afghanistan

Admin

rokka wrote:

Well, if we were to do it in your language, it would be a short discussion. I have a great fondness for Husqvarna motorcycles (except they're not made in Sweden anymore), Husqvarna rifles, and the 84mm Carl Gustav... don't speak a word of the language.

Quote :

While Sweden is not a NATO member, you do have commitments to NATO - just as NATO has commitments to you. You are correct it is the Partnership For Peace - which also involves the security of Sweden if attacked. That includes NATO coming to Sweden's defense. This might be a language issue we have going here.

Anyways, the point is not to discuss Sweden, but the fact there are two groups of countries in general - one doing all the heavy lifting (and the dying), and the second group walking the easy road, with little risk and cost.

Quote :

Indeed. So what is the net collective gain when you spend thousands to educate Afghan women (for example), only to have them hung from a soccer goal post because nobody wanted any part of the "guns" part of the guns or butter issue?

Where is the success story in pouring billions in aid money into people who are essentially walking dead?

I am not beginning to suggest that all aid money is wasted, but the security aspect of aid to other countries - or the threat of retribution for wrongdoing - never seems to get a lot of credit.

Quote :

That back side is being accepted and suffered alike by other countries who certainly aren't superpowers. Canada in particular, but also the Netherlands and Australia as just some examples.

Quote :

Given who is willing to take on the heavy lifting and risk, I think it is safe to say that soldiers not only from the US but from Canada, Britain, etc know they are considerably more at risk than soldiers from Nordic countries who are reluctant to put their troops anywhere there will be actual and sustained combat. Which makes it easier for governments to participate when they know the chances of losses will be unlikely. And easier for a population to feel they are showing resolve when really there is little hardship and risk associated.

Quote :

The vast majority of the world didn't suffer a 9/11. The vast majority of the world also had the advantage of judging the US from the safety of the sidelines. After all, Sweden and the other Nordic countries could feel quite comfortable in knowing that, if Iraq DID in fact have a suitcase nuke or biological weapon, they weren't going to be buying a ticket to Stockholm.

It's a lot easier to decide how to respond to possible risk when the risk is to the other guy, and you're nice and safe on the sidelines, isn't it?

I kind of suspect the Bush administration didn't harbour any illusions about how concerned the rest of the world was about their safety when making their decision.

Quote :

It isn't cowardice; it's just being politically smart. When you can give your population the illusion that they're part of the effort while ensuring at the same time they'll never have to pay their share of the butcher's bill, that's a good move on any government's part. Sweden's role in the PRT isn't about tying up Taliban forces in the first place, and if it was, a country like the US, Canada, Britain, etc would only have to mobilize four companies to do the same job - not even a battalion.

And again, it isn't Sweden versus the US or whatever. It is about the countries that are wading into it and getting on with the job, and the other group of countries that flits around on the edges taking on nothing but the relatively safe and secure work. If you couldn't find countries to go and do the dangerous work and fighting in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, would ISAF even still be around?

Quote :

Which brings up the concept that you might not have a treaty obligation to get involved anywhere in the world, but how about a moral obligation?

Quote :

Here's a thought for you: Maybe Swedish governments are afraid to carry their share of the load because they're afraid of making a mistake like Bush did and then being called by the rest of the world liars, killers, etc? So just play it safe, even while watching a Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia and Croatia in 92/93/94?

Quote :

So... the US needs to have their troops fight and die in other parts of the world. But only when they have the approval of countries like Sweden who WON'T put their troops in other parts of the world to fight and die?

Do you see a central problem with that? And why no US president should feel the need to get a thumbs up from Sweden or any other country who won't lead by example?

Quote :

Yep. They were one of the biggest proponents of the Yugoslavia mission - but couldn't send troops to take part in that. Not unfamiliar with their issues.

Quote :

The term "intelligence failure" does not mean stupidity and it isn't an insult. Although I will note that a large part of the world doesn't have a problem with calling Bush dumb and uncivilized.

"Intelligence failure" means a failure in gathering all the necessary information, or in interpreting what information was available. The 9/11 attacks, for example, could have been relatively easily intercepted before they occurred except for an enormous intelligence failure on the part of the US intelligence community. Of course, just as some people deliberately believe Bush's reasons for going to Iraq were deliberate deception rather than an intelligence failure, others believe that 9/11 was planned and carried out by Bush rather than being an intelligence failure.

Other than that, my point is you didn't properly evaluate the information available before speaking to us, and in my opinion, neither did the Bush administration regarding Iraq. Occam's Razor... an error doesn't mean maliciousness.

Quote :

Indeed. It's a pity that the world's expectation that the US be willing to spend money and lives around the globe not include a little reasonable understanding - or at least an admission that there's a lot of good to go along with the mistakes.

Still, if Iraq is a thriving country in 20 years like the former Yugoslavia is now, I wonder if Bush will get credit or if that will go to somebody else?

Quote :

If Blix claims he said in 2003 that Iraq was not a threat, he, like Rockefeller, has changed his story. Another guy covering his ass, perhaps?

What I posted earlier regarding Blix was two direct quotes from a statement he gave. Blix at no time prior to the US invasion said he had 100% compliance or he was 100% sure there were no weapons of mass destruction. In his report on inspection to the UN two months before the US acted, he said "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the
disarmament." Blix's report said 8500 liters of anthrax were unaccounted for, along with 3000 pages of documents related to uranium enrichment programs. You can find the entire text of his report in the UN archives, and nowhere in there does it say anything about Iraq not presenting a threat.

In March, in his last report just two weeks before the US attack, Blix told the UN that cooperation with the UN was improving, but many disarmament questions remained unresolved. He said that more papers on anthrax, VX nerve gas and
missiles had recently been provided but he needed more time to study them. And he concluded with this:
"It is obvious that, while the numerous
initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to
resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as
'active,' or even 'proactive,' these initiatives 3-4 months into the new
resolution cannot be said to constitute 'immediate' cooperation. Nor
do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance."

Now where in those documents presented to the UN did Blix EVER state that Iraq was not a threat to the US? It seems to me he had his own questions at the time on whether Iraq was indeed free of WMDs or not. Those documents are all in the UN and other news archives, so I really would like to read the document where Blix told the UN and the US that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

It is fair ball for Sweden - or anybody - to say that George Bush should have taken what Blix and others said and decided that it would be reasonable to risk the population of the US to an attack by WMDs because the risk was really low. You're entitled to make a decision on whether Bush should have taken that gamble.

However, the fact is Blix NEVER made any statements that he was satisfied Iraq had no WMDs prior to the US attacking. And Blix wasn't the one responsible for the security of the US and it's citizens. If Blix wouldn't risk just his reputation to assure the UN that Iraq had no WMDs, why should Bush have risked the population of the US?

Seems to me Hans Blix may have some memory issues that a look of what he said back in 2003 might help to clear up. Maybe based on what he said back then about missing anthrax and lack of cooperation, we can get him to take part of the blame for the war?

Quote :

Oh, there's enough criticism to go around for both the Clinton and Bush administration and their intelligence communities for 9/11 happening in the first place, not just Iraq.

And we can probably hang a bit of blame on Hans Blix who was still voicing concerns about missing anthrax, missing documents on enriched uranium, etc as contributing to Bush's fears of what might happen to his country.

And the intelligence community badly dropped the ball in the information they provided to the Bush administration - and in some of the allied countries as well.

What I do take exception to is the automatic assumption that the Bush administration deliberately misled the world without any evidence to suggest the US was at risk. I take exception to claims that Blix told the UN and the US that Iraq was not a threat - when clearly, he did no such thing when you read the reports he put before the UN and the US in January and March of 2003.

In my view, Iraq was a mistake based on very sloppy intelligence work, a UN inspector that couldn't give assurances that there was no risk, and a President who had to ask himself if he had a sufficient degree of certainty that 300 million Americans were not at risk of an attack far, far more deadly and devastating than 9/11. There is a large difference between maliciousness and a mistake.

Quote :

I don't think that. And I continue to be impressed with your abilities to communicate in English.

