Afghanistan

I'm not arguing the fact, I was just making a comment on how the women are treated there, and made a generalization on how I couldn't be forced to do that. I'd be dead right off the bat cause I would fight it, that's just me. I'm not a pussy who bends to the will of others.

Quote :

And here's another concept: instead of nations trying to match bigger, threatening nations in military spending so they can field equivalent forces if attacked, they can band together, spend somewhat less on their military, still be able to field an equivalent force - and use the money they didn't spend on the military on other social spending. They might even be able to put up a strong deterrent while still being able to support their societies while an enemy like the Soviet Union concentrates on military spending and self destructs. Hmmmmm....

The US spends more on military than most of the the other countries combined... are we going to "self destruct"? Hmmmmmmm..... Now you are on to something, J.

SheWolf wrote:

I'm not arguing the fact, I was just making a comment on how the women are treated there, and made a generalization on how I couldn't be forced to do that. I'd be dead right off the bat cause I would fight it, that's just me. I'm not a pussy who bends to the will of others.

I don't think you, me, or anyone else can say what you would do when faced with being gang raped for a couple of weeks, or having every finger on your hands sawed off, or a bunch of the other shit those sadistic bastards over there do.

It's one thing to fight when the worst is somebody giving you a long drop on a short rope or being stood up against a wall and being used for target practice. Being gang raped to death over a month or so versus wearing a chadri... I think I'd wear the tent. I might be scheming on how the hell to get out of Dodge, but I don't think I'd be up for saying "screw you" and having them go "Actually, it's we screw you..."

The reality of the whole thing is a little more immediate once you've actually stood there and physically seen the aftermath of what those butcher's do.

What is the reason why NATO has been created. I always thought that it was there to secure the North Atlantic contries against what was the Sovietic block. That said, Afghanistant is far from north atlantic. It was the interests of NATO's participants that was the motivation.

Canada has always honored their obligations as peace keepers under the UN umbrella.

To be credible any organisation must be coherent and predictible to their allies. The only coherence we can observe in these interventions is related to economics matter. There are a lot of countries like Afghanistan that have problems with respecting human rights. We don't see that much interventons in these countries. Remember the Rwanda. I wonder why there is no intervention in North Corea. Maybe that,s because there is no business to be made over there. As for Iran, is there any consideration beside allies's economics that keep any world organisation to intervene. The french and the russians have business deals with Iran so no reason to launch an invasion over there even if children and women have some problems. The same can be said about Pakistan. Isn't the Talibans controlling the north of this country ? The same talibans that fight in Afghanistan.

By the way did you know that in Irak womens didn't have to wear religious clothes. As far as I know it was much more easy to live in Irak than in Arabia and nobody cares to fight Arabia for their respect of human rights.

I recall that even the north american medias weren't really free to publish or question the events when Nato invaded Afghanistan. What rights were to be protected by this invasion ? And are we talking about human rights ? If yes what is the definition of human ? It looks like some have more rights than others. The biggest right I can see is the right to spend and collect.

As far as the military maneuvers that happened in the atlantic west it made the news everywhere. Like the NATO's and NORAD's one make the news in Russia. Nothing new about that. I was in the forces in the 70s and it was common business to test each other reactions. It even happens between US and Canada so there is no big deal.

taoshum wrote:

Quote :

And here's another concept: instead of nations trying to match bigger, threatening nations in military spending so they can field equivalent forces if attacked, they can band together, spend somewhat less on their military, still be able to field an equivalent force - and use the money they didn't spend on the military on other social spending. They might even be able to put up a strong deterrent while still being able to support their societies while an enemy like the Soviet Union concentrates on military spending and self destructs. Hmmmmm....

The US spends more on military than most of the the other countries combined... are we going to "self destruct"? Hmmmmmmm..... Now you are on to something, J.

Which of course is very dramatic. Oh my God, the wolf is at the door; we're all doomed.

Of course, one could also throw other meaningless figures around, such as pointing out that US military spending is only 4.1% of GDP and in fact just over 1% less than it was during the Cold War. Which kind of begs the question, if current military spending is going to cause us to self destruct, why didn't military spending cause that to happen during the Cold War when we were spending more of our GDP on the military - including during earlier recessions and economic woes?

"The sky is falling" is a cry that never seems to lose it's attraction for some folks.

And of course, we're left with the embarrassing, still-unanswered question as to how much of that spending translates into jobs and industry in the US that would otherwise disappear and only be replaced by dead end social spending like welfare and other assistance programs?

Some people employed due to defense spending would, of course, find financially equivalent jobs. Some industries existing to service military spending would, of course, find financially equivalent customers and markets. But many industries would simply disappear. Many people would find themselves outright unemployed and dependent on social spending or working much lower paying jobs. And does anybody believe that the protective military umbrella the US extends to many of our allies isn't repaid in part by favourable trade agreements and arrangements? Anyone care to take a shot at putting a value on that?

And these are the effects of reducing military spending that nobody complaining about military spending is willing to address - it is the elephant in their rose-colored room.

Lots of people like to shriek about military spending - a subject that does indeed deserve attention. But while they are happy - no, eager - to use absolutes like the total value of spending and how it compares to other countries - they will fight like hell to avoid addressing any questions of the spin off value of that spending. As they will fight like hell to avoid addressing the question of what happens when all the jobs and industry tied to that military spending disappears (not to mention any discussion of the political and security implications tied to that spending). They're a one trick pony. And as always with one trick ponies, they have lots of complaints and dire predictions, but not a whole lot of solutions.

No, they just like to bitch. It's what they do best.

Just as a reminder... US military spending brought us:
- the Internet, and consequently the WWW
- GPS
- LIDAR
- MRIs

It's unfortunate that, given the enormous social and economic value of those technologies, nobody wants to calculate their worth when bitching about the military spending that made them possible.

Those are technologies that tremendously benefit the entire world. Yet it was the US that funded their development in their entirety through that awful military spending. And what medium do these critics of US military spending usually use to spread their message of doom? Why, the Internet - a product of that military spending they oppose.

Maybe when we start cutting the military budget, we should start by shutting down GPS and the billions of dollars spent annually maintaining the system, replacing SVs, etc. The US military can certainly fight without it - or turn it on again on very short notice if it becomes necessary.

Anyone got a problem with getting rid of that excess military spending? No?

Better yet, how about simply requiring every single user of GPS to pay an annual fee to use it? The technology to make that possible is pretty easy. Let's say we charge private users a tax on the purchase of every GPS capable device, a user fee of $250/year per GPS enabled device, and commercial users on a sliding scale?

Anyone got a problem with that as a means of helping to pay the military budget?

Dancamp wrote:

What is the reason why NATO has been created. I always thought that it was there to secure the North Atlantic contries against what was the Sovietic block. That said, Afghanistant is far from north atlantic. It was the interests of NATO's participants that was the motivation.

NATO was formed with the intention of providing security to NATO members through presenting a united front to common threats. That didn't exclude, for example, China and North Korea which have always been on NATOs radar screen.

Furthermore, one of the founding principles of NATO was and is "an attack on one is an attack on all and will be responded to by member nations accordingly". There is nothing in the charter that says "Not including the following countries:..."

Quote :

Canada has always honored their obligations as peace keepers under the UN umbrella.

And also honored their obligations when it was war fighting i.e. Korea, Gulf War I, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, etc... Lots of Canadians are either utterly ignorant of that fact or prefer to just gloss over it and cling to the idiocy that Canada is a peacekeeping nation as far as the UN is concerned.

Quote :

To be credible any organisation must be coherent and predictible to their allies. The only coherence we can observe in these interventions is related to economics matter. There are a lot of countries like Afghanistan that have problems with respecting human rights. We don't see that much interventons in these countries.

That might make a lot of sense if the UN had a resolution mandate for those countries and then asked NATO to fulfill that mandate under UN auspices. Which is exactly what the UN is doing in Afghanistan with ISAF.

But of course, there are no UN mandates in those countries, and the UN has not approached NATO to be involved there. So it appears that, so far, NATO has been entirely coherent and predictable in their response.

