Oleg Bach Posted February 19, 2009 Report Posted February 19, 2009 Not that I disagree with your post. But both Harper and Ignatieff supported regime change. And PNACs support for Pre Emptive War. Regime change? What the hell is it to them? How does what goes on in poor Afghanistan effect us? We love our money - Look at Pakistan - who harbour fanatics secretly support them - Look at Saudi Arabia who finance the fanatics to attempt to destablize the west - you would think that jerking our chains with oil would have been enough for these freaks.......YET - we do not face down our real haters - Military Muslim Pakistan - because they have nukes ---- and we dare not confront those sodomist hand chooping Saudis because they have MONEY...So we coward under the nuke and the cash. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 Regime change? What the hell is it to them? How does what goes on in poor Afghanistan effect us? We love our money - Look at Pakistan - who harbour fanatics secretly support them - Look at Saudi Arabia who finance the fanatics to attempt to destablize the west - you would think that jerking our chains with oil would have been enough for these freaks.......YET - we do not face down our real haters - Military Muslim Pakistan - because they have nukes ---- and we dare not confront those sodomist hand chooping Saudis because they have MONEY...So we coward under the nuke and the cash. Maybe we should legitimize this Afhgani affair - and send over ten thousand plane tickets to the taliban and say ...come over here and fight so we don't have to travel so far.. I bet not one would be interested in waging war in the streets of Toronto (not that they know where that is) - but some how in our uncontrolled vacariousness we are interested in them --- maybe Canada should get some therapy - the same kind ordered by the courts for stalkers..... Just look at the real picture --- if two people want to fight...and they are a mile apart - It is the one that makes the trip that is the aggressor. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 Or 1939??? The war ended in 2001. The quagmire started shortly after the war ended. We are 7 years into this..... Who ran the show??? You must use a different calendar than the rst of "us". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 You must use a different calendar than the rst of "us". Calender? He don't need no stinking Calender.. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 of course you know that war predicated on regime change is in breach of international law. But, of course, we all know how you (the U.S.) did a PNAC sponsored end-around in the name of an imminent attack/threat based on the falsified Iraqi WMD threat and the bogus claims of Iraq’s nuclear program. And this is a problem because???? Didn't seem to bother PM Chretien when he bombed Serbia years before. really now… you want to put that one in the win column – with a foundation based on lies and deceit. And here we thought all you neocon types had gone silent/underground. Any questions? A win is a win....except for you guys! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 ....Just look at the real picture --- if two people want to fight...and they are a mile apart - It is the one that makes the trip that is the aggressor. 100% correct.....we call it "power projection"....you know....reach out and touch someone. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 100% correct.....we call it "power projection"....you know....reach out and touch someone. Provocateurism......is an old way of doing things - it means to call forth ----- You holler across the battle field and say --- You have sex with your mother" - then --------------------------the battle is on - they come to you - such is the war on terror...You insult and enrage the idot--- maybe even draw a cartoon of Jesus eating a Muslim....or vise versa. Quote
Army Guy Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 What next, shall we come up with a new definition what "victory" means, in corporate double-speak?How about in the context that Afghanistan is going to have to solve its own peace and security problems... waste of time? What have they been doing for the past few centuries without our meddling... their minds are already made up as to what they want. The Taliban will be asked to participate in the government, that is what Mr. Karzai has been saying for months. Sharia law will be put in place, as was just allowed once again in Pakistan. We have done nothing, except reinforce their mistrust and anger towards the west. Victory in Afgan has serveral definations, which one do you want.... Defeating the Taliban is one victory condition.... Getting the support from the western world is another.... Keeping pakistan out of the conflict is another.... Waste of time, for whom you ? do you spend alot of time and effort on this problem ? I know it's not a waste of our soliders time and effort, why is that ? Afgan has been involved in conflict for over 30 years now, and all the people of Afgan want is peace, to feed thier families, to go about thier daily lives without being threaten or killed....And they are willing to take any peace offering as long as it can be put into place and kept.... As for Sharia law, if that what it takes to bring peace and stability to the land why not? 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.