Quote :

Nobody is suggesting you don't have the right to freedom of speech, although that is a little more limited on a forum. I don't think I've ever said "maybe you should shut up now", and I doubt you'll ever see me say that. I have certainly challenged your opinions, and I make no apology for that. And I do think that the US doesn't get a fair shake. And while Bush may not make the list of Best Ten Presidents, I don't think he gets a fair shake either. And I don't think that's right. Again, it is easy to sit in safety on the sidelines, with no responsibility, and pass judgement with few of the facts, a bunch of "facts" that aren't true, and say how it should have been.

Those committing genocide are not absolved of responsibility. My question is, what about those who just look on from the sidelines and won't intervene because of political expediency? Are they absolved because they weren't actually doing the killing, but only witnessing from the sidelines? Remember the lines about "All that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing"?

Quote :

Well, lucky you, you'll never have the safety of 300 million people as your responsibility in the aftermath of a 9/11 attack, and a myriad of conflicting information before you that you have to use to make a decision like that.

Living in Sweden does have its advantages...

Subject: Some one is resposible Sat Jul 24, 2010 2:57 am

I will not answer you in detail , but the word inteligence ,I can se it has a double meaning in English. It does not in the lanuages that I use every day. There fore a miss understanding.

We people of the western world are supposed to be the god guys. Maybe we are not in the case IRAK. In all conflicts where 1.2 million people died someone was responsible or held responsible in a court. I think that if a war crimes tribunal would take a look at the war in IRAK there would be an issue. But it will never happen and every body knows that. I think that it’s sad that the truth can only be applied on the week part in a war. And according to Geneva Convention article 4 the occupation force must protect the civilians in the occupied territories. I don’t think that happened in IRAK and that is why 1,2 million people died in a war that was started on faulse grounds. Living in USA as amiltary has its advantages.

Hope you got my point ant thanks for the debate .

Admin

rokka wrote:: [size=12]We people of the western world are supposed to be the god guys. Maybe we are not in the case IRAK. In all conflicts where 1.2 million people died someone was responsible or held responsible in a court. I think that if a war crimes tribunal would take a look at the war in IRAK there would be an issue. But it will never happen and every body knows that. I think that it’s sad that the truth can only be applied on the week part in a war. And according to Geneva Convention article 4 the occupation force must protect the civilians in the occupied territories. I don’t think that happened in IRAK and that is why 1,2 million people died in a war that was started on faulse grounds.

It is interesting that you keep throwing around this 1.2 million figure after referencing the Iraq Body Count project earlier. Their figures are less than 10% of the number you are repeatedly using - and their methodology is heavily criticised for being skewed.

Are we using the theory that, if we exaggerate enough, something will come of it?

The Geneva Convention does in fact require the military to do it's best to avoid civilian casualties, and the Coalition probably has failed in some instances to properly do that. However, the UN also says member nations have an obligation to act when genocide is taking place. So if you're so keen on a country's legal obligations, you might look inwardly and preoccupy yourself with why Sweden stood on the sidelines and just looked during Rwanda, Croatia/Bosnia, etc. Turning your back on deliberate murder is much worse than negligence in war while under fire. But of course, that's just my opinion.

You obviously think that the Iraq War was a deliberate, calculated lie. I believe it was a poor decision based on failures on the part of a lot of people, including Hans Blix - who now apparently claims he said Iraq was no threat, but in fact just days before the Coalition invaded, was submitting reports that said no such thing.

The essential thing here is that Afghanistan is really no different than Iraq in that the armchair quarterbacks of the nations will ignore their own history while attacking the US.

Sweden, for example, as part of buying their security from Germany in WWII, sold large amounts of machine parts and iron ore for the manufacture of weapons. How many US, Canadian, and British soldiers were killed with those war supplies, I wonder. Neutral Sweden permitted Nazi Germany to move troops through Sweden to launch Operation Barbarrosa - how many Russian Jews and Russians in general died because of that, I wonder? And at the end of the war, Sweden turned over detained German prisoners and Slavs to the Soviets, knowing damned well they would be sent to Siberian work camps. Few if any of those prisoners survived.

Now I'm sure Sweden had a good reason for aiding Nazi Germany and making a lucrative profit selling them war material. And I'm sure they had a good reason for meeting the Soviets' demands and giving them those German and Slav prisoners. The last thing they wanted was to give either the Nazis or the Soviet Union an excuse to attack them. So a few hundred thousand lives here and there for the security of Sweden and the Swedish people - especially when they aren't Swedish lives - is not a bad trade.

Pragmatically, I can see why the Swedes went along with that. What I don't understand is a few decades later, when the US invades a country that may have weapons of mass destruction in order to secure THEIR security, all of a sudden it's a war crime. It would make a lot more sense to me if Sweden (and all the other countries so in love with attacking the US) would preoccupy themselves with cleaning up their own dirt first before turning on the US for doing essentially the same thing. And maybe put a little skin in the game next time.

Quote :: Hope you got my point ant thanks for the debate .

As do I, and thank you as well.

Subject: Answer Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:56 pm

Quote :

I can go with the figures of serous Lancet: 665 000 dead

Quote :

I don’t think that I agree . I think that the killings is worse than to do nothing and Europ was a safe haven for thousand and thousands Yugoslavia’s.

Quote :: You obviously think that the Iraq War was a deliberate, calculated lie. I believe it was a poor decision based on failures on the part of a lot of people, including Hans Blix - who now apparently claims he said Iraq was no threat, but in fact just days before the Coalition invaded, was submitting reports that said no such thing.

I am not sure. As time goes by books and investigations will clear this. I am sure of that.

Quote :: The essential thing here is that Afghanistan is really no different than Iraq in that the armchair quarterbacks of the nations will ignore their own history while attacking the US.

The difference is that its decided by the parliament of the earth UN. There for supported by a majority of countries thru out the world. I am a democrat and I do believe democracy the best way to govern world countries cities family’s friends etc.

Quote :

Probably many allied soldiers where killed, Germany did what USA did against Pakistan if you don’t are with us you are against us. Actually I am a genetic Finn and don’t mind so much you punching Sweden. If Germany did not get the iron ore and machinparts from Sweden they would have come and get it, with no less death’s. How did Adolf Hitler finance he’s armies? by big lends form Roosevelt’s government and Nazi Germany bought enormous amounts of first-class matrl for Aeroplane making from US. How many allied Canadian American British soldiers where killed by armies financed by US. General electric Ford ITT IBM has been blamed for finance the third riche. It is said that family of Bush made a fortune on slave labour I Naziockupied Poland

German steel industri with Fritz Tyssen and Friedrich Flich builds upp vereinigete sthalwerke 5 witches bought ore from mains owned by family Bush. Great grandfather Prescott Bush is the connecting link between the mentioned shtalwerk that produced 50,8% of all steel I Nazi Germany. The workers in the mine came from Auswitch. The mines name was consolidated Silesian steel corporation. It was owned by Prescott Bush. I guess that money from here if it’s true where used when the big son’s became president.

Tony Rogers. "Heir to the Holocaust. Prescott Bush, 1,5 Million Dollars, and Auschwitz: How the Bush Family Welth is Linked to the Jewish Holocaust".

I think that the mechanism is the same in both case. Profit.

Quote :

As I said earlier Rokka as a person does not necessary agree with government polices. When It comes to cleaning dirt I think there are not a single swed that does not know of why and how we helpt NaziGermay. I think that the cleaning of dirt will be going on for the century to come world wide. If a war is a crime I think history will tell.

Subject: Re: Afghanistan Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:23 am

Rokka,

How do you do it? Do you translate to Swedish, read, re-write in English directly or do you read the English and respond in English? You are amazing.

Have you tried the Google translator? I use it for Spanish<>English frequently.

Hur gör du det? Vill du översätta till svenska, läsa, att skriva på engelska direkt eller vill du läsa engelska och svara på engelska? Du är fantastisk.

Har du provat Googles översättare? Jag använder det för spanska <> engelska ofta.

I used Google; is it readable?