Quote :

I wonder why there is no intervention in North Corea. Maybe that,s because there is no business to be made over there.

Maybe it's because there's no UN mission in North Korea to ask NATO to attend to... let me check...

Yup. The UN resolution list says nothing about a UN mission in North Korea. Which is probably why the UN hasn't asked NATO to intervene there as they asked NATO regarding Afghanistan. Seems pretty coherent and predictable so far.

Quote :

As for Iran, is there any consideration beside allies's economics that keep any world organisation to intervene. The french and the russians have business deals with Iran so no reason to launch an invasion over there even if children and women have some problems.

Let's just be coherent on this:

1. Our mission in Afghanistan is not and never has been about the children and women over there. Yes, NATO countries pay a lot of attention to that while fulfilling the primary function, as that is a central tenant of Three Block War (which was invented by Canada, not a Marine general, BTW).
   
2. NATO did not go into Afghanistan as an "invasion" as popularly believed by those who won't look beyond what CBC spews at them. NATO went into Afghanistan with the approval of the legitimate government - which was not, and never was the Taliban. As a reminder, the Taliban couldn't even get recognized as the legitimate government of Afghanistan by the Islamic equivalent of the Commonwealth that Canada belongs to.
   
3. If one still insists that NATO did indeed invade Afghanistan because one chooses to believe the Taliban were in fact the legitimate government (which would make the Nazis the legitimate government of Belgium and France at one time), one needs to remember that the UN approved of that and recognized that states have the right to act in self defense. Actually, they restated a principle they had adopted before.
   
4. NATO is and remains in Afghanistan at the request of the government of Afghanistan. To the best of my knowledge (and I could be wrong on this), Iran has not approached the UN and asked for a mission in their country similar to ISAF.
   

Quote :

The same can be said about Pakistan. Isn't the Talibans controlling the north of this country ? The same talibans that fight in Afghanistan.

And I'm not aware that Pakistan has approached the UN about a mission similar to ISAF either. Although I could be wrong of course. It seems to me that so far Pakistan seems happy to stomp their own snakes - with the help of the US under the table. No doubt part of that is that Pakistan enjoys having a fairly strong and capable military (unlike Afghanistan) and is quite capable of taking on the Taliban one on one when they choose to do so.

Quote :

By the way did you know that in Irak womens didn't have to wear religious clothes. As far as I know it was much more easy to live in Irak than in Arabia and nobody cares to fight Arabia for their respect of human rights.

And what's your point? Afghanistan didn't ask NATO to come to Afghanistan to sort the Taliban out because they had started forcing women to wear the chadri.

Quote :

I recall that even the north american medias weren't really free to publish or question the events when Nato invaded Afghanistan.

Isn't that outrageous! In a world where the enemy watches CNN and information can be moved almost instantaneously, we actually didn't share all our plans, what we were doing, where our units were, our tactics, etc, so the enemy could simply get the information from public sources. The nerve of them for withholding information!

As to the media being restricted from asking questions or publishing negative opinions on the war... ummmm, when did this happen? It isn't hard to find criticism and questions in the archives.

However, it is damned hard to find anyone who bothered to take note of the fact that NATO went into Afghanistan with the enthusiastic approval and support of the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Most of the clods seemed to assume the Taliban were the legitimate government, even though the nations those medias were working out of didn't recognize them as having replaced the legitimate government, and other Islamic states refusing to recognize them as the legitimate government.

Whether that's a commentary on the ineptness of the main stream media or their followers, I'm not quite sure.

Quote :

What rights were to be protected by this invasion ?

1. It wasn't an invasion. At least, not in the sense you appear to view it.
   
2. If you would bother yourself to read the terms of the ISAF mission, you'd know it has never been about any right other than the right of a nation to self determination in the style of government of their choice. So far, they seem to be inclined to go back to being an Islamic republic, and if you want to know more about what that means, read their Constitution of 1964.
   

Quote :

And are we talking about human rights ? If yes what is the definition of human ? It looks like some have more rights than others.

Afghanistan is not about human rights primarily. Go read the mission statement. Reading is your friend.

Quote :

The biggest right I can see is the right to spend and collect.

The right to life and security of the person is the primary human right and the one which, if you don't have it, the rest don't matter.

Some countries allow you to protect that right yourself, such as the US with the Second Amendment. The Commonwealth countries like Canada, England, and Australia also had the right to bear arms for defense of life and security of the person as well, but those countries seem to have decided to pretty much ignore the right to bear arms.

Regardless, it is a big world out there, and the right to life and security on a larger scale is ultimately a function of your government. Some countries get to regularly choose their government and how that government sees fit to recognize and protect their right to life and security of the person. The US, Canada, Britain, etc. - and at one time Afghanistan. You might not agree with the government's position on that, but they sit there because a majority of your fellow citizens saw fit to support those views with their votes.

Other countries don't get to choose. Like Afghanistan in areas controlled by the Taliban, for example. Where you don't get to vote. And you don't get a trial. And whether you live or die and how you live or die is up to the arbitrary decision of self appointed mullahs.

Afghanistan kind of likes the idea of having what they had before the communist overthrow of their elected government and the current multinational group of thugs trying to take over the country. Which is why they asked us to be there - so they can choose a form of government that fits in with their views on the right to life and security of the person.

Quote :

I was in the forces in the 70s and it was common business to test each other reactions. It even happens between US and Canada so there is no big deal.

Russia has never planted a flag on territory claimed by Canada in the 70's or any time since then. It is worth noting they did this in territory claimed by Canada, but not by the US.

Russia has never held brigade size airborne operations in the Arctic before.

And this "testing" of each others reactions had pretty much died with the Soviet Union. And now, with disputes over Arctic boundaries, suddenly it's back. What a coincidence.

Oh well, probably all just business as usual... no worries...

I see that reading from only one source seems the rule for some.

Reading also helps understand what Hitler did to have the support of the population. Reading a doctrine is something and reading from as much sources as possible BEFORE building an opinion is another thing. NATO self determined who was legitimate to ask for help in Afghanistan. Even UN is dependant on some sources to decide it's interentions. Like the one in Irak that was decided on the assumption that there was something dangerous that they never found. Don't take me wrong on that, I don't like what is happening in these countries. I don't like seeing that people get killed by the thousands on fake justice. I would support any intervention that would help people if the reason to intervene was to help these people. All I say is if an organisation wants to wear the hat of purity it must do so all across even when there is no economics involved. As far as I know Afghanistan didn't attack any NATO's member. As far as I know NATO wasn't even involved when US started war in Afghanistan. US officialy started hostilities in october 2001. The Afghan's government has been formed in december 2001, the people of Afghanistan didn't have a word on it. I also recall that the talibans succeded to take control of Afghanistan with the support of Arabia Saoudia. At this time neither NATO's or UN found interest in the matter. It wasn't important to seek a legal government then. I guess that when we read, we can find that BenLaden was trained and supported by foreign countries that are members of NATO. And try also reading about countries where there is no economic interests and where people from these countries would appreciate that foreign countries named a temporary government so they would be able to ask for help. No money, no candy, that's it. As an example UN installed a peace force in Sierra Leone after hundred of thousands of people has been killed, millions have been deplaced and thousands has been mutilated. The UN forces were around the territory where are the diamond mines controled by De Beers. There is a question that must be answered. If the protection of people is the objective of these interventions, why do they hate the intervenants ? Why these people that see and live what's happening, not read about it, are so irritated ?

Reading and listening to foreign medias helps to balance the information recieved. It helps being a little bit circonspect about what is white and what is black. Grey is the rule. As an individual I try not to fool myself. There is only one thing that I am sure. This thing is that every one with power try to manipulate populations to cover themselve with virtue.

The missions that the Canada was involved in after Korea have never been of combat. The peace hat worn by Canada started with Cyprus and ended with Afghanistan. The way it's been decided is related to Irak. Canadian forces can't lead two big missions at the same time. So it was decided to go in Afghanistan instead of Irak since it was politically easier. The liberal government of this time lost some population support with this decision.

