Afghan prisoner abuse trial

[myata]

If left to their own devices you actually believe Afghanistan would settle its problems and become a bastion of enlightenment? Left to its own devices there would be continual warring between the various warlords and tribes, and the people would continue to live in poverty and ignorance.

And that's why they should be thankful for people like us, who'd never leave them to "their own devices" and will drag them, even if kicking and screaming, to the benefits of our way of life. After all, it's been our mission for such a long time, like since middle ages. The burden...

Edited November 26, 2009 by myata

[eyeball]

This is nonsense. If left to their own devices you actually believe Afghanistan would settle its problems and become a bastion of enlightenment? Left to its own devices there would be continual warring between the various warlords and tribes, and the people would continue to live in poverty and ignorance.

No I think an Afghanistan left to its own devices would persist in successively repelling one super-rogue after another like they have for centuries. Left to their own perhaps Afghans could finally begin evolving out of poverty and ignorance the way we did.

Do you think "great powers" have been working away at Somalia all these years? Does it look like life for the people there has improved much of late?

Somalia is the clearest evidence there is that the Great Powers are diddling with it and the surrounding region.

[Gabriel]

You can't foist freedom and democracy onto a people and expect it to stick. If you honestly believe that is possible it is clear that you have never read a history book in your entire life. Iraq immediately comes to mind. The British attempted to transplant their values and system of government and it failed rather miserably, there are numerous other examples of this throughout history. Look at the nations that are considered free today, many of them had to fight very bloody revolutions to achieve those freedoms; France and the US come to mind. Because the people wanted these things, fought and died for them that is why they still persist today. Not because some foreign power came in and "liberated" them. Our interests in Afghanistan are and should only be the stabilization of the region. They need a stable government, a good standing army, a good domestic police force and the ability to enforce whatever laws they see fit to enact. Only then will the region be able to prevent terrorist groups from flourishing. Then they can undertake the task of ferreting out the terrorist organizations that threaten western security.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I urge you to reconsider, just for a moment, how you're phrasing this. How is someone "forced" to be free? How is someone "forced" to have more political power? To use the term "force" when describing positive values is strange and makes little sense.

Let's put some context here, with respect to Afghanistan. It's inaccurate to simple state that we're "forcing" our ways of life onto Afghanistan. Do I really need to list off the various ways through with our forces and our allies are cooperating with the Aghans? I'm no expert on the theatre of war in Afghanistan, but I do now there are serious collaborations occurring between Afghanistan and the West. Whether it be the somewhat recurring news stories about training Afghan security forces, to the not-so-popular news stories of diplomatic involvement - i.e. consultants advising new Afghan governmental officials on how to develop the political infrastructure. There is a ton of cooperation going on working towards the development of hard and soft infrastructure. So again, we're not "forcing" it on these people, we're working with groups of them to help develop their country.

If that means they eventually evolve into a western style liberal democracy fantastic, but that's not a change that will happen over night or even in a decade of western support. If the citizens of Afghanistan do not want to fight for this, it will not happen. Most of them are too concerned with the basics at the moment to really worry about anything else.

Who knows how long it will take? It certainly will not be a cakewalk. Assuming it does work out for the better over the long haul, history will redeem this military and political endeavour. I agree that the basics must be met before more complex tasks are undertaken. Security, for example. This is why I support a systematic annihilation of the Taliban and similar terrorist groups. Although collateral damage will of course result, it's definitely for the greater good. There's no compromising with animals. I am no expert on the Afghan people, but the optimist in me wants to believe that a majority of Afghans WANT freedom and WANT democracy and WANT the things that make the West superior to the rest of the world. If you even try to respond to this last statement by labelling me as ethnocentric or arrogant I will be forced to label you a naive leftist. There isn't any doubt that on the whole, the values of the West are the root of our unquestionable superiority (morally, economically, technologically, etc) over the rest of the world. Please don't try to debate this obvious reality.

Your assumptions on my expectations are ludicrous at best. I don't expect to "liberate" the world nor do I think it is even possible. God helps those who help themselves as it were. Those who seek freedom will eventually find it, but it's generally a long and bloody battle to get there.

Well, hopefully the able Afghans will step up and do their part (I'm under the impression that many of them ARE doing their part) towards making this dream a reality.

