"West won’t win Afghan war"

killjoy · September 18, 2006

lol!!

You must be done with everybody considering how easy it is.

I'll say it again as well, the article says something that you like so you believe it.

No back peddling to it, but nice try. Is that what happens on this forum? People fold and cry at the first sign of opposition?

.

killjoy · September 18, 2006

And spare me your Private Messages calling me a piece of lying sh!t gerryHattrick.

How old are you? 8?

.

Yaro · September 18, 2006

There is not a single place in that article that demonstrates a 'lie' or any aptitude for history, or any reason at all why the author should know what they're talking about. In fact his whole fantasy about Russian influence is completely off target and laughable.
The 'lie' comes from journalists who do their stories from hotel rooms, or worse yet, at two in the morning drunk in some bar in Toronto as this author did.

Fantasy about Russian influence? Your kidding right? your pretending to know something about the region while stating that there is no Russian influence? That's just embarrassing.

Delusional? Drunk?
Whatever the "rightwing" tactic is I'll bet it beats your tactic of discombobulating into an emotional and hysterical mess.

Do you really want to compare the records of the "right" and the "left" over the last 20 years? I really don't think you do, and you sure as hell don't want to compare the record in the middle east.

These are the same people who perpetuate the myth that the CIA created Osama, that the USA supported the Taliban and that the Taliban are "against" opium production.

How the hell is the link between the CIA and Osama a myth? What delusional corner of your mind have you managed to so distance from reality that you can say this with a straight face?

Please just stop talking like you have any knowledge of the area, do both yourself and everyone else a favor.

The Taliban were always made up of clans of Pashtun tribal warriors and a variety of mixed warlords and chieftains. In any event, it's just one opinion. I'm curious, though. What kind of a "think tank" has "offices" in Afghanistan? Not just one, but FOUR? Who is the "Senlis Council"? They have a spiffy web site, but I've never heard of them before. I can't find anything whatever on it's head, Emmanuel Reinert except with relation to the Senlis Council and Afghanistan. I can't find much of anything on the Senlis Council either, except the same claims regarding Afghanistan repeated in a variety of news media. If they existed five years ago I can't see where. And who is funding them? They have an agenda, obviously, and must have a lot of money if they have 'four offices in Afghanistan". Where does this money come from?

Where are you getting this information, the tribal warlords and the Taliban are competing factions who largely despise each other. This is as inane a fabrication as the whole Osama-Saddam conection. I won't defend the "Senlis Council" but the information you just stated are completely wrong. While I won't defend the "Senlis Council" the notion of the poppies being an important source of income for farmers working land largely incapable of even subsistence farming is hardly new or unique to this group.

B. Max · September 18, 2006

That article that Hatrick posted is about two months old. About the same time as NATO decided to kick the Taliban's ass. It's hard to claim that you are taking anything back when you are dying at the rate of anywhere from 30 to 200 per engagement. Guys like MARGOLIS have a long track record of Bush bashing and prey on peoples lack of patience. A serious flaw in todays society.

killjoy · September 18, 2006

Yaro

Fantasy about Russian influence? Your kidding right? your pretending to know something about the region while stating that there is no Russian influence?

Really? Show me. What Russian influence in the region that threatens Afghanistan? Even the think tank is making a theory and they admit it. If you're referring to the 1979 invasion well that would be just silly. Russian influence in the region is a straw man compared to the solid, concrete and documented influence by Pakistan and the ISI.

Do you really want to compare the records of the "right" and the "left" over the last 20 years? I really don't think you do, and you sure as hell don't want to compare the record in the middle east.

Your world is myopic is it? Mine isn't. I am neither Right nor Left and a comparison of the tactics of the Left and the Right over the past twenty years would be a simple exercise in scatology. What is your point? Gerry assumes I'm:

a: Right wing...after what? Viewing 2 of my posts that speak discouragingly about his source? "Critical thinking" at it's best I suppose.

b: accusing him of wanting the mission to fail when I simply point out that when people are presented with a story that is in line with their belief they are more likely to believe it and less likely to scrutinize it. You don't see the truth in that?

