Afghanistan

[Argus]

U.S. soldier killed as base in Eastern Afghanistan attacked.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060916/ap_on_...d_afghanistan_3

Are you enjoying your roll as harbinger of death? I mean, just what is your point here? Do you eagerly scan the news every night looking for a death in Afghanistan and then leap up going "Yeaahh!' run past your startled mom back down to the basement to post the link?

[jdobbin]

Are you enjoying your roll as harbinger of death? I mean, just what is your point here? Do you eagerly scan the news every night looking for a death in Afghanistan and then leap up going "Yeaahh!' run past your startled mom back down to the basement to post the link?

I'd prefer if things were quiet there actually.

[Wilber]

Are you enjoying your roll as harbinger of death? I mean, just what is your point here? Do you eagerly scan the news every night looking for a death in Afghanistan and then leap up going "Yeaahh!' run past your startled mom back down to the basement to post the link?

I'd prefer if things were quiet there actually.

Who wouldn't except the Taliban?

[jdobbin]

Who wouldn't except the Taliban?

Who were cleaned out of Panjawi in June and now again in September.

How many provinces of Afghanistan do Taliban cross that are supposed to be covered by NATO allies to reach Kandahar time and time again?

[jdobbin]

Newsweek has an extensive story on Afghanistan this week.

Basically, the article says that the Taliban operate freely in much of the country as well as Pakistan.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/

Karzai today blamed the Iraq War for redirecting money that could have brought peace to the region.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/

It is hard to argue that he is incorrect in his assessment.

[KrustyKidd]

jdobbin

Newsweek has an extensive story on Afghanistan this week.

Basically, the article says that the Taliban operate freely in much of the country as well as Pakistan.

From the article;

The Rise of Jihadistan

Five years after the Afghan invasion, the Taliban are fighting back hard, carving out a sanctuary where they—and Al Qaeda's leaders—can operate freely.

So, you didn't provide an opinion to complete your post so I take it that you are either unaware of the problem Jihadism poses to the west (and east), you think we should send more troops to stop them or, simply allow them to take over again. Which is it please?

Karzai today blamed the Iraq War for redirecting money that could have brought peace to the region.

Peace with Saddam not under sanctions. His idea of peace is understandably localized.

[jdobbin]

So, you didn't provide an opinion to complete your post so I take it that you are either unaware of the problem Jihadism poses to the west (and east), you think we should send more troops to stop them or, simply allow them to take over again. Which is it please?

Peace with Saddam not under sanctions. His idea of peace is understandably localized.

If Canada or Europe had more than 2000 troops, they'd have been committed last week.

Quite frankly, they probably needed a much larger force when they first invaded and aid comparable to what Iraq has gotten so far. This is when I supported the mission. It really looked like a difference could be made.

Now, I don't think the U.S. among other countries is really committed to it. Canada can't really protect an entire country from one province. You think that we can?

For this reason, I see more of the country coming more under the influence of the Taliban.

[killjoy]

The mission in Afghanistan has never changed. The story the media has been telling has changed.

The story the media tells us about the mission changed 180 degrees immediately after our government changed. That's the double truth, Ruth. That's all there is to it. Bottom line. No argument. No "kinda-sorta" about it.

The media story under the Liberal government:

"Our gallant beloved Canadian soldiers ran the evil Taliban out and are providing peace and security for Afghans while handing out candy and making the world a better place."

24 hours after Harper won the election the media story changed to this:

"We are risking our gallant young soldiers on a doomed mission put forth by the Evil Bush Empire to conquer the worlds oil supplies. We can never provide security for Afghanistan. Harper is a Bush puppet and has led us into another Vietnam. Historically Afghanistan has never been occupied (self-evident mistruth since they were being occupied insidiously by Pakistan elements). We are only bringing death and destruction onto a poor defenseless people for the cause of profit."

There is no argument here. No debate. That's the way it went and frankly anyone who can't see that is either: lying, wasn’t ever paying attention to begin with, or incredibly stupid.

As I pointed out: we all like to think of ourselves as free thinkers and intelligent people but the media tells you what your opinion is and because it takes too much time and effort to truly get all the information on the subject people just lap it up. Those were the two 180 degree different stories being told and they coincide with the 180-degree change in popular opinion about the mission.

