Army Guy Posted October 30, 2008 Report Posted October 30, 2008 You're there (complete with tanks, artillery and airforce). What other proof do you need?No, it's you guys who need to proove that it's Afgans themselves chose democracy, etc, yada. And to prove that you need no more and no less than simply get out - and see what kind of country they'll build or rebuild, for themselves. You've got to be kidding me, guess we should have shown up with hockey gear and a bag full of teddy bears. we showed up to the Ice storm, toronto snow storm, winninpeg floods with the same equipment, and not once did we force any morals or values down anyones throat.... And we have proved that hundrds of times since you've been posting here and you still have not picked up on it....it has also been explained to you they have asked for our help, they understand unlike you, that they at this time can not do it all themselves so pulling out at this time would prove what exactly....nothing...your under the notion that if they wanted bad enough they will do it, but you fail to understand the effects of 30 plus years of war and just how beaten down these people are, and what shape thier country is in. During our attacks on the taliban, and the removal of that regime, we as NATO now have the responsabilty to assist that nation in rebuilding. i know you don't get it, ... The same exact place where they existed before we began our glorioius effort of rebuilding them. People will live where and how they can, according to their traditions and practices, and change those tradtions when and in the ways they want and can. Outside world can and should guarantee (we however always fail to do that, engaging ourselves on long term democracy quests instead) that crimes against humanity aren't tolerated. And that's as far as it should go. Nobody here is clean enough to be a lecturer how things should be with others; our very own history of residential schools for one example, speaks as much. So what your saying is it is OK for serveral thousand people to rule over millions....and in order for them (the millions)to survive they must change those traditions and practices to conform or perish....Just so i'm straight on this issue, the Strongest group will dictate over the weak...it is the law of nature is it not....But and there is always a but....the outside world should guarantee that crimes against humanity are not tolerated.... Who made up that rule, was it the international courts, the UN who ? and what are the consquences for breaking that rule....i get kicked out of the club, i mean you did say that is as far as we should go....a stern warning..... How did that work out for the Afgan situation....did'nt the US give them stern warning....they laughed, so what should have been the next step....in your own words... How far back do we have to go back in our history to have a clean record, be able to talk about peace,good conduct....and yes while we do have a some what jaded past, you fail to mention all the good things our nation has accomplished or set the standard for....but like the saying goes you can build a thousand homes , do they call you a carpenter NO, slap one guys ass, and not call out "good game" and your a homo for life.... No, it wasn't like that at all, and we've discussed it at length, and allegations against Taleban haven't been proven in any court of justice, and nobody can simply "vote" to "kick out". Perhaps you can explain all those UN mandates then, "sorry" they did vote and the taliban were removed....are you saying what the UN did is illigal...that would be interesting post.... The general problem with that point of view is that many people doing same thing isn't necessarily the sign of them doing the right thing. On very contrary, very often (find any number of examples to that) people come together in doing wrong thing because it's easier to justify that way. your right but all that has happened todate is a continuation of your very own policy, the strongest inposing thier will over the weakest....in this case the Taliban kicked in a hornets nest, and the hornets nest kicked thier ass....along with all those that took the wrong side....and if the taliban don't like it they can move on, or they can conform or perish, suffer the same fate as "you" have left the millions of regular Afgan citizens who don't want any part of the Taliban or thier way of life.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Sir Bandelot Posted October 30, 2008 Report Posted October 30, 2008 During our attacks on the taliban, and the removal of that regime, we as NATO now have the responsabilty to assist that nation in rebuilding. From what little we get to read about whats actually going on over there, most of it bad news lately, the rebuilding projects are not working. Its being undermined by sabotage, laziness and fear from the locals, and corruption. "Report on spending in Afghanistan" Many complaints Afghans raise about aid delivery are born out by the research. In 2005 three academics published a report Afghanistan 2005 and Beyond. It showed how only a small portion of needed money was actually being spent in Afghanistan. http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/afghanistan/money.html It only took a few seconds to find that, amongst many articles of official grandstanding and policy statements. Seems like the money cant make it to the people who need it, because the security problem is still too severe. Its a noble idea but the reality is not working out. Latest news- time to negotiate with the Taliban, and give them a role in GOVERNMENT. What does this mean Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 30, 2008 Report Posted October 30, 2008 Reminds me of the Simpsons line... Homer: I sure hope this teaches you a lesson, boy.Bart: Can't win. Don't try. Gotcha. ---------------------------------- Do I know what rhetorical means? ---Homer Simpson Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
