BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan

Subject: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:03 PM

An article in the Toronto Star today said:

"On Tuesday, Canada officially ended its combat mission in Afghanistan. It should never have started..."

And here is the rest of the article:

A brutal, pointless war.

The concluding sentences of Walkom's column are...

We talk about the nobility of sacrifice but our motives were not noble. We sent our soldiers to die in Kandahar mainly to impress our largest trading partner, the U.S., and ensure that the border stayed open for trade.

Canadians were killed to guarantee just-in-time delivery of auto parts. That is not sufficient reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:15 PM

From the link: "The second lesson has to do with the treatment of war. It is not a game. Nor is it simply diplomacy by other means. It is a dangerous, murderous business with a habit of backfiring."

Would that we would all remember that.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:19 PM

We talked about this years back. Recall the Iraq invasion. The US needed troops there like NOW. So, Canada, that moral bastion of BS sent a few thousand kids from the PPCLI to replace American troops who were then freed up for Iraq. Damn it, we were supposed to be OUT of there as of a few months back. Now I hear it is 2014.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:29 PM

The willingness of Canada and Canada's military to participate in this worthy endeavor is greatly appreciated.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:29 PM

Yes, 999... we still have schools and hospitals and such to build while we close ours here.

And, I disagree as to why we are there (according to the article). I have said it many times in this forum... it is about battle training troops and field testing weapons. BUT, to say all the other things again just brings those thoughts to mind that I would rather not think about. No point in getting riled up about things I cannot change. The guys with the guns make the decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 04:01 PM

No doubt it is Art, but the justification of why is a troubling point for many Canucks. There's NO doubt that Canuks are "game"... Vimy, Juno, Dieppe, The Boot... Canucks turned the tide of wars where nobody else could. But, we need justification and many Canucks feel that fighting "The Taliban" in a religous and civil war 8000 miles away is shite. Terrorism? Really? That don't cut it for a lot of us.

BTW... I am not saying that I do NOT support sending our troops in... I just want our leaders to stop the bullshit and lies. Honesty means more to me than anything else and this government lies, backpeddals and steals without concience. Are we after the poppies to break the back of terrorists? At what cost? The loss of opium for out medical system? Agggghhhh... I shall try to stay away from this thread... time for my blood pressure pill...

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 04:51 PM

The "timely delivery of auto parts" line was BullShit. Nothing more. Nothing less. The went in as part of an international effort to stop Al Qaeda.

Also, the implying that the defeat of Bil Ladin was independent of the efforts in Afghanistan was a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 05:18 PM

I think they (Canada) went in because of political pressure from the USA. Such political pressure often is accompanied by veiled threats to make across-border business "difficult" in some way or another if Canada doesn't play ball with USA desires.

I agree, however, that it is misleading for Walkom to claim that the defeat of Bin Laden (meaning his eventual demise) was independent of the efforts in Afghanistan. It was closely connected to those efforts.

Bin Laden has been killed. True. But he has not been defeated. The purported objective OF his terrorist campaign was not to keep himself alive! Quite the contrary. His openly stated objective in launching terrorist attacks was to provoke the USA into a series of long and debilitating small regional wars in the Middle East, thus eventually bankrupting the USA economy and also promoting Islamic fundamentalist reaction against the USA across the world.

Bin Laden has succeeded brilliantly in his stated objectives, so as far as I can see, he's winning his war, not losing it. His own "martyrdom" in the struggle would have been seen as a desirable thing, and I think he probably fully expected to die long before the wars he helped provoke were over.

You cannot "stop Al Qaeda" by invading and occupying Afghanistan...or Iraq...or any other nation. In fact, you can assist Al Qaeda in further recruitment by doing things like that. Every time the USA puts boots on the ground in another Muslim nation, they encourage further recruitment for Al Qaeda.

The only way you can stop a movement like Al Qaeda is to resolve the acute political problems that gave birth to that movement in the first place, those being:

1. The oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli security forces.
2. Territorial expansion by Israel.
3. The oppression of Muslim populations by foreign-supported Muslim dictators and despots.
4. The presence of foreign troops and foreign military bases in the Muslim nations.
5. The pressure upon Muslim nations to sell their oil only in US dollars and not in other currencies...or else! Saddam found out about that.

