killjoy

Rue A little research on Goggle will show you that this isn't true. Poppies are easy, yes, but only when eclipsed against the utter void of world trade willing to deal with Taliban or a hostile country. There has been corporate interest in Afghanistan’s' considerable natural resources for a long time. There's no other import because there's no diplomacy or anything else that would help boost an economy. Funny how the Pakistan-inspired Taliban seemed to act as though they believed that was the best thing for the Afghan people ...and of course Afghans weren't going to get consulted on their opinion about this. Funny how Pakistan really has no such reservation towards trade and diplomacy. Afghanistan has every chance of prospering whatever way they wish if they could get 5 years of peace and their own responsible leadership. Look at India. Ethnically and religiously diverse, religiously 'serious', poor impoverished, overpopulated. None of these things bode well for a functioning democracy. Similar resources...They have made a great democratic country in spite of these challenges. Wild horses could not drag them back. You are doom saying from 10000km away and in so doing partly damn them. People say it will hurt canada's image not keeping to peacekeeping. But we have Germans, Belgians and French also fighting over there. How does help our image to say we're going to help someone and then bugger-off the moment things get tough. Things always get tough before they get better. Shoulder to the wheel time. This IS peacekeeping. .

<sound of crickets chirping> Thought I'd show a less 'optimistic' local view. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4119ec22-ec46-11d...00779e2340.html There is also a bit of a drought starting. High temperatures and lack of water have already caused the deaths of a few children because a) Water shipments and irrigation construction cannot proceed until there is security. B.) Water or no, a lot of sickness and these deaths still would've been prevented if there was simply a medical clinic, (like there used to be), closer than the 100km trek to Qandahar. Again, a favourite target of the Taliban. .

douple post sry.

This is a great article from the Toronto Star... http://michaelyon-online.com/media/pdf/war...oronto_star.pdf The part of the story that strikes me as most important is the dialog between the Canadians and the Afghan elders when they visit a town. Our whole mission, Afghanistan's problems, recent history and outlook towards the Taliban are clearly articulated by the Afghans themselves. (scroll down to the by-line: "A fruitful meeting", pg. 3) The story is .pdf and it's rather large but it's a real gem for anyone who interested in, specifically, what we do there and the reaction of the locals. excerpt: There are thousands like this man, real Afghans, who are able and willing to take the risks if we are. Without NATO and this mission those like this man, who fight and work now, trusting in us as allies, for a better Afghanistan, will most likely die at the hands of, "Pakistani people who come here to fight". "Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds. " --Buddha .

Understandable. I agree. And although I haven't given the opinion I do believe in many ways Alberta and the West have been given the short end of the stick from time to time (especially under Truedau). The NEP was totally bias. I agree. What really gets me about all this is Albertans perception that Canada's done nothing for us and we had to do it all ourselves. All the "we don't need Canada" I'm reading (in the papers, not here). Look, the bottom line is we'd all probably be better served to treat what Klein said today as just what it is..."Canadian Politics 101: Using the threat of separatism or non-participation to get what you want when you really have no intention of separating at all". This is a common anti-Centralist ploy that works all the time because we were lazy and didn't go through the trouble of a bloody civil war to put an exclamation point at the end of the word, "central authority". Instead we would be better served concentrating on the details of the agreement itself rather than provicial pride...because far be it from me to suggest Ottawa wouldn't screw us. .

Stamps: This is what one gets when one points out some stuff another didn't know and they decide to get offended by it: This is my favourite tactic. Extrapolate something said into something else so it's easier to argue with. I'm not even going to answer it. You arrogantly told me... When it's obvious your history begins with the oil-rush as well. You said it not because you know your history or because I didn't, but because you simply didn't like what I was saying. Too bad. Look on another thread. I admit it when there is evidence I am wrong. But what can I say? My handle is a given name not a chosen one. I realy am a killjoy.Instead of getting offended, (or lippy), myself I pointed out the things that I was talking about. Now you don't seem to know what to do except argue with something I didn't say. My comments are based on what is an accurate perception in my view. Albertains see no farther back than the oil boom or the mid-40’s when it comes down to who has done what for whom. .

