Al Quaeda No 2. We Don't Kill Innocents

[Army Guy]

Wouldn't that be like, what's the guy's name, Najib, asking Soviets to go home? After we gave them power and kept them safe from the other guys? You see high chance of that happening, anytime soon?

The soviets invaded , and imposed thier will on the Afganis government, like most communist states it was controled by moscow....NATO destroyed the old regime, thats a fact, the newly elected government asked NATO to stay on to assist them, in the rebuilding of thier nation. there will be peace in afganistan, but not on any time table....and this mission will eventually turn into a UN one, but it will not be on our (canadian time table) it will be on thiers...( the Afganis time table). and if the other missions are examples that could take 10 to 20 years...

Ok, the group is small... and population greatly aspiring for democracy is large; moneys and arms are flowing freely; foreign troops are providing all heavy support; and still the "democracy" would collapse the moment we pull out.. One of the above must be wrong; name it.

Why must it be wrong ? Name me one country that has sucessfully grown into a strong nation that could stand up on it's own after just 6 years of assistance....Name one country that has stood up on it's own after 30 or more years of war? So why is it that you expect this one to instantly stand up and survive after just 6 years...

... executions by lethal injection .. (oops that was from another story, sorry). Should the go to all the places and make them look, feel and behave just like us?

Give me an example? of how we are forcing them to look , feel, and behave just like us....

No, not really. You're mixing up different things. Murder, etc is a crime, in our culture; anybody who can is free and should attempt to prevent it; stoning, religious police; corporal punishment aren't (or weren't) crime in theirs. They were accepted norm recognised by majority; just like it was common here some hundred or so years back; and as e.g capital punishment still is, in some places;

No i'm not mixing up different things, and your wrong when you say they thought it was normal behavior, they did not dare say anything again'st Taliban policy as it was not allow to do so meant that you would be subject to the same.....so the majority did not...ask them today what they perfer the old ways under the taliban or the new ways under NATO ?

So here's the question: are we allowed, by our moral, to go to other places, maybe wild and violent and impose our understanding of moral, culture and society, by force; and how is it different from the colonizers of old

There is a minimum standard set out for basic human rights, this accord has been signed by most nations in existance today....so the answer to your question is yes, would should be able to use every method to enforce those basic rights...not doing so means that really we have rules but you can chose to follow them or not....not enforcing them would be the same as turning your head, pretending not to notice something....condoning the action when we know it is wrong.... How's it different than colonization...first we are not there to enforce our values or morals on them , just ensuring that the basic rights are being enforced, and that they are not posing a problem for other nations.

[myata]

This has already been explained a dozen of times as well, the Afganis government is a democracy, ...

OK.. "explaining" it, even a hundred of times, doesn't make it true. Does it (the Afghanis government) have full sovereign control of their own territory?

The soviets invaded , and imposed thier will on the Afganis government, like most communist states it was controled by moscow....NATO destroyed the old regime,

And they didn't invade, in doing so, no? And they didn't impose any will on anybody, by handpicking their president? And they didn't stand by with their arms and troops while they were running "democratic" elections?

Give me a break, for heavens sake! The country is occupied, period. The moment there's no foreign troops on the streets, you can give us that story. Till then, it's plain ridiculous.

No i'm not mixing up different things, and your wrong when you say they thought it was normal behavior, they did not dare say anything again'st Taliban policy as it was not allow to do so meant that you would be subject to the same.....so the majority did not...ask them today what they perfer the old ways under the taliban or the new ways under NATO ?

Enough of that song too. Before 9/11, even the holy fathers of democracy never said that Afghan should be invaded and reeducated. There's any number of strange, maybe brutal places on this globe; hopefully and eventually, with time, they'll find their ways to better life, one by one; and maybe they could even be helped in that; help doesn't mean conquering them and converting into our ways by force.

There is a minimum standard set out for basic human rights, this accord has been signed by most nations in existance today....so the answer to your question is yes, would should be able to use every method to enforce those basic rights...

If you've discovered that enforcing human rights in other countries by force is a legitimate activity, please share with us the details. I can't wait to hear when all the others still expecting the enlightement, will have their turn?

Wait, how about interpretation of what constitute the right, too? E.g is life itself a right (i.e not be killed against one's will)? Many think it is. It may even be one of them, basic rights. So? Have you scheduled the educational invasions, already? You know, to enlighten the enlighteners?

Missed one:

Name me one country that has sucessfully grown into a strong nation that could stand up on it's own after just 6 years of assistance....

Congrats on creative use of terminology (underlined) btw... does a lot to support the point. For the answer, hit any point on the globe (Antarctica excluded), and you probably won't go wrong... Of course if we agree to not call invasions or occupations "assistance" .... or at least, change your formula to "despite x .... years of, "assistance".

Edited April 11, 2008 by myata

[AngusThermopyle]

When majority of people know what democracy is what they want, they'll have determination and will to create and defend it no matter Taleban or what; it happened in many many other places (collapse of communism in Eastern Europe the latest)

Nonsense. Communism did not collapse because the people rose up against it. Communism collapsed because they engaged in a war they could not win. That was called the cold war, I guess you don't know about that one. Former President Ronald Reagan kept upping the ante on the Soviets. While America with its Capitalist system could maintain and even increase the allocation of resources to this cold war the Soviets could not under their Communist system.