Al Qaeda came into being because Bin Laden was angry about those issues, and he also stated that clearly. Until those issues are resolved in a fair and equitable way, there will always be other angry young Muslim men to replace Osama Bin Laden, and he will serve powerfully as a symbolic "martyr" figure for them to follow.

You'll never kill all the enemies of the USA. It's simply not possible, because the USA creates enemies a lot faster than it can ever kill them.

This war didn't start suddenly with 911. It started way back during the great colonial eras that preceded World War II, and the USA and Israel have taken over the imperial reins once held by Britain, Italy, and France in the Middle East. This war is for the self-determination of the Muslim people in their own lands. Until the Muslims in all those lands are freed from foreign domination emanating from Europe and America, you will have a continuation of this war...with or without Al Qaeda.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: JennieG
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 06:33 PM

Now, if only Oz would follow suit.......we shouldn't be there either.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 06:53 PM

"...taken over the imperial reins once held by Britain,"

Once held? You don't think the Brits (and their corporations) are running this whole show? Jaysus man... the Brits, the Italians, the Dutch, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese... the RICH? It's all about money. That's the sad part. It ain't about humans. It's about humans with money that want to keep that money and make more.

In the end, if you had money, would you give it away?

Or would you lie to the public?

Sorry I read this thread again and posted my thoughts but it is kinda like watching a train wreck... it's hard not to post.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 07:24 PM

Walkon's column is a crock of shit - I will not bother disparaging it.

Al-Qaeda - the following crap from Little Hawk

"You cannot "stop Al Qaeda" by invading and occupying Afghanistan...or Iraq...or any other nation. In fact, you can assist Al Qaeda in further recruitment by doing things like that. Every time the USA puts boots on the ground in another Muslim nation, they encourage further recruitment for Al Qaeda.

The only way you can stop a movement like Al Qaeda is to resolve the acute political problems that gave birth to that movement in the first place, those being:

1. The oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli security forces.
2. Territorial expansion by Israel.
3. The oppression of Muslim populations by foreign-supported Muslim dictators and despots.
4. The presence of foreign troops and foreign military bases in the Muslim nations.
5. The pressure upon Muslim nations to sell their oil only in US dollars and not in other currencies...or else! Saddam found out about that.

Al Qaeda came into being because Bin Laden was angry about those issues, and he also stated that clearly."

1: For a start Afghanistan was never invaded or occupied. No attempt has ever been made to invade or occupy Afghanistan since the Soviet Union attempted it in December 1979. It did so with 154,000 men of their 40th Army, their first act by some 700 KGB troops was to assassinate the Government and install their appointees. In October 2001 the US Government decided to side with the Northern Alliance (the last internationally recognised Government of Afghanistan) in their ongoing civil war against the Taleban. The US Government input amounted to the full air groups from two USN Carriers plus less than 1,000 specialists. Those forces are accreditted by the chatter left with having invaded and occupied a country two-and-a-half times the size of France with a population of between 28 and 32 million people - the contention is both far-fetched and ridiculous.

2: Were that indeed a recruiting sergeant for Al-Qaeda then the rank and file of Al-Qaeda would by now be of such a size that they would be capable of taking on the conventional might of Red China and they would win. Current estimates of Al-Qaeda strength in Afghanistan and Pakistan is less than 100 operatives. As far as Afghanistan goes Al-Qaeda are an irrelevance and have been since December 2001.