myata Posted October 30, 2008 Report Posted October 30, 2008 (edited) You've got to be kidding me, guess we should have shown up with hockey gear and a bag full of teddy bears. we showed up to the Ice storm, toronto snow storm, winninpeg floods with the same equipment, and not once did we force any morals or values down anyones throat.... OMG. That time around you guys left your tanks aircraft and other highly explosive gear behind. Perhaps that could explain at least some of the difference? And we have proved that hundrds of times since you've been posting here and you still have not picked up on it....it has also been explained to you they have asked for our help, Who's they? And haven't "they" (in a different interpretation) also asked for Soviet help etc in the times of old? Anyways, I don't want to go there - again. Enough is to say that "they" can ask for anything, but we should not be fighting a proxy war on their behalf. they understand unlike you, that they at this time can not do it all themselves so pulling out at this time would prove what exactly....nothing... If by "they" you mean a bunch of people who can't gather enough influence in the country through traditional means, could not fully trust their ,000,000 army + police either, then I'm with you. Still doesn't mean that we should be propping "them" with our guns though. During our attacks on the taliban, and the removal of that regime, we as NATO now have the responsabilty to assist that nation in rebuilding. i know you don't get it, ... OK; why does "assistance" almost invariably translate as "bombing"? Just a question to think about.. So what your saying is it is OK for serveral thousand people to rule over millions....and in order for them (the millions)to survive they must change those traditions and practices to conform or perish....Just so i'm straight on this issue, the Strongest group will dictate over the weak...it is the law of nature is it not....But and there is always a but....the outside world should guarantee that crimes against humanity are not tolerated.... If millions consent to being governed, and there's no confirmed crime against humanity - yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Look around. There isn't anybody around who could do any better. Who made up that rule, was it the international courts, the UN who ? and what are the consquences for breaking that rule....i get kicked out of the club, i mean you did say that is as far as we should go....a stern warning..... Which rule? Rules are jumping around as a crazy elephant. The rule, "holy democracy", means nothing. It's just a token to stretch to the case, whenever we have, no, need, no, want to "go". How did that work out for the Afgan situation....did'nt the US give them stern warning....they laughed, so what should have been the next step....in your own words... In all honesty (ignoring the diplomatic doubletalk which I have no desire to go into), US were justified, and we rightfully given the mandate, to go after those responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Which is not the same, by far and huge margin, as the mandate to "regime change" or "rebuilding". Try to understand that, if you don't see it honestly, or stop repeating nonsense if you do. How far back do we have to go back in our history to have a clean record, be able to talk about peace,good conduct....and yes while we do have a some what jaded past, you fail to mention all the good things our nation has accomplished or set the standard for....but like the saying goes you can build a thousand homes , do they call you a carpenter NO, slap one guys ass, and not call out "good game" and your a homo for life.... As far as it gets, and further still. Force should not be used as a mean of "progress", period. Isn't that the actual, real meaning of being "peaceful"? That's the only way of telling, anyways. Anybody could claim being "peaceful" and "humanistic" based on their own private definitions of "peace" (not at odds at all with sometimes somewhat forceful "rebuilding") and humanity (not to be confused with "garbage" Taleban). your right but all that has happened todate is a continuation of your very own policy, the strongest inposing thier will over the weakest....in this case the Taliban kicked in a hornets nest, and the hornets nest kicked thier ass....along with all those that took the wrong side....and if the taliban don't like it they can move on, or they can conform or perish, suffer the same fate as "you" have left the millions of regular Afgan citizens who don't want any part of the Taliban or thier way of life.... Wouldn't that make us (who kicked their ass and forced them to conform) look like them (of old) though? But I see. What is done doesn't matter as much, as by who, correct? Edited October 30, 2008 by myata Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Army Guy Posted October 31, 2008 Report Posted October 31, 2008 OMG. That time around you guys left your tanks aircraft and other highly explosive gear behind. Perhaps that could explain at least some of the difference? No we took our tanks, our aircraft, everything we own, for all those taskings i mentioned....does that disappiont you that we did not force anything on anyone, in fact we where welcomed with open arms... Who's they? And haven't "they" (in a different interpretation) also asked for Soviet help etc in the times of old? Anyways, I don't want to go there - again. Enough is to say that "they" can ask for anything, but we should not be fighting a proxy war on their behalf. The interm Afgan government, then the freely elected government of Afgan, that is who they are....as for the providing security it was part of the request that we agreed to...you can't rebuild much of anything without security... If by "they" you mean a bunch of people who can't gather enough influence in the country through traditional means, could not fully trust their ,000,000 