Canadian troops to stay in Afghanistan

[killjoy]

Well, I did not start off with post #35 and my concerns, at any time, are not directed at the men and women in Canada's military especially concerning competence.

....And I fully admit I only read half of it :-). I never thought you were "disrespectin' " anyone.

My concerns basically were levelled concerning the difference in the value and condition of the military in what can be best described as a rapid transiton in this area concering different governmental views between Conservative and Liberal leadership and the direct application of a more vibrant role.

I can't disagree that that is a more than valid concern.

.

[Black Dog]

I am a 14-year veteran in the Armed Forces still serving, currently in Edmonton Alberta. I belong to a specialized recce unit attached to the Princess Patricia’s Light Infantry, III Battalion. That's as specific as I'm going to get about that, except to say I am not 'Special Forces' or 'JTF2'. My unit was heavily involved in Operation Anaconda, Shahikot Valley (Task Force Rakassan, TF K-Bar) et. al. I have been involved in various recce and security missions from Rwanda to Somalia to Bosnia since 1992.

Our tax dollars are paying for military intelligence to post on web forums now?

[killjoy]

Our tax dollars are paying for military intelligence to post on web forums now?

lol.

Actually your tax dollar barely covers what I charge to look as good as I do in uniform. You are gettting a bargain for your money so quit your whining.

Did you have a point beyond insinuating an ambiguous charge that I am being paid to spread propaganda? Yes, the grand conspiracy is so much easier to swallow than the established historical facts, like Afghanistan already had (---THEIR CHOICE ---) a democracy when the Taliban derailed it. Care to pick up one of my points and discuss it or are you only here for an intellectual masturbation session?

Of course your charges would have to remain ambiguous because you know there's no way you could possibly expect rational people to believe I am being paid by our government to brainwash you all with the plain facts.

...And it's not military intelligence. 5 minutes after pumping some of those words (Canada, Anaconda, Shahikot Valley) into Google and you'll have all the offical statements you'll need to see that these are well known events, not secrets.

.

[Black Dog]

Did you have a point beyond insinuating an ambiguous charge that I am being paid to spread propaganda? Yes, the grand conspiracy is so much easier to swallow than the established historical facts, like Afghanistan already had (---THEIR CHOICE ---) a democracy when the Taliban derailed it. Care to pick up one of my points and discuss it or are you only here for an intellectual masturbation session? Did you have a point besides the one at the top of your head?

Hmmm maybe I'm wrong: I don't think a paid PR flak wouldn't be quite so touchy (which gives me reason to believe we've encountered each other elsewhere). BTW: where did I imply a conspiracy? Propaganda is an essential part of military operations. As for the "fact" that Afghanistan had a democracy, well, no, not so much. What they had was a fragile alliance of regional warlords (to speak of "election in 1992 is disinegeneous: only 1,400 representatives voted), an alliance which crumbled violently after less than a year, leaving the capital in chaos and the entire country ripe for the Taiban's picking.

...And it's not military intelligence. 5 minutes after pumping some of those words (Canada, Anaconda, Shahikot Valley) into Google and you'll have all the offical statements you'll need to see that these are well known events, not secrets.

Again, if you were a military spook, I would sure hope you wouldn't be spilling secrets on a web forum.

[killjoy]

Black Dog

Hmmm maybe I'm wrong: I don't think a paid PR flak wouldn't be quite so touchy (which gives me reason to believe we've encountered each other elsewhere).

which is just a graceful way of admitting it's ridiculous. Thank you.

What they had was a fragile alliance of regional warlords (to speak of "election in 1992 is disingenuous: only 1,400 representatives voted), an alliance which crumbled violently after less than a year, leaving the capital in chaos and the entire country ripe for the Taiban's picking.

How is it disingenuous? It wasn't a democracy we would approve of but so what? It's their choice. They had actually an increasing strong alliance based on mutual distrust of Iranian and Pakistani influence.

It is in fact, very disingenuous and completely ass-backwards to state that the Taliban took advantage AFTER the democracy crumbled ..."leaving the country ripe for the picking". It was the opposite: foreign elements opposed to elections in Afghanistan that gave genesis to the Taliban we know today. Their sole reason for being was to dismantle the young and yes, fragile, democracy.

1988--1989--

* Peace accords signed in Geneva.

* Soviet Union defeated by Afghanistan, total withdrawal by the Soviets occurred on Feb. 15, 1989.