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...ams=A1SEC819745 And as far as Alberta's genesis with regards to immigration, well... Canada had from the onset til years after WWII has always needed to use propaganda and bribes to get them out here in the first place. http://www.civilization.ca/educat/oracle/m...n/page02_e.html "Early Immigration In the meantime, the Canadian government began its push to settle the Prairies by introducing a new initiative aimed at attracting settlers. In 1872, the Dominion Lands Act was passed, granting 160 acres (647 497 m2) free to potential settlers so long as they met a number of conditions. These included building a dwelling, planting crops and living on the land for at least three years. Despite such incentives, a disappointingly low number of immigrants arrived before the late 1890s. The largest group to take advantage of the opportunities the new region had to offer was from Ontario. After Confederation, Ontarians arrived in Manitoba in such large numbers that Winnipeg was often referred to, tongue in cheek, as Ontario West. There were a number of groups from outside Canada that also came and settled together in the Prairie West prior to 1890. These included Mennonites and Jews from Russia, and the Mormons from America. These groups often arrived seeking varying degrees of ethnic, religious or ideological freedom, or to escape persecution. Their numbers, however, were small. Competition with the United States There were many reasons for Canada's limited success in attracting settlers. Among them was the fact that the American West still proved more appealing to the majority of potential immigrants. In fact, many of the immigrants who originally arrived in Western Canada during this period often eventually headed south into the United States. There they could take advantage of a more advanced economy and a more efficient transportation system. Many immigrants also chose the American West because it had a superior international image at the time. While it was described as the frontier of golden opportunity, the Canadian West was often conversely portrayed as uninhabitable, cold and barren. It was these negative stereotypes that the federal government, the Canadian Pacific Railway and groups of nationalist Canadians began to challenge. They distributed immigration propaganda at home and abroad that described the West as a Promised Land, an "earthly paradise" with fertile soil and "the healthiest climate" in the world. Who could resist such a place?" Yeah. Canada's part in the creation of Alberta was token at best. Ok. I stick by what I said. Alberta was a dirt poor homely prairie girl who no one wanted to dance with except for Daddy Canada. Now she's all rich and fanciful-like and she don't need the likes of Canada no more. She's got Texas. .

We sell more and more oil the US every year. At the moment they get about 17% of their supply from us and our reserves are so large that they are essentially still unknown. We are currently, to the world of crude oil and petroleum, what the Beatles were to rock and roll. The Ayatollah of Petrolia. The oil-cheddar of all oil-cheeses. Seems to me we've been using our own as much as we possibly can. Top suppliers of US oil: http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm - 2004 Greatest oil reserves by country: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html (note that most of ours are still unknown) Top world suppliers of crude oil and petroleum: http://tinyurl.com/7ldt The numbers suggest that we should really re-examine our idea of 'oil producing nations'. To even get to Afghan natural resources will take years and will be costly and under a secure and functioning democracy I really don't see how it could benefit anyone more than the Afghans. Without a stable democracy there is every reason to believe NO Afghans will ever benefit from it...a'la practically all of Africa and most of the Middle East. It would be so much easier just to invade us or Mexico. Not sayin’…just sayin’. .

The ol' "If you don't think like me you should leave". My history muddled? Hmm lemmie see. There was the '20's when we were completely dependant on the East. Then there was the '30's when we were completely dependant on the East. Then there was the '40's when we were completely dependant on the East. Through-out there was the common theme of having to actually pay, or force (if they wanted to in the country) immigrants to come out here and make something of the place....As you point out your history seems to begin in the Trudeau era. Normally I would link you to this sorta thing but if none of this even rings a bell then I really don't want to bother. Yep. Great to be lucky. Great to not need money from anyone else and so now it's time for more independence. You're really only supporting what I said. History for people like you in Alberta conveniently begins in the ‘70’s. .

hmm. I agree in terms of history…and certainly I agree that they seem to be very nationalistic despite the hoopla over ‘warlords’. But I would also seriously recommend looking into the actions of the Taliban in the past 10 years....especially in terms of it's escalation of brutality and subjugation and it’s foil against, shall we say, ‘traditional Afghan values’, ( not so brutally misogynistic, not quite so religious, likening more to a male-dominated ‘elders’ system vs. an Iran-like Mullah system). Just be cause we don't hear a peep out of them doesn't mean the Taliban are doing a good job running the country or that even half of the people sincerely don’t fear for their lives because of them. Of course that’s not the cue to invade….it’s risky business. But if you get a good window of oportunity you have to go for it, imo. We all live in this world togther. I always try to point to India in these discussions. Here is an uncharacteristic democracy. In the beginning; poor as dirt, over populated and severe religious factions. But look at her today. Shangra-la? No. But a wasteland of war and religious bloodshed? Far from that. I'm not sayin'...I'm just sayin'....y'know. Tiz the understood nature of an Internet forum. I am equally guilty and never took offence or thought it a reasonable barometer of your personality. Cheers. .