3: "US boots on the ground in a muslim nation"?? So far those have been "Desert Shield" & "Desert Storm" a UN mission in 1991 in Saudi Arabia (Which really pissed off OBL - fuck all to do with Palestine/Israel or any of that bollocks and that was according to OBL at that time) US withdrew all troops after completeion of the operation. Then Afghanistan from where the attacks of 1996 (Khobar Towers); 1998 (US Embassies in Nairobi & Dar-es-Salaam); 2000 (USS Cole) & 2001 (WTC & Pentagon) were all organised from. The UN at that time considered the US response to be proportionate and reasonable. That mission was completed within about eighteen months and reconstruction work agreed between the Afghan Government and the UN commenced. Iraq? As you all have pointed out (Little Hawk included) OBL hated Saddam Hussein, or vice versa, more than the USA, in any event despite predictions of national collapse, civil war, complete and utter defeat or the permanent occupation of Iraq by the US military we all see that by 31st December this year ALL US MILITARY WILL HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM IRAQ So pray tell which other "muslim lands" are US Forces occupying at present?

4: "The only way you can stop a movement like Al Qaeda is to resolve the acute political problems that gave birth to that movement in the first place"

The birth of Al-Qaeda as a movement had absolutely nothing to do with Palestine - High time a lot of people on this forum got it into their thick heads that the "Arab World" or the "Muslin World" does not give a toss about Palestine or the Palestinians - If they did they would ahve sorted the mess out decades ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 08:43 PM

While I entirely agree that LH's opinions on US global involvement and the origins of Al Queida are all wet, I should note that there are currently US military stationed in Kyrgyzstan, in the Sinai, in Kosovo, in Kuwait, in Uzbekistan, in Turkey, in the UAE and in the Horn of Africa. I expect I've missed a few.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 08:46 PM

Hey, all this means is that Canada is getting ready to invade the US after Johhny Bonehead and the Repubs tell the world to "fuck off"...

Perfect timing for Canadian takeover...

And finally, we'll get some decent health care...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 10:05 PM

No invasion .... no takeover ..... We can't afford you guys.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 11:32 PM

We went there without defined goals or any exit strategy to fight an enemy that we couldn't identify. Now it is past time for the idiots running our government to declare victory and retreat.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 12:37 AM

The goals were perfectly well defined for both the US-OEF mission (achieved pretty much within the first two years) and for the ISAF mission and both remained unchanged from day one.

The exit strategy for the first (US-OEF) depended upon how soon they could hand over to ISAF. US-OEF's mission was a combat mission whereas ISAF's was and still basically is not. It was Mullah Mohammed Omar's and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's groups who declared war on ISAF and central Government's reconstruction effort in the summer of 2006 when US-OEF handed over the Southern and Eastern sectors of Afghanistan to ISAF (Up until this point between October 2001 and March 2006 the British had only lost 7 soldiers killed)

UNAMA and ISAF's mission has two clearly defined goals, provide Provincial Reconstruction Teams to assist the Afghan Government in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and the second to train and help create Afghanistan's new national security forces. This mission taking into account the state of the country they are operating in is massive and extremely complex and will take possibly decades to complete, the military involvement as far as combat operations go will I believe end in December 2014 if things stay on track. There will of course still be ISAF soldiers inside Afghanistan providing support functions for the ANSF (Air Support, Artillery, Logistics, Communications, Intelligence, Medical and Training)

When answering the point about "US boots on the ground in a muslim nation" I was listing muslim countries that the US were supposed to have "invaded" and occupied. None of the countries listed helpfully by artbrooks falls into this category.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 11:53 AM

Bush made a horrible mess of a moderate success. If the resources hadn't been moved to Iraq. Afghanistan would be much more secure and Bin Ladin would have been gone years ago.

Bush went into Pottery Barn busted up the merchandise and left Obama to pay for the damages.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 01:00 PM

What resources were moved or diverted to Iraq from Afghanistan?

Afghanistan by the end of 2002 was pretty quiet, the Taliban and their Al-Qaeda "Guests" had been chased out and neither the US-OEF or Afghan northern Alliance could raid into Pakistan so what would additional US-OEF forces have done in Afghanistan at that time?

It took Afghan Intelligence the best part of four years to get a lead on bin Laden (got that in 2004) so how would bin Laden have been gone "years ago". The locating of bin Laden was an example of painstaking intelligence work, that took exactly as long as it did (like the length of a piece of string) The only thing that could have foreshortened that time would have been if those who knew of his presence in Pakistan had given him up - nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq.