And about the russians flag, it's been planted somewhere where the US doesn't even recognize the Canada's territory. It's still being debated under international laws.

Dancamp wrote:

I see that reading from only one source seems the rule for some.

What are you talking about? One source?

Let's see... in reference to Afghanistan, you'll find what I wrote reflected in the following sources:

1. UN Security Council Resolutions
   
2. Afghan government documents
   
3. NATO documents
   
4. Canadian government documents (you know, that country you say you served in the Forces 30 years ago)
   

There's four, just for starters, and you're talking about "one source"? Now how do you figure that?

Or do you figure the best source for UN, NATO, Canadian and Afghan policy is somebody OTHER than those entities? What the hell do you believe to be an authorative source on the UN, Canada, Afghanistan, and NATO if not they themselves?

Quote :

Reading also helps understand what Hitler did to have the support of the population. Reading a doctrine is something and reading from as much sources as possible BEFORE building an opinion is another thing. NATO self determined who was legitimate to ask for help in Afghanistan.

You continue to demonstrate you don't have the first clue about what the hell you're talking about. I will say that throwing Hitler in there was a bit of a nice touch, however.

In yet another attempt to correct your twisted and perverted understanding of the history of the Afghanistan mission, here's the sequence of events that lead to the US and Canada being in the ISAF mission that has now been in existence for the last nine years.

No, NATO did not "self determine" who got to ask for help in Afghanistan. NATO had ZERO to do with it. This is what happened:

1. In 1997, the government of Afghanistan starts appealing to the UN for help with the invading Taliban. They continue this right up to 9/11.
   
2. A countrywide loya jurga concludes in 2001, agrees on a desire to return to a form of governance similar to that they had before the communist coup, and yet again approaches the UN for help with the Taliban.
   
3. The UN security council finally votes to support Afghanistan with the ISAF mission. Those who believe this is all about NATO should note two things:
   * NATO does not have a seat on the UN Security Council
   * Neither Russia nor China vetoed ISAF, and they are not exactly friends of NATO
   
4. The UN approached NATO - not the other way around - and asked the NATO nations if they would accept the mission.
   
5. NATO, after considerable debate, accepted the mission.
   

Claiming that NATO somehow or other decided who the UN Security Council - including China and Russia - would vote to support with a UN mission flies in the face of both recorded history and the most elementary common sense.

Quote :

As far as I know Afghanistan didn't attack any NATO's member.

You're right.

The legitimate Afghan government had nothing to do with it - the invading Taliban occupying the the majority of the country at the time were the guilty ones.

And it was those Taliban who hosted, aided, and abetted Al Queda while they made repeated attacks on US embassies, vessels, and of course the 9/11 attacks.

Now if you feel that the fact there wasn't a Taliban hajji actually at the controls of one of those aircraft means they can't be held accountable for hosting, aiding, and abetting Al Queda in these mass murders, then fine. But here's the concept in simpler terms. Let's say a guy down the street is concealing a child molester that police are looking for. Let's say the child molester's name is Clifford Olson. He feeds this guy and buys him duct tape and rope, provides him with maps and pictures of the local schools. Then one day this child molester goes to a local school, grabs your grandchild, uses that tape and rope to bind and gag them, rapes your grandchild and then kills them. And then comes scuttling back to the security of your neighbor's home, who then refuses to give him up to the cops.

Do we hold your neighbor responsible for their actions in raping and murdering your grandchild? Or would you ask the cops to leave them alone because they weren't the ones who actually kidnapped, raped, and murdered your grandkid?

Most logical people understand that when you knowingly shelter, aid, and abet somebody committing murder - either individually or on a mass scale - you become equally culpable. If you don't agree with that... well, there's nothing much more to say.

Quote :

As far as I know NATO wasn't even involved when US started war in Afghanistan. US officialy started hostilities in october 2001.

Wrong again.

While it is popular with the tinfoil hat crowd to sell this as an American war, it was a NATO effort from the first day, with major NATO partners like Canada and Britain involved right from the very first. Did the US put in most of the effort? Damned right - they had been dealt the most serious blow and can initiate a full military response in a time frame that Canada and Britain can't even come close to.

Quote :

The Afghan's government has been formed in december 2001, the people of Afghanistan didn't have a word on it.

Wrong yet again.

What you're claiming here is the loya jurga that concluded with the Bonn Agreement didn't actually happen!

You're claiming that a loya jurga with 1500 participants - not only the king and members of the existing Afghan government and prime minister, but men and women from every tribe and area of Afghanistan - did not allow Afghans any input on how they decided to move forward. Let's see, a country of 30 million people had what amounts to a constitutional conference with 1500 voting participants. Your Canada with 30 million people had... how many people representing the voice of the people during the last constitutional conferences? About 12, wasn't it?

Quote :

I also recall that the talibans succeded to take control of Afghanistan with the support of Arabia Saoudia.

Yet again, you recall wrong. Saudi Arabia briefly gave the Taliban diplomatic recognition. They did not support them in any way, shape, or form in their battles to completely occupy Afghanistan. It isn't news that there are a lot of Wahabbist Saudis who support the Taliban/Al Queda - one of them is a guy named Osama Bin Laden. What they're doing doesn't mean that is the policy of the country they're from.

Quote :

And try also reading about countries where there is no economic interests and where people from these countries would appreciate that foreign countries named a temporary government so they would be able to ask for help.

Could you be good enough to share with us your secret source that says the interim government voted for and selected by the loya jurga that resulted in the Bonn Agreement was actually named by a foreign government?

Quote :

There is a question that must be answered. If the protection of people is the objective of these interventions, why do they hate the intervenants ? Why these people that see and live what's happening, not read about it, are so irritated?

Why is it that folks who have never actually been to Afghanistan - much less read the relevant documents dealing with why NATO is there in the first place - are such experts on what the people of that country think of those of us who actually have lived among them for months and years at a time?

Do Afghans actually resent our presence there? Well, seeing as how all they have to say is "leave" and the ISAF mission ends, apparently not. And we don't see that while we're working among Afghans either. But still, let's see what the last national poll of Afghans by Afghans came up with:

Q17. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the presence of the following groups in Afghanistan today?
- 68% support the presence of US troops
- 62% support the presence of NATO troops
- 10% support the Taliban

How you twist results like that coming from nationwide polling of Afghans into a claim that Afghans hate us is a bit of a mystery to me. Probably a mystery to you as well.

Quote :

Reading and listening to foreign medias helps to balance the information recieved.

Obviously you haven't been doing that, as the above poll was widely reported in the BBC and other European countries...

Quote :

It helps being a little bit circonspect about what is white and what is black.

And yet here you are, posting stuff like claims the Afghans hate us. That seems pretty black and white to me.

Quote :

The missions that the Canada was involved in after Korea have never been of combat. The peace hat worn by Canada started with Cyprus and ended with Afghanistan.

Once again, you're totally wrong. You don't even know you're own country's history, much less that of Iraq.

For starters, "pure" peacekeeping missions as you envision in mentioning Cyprus began long before that. One would think a Canadian would know that Prime Minister Lester Pearson won his Nobel Peace Prize for the Canadian peacekeeping mission and involvement in UNEF I. Followed by ONUC and UNTEA/UNSF. There's three peacekeeping missions right there that predate Cyprus.

But let's talk about your claim that Canadian UN missions since Cyprus have never been combat before Afghanistan.

Are you going to tell the paratroopers who fought in Cyprus when the Turks invaded - losing two members in the fighting as they opposed Turkish paratroopers - that they were wearing a "peace hat"?

Are going to tell the pilots and troops involved in the first Gulf War that they were wearing a "peace hat"? What is so peaceful about air to air and air to ground missiles?

Are you going to tell the pilots that were bombing Serb positions in Kosovo and the supporting Canadian ground forces with them that they were wearing a "peace hat"? What's so peaceful about a 2000 lb bomb landing in your lap?