How the hell is the link between the CIA and Osama a myth? What delusional corner of your mind have you managed to so distance from reality that you can say this with a straight face?

Try to stop getting your information from "prisonplanet.com" or "infowars.com"

Allegations that the U.S. provided funding for bin Laden proved inaccurate
The United States did not "create" Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. The United States supported the Afghans fighting for their country's freedom -- as did other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK -- but the United States did not support the "Afghan Arabs," the Arabs and other Muslims who came to fight in Afghanistan for broader goals. CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen notes that the "Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding." He notes:

"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.

Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: "There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, ‘Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.'"

... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]

Al Qaeda's number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, confirmed that the "Afghan Arabs" did not receive any U.S. funding during the war in Afghanistan. In the book that was described as his last will, Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, which was serialized in December 2001 in Al-Sharq al-Awsat, al-Zawahiri says the Afghan Arabs were funded with money from Arab sources, which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars:

"While the United States backed Pakistan and the mujahidin factions with money and equipment, the young Arab mujahidin's relationship with the United States was totally different."

"... The financing of the activities of the Arab mujahidin in Afghanistan came from aid sent to Afghanistan by popular organizations. It was substantial aid."

"The Arab mujahidin did not confine themselves to financing their own jihad but also carried Muslim donations to the Afghan mujahidin themselves. Usama Bin Ladin has apprised me of the size of the popular Arab support for the Afghan mujahidin that amounted, according to his sources, to $200 million in the form of military aid alone in 10 years. Imagine how much aid was sent by popular Arab organizations in the non-military fields such as medicine and health, education and vocational training, food, and social assistance ...."

"Through the unofficial popular support, the Arab mujahidin established training centers and centers for the call to the faith. They formed fronts that trained and equipped thousands of Arab mujahidin and provided them with living expenses, housing, travel and organization." (Al-Sharq al-Awsat, December 3, 2001, Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), GMP20011202000401)

Abdullah Anas, an Algerian who was one of the foremost Afghan Arab organizers and the son-in-law of Abdullah Azzam, has also confirmed that the CIA had no relationship with the Afghan Arabs. Speaking on the French television program Zone Interdit on September 12, 2004, Anas stated:

"If you say there was a relationship in the sense that the CIA used to meet with Arabs, discuss with them, prepare plans with them, and to fight with them -- it never happened."

Milt Bearden served as the CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, where he was in charge of running the covert action program for Afghanistan. In his memoirs titled "The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA's Final Showdown with the KGB," Bearden says the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK were "major players" in the effort to aid the Afghans. Bearden writes:

"[President Jimmy] Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had in 1980 secured an agreement from the Saudi king to match American contributions to the Afghan effort dollar for dollar, and [Reagan administration CIA director] Bill Casey kept that agreement going over the years." (The Main Enemy, p. 219)

From 1983 to 1987, Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf was in charge of the Afghan Bureau of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which ran Pakistan's covert program to aid the Afghan mujahidin. In his book The Bear Trap: Afghanistan's Untold Story, Brigadier Yousaf confirms the matching U.S.-Saudi arrangement, stating:

"For every dollar supplied by the US, another was added by the Saudi Arabian government. The combined funds, running into several hundred million dollars a year, were transferred by the CIA to special accounts in Pakistan under the control of the ISI." (The Bear Trap, p. 81)

Bearden makes it clear that the CIA covert action program did not fund any Arabs or other Muslims to come to the jihad:

"Contrary to what people have come to imagine, the CIA never recruited, trained, or otherwise used Arab volunteers. The Afghans were more than happy to do their own fighting -- we saw no reason not to satisfy them on this point." (The Main Enemy, p. 243)

Marc Sageman worked closely with the Afghan mujahideen as one of Milt Bearden's case officers, from 1987 to 1989. In his book, Understanding Terror Networks, he writes:

"No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers. They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens. They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders. Their presence in Afghanistan was very small and they did not participate in any significant fighting." (Understanding Terror Networks, pp. 57-58.)

