Afghanistan

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2007

You think so? So you think that Afghanistan's corruption has no chance at all of bringing down the government and causing civil unrest? That confident, are you?

Interesting that you would use the term "bringing down the government".....another not so rare Canadian exercise. So after only a few years of existence...they are doing as well as Canada!

jdobbin · April 4, 2007

Interesting that you would use the term "bringing down the government".....another not so rare Canadian exercise. So after only a few years of existence...they are doing as well as Canada!

Bringing down the government in Canada means replacing it with another elected party. In Afghanistan that might not be a possibility.

When many Afghans think the Taliban is less corrupt, you have a problem.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2007...19/3783094.html

Bribery and corruption are pervasive in Afghanistan’s current government, according to a survey released Monday that said most Afghans believe their leaders are more corrupt than the Soviet-backed government in the 1980s or the Taliban-run government in the 1990s.
About 60 per cent of respondents said the current administration is more corrupt than any other in the past two decades, said the report by Integrity Watch Afghanistan, an independent group.

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2007

Bringing down the government in Canada means replacing it with another elected party. In Afghanistan that might not be a possibility.

Roger that....but don't the Afghans deserve the same chance?

jdobbin · April 4, 2007

Roger that....but don't the Afghans deserve the same chance?

If you want it replaced with the Taliban, I guess it is.

Bribery and corruption are pervasive in Afghanistan’s current government, according to a survey released Monday that said most Afghans believe their leaders are more corrupt than the Soviet-backed government in the 1980s or the Taliban-run government in the 1990s.
About 60 per cent of respondents said the current administration is more corrupt than any other in the past two decades, said the report by Integrity Watch Afghanistan, an independent group.

See above link.

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2007

Lots of corruption to go around...USA...Canada....UK...Morroco...Russia....and Afghanistan. Really hurts voter turnout too.

Why is Afghanistan held to a higher standard?

jdobbin · April 4, 2007

Lots of corruption to go around...USA...Canada....UK...Morroco...Russia....and Afghanistan. Really hurts voter turnout too.
Why is Afghanistan held to a higher standard?

Because Canada has to be there to support the government. That's why.

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2007

Because Canada has to be there to support the government. That's why.

Oh...like Haiti?

jdobbin · April 4, 2007

Oh...like Haiti?

Some in Canada also want our support withdrawn from a corrupt government there.

Act as smug as you want, at some point the government has to ask whether a foreign government is worthy of support if they make no attempt to change the ways that got them into trouble in the first place.

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2007

Oh...like Haiti?

Some in Canada also want our support withdrawn from a corrupt government there.

That would be a long list given CIDA "clients". And Canadians have been in on the take all along:

http://www.odiousdebts.org/odiousdebts/ind...&ContentID=2469

All is well.....

jdobbin · April 4, 2007

That would be a long list given CIDA "clients". And Canadians have been in on the take all along:
http://www.odiousdebts.org/odiousdebts/ind...&ContentID=2469

All is well.....

And some say CIDA should be abolished.

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2007

And some say CIDA should be abolished.

Well hell...what would be left? Free boat rides for Lebanese?

jdobbin · April 4, 2007

Well hell...what would be left? Free boat rides for Lebanese?

Thank goodness you have no say in it whatsoever.

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2007

Thank goodness you have no say in it whatsoever.

Agreed.....than goodness.

jdobbin · April 8, 2007

Six NATO soldiers killed in roadside bomb.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070408/...han_nato_deaths

Six soldiers with NATO's International Security Assistance Force have been killed by a roadside bomb blast in southern Afghanistan.
Another soldier was seriously injured.

ISAF, which includes troops from 37 countries including Canada, will not release the nationality of the troops involved.

I expect this is how the war will fought all spring. The Taliban can't win conventionally but they sure do a lot of damage with the bombs they plant as well as the kidnapping and executions.