jdobbin Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 Defeating the Taliban is one victory condition.... Might be impossible if they continue to have sanctuary in Pakistan. Getting the support from the western world is another.... I believe support is already there. You mean for even more troops? Keeping pakistan out of the conflict is another.... I believe Pakistan's hand off a approach to its western border is the big part of the problem. Waste of time, for whom you ? do you spend alot of time and effort on this problem ? I know it's not a waste of our soliders time and effort, why is that ? It could be a waste of Canadian time and effort if Afghan government corruption and tribalism continue to undermine peace and security. This is not a private war for Canadian soldiers. It has to be measured against other areas where Canadian troops and money may be required at home and abroad. Afgan has been involved in conflict for over 30 years now, and all the people of Afgan want is peace, to feed thier families, to go about thier daily lives without being threaten or killed....And they are willing to take any peace offering as long as it can be put into place and kept.... I think the conflicts go back even further than that. Canada can't undo tribalism and centuries of conflict. If we could, we'd start at home. The initiative has to come from the Afghan government and the corruption is so rife at that level that I don't think they have much authority beyond Kabul. Quote
Army Guy Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 Explain to me, how a country with a continue 30 year history of warfare from 1979 to 2009 cannot raise a fighting force to defend itself? The people of Afghanistan have entire generations that know of nothing but living in a combat environment. 30 years of conflict has left the country devasted, not just in the phyiscal sense but destroying the will and dreams of the people. to fully understand it you have to experiance it. Afgan people just need aliitle bit of hope, watching your children starve to death, is a powerful motivator, and alot of afgan men fight for money on both sides of the conflict so they can provide some of the basics...What woul;d you do to provide for your family ? The fact that the Afghans cannot raise an army to fight for their government, let alone maintain security, would mean that there isn't support for the Western Actions of the last 7 years. There isn't support for the government. There is no trusting and working relationship with the Afghan Armies. Not true the Afgan army is reaching the 160 k mark, to put that in context Canada is strugling to recruit and train just 5000 in the same time period....and todate we've grown by a whopping 2500 pers....the Afgan have done this under war conditions, they pay thier soldier poor wages, and keep them on the line for years at a time.... Thier is support for western actions, but we are not doing enough, in regards to troop levels, and funding for Aid.... And while the government may not be popular across the entire country it does have support, and with a major election this spring we might see a regime change. As for the trust of the Afgan armies, they have been involved in every combat action we've been in, those little bastards are some of the bravist men i've soldiered with, the run into action with with little to no kit and protection , they purchase alot of thier own ammo, i trust them with my life.... And most of the Afgan people we talk to perfer them over western troops.... 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.
waldo Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 Regime change....any questions? of course you know that war predicated on regime change is in breach of international law. But, of course, we all know how you (the U.S.) did a PNAC sponsored end-around in the name of an imminent attack/threat based on the falsified Iraqi WMD threat and the bogus claims of Iraq’s nuclear program. really now… you want to put that one in the win column – with a foundation based on lies and deceit. And here we thought all you neocon types had gone silent/underground. Any questions? And this is a problem because???? Didn't seem to bother PM Chretien when he bombed Serbia years before.A win is a win....except for you guys! the U.S. led/influenced NATO campaign in Yugoslavia? That’s your go-to to substantiate the Iraqi debacle? only the truly deluded would still attempt to rationalize a failed pre-emptive “Bush doctrine” strategy against a sovereign Iraq nation that posed no imminent threat to the U.S… that had no ties to 9-11… that had no links to Al-Qaeda. That’s your regime change win? and no, a win is not a win; rather, an honourable, substantiated and properly sanctioned win… is a win… except for (some) of you guys! Quote
Army Guy Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 I believe support is already there. You mean for even more troops? With out the popular support from all the western countries, from the people themselfs this war will be lost....it is one thing to support the troops pat them on the back, shake they're hands, but if they do not support the war, they it is a lost cause.... Support from the people means funding problems melt away....it means troops are commited to combat, it means stomping the crap out of the taliban.... It could be a waste of Canadian time and effort if Afghan government corruption and tribalism continue to undermine peace and security. Your right there is a corruption problem at all levels of thier government, but it is built into thier culture, it does need to be addressed by our government, by the US, and the rest of NATO, but to more funding is needed, to ensure it gets down to where it is needed the people.... This is not a private war for Canadian soldiers. It has to be measured against other areas where Canadian troops and money may be required at home and abroad. Here is where i disagree, Canadians have made this a private war for our soldiers, when this conflict was first announce the Majority of Canadains could not wait for our boots to get on the ground and kick some ass....i say that becasue it was very clear it was a combat mission from the start..... That being said Canadians waved good bye at the airports by the droves, cheering, waving flags the whole nine yards....and within a year the support of the people started waining, to the piont it is now....where support is in a minority.... But put your selfs in our boots for just one day, It was our government and the people of Canada