In other words there is no other conclusion to come to besides the one that accurately points out that the media controls your opinion. Oh – that and they lie for a living – MUCH more than any politician does.

.

[jdobbin]

The mission in Afghanistan has never changed. The story the media has been telling has changed.

I think the length of time the mission will be keeps changing. If Harper believes this will be a permanent operation akin to Canada being in Europe after World War 2, I think some people would like to know now rather than wait until 2010.

[killjoy]

From day one anyone in a PR position to speak about the mission has indeed white washed or purposely made the claimed expected duration ambiguous. This is true, but not the fault of the mission itself.

IOW I agree with that perception. I, and in all ways that count NATO, have never considered that the mission has changed because the mission overall is based on objectives met, not time. Whereas "how long" is often the only concern back home.

.

[jdobbin]

Whereas "how long" is often the only concern back home.

That is often how long it has been sold to Canadians though. A tour of duty is annouunced and its location but we're not often told that there will be extensions to it. Nor are the objectives all that clear.

Harper is only just the latest leader to have a hard time explaining the situation. It actually took Karzai to lay it out better on the table. And even he said on Sunday that the Americans were diverted too soon from the task and did not do enough to ensure stability and safety.

[killjoy]

jdobbin, nothing about your last post I can really disagree with except:

And even he said on Sunday that the Americans were diverted too soon from the task and did not do enough to ensure stability and safety.

Well naturally he wants as much support as he can get and it's his job as leader of his country to do or even say whatever he can to get it. More troops would be nice this is true but his assesment of whether or not the Americans diverted too soon is moot here (although there is credence to it) simply because its just a politicians way of asking for more troops.

.

[watching&waiting]

I am a little amused and mostly in doubt about just what and where people think Canada has an obligation to do. This is a UN sanctioned NATO mission, and we are only part of the contingency that is deployed there. Now considering we only had 58,000 members in our armed forces and maybe 10 % were battle trained soldiers, are we expected to pick up the slack when the call for more troops comes? We will have about 2500 troops there and half will be support troops. We need to be able to rotate our troops from front lines etc, so that can take breaks in the fighting. So we have approx 1/8 of our fighting troops in Afghanistan. We have other world operations as well but that is mostly peace keeping. We could probably double our commitment of troops and armour, but then we would have very little left here in Canada to protect our own land.

I am all for Harper increasing the size of our forces to appr 85,000, and the recent equipment purchases. I no longer feel I have to be ashamed of the way our military were treated by the Liberals. Things had gotten so bad that when NATO came to call on us for our support we had to hitch hike rides to get there. The soldiers have done a brilliant job over in Afghanistan and they deserve a country that supports them at all levels. The question of how long never can be said in these things. In WWII did anyone know how long that war would go on? I think Harpers answer of "we have committed so far to 2009, but we intend to be there until the job is finished" is a very good answer and an honest one. I just wish the CPC had some more charismatic speakers in their midst, to better explain these things. Also you must see that many even though they know the answer are playing dumb, because of politics. I myself will take issue with alot of the things being said here in the media. To me they sit on the border of being a traitor, when they spout publicly about this war can never be won and why are we there, also we need to pull out immediately. This same stuff if said during WWII would have got you jailed for being a traitor and if said in the front lines you would have been shot as a traitor. How times have changed

Canada should be in Afghanistan as the Taliban needed to be ousted and the same with Al Queda. The job there is not finished and we need even more support for our troops for that to be done. I will do all in my power to make that goal achieved. I truly believe that CPC will again be elected and will have a majority within the next year. I would hate to think what Liberals would do in this situation, but it is evident to me it would not be something I would be proud of.

[killjoy]

jdobbin:

That is often how long it has been sold to Canadians though. A tour of duty is annouunced and its location but we're not often told that there will be extensions to it. Nor are the objectives all that clear.

<<None of the following is directed at you, no big whoop, just coffee talk>>

You know what's ironic about our society and the media right now? The government (any government) has the reputation for lying to meet an objective or to sway opinion and yet the media never gets seriously accused of it (or accusations that they are never taken seriously), in fact they have this stereotype, if you will, that they are always seeking the truth and "tracking down the tough stories" or "telling it like it is", and yet I personally guarantee the straight press releases from DND, NATO and even the most of the time the US State Department are far more accurate, devoid of exaggeration or propaganda/rhetoric. They generally release straight level-headed and measured information.