The effort to do so basically bankrupted the Soviets and forced them to adopt gradually increasing Capitalistic methods. This is the reason for the gradual failure of Communism in Eastern Europe, not some fanciful revolt by the oppressed. In fact, if you do some research you'll see that it was the Communist government that spearheaded these changes as they were well aware of the fact that they were bankrupt and realized they had to do something about it.

[DogOnPorch]

Nonsense. Communism did not collapse because the people rose up against it. Communism collapsed because they engaged in a war they could not win. That was called the cold war, I guess you don't know about that one. Former President Ronald Reagan kept upping the ante on the Soviets. While America with its Capitalist system could maintain and even increase the allocation of resources to this cold war the Soviets could not under their Communist system.

The effort to do so basically bankrupted the Soviets and forced them to adopt gradually increasing Capitalistic methods. This is the reason for the gradual failure of Communism in Eastern Europe, not some fanciful revolt by the oppressed. In fact, if you do some research you'll see that it was the Communist government that spearheaded these changes as they were well aware of the fact that they were bankrupt and realized they had to do something about it.

"Star Wars" and Chernobyl finished off the Soviets.

------------------------------------

Kiddofspeed - GHOST TOWN - Chernobyl Pictures -

Elena's Motorcyle Ride through Chernobyl

--- http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

[AngusThermopyle]

"Star Wars" and Chernobyl finished off the Soviets.

I remember it well, it was a pretty exciting time.

Don't seem to recall the common folk overthrowing communism though. Must have been sleeping when they showed that one on the news.

[eyeball]

The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own crap. The same thing that's now burying the US and will soon bury China.

Once you've seen one super-rogue, you've seen them all.

[myata]

Nonsense. Communism did not collapse because the people rose up against it. Communism collapsed because they engaged in a war they could not win. That was called the cold war, I guess you don't know about that one. Former President Ronald Reagan kept upping the ante on the Soviets. While America with its Capitalist system could maintain and even increase the allocation of resources to this cold war the Soviets could not under their Communist system.

Nonsense. "Raising" isn't even necessary. Enough is for people, in their masses, to stop supporting it. Believing in it. Eventually it'll collapse on its own.

Just as if majority of Afgans stopped believing in burkhas, etc not sure what exactly their belief is, no Taleban would be able to hold them to it, for long.

And then, people did rise. In Poland, Romania, East Germany, Baltic republics, etc. That's when the term, "velvet revolution" was coined. If you didn't happen to notice it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[AngusThermopyle]

And then, people did rise. In Poland, Romania, East Germany, Baltic republics, etc. That's when the term, "velvet revolution" was coined. If you didn't happen to notice it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You stated that Communism in Eastern Europe fell because the people rose up. It did not, spin it any way you want but the fact is that Communism fell because of economic factors. If the Soviets had not become bankrupt the status quo would have continued.

Can you say Glasnost and Perastoika?

If you don't like it I suggest you start a campaign to revise well recorded events to suit your version.

Edited April 11, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[myata]

You stated that Communism in Eastern Europe fell because the people rose up..

No I havent. I stated what's written right couple of short messages down so you can easily keep it in your view, if not in memory. And earlier I stated that if the democracy is that people really want they'd have it, eventually, and by their own will. And that is what indeed happened in Eastern Europe, within a lifespan of one generation (1949 - 1989).

And people did raise up many times before that, in Hungary (1956), Chekhoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, etc, each time taking away a bit of a strength from already weak regimes which were holding on only by force of foreign arms. Sounds familiar?

[AngusThermopyle]

So what you are saying is that Gorbachev actually did not start Russia on the road to Capitalism, that the people just stopped supporting Communism? How long does it take you to make this stuff up?

Do a little research, then if you feel like talking let me know. Or perhaps you want to tell every historian and analyst that they're wrong when they state the fall of Communist Russia was due to economic reasons, and gorbachev initiated the practise of Capatilistic ways in Russia.

You should try Daniels, he's considered the leading authority on this period of history for the Soviet states. If you do you will see that the reason was economic. they had to change, under the old way pretty much everything was subject to shortages, the only way to solve this was to adopt capitalism. Ergo, the fall was actually caused by economic factors, not because people just stopped supporting it.

So, would you like to e-mail Mr. Daniels and tell him just how wrong he is?

Edited April 11, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[myata]

So what you are saying is that Gorbachev actually did not start Russia on the road to Capitalism, that the people just stopped supporting Communism?

Yes I do. Read people who actially worked in Russia, (e.g well known work of Hedrick Smith) and you'll that the entire ideology system was rotting inside out. I.e nobody believed that the official propaganda tried to impose.

You should try Daniels, he's considered the leading authority on this period of history for the Soviet states. If you do you will see that the reason was economic. they had to change, under the old way pretty much everything was subject to shortages, the only way to solve this was to adopt capitalism.

And why did the economy start to give up, so suddenly, can I ask? Just so, out of the blue? They did great in the 20s and 30s, raised the country from agricultural backdrop into the first ranges of the world, after all? Then, what happened? Ask Mr Daniels..

Here's what happened though: people stopped to believe in the system; didn't have will or motivation to slave for the sake of a better future that never came. And there was nothing to replace it with....