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks the US had to re-evaluate what the greatest threat was - that was evaluated as being Saddam Hussein learning lessons from what had just been perpetrated by others and improving on the mix. GWB did not just jump in immediately on getting that advice from two completely independent sources, he went with it to the UN - who then did as they so often have done and dropped the ball completely. That was when GWB had to act, no President on receipt of the advice given would have acted any differently.

By 2003 in Afghanistan responsibility for security in the Provinces started to be handed over to ISAF, first Kabul; then in the Northern Provinces - The Taleban did nothing, no response at all. This transfer of responsibility was completed in the Northern provinces by the end of 2004. Transfer of responsibility to ISAF for the Western provinces was completed in 2005 and again there was no reaction from the Taleban. In 2006 however ISAF took over the Southern and Eastern Provinces and reconstruction work got under way there - At that point the Taleban declared war on the central Government, UNAMA and ISAF reconstruction effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Charmion
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 01:06 PM

Canada went to Kandahar in 2005 anticipating the extension of ISAF across Afghanistan, which was formalized in the in January 2006.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Charmion
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 01:21 PM

Sorry about that mis-post above; I hit the send button instead of the blue clicky button.

Let's take this again from the top.

Ahem.

The Canadian combat mission in Kandahar Province was part of something considerably bigger, the international "whole-of-government" thing that included -- as well as soldiers -- cops and diplomats, development workers and bureaucrats, prison guards and construction engineers from literally dozens of countries. The international agreement governing the whole thing was called the Afghanistan Compact, signed on 1 February 2006 and valid for five years.

The Afghanistan Compact makes interesting reading; I suggest you-all take a close look at it.

In point of fact, our primary activity in Kandahar Province was building capacity in the Afghan national security forces -- the Afghan National Army and, to a lesser extent, the Afghan National Police. At the same time, the people of Kandahar City and the province's rural districts still needed security and there was a stunning lack of the infrastructure that civilization depends on -- everything from schools and hospitals to wells and roads and irrigation canals.

Five and a half years down the road, the Afghan brigade partnered with the Canadian-led ISAF task force has developed from a rabble in arms to a light-infantry brigade competent enough to plan and execute its own operations. Panjwai District, notorious as the heartland of the insurgency, has a new all-season road that will carry crops from the countryside to market in Kandahar City and cops, bureaucrats and development workers from the city and the district centres out to the country villages.

Oh, yeah -- and the army is tired, the gear is wearing out, and who knows where the defence budget is going.

Not that the training mission up north is exactly danger-free -- the insurgents like infiltrating suicide bombers into recruit platoons and army trade schools. It's not a small mission, either; the establishment figure is 950, which is a hell of a lot of experienced soldiers with training skills for our very small, very professional army to be expected to part with for prolonged periods.

So, as my boss likes to say, let's watch and shoot.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 02:44 PM

time to send them to the Arctic.... to chill out and protect our borders once we find out where the lines really are

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 12:30 AM

Guest Bankley, you do not find out where the lines are by moving away from the theatre of operations. Our borders need little protection; our ports of entry need rather more, but not of the sort one gets from military forces: they need policing.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 02:58 AM

Without any shadow of a doubt the ISAF troops who drew the "short straw" were those who from the outset were assigned PRT responsibility for the Southern Afghan Provinces of Uruzgan (Netherlands & Australia); Kandahar (Canada & UK SF) and Helmand (UK, Denmark & Estonia). The "lead" nation in each Province appears in Bold.

It has been in those Provinces that the reconstruction work has been perceived as being the greatest threat to whatever support base the Afghan Taleban have. Region South has seen the worst of the fighting and the greatest number of incidents and ISAF casualties.

