killjoy

From the story: Complete and utter transparent lie and anyone can see that. NATO is not lying but the media has no problem doing it, mostly because they will not have to deal with the consequences. jdobbin: As watching&waiting pointed out they need only become defensible and self-sufficient, that would be success for NATO as far as I can tell. What happens after that we cannot say. No one can. We'll have to take it from there. That's the way the cookies crumble in geopolitical affairs. What they need now, imo is more production less destruction. As for rightwing writers, so what? I'm not 'rightwing' simply because you consider yourself (assuming) to be left wing and I stand on the opposite side of a debate from you. However, whatever, that's an understandable error. Look I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone that things are going 'swimmingly' over there. I'm not going to say that it's easy or that it should be over soon. I'm not even going to say that long term this is going to work out in our favor, even if it appears favorable at sometime in the short term. Nor would I dare call anyone stupid for having anxiety over the situation there and it's not 'dumb' to expect that at sometime we may have to 'bug out'. I'm not saying it's "stupid" to have concerns about our force level and our casualty rates etc. What I am saying is that for our own good we have little choice but to give it an honest try, including giving it enough time for an honest try. You can't go about jack booting your way around the world trying to change it but you can and should give it a try when opportunity presents itself. What I also say is that the situation is nowhere near as pessimistic overall in the country right now or even long term as the media suggests. I also find it hard to keep my mouth shut when faced with blatant inaccuracies and untruths about the origin, current situation and possible outcomes of this conflict. Things like, "It could never happen because it's never happened before", and "the CIA created the Taliban" or "They're just savages" or any of 100 other things I've tried to address on this forum (90% of my posts are on this topic). If I can get people to see this and understand the disinformation that's being thrown around and they still think its a bad idea, well ok, all the power to them. I don’t think they’re stupid or dumb. But if it's based on BS.... .

I think you guys misunderstand the meaning I attribute to my question. What would happen if we never went there? What would happen if we left? My point is that we are at war with the Taliban (by proxy of NATO) because they attacked, or supported/helped attack one of our NATO member states. If we stay we are at war. If we leave we will still be at war, and in all likelihood be going back there within 10 years or less at, most likely, a MUCH higher cost than we are even paying now. Technically you could say the same thing about Saddam, but it wasn't very likely, and even less so in this case, imo. It is my assessment that with the support and funding (and direction) from Taliban elements in Pakistan that this was never going to happen. Their apparent control over the poppy production also speaks to this....If a drug lord cant intimidate them then who will? IOW, all the snazzy "shock & awe" may be coming from NATO's end, but the war wasn’t started by us and it won't be ended by anyone other than us either because the Taliban are surely not going to just come back home and put there feet up and retire. Maybe it's time we started understanding that this is, indeed, a "real war" and not just a peacekeeping mission where we can stay or go at our leisure? .

Simple question to all: what happens if we fail/leave? Please read what the Taliban was doing in the 5 years before 9/11 before answering. .

Did you? Didn't think so. .

How could an Administration orchestrate a fantastic and nebulous plot such as 9/11 and yet during the chaotic early months of the invasion of Iraq they couldn't even plant a little sarin or mustard gas, or even a little yellow cake? Honestly which one of those 'missions' would be easier to achieve? 9/11 or the planting of a few WMD to justify to the American people their reason for invasion? They couldn't, or wouldn't? "A skeptic needs to see in order to believe," A theorist needs to believe before they can see." .

theloniusfleabag Y'know bud after the flurry of vicious childish PM's Ive been getting from Gerry (over absolutely nothing) and the childish attacks and BS bluster from Yaro I am so incredibly stunned -- knocked out flat on the floor -- by your simple, yet thought out and adult response, completely devoid of juvenile bile and outrageous assumptions of my character, that I simply don't have the heart to argue with you. Perhaps later we can take up the point about Osama and opium production, but for now I'm just going to leave it. I respect your opinion and I respect that you are able to change your opinion with changing information. I don't want to alienate what might very well be one of the few adults here (you) so I'm just going to say: You may have a point and good post! The key words there are "who went on to create the Taiban". I do not deny that the US supported the Muhjadeen, in fact it is part of my point that when the Red army feld their support stopped. There is, however, a division at this time between the Arab foriegn fighters and the Afghan fighters. This division is not highlighted nor believed by many but it was a serious division in their forces. Money came from two different major sources and went to two different parties. Osama was a nobody at this time. Well there are a lot of things that are 'speculative' including the opinion piece from the "Sun", the think-tank it was based on and 100 myths about the region, the history and the CIA. Suffice to say I trust you will be able to find numerous sources that will cite that indeed the Taliban boosted opium production when they needed money for arms to the point that they were producing more than could be sold, and then suddenly stopped one day. Thank you again for your adult response. .