That's a great lesson for the perfectors of all kinds (i.e communizers or democratizers, etc): a social system will only have long term future if the people (at least majority of them) agree, understand and support it, i.e. work with it; no outside force can make them do that.

[Army Guy]

OK.. "explaining" it, even a hundred of times, doesn't make it true. Does it (the Afghanis government) have full sovereign control of their own territory?

Yes, it has, provide me a link or source stating it does not.

And they didn't invade, in doing so, no? And they didn't impose any will on anybody, by handpicking their president? And they didn't stand by with their arms and troops while they were running "democratic" elections?

Give me a break, for heavens sake! The country is occupied, period. The moment there's no foreign troops on the streets, you can give us that story. Till then, it's plain ridiculous.

Yes, NATO did invade to dispose of the old regime....it did stay until a elected government was chosen...after the elections "the freely elected government ASKED NATO to stay and assist with rebuilding .....

I hope your not suggesting that NATO or the US hand picked the the Afganis government.....Provide a source or link that states that the government of Afganistan was Handed picked by NATO, or any other country other than the people of Afganistan.....

Perhaps you need to do some reseach on the term occupation....

Enough of that song too. Before 9/11, even the holy fathers of democracy never said that Afghan should be invaded and reeducated. There's any number of strange, maybe brutal places on this globe; hopefully and eventually, with time, they'll find their ways to better life, one by one; and maybe they could even be helped in that; help doesn't mean conquering them and converting into our ways by force.

What song would that be, "don't spank my ass, when my head is in the sand," or I never saw i thing and won't tell any body"....Great songs , in fact classics for alot of Canadians....and while we sit our fat asses in our nice comfy chairs watching the hockey game or some new reality TV show, with crumbs on our chests from eating way to much snack food, a cool drink at our sides..."we are good", because nothing that happens in Afgan or any place else will effect my life in my chair....

You can correct me if i'm wrong , but your ok with sitting back and watching millions around the globe die, waiting for them to correct there own problems...like those in Darfur, sudan, Afganistan...etc etc....Not all of us fall into that catagory we actually want to help, and while we respect your decission to hide in a hole, we should not have to defend our actions because it upsets the great natural order of things according to you....

If you've discovered that enforcing human rights in other countries by force is a legitimate activity, please share with us the details. I can't wait to hear when all the others still expecting the enlightement, will have their turn

Some what of a hypocritically statement is it not, i mean we live in a country were all our rights, freedoms and laws are enforced if nessicary by force...and for most of us we are all right with that...Rules need to be enforced or things quickly get out of hand....So the answer to your question is yes sometimes you need to stand up and use a big stick...Why is it the UN uses soldiers to peace keep, and not hippies with placards.

Congrats on creative use of terminology (underlined) btw... does a lot to support the point. For the answer, hit any point on the globe (Antarctica excluded), and you probably won't go wrong... Of course if we agree to not call invasions or occupations "assistance" .... or at least, change your formula to "despite x .... years of, "assistance".

You change what ever you have to, just name one country...Then explain why Afganistan needs to be the first.

[myata]

Yes, it has, provide me a link or source stating it does not.

I don't need one. Your very presence there (along with ongoing adage that if we return, the country will be overrun by Taleban) is my proof. The government appointed by invading forces isn't sovereign simply because it can only stand while propped by ,000 of foreign troops. I.e, in plain words, it's a puppet; proxy. Nothing to do with democracy as we understand it here.

Yes, NATO did invade to dispose of the old regime....it did stay until a elected government was chosen...after the elections "the freely elected government ASKED NATO to stay and assist with rebuilding ....

Right... Isn't that what (what's his name) Kabrak Barmal?? asked the Soviets to do, couple of decades previously? Help him to stay and assist with rebuilding ... communism? Of course, that was so wrong!

I hope your not suggesting that NATO or the US hand picked the the Afganis government.....

I monitor such things and I remember a frienzy of activity, during the invasion, of US trying to find an appropriate government for them people after Talibs are ousted (there's been something in exile, then this Karzai guy came out of nowhere). An "election" in a country occupied by foreign troops, country without any traditions of responsible democracy; civil society; media; etc; etc; means nothing. Only an easy way to justify whatever choice was already made for them.

But, as always, the proof of pudding is in the pudding. If our proxy does not have the influence, authority, or respect to control the country, we only have the mirror to blame. And nice tales of democracy that needs time and protection, to spin.

Perhaps you need to do some reseach on the term occupation....

Occupation means massive presence and control of in an independent coutry through use of force.

You can correct me if i'm wrong , but your ok with sitting back and watching millions around the globe die, waiting for them to correct there own problems...like those in Darfur, sudan, Afganistan...etc etc....

Not all of us fall into that catagory we actually want to help, and while we respect your decission to hide in a hole, we should not have to defend our actions because it upsets the great natural order of things according to you....

No need to repeat myself (as I won't anymore), the help isn't one and the same with thoughtless barging in and rearranging the place according to our understanding of how it should be. The problem is that in the long run this approach usually creates more problems than it (was supposed to) solve. Especially if and when unasked for.

Think of this: whatever problems may be in your house, you wouldn't have an intruder blasting in and telling you and others in your family how you should be.. Why do you think people there are any different? Because they're less... developed? Need be taught how to go about their lives? I.e...inferior???