Not for nothin', because I agree with most of your post, but Montenegro might disagree with that. When there is success there is no rainbow. There is only the unknown yet still predictable which you have prevented, and diplomatic solutions naturally include concessions from both sides and are therefore born with a collective defeated sigh...like when two arguing children have been sent to their corners or when your mom tells you to kiss your sister. Then there is no fan fare, but there is also no more death. No more long ditches. We never hear about the 1000000's that died because that future was avoided. They, thankfully, are all hypothesis now...but I imagine that there are more than a few Rwandans who wish they were a little more hypothetical right now too. .

Oh yeah...Farmers....forgot all about them…the staple of any good social/unionist moment. What ever happened to them in Alberta anyway? Oh yeah. They starved when their natural habitat was increasingly encroached on by wolf packs of derricks. Yeah, 'cording' Ralphie we don't need farmers any more either, Canada....can you take 'em with you? That's right. Don't let the door hit yer ass on the way out, eh? Well depends when history starts, eh? I mean if history for someone begins, in the 1970's like it kinda does for many, then yes perhaps ol'Alberta looks like a rather unloved woman...poor gal. :-) I'm not sayin'....I'm just sayin'....y'know? .

I live in Edmonton Alberta. Was born here. Alberta is a fickle gold-digger. Seems to me all this anti-socialist, anti-centralist talk comes at a convenient time for Alberta. In the beginning she, (and most in her Western neighbourhood), was always knocking at the East neighbours door for handouts and support. There were times she was completely dependant on others for her very exisitance. She was poor as dirt from her conception right up until the 1950's when she discovered her 'inner worth' and then everyone from around the world came a courtin'. Of course she still needed a little help from her neighbours to get it all off the ground. Now's she’s' rich and independent. "Canada? Oh I remember him. I had to break it off because he was too 'clingy'. Besides, what has he done for me lately?". .

Balck Dog Absolutely it's trickier for the reasons you state. I would only point out that the experience of the early '90's needs to be taken from the context not of Afghans conflicting warlords as a predominant theme but from the context of the 'power vacuum' that existed from the Soviet withdrawal pretty much right up until the Taliban had full control. A ‘power vacuum’, to use the standard term is always a precarious place to try and start a new government. I 100% agree, as a citizen and especially as a soldier. We can't make them do anything. That Harper, Bush or Martian need to use the rhetoric of which you speak to enforce the idea that we are 'teaching them' rather than simply being accurate and say that we are trying to provide secure space and breathing room to try and build their own democracy is beyond me. The truth is better and I believe Canadians can 'handle it'. We can't make them do jack shit.....and I will be the first in line to admit this could all fail...but I don't believe it's false hope or simple wishful thinking to think there are reasons to believe it will succeed. Either way, as you point out, it is entirely up to them. Same is true of Iraq, but it would be simplistic to equate the two: Afghans are not Iraqi. Again I agree, or at least I do know what you mean. I guess where I'm coming from is that with or without a military operation there is still propaganda and that to my thinking it only becomes part of a military campaign in the specific areas where it intertwines with military objective. I also believe you don't absolutely require propaganda to run a military campaign. It may be ubiquitous in its usage today but it's never-the-less not absolutely essential. I agree, I suppose insomuch that I see you have a different way of looking at it than I do, that too me sounds a little like "6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other". You see to my thinking what you outline above is politically conceived not militarily conceived but certainly the distinction is mighty thin. Wars are won or lost by one of two things and unfortunatly brains ain't one of them, either you lose by political wil or by firepower. Vietnam, for example, wasn't lost because of firepower. .

Forgot this: Its not a false distinction at all. You don't feel there is a distinction between propaganda that does not involve the military and the stuff that does? Certainly military objectives and political objectives are intertwined but propaganda in politically inspired as it involves the 'convincing' of others of a political position. .