Clearly subtelty is lost on you. You're correct I see no further point in continuing a discussion with someone who needs to resort to aspersions and pejorative labeling. Anyone who calls any of your statements into question or disagrees with you is a "leftist extremist" a "terroist supporter" or a myriad of other terms you flippantly toss about.

I'll continue to use those terms as I see fit. I don't use them irresponsibly. There is no shortage of extremists and terrorist supporters among us. Wherever I go, whether it be here, other websites (i.e. CBC comments), friends of mine, work, the gym, etc, I encounter many extremist views.

[Dave_ON]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I urge you to reconsider, just for a moment, how you're phrasing this. How is someone "forced" to be free? How is someone "forced" to have more political power? To use the term "force" when describing positive values is strange and makes little sense.

Think about what you're saying and the assumptions contained therein. Your assertion is that democracy, freedom, and all the rainbows and kittens contained therein are superior and I don't disagree in the least. Who among us can resist a kitten? But the issue at hand is that this is the natural state of things if we remove all resistance to it. That democracy and freedom rushes in to fill the void left by tyranny. This is not the case, these people want stability, security, and subsistence living; prosperity at this point is a luxury.

My assertion is stability is more important than democracy, and if stability can be achieved via an absolute monarchy so be it. Tyranny is not the enemy of democracy and the west, truly its lawlessness and instability as is demonstrated in Afghanistan as well as Somalia.

Let's put some context here, with respect to Afghanistan. It's inaccurate to simple state that we're "forcing" our ways of life onto Afghanistan. Do I really need to list off the various ways through with our forces and our allies are cooperating with the Afghans? I'm no expert on the theatre of war in Afghanistan, but I do now there are serious collaborations occurring between Afghanistan and the West. Whether it be the somewhat recurring news stories about training Afghan security forces, to the not-so-popular news stories of diplomatic involvement - i.e. consultants advising new Afghan governmental officials on how to develop the political infrastructure. There is a ton of cooperation going on working towards the development of hard and soft infrastructure. So again, we're not "forcing" it on these people; we're working with groups of them to help develop their country.

Of course we're working to support them but we can't expect them to be at our level of cultural progression. As such they must develop at their own pace and arrive at democracy, if they so choose, in their own time. It is entirely likely that any form of stable and lasting government will be decidedly undemocratic in nature, and it may evolve into democracy if it is successful. As I said earlier, democracy is preferable, but stability is more important.

Who knows how long it will take? It certainly will not be a cakewalk. Assuming it does work out for the better over the long haul, history will redeem this military and political endeavour. I agree that the basics must be met before more complex tasks are undertaken. Security, for example. This is why I support a systematic annihilation of the Taliban and similar terrorist groups. Although collateral damage will of course result, it's definitely for the greater good. There's no compromising with animals. I am no expert on the Afghan people, but the optimist in me wants to believe that a majority of Afghans WANT freedom and WANT democracy and WANT the things that make the West superior to the rest of the world. If you even try to respond to this last statement by labelling me as ethnocentric or arrogant I will be forced to label you a naive leftist. There isn't any doubt that on the whole, the values of the West are the root of our unquestionable superiority (morally, economically, technologically, etc) over the rest of the world. Please don't try to debate this obvious reality.

I don't believe it is our responsibility to eradicate the Taliban, but rather to give the Afghans the tools to do so themselves. It is the only way to ensure victory and lasting stability.

I would call the above ethnocentric, but I'm no idealist. I would however accept cynical pragmatist. You can even toss in arrogant if you so desire.

I'll continue to use those terms as I see fit. I don't use them irresponsibly. There is no shortage of extremists and terrorist supporters among us. Wherever I go, whether it be here, other websites (i.e. CBC comments), friends of mine, work, the gym, etc, I encounter many extremist views.

Be careful labelling people, it can be inflammatory and can cause the debate to devolve to little more than a name calling session.

[eyeball]

Do I really need to list off the various ways through with our forces and our allies are cooperating with the Aghans? I'm no expert on the theatre of war in Afghanistan, but I do now there are serious collaborations occurring between Afghanistan and the West.

There are also serious collaborations occurring between the Afghan government and criminals.

Tyranny is not the enemy of democracy and the west, truly its lawlessness and instability as is demonstrated in Afghanistan as well as Somalia.

