Afghanistan

[jbg]

Stephen Harper has proven to be totally inept in this matter.

JBG, your comments are no better, your country is losing a war, and you wish to suggest that we turn a blind eye, follow some American policies, and lose this one too.

No thanks.

I'm suggesting that the West is at war. The sooner we realize this isn't a game of "Risk" the better off we are.

[jdobbin]

I'm suggesting that the West is at war. The sooner we realize this isn't a game of "Risk" the better off we are.

I don't think there is any doubt that we are at war. I still don't know how far you want to go in fighting that war.

[jbg]

I'm suggesting that the West is at war. The sooner we realize this isn't a game of "Risk" the better off we are.

I don't think there is any doubt that we are at war. I still don't know how far you want to go in fighting that war.

I would modify present strategy. Try a few years of going in, knocking off insurgent leaders, imams, etc., then getting out. If that doesn't get them the message, pull the gloves and incinterate Mecca during the Hajj.

[chezfiero]

War paralyzes your courage and deadens the spirit of true manhood. It degrades and stupefies with the sense that you are not responsible, that 'tis not yours to think and reason why, but to do and die,' like the hundred thousand others doomed like yourself. War means blind obedience, unthinking stupidity, brutish callousness, wanton destruction, and irresponsible murder.

[madmax]

How can an Afgan in Afganistan be an insurgent?

Here is the definition of "insurgency". The insurgent is trying to overthrow the government. Hamid Karzai is facing open insurgency from the Taliban and their allies.

From Wiki

An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority. Persons engaging in insurgency are called insurgents, and typically engage in regular or guerrilla combat against the armed forces of the established regime, or conduct sabotage and harassment in the land in order to undermine the government's position as leader; the government established by an invading force counts as "collaborators", not "established authority".

How come the P.M. never comes on national television and tells us the game plan ? any game plan.

Stephen Harper wanted us in Iraq. Luckily his limited knowledge and bad judgement didn't prevail. However, Paul Martin, decided he wanted to go with General Hilliers opinion to join with American Forces and engage in counter insurgency. I don't believe Martin understood what was going on, and was acting to appease George Bush. Clearly the Canadian Forces weren't ready for such an engagement beyond the limited participation of Canadian Forces Personel up to this point.

Stephen Harper, once in power, chomped at the bit and also didn't have a very good grasp of the situation, because this would have been his time to have a 2nd look at what we were committing towards. Perhaps he figured, that this could all be done on the fly, and we could get this right before Afghan Public Opinion turned against us. I believe he most certainly didn't understand that the Taliban uses propoganda to play for the hearts and minds of the Afghan, and that many Taliban and friends and relatives, thus for each killed Taliban, or each innocent killed, we will have more anger directed at us, then at the Taliban.

Stephen Harper has come out with a game plan. The mission is extended, he is doing his best to get proper equipment for the troops. I don't believe he understands the reconstruction side, or the need for this to progress as fast. I actually wonder, hearing him talk if he has any understanding of Afghanistan at all.

He only seems to talk in bogus rhetoric and doesn't talk about Afghanistan as clearly and thoroughly as many of the people here whom have served abroad.

The actual test in Afghanistan to determine if the current policy is a success, is to establish if the Taliban are growing or reducing in numbers. So far, since the 2001 route, it appears that the Taliban have regrouped, and grown in size, stature and boldness. I don't believe the proper effort was put forth by the United States after the toppling of the Taliban. This is because George Bush dropped the ball, directed all of his effort to create a war with Iraq. This too has had repurcussions in Afghanistan, as foreign jihadists have come to join either the Taliban or Al Qaida.

So where is Stephen Harper on such a complex insurgency, in which many in the military suggest will continue for decades?

Harper behaves like many CPC supporters here. RAH RAH RAH, and that's about it.

The good thing for Canadian Forces is that they are receiving some long overdue equipment and after being shamed and embarrassed the government initiated programs to to take care of the Canadian Forces when they returned home. Something that wasn't on Harpers mind IIRC.

[madmax]

Stephen Harper has proven to be totally inept in this matter.