that sent us over here...and now with support dried up, so has the funding.... and what funding we do recieve we the soldiers pay for in blood and lives....So while the majority that do not support the mission have manged to dry up funding, they have down squat to bring our nations soldiers home....yes they will say bring them home....at a bar, or in the mall, but they will not rally in mass to force our government into action.... So mean while we the soldiers have said screw you will make this war "our war"....we won't let the people of afgan down, nor our other brothers in arms whom we fight side by side....Now while that might piss alot of non supporters off, think about this for one minute....we did not declare this to piss you off, we did it because we had no choice, Our nation has agreed to assist Afgan with combat forces, we could do as some nations have and stay inside the wire...but we are Canadian soldiers, and we will not just sit here while there is work to be done... To sum up most Canadian soldiers feel like the rest of Canada has forgotten us, they have stopped aid, and funding, and do nothing to get us returned...So the taliban are not the only ones we fight, it's the support of our own people we struggle with as well. Canadain soldiers are frustrated to no end, that regardless of what we do, or how well we do it, Canadian public fails to get engaged one way or the other in a conflict they once supported. And while i feel your pain about the corruption, and pakistan....we must not forget our soldiers who will continue this fight with you or with out you, until we are ordered to stop... because our mission is still to help the Afgan people which should be priority everything else is a road block or speed bump towards that goal. 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.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 the U.S. led/influenced NATO campaign in Yugoslavia? That’s your go-to to substantiate the Iraqi debacle? It's an excellent "go-to" to "substantiate" the precedent for attacking a sovereign state. only the truly deluded would still attempt to rationalize a failed pre-emptive “Bush doctrine” strategy against a sovereign Iraq nation that posed no imminent threat to the U.S… that had no ties to 9-11… that had no links to Al-Qaeda. That’s your regime change win? Seems you like to pick and choose which events are worthy of "rationalization". No matter.....the "Clinton doctrine" bombed and strangled Iraq to death as well....Canada helped him do it. and no, a win is not a win; rather, an honourable, substantiated and properly sanctioned win… is a win… except for (some) of you guys! How would you know the difference? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jdobbin Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 With out the popular support from all the western countries, from the people themselfs this war will be lost....it is one thing to support the troops pat them on the back, shake they're hands, but if they do not support the war, they it is a lost cause.... There is support for the war in Canada. However, there is also a a realism that Canada can't do it by itself. Support from the people means funding problems melt away....it means troops are commited to combat, it means stomping the crap out of the taliban.... And how is Canada not doing that now? Afghanistan is our number 1 recipient of aid and our number 1 involvement in the world militarily? Are you suggesting we need to step up with even more money and troops in the absence of our allies? What number of troops and money would you think is needed from Canada to do the job? Your right there is a corruption problem at all levels of thier government, but it is built into thier culture, it does need to be addressed by our government, by the US, and the rest of NATO, but to more funding is needed, to ensure it gets down to where it is needed the people.... If the government simply steals it from the people at what point is that government worth supporting anymore? Here is where i disagree, Canadians have made this a private war for our soldiers, when this conflict was first announce the Majority of Canadains could not wait for our boots to get on the ground and kick some ass....i say that becasue it was very clear it was a combat mission from the start..... The majority of Canadians still support the war unless you have figures to say differently. However, we were also told we'd be seeing some progress by now. I think Canadians are starting to realize our allies and the Afghan government are part of the problem. Do you think Canada can do itself with more troops and money? That being said Canadians waved good bye at the airports by the droves, cheering, waving flags the whole nine yards....and within a year the support of the people started waining, to the piont it is now....where support is in a minority.... Not the last I hear. What figure are you citing? Support for the war has remained in the majority for as long as fighting has continued. But put your selfs in our boots for just one day, It was our government and the people of Canada that sent us over here...and now with support dried up, so has the funding.... and what funding we do recieve we the soldiers pay for in blood and lives....So while the majority that do not support the mission have manged to dry up funding, they have down squat to bring our nations soldiers home....yes they will say bring them home....at a bar, or in the mall, but they will not rally in mass to force our government into action.... Funding has not dried up. It has increased. Where are you getting your numbers from? Support for the war has remained at majority levels all along. So mean while we the soldiers have said screw you will make this war "our war"....we won't let the people of afgan down, nor our other brothers in arms whom we fight side by side....Now while that might piss alot of non supporters off, think about this for one minute....we did not declare this to piss you off, we did it because we had no choice, Our nation has agreed to assist Afgan with combat forces, we could do as some nations have and stay inside the wire...but we are Canadian soldiers, and we will not just sit here while there is work to be done... Canadians are not letting the Afghan people down. Their own government is quite capable of doing that. To sum up most Canadian soldiers feel like the rest of Canada has forgotten us, they have stopped aid, and funding, and do nothing to get us returned...So the taliban are not the only ones we