Just as it has been demonstrated in virtually every other third world country where the west or some other roguish power has diddled with their people's governance.

Tyranny is the enemy of hope, including our's.

[Dave_ON]

Just as it has been demonstrated in virtually every other third world country where the west or some other roguish power has diddled with their people's governance.

Tyranny is the enemy of hope, including our's.

It is idealistic and naive to expect that the people of Afghanistan are even remotely ready for a sophisticated level of western style liberal democracy. That is completely foreign to their culture and it's more than just a little arrogant to presume that our way is best.

I disagree, tyranny is not the enemy of hope; it is chaos, lawlessness and instability. If tyranny is the only way order can be established than that is the starting point they must get to. I'm certain that the people of Afghanistan would welcome anyone who could offer them stability, peace, good civil order and the ability to subsist. Once they've established the basics of life and are able to maintain them on their own, then they can turn their thoughts to higher things.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs applies to society as much as it does to individuals. Physiological needs must come first, followed closely by safety needs. Only once these are established can they move on to the next level which presumably is some form of democracy. You can't skip stages as it were, at it's unreasonable to expect that any type of order, can and will be established by instituting a straw man form of democracy.

[Topaz]

I believe many journalist are better to give us the truth than the government or the military. One of those reporters lived in Afghanistan many years and I visit his website many times and he's a PC. Yesterday. Mulroney said they knew torture was going in in all the jails in Afg. BUT there is no proof that any of the prisoners handled by the Canadian soldiers were tortured. Well, if you don't have paper work and don't keep track of them, of course, there's no prove but there's more a chance they were torture by the Afghanis than not. They hated each other. Anyway, Art Kent has more info. on the going on is Afg. when Mulroney was there. http://www.skyreporter.com/

[myata]

Don't you love how our freedom rights loving conservatives are so quick to jump up condemning rights abuses in places like Iran or China (which "court of law" have those been proven in - I wonder?) but when spotlight falls on friendly places like Afghanistan (and a bunch of others), things suddenly become so complicated (not to say, obscured) by legalities (such as "allegations not being proven in the court of law"). Proven, really, where, in Afghanistan? Gimme a break, you must be kidding, only who?

[eyeball]

If tyranny is the only way order can be established than that is the starting point they must get to. I'm certain that the people of Afghanistan would welcome anyone who could offer them stability, peace, good civil order and the ability to subsist. Once they've established the basics of life and are able to maintain them on their own, then they can turn their thoughts to higher things.

Fair enough, I just think if the tyranny is going to be imposed or assisted from outside it had better be a truly benign tyranny. I say this simply because I believe that a mole hill of bad will can bury a mountain of good in a blink of an eye and the west has clearly created a lot of bad will for itself in the region.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs applies to society as much as it does to individuals. Physiological needs must come first, followed closely by safety needs. Only once these are established can they move on to the next level which presumably is some form of democracy. You can't skip stages as it were, at it's unreasonable to expect that any type of order, can and will be established by instituting a straw man form of democracy.

I agree but I also think a lot of these stages just have to naturally occur or evolve on their own. There is an element of good sense in the albeit fictional notion of a prime directive, that more harm is often the result of interference than good.

Edited November 27, 2009 by eyeball

[wulf42]

This is an Issue for Afghanistan not Canada, what Afghanistan does with Taliban scum is their concern not ours...after all Canadian soldiers didn t do it, so what if we handed them over to the Afghanistan Army and they tortured them? who are we to tell them how to treat their terrorist's? Did you people forget these are the same people who send our guy's home in boxes? Something seriously wrong when your Country worries more about the enemies welfare rather than it's own troops.

[myata]

I disagree, tyranny is not the enemy of hope; it is chaos, lawlessness and instability. If tyranny is the only way order can be established than that is the starting point they must get to.

Of course, all depends on the point of view. Who defines the "order"? One man's "freedom and democracy" is another's anaphema. So, would #1 be justified in imposing their idea of "order" upon #2?

I'm certain that the people of Afghanistan would welcome anyone who could offer them stability, peace, good civil order and the ability to subsist. Once they've established the basics of life and are able to maintain them on their own, then they can turn their thoughts to higher things.