Rules need to be enforced or things quickly get out of hand....

Regarding the "rules", who (and how) defines and enforces them, see my comment above. You haven't responded to it, and simply repeating it over and again does nothing to support your argument.

[Army Guy]

I don't need one. Your very presence there (along with ongoing adage that if we return, the country will be overrun by Taleban) is my proof. The government appointed by invading forces isn't sovereign simply because it can only stand while propped by ,000 of foreign troops. I.e, in plain words, it's a puppet; proxy. Nothing to do with democracy as we understand it here.

Actually you do, you've made a claim and have failed in backing it up....your entire argument is based on opinon not fact.

I monitor such things and I remember a frienzy of activity, during the invasion, of US trying to find an appropriate government for them people after Talibs are ousted (there's been something in exile, then this Karzai guy came out of nowhere). An "election" in a country occupied by foreign troops, country without any traditions of responsible democracy; civil society; media; etc; etc; means nothing. Only an easy way to justify whatever choice was already made for them.

But, as always, the proof of pudding is in the pudding. If our proxy does not have the influence, authority, or respect to control the country, we only have the mirror to blame. And nice tales of democracy that needs time and protection, to spin.

Well if you monitor such things why is it so hard for you to find a source or link that clearly shows us all that the elections were a sham and the US did in fact appiont a proxy government? or is this just an other opinion....

Occupation means massive presence and control of in an independent coutry through use of force.

Would that preclude being asked to stay by it's legal elected government....as the case in Afgan...which would mean it's not an occupation by your own explaination above....

No need to repeat myself (as I won't anymore), the help isn't one and the same with thoughtless barging in and rearranging the place according to our understanding of how it should be.

Again you have a hard time separating fact from opinon, give us an example of how NATO has barged in and started to rearrange the place according to our standards or practices, that was not approved by the legal, elected Afganis government.

The problem is that in the long run this approach usually creates more problems than it (was supposed to) solve. Especially if and when unasked for.

Really, maybe you could show us some facts on this, start with the UN, and tell me how many sucessful missions there has been compared to the unsucessful ones....because you did say usually creates more problems...making it a very common fault....

Think of this: whatever problems may be in your house, you wouldn't have an intruder blasting in and telling you and others in your family how you should be.. Why do you think people there are any different? Because they're less... developed? Need be taught how to go about their lives? I.e...inferior???

What options did the US or NATO have....left when the Taliban government decided it would defend Bin Ladin and his merry gang of terrorist's....

Regarding the "rules", who (and how) defines and enforces them,

Are you serious, we both know who defines them, and who is really suposed to enforce them, but that organization is toothless, so if that organzation sanctions direct action or the use of force....then it must be legal and just to do so....But your problem is you don't like the rules....that the rest of the world should have to put up with these radical countries because they are finding thier way, to a better future....but the real world doesn't operate that way....

[myata]

Actually you do, you've made a claim and have failed in backing it up....your entire argument is based on opinon not fact.

....

Well if you monitor such things why is it so hard for you to find a source or link that clearly shows us all that the elections were a sham and the US did in fact appiont a proxy government? or is this just an other opinion....

Would that preclude being asked to stay by it's legal elected government....as the case in Afgan...which would mean it's not an occupation by your own explaination above....

What isn't a fact? What there're 50,000 foreign troops there, in ongoing operations? What there's but a few (if any) provinces, which are controlled entirely by the government, without massive presence of foreign troops? World isn't arranged nicely into a clear lines of command.. No 100% true unquestionnable statements....Sometimes have to make do with opinions... or facts... Unless you're avoiding answering direct questions?

...by the legal, elected Afganis government.

You aren't listening. "Elected" government doesn't mean much in a country that doesn't know what election is. It's simply a form of giving legitimacy to a proxy installed by foreign powers. If a government was indeed "legal" (I'd rather use the term "legitimate"), it would have enough support from its people to control the territory of its own country.

, start with the UN, and tell me how many sucessful missions there has been compared to the unsucessful ones....because you did say usually creates more problems...making it a very common fault....

What options did the US or NATO have....

Sorry, I can't recall any such previous missions approved by UN (ie. than an independed country had to be invaded, it's government thrown out and replaced with appointed one). Perhaps you could refresh my memory?

Even this one, was an afterfact; postfactum, avoiding a difficult question of whether a legitimate grievance translated into a legitimate action, given all facts and details.

...

Speaking of the problems, I meant our colonial past... Look around all the places we've been to, supposedly to educate and enlighten them

...

Many. The problem was with the objectives; which were not to deal efficiently with a particular terrorist group; it's still there, and maybe in greater numbers than before; the objective was to trigger democractic "domino effect" in the regoin; reengineer it; and the objectives, obviously, defined the actions.

left when the Taliban government decided it would defend Bin Ladin and his merry gang of terrorist's....

For all I know, the only crime the Taleban were accused of, was their refusal to hand over Bin Laden (Prelude to invasion). Which isn't exactly the same as what you state. If you know otherwise (I'll be glad to learn, and admit), please share facts, links etc.

But your problem is you don't like the rules....that the rest of the world should have to put up with these radical countries because they are finding thier way, to a better future....but the real world doesn't operate that way....