fight, it's the support of our own people we struggle with as well. Please cite your figures for reducing aid. I can't quite get my head around that idea since even Obama cited yesterday how Canada has made Afghanistan its largest recipient of aid in the world. Canadain soldiers are frustrated to no end, that regardless of what we do, or how well we do it, Canadian public fails to get engaged one way or the other in a conflict they once supported. And while i feel your pain about the corruption, and pakistan....we must not forget our soldiers who will continue this fight with you or with out you, until we are ordered to stop... because our mission is still to help the Afgan people which should be priority everything else is a road block or speed bump towards that goal. I can understand your frustration if you think support is below 50%. It isn't. I can understand your frustration if you believe aid has been reduced. It hasn't. I think your frustration should towards the allies in the war and the Afghan government. The only thing the Canadian people have shown is a realism about the outcome of the war and that is based on the Afghan government and our allies, not our Canadian soldiers. Quote
Muddy Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 Army Guy, we who have worn the Queens uniform do support you and as an old soldier you guys make me proud. Every soldier from my regiment has told us how proud they are to be part of this mission. How they feel they are making a difference in ordinary peoples lives. When the Taliban bastards threw acid in the faces of little girls ,just for going to school ,every civilized human being in the free world should have been supporting our troops no matter their political leanings. Where is the outrage from the feminists? The silence is deafening! Is it because they lean to the left? If so shame on them. Keep the faith Lad. Quote
Army Guy Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 There is support for the war in Canada. However, there is also a a realism that Canada can't do it by itself. Your right we can't do it by ourselfs, and we are not, US and British combat forces have increase by almost 2 fold, and there is still talk of our pulling out in 2011. And how is Canada not doing that now? Afghanistan is our number 1 recipient of aid and our number 1 involvement in the world militarily? Are you suggesting we need to step up with even more money and troops in the absence of our allies? Thats exactly what i'm saying, our Allies have stepped up and we are not keeping pace, sure we have increase our numbers with aviation assets, but our Combat troops remain the same... What number of troops and money would you think is needed from Canada to do the job? Another battle group, and more aviation assets would be about as far as we could be pushed.... If the government simply steals it from the people at what point is that government worth supporting anymore? The Afgan people are well aware of the problems and with a major election, i think this will be address, however that all being said corruption is a major part of thier culture...so it won't be stopped completely, but more Aid funds means more will get to the people that really need it... The majority of Canadians still support the war unless you have figures to say differently. However, we were also told we'd be seeing some progress by now. I think Canadians are starting to realize our allies and the Afghan government are part of the problem. Your right recent polls suggest that support for the mission has climbed to 57 % , This however change is just a recently, Support for the mission when i first started this tour was below 40%...That might be acredited with Obamas election as well....and perhaps more funding will be forth coming, but keep in mind we had years where the war was not supported, and in the polictical world that means funding is not coming. GLOBE Do you think Canada can do itself with more troops and money? No, but we are not alone, US, Britain, Germany, France have all increased thier funding and troop levels.... Funding has not dried up. It has increased. Where are you getting your numbers from? Funding has remained constant or increased very little in the last 4 years, you know as well as i do that it would not be a wise polictical move to drive major increases to Afgan Aid or our Military forces in Afgan when there is not a majority in support... not to mention when the PC are teatering like they are today. My numbers are taken from actual funding available to CDN troops to distribute to local projects, Not the last I hear. What figure are you citing? Support for the war has remained in the majority for as long as fighting has continued. The link i provided above mentions that this is just a recent developement, support has not always been there.... Please cite your figures for reducing aid. I can't quite get my head around that idea since even Obama cited yesterday how Canada has made Afghanistan its largest recipient of aid in the world. As of 2007, according to the Manley report, Canada had allocated a total of $741 million to Afghanistan, over the fiscal years 2001-02 to 2006-07. CBC It also notes, "Afghanistan...received $100 million last year from CIDA and is to get the same amount for the next four years." CDA So while perhaps Afgan is our largest recieptant of Aid, one has to ask is it in line with our status as a G-8 nation, one also has to ask, is it in line with the contribution our military is making, is it cheaper to give soldiers than money......we all know that this is not strictly military mission, but if we as a nation are going to commit combat troops why not make an equal Aid donation... I think your frustration should towards the allies in the war and the Afghan government. Well here is the problem i'm not employed by the other allies, or the afgan government, and while that problem is being addressed, this one is not.... The only thing the Canadian people have shown is a realism about the outcome of the war and that is based on the Afghan government and our allies, not our Canadian soldiers. Many NATO countries are stepping up to the plate, addtional funding and more troops, and we as a nation are being left behind.... Realism is we can not win this or anything with the continued support of the people for the mission....we need to put more troops in, and increase our aid.....and if we are not going to commit to winning this thing then get us the hell out of here.... 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.