The funny thing about those departments, ironic to popular perception, is they (almost) never lie. They may withhold information; they may neither confirm or deny; They may even say "we are not aware" if asked a sensitive question about something they do not want to admit they know, but they never (yep, never) call an elephant a Woolly Mammoth; or label a tabby a tiger; or refer to a couple of rocket attacks as a 'Taliban offensive'; when there's a battle they do not include insurgent elements (Iraq) or Taliban as part and parcel to any civilian casualties to push those numbers higher and make them sound worse.

What kind of society are we living in where the media releases 90% grade 'A' B.S., while our fascist imperial masters release 90% accuracy?

.

[Wilber]

I think 85,000 is minimum number for a country this size if it wants to command some respect in the world and live up to it's self styled status as a so called middle power. 58,000 was pretty pathetic. You could take every soldier, sailor and airman the country had and not fill Skydome or BC Place.

[M.Dancer]

I think 85,000 is minimum number for a country this size if it wants to command some respect in the world and live up to it's self styled status as a so called middle power. 58,000 was pretty pathetic. You could take every soldier, sailor and airman the country had and not fill Skydome or BC Place.

I can remember when our forces had more than 100,000 .......The question is: how willing are able bodied young canadians to take the challenge? Hoiw willing are canadians to foot the bill?

You can have low taxes

You can have a large military

But you can't have a lrge military and low taxes unless you want to take the US route and pass the bill to the next generation.

[Remiel]

Number of truths versus lies is not an exact measure of truthfullness though. It doesn't take into account whether a person or group lies when it is most important to tell the truth, or if they only tell the truth when it doesnt hurt to tell the truth, which may be most of the time.

[Wilber]

I think 85,000 is minimum number for a country this size if it wants to command some respect in the world and live up to it's self styled status as a so called middle power. 58,000 was pretty pathetic. You could take every soldier, sailor and airman the country had and not fill Skydome or BC Place.

I can remember when our forces had more than 100,000 .......The question is: how willing are able bodied young canadians to take the challenge? Hoiw willing are canadians to foot the bill?

You can have low taxes

You can have a large military

But you can't have a lrge military and low taxes unless you want to take the US route and pass the bill to the next generation.

Not so, you just spend less on something else. Our taxes are not lower than when we had a 100,000 man military. If you are going to talk the talk on an international stage you have to walk the walk to be taken seriously.

I think many young Canadians will be willing to take the challenge if you give them something that they can really be proud of and they know has real support from their country, not just lip service as they have for the past 30 years.

[Durgan]

I think 85,000 is minimum number for a country this size if it wants to command some respect in the world and live up to it's self styled status as a so called middle power. 58,000 was pretty pathetic. You could take every soldier, sailor and airman the country had and not fill Skydome or BC Place.

It is a pretty sad state of affairs when status of a country is determined by the size of its military. All the money spend to the military is money that could be used for useful purposes. Military spending is a bottomless pit, and those that attempt to fill it are wrong-headed and creates misery for its citizens. No nation ever had an army large enough to guarantee it against attack in time of peace or insure it victory in time of war. - President Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933)

May I remind the readers that NATO was the organization that was supposed to take on the Russian Juggernaut for about 40 years. If a few Taliban has NATO at a standstill in little Afghanistan, it is a dammed good thing the Russians didn't attack, or we would all be learning their funny alphabet by now.

If the US unilaterally withdrew from the conflict in Afghanistan, the NATO Groups left would be mince-meat in short order. The US air umbrella protecst NATO's ass.

I suggest this is a NATO mission on paper only, and countries of the much touted NATO alliance has no stomach for this mission. If you doubt this look up the numbers. The leitmotif of this being a NATO sponsored mission is used to add some mysterious legitimacy to this mission.

Our country is now geared to an arms economy, bred in an artifically induced psychosis of war hysteria, and an incessant propaganda of fear. General Douglas MacArthur 1952

I suggest Harper and many other unthinking Canadian's are falling into the actions of the above quote.