* Experts agree that at least 40,000-50,000 Soviets lost their lives in action, besides the wounded, suicides, and murders.

* Mujahideen continue to fight against Najibullah's regime.

* May--Afghan guerrillas elect Sibhhatullah Mojadidi as head of their government-in-exile.

1992--

* April 15--The Mujahideen take Kabul and liberate Afghanistan, Najibullah is protected by UN.

* The Mujahideen form an Islamic State--Islamic Jihad Council--elections.

* Iranian and Pakistani interference increases--more fighting--

* Professor Burhannudin Rabbani is elected President.

1994--

* The Taliban militia are born, and advance rapidly against the Rabbani government.

* Dostum and Hekmatyar continued to clash against Rabbani's government, and as a result Kabul is reduced to rubble.

http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index4.html

That site has plenty of useful informatio---- opps, I mean "propaganda". The fact remains, Islamic Council-only votes or otherwise, they, by majority wanted a democracy and were denied by force by the Taliban who were being influenced, led and financed by Iranians, Pakistan or otherwise people OTHER than Afghans.

.

[killjoy]

Propaganda is an essential part of military operations.

Just to quibble:

I disagree. Propaganda is an essential part of politics or diplomacy regardless of whether or not there is a conflict going on. Canada as a nation in the '70's was too 'fat'. "Participation", the government initiative to get Canada active, ran "propaganda" on TV and in newsprint as part of it's campaign. Nazi propaganda was political as well.

What is essential to the military is command of the facts and the details. Once you have them you are more than a little reluctant to release them, or even let anyone know what you know. That's the concept of 'neither confirm NOR deny'. If you do you often want to protect certain details, much the same way homicide detectives may withhold certain details in order to have an edge over people who want to falsely confess or the actual perpetrators. In the military the details are the prize and the propaganda is useful but beside the point.

The Devil is in the details when it comes to understanding bud.

"All that was once beneath you speaks to you now."

.

[KrustyKidd]

Propaganda is an essential part of military operations.

It sure as hell is when dealing with junior soldiers going into battle. For example, forty paratroopers on an aircraft flying behind the lines to drop into enemy territory need to have the fact that they are bad asses reinforced over and over again until there is no other thought than victory and destructin of the enemy in their head. That is propaganda as they are not certain to win but, are part of a calculated move that will, if it all works, result in victory if not for them than for the mission or the front they are a small part of.

However, to tell them that sets them up for failure so, the thinking and calculations are left to the higher ups ie Officers and senior NCOs etc. Those are given the most realistic and true information without bias and spin so they can properly prepare for the risks and threats.

So, I will add to your quote as I'm sure you wanted to edit it afterwards but didn't have the time "Propaganda is an essential part of military operations." for junior soldiers.

[Black Dog]

How is it disingenuous? It wasn't a democracy we would approve of but so what? It's their choice. They had actually an increasing strong alliance based on mutual distrust of Iranian and Pakistani influence.

It wasn't a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. It may have become one, but it fell apart before it could evolve.

It is in fact, very disingenuous and completely ass-backwards to state that the Taliban took advantage AFTER the democracy crumbled ..."leaving the country ripe for the picking". It was the opposite: foreign elements opposed to elections in Afghanistan that gave genesis to the Taliban we know today. Their sole reason for being was to dismantle the young and yes, fragile, democracy.

Wrong. According to your own source, the Taliban didn't emerge as a force until after in-fighting between the factions in Kabul threw the capital into chaos. Look at the timeline: the Council of Resolution and Settlement election was in 1992 (at which time there was already factional fighting underway between Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Burhanuddin Rabbani) and the Taliban didn't gain a foothold in Kabul until 1995/96. So, despite your claims that everyone in Afghanistan were holding hands and singing Kumbaya before the Taliban came along, it's clear the Taliban's ascendancy was a consequense of the post-Soviet power struggle, not the cause.

I disagree. Propaganda is an essential part of politics or diplomacy regardless of whether or not there is a conflict going on. Canada as a nation in the '70's was too 'fat'. "Participation", the government initiative to get Canada active, ran "propaganda" on TV and in newsprint as part of it's campaign. Nazi propaganda was political as well.

So militaries don't use propaganda? Psy-ops don't exist? Here's a hint "bud": Harper and McKay's visits to Afghanistan? Propaganda, sure as any leaflet dropped from a plane. The stuff about freedom and democracy and Afghhan girls going to school? Propaganda. All the stuff you've been feeding us? Yup....