[size=21]Jag använde Google. Är det readible?[/size]

Subject: Re: Afghanistan Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:03 am

Hey J,

If the President of the Council on Foreign Relations is a "pundit"; then what do you call the SecDef? the SecState? the POTUS? the Speaker of the House? the President of the Senate?

And while you are sharing such intimate details of your half vast knowledge... who are you and where do you call home? Rokka's 48 and lives in Sweden, I'm 70 and live in Taos, NM. I not only don't have red hair, I don't have much hair at all anymore...much less being anyone's step child.

If we're going to have these long winded discussions and tolerate your insults... it is only slightly fair that we know who is at the other end of the rope.

BTW, how do I get an umlott or however you spell it over an "a", like in Hager or an "o" like in Igor?

Maybe if the weather cools off where your are, you will also? It's in the low 40's here tonight and probably snowing in the mountains.

Subject: Re: Afghanistan Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:09 am

BTW #2: I really pleased today... I found an '08 Wrangler Sahara for a decent price so now I can tow the WRR trailer much further up the hill than last week when I had to use the car. I sold the old YJ about a month ago after 160,000 miles of faithful service. Bought it for $5K a long time ago and sold it for $4.5K.

Admin

rokka wrote:

Okay. So first you mention the IBC study. Then you switch to the Lancet because they come closest to matching the numbers you're throwing around. Fine.

One of the critics of the Lancet's methodoly is... the Iraq Body Count you originally referenced. They point out that a comparable survey, using a larger and better distributed sample base, came up with nowhere near that number. The Center For Research on the Epedemiology of Disasters - in Belgium - failed the survey in peer review because they said Burnham's numbers were inflated. Burnham was also found to have violated the AAPORs code of conduct and practices by refusing to disclose information and full methodology. The fact that the study has had a large part of its funding since the beginning from anti-war, anti-Republican billionaire George Soros might suggest to a few people it isn't exactly impartial. Would you have a problem with a counter study financed by Dick Cheney, or would you find that a little suspicious?

Suffice it to say there has been consistent criticism of the Lancet's study's since their inception. My own take on it goes something like this:

First, if you trust medical doctors to do statistical analysis, perhaps you should call a statistician the next time you're sick.

Second, find a war where you won't find "excess deaths" using the presumption the Lancet study uses. They compare deaths after the war began to deaths before. Duh... when you are fighting and killing enemy soldiers, yes, the death rate goes up. As it does within your military forces.

Third, including deaths due to terrorist bombings of Iraqis by other Iraqis as being the fault of the Coalition is a bit much.

Third, if this is about "excess deaths", can you refer me to where in the study the Lancet subtracts the number of lives saved by putting an end to Saddam's death squads? No, they didn't want to figure that in.

But, you've managed to cut back your figure by 50% from where you started, so I guess we'll take that as progress.

Quote :

Well, I might agree with you on that if I was from a country that had stood on the sidelines risking nothing and watching genocide since WWII. I'd certainly feel better about my homeland, that's for sure. But the point is, while you're condemning the US for violating the Geneva Convention, your own country has assisted the Nazis in genocide and continues to violate the UN charter concerning their obligation to intervene where genocide is taking place. Sweden isn't unique in doing that of course, but it seems to me you clean up your own dirt before criticizing the neighbors.

Your argument is, since Sweden provided a haven for thousands during WWII, that justifies helping the Nazis murder Russians in Operation Barbarossa, making a tidy profit selling the Germans war material to kill Americans, Canadians, British, etc with, and finally after the war, turning over interned Germans and Slavs to the Soviets to be worked to death. In other words I guess, the end justifies the means. I don't know if I agree with that, but I do know that's exactly the same claim the US could make regarding Iraq. Although, I do note that both Bush and Powell have clearly said it was a mistake they regret, while no apologies have ever been forthcoming from Sweden.

That doesn't exonerate the US of responsibility for mistakes. But to have countries like Sweden adopting a holier-than-thou attitude after their past actions and current inaction when genocide is occurring is a bit much. One would think that, if they really are that moral, they'd address their own acts and omissions before worrying about what other people are doing.

Quote :

Oh, there will be fortunes made writing books, my friend. The best sellers will probably be the conspiracy theories - they're really big in New Mexico. I do know that if you want to clear up what Hans Blix reported to the UN a few days before the US attack, versus what he is apparently claiming now regarding he said Iraq posed no threat, his report to the UN is a matter of public record and not hard to find and read at all.

Quote :

The UN is not the parliament of the earth, and thank God we are not to that point yet. We might be having a bit of a language difficulty here, but suffice it to say, when a single dissenting vote on the UN Security Council can kill a resolution, you don't have a parliament and you don't have a democracy.

The UN, incidentally, has repeatedly recognized the right of countries to act in self defense without their approval.

If you believe democracy is best, we could probably have an interesting discussion regarding whether you're willing to accept the tyranny of the masses. But I think we're putting a bit of a burden on you already. I lean more towards republics, myself, but they too have their shortcomings.

Quote :

Given the threat the Taliban pose to the government of Pakistan, I doubt they object too much to the US killing Taliban terrorists within their borders. We can have that discussion as well, if you like. Even the Left Thing press grudgingly admits that Pakistan is probably a willing ally of the US against the Taliban.

However, if Sweden aided and abetted genocide and aggressive warfare with the excuse of self defense, as a country it shouldn't be whining too loudly about what the US did in self defense in Iraq. You don't need a Lancet article to know that the Nazis' Operation Barbarossa killed many, many more Russians than ever will die in Iraq by whatever measure you want to use.

Again, this isn't about how nasty Sweden or any other country is. It's about pointing out that many of these countries so outraged about the US have done some pretty nasty and ugly things themselves in the past in their own defense and political self interest. And, when genocide is happening, they're invariably found sitting on the sidelines, doing nothing but watch and go "tsk, tsk".

Given that, I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest they clean up and make amends for their own dirt before worrying about what the neighbors are doing.

Quote :

Yes, Sweden traded the lives of Allied soldiers and Soviet soldiers and civilians for their national security from the Nazis. Then they traded the lives of German and Slav detainees to the Russians for their national security from the Soviets. No different than the US trading Iraqi lives for the security of Americans. You can choose "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", whatever you prefer. Lot of people and countries out there not much interested in observing that.

Quote :

Well, you'll find a large debate in any free country on any issue like that. I don't think you'll find many books written about countries like Sweden who have enabled genocide through their cooperation or lack of action, however. Boring. No market for it.

I wonder, however, how many of the Swedes, Fins, Danes, etc so busily condemning the US really give a good God damn that they're violating their UN obligations (not just moral obligations) by standing to one side and doing nothing but watch while genocide is taking place?

De Gaulle once said "A country does not have friends, only interests". And I think that sums it up nicely. The first job of any government is the freedom, safety, and wellbeing of its citizens. And of course, getting reelected is a close second. It is inevitable that countries will make decisions that result in bad things happening to other countries in protecting their nation, and equally inevitable that governments will make decisions that result in bad things happening to other people in protecting their ability to get reelected.

That's why the US went into Iraq. And that's why Sweden helped the Nazis out. The safety of their nation.

The public popularity contest is why Clinton obstructed efforts to intervene in Rwanda. And it's why Sweden has stood on the sidelines doing nothing during genocide and little when there is war. The safe route for the next election.

Both countries, on balance, do far more good in the world than they do evil.

Admin

taoshum wrote:: Hey J,

If the President of the Council on Foreign Relations is a "pundit";

Hey, ho-hum,

What else do you call somebody who can write an entire article about Afghanistan and never once mention that the terms of the mission - ISAF - are set by the UN Security Council Resolution and not the United States? What else do you call somebody who pisses and moans that we're losing, based on events on two provinces out of 34, and using his yardstick rather than the terms set out in ISAF?

Sounds like a pundit to me.
Pundit (def): a person who gives opinions in an authoritative fashion, usually through the mass media.

Quote :: then what do you call the SecDef? the SecState? the POTUS? the Speaker of the House? the President of the Senate?

Democrats? Socialists? Maybe at least one Marxist?