No, there's no rules to invade and reeducate countries, where we don't like practices, traditions, religion culture etc. Or you'd be able to demonstrate them, here. Those "rules" are made ad hoc on as needed basis. I.e the same way as in the past.

[Army Guy]

What isn't a fact? What there're 50,000 foreign troops there, in ongoing operations? What there's but a few (if any) provinces, which are controlled entirely by the government, without massive presence of foreign troops?

Yes there is alot of NATO soldiers on the ground below is a link on where they are...note to self take a long look at the map, there only a few provinces in which are unstable , have you heard of other provinces having problems, such as the german or french districts........another note is the entire nation is controled by the legimate Afganis government...NATO recieves it's blessing from them prior to any operations....i know you still can't believe that...

There are also over 60,000 Afgan soldiers and double that number in police currently operating along side of NATO soldiers. so the myth of this being a NATO operation is completly false....

Afgan map.

Sometimes have to make do with opinions... or facts... Unless you're avoiding answering direct questions?

You want to make a piont and provide proof in a debate opinion is not acceptable.....Since i asked the question, i guess your avoiding the answer....

You aren't listening. "Elected" government doesn't mean much in a country that doesn't know what election is. It's simply a form of giving legitimacy to a proxy installed by foreign powers.

Bullshit once again , don't kid yourself the Afganis people knew well in advance what it meant to elect thier own government....in fact the election was well recieve, with many afganis voters traveling hundrds of miles on foot just to vote....Shit Canadians won't even fly that far to vote....let alone drive....walking out of the question....the fact that they turned out in greater numbers than our recent in our countryies election, has got to tell you something....Not only did they know what they were doing in detail but they went in record numbers to place thier votes....

If you want i will provide refs for all of the above....or perhaps you can provide a ref to state other wise....

Sorry, I can't recall any such previous missions approved by UN (ie. than an independed country had to be invaded, it's government thrown out and replaced with appointed one). Perhaps you could refresh my memory?

Even this one, was an afterfact; postfactum, avoiding a difficult question of whether a legitimate grievance translated into a legitimate action, given all facts and details.

No i was refering to the use of force, the UN has authorized the use of military force to accomplish it's objectives in most of it's missions, or missions sponsored by them YUGO, Cyprus etc....and most of those have had sucessfull outcomes....not all but most , which does not fit in with your "Usually" statement...

Even this one, was an afterfact; postfactum, avoiding a difficult question of whether a legitimate grievance translated into a legitimate action, given all facts and details.

Actually NATO did not require UN approval under NATO's goverence allowing military action if it could be proven that Bin ladin was responsable.....the Afgan mission was authorized by the UN prior to any action being taken by the US or NATO forces.

Speaking of the problems, I meant our colonial past... Look around all the places we've been to, supposedly to educate and enlighten them

Like Germany, cyprus, bosina, those places....or did you have something else in mind....

For all I know, the only crime the Taleban were accused of, was their refusal to hand over Bin Laden (Prelude to invasion). Which isn't exactly the same as what you state. If you know otherwise (I'll be glad to learn, and admit), please share facts, links etc.

Taken from your link.

After the September 11 attacks and the PENTTBOM investigation, the USA delivered this ultimatum to the Taliban:

Deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al Qaeda;

Release all imprisoned foreign nationals;

Close immediately every terrorist training camp;

Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities;

Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection.[108

talibans dismisal

No, there's no rules to invade and reeducate countries, where we don't like practices, traditions, religion culture etc. Or you'd be able to demonstrate them, here. Those "rules" are made ad hoc on as needed basis. I.e the same way as in the past.

I think your misunderstanding, there are rules for defending your nation, thier are rules in the NATO goverence, inter-national law and those set out by the genva conventions, and un charters....We are not in afganistan to change them, thier traditions, etc ....but help or assist them in rebuilding thier nation....i just don't know why you can not see this...

[myata]

..note to self take a long look at the map, there only a few provinces in which are unstable ,

...

by the legimate Afganis government...

Indeed took me awhile to be able to read it; but wouldn't those "few" provinces, with massive foreign presence (39,000 US, 7700 UK, 3,500 Germany, 2,500 Canada, 1100 Australia - overall over 50,000 troops) cover at least a half of the country's territory? And the government that cannot control half of its territory, other than with a help of full blown foreign army, can hardly be called sovereign and legitimate. I'm not making any judgements though; let's see how it plays out in the long run, ie. 1-3 years after we pull out.

Bullshit once again , don't kid yourself the Afganis people knew well in advance what it meant to elect thier own government....in fact the election was well recieve, with many afganis voters traveling hundrds of miles on foot just to vote.....Not only did they know what they were doing in detail but they went in record numbers to place thier votes....

And we have to take you word on that; because the last time they had free and democratic elections was ??? never. And the democracy (experience of it, understanding of democratic procedures; it's cornerstones like civil society; rule of law; personal freedoms; free and independent media; etc; spread instantly, like a virus; or domino effect; correct?).

Except explain me one simple thing: if it is so, if democracy is indeed in such high esteem and value among great majority of population; why then, with all the massive assistance from the world; with all the advisers, arms, etc; they don't seem to be able to keep the country in control; same feat that took Taleban less time not to mention that they had to rely exclusively on their own forces? What did they have that this current presumably democratic and presumably super popular, government doesn't? Why did the Taleban have enough people to fight for them, while this "democratic" etc government, haven't?