As long as you can be certain, speaking for the people of Afghanistan, what they would want, and should do.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs applies to society as much as it does to individuals. Physiological needs must come first, followed closely by safety needs. Only once these are established can they move on to the next level which presumably is some form of democracy. You can't skip stages as it were, at it's unreasonable to expect that any type of order, can and will be established by instituting a straw man form of democracy.

And somebody simply has to be around, enforcing their correct and orderly understanding of the hierarchy on others who aren't so lucky?

Edited November 27, 2009 by myata

[Dave_ON]

Of course, all depends on the point of view. Who defines the "order"? One man's "freedom and democracy" is another's anathema. So, would #1 be justified in imposing their idea of "order" upon #2?

It's not really about freedom or democracy, as I mentioned numerous times, that is for them to decide and fight for. Our purpose is to assist in the establishment of order. How that is achieved is ultimately up to their people. It is a foregone conclusion that even a dictator is better than lawless anarchy.

As long as you can be certain, speaking for the people of Afghanistan, what they would want, and should do.

Do you dispute that basic physiological and security needs are desired by all human beings? I think this is a no brainer and not the least bit presumptuous on my part.

And somebody simply has to be around, enforcing their correct and orderly understanding of the hierarchy on others who aren't so lucky?

Not sure what you're trying to get at here. Suffice it to say their understanding of hierarchy is immaterial, the fact remains that if you're worried about where your next meal is coming from, you don't have time to worry about your form of government; food, shelter, clothing are the most important and basic of all needs, if all your time is spent on survival you don't have time to worry about other less important matters.

[myata]

It's not really about freedom or democracy, as I mentioned numerous times, that is for them to decide and fight for. Our purpose is to assist in the establishment of order. How that is achieved is ultimately up to their people. It is a foregone conclusion that even a dictator is better than lawless anarchy.

Why does it have to be our purpose though? Remember, they had certain "order" that we bumped off because we did not like the way it worked. So, are some people better suited to define, and install "order" on others?

Do you dispute that basic physiological and security needs are desired by all human beings? I think this is a no brainer and not the least bit presumptuous on my part.

I question what kind of "security" and why we have to be defining it for other people (see above)?

Not sure what you're trying to get at here. Suffice it to say their understanding of hierarchy is immaterial, the fact remains that if you're worried about where your next meal is coming from, you don't have time to worry about your form of government; food, shelter, clothing are the most important and basic of all needs, if all your time is spent on survival you don't have time to worry about other less important matters.

I'm saying that my understanding of hierarchy of needs does not necessarily coincides with yours and I'd only be trying to impose my hierarcy upon you by force if I'm an aggressive, belligerent, self righteous bully.

[GostHacked]

Being morally better than your enemy doesn't win wars.

True, but it is what we are supposedly fighting for.

[Dave_ON]

Why does it have to be our purpose though? Remember, they had certain "order" that we bumped off because we did not like the way it worked. So, are some people better suited to define, and install "order" on others?

I question what kind of "security" and why we have to be defining it for other people (see above)?

It goes back to "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", if you're going to allow organizations within your boarder to attack foreign powers, and go even one step further actually protect them, then you have to accept retaliatory actions. If they were truly interested in order they would not have allowed this threat to exist with in their boarders to begin with, thereby ensuring their security needs were met. Similarly if a rogue organization were operating in our boarders unbeknowst to us, and they attacked a foreign power, we would deal with the situation accordingly. Depending on the situation extradition is quite likely.

I'm saying that my understanding of hierarchy of needs does not necessarily coincides with yours and I'd only be trying to impose my hierarcy upon you by force if I'm an aggressive, belligerent, self righteous bully.

Again understanding of the hierarchy is immaterial. It's not an idea that was created, it's a description of the reality of existance. If you don't have food to eat, all your energy is bent on somehow getting food to eat. You can't worry about anything else until that need is met. Feedom of speech doesn't fill an empty stomach, and democracy doesn't keep rain off of you.

[eyeball]

It goes back to "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", if you're going to allow organizations within your boarder to attack foreign powers, and go even one step further actually protect them, then you have to accept retaliatory actions. If they were truly interested in order they would not have allowed this threat to exist with in their boarders to begin with, thereby ensuring their security needs were met. Similarly if a rogue organization were operating in our boarders unbeknowst to us, and they attacked a foreign power, we would deal with the situation accordingly. Depending on the situation extradition is quite likely.