The Central Intelligence Agency has issued a statement categorically denying that it ever had any relationship with Osama bin Laden. It stated, in response to the hypothetical question "Has the CIA ever provided funding, training, or other support to Usama Bin Laden?":

"No. Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Usama Bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with Bin Laden (emphasis in original)."

In summary:

* U.S. covert aid went to the Afghans, not to the "Afghan Arabs."

* The "Afghan Arabs" were funded by Arab sources, not by the United States.

* United States never had "any relationship whatsoever" with Osama bin Laden.

* The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Arab backing for the "Afghan Arabs," and bin Laden's own decisions "created" Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, not the United States.

http://beijing.usembassy-china.org.cn/creating_laden.html

The CIA is not "Alias". Neither the the CIA or Osama ever needed each other for anything.

I don't know who you were addressing with this:

Where are you getting this information, the tribal warlords and the Taliban are competing factions who largely despise each other. This is as inane a fabrication as the whole Osama-Saddam conection. I won't defend the "Senlis Council" but the information you just stated are completely wrong. While I won't defend the "Senlis Council" the notion of the poppies being an important source of income for farmers working land largely incapable of even subsistence farming is hardly new or unique to this group.

...since I never said it.

Both you and gerry need to slow down. Speed kills and attacking people with this rabid pretense to knowledge of the area when in reality you simply regurgitate whatever 'prisonplanet.com' feeds you, and your pompus and false moral superiority is making you look bad.

Please just stop talking like you have any knowledge of the area, do both yourself and everyone else a favor.

Right back atcha kid.

.

killjoy · September 18, 2006

And as to the myth that the Taliban was against the poppy production:

The problem began with the Soviet invasion in 1979-80. As the government began to lose control of provinces, "warlordism" flourished and with it opium production as regional commanders searched for ways to generate money to purchase weapons, according to the UN.[2] (At this time the West was pursuing an "arms-length" supporting strategy of the Afghan freedom-fighters or Mujahidin, the main purpose being to cripple the USSR slowly into withdrawal rather than a quick and decisive overthrow).
When the Red Army was forced to withdraw in 1989, a power vacuum was created. Various Mujahidin factions started fighting against each other for power. With the discontinuation of Western support, they resorted ever more to poppy cultivation to finance their military existence.

Some local opium dealers, looking for a safe operational hub, joined forces with the more fanatic sections of the Mujahidin supported by Arab extremists like Osama bin Laden as well as the Pakistani secret intelligence service ISI to form the Taliban movement towards the end of 1994;[3] see also BBC report here [4].

The Taliban, having taken control of 90% of the country, actively encouraged poppy cultivation. With this, they not only fulfilled their promises and obligations to their partners - the regional mafia - but also increased their own desperately needed income by imposing taxes on local farmers and through subsidies by international organised crime gangs. According to the above UN source, Afghanistan saw a bumper opium crop of 4,600 million tonnes in 1999, which was the height of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

According to a Swiss security publication, 'SicherheitsForum' (April 2006, pp:56-57), this resulted in supply exceeding demand and a drop in the high-street price of heroin and morphine in the West, endangering the profitability of European drug smugglers. To stop this trend, Westerns international drug barons demanded a reduction in supply. The regional mafia instructed the Taliban accordingly. It is alleged in the report that, Obeying his financiers, Mullah Omar (the Taliban leader) issued a ban on poppy cultivation "on religious grounds", resulting in one of the lowest opium production levels in 2002. [5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Production_in_Afghanistan

Starting a poppy trade, increasing the opium production beyond what even the mob will deal with and then outlawing it when your mob bosses tell you to, since they write the cheques, is hardly "against the opium trade".

.

gerryhatrick · September 18, 2006

That article that Hatrick posted is about two months old. About the same time as NATO decided to kick the Taliban's ass.