Black Dog: Well it wasn't really my 'narrow terms', it was also a few others namely the UN...but I concede it didn't last long enough or represent enough people to be functional in the beginning. But it was still a beginning. I concede that the democracy was gone before the Taliban began, and that at this point it their history it is wrong of me to say that they were created to specifically destroy the democracy or the democratic leadership and the original government only lasted 6 months. I was completely wrong about that and I retract it. Don't know wherre I got it mixed up but I did--- probably somewhere when they moved on Kabul, where I thought they were moving against the remains of the Rabbani governement, at any rate I was wrong. My apologies. Except: I don't think I said that anywhere although the misunderstanding is reasonable. It wasn’t my intention to imply the coalition was ‘restoring democracy’. If you look back you will see that my original impetus behind pointing out the previous democracy was not to argue that the coalition was restoring it but that the Afghan people where not 'too dumb' or 'too savage' to understand one. It does remain however that the Taliban where influenced heavily by Iranian students who came to organize many of Afghanistan’s youth in their early beginnings and gained the power and control over the country by helping Pakistan open a trade route between them and Iran. Factions in Pakistan helped arm, supply and fund them after that. Eventually many of their leadership even came from Pakistan. Do you still think I'm a military spook? .

Black Dog - No time for a reply at the moment. Check me this afternoon. L8r. .

Black Dog lol. Whatever. Have you taken a good look at our democracy lately? Nevermind that's another subject matter entirely. It's written right there. It's plain fact to anyone who is educated on the subject. That you stand there and cover your ears and stamp your feet in frustration does not make it untrue. It was a democracy --- what's more to the point, it shows that a democracy, (your approval not withstanding) was what they wanted. I see you need to use propaganda yourself when you know your argument is weak. I never made a claim that people were holding hands and singing kumbya. Show us where I ever claimed that all was well before that Taliban came. Making up something that I said or putting words in my mouth because it’s easier to argue against when you do, is propaganda and the sign of a weak mind. Look at my source again. If you can't read I can't help you. 1992 - elections...then the Taliban came and fought against it, moved against the elected Rabbani governemnt, specifically against the idea of a democracy to rule their land, AND soley for the purposes of NON-Afghans. In fact nothing you've said above challenges what I said at all. That you sit here and state that the rise of the Taliban and the failure of the democracy are not directly connected is dis-information and propaganda on your part, not mine. Did you read (on the link) about the Iranian and Pakistani anti-democratic interference with Afghanistan by specifically using the Taliban? Or did your "I-Don't-Like-Those-Facts-I-like-these-facts", filter get rid of them for you? I didn't say militaries don't use propaganda. I said propaganda are not an essential part of a military campaign, it is part of political campaign. Let me take you by the hand and show you: Harper and McKay's visit = political propaganda not military propaganda. Leaflets dropped from planes? = again, that is political propaganda. Psy-Ops? Psycological Warfare by it's very definition. = Not propaganda...you know, unless EVERYTHING is propaganda. - you mean all that perfectly accurate information I've been putting out there? I haven't been 'feeding' anyone anything.....that's what you do because you have no real facts to go on and are completely mis-informed. The relevance is in educating you to what is more essential to a military campaign than propaganda. .

Just to quibble: I disagree. Propaganda is an essential part of politics or diplomacy regardless of whether or not there is a conflict going on. Canada as a nation in the '70's was too 'fat'. "Participation", the government initiative to get Canada active, ran "propaganda" on TV and in newsprint as part of it's campaign. Nazi propaganda was political as well. What is essential to the military is command of the facts and the details. Once you have them you are more than a little reluctant to release them, or even let anyone know what you know. That's the concept of 'neither confirm NOR deny'. If you do you often want to protect certain details, much the same way homicide detectives may withhold certain details in order to have an edge over people who want to falsely confess or the actual perpetrators. In the military the details are the prize and the propaganda is useful but beside the point. The Devil is in the details when it comes to understanding bud. "All that was once beneath you speaks to you now." .