In short, military propaganda is political.

What is essential to the military is command of the facts and the details. Once you have them you are more than a little reluctant to release them, or even let anyone know what you know. That's the concept of 'neither confirm NOR deny'. If you do you often want to protect certain details, much the same way homicide detectives may withhold certain details in order to have an edge over people who want to falsely confess or the actual perpetrators. In the military the details are the prize and the propaganda is useful but beside the point.

Can't say I see what the relevance of this is to the subject of propaganda.

[killjoy]

Black Dog

It wasn't a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. It may have become one, but it fell apart before it could evolve.

lol. Whatever. Have you taken a good look at our democracy lately? Nevermind that's another subject matter entirely. It's written right there. It's plain fact to anyone who is educated on the subject. That you stand there and cover your ears and stamp your feet in frustration does not make it untrue. It was a democracy --- what's more to the point, it shows that a democracy, (your approval not withstanding) was what they wanted.

Look at the timeline: the Council of Resolution and Settlement election was in 1992 (at which time there was already factional fighting underway between Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Burhanuddin Rabbani) and the Taliban didn't gain a foothold in Kabul until 1995/96. So, despite your claims that everyone in Afghanistan were holding hands and singing Kumbaya before the Taliban came along, it's clear the Taliban's ascendancy was a consequence of the post-Soviet power struggle, not the cause.

I see you need to use propaganda yourself when you know your argument is weak. I never made a claim that people were holding hands and singing kumbya. Show us where I ever claimed that all was well before that Taliban came. Making up something that I said or putting words in my mouth because it’s easier to argue against when you do, is propaganda and the sign of a weak mind.

Look at my source again. If you can't read I can't help you. 1992 - elections...then the Taliban came and fought against it, moved against the elected Rabbani governemnt, specifically against the idea of a democracy to rule their land, AND soley for the purposes of NON-Afghans. In fact nothing you've said above challenges what I said at all. That you sit here and state that the rise of the Taliban and the failure of the democracy are not directly connected is dis-information and propaganda on your part, not mine.

Did you read (on the link) about the Iranian and Pakistani anti-democratic interference with Afghanistan by specifically using the Taliban? Or did your "I-Don't-Like-Those-Facts-I-like-these-facts", filter get rid of them for you?

So militaries don't use propaganda? Psy-ops don't exist? Here's a hint "bud": Harper and McKay's visits to Afghanistan? Propaganda, sure as any leaflet dropped from a plane. The stuff about freedom and democracy and Afghhan girls going to school? Propaganda. All the stuff you've been feeding us? Yup....

I didn't say militaries don't use propaganda. I said propaganda are not an essential part of a military campaign, it is part of political campaign. Let me take you by the hand and show you:

Harper and McKay's visit = political propaganda not military propaganda.

Leaflets dropped from planes? = again, that is political propaganda.

Psy-Ops? Psycological Warfare by it's very definition. = Not propaganda...you know, unless EVERYTHING is propaganda.

All the stuff you've been feeding us?

- you mean all that perfectly accurate information I've been putting out there? I haven't been 'feeding' anyone anything.....that's what you do because you have no real facts to go on and are completely mis-informed.

Can't say I see what the relevance of this is to the subject of propaganda.

The relevance is in educating you to what is more essential to a military campaign than propaganda.

.

[Black Dog]

lol. Whatever. Have you taken a good look at our democracy lately? Nevermind that's another subject matter entirely. It's written right there. It's plain fact to anyone who is educated on the subject. That you stand there and cover your ears and stamp your feet in frustration does not make it untrue. It was a democracy --- what's more to the point, it shows that a democracy, (your approval not withstanding) was what they wanted.

So a democracy in your book is any group that has elections (the influence of that group, or the degree towhich they represent the population are, appatently, irrelevant)? I guess by your narow terms, Afghanistan was a democracy. But then, by that definition, so was Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Your weird reltavistic interpretations of democracy aside, the simple fact is Afghanistan's democratic experiment lasted about as long as it took the rival factions to start battling for superemacy. So to claim Afghanistan was a democracy (when it barely got off the ground) and thus our mission is to "restore" democracy is simply disingenuous.