Two NATO nations have now withdrawn their combat troops the Netherlands and now Canada, both did superb work in their respective Provinces, the Dutch PRT effort in Uruzgan was considered to be the most effective in the whole of Afghanistan and resulted in unprecedented co-operation with the local inhabitants who formed their own militias to keep the Taleban out and the flow of intelligence from residents enabled Australian Special Forces teams to act effectively against insurgent forces and commanders operating in the area. The Canadians too did sterling work in what is considered to be the "home of the Taleban" in 2010 we were promised the greatest of battles and a crushing defeat at the hands of the Taleban in Kandahar Province after they had been thrown out of Marjah - To date that battle has never materialised and the reconstruction work has proceeded apace.

In Helmand in 2006 the then British Defence Secretary John Reid said that the British would perform their work without having to fire a single shot - The Taleban declaration of war on their efforts made short work of that prospect (Helmand has since proved to be the bloodiest Province in Afghanistan). By the summer of 2006 the Taleban of Mullah Omar had had four years to rest, regroup and organise. All in all down in the 13 District Province of Helmand with its population of some 1.3 million people the Taleban were faced by 3,300 strong British element, around 1,000 Danes and a company of Estonian troops the ISAF strength in combat troops amounted to less than 700 men. Afghan Government "control" was restricted to only three of Helmands thirteen Districts

In the Summer and Autumn of 2006 the Taleban at full strength failed spectacularly to defeat, dislodge or drive out those 680 men as they sought to extend the writ of Afghan governance in Helmand. On the night of the 31st December, 2006 things changed and set a pattern that has been followed every year since. I had talked to my son on Christmas Day and he said he would call on New Years Day. I heard nothing further from him until the 12th of January 2007. The first ISAF Winter Offensive had started on the 31st December when 3rd Commando Brigade attacked and drove the Taleban away from the Kajaki Dam in Operation Clay. Year in year out the Taleban promise Spring & Summer Offensives, none of which ever materialise. ISAF can fight 12 months of the year, the Taleban cannot.

The situation in Helmand and in Kandahar now is that since the "McChrystal Surge" pushed through by his replacement General David Petraeus and reluctantly agreed to by Barack Obama in 2009, Helmand and Kandahar finally got the troop numbers needed to capitalise on previous successes. Another important factor has been the arrival on the scene of the Afghan National Security Forces. 20,000 men of the USMC were "surged" in stages into Helmand and Kandahar Provinces along with over 15,000 men of the ANA and ANPF, they joined the 12,000 ISAF troops already operating in Helmand.

This prompts the observation that if the Taleban at full strength could not defeat 4,000 men in 2006, how on earth do they think they will defeat 47,000 now?

Monitoring incidents and activity reports issued by ISAF and from what is reported in the press over the period of a month (May/June) the conclusion that could be drawn and demonstrated throughout all of Afghanistan's 34 Provinces and 388 Districts was that the country was 97% peaceful and this supposedly is at the height of the Taleban's "fighting season".

I am sure that all who have worked with the Canadians down in Kandahar (my son did on two of his four tours so far) appreciate what they have done and wish them well - Thanks and Safe Home - You played a "Flanker" much appreciated - Well Done.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 11:36 AM

Good post, Teribus. Many thanks, and I'm glad your son is safe.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 12:08 PM

Ditto 999.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 12:29 PM

If Bush had finished the job in Afghanistan before he went into Iraq, we all would be much better off.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 12:49 PM

"before he went" replace with "instead of going"

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 03:02 PM

Yeah Art but he had to go in. Money talks and Bush walks eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: MarkS
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 03:29 PM

Maybe Canada can send their returned troops to Arizona to help keep our border secure from Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 04:39 PM

Keep your borders secure? We can't even keep ours secure and the only one we have on land is with you. I could tell you stories but I can't. The greed and corruption in our government and civil service is pathetic add UNreal... actually sickening.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Kent Sapper
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 05:14 PM

I can only imagine the sheer relief of Afghan rebels on hearing the news that such a formidable fighting force as the Canadians are vacating their land.

The Canadian military wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white capri pants and smile at eachother.