Black Dog which is just a graceful way of admitting it's ridiculous. Thank you. How is it disingenuous? It wasn't a democracy we would approve of but so what? It's their choice. They had actually an increasing strong alliance based on mutual distrust of Iranian and Pakistani influence. It is in fact, very disingenuous and completely ass-backwards to state that the Taliban took advantage AFTER the democracy crumbled ..."leaving the country ripe for the picking". It was the opposite: foreign elements opposed to elections in Afghanistan that gave genesis to the Taliban we know today. Their sole reason for being was to dismantle the young and yes, fragile, democracy. http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index4.html That site has plenty of useful informatio---- opps, I mean "propaganda". The fact remains, Islamic Council-only votes or otherwise, they, by majority wanted a democracy and were denied by force by the Taliban who were being influenced, led and financed by Iranians, Pakistan or otherwise people OTHER than Afghans. .

lol. Actually your tax dollar barely covers what I charge to look as good as I do in uniform. You are gettting a bargain for your money so quit your whining. Did you have a point beyond insinuating an ambiguous charge that I am being paid to spread propaganda? Yes, the grand conspiracy is so much easier to swallow than the established historical facts, like Afghanistan already had (---THEIR CHOICE ---) a democracy when the Taliban derailed it. Care to pick up one of my points and discuss it or are you only here for an intellectual masturbation session? Of course your charges would have to remain ambiguous because you know there's no way you could possibly expect rational people to believe I am being paid by our government to brainwash you all with the plain facts. ...And it's not military intelligence. 5 minutes after pumping some of those words (Canada, Anaconda, Shahikot Valley) into Google and you'll have all the offical statements you'll need to see that these are well known events, not secrets. .

This is the most insidious damage of blatant falsehoods or outright dis-information. It is established this story is false, however that belies the fact that there are Iranian jews who have lived in the remote north for ages. They are barred from work unapproved by the Iranian government. They have, on occasion been unjustly labelled as spies and sentenced to death. And I believe (less sure about this one) they are disallowed form owning their own property. So a jack-ass, non-factual, irresponsible story is made up and then exposed and suddenly people have no reason to believe the opposite, to believe what this whole scenario begs to suggest which is maybe the Iranian governments' view past or present towards jews or Israel is "not that bad really". itza cryin' shame. "Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds. " --Buddha

....And I fully admit I only read half of it :-). I never thought you were "disrespectin' " anyone. I can't disagree that that is a more than valid concern. .

Leafless, I don't know where you get this and I sense this is going to be something we're going to argue about for 10 posts, but I can only say in the sincerest most polite way, that you have been misinformed. Where you get the idea that Canada's role in Afghanistan was mostly peacekeeping or initially peacekeeping and then 'peacemaking' later I really don't know. From the earliest days of the operation and the first coalition offensive Canada was involved directly in attacking the Taliban and searching for/capturing them and al-Qaeda members. That was operation Apollo both in Oct. 2001 with warships, JFT2 and undisclosed units, and re-affirmed again in Feb. 2002 with: "In February 2002, a contingent of 850 Canadian soldiers was deployed to Kandahar for six months as part of Operation Apollo. Integrated into the U.S. Army task force, the 3rd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group took part in offensive operations against the Taliban regime which had been aiding and harbouring terrorist groups. The Battle Group was supported by a squadron of Coyote armoured reconnaissance vehicles and combat support elements." So right from the get go, AND I hasten to add, while the UN was still pondering the soon-to-be NATO led ISAF. link for the quote; http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreign_polic...ribution-en.asp link for the story; http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/?/news/2001/1...x_sendoff011017 a simple timeline of Canada's involvement: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/timeline.html The UN-mandated NATO-led ISAF force, part of operation Athena (that's a different operation entirely) is the closest thing to a 'peacekeeping' mission you will find in Afghanistan and it isn't a peacekeeping mission in the traditional sense. It's simply gotten that name because it was mandated by the UN. They are not UN 'peacekeepers', even thought the mandate was achieved through the UN, they are NATO soldiers. But I will forget about that, I can live with it being called a 'peacekeeping mission' simply because it does suit the typical objectives to a degree, (except that it actually, like, works). The objectives of ISAF is to provide security, an interim policing force (which is needed less all the time) and to provide security during elections. : All of the above includes military force as well as numerous road-side bomb and mine clearing initiatives. At any rate, Canada didn't join the ISAF mission until July 2003, more than a year after committed to offensive operations....and this link shows our earliest mission objectives; "The infantry will carry out a variety of jobs under U.S. command. They will be asked to help hunt for remaining al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters as part of the global campaign against terrorism that Washington began after Sept. 11. They may also clear landmines, as well as protect shipments of humanitarian aid coming into Afghanistan." link: http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2002...ops_020202.html So, can we please put to rest this: " Canada's role as peacekeepers in Afghanistan was interupted with an increase in violence which at that point they should have left Afghanistan and possibly return at a later time when things have been neutralized to a more acceptable less violent condition." and this: " Originally our mission there was peacekeeping and advanced (due to an increase in hostility caused by the Iraq effort) to the stage of actual military engagement in pursuit of the Taliban in Afghanistan." Those are non-factual misunderstandings, misrepresentations or otherwise myth. The is no doubt that Canada's first, predominant and current involvement in Afghanistan has always been 'peacemaking' and not peacekeeping and we (as the rest of NATO) have been involved offensive operations (bang-bang, shootie-shootie, kill-kill) from the moment we had boots on the ground. That the liberal government or the CBC or the Globe and Mail or CNN didn’t want to tell us about the world-record breaking sniper shot, or the 100’s we killed and 100’s more we captured or the presidential citations and medals that were received from the US (which, as you might imagine, don’t get given out for ‘peacekeeping' :-) ), or the air-strikes we targeted with ground recce, is neither your fault or mine but it has led to a severe misunderstanding of our mission there to date. Also makes this...: ... moot. We are not debating how 'Canada's role can change so drastically while employed as lower profile peacekeepers'. because that is incorrect. This is true but also not :-) While it is true we are under funded it is not true that we can't handle the missions. In fact many of the US forces were very surprised to see us in LAV's. We don't have much of the good stuff but in this case that's ok because we have what we need. I remember an argument about this with someone who thought that the Afghan winter would affect the coalition forces a lot or a little. He believed it would be like the Germans experienced on the Russian steppe. I said, "you're kidding, right? If there's 2' of mud and a sandstorm and the blizzard and 4' of snow what do you want to be in? An APC with GPS uplink and thermal sensors, or on a horse?" Without belabouring the point about how we're peacemakers first and peacekeepers second in Afghanistan and always have been, I sincerely believe that Canadian forces especially, PPCLI especially, are far and away the BEST soldiers for this specific job. Canadian soldiers are EXTREMELY good at juggling diplomacy and combat know-how and when to use it which is a difficult science to say the least. They are, in my opinion and others (notably the Pentagon) the absolute BEST choice for this specific mission in Southern Afghanistan today. Frankly, imo, if we can't do it, nobody can. I would like to finish off, Leafless , with the reaffirmation that I do not disrespect your opinion or your intellect. I say this because things like that don't always convey well over the Internet what with emoticons and bold or itialics and all. "Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds. " --Buddha