Meanwhile, some Afghans seem to want the Taliban back.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2432448.ece

"I think life under the Taliban was very good," said Maria Farah, a mother of five. "If we did not have a full stomach, we could at least get some food and go to sleep, and if we went out somewhere there were no problems. How about now? If we go out, we don't know if we will arrive home or not. If there is an explosion and the Americans are passing, they will just open fire on everyone. The security problems are too much here."
Foreign attempts at development were waved aside by Haji Abdul Rahman, a tribal elder, who demanded: "If a road has been built and you are killed, what good is it? Everyone is a robber. I guarantee if you sit in my car and we go for a drive, no Taliban will take you away. But I cannot guarantee that about the police. If they stop you they will steal your money and your camera."

jdobbin · April 8, 2007

It now appears it was six Canadian soldiers killed today.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has confirmed six Canadian soldiers were killed and one seriously injured in Afghanistan on Sunday.
There are reports that others were also wounded.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force spokeswoman, Lieutenant-Colonel Angela Billings says it was the work of the Taliban.

Heartfelt condolences to their families. And to some of the forum members that will be there soon, keep safe.

Argus · April 8, 2007

It now appears it was six Canadian soldiers killed today.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has confirmed six Canadian soldiers were killed and one seriously injured in Afghanistan on Sunday.
There are reports that others were also wounded.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force spokeswoman, Lieutenant-Colonel Angela Billings says it was the work of the Taliban.

Heartfelt condolences to their families. And to some of the forum members that will be there soon, keep safe.

It always seems that when they make these kinds of announcements it starts as "NATO" soldiers, and then hours later we get the word it was Canadians.

This is probably because Brit soldiers are identified as such immediately, as are US forces. And the only NATO forces fighting are ours.

The rest are lazing away getting suntans in the north.

jdobbin · April 11, 2007

Two more Canadians soldiers killed today a CP report says.

Two more Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan according to reports.
The news comes the same day bodies of six Canadian soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan last Sunday are to arrive in Trenton, Ont. The Department of National Defence would not immediately confirm the reports.

Earlier Wednesday, military officials reported ten Afghan civilians were injured when a suicide car bomber targeted a Canadian military convoy west of Kandahar city.

Details seem sketchy at this point.

PolyNewbie · April 11, 2007

I was at a monetary refrm meeting last night. The leader, a 90 + year old that has been all over the world and lived through the wars and studied them said it was a shame that Harper compared these deaths to the ones at Vimy Ridge.

These guys are being used to fight a war for opium and a pipeline that will keep Europeans and Russians from getting energy. In a sense Haliburton will be able to push them intio a corner. Its a banker/Haliburton war.

There is no virtue in this war. We as taxpayers need to stand up. Its not the soldiers that will die for it that should take responsibilty. If I was a soldier I would be angry at the public and the bought off corporate whore politicians. I feel bad for them and obligated to protest against this criminal war.

jdobbin · April 12, 2007

Two more NATO soldiers killed in Afghanistan. No report on their nationality yet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18075391/

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Roadside bombs struck two NATO convoys in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday and killed two soldiers hours after an airstrike by the U.S.-led coalition killed at least 35 militants in the south, officials said.
The NATO convoys were patrolling five miles apart when they were hit by roadside bombs within 30 minutes of each other, the statement said. In addition to the two dead, one NATO soldier was wounded. NATO did not identify the killed and injured soldiers but most alliance soldiers in the east are American.

jdobbin · April 13, 2007

A NATO soldier is killed in a firefight in southern Afghanistan.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/afghan_violence

NATO says a firefight in southern Afghanistan has left one NATO soldier dead and two others injured.
NATO says the two injured soldiers are being treated in a military hospital. An alliance statement does not give the nationality of the soldiers or provide any other details on the clash.

Canadian officials in Kandahar said Friday that Canadian soldiers were not involved.

It certainly look like Taliban activity is increasing in the area. As long as Pakistan continues to be a threat, I don't see how the region can be secured.

jdobbin · April 13, 2007

Meanwhile, Canada will buy and lease tanks from Germany and Holland.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070412/...l/nato_o_connor

I certainly hope the mothballed tanks we are buying are not useless from a operations standpoint.