No i was refering to the use of force, the UN has authorized the use of military force to accomplish it's objectives in most of it's missions, or missions sponsored by them YUGO, Cyprus etc....

Still, there was no mission like this: ie. to invade, depose a government and install and support a new one (also your further references to Cyprus, etc). Those were either peacekeeping missions monitoring peace agreements already in place, or limited scope actions which did not invlolve complete takeover of a country. I'll have to do some research on the exact sequence of actions before the invasion (but Wiki page should already give some initial info), will post on that later.

I think your misunderstanding, there are rules for defending your nation, thier are rules in the NATO goverence, inter-national law and those set out by the genva conventions, and un charters....We are not in afganistan to change them, thier traditions, etc ....but help or assist them in rebuilding thier nation....i just don't know why you can not see this...

I would be more inclined to believe that if we didn't stay back with our huge military force, and let them themselves decide what they want to build, standing by to provide assistance if asked for; or firm and very clear demonstration that any future threat to any alliance member won't be tolerated;

[bush_cheney2004]

...I would be more inclined to believe that if we didn't stay back with our huge military force, and let them themselves decide what they want to build, standing by to provide assistance if asked for; or firm and very clear demonstration that any future threat to any alliance member won't be tolerated;

Yea, easy for you to say, having neither been attacked or having the force to back that statement up. I believe they have received a "firm and very clear" demonstration.

[Army Guy]

Indeed took me awhile to be able to read it; but wouldn't those "few" provinces, with massive foreign presence (39,000 US, 7700 UK, 3,500 Germany, 2,500 Canada, 1100 Australia - overall over 50,000 troops) cover at least a half of the country's territory?

Actually there are troops in every province, but first i want to explain the numbers. I'll use Canada...while true we do have 2500 pers o the ground more 50 % of that is made up of support pers, ie clerks, machanics, etc leaving about 1200 combat pers available to cover an area larger than the province of PEI... that may sound like alot, but when you subtract all the different pionts that have to be guarded,or manned you battle group shrieks rapidly...hence why we need another 1000 troops to secure the entire province...

The Afgan army numbers about 60,000 trained pers at present, once again they have support pers, places to guard. But unlike the NATO pers these guys do this job 365 days a year, for the rest of thier lifes, or until they are killed...That fact speaks volumes about these guys dedication, thier sacrafice to rebuild thier nation...

It is a team effort with both sides helping each other, Afganis army and police units are taking the lead in combat operations, meaning they are providing the bulk of the combat troops while NATO provides the most of the toys. It's hard to get that out of our media as they don't report the whole picture...but look at the casuality figures, it's not that they are not any good at what they do , it's because they are involved in every operation.....

And the government that cannot control half of its territory, other than with a help of full blown foreign army, can hardly be called sovereign and legitimate. I'm not making any judgements though; let's see how it plays out in the long run, ie. 1-3 years after we pull out.

The government has control over the entire country. much like the toronto city police have control over toronto and yet they still have crime...but afgan there is a twist, the criminals have automatic wpns, and terrorize the people at will....

just one terrorist could lock down toronto, imagine what a couple of thousand could do...

You have made judgements, and your mind is already made up.... I'm not trying to change your stand on the mission just trying to give you some of the correct information....Most Canadians are misinformed about this mission and it's our soldiers that pay for that, in serveral ways, purchase of equipment is slowed...funding is not forth coming, moral is effected by opinions at home, the list is long....and each item on that list is another obsticle our troops have to deal with...

And we have to take you word on that; because the last time they had free and democratic elections was ??? never. And the democracy (experience of it, understanding of democratic procedures; it's cornerstones like civil society; rule of law; personal freedoms; free and independent media; etc; spread instantly, like a virus; or domino effect; correct?).

below is some of the election procedures and education process...

afganis election

afganis elections

Visit My Website

Except explain me one simple thing: if it is so, if democracy is indeed in such high esteem and value among great majority of population; why then, with all the massive assistance from the world; with all the advisers, arms, etc; they don't seem to be able to keep the country in control; same feat that took Taleban less time not to mention that they had to rely exclusively on their own forces?

It's not so much the fact they want a democracy, the fact is they want peace, they want work to be able to feed thier families....that is what they hold is high esteem...democracy is what NATO is offering....As for control, The taliban did not have total control, there was fighting constantly in the north, much like today in the south....

The Afganis government has control over the entire country, much like our government has control over ours...Terrorism is a very difficult beast to control, with out total lock down ,terrorist can operate freely and attack when the situation suits them, all the government can do is react...the current govrnment has deployed all of it's military and police assets to restrict the terrorist movements and activities, while still providing it's citizens freedom of movement....it's a delicate balance...and the terrorist use it to thier favour...

What did they have that this current presumably democratic and presumably super popular, government doesn't? Why did the Taleban have enough people to fight for them, while this "democratic" etc government, haven't?

I would'nt say that the current government is super popular, but when compared to the taliban it rocks...something like our current government....the PC are not very popular, but compared to the alternative they rock...but the beauty of a democractic government if something better comes along you can vote a new government...counld'nt do that with the taliban....