I see you need to use propaganda yourself when you know your argument is weak. I never made a claim that people were holding hands and singing kumbya. Show us where I ever claimed that all was well before that Taliban came. Making up something that I said or putting words in my mouth because it’s easier to argue against when you do, is propaganda and the sign of a weak mind.

Look at my source again. If you can't read I can't help you. 1992 - elections...then the Taliban came and fought against it, moved against the elected Rabbani governemnt, specifically against the idea of a democracy to rule their land, AND soley for the purposes of NON-Afghans. In fact nothing you've said above challenges what I said at all. That you sit here and state that the rise of the Taliban and the failure of the democracy are not directly connected is dis-information and propaganda on your part, not mine.

With Hekmatyar apparently deflated, Rabbani's government concentrated on preparing for a national shura which was to draft a constitution and choose an interim government for the next eighteen months. The accord reached in Peshawar in April called for elections at the end of the second interim period. The Leadership council gave Rabbani an extension until December to complete the drafting. His proposal for the next interim period was ambitious. He called for a Shura-yi-Ahl-i Hal-u-'Aqd (Council of Resolution and Settlement). A comprehensive effort was made to convene a large assembly representing sentiment in every district in the country. Some 1,400 representatives were brought to Kabul in mid-December where they overwhelmingly (916 to 59 with 366 abstentions) voted to elect Rabbani to a full two-year term, not the eighteen months mandated by the Peshawar accords.

The backlash from this decision reshuffled alignments and took the Islamic Republic's politics in an uncharted direction. Among the major parties only Jamiat (from which Rabbani formally resigned to assume the new presidency), Muhammad Nabi's Harakat, and Sayyaf's Ittehad accepted the election. Gailani and Mujaddidi (vexed already by the extension of Rabbani's term) joined Khalis, Hekmatyar, Mazari, and Dostam to oppose it on grounds that the election had been rigged and was not representative of the country. Rabbani had attempted to garner a popular mandate and instead had united his rivals, greatly strengthening Hekmatyar's position.

Rabbani was immediately thrown on the defensive, politically and militarily. Alienated by government attempts to get control of the city, the Shia Wahdat had attacked the government in western Kabul before the council met and was temporarily supported by Dostam's units on the other side of the city. These assaults were quickly repulsed, but immediately after Rabbani's election Hekmatyar attacked with Wahdat support. The city was again massively rocketed until mid-February. Only three foreign embassies remained open in the capital: Italy's, India's, and China's. For the government there was one compensation: Sayyaf, the most consistent ideologue of the party leaders, maintained his alliance with the government in order to pursue his sectarian struggle with the Shias.

Mujahidin Attempts to Govern, 1992-95

Where was the Taliban during all this? Trying to set up shop in Khandahar. So no, they didn't "move against the elected Rabbani governemnt, specifically against the idea of a democracy to rule their land." Fact is, the Afghan democratic experiment was dead long before the Taliban set foot in Kabul, killed by rival warlords.

I didn't say militaries don't use propaganda. I said propaganda are not an essential part of a military campaign, it is part of political campaign. Let me take you by the hand and show you:

Harper and McKay's visit = political propaganda not military propaganda.

Leaflets dropped from planes? = again, that is political propaganda.

What an arbitrary (and false) distinction. Need I dust off Clausewitz? You can't separate the military and the political, except possibly at the very basic operational level.

you mean all that perfectly accurate information I've been putting out there? I haven't been 'feeding' anyone anything.....that's what you do because you have no real facts to go on and are completely mis-informed.

The information you're putting out may be accurate, but your interpretation in bunk, "bud".

[killjoy]

Black Dog -

No time for a reply at the moment. Check me this afternoon.

L8r.

.

[killjoy]

Black Dog:

So a democracy in your book is any group that has elections (the influence of that group, or the degree to which they represent the population are, apparently, irrelevant)? I guess by your narrow terms, Afghanistan was a democracy.

Well it wasn't really my 'narrow terms', it was also a few others namely the UN...but I concede it didn't last long enough or represent enough people to be functional in the beginning. But it was still a beginning.

Where was the Taliban during all this? Trying to set up shop in Khandahar. So no, they didn't "move against the elected Rabbani governemnt, specifically against the idea of a democracy to rule their land." Fact is, the Afghan democratic experiment was dead long before the Taliban set foot in Kabul, killed by rival warlords.