army + police either, then I'm with you. Still doesn't mean that we should be propping "them" with our guns though. Then you don't understand the entire mechanics behind the problem, and still you've made up your mind without all the facts, do you do this with all your problems, or just this one... OK; why does "assistance" almost invariably translate as "bombing"? Just a question to think about.. It does not translate into bombing, that is just your misinformed opinion, many projects in Afgan do not have anything to do with using force..... but those are forgotten or swept under the radar...as they don't support your argument. If millions consent to being governed, and there's no confirmed crime against humanity - yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Look around. There isn't anybody around who could do any better Have you been following this debate, those millions form the majority of the country, and they do not want anything to do with the Taliban....not now and not before in the past....they were ruled by threat of force, carried out daily....and to suggest that the Taliban regime did not commit any crimes again'st humanity is absolute crazy talk.... But when i asked you to confirm, what you stated.... Just so i'm straight on this issue, the Strongest group will dictate over the weak...it is the law of nature is it not....But and there is always a but....the outside world should guarantee that crimes against humanity are not tolerated.... Kind of a hypocrictical statement is it not....It's ok for the Taliban to get away with murder....live and let live...let nature take it's course. But as soon as we take action to punish them ....then now we have a problem....we can't do that, what right do we have ..... Which rule? Rules are jumping around as a crazy elephant. The rule, "holy democracy", means nothing. It's just a token to stretch to the case, whenever we have, no, need, no, want to "go". The rule you made up, are you sure your following along....this is your quote is it not... Outside world can and should guarantee (we however always fail to do that, engaging ourselves on long term democracy quests instead) that crimes against humanity aren't tolerated. And that's as far as it should go. In all honesty (ignoring the diplomatic doubletalk which I have no desire to go into), US were justified, and we rightfully given the mandate, to go after those responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Which is not the same, by far and huge margin, as the mandate to "regime change" or "rebuilding". Try to understand that, if you don't see it honestly, or stop repeating nonsense if you do. Re read the Mandates that were agreed to by the UN, then re read art 5 of the NATO charter, and tell me that did not cover any and all actions taken in Afgan todate....I honestly do understand it, in fact i'm living it as we speak.... As far as it gets, and further still. Force should not be used as a mean of "progress", period. Isn't that the actual, real meaning of being "peaceful"? That's the only way of telling, anyways. Anybody could claim being "peaceful" and "humanistic" based on their own private definitions of "peace" (not at odds at all with sometimes somewhat forceful "rebuilding") and humanity (not to be confused with "garbage" Taleban). Sorry but i need a translation please, i can't make any sense of it... Wouldn't that make us (who kicked their ass and forced them to conform) look like them (of old) though? But I see. What is done doesn't matter as much, as by who, correct? Yes good forbid we look worse than the bad guys while wiping them off the face of the earth, and while i do get your piont, you sure do spend alot of time and effort making sure we come out on top of the morality meter....in a event that really does lack morality and values.... As to what matters, all that matters is that history will be written by the victor....and in the end we will all be judged by our peers, countrymen, and others by what is recorded in history.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
myata Posted October 31, 2008 Report Posted October 31, 2008 The interm Afgan government, then the freely elected government of Afgan, that is who they are....as for the providing security it was part of the request that we agreed to...you can't rebuild much of anything without security... Sigh... for the amptieth time, there cannot not be a "free election" in a society that does not know what a free election is. And there definitely cannot be one in a country that is occupied by foreign troops. Troops which are in an active combat operation in a civil war. It does not translate into bombing, that is just your misinformed opinion, many projects in Afgan do not have anything to do with using force..... OK, what part of 18 billion spent so far went to non military projects? I recall numbers like 10% (which would make my statement factually correct; as well as anything less than at least 50% - in the common sense meaning), but I'd appreciate more up to date information. Have you been following this debate, those millions form the majority of the country, and they do not want anything to do with the Taliban....not now and not before in the past.... And yet again, why have you decided that they need you (i.e us) to speak for them, fight for them, decide things for them (e.g to negotiate; or not). Is it because they're like children? Couldn't take care of themselves? Need gentle and wise guiding hand? From enlightened liberators? Kind of a hypocrictical statement is it not....It's ok for the Taliban to get away with murder....live and let live...let nature take it's course. But as soon as we take action to punish them ....then now we have a problem....we can't do that, what right do we have ..... No, only a law based, justice based statement. You can't take action and punish just anybody. Only authorised people can and on a sanction from a court. The court that is independent