I didn't even know Canadian troops were in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 11:08 AM

Kent Sapper: from the tone of your post, you seem not to know much.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 11:55 AM

I am proud of the job that our troops have done there but I question the purpose of the mission. I remain dismayed that so many have died from a common cause (roadside bombs)and why our air force never went there to overfly those roads to prevent planting them. The mission was sold to the Canadian people as helping the Afghan people establish a democracy that would entrench better human rights, especially for women and to help rebuild the country. Instead we have propped up a corrupt government little better than the Taleban. Afghanistan has been a basket case for many years and I don't see that it has changed much.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 01:10 PM

From 1929 until the 14th April 1978 Afghanistan existed as a no-aligned, secular Parlaimentary democracy and there is absolutely no reason to state with any categoric assurance than it cannot be so again.

There was no need to establish a democracy in Afghanistan the precedent already existed. The Afghans were asked to draft their own constitution and vote on it, this they have done - That constitution guarantees the human rights you refer to, nobody could go there and enforce it for them.

As for your remark - "Instead we have propped up a corrupt government little better than the Taleban."

Some points to note, the present Government of Afghanistan although far from perfect WAS AT LEAST ELECTED - Care to tell us when the Taleban stood for election or did they just take power at the point of a gun (A gun placed in their hands by the Pakistani ISI and Army). Since October 2001 there have been two elections in Afghanistan, that is two more than at any time since 1973.

Are you seriously trying to say that in the last ten years nothing has changed in Afghanistan?

- Average life expectancy has risen;
- Average daily death toll amongst the general population has been reduced by 97%;
- More people in full time education than at any time in the country's history;
- Massive foreign investment;
- Thousands of kilometers of roads and bridges built;
- 2001 Afghanistan had one single University - It now has eleven of them;
- Massive advances and investment in agriculture and animal husbandry;
- Power schemes and irrigation systems repaired or completely rebuilt;
- 2009 for the first time in three decades Afghanistan grew sufficient cereal crops to meet domestic demand;
- Afghanistan's first railroad network is being built;
- Hundreds of hospitals and medical centres have been built and opened.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED - LIKE HELL

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 02:45 PM

Ditto 999. Trolls eh? Worse than terrorists but easier to ignore. Hehehehee.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 04:36 PM

With all due respect Teibus the governments first election was that they were handpicked by the USA. The second election was corrupt as Hell. As for human rights the government passed legislation allowing men to starve their wives if they refused to provide sex. The Taleban at least stopped poppy production but that is again the major cash crop, although the Taleban now use it for their own funding. Nothing works except a system of bribes and foreign money is mostly diverted to the pockets of the most powerful warlords. Farmers only support those who allow opium production. As I said a basket case!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 05:04 PM

With all due respect Mr McLean:

1: "the governments first election was that they were handpicked by the USA."

The Interim Administration consisted of a list of names and positions that the Afghan leaders brought with them to Bonn in Germany in November 2001. This list was submitted to the representatives of the United Nations. The nominations and the posts assigned to be confirmed by a Loya Jirga to be held in Kabul in the summer of 2002 - The USA had no part in the selection of either proposed candidates or positions - simple matter of record

The candidates who made up the interim administration also stood for election when the first elections were held - now if the USA had no part in their initial nominations at what point were they hand picked? You seem to confuse what happened in Afghanistan with the CPA in Iraq. You seem to forget that Afghanistan has been a UN operation since DAY ONE.

2: "The second election was corrupt as Hell."

It always amazes me why people hold the Government of Afghanistan to a different standard to any other Government in the region. Psssst Sandy every country in the region has a Government that is corrupt as hell, and hold elections that are as corrupt as hell. Blimey even the Labour Government in the UK used to rig votes through the postal voting system. There is also the nicety that even a corrupt election is a damn sight better than no bloody election at all.

3: "As for human rights the government passed legislation allowing men to starve their wives if they refused to provide sex."

MYTH no such legislation was ever passed. It was proposed and rejected (because it was unconstitutional) Again a simple matter of record.

4: "The Taleban at least stopped poppy production but that is again the major cash crop, although the Taleban now use it for their own funding."