I concede that the democracy was gone before the Taliban began, and that at this point it their history it is wrong of me to say that they were created to specifically destroy the democracy or the democratic leadership and the original government only lasted 6 months. I was completely wrong about that and I retract it. Don't know wherre I got it mixed up but I did--- probably somewhere when they moved on Kabul, where I thought they were moving against the remains of the Rabbani governement, at any rate I was wrong. My apologies.

Except:

So to claim Afghanistan was a democracy (when it barely got off the ground) and thus our mission is to "restore" democracy is simply disingenuous.

I don't think I said that anywhere although the misunderstanding is reasonable. It wasn’t my intention to imply the coalition was ‘restoring democracy’. If you look back you will see that my original impetus behind pointing out the previous democracy was not to argue that the coalition was restoring it but that the Afghan people where not 'too dumb' or 'too savage' to understand one.

It does remain however that the Taliban where influenced heavily by Iranian students who came to organize many of Afghanistan’s youth in their early beginnings and gained the power and control over the country by helping Pakistan open a trade route between them and Iran. Factions in Pakistan helped arm, supply and fund them after that. Eventually many of their leadership even came from Pakistan.

Do you still think I'm a military spook?

.

[killjoy]

Forgot this:

What an arbitrary (and false) distinction. Need I dust off Clausewitz? You can't separate the military and the political, except possibly at the very basic operational level.

Its not a false distinction at all. You don't feel there is a distinction between propaganda that does not involve the military and the stuff that does? Certainly military objectives and political objectives are intertwined but propaganda in politically inspired as it involves the 'convincing' of others of a political position.

.

[Black Dog]

I don't think I said that anywhere although the misunderstanding is reasonable. It wasn’t my intention to imply the coalition was ‘restoring democracy’. If you look back you will see that my original impetus behind pointing out the previous democracy was not to argue that the coalition was restoring it but that the Afghan people where not 'too dumb' or 'too savage' to understand one.

Fair enough. But I don't think the position is that Afghans are "too savage" for democracy has ever been seriously advanced. It's a little more nuanced than that. I think a better way to put it would be that Afghanistan has had limited experience with democracy. Indeed, it's not unreasonable to argue that the tribal nature of Afghan society makes democracy a trickier proposition. The Afghan experience of the early '90s would seem to reinforce that notion, not undermine it.

Furthermore, I don't think I or anyone else who opposses the western involvement in Afghanistan are opposed to Afghan democracy in principle or fact. What is generally rejected is the paternalistic idea that "we" can bring them democracy (which, in fairness to you, has not been your position). Basically, it's the rhetoric (propaganda?) I have issues with. I would agree that stable social institutions are a sine qua non of a viable democratic state, but I question the ability to establish such institutions in Afghanistan.

Its not a false distinction at all. You don't feel there is a distinction between propaganda that does not involve the military and the stuff that does? Certainly military objectives and political objectives are intertwined but propaganda in politically inspired as it involves the 'convincing' of others of a political position.

Let's start over.

All propaganda is political. Political propaganda is an essential element of a military campaign, whether directed at the enemy (for example: the dropping of leaflets during the Iraq war aimed at convincing Iraqi troops to surrender) or the home audience (see: "Mission Accomplished"). Now, is it possible to run an effective military campaign without propaganda? Probably not. Using the Afghanistan example, political propaganda must be used to convince the local population that "we" are there to help. Without reaching that audience, the mission would not be successful. Similarily, on the home front, the mission depends to a large degree on the public's consent, thus the recent campaign by the CPC to "educate" the public about the mission.

[killjoy]

Balck Dog

Indeed, it's not unreasonable to argue that the tribal nature of Afghan society makes democracy a trickier proposition. The Afghan experience of the early '90s would seem to reinforce that notion, not undermine it.

Absolutely it's trickier for the reasons you state. I would only point out that the experience of the early '90's needs to be taken from the context not of Afghans conflicting warlords as a predominant theme but from the context of the 'power vacuum' that existed from the Soviet withdrawal pretty much right up until the Taliban had full control. A ‘power vacuum’, to use the standard term is always a precarious place to try and start a new government.

What is generally rejected is the paternalistic idea that "we" can bring them democracy (which, in fairness to you, has not been your position). Basically, it's the rhetoric (propaganda?) I have issues with. I would agree that stable social institutions are a sine qua non of a viable democratic state, but I question the ability to establish such institutions in Afghanistan.