Are you going to tell the Canadians who fought in the former Yugoslavia in the Battle of Medak that they were wearing a "peace hat"? You know, the guys in 2VP who were awarded a unit citation for their performance in that battle?

I don't think so Skippy. What component and trade were you in the CF anyways?

Your statement of your sources confirm that you look at only one side of the medal. 4 sources that organized a public relation plan to convince the population to support their point of view. Moreover we're not talking about a medal but about something much more complex than that so there are more than two ways to look at it.

Lester B. Pearson was awarded a peace nobel price based on its implication in the Suez's crisis in 1956. the implication of Canada in the Korean war was from 1950 to 1953. I have friends that went in Kosovo. There has been bombardment over there but not by canadians forces. What my friends told me was how it was terrible to look to what happened to the population over there without having the right to intervene. Since reading is your friend try that. It's not more facts than the propaganda from others but it is another point of view. http://www.telospress.com/main/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=381.

All your propaganda recollection doesn't explain why it wasn't so urgent to react in Rwanda even if such help has been requested from the population. You don't even seem to remember that the talibans were gladly invited by the population of Afghanistan when they took power. I guess again that since it doesn't fit in your idea of virtue it doesn't exist. Maybe a travel in Vietnam would show you how the population over there has been sad since the US left the place.

You state that in 1996 the Afghanistan governement asked the UN for help. What government are you talking about, elected by who and by what means ? Sure you're not talking about the government left in place by the USSR. And since you have access to the ducuments that legitimates the intervention in Afghanistan, when did this resolution took place and when did the British and the US started war overthere ? By checking that maybe you'll find that the dates don't match.

Yourself stated something about the nazis and after that you say it'ss been a nice touch from me. Let me say that Hitler, Staline and any other men of power have all the knoledge to use propaganda to their own means. The best one is the one that doesn't look like he is doing it. Reading your lines, there are good ones still living.

Anyway if you don't want to be critical about it just say it, I'll stop arguing. I'm behind the troops that served in any war but not behind the political people that use them to protect their personnal interests. The troops are there because they have faith in their government and we can see that many of tem return home diabused by what they see and live while fighting. If the population of a country needs help just help it, don't hide behind false reasons like being asked by a legitimate government. And if you don't like earing about people being abused, suport the organisations that try to stop them from starving. They won't be so eager to follow any illuminated that promises and give them food. At least these people have the excuse of not being educated.

Sorry, but I don't care what MacJag writes, or MacCrystal or MacPatreas, or MacCain, or MacCheny, or MacWolfowitz, or MacBush, or MacGeorge or MacSecDef or MacAnyoneElse... it's over and the sooner we realize it the better. We spent ever dime we could find to defeat "terrorism" and we haven't. The "terrorists" spent a few million and tricked us into spending trillions with no end in sight. What does it take to see the light?

We need a better strategy, we don't have it and we cannot buy it. Even if we could find it, we wouldn't recognize it. Of course, it's only my opinion.

Dancamp wrote:

Your statement of your sources confirm that you look at only one side of the medal. 4 sources that organized a public relation plan to convince the population to support their point of view. Moreover we're not talking about a medal but about something much more complex than that so there are more than two ways to look at it.

Wow.... ...just... wow.

We have the New World Order conspiracy theory.

The IMF conspiracy theory.

The Bindenburger conspiracy theory.

And now we have the Canadian Government, the United Nations, the Government of Afghanistan, and NATO all involved in a carefully crafted and organized conspiracy to mislead the public! Of course, the British, American, Australian, etc governments will all say pretty much the same, so it is actually a six-sided, one side of the story.

The Afghan conspiracy.

It's just freaking amazing. Think of the tens of thousands of people who have to be involved with all those governments and civil servants. In the case of Canada, three different Prime Ministers with three different administrations. Not to mention the opposition parties. Imagine, a conspiracy theory that has Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, and Steven Harper all plotting and scheming together, the best of buddies. I wonder how many Canadians of voting age can buy that one?

And yet, with tens of thousands of people involved, not one of these persons has come forward to blow the whistle on this conspiracy. Not one talks to a spouse who goes to the press after a marriage breakup.

I'll tell ya... when we throw a conspiracy around here, we do it to perfection! Thank God we have you to out it!

Quote :

Lester B. Pearson was awarded a peace nobel price based on its implication in the Suez's crisis in 1956. the implication of Canada in the Korean war was from 1950 to 1953.

I'm not sure what you're babbling about. But you should be cluing in at about this point - having just mentioned the Suez peacekeeping mission - that Cyprus wasn't Canada's first peacekeeping mission as you claimed earlier. Also known as UNEF 1 to members of the Canadian Forces - which you claimed to have served in. And then there was the Congo - also known as ONUC to those who served in the CF, and another peacekeeping mission prior to Cyprus.

So again, your claim that peacekeeping started for Canada with Cyprus is just as absolutely erroneous as your claim there were no Canadian combat missions up until Afghanistan. You can continue to delude yourself and claim that isn't so, but anybody who can manage to use Google can determine just how wrong you are without even bothering to go to the Canadian Forces website.

Wait... maybe the Suez, the Congo, etc was just another conspiracy! Never thought of that!

Quote :

I have friends that went in Kosovo. There has been bombardment over there but not by canadians forces. What my friends told me was how it was terrible to look to what happened to the population over there without having the right to intervene. Since reading is your friend try that.

Man, you sure enjoy embarrassing yourself.

No bombing by Canadian forces? Really?

Your anonymous military friends claim they didn't have the right to intervene?

Really????

Well, that is very curious.

Tell us, why were 441 Tactical Fighter Squadron and 425 Tactical Fighter Squadron awarded Battle Honours for Kosovo if they weren't flying combat missions? How do you win battle honours when you're not in combat?

Just to help you and those anonymous friends you claim (the ones that were over there but apparently didn't realize what they were doing), Canadian pilots only comprised 2% of Coalition forces but flew 10% of the missions. To be specific, 678 combat sorties, dropping nearly 500,000 lbs of bombs.

As I said before, reading is your friend. Being as you claim to have once served in the Canadian Forces, perhaps you may feel that the Canadian Forces is not part of this new Kosovo conspiracy you have just uncovered:
Kosovo battle honours awarded to 425 and 441 Squadrons

So tell us... is the Canadian Forces, these squadrons, the airmen, the ground crews, and the former Governor General part of your little conspiracy as well? Can you explain how they faked the 500,000 pounds of bombs you say they actually never dropped?

Given the thought processes you display, it is little wonder some Canadians are so bent out of shape and wrapped around the axle regarding Afghanistan.

Quote :

You state that in 1996 the Afghanistan governement asked the UN for help.

No I didn't. I said 1997. Not only will you not go to the UN website to see for yourself, you can't repeat what I said correctly when it is right there in front of you.

But maybe we need to work on teaching you Canadian history before talking about a foreign country. When you claim to be a former soldier and are that ignorant of your own country's recent military history, you have bigger problems than trying to understand Afghanistan.

Quote :

Anyway if you don't want to be critical about it just say it, I'll stop arguing. I'm behind the troops that served in any war but not behind the political people that use them to protect their personnal interests.

Ah yes. Another guy who claims he supports the troops but doesn't have the nads to go talk to them or ask them what THEY think of Afghanistan after having been there. The world is full of people like that. Funny we never run into any of them while we're about in uniform.

Why don't you give us a little display of your "supporting the troops" by going to Bagotville and telling the CF personnel there from 425 Squadron they actually weren't in combat over in Kosovo - it's not that far from the Montreal area, after all. Maybe you should suggest they give back their campaign stars won fighting in that campaign.

If that's too far for you to go, there's lots of military units in the Montreal area. Pick one. Go there, find an Afghan veteran, and run your theories by them. Tell us how that goes for ya.

Quote :

The troops are there because they have faith in their government and we can see that many of tem return home diabused by what they see and live while fighting.

The troops are there because they aren't running on conspiracy theories from the comfort and safety of their chairs. The troops are there and go back again and again because they see the difference they make.