Lets hope this psychosis due to unrelenting propaganda doesn't encompass Canada. Afghanistan is the wrong war in the wrong place and the wrong motive, whatever that is.

Durgan.

[killjoy]

Our country is now geared to an arms economy, bred in an artifically induced psychosis of war hysteria, and an incessant propaganda of fear. General Douglas MacArthur 1952

I suggest Harper and many other unthinking Canadian's are falling into the actions of the above quote.

How does the above quote/metaphor connect with Canada in any way considering the current crisis? 'Arms economy'? What arms economy? 'Psychosis of war hysteria'?

The way I see it the "psychosis of war hysteria" or the "propaganda of fear" isn't coming from people who support the mission. Quite the opposite.

.

[Durgan]

Our country is now geared to an arms economy, bred in an artifically induced psychosis of war hysteria, and an incessant propaganda of fear. General Douglas MacArthur 1952

I suggest Harper and many other unthinking Canadian's are falling into the actions of the above quote.

How does the above quote/metaphor connect with Canada in any way considering the current crisis? 'Arms economy'? What arms economy? 'Psychosis of war hysteria'?

The way I see it the "psychosis of war hysteria" or the "propaganda of fear" isn't coming from people who support the mission. Quite the opposite..

Really? We must be reading different material.

Durgan.

[jdobbin]

One the thing that I have been worried about in Afgahinstan is the subject of detainees. Even Canadian soldiers have said that Afghans have been brutal with prisoners. But what about allied soldiers?

This came out on Sunday. It is about detainess in 2003.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ld/15597965.htm

I have no idea what happens to detainees now but nearly every village Canada visits asks about people the U.S. took before Canada arrived. It has become an increasing irritant to the local population not having any information at all.

Hopefully, Canada will not be suffer from this anger. You have to ask though: what happened tp prisoners Canada apprehended and handed over to the U.S.? Do we even keep track of that? Should we?

[watching&waiting]

The Afghani people have an elected government and they have an army and police forces. While these may not be the strongest aspect oof their society, I would imagine that they should be capable of imprisoning prisoners of war. I do not believe that Canada should be handing over prisoners to the USA. Since we have soldiers in Afghanistan that are helping to train police and army units, it would also be good to let these guys also run POW camps. This way there would be no removal of these prisoners to Cuba or any of the other hidden prisons run by the CIA. Also since the Afghan army is now only 35,000 strong we should be maybe looking at finding volunteers that would like to join and maybe double its size. I am not sure of the size of the police forces there but we also need that to be raised as well. I think when people are now seeing that there can be change that is good, we will see more and more Afghani peope volunteer for the services. This way we will be building towards the day they are self sufficient.

[Wilber]

Our country is now geared to an arms economy, bred in an artifically induced psychosis of war hysteria, and an incessant propaganda of fear. General Douglas MacArthur 1952

I suggest Harper and many other unthinking Canadian's are falling into the actions of the above quote.

Lets hope this psychosis due to unrelenting propaganda doesn't encompass Canada. Afghanistan is the wrong war in the wrong place and the wrong motive, whatever that is.

Durgan.

In 2003 Canada was 15th in total dollars when it came to military spending. As a percentage of our GDP we were 128th. We've got a hell of a long way to go before we become "geared to an arms economy", unless you consider Brazil, Turkey, India and Australia arms geared economies. All of which spent more than us.

In 2004 Canada spent less than 10B US on defence. Those war mongering Ausies spent over 16B.

For a country which likes to think of itself as a world player we have been enjoying a free ride for years. The jig is up. The rest of the world has figured us out.

[killjoy]

Your point is well taken Wilber but it would also be useful to point out that no matter how much Canada spends on their military they will never be a "military industrial complex" or an "arms economy" without billion dollar corporations that make and sell weapons to the world and their own government.

That's the idea of a "industrial military complex" or an "Arms economy". The military is a part of your GNP industry not just something you spend taxes on; it's jobs by the thousand which is votes by the thousand; not just something you buy from other people. This is what McArthur was meant. Come to think of it I don’t think it was McArthur at all, I think it was Eisenhower, or at least he’s the one that coined the ‘military-industrial complex’ phrase.

.