The article is from yesterday. Do you see it someplace else with a 2 month old date on it?

Yaro · September 18, 2006

Really? Show me. What Russian influence in the region that threatens Afghanistan? Even the think tank is making a theory and they admit it. If you're referring to the 1979 invasion well that would be just silly. Russian influence in the region is a straw man compared to the solid, concrete and documented influence by Pakistan and the ISI.

Ahhh I get it you actually don't know anything about the region whatsoever. I have stated several times here that the influence of Pakistan is the reigning issue, I have stated this for months. However to state that there is no Russia influence is COMPLETELY ASSININE. There is a great deal of evidence that former elements of the Russian secret service, and there spetsnaz soldiers are heavily involved in feeding guerrilla efforts in Afghanistan. Its the cold war all over again and many Russians consider it payback. This isn't even questioned in intelligence circles. The fact that the influence isn't nearly so significant or unstoppable like the Pakistani influence doesn't make it non existent or well accepted.

Your world is myopic is it? Mine isn't. I am neither Right nor Left and a comparison of the tactics of the Left and the Right over the past twenty years would be a simple exercise in scatology. What is your point? Gerry assumes I'm:

a: Right wing...after what? Viewing 2 of my posts that speak discouragingly about his source? "Critical thinking" at it's best I suppose.

b: accusing him of wanting the mission to fail when I simply point out that when people are presented with a story that is in line with their belief they are more likely to believe it and less likely to scrutinize it. You don't see the truth in that?

OR

c: he read the following

Delusional? Drunk?
Whatever the "rightwing" tactic is I'll bet it beats your tactic of discombobulating into an emotional and hysterical mess.

...since I never said it.
Both you and gerry need to slow down. Speed kills and attacking people with this rabid pretense to knowledge of the area when in reality you simply regurgitate whatever 'prisonplanet.com' feeds you, and your pompus and false moral superiority is making you look bad.

That wasn't directed at you, it seems i mixed my responses unintentionally. My apologize for the mistake.

http://beijing.usembassy-china.org.cn/creating_laden.html

The CIA is not "Alias". Neither the the CIA or Osama ever needed each other for anything.

I don't know who you were addressing with this:

I get my information primarily from private sources, and if you think the US government is an acceptable source for information like this your mistaken. And just out of curiosity have you ever actually dealt with anyone from the CIA?

cybercoma · September 18, 2006

As for the "Senlis Council" they appear to be a group which lobbies for changes in global drug laws. This is where they are coming from. You'll find other reports of theirs recommending ways to change drug policy with regard to opium in Afghanistan, for example. I would be astonished, therefore, if they did not say that the present efforts at eradicating poppies was a miserable failure.

The disturbing portion of this report has nothing to do with eradicating poppies. The disturbing portion is the claim that the enemy has extended far beyond just the Taliban to include clans of Pashtuns tribal warriors and nationalist resistance forces.

And aliens from outerspace who take the form of high level government officials!!! *gasp*

killjoy · September 18, 2006

.

Wow, Yaro. You and Gerry take the cake. You're complete children. I say I'm not right wing, you say "Yes you are,naw naw naw".

Whatever. You and Gerry have completely gone off the deep end here. You're obviously the freaks of this forum.

However to state that there is no Russia influence is COMPLETELY ASSININE. There is a great deal of evidence that former elements of the Russian secret service, and there spetsnaz soldiers are heavily involved in feeding guerrilla efforts in Afghanistan.

Can't help but notice you don't have any of this "great deal of evidence". lol.

I get my information primarily from private sources, and if you think the US government is an acceptable source for information like this your mistaken. And just out of curiosity have you ever actually dealt with anyone from the CIA?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHA

Either you can back your shit up or you can't little girl. "And if you think the US government is a reliable blah blah blah"...HAHAHAAHHAHA! Hilarious I suppose you diddn't notice that each and every statement in that bit from the chineses embassy is from 10 DIFFERENT BOOKS WRITTEN BY THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE, YOU DORK, not just some "government statement". What a twit.