The taliban ruled with an iron fist, and back this up with executions....a humans will to live is very strong, and death is a very good motivator...imagine if our country announced that all drivers caught drinking and driving would be executed on the side of the road if they blew over the legal limit...do you think we would have many drunk drivers..

In Afgan during taliban rule you had 2 choices embace the taliban, become one of them and survive, or be a victim...which would you choose....Here in Canada we are extremily lucky we don't have to make those decisions....but if faced with it, we would do what it took to survive....keep in mind not all german soldiers in WWII were nazi's either...

One has to remember that Afgan is a very poor country, most people are working at something to provide food for thier families.And rebuilding the nation......a population of 27 million and an armed forces/ police of more than 130,000...and growing by 3000 every month....

I would be more inclined to believe that if we didn't stay back with our huge military force, and let them themselves decide what they want to build, standing by to provide assistance if asked for; or firm and very clear demonstration that any future threat to any alliance member won't be tolerated;

I can't say this enough, the current Afganis government decides what national projects are funded, and constructed, such as dams , hyways...( don't here much on the media about those projects, because threre not as news worthy as NATO digging a few ditchs ....but they are ongoing....we provide the protection, NATO however does do alot of local projects, such as wells , irragation ditches etc ...Your warning has been told to the taliban on many occasions and the fighting continues....hence why we are still there, growth and advancements are happening everyday...but it takes time , something the west has little of, in our fast food world....

[myata]

Yea, easy for you to say, having neither been attacked or having the force to back that statement up.

And could there be a reason, why we haven't (yet) been attacked?

Edited April 15, 2008 by myata

[myata]

The Afgan army numbers about 60,000 trained pers at present, once again they have support pers, places to guard. But unlike the NATO pers these guys do this job 365 days a year, for the rest of thier lifes, or until they are killed...That fact speaks volumes about these guys dedication, thier sacrafice to rebuild thier nation...

I'm not questioning their dedication; only the fact that in 6 years and with massive foreign support, there doesn't seem to be a demonstration of sufficient will in the population to join the army in much greater numbers; numbers which would be sufficient to secure the country against any "small groups bent on yada old ways"... could it be a sign that the mass of population is lukewarm to the democracy idea and is simply sitting it out while foreigners are in control??

just one terrorist could lock down toronto, imagine what a couple of thousand could do...

You really want to paint a picture that the resistance are no more than a bunch of terrorists, but I find it hard to believe. Even Karzai himself was on the record that there should be negotiations with at least some groups of Taleban; why would he say that, if it was just a bunch of "terrorists"? also, even harder to believe that an isolated group with little support from the general population, could mount such a resistence, over the years, to an overwhelmingly superior force; ends in your propaganda just don't tie up.

It's not so much the fact they want a democracy, the fact is they want peace, they want work to be able to feed thier families....that is what they hold is high esteem...democracy is what NATO is offering....As for control, The taliban did not have total control, there was fighting constantly in the north, much like today in the south....

Well, and why does it have to offer, anything? Shouldn't it be up to the people themselves to decide what kind of government they want? We always think that by definition everybody wants to be like us.. last time that they want to serve our queen; now worship our democratic gods... could that attitude explain some of negative response we're experiencing in some parts of the world? I.e not their inbord backwardness; hostility; intolerance; but us trying to tell them how they should live, in their own land? One more time: how would you like the same? I.e a stranger in your own home teaching you, gently but firmly, how the things should be done? arranged?

And one other thing, about the democracy: it's not the process per se that makes it (the democracy) legitimate; no, it's the other way around: ie. democratically minded people create, and legitimize democratic processes; the opposite is true too: people with no democratic culture won't have democracy even if they follow certain process, script; it may (and often used to) "legitimize" this government for the outside world; but doesn't in any way means that it'll make it legitimate for the mass of local population. Yet it's the latter that should matter, right? Because supposedly, we're building that "democracy", for them..

The taliban ruled with an iron fist, and back this up with executions....a humans will to live is very strong, and death is a very good motivator...imagine if our country announced that all drivers caught drinking and driving would be executed on the side of the road if they blew over the legal limit...do you think we would have many drunk drivers..

Yet they enjoyed support (translated into their ability to govern), greater than that of the current government; why do you always assume that everybody everywhere has to be just like us? what if people somewhere like (ie, understand, trust) iron fist government better than our democracy? Should they be changed, reeducated, by force? Or should it be left up to them to develop and hopefully, change their ways, when and if they're ready? That's what happened to us, right? We didn't have some well meaning aliens dragging us to democracy and enlightement, from middle ages, no matter how we'd kick and scream? Why should we go and do it to the others? Even then they don't ask to be taught?

[bush_cheney2004]

And could there be a reason, why we haven't (yet) been attacked?

Yes....Canadian bombs, bullets, and artillery shells are more righteous that American ones.

[White Doors]

Yes....Canadian bombs, bullets, and artillery shells are more righteous that American ones.

Correct, we put our own 'special' spin on the DU on our shells.

The rest of you NATO hacks get the regular DU.

And to think our resident left wing yank thinks all that Saskatchewn is good for is seal fur!