I agree. It isn't just Afghanistan either. If the people aren't willing there is no chance. As it is enough of the people want us there for the moment because if they wanted us out we couldn't stay, we'd have to run. The region needs money and lots of it, and unfortunately they might not get it and that's a bad sign. Production is every bit as important as destruction. .

. Wow, Yaro. You and Gerry take the cake. You're complete children. I say I'm not right wing, you say "Yes you are,naw naw naw". Whatever. You and Gerry have completely gone off the deep end here. You're obviously the freaks of this forum. Can't help but notice you don't have any of this "great deal of evidence". lol. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHA Either you can back your shit up or you can't little girl. "And if you think the US government is a reliable blah blah blah"...HAHAHAAHHAHA! Hilarious I suppose you diddn't notice that each and every statement in that bit from the chineses embassy is from 10 DIFFERENT BOOKS WRITTEN BY THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE, YOU DORK, not just some "government statement". What a twit. Just STFU kid. You don't know shit from "private sources" and If you can't accept anything that doesn't come from "infowars.com" or "prisonplanet.com" you're a brainwashed loss. You're not interested in dialog, you're just here to back up your girlfriend gerry Bottom line is you don't know anything about it. You dind't know anything about Pakistan and you didn't know anything about the ISI or that the Taliban originated the opium, you were wrong about the CIA/Osama connection and now you're embarrased. You're just a kid looking for a fight. .

And as to the myth that the Taliban was against the poppy production: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Production_in_Afghanistan Starting a poppy trade, increasing the opium production beyond what even the mob will deal with and then outlawing it when your mob bosses tell you to, since they write the cheques, is hardly "against the opium trade". .

Yaro Really? Show me. What Russian influence in the region that threatens Afghanistan? Even the think tank is making a theory and they admit it. If you're referring to the 1979 invasion well that would be just silly. Russian influence in the region is a straw man compared to the solid, concrete and documented influence by Pakistan and the ISI. Your world is myopic is it? Mine isn't. I am neither Right nor Left and a comparison of the tactics of the Left and the Right over the past twenty years would be a simple exercise in scatology. What is your point? Gerry assumes I'm: a: Right wing...after what? Viewing 2 of my posts that speak discouragingly about his source? "Critical thinking" at it's best I suppose. b: accusing him of wanting the mission to fail when I simply point out that when people are presented with a story that is in line with their belief they are more likely to believe it and less likely to scrutinize it. You don't see the truth in that? Try to stop getting your information from "prisonplanet.com" or "infowars.com" http://beijing.usembassy-china.org.cn/creating_laden.html The CIA is not "Alias". Neither the the CIA or Osama ever needed each other for anything. I don't know who you were addressing with this: ...since I never said it. Both you and gerry need to slow down. Speed kills and attacking people with this rabid pretense to knowledge of the area when in reality you simply regurgitate whatever 'prisonplanet.com' feeds you, and your pompus and false moral superiority is making you look bad. Right back atcha kid. .

And spare me your Private Messages calling me a piece of lying sh!t gerryHattrick. How old are you? 8? .

lol!! You must be done with everybody considering how easy it is. I'll say it again as well, the article says something that you like so you believe it. No back peddling to it, but nice try. Is that what happens on this forum? People fold and cry at the first sign of opposition? .

Vindicated by a think tank you learned about after others did the digging behind the source of a Sun article you posted. Despite not having read the think tank's findings yourself you seem to expect us to, and it doesn't stop you from claiming it vindicates this one legislaturer's comments. .

What? That doesn't even make sense. You started your swearing out of frustration at my scrutinizing of your source and nothing more, now you're covering up. Instead you should grow up. I said nothing remotely close to you 'wishing for our defeat' in Afghanistan except in your imagination. You're on drugs. Get off of them. There was nothing 'well deserved' about your tantrum at all. You need to slow down and chill out. The story says what you like because of the threads I see you making they're all anti-harper and all anti-mission-in-Afghanistan...The article does "speak" to you, and that's why you take it as gospel even though I'm sure you'd be just as critical about any kind of "propaganda" threads I would make sourcing the "Toronto Sun". Now you make pretense to insult when you simply don't like the obviousness of what I pointed out. .

Delusional? Drunk? Whatever the "rightwing" tactic is I'll bet it beats your tactic of discombobulating into an emotional and hysterical mess. .

Wow. Emotional aren't we? Screw you right back kid, I AM one of those soldiers. You call anyone who disagrees with you a piece of sh#t? And then you probably spend the rest of your time here prancing around claiming, "peace and dialog are the only way", lol! Re-read my post brat. That the "story" is based on the think tank doesn't change that it isn't necessarily a representation of said think tank. As I said, you're better off with the Senlis Council because at least they give you the whole picture not simply the perpetual–pessimism machine version the media makes it's money giving you. .