Furthermore, the idea that some fat Larry laying around at home reading conspiracy theories knows more about Afghanistan than guys who have done tour after tour over there is insulting.

And if you're going to claim lots of Canadian troops return home disillusioned about what they're doing over there, you might at least try and offer some proof of that rather than just making another empty headed claim. You have all the links to the Tin Foil Hat websites, so surely you must have some links to all the newspaper articles, blogs, etc with those disaffected soldiers. So where are they?

As you obviously haven't figured it out yet, I am one of those soldiers. For a guy who claims to be an ex CF soldier, you sure don't clue in too fast to that avatar of mine.

Don't try and lie to me we didn't fight in Yugoslavia. You might get away with that crap with other people, but I fought there in the Battle of Medak while you were at home scratching your ass and working on your tan. Don't tell me about the guys fighting in Afghanistan - I make my living working every day beside and commanding a detachment with guys who, at one time or another, have been in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2010. More than a few friends of mine have died over there, and I don't need some overfed civvy safe at home, too good to talk to soldiers, never having been to Afghanistan themselves, telling me we're were too dumb to understand Afghanistan but he does.

To be blunt, people like you piss me off. I don't care if you believe every conspiracy theory under the sun. I don't care if you think the Taliban are the very epitome of Afghan culture. I don't care if you believe George Bush personally selected every pilot who flew a jet into the Twin Towers. I don't care if you say it's a pack of lies that the Taliban has and is committing mass murder over there. That I don't care about.

But don't try and tell a soldier a pack of lies about where I and my brothers in arms did and didn't fight, and what my brothers in arms were doing when they died. These are my friends you're spewing your BS about. You'll have to live a lot of lifetimes to ever measure up to those men. I don't expect you to respect them because you don't have it in you, but I won't sit silent while you lie about them.

And while we're on the subject, seeing as you claim you served in the CF, just what was your MOS anyways? I find you harder to believe every word you type, so I'm really curious what MOS you claim.

Quote :

If the population of a country needs help just help it, don't hide behind false reasons like being asked by a legitimate government.

Yup, we just have to end on a conspiracy theory. How predictable. I should be buying Alcan stock.

Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

taoshum wrote:

Sorry, but I don't care what MacJag writes, or MacCrystal or MacPatreas, or MacCain, or MacCheny, or MacWolfowitz, or MacBush, or MacGeorge or MacSecDef or MacAnyoneElse... it's over and the sooner we realize it the better.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

The fighting is now essentially confined to only two provinces out of 34. Where there were no Afghan forces fighting beside us just a few years ago, there are now numerous kandaks fighting beside us or conducting security operations entirely on their own.

But we can all clearly see that as evidence we are hopelessly beaten.

Why? Because a bunch of people who have never been over there, and wouldn't know how many provinces there are in Afghanistan of somebody didn't tell them, are telling us so.

There is only one way the Taliban can win over in Afghanistan. And that's if their comrades and allies in our home countries talk us into giving up and leaving them alone.

Quote :

We spent ever dime we could find to defeat "terrorism" and we haven't.

Yes. Airliners are still being flown into skyscrapers.

Warships are still being blown up.

Embassies are still being bombed.

Nothing has changed.

The strawman here is the falsehood that we had and have total freedom from the threat of terrorism as the goal. It isn't. Nobody ever claimed we could completely eliminate terrorism.

What we have done is eliminate Afghanistan as a safe haven for groups like Al Queda to use as training camps, a place of refuge.

We've eliminated many of their senior planners, recruiters, leaders, and financiers. Nobody with a brain would ever think that would mean they disappear, but when you are taking out the brains of any group, they lose much of their effectiveness.

Quote :

The "terrorists" spent a few million and tricked us into spending trillions with no end in sight. What does it take to see the light?

It's amusing that they got more support from some people over here than they get over where we're hunting them.

Quote :

Of course, it's only my opinion.

Well no, it's Bin Laden's strategy you're articulating as you help try to carry it out.

He said the West would defeat itself from within. You're part of the forces acting on that and making it a possibility.

They've tried and found they can't beat us on the battlefield. They had tanks, artillery, and warplanes when they first engaged us. All they really have left now is the IED. This, apparently, represents the Taliban getting stronger. The only alternative they have left with Afghan forces getting increasingly stronger is to have their force multipliers convince NATO countries it is hopeless and we have to leave. A couple of more years and the Afghan forces will be like Pakistan forces - too strong to push to one side. And once Western forces leave, Afghan troops without NATO restraints on the treatment of prisoners will start playing by Taliban rules.

And for the Taliban, that won't be any fun at all.

8 doctors where killed to day in Afghanistan. Respect for human life is zero........

[quote="Jäger]

Quote :

We spent ever dime we could find to defeat "terrorism" and we haven't.

Nothing has changed, and we are out a Trillion dollars!!! You have never faced up to the cost for this, not once... why is that MacJag? It's not your money, what do you care?

Nobody ever claimed we could completely eliminate terrorism. No they just say over and over "we're gonna WIN; We're GONNA WIN; We GOTTA WIN". It's nuts. Even you know we're NOT GOING TO WIN. "Nobody ever claimed we could completely eliminate terrorism" YOU got that right, we can't win.

What we have done is eliminate occupy and destroy what's left of Afghanistan safe haven for groups like Al Queda to use as training camps, a place of refuge as a place to live, Except for OBL and his buddies?????

We've eliminated many of their senior planners, recruiters, leaders, and financiers. We oughta get much more than this for several Trillion!!!!!! The jobless rate in the US is approaching 20%, the national debt is approaching 100% of GDP and we're on the brink of economic failure and all you're bragging about is the elimination of a few planners, recruiters and financiers on the other side of the planet? Wake UP MacJag, we cannot even find 8 Billion that we sent over there.

Quote :

The "terrorists" spent a few million and tricked us into spending trillions with no end in sight. What does it take to see the light?

It's NOT amusing But is is encouraging that the support in Congress is fading quickly so maybe they will stop pouring our tax $$ down an endless pit of no return.

it's Bin Laden's strategy. I'm paying for this trajedy... $50K/year. He is one smart SOB. He figured out how to bankrupt us and you don't even care, don't even care... that's the most scarrrrry part, you're supposed to part of the solution...and you're not.

He said the West would defeat itself from within. YOU are the one being paid and spending the money that will bankrupt us.

And once Western forces leave And we will import Cheese from the MOON before that happens. We're still in 38 countries all over the globe.

OK, MacJag,come August, 2012, two years hence, just as you predict, let's check the rosters, I'll bet you $1000 that the US troops will still be in Afganistan and/or Iraq.

[/quote]

Obviously there are people that are not able to learn.

It is true that Canada sent around 1,000 people on a period of 10 years for the Suez crisis, as for combat missions there have been soldiers involved even in Vietnam. There is a difference between having a combat mission from a nation and lending qualified personnal for specifics operations. Someone has to have the capacity to make the difference and it's not given to everyone.

Anyway, there is a simple question that never get answered and that matters. Is the war made to save people or not. If yes. why some people recieve help and some don't

And like Taosbum mentionned, this war costs trillions. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to do sometning with this much money that could prevent war instead of causing it. For sure some get rich with war it's more an investment than anything else. The time for the return on money for the trining of Benladen is over. So oblitarate from your memory this part and claim patriotism to kill the dog.

It also happened when UN wanted to condemn Iraq for using chemical weapons against Iran. Guess who voted against such a resolution ? An after that the same invaded the country stating that there were so much of these weapons that it could threaten North America. They found none so they reverted to another reason. It was to fight Alquaida. Then it's been found that Hussain was fighting them himself.

I wonder why countries in Asia or in poor parts of Africa don't get so much attention. There are starving people, mutilated people, self made governments and nope, forget them. The reasons to make war over there are not the same. In Somalia it wasn't worth the spending. After a short time no more UN forces.