Edited April 15, 2008 by White Doors

[WarBicycle]

This is rather interesting. He claims that Al Quaeda do not kill innocents and if any die it is because the agencies being attacked are using them as human shields. I suppose from his point of view he's speaking honestly, but when you consider that his point of view is probably coloured by fanaticism and hatred honesty becomes a rather moot point.

www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/03/zawahiri.message/index.html?eref=rss_world

One must take into consideration the Muslim 7th Century mindset; we infidels are considered fair game regardless as to whether we are combatants or not. The term ‘innocent’ is reserved for Muslims only. Should an innocent Muslim suffer death it is merely shrugged off as ‘God’s will.

[Army Guy]

I'm not questioning their dedication; only the fact that in 6 years and with massive foreign support, there doesn't seem to be a demonstration of sufficient will in the population to join the army in much greater numbers;

It has taken 6 years to build the recruiting process to where it is now, example we in Canada are facing the same problem, it's not getting the recruits it is training them that is the problem, and it will take Canada a few more years to allow our own build up of forces....it is not a simple matter of giving a guy a pair of boots and a rifle and pionting him to the bad guys....so in answering your question it will still be serveral more years before they can field an army in the numbers they need to secure it totally with out NATO's help...

numbers which would be sufficient to secure the country against any "small groups bent on yada old ways"... could it be a sign that the mass of population is lukewarm to the democracy idea and is simply sitting it out while foreigners are in control??

Your making the wrong assumptions, there is more to rebuilding a country than security, and we have already established that not all the districts are unstable, it is in these districts that major reconstruction projects are ongoing....but the media is not interested in them because nothing sells paper or air time than death and destruction.

You really want to paint a picture that the resistance are no more than a bunch of terrorists, but I find it hard to believe. Even Karzai himself was on the record that there should be negotiations with at least some groups of Taleban;

This is true, but when a group uses terror as a wpn it makes them a terrorist, suicide bombers are terror wpns, and most of those attacks are again'st civilian targets...

That being said , can you blame Karzai for not doing every possiable to bring about what the people really want and that is peace....even if it means making a deal with the devil himself....

also, even harder to believe that an isolated group with little support from the general population, could mount such a resistence, over the years, to an overwhelmingly superior force; ends in your propaganda just don't tie up

Don't let the media fool you, the Taliban is a well funded machine, it is not cheap to field an army and equiped them, keep them supplied, and give them the cash to bribe the right people....History has proven over and over again that the superior force is not always the key to victory...North vietnam proved that already, and so did the afgan freedom fighter...

Well, and why does it have to offer, anything?

Because as a responsibale nation one can not kick the crap out of a nation, and then leave. History has shown us serveral examples , WWI for instance left the germans heavily in debt, setting the conditions for WWII....

Shouldn't it be up to the people themselves to decide what kind of government they want?

This question keeps coming up time and time again....The Afganis people don't care what type of government they get...as long they have peace and work to feed thier families....NATO offered a democracy and they jumped on board.....

We always think that by definition everybody wants to be like us.. last time that they want to serve our queen; now worship our democratic gods... could that attitude explain some of negative response we're experiencing in some parts of the world? I.e not their inbord backwardness; hostility; intolerance; but us trying to tell them how they should live, in their own land? One more time: how would you like the same?

I would not like it, but after 30 years of war, ask me the same question, and the answer would be different...

That being said we or NATO is not trying to shove anything down anyones throat, nor force them into anything....there is plenty of examples where they have not taken NATO's advice and gone thier own way , such as the man who wanted to become a christian , the government upheld muslim law, and passed sentence...

This legimate government is made up of elected Afganis people and they are in charge of thier country, and destiny....if they are not prove it to me....

And one other thing, about the democracy: it's not the process per se that makes it (the democracy) legitimate; no, it's the other way around: ie. democratically minded people create, and legitimize democratic processes; the opposite is true too: people with no democratic culture won't have democracy even if they follow certain process, script; it may (and often used to) "legitimize" this government for the outside world; but doesn't in any way means that it'll make it legitimate for the mass of local population. Yet it's the latter that should matter, right? Because supposedly, we're building that "democracy", for them..

Do you have proof of this, or is it your opinion, This government was elected by the people, and in due time it will have another election....

Yet they enjoyed support (translated into their ability to govern), greater than that of the current government; why do you always assume that everybody everywhere has to be just like us?

Once again your opinion, the Taliban was not as popular as you think, Kanadar was the Taliban center of power, it is here that they took control of the country....and yet it is here that the average afganis will publicly speak out again'st them....I know it's hard for you to believe but if i carry a big stick and threaten you and your family with daily violence every day at 3 pm i could get you to stand on a wooden box and shout at the top of your lungs that you love the taliban and your beatings....doing what your told to do under threat is not showing support it's called survival....

Should they be changed, reeducated, by force?

Show me where they are being changed, reeducated by force under NATO....you can't because it is your opinon,not fact....But then again you've stated that we should have let the taliban carry on with there rule and violence, and let the afganis people rise up and solve thier own problems....i wonder if we had waited for the germans to rise up and end the nazi war machine how far they would have gotten....how long and how many lives were lost in russia for them to see the light....what makes it right to sit on the side lines and watch as millions die...

So really all those that need to be reeducated are the bad guys like the nazi's, cummunist regimes, and the taliban ...and they are not interested in reducation...., so they have to be relocated....for the sake of those that can not or will not fight for themselfs....