and impartial, and presumes innocence until crime is proven. Re read the Mandates that were agreed to by the UN, then re read art 5 of the NATO charter, and tell me that did not cover any and all actions taken in Afgan todate....I honestly do understand it, in fact i'm living it as we speak.... Yet, as you posted it here, and it says nothing about the regime change. It speaks nothing about crimes against humanity, which can be only justification, no not for an invasion, regime change and rebuilding, but for a strong and determined action to halt the abuse. Yes good forbid we look worse than the bad guys while wiping them off the face of the earth, and while i do get your piont, you sure do spend alot of time and effort making sure we come out on top of the morality meter....in a event that really does lack morality and values.... And if you'll look the same (in some aspects and not through the fault of yours), how would one be able to tell the difference? The surest way to come on the top of morality blah would be by actually following our own cermons of peace and brotherhood, i.e. by not showing up into other peoples lands armed to the teeth. Sometime maybe we could try that - for a change, as the last option. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Black Dog Posted October 31, 2008 Report Posted October 31, 2008 (edited) And we have proved that hundrds of times since you've been posting here and you still have not picked up on it....it has also been explained to you they have asked for our help, they understand unlike you, that they at this time can not do it all themselves so pulling out at this time would prove what exactly....nothing...your under the notion that if they wanted bad enough they will do it, but you fail to understand the effects of 30 plus years of war and just how beaten down these people are, and what shape thier country is in. IIRC, the Afghan government of the day also asked for the Soviet's help back in 1979. The Afghan people did not ask for us to invade the country and overthrow the Taliban. And is it really a surprise that the government that owes its continued existence to the presence of western troops would want those troops to stick around? Edited October 31, 2008 by Black Dog Quote
Mr.Canada Posted October 31, 2008 Report Posted October 31, 2008 Is she dead yet? It will be better when that murderer is found guilty and gets executed. Then we can go back to our lives. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Army Guy Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 Sigh... for the amptieth time, there cannot not be a "free election" in a society that does not know what a free election is. And there definitely cannot be one in a country that is occupied by foreign troops. Troops which are in an active combat operation in a civil war. Lets stick to the facts shall we, there was a "free election", in fact people traveled by foot serveral hundrd KMs to get to the voting stations, and they did all this are constant threat from the Taliban and others....you don't make that kind of commitment unless you know exactly what a free election is and what it could mean to your future....There was an education process, completed by the intern government and the canidates themselfs.... another tidbit of info as for occupied by foreign troops, one can not occupy a country that has asked for your assistance. OK, what part of 18 billion spent so far went to non military projects? I recall numbers like 10% (which would make my statement factually correct; as well as anything less than at least 50% - in the common sense meaning), but I'd appreciate more up to date information Canada has not todate spent 18 Bil dollars on the mission to Afgan, infact that recent art in the papers is full of crap, Canada's contribution is more on the security side of the house, as that is there choice, But if you put it in contect of the entire mission, there are bils that have been spent on infra structure such as dams , road net works, trading routes, etc etc ... And yet again, why have you decided that they need you (i.e us) to speak for them, fight for them, decide things for them (e.g to negotiate; or not). Is it because they're like children? Couldn't take care of themselves? Need gentle and wise guiding hand? From enlightened liberators? I never decided anything, our governmant did, and at that time the majority of Canadians stood behind that decision, Our government was answering a request from the interm Afgan government to provide assistance in the areas of rebuilding, security, and governmantal education. I know this is hard for you to believe, but Afganistan is run by an the Afgan people, freely elected to those postions, by the Afgan people....without NATO interference. They have been speaking to the outside world , you have just not been listening. As for the comment about not been able to take of themselfs, i'd say yes, for the time being...short term assistance is needed. No, only a law based, justice based statement. You can't take action and punish just anybody. Only authorised people can and on a sanction from a court. The court that is independent and impartial, and presumes innocence until crime is proven. Bullcrap, this is something you invented , your wish list of things you'd like to see happen....a country does not need anyones go ahead not a court not UN, not NATO to defend itself, or in this case take offensive action to punish an attacker... The UN did authorize the use of force, once again you need to reread the 2 UN decisions, and then read NATO's requirements to use Art 5. Yet, as you posted it here, and it says nothing about the regime change. It speaks nothing about crimes against humanity, which can be only justification, no not for an invasion, regime change and rebuilding, but for a strong and determined action to halt the abuse. read them again, as for crimes agains't humanity being the only justification, thats in your