jdobbin Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 Your right we can't do it by ourselfs, and we are not, US and British combat forces have increase by almost 2 fold, and there is still talk of our pulling out in 2011. If we can't find someone to rotate into where we are right now, the coalition isn't worth the paper it is written on. Thats exactly what i'm saying, our Allies have stepped up and we are not keeping pace, sure we have increase our numbers with aviation assets, but our Combat troops remain the same... Another battle group, and more aviation assets would be about as far as we could be pushed.... And that will do the job? The Afgan people are well aware of the problems and with a major election, i think this will be address, however that all being said corruption is a major part of thier culture...so it won't be stopped completely, but more Aid funds means more will get to the people that really need it... It is hard to see evidence of that although Canada literally pours money in now. Your right recent polls suggest that support for the mission has climbed to 57 % , This however change is just a recently, Support for the mission when i first started this tour was below 40%...That might be acredited with Obamas election as well....and perhaps more funding will be forth coming, but keep in mind we had years where the war was not supported, and in the polictical world that means funding is not coming. The mission has enjoyed majority support most of the time. The only time it dropped is when the Tories hung the "gone fishin'" sign on and made no comment on what was happening, denied any issues with prisoners and had a poor Defence minister at the helm explaining things. While the military might have been cheering him on, O'Connor did the government no favours misleading the House and telling Parliament it was too dangerous for anyone aside from him and Harper to see for themselves what was going on. Obviously that strategy was ineffective and it is why Harper asked Manley to extricate himself from the mess he himself he created. No, but we are not alone, US, Britain, Germany, France have all increased thier funding and troop levels.... France and Germany are not exactly on the front lines. Britain says it will not increase its troop levels again. Canada increased its overall numbers in 2008. Canada is the one that is the pointed end of the stick and will be that point until 2011. It is possible we could do something in Afghanistan but if we can't rotate out of a hotspot as we have done in previous wars, I don't know that we can trust the coalition. Funding has remained constant or increased very little in the last 4 years, you know as well as i do that it would not be a wise polictical move to drive major increases to Afgan Aid or our Military forces in Afgan when there is not a majority in support... not to mention when the PC are teatering like they are today. There is majority support for the mission. Unchanged for a number of years now. Canada's contribution dwarfs other nations in terms of losses, per capita spending and in terms of location. My numbers are taken from actual funding available to CDN troops to distribute to local projects, Since Canada's contribution is massive on a per capita level, it is our allies who needed to up things, not us. The link i provided above mentions that this is just a recent developement, support has not always been there.... Blame Harper and his hyperpartisan antics of saying criticism of the war strategy was support for the Taliban. Criticize him for denying Opposition members going to Afghanistan to get feedback. You yourself said the Opposition should be denied access. The problem is that in a minority government, the Opposition needs info to do their job. Canada at one point was the only country in NATO to deny its Parliamentarians access. It was ridiculous and the partisan shots Harper took hurt support for the mission. As of 2007, according to the Manley report, Canada had allocated a total of $741 million to Afghanistan, over the fiscal years 2001-02 to 2006-07.It also notes, "Afghanistan...received $100 million last year from CIDA and is to get the same amount for the next four years." So while perhaps Afgan is our largest recieptant of Aid, one has to ask is it in line with our status as a G-8 nation, one also has to ask, is it in line with the contribution our military is making, is it cheaper to give soldiers than money......we all know that this is not strictly military mission, but if we as a nation are going to commit combat troops why not make an equal Aid donation... Why not contrast what our contribution on a per capita level to everyone else's contribution is? Well here is the problem i'm not employed by the other allies, or the afgan government, and while that problem is being addressed, this one is not.... Well, I just point out the majority support for the mission and showed there was no decrease in funding. We are at the top when it comes to contributing. We are more than pulling our share. Many NATO countries are stepping up to the plate, addtional funding and more troops, and we as a nation are being left behind.... Or other nations are finally catching up to Canada's massive contribution. But that by no means the majority of them are. Realism is we can not win this or anything with the continued support of the people for the mission....we need to put more troops in, and increase our aid.....and if we are not going to commit to winning this thing then get us the hell out of here.... I think we can say the same for our allies. If we increased our strength to 5000 combat troops and double the money, it still might not do anything to get our allies to do more. We have shown our commitment. It is time for our allies to show us theirs. I'm afraid the numbers you have shown me only show three or four countries that exceed what we are doing now. Quote