JBG, your comments are no better, your country is losing a war, and you wish to suggest that we turn a blind eye, follow some American policies, and lose this one too.

No thanks.

I'm suggesting that the West is at war. The sooner we realize this isn't a game of "Risk" the better off we are.

I am suggesting that it is a good thing you are a lawyer and not a military strategist.

[jdobbin]

I would modify present strategy. Try a few years of going in, knocking off insurgent leaders, imams, etc., then getting out. If that doesn't get them the message, pull the gloves and incinterate Mecca during the Hajj.

Insurgent leaders are already knocked off. One was killed today in Afghanistan.

Is Mecca leading the attacks?

[madmax]

I would modify present strategy. Try a few years of going in, knocking off insurgent leaders, imams, etc., then getting out. If that doesn't get them the message, pull the gloves and incinterate Mecca during the Hajj.

Are you suggesting Canadian Forces do this or the Pakistan Government which shelters/turns a blind eye towards militant Islam?

As for incinerating Mecca during the Hajj. Canada has no means realistic means to achieve such action. Neither morally nor militarily.

Are you suggesting that US policy goes beyond that of what Israel is prepared and capable of doing, should it ever find it necessary?

[chezfiero]

"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active service in the country's most agile military force, the Marines. I served in all ranks from second lieutenant to major general. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

"Thus I helped make Mexico, and especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. "I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the raping of half-a-dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers and Co. in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras 'right' for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel that I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three city districts. The Marines operated on three continents."

—Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler (former Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps), Common Sense, November 1935

Do you actually believe anything has changed, I hope in time you will see that you are what "the racket" want and need you to be. Good work!!

[madmax]

Insurgent leaders are already knocked off. One was killed today in Afghanistan.

Is Mecca leading the attacks?

No, and this would be wrong to put out there as there are what a billion Muslims? I don't see them all engaged in Wahabbism and militant Islam.

However the close allies of the US supported by the US in policy. Pakistans ISI and Saudi Arabia, spread their brand of Islam. The Taliban later adopted as this brand of extremism as a means to bring stability to the country.

[madmax]

—Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler (former Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps), Common Sense, November 1935

Do you actually believe anything has changed, I hope in time you will see that you are what "the racket" want and need you to be. Good work!!

I know of the quote. I also understand that you are engaging in one dimensional propoganda.

[chezfiero]

I know of the quote. I also understand that you are engaging in one dimensional propoganda.

k.

[jbg]

War paralyzes your courage and deadens the spirit of true manhood. It degrades and stupefies with the sense that you are not responsible, that 'tis not yours to think and reason why, but to do and die,' like the hundred thousand others doomed like yourself. War means blind obedience, unthinking stupidity, brutish callousness, wanton destruction, and irresponsible murder.

Slogans and rhetoric. On a par with "Where Have All the Flowers Gone" (by Pete Seeger) as a guide to policy.

If the enemy had such peaceful views, the world would be a different place. It doesn't. They want us dead.

[chezfiero]

The enemy is America.

[kimmy]

The enemy is America.

Whose enemy?

-k

[madmax]

The enemy is America.

The topic is Afghanistan. You want to hear yourself speak, start a thread dedicated to your views. It would be wise to make an effort to place it in the appropriate forum.

It won't be very long before you are tuned out, if you go off topic.

[jbg]

The enemy is America.

The topic is Afghanistan. You want to hear yourself speak, start a thread dedicated to your views. It would be wise to make an effort to place it in the appropriate forum.

It won't be very long before you are tuned out, if you go off topic.

Thanks Madmax. I know you and I rarely see eye to eye, but its good to see someone standing up to America Derangement Syndrome.

[Black Dog]

I am fast losing patience with a mentality that seems to require that the West fight with one or two hands tied behind their backs, i.e. under rules that guarantee that they lose. If we fought under anything like Taliban rules, the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan would be long over.

I cannot believe we are humiliating ourselves in the pages of mass media, even flagellating ourselves, over the treatment of people who, in a minute, would indiscriminately slaughter any "infidel" or even Muslim of slightly differing beliefs. These lands are not chaotic, dictatorial and dangerous because of the depradations of George W. Bush, Israel or Stephen Harper.