What do I call a guy that promised every bill would be given five days for reading before being passed? Well, apparently "liar" fits. If you want to discuss the current government further, start a new thread in Off Topic.

Quote :: And while you are sharing such intimate details of your half vast knowledge...

Saith the man who talks about how an inspired leader like Mandala or Gandhi could free Afghanistan, and yet just can't bring himself to explain how they would live even 24 hours among the Taliban . Epic fail. Next.

Quote :: who are you and where do you call home? Rokka's 48 and lives in Sweden, I'm 70 and live in Taos, NM.

I'm 55 and live in Montana. More?

I'm back serving in the military. After all, those who just talk and won't back that up aren't worth much, are they? And I've done tours overseas - I don't just babble on about places I've never actually been to, or a mission I've never actually served on.

Seeing as we're getting all intimate here, when was the last time you were overseas on a UN peacemaking mission like Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo - much less actually IN a country like that? If you can go to those places, spend years of your life on those tours, living among the people of those countries, and only have "half vast" knowledge about them, how much knowledge do you have if you've never set foot in them?

And, if you really want to get down to the nitty gritty, I have a degree in criminology and another degree in GIS (with Honours), specializing in geostatistical analysis. A wife with a Masters in Landscape Architecture that works doing restoration and park planning. A house on Montana and another one in Canada. We have a little geomatics/land use planning company that she does most of the work in these days.

Anything else you have a burning desire to know about me? Scars? Marks? Tattoos?

I have one for you. Have you decided whether you're going to quite playing "20 questions" on your end along with "I can't say" if anyone asks you anything? The neat thing about Rokka is you can have a discussion with him - he actually has the nads to be willing to back up what he posts. Which makes it interesting to discuss issues with him. You on the other hand... are beginning to circle the drain because you're definitely NOT interesting.

Quote :: If we're going to have these long winded discussions and tolerate your insults...

Oh, I am half vast hurt to the quick!

Quote :: BTW, how do I get an umlott or however you spell it over an "a", like in Hager or an "o" like in Igor?

Cripes, if someone with "half vast" knowledge can figure that out, a rocket scientist that clings to the crystal ball musings of the President of the Council on Foreign Relations shouldn't even have to ask. Surely, everything you need to know in life is contained in the pages of Newsweek magazine!

Quote :: Maybe if the weather cools off where your are, you will also?

Maybe when you can put up a coherent, logical explanation of what you post masquerading as discussion, you'll be worth responding to further. Ask Rokka how that's done - he can do it in his second (or probably third) language. Admirably well, in fact.

Until then, I think you're a strong candidate for being ignored.

Subject: Re: Afghanistan Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:17 am

taoshum wrote:: Rokka,

How do you do it? Do you translate to Swedish, read, re-write in English directly or do you read the English and respond in English? You are amazing.

Have you tried the Google translator? I use it for Spanish<>English frequently.

Hur gör du det? Vill du översätta till svenska, läsa, att skriva på engelska direkt eller vill du läsa engelska och svara på engelska? Du är fantastisk.

Har du provat Googles översättare? Jag använder det för spanska <> engelska ofta.

I used Google; is it readable?

[size=21]Jag använde Google. Är det readible?[/size]

When i read in English, i take help from a dictionary, i translate it in my head to understand or get the essence of a text mass. Big tchunks of textmass/well written text with seldum used words like jager's can be very difficult, slang is allso very difficult. As an example to go and take P, go for a slash, take a poop, word like this in not to be found in a english book.
If i read a source i Finnish or swedish i translate in my head and write it down in my word processor.

Googels translaters are use less in my mind, i have tryed to read dirt bike magazine with that funktion. I rather struggle with english. But i speak Finnish as my first language and where born in a family where sami language was used. I lost that language with is a pitty.

But to know sevral language's is helpfull, beccause one get a feeling of difference's.

I try to read English books somtimes to get to understand many different words.

Subject: Re: Afghanistan Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:59 am

Quote :

Come on! Do you scenes that Rokka is reader of stuff like that!

I scense that national pride gives you some fuel and that I feel better about my country if I am criticizing USA. Well I think that wath one known’s about my self I think about other’s. Also I do think that your military background does give you the right to feel national pride and react when you scense that it’s been violated. On the other hand I think that you have to be honest and comment more in detail that USA actually financed the third rice with sever consecvence. No ifs and butts and comparing to Sweden. I think that I need that to continue a very interesting conversation with you.

Maybe it does not have anything to do with my feelings about my country. It’s a wrong doing no more no less. If we take my fatherland Finland as an example, we where allied to Nazi Germany and condemn as such after the continuation war I the peace treaty of Paris in 1947. Our president and a bunch of other were judged as a war criminals. In concentration camps the mortality among soviet pow considerable higher than Finnish pow I Soviet camps. Does that make me responsible for what happened? Does that make Finland to day responsoble for what happened?

By law probably morally maybe. Do I as a “Finn” born by Finnish parents in Sweden have burden to carry. I don’t think so. But my obligation is to KNOW what happened.

I also want you to know that my family lost a lot of blood I war against Soviet union.

I apply the same feeling about responsibility on you on she wolf motokid and so one. I don’t want and I don’t want you to feel the holier thing. No double standards.

Quote :

Sweden was a super power in the 15 and 16 century while people in your region still was sending smoke signals. Under that time Gustav Adolf the 2 was the Adolf Hitler of the 15 century. Karl the 12 was also the leader of the earlier 16 century super power Sweden. There are a market for true historic fact interested people. I also strongly believe that the past even if decades ago does matter when policies of modern time is taken by countries. A very long time ago a such large amount of citizens died that we had famines in our countries due to lack of labour. I am sure that the Swedish Kings where pissed of by lack of north American Indians in the fight for Protestantism. I Germany today I think people have developed in there minds about war’s more than every Canadian have. I think many people can agree or maybe consider that.

All superpower eventually fade away the roman empire, Jhingis khan, Napoleon, Soviet and maybe during our life time USA is no longer going to be a super power. I think that economy will eventually stop USA as a super power.

Sources

http://www.arkisto.fi/uploads/Palvelut/Julkaisut/SOTAVANGIT%20JA%20INTERNOIDUT_WEB.pdf

http://www.arkisto.fi/uploads/Palvelut/Julkaisut/POW%20deaths_web.pdf

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Trading_Enemy_excerpts.html

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

I live in a subarctic country and the only big battle in this kind of nature happened in the area that my ancestors came from. Maybe Jäger finds it interesting

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/gebhardt/gebhardt.asp

I do know a lot of worlwar 2 issues and Sweden. I would like you to link to any information about Swededen or Finland during the great wars.

Subject: Re: Afghanistan Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:53 am

Jäger wrote:: Until then, I think you're a strong candidate for being ignored.

Great idea, I'll ignore you since we share a common feeling for each other and we both have delete keys... hasta la vista, hombre de loco.

Admin

rokka wrote:

No. But one person does not make up the consumer base. Take a look at the books coming out of the Kennedy assassination - and nearly 50 years
later it hasn't stopped. Didn't have the internet back then either.

Quote :

You would be wrong on both aspects. The US has made some very large foreign policy errors throughout its history for which you can't really claim were about protecting the nation. This, however, isn't one of them. But two things: first, I am also a big fan of impartiality and considering all sides of an issue. Second, I think nations and their citizens so eager to criticize the US should make sure their own skirts are clean and they're at least as moral as what they're demanding of the US.

Second, I don't get the impression you are tearing down the US to build up Sweden - or any other country. I do think you are judging the US on a worst case scenario basis, however, and using some incorrect
information in doing so i.e.:

A belief that Hans Blix had told the UN and US that Iraq posed no threat, when in fact his reports from just a few days before the war (readable on the Internet) says no such thing
A belief we are in Afghanistan to support Karzai, when in fact the ISAF mission statement (readable on the internet) says no such thing

In actuality, we probably aren't that far apart in most of our beliefs, but there are some pretty essential differences there.

Quote :

I don't think military service necessarily entitles you to feel national pride. Nor do I think you need to have military service to feel national pride.