The taliban won't win the war if the Afghans see on place the same thing that is being said. They will win if the Afghans continue to feel that their lives is worth less than other's life. The taliban are nort better or worst than the others. Ever wondered why the talibans were interested. First let say that the talibans are religious people being brainwash by a few that want to control the circulation of the goods through the country. Even in countries like ours there are people that have no discernement, imagine in countries where eating is the main preoccupation.

There is no world conspiracy. The trees don't need to make plans to shed light from other plants. The seals don't have strategy to eliminate cods. Aids virus don't plot the invasion of human organism. After all they is no intelligence and even no brain in these beings. They have this excuse. Humans have no excuses if they still want to pretend being the most intelligent being on the planet. Let the fear dictate your reactions instead of your intelligence. Let the basic instints rule, not the brain that is capable of understanding, just the primitive one that is smaller at the base of your cranius.

While it takes months before spending millions in poor countries that ask for help, the money flows instantly for countries where is money to be made. Those who can't see that have their eyes wide shut.

What is even worst now than before is the civil casualties. At the begin of the 20th century at least 80% of war casualties were soldiers. Now it's at least 80% civilians. I guess it's better to die from a bomb than from hunger.

Other sources and opinions. From different perspectives.

http://www.afghannews.net/index.php?newsgroup=22

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/l08herbert.html?_r=1

Oh and I forgot to mention. There are some people that decide to send other people to war. While the troops they sent are living the war, they stand seated and do whatever any moron would describe.

Reading what i read it's evident that war leaves marks. It depraves one's humanity and capacity to observe, and understand other's points of view. Every one that has an opposite opinion is an enemy. It is true that public opinion lost the war in Vietnam. What strikes me is that this public opinion has been feeded in great parts by soldiers coming back from the war theater. What these soldiers reported gave good enough ground so the political class couldn't stop the reporters from getting there and do their job.

I'll write and rewrite it. It's credibility that looses war in the mind of people. The politicians seek the support of the population for the troops because they can't have it for their decisions. When you pretend you want to stop torture on people, don't do it yourself. When you pretend you want to help people build a democratic country, respect their choice even if you don't like it. If it's their economic independancy that you want to pomote, stop dumping your products and siphoning most of their $. It's easy, just be as vertuous as you pretend to be and then you'll have credibility and support.

rokka wrote:

8 doctors where killed to day in Afghanistan. Respect for human life is zero........

Ten people actually, Rokka. By people that folks like Taoshum shill for.

This particular organization has been aiding Afghans since the late 60's - as have other aid groups. Now they're just targets for the hate filled hajjis that Taoshum and Dancamp would prefer we leave unmolested to subjugate Afghanistan and then get on with their quest to make war on all the infidels.

These brutal savages - by Afghan standards as well - just murdered ten people doing work of enormous medical benefit to the people of Afghanistan. People who would otherwise have no access to this kind of medical aid - particularly under the medieval rule of the Taliban and Al Queda. This is the Taliban version of fighting for Afghans as Taoshum and their fellow travellers see it.

Nobody should be surprised at this. Canadian aid workers have been deliberately murdered in the past by the Taliban as have aid workers from other countries been deliberately murdered. And prior to NATO going to Afghanistan, the Taliban drove aid organizations out of Afghanistan on threat of death.

This is the kind of regime that Taoshum, Dancamp and the other Taliban force multipliers want to talk Western nations into abandoning Afghans to.

Afghanistan was a remarkably tolerant nation until the communist coup and leading up to the Taliban of today. This should really not surprise anyone who knows anything of Afghanistan's history. The Buddhist statues the Taliban destroyed (now being rebuilt with the help of Muslim Afghans and evil Christian archeological specialists) had stood unmolested in Islamic Afghanistan for over a thousand years. Afghanistan had a significant Jewish population, existing from the time of the Silk Route and Afghanistan sitting on one of the major trade routes of earlier centuries. All of that is gone now because of the multinational Taliban terrorists.

Afghans want the nation they had back; the one that existed under their Constitution of 1964. Aside from our personal safety, is it really too much to give them some chance at having at least some of the rights and freedoms that Taoshum and Dancamp abuse so freely in the security of countries that aren't threatened by a Taliban-like rule?

I say they are entitled to that chance. Particularly when our countries no longer have a draft, and those of us who go in harm's way go there freely of our own choice while folks like Taoshum and Dancamp sit at home, bitching, but offering no solutions.

This is the consequence of false representations.

Why Afghanistan and not the other countries. You make false propaganda exactly like the talibans. Only trying to keep fear and hate as the motivation of barbaric actions. Keep on starving people. Like they say, "If you want to kill your dog say it has the rabies".

Keep on Jager, make sure more and more people will get killed cause your simplistic mind can't see nothing but force to solve problems. Exactly like animals.

Why is it that those that started it don't want to talk about the reasons they gave then and they try to find new pretexts ?

Finally find good lies to get somewhere and once there why not keep on going. After that you ask that we believe the propaganda ?

Like the old man says "First time shame on you, second time, shame on me." The truth will unify the population not lies. And the truth is free don't need to spend millions to convince about it.

I repeat again I'm for the interventions as long as they are conveyed equally every where needed.

And by the way find a country that's always at war and that the criminal rate isn't high. On the opposite the peaceful countries have a higher rate of solving domestic problems. But please don't ask those who don't share your opinions to do what YOU believe in. If you believe in democraty you should at least understand that. Let's hope.

Dancamp wrote:

Obviously there are people that are not able to learn.

Says the guy who claims Cyprus was Canada's first peacekeeping mission when in fact there were two or three before that.

Says the guy who claims Canada never dropped any bombs in Kosovo.

Says the guy that said "The missions that the Canada was involved in after Korea have never been of combat", including missions like Gulf War 1, Kosovo and Yugoslavia (where I fought in the Battle of Medak and got a gong from the GG for that along with everyone else involved in that multi-day battle).

Says the guy who says the Afghan people didn't have any input whatsoever into the Bonn Agreement in December 2001 when in fact there were 1500 voting participants from every tribe and privince in the country.

Says the guy who (having never been there) claims Afghans hate those who have responded to their request for help and are intervening over there - when in fact polling indicates nearly 70% support the US and NATO presence.

And says the guy who now tries to gloss over the fact he gets so LITTLE right about his own country's history. And in particular, his own country's military history after claiming he once served in the Canadian Forces.

In my humble opinion, you're the last person to be lecturing on an inability to learn. What WAS your regiment and MOS, anyways? Most CF units are pretty big on their soldiers knowing their military history.

Quote :

Is the war made to save people or not. If yes. why some people recieve help and some don't

The amusing thing is, if the UN decided to unilaterally make war on nations where people were being oppressed like Afghans - WITHOUT A REQUEST FROM THAT NATION AND WITHOUT A UN RESOLUTION VOTED ON BY THE UN as is the case in Afghanistan - you and Taoshum would be the first ones screaming about wars of aggression and sticking our noses in where we weren't invited.

You want us to make war on North Korea? No problem: sign up. We're a little short of enough people to be everywhere at once; so far it's hard enough just going where we're invited. But if guys like you will get off the couch, do more than bitch and whine, and sign up, then we can send you somewhere to do your little bit. You can serve in the CF now until you're 60, so you still have time to do your part.

Quote :

And like Taosbum mentionned, this war costs trillions.

Yeah.

Tell me what it would be worth if it was your sister over there whose fingers they were cutting off for wearing nail polish and then gang raping for a couple of weeks before hanging from a crane in the town square?

What it would be worth if it was your father who jumped to their death from the Trade Tower instead of burning to death?

What it would be worth if it was your grandchild who had both legs blown off by a left over Soviet mine because we decided to save the money we're spending on demining that country?

And do you really, simplisticly, expect that the hajjis will leave us all alone if we just but stand aside and let them do whatever they want in Afghanistan? Do you really believe that?

If your morals are all about money, the one thing Taoshum didn't mention was the cost to the US alone of the 9/11 attacks. Would you dare to venture where Taoshum never will and provide us with figures for what the direct costs of those attacks was? How about taking a shot at estimating how much we spend on security each year to prevent further attacks - apparently effective given the hajjis we've been picking off in both US in Canada before they could launch their attacks?