Self-destruction might be the interest of some on this Board. Not mine.

I dub thee Sir Cut'n'Paste.

[Black Dog]

I am fast losing patience with a mentality that seems to require that the West fight with one or two hands tied behind their backs, i.e. under rules that guarantee that they lose. If we fought under anything like Taliban rules, the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan would be long over.

In addition to being unoriginal, it's also a false choice. And I find it interesting that you see the very standards we're obstenibly defending as a handicap. Worse, you seem to think we can simply discard those standards of behaviour that confer a level of moral superiority upon us whenever they become inconvienient (and yet it's the "left" who are called "self-haters") Finally, and we've gone over this a few times before (notably here) , you're obfustication and prevarication when put on the spot over what "taking the gloves off" (or whatever euphamism you're using that day) actually entails speaks volumes about how your secret desires would make you appear.

[Army Guy]

I'm assuming the "rules" we are talking about are the Genva convention. one could argue that the convention is a handicap to a certain piont, when the other side is not expected to follow the same guide lines...It all boils down to what we as the people are willing to do or accept to win the conflict.

We as a nation have thrown down the gloves sort to speak in the past, some good examples do exist in WWII. That being said it would take a major event for our nation to cross that line again. As for Afgan this will not happen, we are much closer to quiting than we are to throwing out the convention.

But for what little advantage breaking the conventions would give us in afgan i don't think it would be a winning statagy. and in my opinion would actually do more harm than good. As the russians found out.

[Remiel]

I would modify present strategy. Try a few years of going in, knocking off insurgent leaders, imams, etc., then getting out. If that doesn't get them the message, pull the gloves and incinterate Mecca during the Hajj.

You really are a maniac, jbg. Way to start a REAL Holy War. Hitler would be proud.

[Keepitsimple]

Posted to wrong topic.

[Catchme]

It seems Jack Layton is by far the most in tune, honest and aware politician in Ottawa. He was soundly derided last year because of his suggestions of negotiations. Yet a year later we have this:

Afghan senate calls for direct talks with Taliban

The senate, the upper house of the Afghan parliament, also urged Western troops in the U.S.-led coalition and Afghan forces to halt the hunt for Taliban fighters and other militants.

The motion comes at a time of rising public discontent with the government of President Hamid Karzai over civilian casualties at the hands of Western troops, corruption and the failure to turn billions of dollars in aid into better livelihoods.

The senate motion calling for "direct negotiations with the concerned Afghan sides in the country" was passed by an overwhelming majority and now goes to Karzai, who has in the past failed in efforts to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table.

It follows a controversial law offering an amnesty from war crimes committed over nearly three decades of civil war.

Former cabinet minister Wadir Safi, now a political scientist at Kabul University, said the vote was a positive step, but added friction within Karzai's government over how to reach out to the Taliban needed to be resolved before peace talks could start.

"Talking to the Taliban and other opponents should be a must, for without it the crisis will go on and on," he said, adding a way should be found to include them in the government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070508/wl_nm/afghan_dc

Now don't those people who derided him look like the fools they are!

[jbg]

Finally, and we've gone over this a few times before (notably here) , you're obfustication and prevarication when put on the spot over what "taking the gloves off" (or whatever euphamism you're using that day) actually entails speaks volumes about how your secret desires would make you appear.

Why not just flat out call me a liar? Afraid it would offend Greg?

I am not a military man, and frankly I'm not sure what "taking the gloves off" would entail. All that I know is that the choice of "us or them" is not a false choice. And the choice is obvious.

If they want to butcher each other in the desert of some fine distinction of what Mohamed really meant, fine with me. It's not OK with me if that dispute hits the skyscrapers of New York City or the discoteques of Tel Aviv, or the night clubs of Bali.

[Catchme]

Race baiting JBG?

Because it has been pointed out to you that your broad brushing of all Arabs is a non-starter. Israel has all kinds of treaties with Arab nations.

The reality is Palestine, and they had not a thing to do with 911. Nor did Afghanistan or Iraq.