Another MYTH The Taleban never stopped poppy production, they halted the extraction of raw opium from poppies. They did this in 2000 because the US was prepared to pay something like 43million US$ and the Taleban's own stocks of raw heroin were such that they were flooding the market and dropping the price. If the Taleban were so much against the growing of poppies how come they waited four years to act against the poppy growers?

5: "Nothing works except a system of bribes and foreign money is mostly diverted to the pockets of the most powerful warlords."

Much the same as in every other country in the region then, apart from drawing our attention to the blindingly obvious what else's new??


6: "Farmers only support those who allow opium production. As I said a basket case!"

The Farmers will support whoever it is that can guiarantee them the security to live their lives in peace. If it is a basket case because of the conflicts of the past three decades it is a basket case that is rapidly improving.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 08:16 PM

"Farmers only support those who allow opium production..."

Actually, the farmers are told what they are going to be growing, either by the government or by the local warlord. If they are told to grow opium and grow beans, they could come to a bad end.

Afghanistan is not perfect right now, but how many countries are?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 09:25 PM

Afghanistan is not perfect right now, but how many countries are?

How many countries as as bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 10:01 PM

From 1929 until the 14th April 1978 Afghanistan existed as a no-aligned, secular Parlaimentary democracy.

Just been looking up this period on Wikipedia. As far as I can make out.

The first ruler in that period was Mohammed Nadir Khan he was assassinated in 1933.

Mohammed Zahir Shah takes over and appoints Sardar Mohammad Hashim Khan, one of his uncles as prime minister.

In 1946, he appoints another of uncles, Sardar Shah Mahmud Khan, prime minister. This PM did start an experiment allowing greater political freedom but he reversed it.

In 1963, Zahir Shah starts governing on his own, He actually does introduce a new constitution in 1964. With the king appointing one third of the deputies, the people electing another third and the remainder selected indirectly by provincial assemblies, this seems to be as democratic as it got.

In 1973 the former Prime Minister Mohammad Sardar Daoud Khan seizes power in a non-violent coup, He abolishes the monarchy, disposes of the 1964 constitution and declares Agfghanistan a republic. He appoints himself as president and prime minister.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 10:29 PM

Scott Taylor is a man who has been there and seen it all from the start. I respect his opinion and he has a no time for propaganda from the Canadian government or the military elite. His concern is for the enlisted man and he speaks when many of them do not dare. This is in whole from the writing of Scott Taylor in his "esprit de corps":

Since the August 2009 presidential elections in Afghanistan failed to produce a legitimate result, the Hamid Karzai regime, like Gaddafi, has no legitimate democratic mandate.
Karzai remains in power simply because he was the chosen candidate of the US in the first place. The notorious Northern Alliance warlords who constitute Karzai's cabinet are known to have committed numerous war crimes, and some continue to preside over narco-criminal drug enterprises, yet they remain unindicted for the simple reason that NATO needs their authority to run the country.

After nearly a decade of funding, mentoring and equipping the Afghan security forces, they are still estimated to require at least another three years of NATO assistance before they can be considered self-sufficient.

Despite Afghanistan's complete dependency on Western financial and military support, the Karzai government implements Sharia law, including the recently passed controversial "rape law," which allows husbands to demand sex from their wives and to withhold feeding them should they not submit. It also remains a crime punishable by death in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for a citizen to convert to Christianity.

So, on the one hand, Canada is helping to prop up a corrupt and hated regime against an armed rebellion in Afghanistan, while at the same time assisting armed rebels in their attempt to overthrow a corrupt and hated regime in Libya.

The big difference is that without NATO support, Karzai would not remain in power past sunset on the first day. In Libya, Gaddafi has now managed to cling to power for 90 days against NATO-supported rebels.

Obviously not everyone in Libya hates Gaddafi as much as the NATO propaganda machine would have us believe.


         
< Prev                 Next >

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jul 11 - 01:00 AM

"Since the August 2009 presidential elections in Afghanistan failed to produce a legitimate result, the Hamid Karzai regime, like Gaddafi, has no legitimate democratic mandate."