What we have at work here is my sense of fair play and a belief that you consider all aspects of an issue - you don't just cherrypick a few points, particularly when some of them are not accurate.

Quote :

Sorry, that one got lost in translation.

Quote :

Thank you. We will have to disagree that the US can't be judged in the same light as other nations. I won't agree that any nation should be held to a stricter standard than others - or given a pass on their activities where others are not.

In the case of Afghanistan, I think the US along with NATO is doing the right and proper thing.

In the case of Iraq, I think the US erred based on the same lousy intelligence that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur, but they erred on the basis of protecting their country and citizens in a time just after 9/11. The US has also not simply made war in Iraq, they have spent billions of dollars on everything from the health care system in Iraq to agriculture. If it was out of maliciousness and spite, the US would not be doing that. Will the Middle East be more stable because of the regime change? I don't know enough about that issue to have an opinion. I do think the world will be somewhat safer if we stick the course long enough in Afghanistan to ensure it isn't taken over by radical Wahabbists and used as a country by that group.

Quote :

Yes. But again, there is seldom black and white, and you need to consider ALL the facts, not just a select few. For example, after Finland's losses to the Soviet Union in the Winter War, with the Soviet Union still parked on their now-reduced borders and another war imminent, Finland attempted to create an alliance with Sweden and Great Britain. Neither was willing to come to their aid. And you have to look at that context when you consider Finland finally creating an alliance with Nazi Germany. That too was an act of self defense - but it only happened after Finland had fought it out with the Soviets all on their own one time, and the Britain and Sweden had refused to help them. What were they supposed to do? Just sit and wait for the Soviets to come at them again? And Finland did not oppress their Jewish population nor turn them over to the Nazis.

History and political decisions have to be looked at in context. You can no more judge Finland by pointing out that they sided with Nazi Germany than you can judge the US because no WMDs have ever been found. There is far, far more to the decisions that were made than that.

Quote :

You well be right. Or the US may decide they're tired of being the world's superpower and they're tired of spending money and lives in areas that don't benefit them. On the other hand, the current administration makes the economy a good bet for failure in the near future.

However, there is China. Which is facing not only rising energy demands, but rising manufacturing costs due to increasing shortages in manpower due to past policies. And Russia, who just planned brigade strength airborne exercises in the Arctic. Now why would they do that in an area of ongoing disputes over territorial claims?

Quote :

I don't have any links. Most of what I have learned regarding the Nordic countries is contained in material coming out of courses at the War College and other avenues for tactical/strategic studies within the military. They tend to treat those wars as a bit of a sideshow, so there isn't a whole lot of focus on it.

Subject: Re: Afghanistan Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:25 pm

check it out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26warlogs.html?src=me&ref=general

Afghanistan - Page 2 29721

Subject: Re: Afghanistan Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:04 pm

taoshum wrote:: check it out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26warlogs.html?src=me&ref=general

Yes its big news around the world. In US the focus is on the actual leack and maybe not the content of the mtrl. In europe the content seems to be more of interest. This is what i hear on cnn vs european news agency's

Subject: Re: Afghanistan Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:29 pm

rokka wrote:: Yes its big news around the world. In US the focus is on the actual leack and maybe not the content of the mtrl. In europe the content seems to be more of interest. This is what i hear on cnn vs european news agency's

A close comparision is being made between these documents and the "Pentagon Papers" of the 60's era. Both illustrate how the PR doesn't reflect reality but the current information is from the perspective of the soldiers and the Pentagon Papers reflected a much longer time frame and the perspective of the "leaders". Very revealing about Pakistan.

Subject: Re: Afghanistan Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:05 am

Oil is a horrible thing to go to war over...

Admin

rokka wrote:: Yes its big news around the world. In US the focus is on
the actual leack and maybe not the content of the mtrl.

Hmmmm... depends which news outlets you read, I guess. The New York Times, that bastion of Democratic support, is calling it the next "Pentegon Papers". GMAFB.

Certainly, the enablers and force multipliers working for the Taliban see it as something akin to The Finger of God.

Quote :: In europe the content seems to be more of interest. This is what i hear
on cnn vs european news agency's

In one single line of the story referenced here, so small you can barely notice it, is this one hurried, short sentence of admission:

Over all, the documents do not contradict official accounts of the war.

All of this earth shaking news, but... oh, by the way... it doesn't contradict official accounts of the war. Just don't read too quickly or you'll miss that line of admission.

And yet, the Pund-idiots and their followers proclaim these to be the next Pentagon Papers. They don't contradict official accounts of the war, and yet they are somehow the next Pentagon Papers. Anyone who believes that silliness has no idea what the Pentagon Papers were, nor their content.

So after examining all these papers for months, apparently, here's the most shocking stuff The Times can tell us:

Some elements of the Pakistan secret service are aiding and working with the Taliban. Well, duh... we've known that for years.
Special operations units are conducting a secret war against the Taliban (much like the Taliban are conducting a secretive war against Americans).
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles sometimes crash. Big surprise - the Canadians just lost a 9 million dollar Predator in peaceful Alberta.
We've had notable successes hunting down and killing Taliban leaders
The CIA is working in Afghanistan (isn't that we pay them for?).
The Taliban is threatening to murder the families of ANA commanders
Taliban sometimes dress as ANA and kill civilians - and the Western press obligingly reports on how bad the ANA is.
The ANA and ANP have problems with corruption, trust, pay, etc.
A special forces group not only managed to fight off hundreds of Hajjis, but successfully extracted at the end of the battle, leaving nearly 200 terrorists dead.

And of course, Coalition forces are accidentally killing Afghan civilians in wartime (as opposed to the Taliban who deliberately kill Afghan civilians).

Okay... is this really news to anybody who has been watching Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, the Middle East, or any other UN mission out there? This is earth shaking? Are people actually that delusional that they don't realize this is the nature of all wars?

Have we as a world gotten so divorced from reality that we think with sufficient lasers, cool gadgets, and technology we can have a nice clean war where civilians are never injured or killed? Particularly in a war where the Taliban launch attacks from among civilians in hope of: a) finding shelter, and b) drawing NATO into firing on civilians and then receiving international condemnation. Do we expect that Afghan police and military, in a nation where they often aren't paid, will be pure as the driven snow? Are UAVs never supposed to crash?

Well duh. War sucks for the winners as well as the losers. It would be most instructive to compare these excerpts cherrypicked by the Times after months of review to events we now know happened during WWII. Anyone want to know what the civilian death toll was in Normandy after the shelling prior to the D-Day landings, and want to guess what the reaction would be today if we killed that many people while bombing and shelling in support of an operation? What was the civilian death toll when the Canadians fought through Ortona? Any comments about the Allies releasing Japanese prison guards to be police in places like Vietnam after the war? How terrible was executions of high ranking Nazi personnel and supporters during WWII by various resistance groups? What about incidents like the one in July of 1944 where British and Canadian bombers in a friendly fire incident killed several hundred allied infantry?

Now these are all intelligence briefings. When these were published - ostensibly to show the full spectrum of the war - where are the stories about the Taliban hanging children, cutting womens' fingers off for wearing nail polish, executing anyone with a cell phone for being an "American collaborator", etc?

What? You don't think Americans bothered to write intelligence summaries up detailing the murders, torture, and slaughter of the Taliban and submit them?

So then... where are all the reports about the Taliban and their activity? Must have been pretty thorough cherrypicking to ensure no intelligence about the activities of the Taliban in attacking and killing civilians were disclosed. You would think American soldiers never made any notes or reports on Taliban murders of village elders, women, kidnappings, etc. Obviously, those reports weren't deemed sufficiently important to contribute to what we need to know about Afghanistan.

Anyone who believes this was done simply with the intent of exposing all aspects of the war is on some pretty strong drugs and needs their meds checked. This selective release of news - remarkably washed of reports of Taliban atrocities - was all about an attempt to sabotage the war by swaying public opinion. Anybody seriously believe there was nothing in those documents regarding the kidnapping and videotaped slaughter of Daniel Pearl? And yet, none of the "secrets revealed" made any mention of the murder of Western journalists and workers and US efforts to find the kidnap victims and those responsible. I guess that just wasn't important enough for US forces to write intelligence summaries on!