Don't want to go there? I thought not.

Quote :

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to do sometning with this much money that could prevent war instead of causing it.

Yeah, we could try providing education and medical assistance.

Oh wait! They just demonstrated yet again they'll murder the teachers and medical aid we send over there. Jeez, they don't seem to like your views of singing kumbiya together.

Quote :

So oblitarate from your memory this part and claim patriotism to kill the dog.

You really are downright frightened of actually going and reading the UN resolutions that have us in Afghanistan, aren't you.

Quote :

I wonder why countries in Asia or in poor parts of Africa don't get so much attention. There are starving people, mutilated people, self made governments and nope, forget them.

Like the Congo you mean? Oh wait, there is a UN mission there. Surprisingly enough, just because Canadians and Americans aren't there doesn't mean there isn't a UN mission. If you weren't so self centered, you'd realize there's more to the UN than Canada, the US, and Britain.

Quote :

In Somalia it wasn't worth the spending. After a short time no more UN forces.

What actually happened is screaming from people like you about what we were doing over there gave both the American and Canadian governments cold feet and they bailed on the mission.

And, possibly, you're on track to have the same "victory" in Afghanistan. For which the Taliban will owe you a great deal of gratitude, I'm sure.

Quote :

They will win if the Afghans continue to feel that their lives is worth less than other's life.

For somebody who has never been to Afghanistan - much less actually lived with and worked beside them as so many of us have - you sure know a lot about what they think and feel. Did your Ouiji Board tell you this or what?

Quote :

The taliban are nort better or worst than the others.

Now that is 100% BS and pretty much illustrates just how little you know of that country and the amazing people who live there.

If they're no worse, why did the Buddhist statues survive for over a thousand years in religious tolerance before the Taliban destroyed them?

Why were other faiths able to live and practice their faiths unmolested in Afghanistan before the Taliban occupied those areas?

Why could women go to school, work outside the home, and go outside without the chadri prior to the Taliban if the Taliban were no worse?

Why could people vote before the Taliban but not afterwards if the Taliban were no worse?

Why can women run for office before and presently while the Taliban treated them like livestock and they don't even get to vote much less hold public office?

I could go on for a couple of pages, but saying the Taliban are no worse than anyone else over there is a blatant display of ignorance. Of course, if you can tell me where the Taliban allow women to hold public office and vote, as before and after their occupation, I might change my mind.

Quote :

Ever wondered why the talibans were interested.

Unlike you, I've met some of the pricks. And I don't need somebody sanctimoniously lecturing from the safety of Canada who has never been to Afghanistan, much less actually ran into one of these thugs, to instruct me about them.

Quote :

Let the fear dictate your reactions instead of your intelligence.

Says the guy who can't even get his own country's history right.

Maybe the motto should be: "If we but repeat lies about Afghanistan long enough, they will become accepted as the truth" (with recognition to Joseph Goebbels for developing this strategy).

Quote :

While it takes months before spending millions in poor countries that ask for help, the money flows instantly for countries where is money to be made. Those who can't see that have their eyes wide shut.

Yeah, that's why it took Afghanistan four years to get help. And why Yugoslavia, which we also have no financial interest in, had troops in country in a matter of months.

If there's money being made off the resources of Afghanistan, nobody seems to be able to find those resources yet, much less the money. But maybe you can identify the location of all these oil wells everyone talks about but can't quite point out on a map.?

Quote :

What is even worst now than before is the civil casualties.

You forgot to add that the vast majority of civilian casualties are killed by the Taliban. And better yet, most of those deaths are deliberate?

Quote :

At the begin of the 20th century at least 80% of war casualties were soldiers. Now it's at least 80% civilians.

Before you go too much further with your latest ridiculous claim, you might want to compare WWII military versus civilian deaths.

Here, let me help you out one more time: military deaths, about 25 million at most. Civilian deaths: about 55 million.

Let's not even go back to times when the Mongols and Roman Legions were putting entire populations to the sword when somebody tries to convince us that just now civilians are getting the short end of the stick in warfare.

Dancamp wrote:

This is the consequence of false representations.

Says the guy who piously claims Canada never dropped any bombs on Kosovo (not counting the half million pounds CF pilots dropped in nearly 800 sorties, of course).

Says the guy who claims Afghans had no say in their new government, when in fact the loya jurga had approximately 1500 voting participants - women as well as men - from every tribe and province in the country.

Quote :

Why Afghanistan and not the other countries. You make false propaganda exactly like the talibans.

Your intentional ignorance and fear of fact does not constitute "propaganda" on my part.

It isn't propaganda when I post here that Canada dropped a lot of bombs in Kosovo and went to Gulf War 1 and Yugoslavia in a combat role. You can try and convince people otherwise, but anyone who bothers to look outside this forum for themselves can see how pathetically wrong you are. As is your claims of "propaganda".

And I'll repeat it one more time as you don't seem to get it. Afghanistan has a UN mission because they requested one. If you weren't so terrified of going to the UN's website and reading the relevant resolutions, you'd understand that.

And North Korea doesn't have one because they haven't asked for one.

The UN doesn't arbitrarily go into countries without a request for a mission. And if they did, you and Taoshum would be screaming "invasion".

Quote :

Keep on Jager, make sure more and more people will get killed cause your simplistic mind can't see nothing but force to solve problems.

My "simplistic mind" isn't going to keep claiming Canada didn't drop bombs in Kosovo and Afghans didn't have any representation in the Bonn Agreement when anybody with a minute of spare time and access to Google can quickly see what a pile of BS that is.

My "simplistic mind" doesn't believe that if we but just abandon Afghans to the Taliban, Muslim extremists will reward us by leaving us alone and renouncing terrorist attacks.

Quote :

Why is it that those that started it don't want to talk about the reasons they gave then and they try to find new pretexts ?

Why is it that the reasons for why this started can be found in archives all over the Internet, but to The Tin Foil Hat Brigade, their ownly response is "No, tell us the REAL reason. You know, the one that matches our conspiracy theories".

The UN, Canadian, etc archives on this are available for anyone who cares to see. I don't see any change in why we accepted ISAF at the beginning and what we're doing now.

Quote :

Finally find good lies to get somewhere and once there why not keep on going.

Like claiming Canada never dropped bombs in Kosovo you mean? That was you, not me.

Like claiming Afghans never had any representation in their new government through the Bonn Agreement, you mean? That was you, not me.

Like claiming Afghans hate NATO and US troops over in Afghanistan? That was you, not me.

When it gets right down to it, looking at all your posts here, you and Taoshum and the others that Lenin termed "useful idiots" have many things in common:
You make all kinds of accusations and denunciations. What you can't do is put together a coherent, logical argument to back it up.

You know what the troops and Afghans think, and yet you've never talked to either one. You have lots of bitching to do, but no workable solutions to add.

You talk about conspiracies your country, the UN, etc is involved in, but the last thing you'll do is go and read the documents pertaining to their involvement.

You talk about supporting the troops, but you don't have the guts to actually go up to them and ask them about their experiences and what they think.

You cry about civilian deaths while ignoring the fact most are deliberately killed by the Taliban and it will be a bloodbath if the Taliban ever control those areas again.

In short, you're long on accusations but bloody short on being able to provide a coherent and logical explanation to back up what you post.

Quote :

Like the old man says "First time shame on you, second time, shame on me." The truth will unify the population not lies.

Don't worry.

You can tell me a dozen times Canadians never dropped half a million bombs on Kosovo and I won't believe you - not even the first time.

You can tell me a dozen times Afghans never had any input to the Bonn Agreement and I won't believe you - not even the first time.

You can tell me I was never in a combat role in Yugoslavia and I won't believe you - not even the first time.

Others here... who knows. If they decide to do a little Googling of your claims, I think they are going to discover pretty quickly your shit is weak.