eyeball Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 With out the popular support from all the western countries, from the people themselfs this war will be lost....it is one thing to support the troops pat them on the back, shake they're hands, but if they do not support the war, they it is a lost cause.... In the beginning I was being told this was more than enough and that I didn't have to support the war to show support for the troops. Lately though I've been told I shouldn't criticize the war while the troops are dispatched to it because this supports the Taliban. Now I'm being told I need to support it. How long will it be until I'm told if I criticize it I could be charged with treason? I'm sorry but, what was it that my grandfathers nearly died for again? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
madmax Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 When the Taliban bastards threw acid in the faces of little girls ,just for going to school ,every civilized human being in the free world should have been supporting our troops no matter their political leanings. Where is the outrage from the feminists? The silence is deafening! Is it because they lean to the left? If so shame on them. Keep the faith Lad. The Feminists and RAWA continue to highlight the Cultural practice of throwing acid in the faces of women and children. Of course, it isn't "just the Taliban" that does this. It is a practice that goes through the entire country and crosses many borders and religions. Alia's husband poured acid on her face in KunduzAlia is unconscious in Spinzar Hospital, has a bad mental condition, some parts of her face have been burned with acid and she cannot open her eyes. Abdul Mateen Sarfaraz A man poured acid on the face of his wife and she is in a critical condition in the Kunduz Hospital. This act was committed in the Fourth Region of Kunduz City last night by a teacher called Shakir Mohammad against his 26-year old wife, Alia. Director of Women’s Affairs of Kunduz expressed concern over the situation and said that in the past year, 60 cases including those of rape, beating, coerced marriages and escape from homes due to lack of subsistence, had been recorded; whereas last year 30 cases had been recorded and most were of forced marriage and lack of subsistence. PAN, Feb. 5, 2009Nadira Giah, director of the Women’s Affairs of Kunduz, told PAN that Shakir Mohammad who taught in the Lycee Ibrahim Khel of the Kunduz City, lived in his father-in-law’s home in the Fourth Region; but in the past three weeks had gone to his actual home in Khan Abad District with his five children. According to her information, Alia had not gone to Khan Abad with him and stayed in her father’s home. Her husband had entered and the splashed acid on her face the moment he faced her. Director of Women’s Affairs said that this act was due to family disputes and after condemning the act demanded from authorities the investigation of he matter and the husband of the wife to be arrested. Yar Mohammad, a relative of Shakir told PAN that at night they had suddenly heard a scream and upon entering the home found the woman’s face covered in acid. He added that he had threatened her that if she doesn’t come to his home, she will face serious consequences. Dr. Azizullah Safar, director of the Public Health of Kunduz said that Alia is unconscious in Spinzar Hospital, has a bad mental condition, some parts of her face have been burned with acid and she cannot open her eyes. Unknown men poured acid on 15 girls and teachers of Lycee Naswan Mirwais Meena in Kandahar in November the past year. Ten suspects were arrested.Zafari (Director of Human Rights Commission of North-eastern zone) said a team of Human Rights had been dispatched to the incident scene to investigate the matter and further demanded that security authorities arrest the criminal and punish him. Abdul Rahman Aqtash, police chief of Commanding Security of Kunduz said the police are following to arrest Malem Shakir. From autumn of the past year till now two shocking incidents have occurred in Kunduz. Womens rights groups do speak up against all abuse of women and children. Not just pick and choose. US forces kill school principal in KhostAbout two months ago, the foreign soldiers had killed a number of family members of a doctor Sabor Mangal US forces in southeastern Khost province killed a principal of a middle school and injured his wife and a child, an official said Saturday. Qabol Khan was killed by US troops while traveling with his wife and a child.A spokesman for the provincial education department, Musa Majroh told Pajhwok Afghan News that the incident took place in Khabidi area of Khost city yesterday evening. He said that the school principal Qabol Khan was traveling along with his wife and a child when came under fire by the US forces. Qabol, his wife and the child sustained bullet injuries, he added. Acid attack on Afghan schoolgirls in KandaharDoctors say the six girls were wearing Islamic burkas or veils which provided them with some protection. Attackers in Afghanistan have sprayed acid in the faces of at least 15 girls near a school in Kandahar, police say. Atifa Bibi, an Afghan school girl, recovers in a hospital after two men on a motorbike threw acid on her in Kandahar, Afghanistan, Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008. Two men on a motorbike threw acid on six Afghan girls walking to school in Kandahar on Wednesday, hospitalizing two of the girls with serious burns, said Dr. Sharifa Siddiqi. Four others were treated and released. (AP Photo by Allauddin Khan)They say the attack happened shortly before at least six people were killed in a bomb blast near a government building in the city. Afghan woman police director gunned down by TalibanJust this June, the Kandahar detective confirmed that her taboo-shattering career had spawned numerous death threats. Tom Blackwell KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - As Afghanistan's most senior and most famous female police officer, based in the country's ultra-conservative south, Lieut.