Just STFU kid. You don't know shit from "private sources" and If you can't accept anything that doesn't come from "infowars.com" or "prisonplanet.com" you're a brainwashed loss. You're not interested in dialog, you're just here to back up your girlfriend gerry

Bottom line is you don't know anything about it. You dind't know anything about Pakistan and you didn't know anything about the ISI or that the Taliban originated the opium, you were wrong about the CIA/Osama connection and now you're embarrased. You're just a kid looking for a fight.

.

Rue · September 18, 2006

The bottom line is trying to use a conventional army in engaged in conventional war to try fight a war with terrorists is doomed to strategic failure. Coventional armies are designed to fight conventional armies. They are not designed to be political police forces, civilian police forces, or non profit development agencies or social workers.

I personally believe the mistake was sending in conventional armed units. Nato should have sent in fast moving, small, elite trained commandoes, to hunt and kill terrorists but not stick around when they are done like sitting ducks in visible military posts.

I think it is assinine to engage in slow moving convoys or foot patrols making the troops sitting ducks.

This notion you can use the Canadian army as social workers to implement democracy and baby sit a puppet government can not work.

We have mixed up the notion of hunting and killing terrorists with being colonial importers of Western democracy.

I say stick to the anti-terrorist hunt and kill war with small elite commando units world-wide and forget this

colonial occupation nonsense.

That said, I support the soldiers. I just think the mission is politically retarded and was not thought out and I do not think for a second 2,500 Canadian troops can do what every other foreign occupier including the British and Russians failed to do. Even the Ghurkas, the world's best trained army could not win in Afghanistan.

Hunt and kill the terrorists, but never let them know when you are coming or going.

killjoy · September 18, 2006

I just think the mission is politically retarded and was not thought out and I do not think for a second 2,500 Canadian troops can do what every other foreign occupier including the British and Russians failed to do.

I agree. It isn't just Afghanistan either. If the people aren't willing there is no chance. As it is enough of the people want us there for the moment because if they wanted us out we couldn't stay, we'd have to run.

The region needs money and lots of it, and unfortunately they might not get it and that's a bad sign.

Production is every bit as important as destruction.

.

M.Dancer · September 18, 2006

I wonder how long it will take some people to realize that CAnada isn't trying to conquer afghansistan? That Britain ain't? that the US ain't? That NATO ain't?

I'm expecting a national epiphany any time now......it will be like.....

Wow Dude, Canada and Afghanistan are allies.......

theloniusfleabag · September 18, 2006

Dear killjoy,

These are the same people who perpetuate the myth that the CIA created Osama, that the USA supported the Taliban and that the Taliban are "against" opium production.

Perhaps the wording is a bit 'creative', but these are not outright 'myths'. The USA supported and funded many 'Anti-Western Islamic extremists', including people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and many of those who went on to form the Taliban.

As to opium production, it does appear that the 'Taliban' has changed their tune, but at one time they did outlaw it...

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/newsletter_2001..._1_page002.html

Following a ban on poppy cultivation issued by the head of the Taliban in July 2000, UNDCP was able to verify thousands of hectares of poppy-free land in February 2001.

A drop of at least 70,000 hectares of opium poppy is expected this year in Afghanistan following the Taliban's ban on poppy cultivation.

I had not heard that it was under the auspices of the 'drug lords to whom the Taliban were beholden', and from what I read it seems that this theory is purely speculative.

killjoy · September 18, 2006

theloniusfleabag

Y'know bud after the flurry of vicious childish PM's Ive been getting from Gerry (over absolutely nothing) and the childish attacks and BS bluster from Yaro I am so incredibly stunned -- knocked out flat on the floor -- by your simple, yet thought out and adult response, completely devoid of juvenile bile and outrageous assumptions of my character, that I simply don't have the heart to argue with you. Perhaps later we can take up the point about Osama and opium production, but for now I'm just going to leave it. I respect your opinion and I respect that you are able to change your opinion with changing information. I don't want to alienate what might very well be one of the few adults here (you) so I'm just going to say: You may have a point and good post!