Quote :

And by the way find a country that's always at war and that the criminal rate isn't high. On the opposite the peaceful countries have a higher rate of solving domestic problems.

Ummmm... okay...

Let's see... two countries not at war... I choose... Jamaica and Mexico.

Two countries regularly involved in wars... I choose... the US and Isreal.

Would you like to post the comparative murder and violent crime statistics or shall I?

MacJag, does this mean you are afraid to take the bet? I'm betting you are wrong.

taoshum wrote:

What we have done is eliminate occupy and destroy what's left of Afghanistan safe haven for groups like Al Queda to use as training camps, a place of refuge as a place to live

Rather than repetitively taking apart the latest posting from one of the Taliban's useful idiots, maybe a more general post might serve better.

While Taoshum and Dancamp are frightened to the point of dropping their guts of actually reading the terms of the ISAF mission that has in Afghanistan, to anyone who is not already sold on the Tin Foil Hat Brigade's theories, the mission parameters are easily found on the UN's website for anyone to read.

What becomes abundently clear to anyone who reads it is that our presence there is not an "occupation" the way our Taliban friends here like to style it. When NATO is there by invitation - an invitation renewed at the request of Afghanistan yearly - just how is that an "occupation". I honestly don't get it. But then, I've actually bothered to take the time to read the governance resolutions concerning Afghanistan.

"Destroying what's left of Afghanistan"???

Really? Like what. Can any of the Taliban's useful idiots here supply us with a list of infrastructure that NATO has destroyed in Afghanistan? Can they name bridges we've destroyed, roads we've destroyed, schools we've destroyed, etc? I'd really like to see that list. Yeah, we destroyed the Taliban air force, destroyed their tanks, destroyed their artillery. I don't think the Chechnian, Syrian, Jordanian, etc Taliban hajjis operating that equipment were allowing ordinary Afghans to live in that military equipment.

Do we blow up grape huts when the Taliban use them as hard points to shoot at us from? Yup. So what's a grape hut worth? Well, about the same amount as an old outhouse back home, which is kind of what they resemble.

Well, if Taoshum refuses to divulge his list of the infrastructure we've destroyed over there, what have we been up to? Well, let's see:

Completing restoration of the Dahla Dam. First built by the US back in the 50's (MY GOD! The American conspiracy began 50 years ago!) and destroyed by the Soviets. Providing jobs to 10,000 Afghans and providing drinking water and irrigation to 80% of Kandahar Province.

Construction of 50 schools, along with educating the teachers to run those schools.

Demining the 10's of thousands of hectares of land contaminated with left over Soviet mines, a threat that keeps that land from being used to grow food and resulting in approximately 100 Afghan deaths every month (mostly children) from hitting one of those mines.

Literacy programs, primarily used by women denied an education under the Taliban.

Microloan programs, again primarily used by women, to enable them to start cottage industries and become self sufficient and capable of supporting themselves and their families.

Training and mentoring Afghan police and correctional staff to standards we expect of our police and correctional staff in North America. Modernizing jails that looked like medieval dungeons before.

Vocational training programs

Providing equipment, training, and expertise to modernize agricultural food production.

Road construction - building or repaving thousands of miles of roads that either didn't exist or were impassible when NATO troops first entered.

Immunizing 7 million Afghan children against polio and measles in a country where those are epidemic killers of children.

Training hundreds of midwives and women's health care workers in a nation that had the world's second largest infant mortality rate in 2002, and where 80% of those deaths were preventable

This is the "destruction" of Afghanistan that our Taliban friend Taoshum is crying about. Afghans don't seem to have a problem with it...

There is one common thread in all of this.

The majority of people like Taoshum and Dancamp don't have a clue regarding anything about Afghanistan or the conflict there. Nor do they bother to find anything out. The media never report anything but what gets ratings: death and controversy. Few of these people have ever troubled themselves to speak to a soldier who's been there to get a first hand account. How many times have they insisted that the government can't show any progress made there and we're losing... without ever bothering to go look for it? Like the very short list above, by the way.

That info is freely available and easy to find. How many of them know any more than what 2 min sound bites on the news or 500 word articles provide? How many know anything beyond what their favourite Tin Foil Hat Brigade website tells them?

So how can an opinion - from someone who knows little to nothing about the subject, who is too lazy to find out, has never spoken to anyone who has been there, has never been there themselves, and yet is a passionate advocate of a position he's made on nothing more than a lack of information and the popularity of that view point - be taken seriously?

Just because an opinion is your absolute right to have and enjoys popularity with the rest of the equally ignorant doesn't make it an educated one. It is rather a pity that the right to have those opinions didn't include a duty to make it an educated or defensible one. And that's one thing that is consistent in all of this criticism - lots of bitching, accusations, and conspiracy theories, but a total inability to defend those theories with a logical argument or offer workable solutions.

A final thought. We don't have a draft in the US, Canada, Britain, or Australia. If the people who have been there, seen it first hand, and have the most to lose are in favor of staying there, of being sent sent back... shouldn't that tell you something? Doesn't that at least suggest that the Taliban's useful idiots should lose their superiority complex and at least talk to the soldiers who have served over there - often on numerous tours over the last eight years?

Soldiers have the same access to the Tin Foil Hat brigade conspiracy theory websites as the Taliban's useful idiots frequent. They have access to the same magazines. Newspapers. Internet blogs. There is not one Internet or media source that the useful idiots have that soldiers don't have. However, the soldiers have something the useful idiots don't have, and that's the experience of having actually been to Afghanistan, having actually worked and lived with Afghans, and having dealt with the Taliban and seeing first hand the results of their terrorism.

With that in mind, the idea that those safe at home, without any priviledged access that the soldiers don't have, and lacking the personal experience that the soldiers do have in Afghanistan, are somehow or other more knowledgeable about Afghanistan than the soldiers who have been there simply boggles the mind.

MacJag, You talk the talk but you don't walk the walk. Take the bet!

At least you're good at twisting things.

Thanks for repeating that the UN adopted the resolution in december 2001. It explains the start of the hostilities on october the 7th 2001.

When you talk about my family I can assure you that they are dear to me and that anyone getting killed also have family.

Funny that you state before talibans and after in Afghanistan. What is the before and after in Iraq ? What happened in Iran, wasn't there a before and an after there to ?

The fact that Canada dropped bombs or not doesn't change the false representation that lead to intervene somewhere when help was also needed somewhere else. They dropped the mission in Somalia pretty fast, in Rwanda it's been worst.

You're the one who claims that fighting is the solution, why don't you keep on going until the end ? That's your beliefs. I don't believe in your opinion I just find you pathetic.

Crime rate in Jamaica .015. 2651000 population(census 2003). Crimes 39188.
Crime rate in Mexico I didn't find the numbers but here are the rates compared to US.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Mexico

What leads us to think that the crime rate is higher in some places is that these places are smaller. The criminality is more visible.

And this from other troopd that adopt another strategy.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2009/mar/06/polish-troops-afghanistan-ghazni

It's true that when we search we find a lot of information. When you stated that Arabia didn't support the talibans, here is what I found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Keep the pace since you don't believe in peace.

And what you write about the construction the human help and everything that's my point. Keep doing that and do it to help people. Stop taking the terrorists as an excuse. And once done and completed leave them economically independant. The talibans are in Pakistan. That's where they have support. Nature seems to help these days. I read the UN resolution and again the ISAF was created before the resolution. What is inconsistent is not looking at that alone. The problem is that when asked by other countries to do exactly the same thing elsewhere the reaction isn't the same. That gives ground to people who claim conspiracy. Just read the book written by Romeo Dallaire " shake hands with the devil". Dallaire was the general in command in Rwanda. Since for you only people that servedat war have credibility, you should believe what he lived. He wanted to do something but the UN that you so consider refused because some countries didn't want to. It is not conspiracy, it's just that the economic interest prevails. Iran is protected by China and Russia because they have economic deals. Stop talking about an organisation that serves only the interests of the permanent members. They give a good show and I'm convinced the people working there are of good faith but they don't have any power.