-Col. Malalai Kakar knew she was a marked woman. Don't miss what is happening in Karzais own Government.... Afghan President pardons men convicted of bayonet gang rapeSara’s case highlights concerns about the close relationship between the Afghan president and men accused of war crimes and human rights abuses. By Kate Clark in Kabul The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has pardoned three men who had been found guilty of gang raping a woman in the northern province of Samangan. Afghan teacher shot dead after condemning suicide bombings as un-IslamicAccording to UNICEF, there were 236 school-related attacks last year A teacher was shot to death in northern Afghanistan after he gave a speech condemning suicide bombings, it was revealed today. Abdul Hadi claimed the attacks were un-Islamic and un-Afghan during a speech yesterday in the Archi district of Kunduz province. He spoke at a gathering of about 700 people, including the Kunduz governor, and was on his way home when he was killed, Khair Mohammad Subat said. I think your comments Muddy, border on bullshit, when you want to condemn women caught in horrific situations and wonder why you don't hear womens groups who do their best to publicize many atrocities, as they fight for their safety, and yet you take a personal potshot at these womens groups. Their battles will continue long after the Taliban movement fades into history. Children worst sufferers in Afghan conflictAmong 700 civilians killed in the past six months in conflict, 40 per cent were children and women. The body of Afghan child who was killed with his brother and father named Nurullah by U.S-led troops in Kabul early September 1, 2008.KABUL: Forty per cent of the civilian victims of recent military operations and fighting in Afghanistan are children and women, a local child protection agency said. The Afghan Children Protection Organization (ACPO) said in a statement that among 700 civilians killed in the past six months in conflict, 40 per cent were children and women. The organization said it was concerned about the increasing bad effects of the war taking civilian lives. The ACPO statement added that children were making most of the victims in the recent bombings in Nuristan, Nangarhar and Herat by foreign troops. Sixty out of over 90 people killed in air strike in Shindand district of Herat last month were children, said the statement. The casualties were caused mostly by clashes in residential areas and bombing of the civilian targets after the Taliban take shelter there or foreign troops got suspected of it, added the statement. Radhika Coomaraswamy, the U.N. special representative for children in armed conflict: "I can't think of any country in the world in which children suffer more than in Afghanistan.... in all our meetings with children, it takes a lot of time to make them smile. That to me shows that there is not happiness in their hearts." The organization also condemned the Taliban for burning schools, threatening schoolchildren and their teachers and depriving them of education. ACPO asked the Taliban to reopen schools and let children continue their classes. More than 300 schools have been closed and as many burnt by unidentified armed men believed to be Taliban in the last three years mostly in southern provinces Quote
Army Guy Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 And that will do the job? It would allow our troops serving there now more protection, to secure more of the forward areas with a forward operating bases....it would save Canadian lives...But to answer your question, in the grand scheme of things it would only put a small dent in it....as the US are looking for an addtional 10,000 NATO troops.. France and Germany are not exactly on the front lines. Britain says it will not increase its troop levels again. Canada increased its overall numbers in 2008.Canada is the one that is the pointed end of the stick and will be that point until 2011. It is possible we could do something in Afghanistan but if we can't rotate out of a hotspot as we have done in previous wars, I don't know that we can trust the coalition. True enough, however we knew what we were signing on to when we first agreed to move south, there was no time table, no promises made... Since Canada's contribution is massive on a per capita level, it is our allies who needed to up things, not us. Canada contribution is large, but no means massive, a country with over 36 million can only afford to send over 2800 pers and contribute 100 mil a year....don't you think we can do better for a G-8 nation....shit check out what Holland gives.... According to latest available figures from 2005, several G7 European countries, who are key allies in Afghanistan, were contributing well below their equitable burden as donors. The following table compares aid to Afghanistan for a number of G7 donors in terms of their equitable share. Share of Aid to Afghanistan (2005) Donor Burden Share [Country Share of DAC Total GNI (2005)] United States 61.2% 38.1% United Kingdom 10.2% 7.0% Netherlands 3.6% 1.9% Canada 3.8% 3.4% Germany 4.6% 8.6% France 0.9% 6.5% Italy 1.2% 5.4% Japan 3.4% 14.4% Source: DAC Statistics Online (January 2007) PDF The mission has enjoyed majority support most of the time. The only time it dropped is when the