I 100% agree, as a citizen and especially as a soldier. We can't make them do anything. That Harper, Bush or Martian need to use the rhetoric of which you speak to enforce the idea that we are 'teaching them' rather than simply being accurate and say that we are trying to provide secure space and breathing room to try and build their own democracy is beyond me. The truth is better and I believe Canadians can 'handle it'. We can't make them do jack shit.....and I will be the first in line to admit this could all fail...but I don't believe it's false hope or simple wishful thinking to think there are reasons to believe it will succeed. Either way, as you point out, it is entirely up to them. Same is true of Iraq, but it would be simplistic to equate the two: Afghans are not Iraqi.

All propaganda is political. Political propaganda is an essential element of a military campaign, whether directed at the enemy (for example: the dropping of leaflets during the Iraq war aimed at convincing Iraqi troops to surrender) or the home audience (see: "Mission Accomplished"). Now, is it possible to run an effective military campaign without propaganda? Probably not. Using the Afghanistan example, political propaganda must be used to convince the local population that "we" are there to help. Without reaching that audience, the mission would not be successful. Similarily, on the home front, the mission depends to a large degree on the public's consent, thus the recent campaign by the CPC to "educate" the public about the mission.

Again I agree, or at least I do know what you mean. I guess where I'm coming from is that with or without a military operation there is still propaganda and that to my thinking it only becomes part of a military campaign in the specific areas where it intertwines with military objective. I also believe you don't absolutely require propaganda to run a military campaign. It may be ubiquitous in its usage today but it's never-the-less not absolutely essential.

Similarily, on the home front, the mission depends to a large degree on the public's consent, thus the recent campaign by the CPC to "educate" the public about the mission.

I agree, I suppose insomuch that I see you have a different way of looking at it than I do, that too me sounds a little like "6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other". You see to my thinking what you outline above is politically conceived not militarily conceived but certainly the distinction is mighty thin. Wars are won or lost by one of two things and unfortunatly brains ain't one of them, either you lose by political wil or by firepower. Vietnam, for example, wasn't lost because of firepower.

.

[Black Dog]

Absolutely it's trickier for the reasons you state. I would only point out that the experience of the early '90's needs to be taken from the context not of Afghans conflicting warlords as a predominant theme but from the context of the 'power vacuum' that existed from the Soviet withdrawal pretty much right up until the Taliban had full control. A ‘power vacuum’, to use the standard term is always a precarious place to try and start a new government.

Sure. But I gotta wonder what wil happen if we decide to leave. My reading of history is that Afghans are perfectly capable of unity, provided there is a unifying force is strong enough to transcend the divisions within society. I don't have a lot of confidence in a united Afghanistan staying united for long after we leave (unless of course we plan on sticking around for a couple of generations). But maybe I'm wrong. I'd like to be.

(Innit funny how this discussion started in a less than positive manner-and I apologize for my part in that-and now it's downright civil. Cheers.)

[killjoy]

Sure. But I gotta wonder what wil happen if we decide to leave. My reading of history is that Afghans are perfectly capable of unity, provided there is a unifying force is strong enough to transcend the divisions within society.

hmm. I agree in terms of history…and certainly I agree that they seem to be very nationalistic despite the hoopla over ‘warlords’. But I would also seriously recommend looking into the actions of the Taliban in the past 10 years....especially in terms of it's escalation of brutality and subjugation and it’s foil against, shall we say, ‘traditional Afghan values’, ( not so brutally misogynistic, not quite so religious, likening more to a male-dominated ‘elders’ system vs. an Iran-like Mullah system). Just be cause we don't hear a peep out of them doesn't mean the Taliban are doing a good job running the country or that even half of the people sincerely don’t fear for their lives because of them. Of course that’s not the cue to invade….it’s risky business. But if you get a good window of oportunity you have to go for it, imo. We all live in this world togther.

I always try to point to India in these discussions. Here is an uncharacteristic democracy. In the beginning; poor as dirt, over populated and severe religious factions. But look at her today. Shangra-la? No. But a wasteland of war and religious bloodshed? Far from that.

I'm not sayin'...I'm just sayin'....y'know.

Innit funny how this discussion started in a less than positive manner-and I apologize for my part in that-and now it's downright civil. Cheers.

Tiz the understood nature of an Internet forum. I am equally guilty and never took offence or thought it a reasonable barometer of your personality.

Cheers.

.