We keep buying equipment that was mothballed and has huge problems getting operational.

Rue · April 13, 2007

Harper and McKay really need to get on the ball and inform Canadians why we're there, and why we can't leave.

I think many Canadians don't have a clue that to maintain your countries current freedoms and democracy comes at a PRICE.

While it is true IMO that Canada's interest in Afghanistan should possibly be limited to a peace keeping role but world pressures demand otherwise.

These pressures dictate Canada take a more active (combat) role in maintaining Western ideologies and standards especially when asked to do so as an ally.

I have no problem understanding this as a Canadian and also realize that perhaps we should have been in Iraq right from the start.

If you don't wish to support and possibly die for your country, I really don't know why you want to live in a country like Canada.

I agree with your sentiments although I would not go as far as you did with the last sentence. I do not question people's loyalty to Canada because they question why we are there and do not want us there.

I personally believe our reason for being there is because we are trying to defend a way of life other then fundamentalist terrorism.

Is that unrealistic? Maybe. From a tactical point of veiw I do not believe using conventional armies to fight terrorists makes sense. I have said it before and I will say it again. I do not believe in using conventional armies as anti-terrorist units. I believe in creating small, fast moving, highly trained commando units that go in and out quickly after destroying their targets.

I believe the idea we can use our troops as a visible symbol of cultural imperialism does nothing but make them siting ducks for terrorists. We have to resist the arrogant Christian missionary tendency of Canada to think we can go to such countries and proseltyze people with our Tim Hotons values.

Our soldiers are not Christian crusaders but that is what they have been turned into and its b.s. This is not a war where your army will win people's hearts and souls by handing out maple leaf flags. Aint gonna happen.

Its time to grow up. You want to deal with terrorists stop f..cking around with these modern day cultural missionary crusade concepts. Create elite, fast moving commando units-get in and out, and yes move not just in Afghanistan but whereever the terrorists go-Pakistan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Sudan. Terrorists hide behind boders. The war against them must ignore borders. Legally the UN needs to create an anti-terrorist commando operation that is empowered on behalf of all nations, to do what it has to do to take out terrorists. This is not about using conventional armies as police or political agents.

It is about using commando units for a specific and deadly purpose.

Of course what I say will never happen. For starters the UN is a gutless apologist for terrorist nations. Secondly, politicians can't get credit and get votes for a world anti-terror commando organization.

Finally I talk a lot, but I am the first to say, since I am not dying and my life is not on the line, all my talk is just my opinion and it means f...ck all since I am not dying and the Canadian soldiers over their make it possible for me to be able to spew off like I do. I have my opinions, but that is all they are. know they are shared by some soldiers I have spoken with while others think its too impractical.

What I will say is, as long as the troops are there and dying I will respect what they are doing and I am grateful for it as much as I hate seeing them die. I also agree with Argus that until we clearly define what the f..ck we are doing, it will continue to be a confusing continuing series of soldiers dying and Canadians repeating the word "eh?".

scribblet · April 13, 2007

Excellent post Rue. If we cut and run now all those lives will have been lost for nothing, but having said that, how long can we stay there and what will happen if we pull out now or another year or so? IMO when we leave, the Taliban will be back.

It appears that these deaths are a political gift to the those who oppose the Afghanistan mission; they now have a larger propoganda cudgel with which to oppose the mission. at Least Layton is supporting them: http://www.ndp.ca/page/5121

Maybe a question we should be asking is, how far can we go to protect human rights abuses, particularly as we know what will happen to the women should the Taliban take over again. Knowing that, should we respect their national sovereignityand ignore the abuses; and in that case why bother with any other abuses around the world e.g. Sudan. Should we no longer be part of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

ScottSA · April 13, 2007

I think that most people were convinced that the country was being used as a safe haven for al Qaeda attacks on the rest of the world. You disagree?
You have evidence of that?

I think this is in the realm of what is known as "common knowledge". It's the sort of thing that occurs when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence...like that the WTC fell down because planes ran into it.