Yep. Nice impartial journalism, no ulterior motives there.

Back in the early Cold War, Khruschev said the Soviet Union would prevail because the US would beat itself from within. It didn't work out that way for the Soviets, but in Vietnam the press and public opinion most certainly turned an enormous victory into pathetic defeat. And just after 9/11, Osama Bin Laden also predicted that America would beat itself from within. When you look at this, and all the Taliban enablers and force multipliers jumping on board, Bin Laden may very well have been right.

We are working desperately at trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The story mentions using a $60,000 missile to kill a couple of terrorists planting an IED. That's supposed to shock us I guess. Well, it doesn't shock anyone who has been over there or works with people who have done tours there.

First, a $60,000 missile to take out bombers who may destroy a $20,000,000 military vehicle - not to mention killing it's crew, their death benefits, etc, is pretty cheap.

But... why don't we use something much cheaper like a sniper's bullet, for example? The reason is that what troops call "the kill chain" now runs all the way back to North America. Because of increased military sensitivity to civilian demands that war be made sterile clean, in many instances now you can't pull the trigger until your higher contacts their higher, who in turn contact their higher, who finally talk to a duty military lawyer in North America. He's the guy who decides whether you can pull the trigger or not, and he bases his decision on the possible ramifications with the public in a "what if" scenario. And once he's hmmm'd and haaa'd enough, considered all the legal and political implications, he then gets back on the radio net back to the troops in Afghanistan with his decision. Like, an hour later. Ummmm... by which time, the bad guys are gone at worst, or need to be tracked down with something like a Reaper if you get really lucky and still have eyes on them. Americans, Canadians, Brits... everyone complains about the same problem with being able to deal with the bad guys.

So we watch terrorists installing IEDs with our night vision devices. Our snipers watch them and ask for permission to fire, pointing out that Afghan farmers don't walk around at 0200hrs planting grapes in the middle of the road. And in many, many instances, clearance to fire is not given. Might be a sleepwalking civilian, can't take a chance. And then when day returns, we go out to find the IEDs we watched being planted for us, and hope we don't find them the hard way. For a couple of friends of mine, that's not the way it worked out, sadly. They came home in aluminum boxes because nobody wanted to risk criticism by taking out the badgers before they planted their IEDs.

So because we won't take a sniper or LAVIII crew commander's word and take them out with a round or burst, we fall back to using UAVs and $60k missiles so we can send real time video of what they're doing back to banks of lawyers to - finally - get permission to end their terrorist careers.

In WWII, a deliberate violation of security like this would have led to a hanging or a date with the firing squad. We don't do that anymore, but such a deliberate violation as this of security certainly deserves a lifetime in prison, preferably among military prisoners who lost friends overseas. Others, I am sure, will consider the perpetrators violation of his oaths to be the mark of a hero, and the lives lost in Afghanistan to be a reasonable price to pay for these juicy little tidbits.

A friend and I were catching the news of this today at work. He has four tours in Afghanistan. He posed an interesting question when he said "I wonder if the reaction would be the same if the Taliban had gotten their hands on some Pakistan nukes and detonated one at NATO in Belgium a few weeks ago? Would these leaks had still been published if a dirty bomb had been detonated at a US base in Europe a few weeks ago? And if they were still published, I wonder what the reaction would be?" Not the same, perhaps?

Maybe we need to leave Afghanistan - on the condition that those who want us out register for a draft to fight any future wars that arise out of future developments with the Taliban, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and nukes. If they don't see a problem (aside from accepting UN missions), then why would they hesitate to put their asses on the line?

Admin

Tibarus wrote:: Oil is a horrible thing to go to war over...

A proclaimation which is totally irrelevant concerning Afghanistan. I was wondering how long it would be before somebody offered up that well known factoid.

Tibarus, you live in a city with about half a dozen regiments who have sent troops to Afghanistan. Why don't you go to those units, walk inside, and ask for somebody who has been over there to tell you how many oil wells, refineries, pipelines, etc they saw in Afghanistan.

More pragmatically, is it possible for you to explain the logic of that comment?

You do know - or should know by now - that the ISAF mission that has NATO in Afghanistan has been a UN mission, running since 2001, yes? Go check out the UN Security Council resolutions if you find that hard to believe; they're all neatly arranged on the Internet. Their web pages aren't nearly as dramatic as the conspiracy theory websites, but they are the repository of authentic UN documents.

So what we have here is a UN Security Council resolution authorizing NATO in Afghanistan. And yet it's supposed to be about oil. This is where the logic behind that claim gets really fascinating to me.

A UN Security Council Resolution - such as ISAF and it's related resolutions voted on each year since 2001 - must be unanimous to pass. So far so good.

Two permanent members of the UN Security Council are China and Russia.

China is starving for petroleum products and has been on a buying spree throughout the world for the last ten years. They own a good part of the Alberta oil sands to the northeast of you, not to mention well known Canadian brands like Husky Oil. Russia is looking ahead to their future energy needs as well. And I hope nobody is naive enough to think that either China or Russia wouldn't have a problem with the US/NATO establishing their very own military and economic hegemony right on their doorsteps. Much less getting their hands on valuable petro resources right on their own front porches that China and Russia could otherwise try and get for themselves.

So... the conspiracy theorists of the world have discovered that Afghanistan is actually about oil. What is particularly amazing about this is these folks slaving away in their parents' basements on Mom & Dad's computer have discovered something that the combined Chinese and Russian intelligence agencies and think tanks have completely missed.

After all, it would take but one veto from either China or Russia to end the ISAF mission and remove any excuse NATO/the US has for being in Afghanistan. But for some inexplicable reason, neither Russia or China have done that. Now why is that?

Is it because the basement tin foil hat amateurs have discovered an American/NATO plot that the combined intelligence and military services of China and Russia overlooked?

Is it because China and Russia actually WANT the US and NATO to have access to all those as to yet unlocated oil wells, instead of getting that oil for themselves?

Or is it possible China and Russia voted for it because they just like the idea of an enormous NATO military presence camped on their front doorstep?

Anyways, it would sure help me out if you could explain the "Afghanistan is about oil" argument in the context of China and Russia happily voting in favour of the ISAF mission putting NATO on their back doorstep with access to all that oil that so far isn't there.

Subject: Re: Afghanistan Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:42 pm

Jäger wrote:

Tibarus wrote:: Oil is a horrible thing to go to war over...

A proclaimation which is totally irrelevant concerning Afghanistan. I was wondering how long it would be before somebody offered up that well known factoid.

Tibarus, you live in a city with about half a dozen regiments who have sent troops to Afghanistan. Why don't you go to those units, walk inside, and ask for somebody who has been over there to tell you how many oil wells, refineries, pipelines, etc they saw in Afghanistan.

More pragmatically, is it possible for you to explain the logic of that comment?

You do know - or should know by now - that the ISAF mission that has NATO in Afghanistan has been a UN mission, running since 2001, yes? Go check out the UN Security Council resolutions if you find that hard to believe; they're all neatly arranged on the Internet. Their web pages aren't nearly as dramatic as the conspiracy theory websites, but they are the repository of authentic UN documents.

So what we have here is a UN Security Council resolution authorizing NATO in Afghanistan. And yet it's supposed to be about oil. This is where the logic behind that claim gets really fascinating to me.

A UN Security Council Resolution - such as ISAF and it's related resolutions voted on each year since 2001 - must be unanimous to pass. So far so good.

Two permanent members of the UN Security Council are China and Russia.

China is starving for petroleum products and has been on a buying spree throughout the world for the last ten years. They own a good part of the Alberta oil sands to the northeast of you, not to mention well known Canadian brands like Husky Oil. Russia is looking ahead to their future energy needs as well. And I hope nobody is naive enough to think that either China or Russia wouldn't have a problem with the US/NATO establishing their very own military and economic hegemony right on their doorsteps. Much less getting their hands on valuable petro resources right on their own front porches that China and Russia could otherwise try and get for themselves.