Perhaps the wording is a bit 'creative', but these are not outright 'myths'. The USA supported and funded many 'Anti-Western Islamic extremists', including people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and many of those who went on to form the Taliban.

The key words there are "who went on to create the Taiban". I do not deny that the US supported the Muhjadeen, in fact it is part of my point that when the Red army feld their support stopped. There is, however, a division at this time between the Arab foriegn fighters and the Afghan fighters. This division is not highlighted nor believed by many but it was a serious division in their forces. Money came from two different major sources and went to two different parties. Osama was a nobody at this time.

I had not heard that it was under the auspices of the 'drug lords to whom the Taliban were beholden', and from what I read it seems that this theory is purely speculative.

Well there are a lot of things that are 'speculative' including the opinion piece from the "Sun", the think-tank it was based on and 100 myths about the region, the history and the CIA. Suffice to say I trust you will be able to find numerous sources that will cite that indeed the Taliban boosted opium production when they needed money for arms to the point that they were producing more than could be sold, and then suddenly stopped one day.

Thank you again for your adult response.

.

uOttawaMan · September 18, 2006

The word of the day is carefaceeeee.

Argus · September 18, 2006

I personally believe the mistake was sending in conventional armed units. Nato should have sent in fast moving, small, elite trained commandoes, to hunt and kill terrorists but not stick around when they are done like sitting ducks in visible military posts.

And these "elite trained commandos" would stay where when they weren't hunting the Taliban? Their supplies would come from where? Their air cover from where? Their hospital if they needed attention would be where?

You have to have bases. So the idea of doing away with them is silly. You also have to protect the infrastructure behind you. It doesn't do any good to send "elite commandos" into the boonies hunting Taliban while they're wandering up and down main street shooting the mayor and his various assistants, and blowing up schools and government buildings. Right now the Afghan army isn't reliably capable of preventing attacks and guarding infrastructure. So you need regular infantry. Besides, just how many "elite commandos" do you think the west has? I have no doubt they're operating in Afghanistan, but they can't be everywhere. There simply aren't enough of them.

That said, I support the soldiers. I just think the mission is politically retarded and was not thought out and I do not think for a second 2,500 Canadian troops can do what every other foreign occupier including the British and Russians failed to do. Even the Ghurkas, the world's best trained army could not win in Afghanistan.

We aren't fighting Afghanistan. We're fighting a small group of people there, along with a small group of religious fanatics from across the middle east who come there to kill and die.

gerryhatrick · September 18, 2006

We aren't fighting Afghanistan. We're fighting a small group of people there, along with a small group of religious fanatics from across the middle east who come there to kill and die.

If the report from this think tank is accurate the fight has expanded beyond just a small group of religious fanatics.

I find the report believable, but will say that we don't know the truth yet. The situation is in flux and will become more apparent in time.

gerryhatrick · September 21, 2006

I wonder how long it will take some people to realize that CAnada isn't trying to conquer afghansistan?

Which people? The Afghanis?

If they are rising up it matters little....the fact that those NATO nations are there is enough for them to fight. If I want you out of my house, I don't care why you're there I just want you out.

Wilber · September 21, 2006

If the report from this think tank is accurate the fight has expanded beyond just a small group of religious fanatics.

Think tanks, think tanks. Gerry, do you put the same faith in Fraser Institutes findings or do you just go with the ones who agree with you such as maybe the Center for Policy Alternatives?

Which people? The Afghanis?
If they are rising up it matters little....the fact that those NATO nations are there is enough for them to fight. If I want you out of my house, I don't care why you're there I just want you out.

Do you believe the Taliban represent the wishes of the Afghani people? Do you believe the majority of the Afghan people want them back in power? Do you believe the parents of the children who were blown up with those four Canadian soldiers agree with Layton that it was the soldiers fault for being there?

gerryhatrick · September 21, 2006

If the report from this think tank is accurate the fight has expanded beyond just a small group of religious fanatics.