Again understanding of the hierarchy is immaterial. It's not an idea that was created, it's a description of the reality of existance. If you don't have food to eat, all your energy is bent on somehow getting food to eat. You can't worry about anything else until that need is met. Feedom of speech doesn't fill an empty stomach, and democracy doesn't keep rain off of you.

There are other hierarchies here that are being completely overlooked. What about powerful organizations, within other more powerful countries that are able to trump the influence of local governments like Afghanistan's? Saudi Arabia comes to mind. Don't forget there was not a single Afghan who retaliated against the U.S. on 9/11.

[M.Dancer]

Don't forget there was not a single Afghan who retaliated against the U.S. on 9/11.

Don;t forget these kind of statements are the product of a addled mind that is so wracked with self ansorbed guilt, it can no longer distinguish between rigtht or wrong...this mind sees only wrong in everythying except group hugs and self immolation.

First off, the use of the word retaliate is wrong. 9/11 was an act of aggresion by a criminal group of individuals aided and enabled by the defacto legal government of Afghanistan.

Secondly, the aid came not from one single Afghan, but from thousands of Afghans who provided support for said group. .

[Oleg Bach]

Once again, instead of directly addressing the issue with your own opinion, you respond with, "why doesn't Harper say exactly what you're saying?" We're not here to be spokespersons for Harper or the Conservatives. I speak for myself and myself alone (generally speaking). Toad Brother speaks for himself and himself alone (generally speaking). What the hell does Harper have to do with our little history review? Why are you such a compulsive deflector? You try so hard to derail every single thread. Did you think nobody would notice or not call you out on it?

We'll speak for ourselves, and you can speak for yourself. Nobody gives a shit about Harper with respect to this history review.

Harper is a non-starter and a non-issue. As for derailing threads, it's impossible - why do you grant courage to someone you assume is destructive? Forget about it - and get back on topic - more declarations of belief and less debate - debate does not always lead to something conclusive or constructive - IF you figer the person is full of poop then say so quickly and continue with YOUR point. YOU know what's going on...forget the contention and contribute like a states person - make statements if you are confident..do it!

[eyeball]

First off, the use of the word retaliate is wrong.

Do you understand the concept of blow-back and what it imply's?

[eyeball]

Don;t forget these kind of statements are the product of a addled mind that is so wracked with self ansorbed guilt, it can no longer distinguish between rigtht or wrong...this mind sees only wrong in everythying except group hugs and self immolation.

No, I just can't see anything righteous about diddling...you know like you and Whoopi seem to.

[M.Dancer]

Do you understand the concept of blow-back and what it imply's?

HYes it's a word you trot out to explain everything from foreign trade, the poor kelp sales and why your wife is late with dinner . In your mouth it is wortkess, much like your self absorbed hand wringing and guilt.

For it to work in your confused mind, you have to play the drunken priest absolving everyone of guilt except yourself and your own.

[eyeball]

HYes it's a word you trot out to explain everything from foreign trade, the poor kelp sales and why your wife is late with dinner.

No, its a word the CIA used.

Blowback is the espionage term for the violent, unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government.

That would be the U.S. in the case of the blowback experienced on 9/11.

By the way it wasn't the kelp sales it was the government's inability to process harvest licence applications that blew up in my face and I'm the one who does most of the cooking.

Edited November 27, 2009 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

No, its a word the CIA used.

That would be the U.S. in the case of the blowback experienced on 9/11.

By the way it wasn't the kelp sales it was the government's inability to process harvest licence applications that blew up in my face and I'm the one who does most of the cooking.

WHat a load of crap.

How many planes were flown into Moscow skjyscrappers? What unintended consequences other than wealth did nay of the 9.11 terrorists suffer?

Like I said, you trot out the word and have devaluyed it, It's meaning is lost.

And it was probably the Feds protecting us from you poisoning everyone.

[eyeball]

WHat a load of crap.

No its true, I do most of the cooking around here.

We're having pizza tonight.

Edited November 27, 2009 by eyeball

[eyeball]

By the way, how many bombs has the US dropped on Saudi Arabia? What consequences, other than more wealth, have these sponsors of Al Qaeda suffered?