Doesn't matter. Not a single thing in the article demonstrates anything beyond "The medium is the message" Why do you not scrutinize the article even a fraction of the degree you would scrutinize my reply? Because it says something you like, that's why. European think tank or not (you didnt know until later aparently). Again I ask you, what you should've asked yourself: Who has this guy interviewed? Where is he? On what basis does he come to these conclusions? There are no answers to that at all in his article. Just an opinion apparently pulled out of thin air. Well after all it is "The Sun" , lol. I notice the think-tank article is much more level-headed in terms of "predictions", and Russian influence is one of it's least endorsed hypothosis. I also notice it gives reasons for its' predictions, such as Pakistan working hard on the border leading to increased Taliban in Afghanistan, i.e. they were pushed back there after running out in 2001/2. This is at least a whole picture, the news papers instead just get hyperbolistic and paint it like the hills are swarming with mounted Taliban streaming over the hills like the Mongols of Ol'. Hilarious. You're much better off with the Think Tank version, even though it's more reading. .

Much more believable, if you don't mind me saying, mostly because there is a track record there as well as the obvious schism between the US and Iran. Russia's "ambitions" at the moment have to do with subduing any reason to try and maneuver with it's brittle paid-with-nylons-and-vodka armed forces and everything to do with making money any way they can. Ramadan is in two weeks. We'll see what happens. .

Let's not get into what I've seen since you wouldn't believe it. Concerns about the Pakistani border is well known and I've written extensively on the Pakistan influence in Afghanistan. The fact that the author ignores that and brings up Russia only accentuates my contention that this author doesn't know what he's talking about, imo. Who did he interview? Where was he when he wrote this? What was his last piece? That article amounts to an opinion with no greater authority than any poster here....except of course, lets not forget that the medium IS the message, so that he has zero understanding here means nothing since few question what's in print anymore. I mean it's the Toronto freakin' Sun here. Was this on the page before or after the one on alien abductions? Here's a list of his "articles"- http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/ Every single one of them is the same theme: "Harper = Bush" These are the same people who perpetuate the myth that the CIA created Osama, that the USA supported the Taliban and that the Taliban are "against" opium production. .

There is not a single place in that article that demonstrates a 'lie' or any aptitude for history, or any reason at all why the author should know what they're talking about. In fact his whole fantasy about Russian influence is completely off target and laughable. The 'lie' comes from journalists who do their stories from hotel rooms, or worse yet, at two in the morning drunk in some bar in Toronto as this author did. .

One of the simplest solutions to Afghanistan is money, and lots of it. If people are being paid to work and getting what they need the last thing they want to do is fight. That's a near universal truth. Further you legitimize the poppy production for morphine, like in Greece, as there is a world morphate shortage right now. Production is every bit as important to the mission as destruction. .

Precisely why the Pope needs to stay out of politics. The Pope can suck my hockey stick. We'll do as we please. .

Can't argue with that. Great post. .

No. First off, no offense, but your rationale is based on a pair of logical fallacies: 1. 'What has never happened before can never happen'. That is contrary to what we see from 3000 years of social development world wide. Look two countries over to India and we see a religiously divisive, overpopulated and extremely poor country that has made unbelievable strides in the last century. Amazing as that may be it is neither a Shangri-la nor did it happen overnight. That would be a day-dream - completely unrealistic. 2. 'Afghanistan has never been occupied/conquered'. It has been. Closer to the truth, it has never been occupied by a force that wanted to stay. In fact it's not unrealistic to state that the existence of an 'Afghanistan' at all isn't being contested as we speak. The Soviets occupied Afghanistan and if it weren't for money/arms/intelligence support from the very same countries that are there now (mostly the US and her Saudi allies) the Soviets, in all likelihood, would still be there. Essentially this makes it a little moot to ask, for example, "Why do we expect we can 'do it' when the Soviets couldn't?". The answer is; (1) that's not the goal, and (2)that's not a relative comparison considering the allies Afghanistan had. After the power vacumm of the Soviet withdrawal, they were essentially insiduiously invaded and occupied again by Taliban elements, and the INI from Pakistan, and that was essentially the situation for the next decade. There hasn't been a 'free and un-occupied' Afghanistan' since 1979. Also; By any modern measure NATO is not 'occupying' Afghanistan. There were more than 120000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan when they were running away. In the early days the media and others scoffed at the 'Afghan National Army'. They were only a few thousand and recruitment was awful. Now they are a force of 35,000 who fight and can coordinate with air support and modern allies; they are starting a small 'air force' of transport helicopters, and recruitment is 3000-5000/month. The media doesn't talk about the ANA anymore. .

You're right about the para wings, sorta. Essentially all 'first line' Canadian units have become 'airborne'. .