Think tanks, think tanks. Gerry, do you put the same faith in Fraser Institutes findings or do you just go with the ones who agree with you such as maybe the Center for Policy Alternatives?

You accuse me of partisan bias, and like two other ignorant f@#ks you suggest I'm happy about the results of this think tanks study ("the ones who agree with you" you say).

This think tank has four field offices in Afghanistan. If you're so bent on your mind set that you're not capable of objective consideration of ground reports then what good are you?

Do you believe the Taliban represent the wishes of the Afghani people? Do you believe the majority of the Afghan people want them back in power? Do you believe the parents of the children who were blown up with those four Canadian soldiers agree with Layton that it was the soldiers fault for being there?

1. No.

2. No.

3. Layton - although he is an idiot through and through - has never indicated he believes that. You're making up BS about the man.

Wilber · September 21, 2006

If the report from this think tank is accurate the fight has expanded beyond just a small group of religious fanatics.

Think tanks, think tanks. Gerry, do you put the same faith in Fraser Institutes findings or do you just go with the ones who agree with you such as maybe the Center for Policy Alternatives?

You accuse me of partisan bias, and like two other ignorant f@#ks you suggest I'm happy about the results of this think tanks study ("the ones who agree with you" you say).

This think tank has four field offices in Afghanistan. If you're so bent on your mind set that you're not capable of objective consideration of ground reports then what good are you?

Do you believe the Taliban represent the wishes of the Afghani people? Do you believe the majority of the Afghan people want them back in power? Do you believe the parents of the children who were blown up with those four Canadian soldiers agree with Layton that it was the soldiers fault for being there?

1. No.

2. No.

3. Layton - although he is an idiot through and through - has never indicated he believes that. You're making up BS about the man.

I did not say you were happy about their conclusions but think tanks themselves tend to attract people who are of a like mind so I am skeptical of all of them when it comes to objectivity.

Didn't Layton say that we were endangering Afghanis by being there, right after this incident?

Regardless of what Layton may or may not have said, in view of your first two answers is it morally acceptable for Canada to abandon the country to those who have clearly demonstrated their barbaric nature and would turn the clock back to their concept of the middle ages?

I don't like the idea of being in Afghanistan either and I don't know if we can ultimately be successful but these are the questions I struggle with.

cybercoma · September 21, 2006

You accuse me of partisan bias, and like two other ignorant f@#ks you suggest I'm happy about the results of this think tanks study ("the ones who agree with you" you say).
Layton... is an idiot through and through

Calling posters f*cks and saying the leader of a political party is an idiot are completely against the rules. Smarten up, you're going to end up banned.

gerryhatrick · September 21, 2006

I did not say you were happy about their conclusions but think tanks themselves tend to attract people who are of a like mind so I am skeptical of all of them when it comes to objectivity.

You said the the think tank "agrees with" me. Small difference.

As for think tanks attracting people of a like mind....the report by this think tank is of an on-the-ground nature. They're reporting on the reality of the current war in Afghanistan as it's playing out in front of them in Afghanistan. It's a little weak to dismiss them as all like-minded people reporting what they want unless you're presuming to call them liars.

is it morally acceptable for Canada to abandon the country to those who have clearly demonstrated their barbaric nature and would turn the clock back to their concept of the middle ages?

Absolutely, if the reality is that by staying all we will do is engage in an expanded war with nationalist entities. There's no point saving Afghani women from the burqua if it means we have to level the country in the process.

Argus · September 21, 2006

This think tank has four field offices in Afghanistan. If you're so bent on your mind set that you're not capable of objective consideration of ground reports then what good are you?

Ahh, but I have one hundred and twenty nine field offices in Afghanistan. It says so on my web page.

Clearly, then, I know better than these people - whoever they are. Do you know who they are?