What is your point? If it were 1 that would be too many for you so really your question is a rhetorical smoke-screen. Or are you trying to claim victimization for those people in order to try and prop up the illusion of righteousness ( "I don’t think people should die so if you disagree with me you like it when people die”)….sorta like calling yourself the ‘anti-war crowd’ in order to diminish the opposite position as supposedly ‘pro-war’….or the way ‘pro-life’ is meant to label the opposite side as “anti-life”. Your point is non-existent. Or, alternatively, you’re the only one who thought civilians wouldn’t die. I would point out though that the media rushed to say last night that it was like 20 Taliban killed and 30 civilians. Considering this morning they changed their story to 16 civilians and up to 50-60 Taliban dead and it still doesn't matter, then obviously the use of violence in any form (besides the fantasy one where no one gets hurt) is abhorrent to you making your previous arguments a little insincere, wouldn't you say? I notice too this morning that even though the reports clearly state, "A U.S.-led coalition nighttime air strike against Taliban rebels in a southern Afghan village killed up to 80 suspected militants, the coalition said Monday. The local governor said 16 civilians were killed and 16 wounded.", the headline still reads "Scores killed in coalition air strike in Afghanistan", which, although accurate, is clearly intended to give the impression that almost exclusively civillians had died. Trust me, someone somewhere made the conscious descision to run with that headline over, say, "80 militants, 16 civilians die in coalition airstrikes", which is still 8 words, reads shorter and gives us the concise report right away without the intentional illusion of chaos of the first. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...fghanistan/home And right beside it is a big red stop sign warning us: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page." ...which is just leading us to another discussion board full of people who are doing no more than we are....arguing the semantic meaning of the word occupation with people like you who are desperately pretending to not see the difference ... after the legal definitions were argued pointlessly over and over again when the language is clear and specific: " 1. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. 2.The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." Neither of these 'real-life', non-fantasy, legal conditions, nor the ones Krusty pointed out have been violated. You are wrong and a link to another argument on the subject is not proof otherwise, nor is it an actual legal definition....you linked us to an opinion. .