opinion, and one not based in fact...., there are many reasons laid out in the conventions as to why a nation may take military action again'st another state... And if you'll look the same (in some aspects and not through the fault of yours), how would one be able to tell the difference? You don't get it, which is a good thing i guess.....In war there are very few rules, the objective is to kill more of the other side until they reach thier tolerance level, or face total destruction...in combat how much morality is there in the act of crushing a mans skull with the butt of your rifle....or chocking him to death by stepping on his throat....there is no morality,or high ground in which we sit and beat our chests and say see why we are the good guys....we don't use sucide bombers, we don't use children in combat....but in the end, we are still taking lives, and we do it in any matter we can to ensure we are the victor..as the victor gets the spoils and to write history....but in reality war sucks and men and women do what it takes to survive.... The surest way to come on the top of morality blah would be by actually following our own cermons of peace and brotherhood, i.e. by not showing up into other peoples lands armed to the teeth. Sometime maybe we could try that - for a change, as the last option. the only way to deal with someone with a stick, is to have a bigger stick....the come here and give me a hug rarely works....having a bigger stick always works... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 Black dog IIRC, the Afghan government of the day also asked for the Soviet's help back in 1979. That was after, of course that Soviet Spec ops teams killed the Afgan leader that refused soviet assistance, and then installed one to thier liking.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
myata Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 the only way to deal with someone with a stick, is to have a bigger stick....the come here and give me a hug rarely works....having a bigger stick always works... Then the "stick" model is going to stay with us (and our kids, and theirs etc) for a long time to come. There'd always be a reason and a "just" cause to use it, by somebody who just happen to have the biggest muscle of the day. So it was since the time of faraohs and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
noahbody Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 Is she dead yet?It will be better when that murderer is found guilty and gets executed. Then we can go back to our lives. She ended her hunger strike awhile ago. Her reason was the the trial was moved to January. Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 Her reason was the the trial was moved to January. Interesting, thats the reason she gives, I wonder if the real reason could be that she discovered most people don't give two sh^ts about her and her "protest" in service of her brother. After all Ghandi fasted for much longer than her on several occasions and actually affected change by doing so. Of course the reasons he did this actually made sense on a rational level, unlike her reasons for fasting. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
betsy Posted November 8, 2008 Report Posted November 8, 2008 For Myata and all those who opposes the NATO presence in Afghanistan.... Would you like all NATO troops to leave Afghanistan right now? Quote
kengs333 Posted November 8, 2008 Report Posted November 8, 2008 She ended her hunger strike awhile ago. Her reason was the the trial was moved to January. Oh, so she was never intending to really die for her convictions. No wonder nobody gave a shit. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted November 8, 2008 Report Posted November 8, 2008 Oh, so she was never intending to really die for her convictions. No wonder nobody gave a shit. Maybe she is westernized and fully anorexic? Could have been a fashion statement! And starving just made her look more attractive to the western eye governed by the woman hating gay fashion industry...she is most certainly westernized......I hope her black cloak now shows off her runway model bony curves ----oooh that was cruel... Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted November 8, 2008 Report Posted November 8, 2008 I hope her black cloak now shows off her runway model bony curves ----oooh that was cruel... Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
Oleg Bach Posted November 8, 2008 Report Posted November 8, 2008 To much time and concern has been given to the Khadr family members - mostly generated out of spite I suppose. Maybe it's time to concentrate on the way American military justice is layed down. That might be more useful if there are future reference. The Khadrs are a dead horse and no point in further whipping. How the new administration conducts it's self regarding rule of law is what should be carefully watched. Who know what the future holds - it may be you staring back from the sad side of a cruel joke - from the wrong side of the jail bars. Just a suggestion. Quote
myata Posted November 10, 2008 Report Posted November 10, 2008 It is really as easy as pi.. on two cents to distract certain folks from a real problem (invasion and forced converion of far away people) by sending them on a hatred trail. Old as a mummy (probabtly older still) and still works. Always. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
jbg Posted April 24, 2009 Report Posted April 24, 2009 To much time and concern has been given to the Khadr family members - mostly generated out of spite I suppose.Why we in the West welcome and give succor to vermin like them, and Japan won't even let Brazilian guest workers overstay their jobs for a short time is beyond me. It seems we're dedicated to societal suicide.I have no problem with immigration; in fact I vigorously support it. We don't need to import people that hate us. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.