Tories hung the "gone fishin'" sign on and made no comment on what was happening, denied any issues with prisoners and had a poor Defence minister at the helm explaining things.While the military might have been cheering him on, O'Connor did the government no favours misleading the House and telling Parliament it was too dangerous for anyone aside from him and Harper to see for themselves what was going on. Obviously that strategy was ineffective and it is why Harper asked Manley to extricate himself from the mess he himself he created. Many have said our government has done a crappy job in regards to mission PR... France and Germany are not exactly on the front lines. Britain says it will not increase its troop levels again. Canada increased its overall numbers in 2008.Canada is the one that is the pointed end of the stick and will be that point until 2011. It is possible we could do something in Afghanistan but if we can't rotate out of a hotspot as we have done in previous wars, I don't know that we can trust the coalition. In Afgan anything outside the gate is front lines, but i agree with your statement, however it must be said, Britain and the US are the greatest contributors, and rightly so, however these are the only allies we should be concerned with, for furture defense pacts will probable include them both.... PDF Keep in mind that the US numbers will increase by 35,000...also in the PDF doc, it does not mention the additional 11,000 US pers not involved in NATO mission....so by june of this year thier numbers should be close to over 75,000 troops....plus there is still a need for 10,000 more troops from NATO. 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.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 ....Keep in mind that the US numbers will increase by 35,000...also in the PDF doc, it does not mention the additional 11,000 US pers not involved in NATO mission....so by june of this year thier numbers should be close to over 75,000 troops....plus there is still a need for 10,000 more troops from NATO. Yep...not to mention many additional thousands of US military personnel forward deployed around the world. A superpower's job is never done! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 Yep...not to mention many additional thousands of US military personnel forward deployed around the world. A superpower's job is never done! That's not power! That's just invasive vacariousness ---- kind of like being the old lady next door who can not mind her own buisness and sends out thousands of black cats to poop on the neighbours property so they finally get up and move...and she sits there and looks across the way and she feels that she now owns the vacated house. Power projection as you call it is like a guy with a twenty foot penis that sticks it in your window attempting to infect your wife with some real rotten sperm....some times the husband waits with a knife.. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 .... Power projection as you call it is like a guy with a twenty foot penis that sticks it in your window attempting to infect your wife with some real rotten sperm....some times the husband waits with a knife.. Doesn't matter...the "penis" just grows back....even bigger. Please don't worry about President Obama's penis. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 Doesn't matter...the "penis" just grows back....even bigger. Please don't worry about President Obama's penis. You know when wishful thinking kicks in as a course of action that dellusionism has conquered common sense - the penis does not grow back....experiment - and get back to me with some proof - please do not send anything in the mail...maybe an ear..but not that. It was YOU who was contemplating Obama's package - That never intered my mind - Looks like the charm and the man crush has demasculate some ...... wonder what he looks like in drag... Boy - .... remember - this is just a human talking machine - but I did notice one thing yesterday that was mildly distressing ----Obama is not a big or tall man - but standing next to Harper - he towered --------------SO HOW TALL IS HARPER? Damn if the public knew he was 5 foot 2 we would develope the small man syndrome...much like a tiny Irish waif of an Irishman who likes to fight but is to small to hit. Do you think Obama could take Harper in some hand to hand ultimate fight...Just a thought ....It would be like the wanna be basketball star having it out with a hockey player...who has a stick! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) You know when wishful thinking kicks in as a course of action that dellusionism has conquered common sense - the penis does not grow back....experiment - and get back to me with some proof - please do not send anything in the mail...maybe an ear..but not that. Curious that you would go straight for the penis metaphor....which (black) latencies are we dealing with here ? Obama is not a big or tall man - but standing next to Harper - he towered --------------SO HOW TALL IS HARPER? Damn if the public knew he was 5 foot 2 we would develope the small man syndrome...much like a tiny Irish waif of an Irishman who likes to fight but is to small to hit. Obama is taller than Harper, and he wears much better suits (Hart Shafner Marx) Do you think Obama could take Harper in some hand to hand ultimate fight...Just a thought ....It would be like the wanna be basketball star having it out with a hockey player...who has a stick! It's just sad.....the real contest is the opposition leader competing with PM Harper for a chance to kiss Obama's ass and become #1 poodle. At least keep your dignity! Edited February 20, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
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.