So... the conspiracy theorists of the world have discovered that Afghanistan is actually about oil. What is particularly amazing about this is these folks slaving away in their parents' basements on Mom & Dad's computer have discovered something that the combined Chinese and Russian intelligence agencies and think tanks have completely missed.

After all, it would take but one veto from either China or Russia to end the ISAF mission and remove any excuse NATO/the US has for being in Afghanistan. But for some inexplicable reason, neither Russia or China have done that. Now why is that?

Is it because the basement tin foil hat amateurs have discovered an American/NATO plot that the combined intelligence and military services of China and Russia overlooked?

Is it because China and Russia actually WANT the US and NATO to have access to all those as to yet unlocated oil wells, instead of getting that oil for themselves?

Or is it possible China and Russia voted for it because they just like the idea of an enormous NATO military presence camped on their front doorstep?

Anyways, it would sure help me out if you could explain the "Afghanistan is about oil" argument in the context of China and Russia happily voting in favour of the ISAF mission putting NATO on their back doorstep with access to all that oil that so far isn't there.

Oh come on Jager, wake up and smell the crude man, this was Bush's war for oil and only that. Oil is the ONLY reason forces are even in the Middle East in the first place, there were NO WMDs and you can't go to war against a noun .

Canada shouldn't even be anywhere near that god awful place. The only reason we are still there is because Harper has his head so far up the American ass, you can barely tell where America ends and he begins. Don't get me wrong, I fully support our troops, but they shouldn't be there. If America wants to impose their will on other countries let them do it on their own.

The military exists for the sole purpose to protect the people, not to annex other countries for their resource value.

Admin

Tibarus wrote:

Jäger wrote:: Oh come on Jager, wake up and smell the crude man, this was Bush's war for oil and only that.

In another thread, you just called somebody a sheep following the rest of the flock. Welcome to the herd.

So this is Bush's war for oil. And yet, the ISAF mission was enacted in 2001 at the request of the Afghan government following a loya jurga that had over 1500 Afghans (including women) participating from every tribe and province of that country. How did George Bush get the loya jurga and Afghanistan to approach the UN and ask for UN assistance and ISAF, Tibarus? Can you give us a simple explanation of how George Bush did that?

Can you give us a simple explanation of how George Bush got the Afghan government to ask for UN help all the way back in 1997 when they first requested UN intervention, long before he was ever president? I suspect you can't. In fact, I suspect you're not even aware that ISAF is a UN mission (although, obviously, you must by now).

And surely you know that ISAF has been repeatedly approved of by both China and Russia, along with the rest of the Security Council, and without that approval the mission would have never been enacted and certainly wouldn't still exist? Did you know it is a UN mission, incidentally, that didn't even have an American as its overall commander until 2007 (following two successive terms of Canadian commanders)? Probably not, right? Why did George Bush allow others to direct the overall focus of the ISAF mission and forces for six of the nine years it has been in existence if it is his war? Can you explain that?

It's really easy to be a sheep and bleat "Baaa... it's Bush's war all about oil". What's much, much more difficult is for one of the sheep to explain why China and Russia would approve of a mission that is supposedly about procuring oil for the US - right in their back yard - that is nearer to them, at a time when China is buying up the rights to any oil that someone will sell them.

You could just have easily have claimed it was to secure a landing zone for the aliens when they come back in a few years. You can claim anything you want to as to why we're there. Instead of making empty claims, just make a rational argument as to why China and Russia would approve a UN mission that would enable the US to get that oil - particularly when oil is such a strategic commodity, and this "oil" (that nobody has even seen in Afghanistan yet) is right in their back yard.

Can you do more than make claims you can't support? Backing them up is the hard part, isn't it - the conspiracy theory part is really easy.

Quote :: Canada shouldn't even be anywhere near that god awful place. The only reason we are still there is because Harper has his head so far up the American ass, you can barely tell where America ends and he begins.

Strike Two. You'll be delighted to know the good news is that nobody is going to ask you, much less force you, to serve over there. And every one of your countrymen who serve over there does so by choice. So you needn't have any worries about whether it is "god awful" or not (although I find both the people and the country incredibly fascinating). They had complex societies in an incredibly challenging land while your ancestor's were still eating out of the communal food with the same hand they'd just used to wipe their ass.

But, I digress, don't I...

First, apparently, you didn't notice when an all party vote approved Canada being "still there" - at a time when Harper only had a minority government and couldn't force Parliament to vote for or against Afghanistan. Now, maybe you think the Liberals, NDP, and separatists also have their heads so far up the American ass because they voted in favour of Canada's participation going to 2011 as well. Maybe you think the NDP and Liberals have their heads up the American ass because they're musing about some kind of continued Afghanistan presence while Harper is flat out saying Canada will be out of Afghanistan in 2011.

But one thing is sure - claiming Canada's participation in ISAF is all about Harper and the American ass is a long, long stretch from reality. Of course, if you're a member of the "I hate Harper" or "I hate the US" club (or both), I can see why you'd say that. I think some Canadians would probably blame Harper/the US/George Bush for every flat tire they get, given half a chance.

You think Canada shouldn't be there? Okay, why? Because you don't think Canada should honour it's NATO commitments? Well, if Canada won't honour their NATO commitments, then the only honourable thing to do is withdraw from NATO, right?

A decent Canadian wouldn't want to be a leech on the countries that DO honour their commitments, would they?

In your strategic studies, you no doubt noticed that Russia has been holding brigade strength airborne exercises up near the contested territories in the Arctic. I suppose you don't have a problem with those troops you claim to support, if push comes to shove, having to deal with the Russians in the Arctic without NATO having their back? Are you aware that Canada can't even raise a fully complemented single brigade, even if we had to? Do you even know how big a brigade is, or what it is?

Or maybe it's something different? Perhaps you think Canada shouldn't be there because whatever the Taliban do to Afghans is none of Canada's problem? You have a pretty cool set of rights and freedoms - simply by accident of birth, it's not like you did anything to earn them - but if somebody else didn't have the same good fortune, then that's their rough luck? If they become subjugated by a multinational bunch of extremist religious terrorists who run around slaughtering women, force women to live in ignorance, force Sharia law on the entire country, then that's just too damned bad? Well, fair enough I guess. But then, the genocide in Yugoslavia really wasn't Canada's problem either. Or what's going on in Sierra Leone. Or what's going on in Haiti - just not our problem, man.

Canada could do that. Be like Switzerland and a bunch of other countries and say "Hey, that genocide/oppression/suffering is not our problem. Let's just do a little token bit and move on"

BTW... Deb Williams, Chantal Vincelli, Meredith Ewart, Christine Egan, Cynthia Connolly...

Quote :: Don't get me wrong, I fully support our troops, but they shouldn't be there.

Please don't insult those of us who ARE the troops by claiming you support us. That's just mouth music to make you feel good about yourself.

"Support the troops" doesn't mean joining up and earning some of that freedom that you got at no charge to yourself, instead of just leaving it to others to do it for you. "Support the troops" doesn't even mean supporting what we're doing in Afghanistan.

But if you do "support the troops", you'd take the time to actually talk to some of the soldiers who have been there, and run your pet theories by them if nothing else. Do you think you know more about Afghanistan than guys who have spent years of their lives in that country, so they have nothing to offer you? Or are you like most and just don't want to test your theories talking with people who have actually been there? You live in the Vancouver area? Hmmmm.... Google is your friend: www.army.ca... The Royal Westminster Regiment, The Seaforth Highlanders, 6 Field Engineer Squadron, 44 Field Engineer Squadron, 5th Field Battery... man, I bet half of them are within 45 minutes of where you live. Have you gone to actually talk to any of those soldiers, tell them how much you support them, and that they should know they're over there fighting for George Bush and oil? Well, have you even gone to where they hang out on forums like www.army.ca where you can still remain comfortably anonymous and tried your theories there?

The answer to both of those would be "no", correct?