As previously stated at least Hamid Karzai put himself up for election neither Gaddafi or the Taleban have EVER gone through that process. As to the elections failing to produce a legitimate result. Please correct me where I am in error in recalling that Both Karzai and Abdullah agreed to a second run-off election (They didn't have to) Both candidates supporters were guilty of rigging ballot boxes and before the run-off elections could take Abdullah Abdullah withdrew.

"Karzai remains in power simply because he was the chosen candidate of the US in the first place." - MYTH

The man the US would have seen in power as their candidate of choice (Not that they ever had a choice or any say) was Ahmad Shah Massoud (Assassinated by Al-Qaeda as a favour to their Taleban hosts on the 9th September 2001). The selection of Hamid Karzai was done by the Afghan leaders and was confirmed by Loya Jirga, he has since stood for election twice and won both times. For every one Pashtun that supports the Taleban nine support Karzai. The Government may not be perfect and may not be "loved" but it is far, far better than anything that preceeded it in the past three decades.

"the Karzai government implements Sharia law, including the recently passed controversial "rape law," which allows husbands to demand sex from their wives and to withhold feeding them should they not submit" - MYTH

No such law has ever been passed and no such law appears in the official gazette. The preoposal was tabled and was put under review to remove articles within it that conflict with Afghanistan's constitution.


"After nearly a decade of funding, mentoring and equipping the Afghan security forces, they are still estimated to require at least another three years of NATO assistance before they can be considered self-sufficient."

Nothing like ten years, less than half of that if you are lucky, Mr Taylor has not bothered with detailing the condition the country was in in 2001. Oh and it will take a great deal longer than three years of ISAF assistance, only the immediate operational responsibility will be handed over within the next three years to the ANSF. Clearly neither yourself or Scott Taylor seem to be aware of the scale or complexity of the task.

"The big difference is that without NATO support, Karzai would not remain in power past sunset on the first day. In Libya, Gaddafi has now managed to cling to power for 90 days against NATO-supported rebels."

Not very comparable at all. No "boots on the ground in Libya" had there been Gaddafi would not have lasted a week. If you wish to compare like to like - The Taleban clung on for as long as Gaddafi has done so far initially - Before that the Northern Alliance clung on for five years and before that Najibullah clung on for three years.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 11 Jul 11 - 01:52 AM

Don't we have at least two borders with Canada? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Jul 11 - 08:27 AM

Well, there are at least three, in a sense - the only way to get from SE Alaska towns like Skagway by land is through Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Charmion
Date: 11 Jul 11 - 10:38 AM

Yes, Canada has two borders with the U.S.: in the south, between us and the "lower 48", and in the north, between us and Alaska. The latter border loops up and over that big sound whose name escapes me right now, creating the Alaska Panhandle and the semi-isolation of Skagway.

Canada has a long tradition of pretending these borders are mere formalities until something happens to get us all riled up. During the 19th century, these events tended to originate in American spasms of territorial expansion -- check the Aroostook War, some aspects of the War of 1812, the Oregon Crisis and the Alaska Boundary Dispute, for example.

We're much politer now, or perhaps more keenly aware of which side of our bread is buttered, and consequently limit our fussing to the field of trade regulation. Softwood shingles, anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Jul 11 - 05:10 PM

Don't forget the Pig War.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Jul 11 - 05:12 PM

Although now that I think of it, weren't all of those between the US and Great Britain?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: Charmion
Date: 12 Jul 11 - 02:19 PM

Not entirely. The Alaska Boundary Dispute was post-Confederation, and Sir Clifford Sifton represented the Canadian government on the British Empire side of the negotiating table.

Before Confederation, the civic difference between a Canadian and a white (i.e., person of European descent) resident of any other part of the British Empire was limited to place of birth. Voting rights were based on property ownership and place of residence, and all other civic rights and privileges stemmed from one's status as a subject of the Crown.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada ends combat role in Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 12 Jul 11 - 02:41 PM

The Pig War... "It is up to you to keep your potatoes out of my pig."

The Irish eh?