"Support the troops" also means taking the time to get at least glean the most basic of knowledge about why we are there before bleating a bunch of drivel about George Bush and oil, rather than using it to exercise your anger and dislike of your prime minister, George Bush, etc. You haven't done that.

You can tell yourself you support the troops all you want. Those of us who are the troops tell you you're full of BS and deluding yourself. Go down to a military unit and talk to those troops if you really do think you support them Tibarus. Only cost you a few cents in gas money on your WR, and they don't bite. Hell, might even invite you into the mess to have a beer if it's after working hours.

Quote :: If America wants to impose their will on other countries let them do it
on their own.

Would it be too much to ask you how the US is imposing their will on Afghanistan in terms of the ISAF mission statement and paramenters? You can download the entire ISAF resolution(s) from the UN's website, so explain to us how the US is doing that in reference to those resolutions.

It's kind of funny, actually. About half the sheep out there are screaming that we are forcing our will and form of government on Afghans, and the other half out there are outraged because we're allowing the Afghan government to pass laws that conflict with our beliefs. Meanwhile, the Afghans are making no bones about attempting to move back to a form of government and constitution similar to their Constitution of 1964 that they lost in the Communist coup. I'm pretty certain that I may well be the only person in this forum who is actually aware of that, much less has read their Constitution of 1964.

For those who are actually interested in Afghanistan, rather than using it as a blunt instrument to beat up past presidents and current prime ministers with, you can read that constitution here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010407044712/www.afghan-politics.org/Reference/Constitution/1964/AfghanConstitution.htm

For those actually curious as to how NATO finds itself fulfilling the ISAF mandate in Afghanistan, instead of screaming "George Bush" and "oil", you might give a read to the Agreement On Provisional Arrangements In Afghanistan Pending The Re-establsihment of Permanent Government Institutions. Not nearly as entertaining as reading conspiracy theories, but highly educational.

Quote :: The military exists for the sole purpose to protect the people, not to annex other countries for their resource value.

Strike Three. You really need to go read the terms of the ISAF mission that has NATO in Afghanistan before embarrassing yourself any further. However, if you have any information that any country, NATO member nation or otherwise, has annexed Afghanistan, I'd sure like to know the source of your information.

And as this war is apparently all about their oil, I'm really dying to have you reveal to me where all these oil wells and oil pipelines are in Afghanistan as well. Neither I nor anybody I work with who has spent time in Afghanistan has ever seen any of them. So if you could help us out with that bit of information, it really would help. Can you do that for us?

And thank you as a civilian for instructing those of us in the military as to what our sole purpose is. 24 years in the military and I didn't know that. Of course, your definition fails when compared to the mission statement of the US, Canadian, British, Australian, etc militaries. More to the point, the idea that issues outside of a country's borders have no effect on the security of either the country or it's citizens is naive in the extreme.

But let's start with baby steps, Tibarus: explain how George Bush got the Afghans to request the ISAF mission. And most of all, why China and Russia voted in support of a mission that would give the US oil and a military presence in their back yard.

It's easy to make all kinds of claims, as crazy and irrational as you want to be. Now we get to see if you can make a logical argument to back those claims up.

Subject: Re: Afghanistan Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:13 pm

Jäger wrote:: --too much text to quote--

Condense your posts into bullet form man... Redundant paragraphs.... Oi... Afghanistan - Page 2 645337

Ok, the Afghans asked for UN help and we're there for NATO right? So what exactly does that make the armed forces that are there? Peace keepers or something else?

What you really have to ask yourself, is why is Canada really there. Are we there as a NATO PC force or are we there as the Canadian military? Yes there is a difference and it's a significant one.

Subject: Well educated Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:31 pm

Jäger you are really well educated. I can sense a very heavy opponent. I would love to meet you in a debate in Swedish but i guess it is imposible. And in my favorit area Afghanistan - Page 2 93746

. I have a word in Swedish. Mental spänst. Maybee you can use google to find out what that means.

Hans Blix today http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uk-and-us-should-have-realised-iraq-evidence-was-suspect-2036647.html

Edit: Swedish newspaper today. Try the google to understand it. http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7534338.ab

Subject: Re: Afghanistan Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:14 pm

"If America wants to impose their will on other countries let them do it on their own."

Be careful what you wish for
If China wants to impose their will on other countries let them do it on their own.
If Russia wants to impose their will on other countries let them do it on their own.
If Israel wants to impose their will on other countries let them do it on their own.
If India wants to impose their will on other countries let them do it on their own.

It's just a matter of perspective, who's pitching and who's catching

Admin

Tibarus wrote:

Jäger wrote:: --too much text to quote--

Condense your posts into bullet form man... Redundant paragraphs.... Oi... Afghanistan - Page 2 645337

The rule is actually that you repeat important points three times while instructing so that even the slowest notices the point being made...

Quote :: Ok, the Afghans asked for UN help and we're there for NATO right? So what exactly does that make the armed forces that are there? Peace keepers or something else?

It makes them a military force on a UN mission. "Peacekeepers" is a word that 99% of the Canadian public can parrot but don't have a clue about. It gives them a warm fuzzy feeling about a bunch of guys in blue berets, running around keeping two sides from each others throats, and doing so using nothing more than a stern look. Not surprising in a country where successive governments never mentioned the Battle of Medak Pocket fought by Canadians in Sept 1993 to the public for over ten years... don't want Canadians getting their knickers in a knot because their troops were shooting and killing enemy soldiers, even if they were shooting people engaged in attempting to continue their genocide of Muslims.

Consider that one of the largest UN missions that the US, Canada, Britain, Australia, etc were ever involved in was the Korean War. That was a UN mission. As the 1st Gulf War (which the pund-idiots also often call George Bush's War), Yugoslavia, Timor, Sierra Leone, and now Afghanistan. Canada didn't participate in Timor, and I'll also bet you 99% of Canadians don't know that they have troops in Sierra Leone, much less that those troops are involved in combat there. Once Canada loses somebody there - that will get their attention.

Each UN mission has it's own set of objectives, parameters, and in many of them, rules of engagement. Some are 100% logistical support, akin to doing clerk work in an office. Some are 100% humanitarian aid, for which you could just as easily send all the contract janitors working for the CF. Some have a low threat risk, where nations don't even arm their troops, or arm them but don't have them carrying arms every minute of every day. And some, like Korea, Yugoslavia, the Gulf, and Afghanistan, are all out war. But it doesn't all fit into a set number of boxes, with one labeled "peacekeepers".

Quote :: What you really have to ask yourself, is why is Canada really there. Are we there as a NATO PC force or are we there as the Canadian military? Yes there is a difference and it's a significant one.

No, I really have to ask myself why nobody who claims this is George Bush's war and all about oil can begin to give a rational argument that is the case. The answer I come up with is, they're just parroting something they've seen again and again on the internet that fits their particular biases.

I know why Canada is there, just as I know why everybody else is there. The UN passed a resolution that, technically, obligates member countries to support. It's true that a lot of member countries pay lip service only to their UN responsibilities, but Canada, the US, Britain, Australia, etc are pretty consistent in trying to meet their obligations regarding resolutions of this nature. The UN specifically asked NATO to fulfill the role of running and manning this mission because even those with half vast knowledge would realize that this mission - like Korea and the Gulf War - would be heavily dependent on a combined arms force able to fight battles.

NATO member nations voted on and approved accepting responsibility for the UN mission. Nobody, including the US, gets a vote that can overrule the other member nations. Out of that, Canada is over there both because of her UN and NATO obligations. And, I suspect, because historically Canada really, really doesn't like groups of people who run around slaughtering other people and generally acting like the murderous scum the Taliban have proven themselves to be. Canada, historically, has shown a willingness to punch well above her body weight on UN missions like this - as has Australia. I see that as something for Canadians to be proud of. After all, if you won't stand up and be counted for something, you really don't stand for anything.

As to the difference you make reference to regarding a Canadian military and a "NATO PC force"... After 24 years in the military, and numerous NATO exercises and NATO missions under my belt, I really don't have a clue what you're talking about. It must be a civilian thing, I guess.

» lkng to buy in afghanistan