Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
There's a few Canucks still about!
Okay consider this. We are keeping things half way stable in A'stan. VC2007 wants us out yesterday. What will happen when we (the NATO "we") pull out like that? The country will go to the crapper. There will be no government. No government will be like....
Wait for it....
ANARCHY!
Duh. They are self confessed anarchists. Of course they want to see things screwed up. It's all they stand for.
Just because some of them can eat at the big table and use whole sentences doesn't make them worthy opponents.
Okay consider this. We are keeping things half way stable in A'stan. VC2007 wants us out yesterday. What will happen when we (the NATO "we") pull out like that? The country will go to the crapper. There will be no government. No government will be like....
Wait for it....
ANARCHY!
Duh. They are self confessed anarchists. Of course they want to see things screwed up. It's all they stand for.
Just because some of them can eat at the big table and use whole sentences doesn't make them worthy opponents.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
That has to be it! You've realised their master scheme! No wonder your a cop, you should be a detective.
Its almost true though isnt it? Like someone said before, they'd love to be able to say that not only is the war stuffed but if we pull out then we've abandoned Afghanistan. Your damned if you do and damned if you dont.
Now back to this Kangaroo Cavalry...they'd be super mine resistant and we call know that they're killers. We could even have mounted Koala's on them, killer attack koalas! I think i talked of that in another thread.
Its almost true though isnt it? Like someone said before, they'd love to be able to say that not only is the war stuffed but if we pull out then we've abandoned Afghanistan. Your damned if you do and damned if you dont.
Now back to this Kangaroo Cavalry...they'd be super mine resistant and we call know that they're killers. We could even have mounted Koala's on them, killer attack koalas! I think i talked of that in another thread.
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
OK, it looks like we're done here for now and this thread is locked.
Valcartier2007, please start a new thread when and if you have a fully developed plan to present. Be advised that returning simply to start pounding out the same tired rhetoric without a proposal for Afghanistan after your desired withdrawal will be considered trolling, and your account will be dealt with in accordance with the Conduct Guidelines.
Army.ca Staff
Valcartier2007, please start a new thread when and if you have a fully developed plan to present. Be advised that returning simply to start pounding out the same tired rhetoric without a proposal for Afghanistan after your desired withdrawal will be considered trolling, and your account will be dealt with in accordance with the Conduct Guidelines.
Army.ca Staff
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
[So, now this thread refers to the following: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63632/post-582863.html#msg582863 ...
which in turn refers to the following: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578352.html#msg578352
We indicated clearly that we would answer, but it seems like folks are being somewhat closeminded, by prematurely locking down threads.
Anyways, here's one of our responses, and we hope it doesn't get locked down before we can respond to the various other questions on the original debate and discussion about our Open Letter to the Soldiers of Valcartier (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm) which started this whole discussion ...]
Various folks have asked: “What is the alternative to the current Canadian mission in Afghanistan?”
The alternatives (interrelated and non-exhaustive) are:
- Stop allying with warlords, who are also fundamentalist and anti-women (a key demand of RAWA, an Afghan women’s group whose views members of this forum have so far refused to engage, despite previous citations in our posts).
- Stop propping up a US-imposed puppet (Hamid Karzai). Canadian civilian and military officials currently serve as his advisor.
- Spend money to pay genuine reparations to Afghan civilians – who have been killed in the thousands – by Western armed forces (predominantly killed by US forces, but also by Canadian Forces). Provide not token and condescending funds, but substantial funds to repair the damage that Western policy has caused in Afghanistan for decades.
- Provide substantial funds to grassroots Afghan groups, and their allies, who determine their own needs, and not have those needs decided for them by NATO officers or Western bureaucrats. Stop making “aid” contingent on collaboration with NATO/US-led counterinsurgency. Stop pretending that PRT efforts are a substitute for genuine development as led and determined by Afghans themselves.
- De-link genuine development and reconstruction from NATO-led counterinsurgency. To not do so destroys the credibility of the sometimes good-faith efforts of development workers.
- Allow freedom of movement for Afghan refugees to settle where they want to (instead, they languish in other poor countries like Pakistan and Iran, or resettled in Afghanistan with very few economic prospects). Western countries – Germany, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the United States – should offer full asylum to Afghan refugees (this is exactly what the family of Nasrat Ali Hassan -- the taxi driver killed by a CF soldier, demanded).
- Listen to the voices of progressive Afghans themselves (not puppets who worked as consultants for Western corporations), who refuse to choose between one set of fundamentalists (the Taliban and their allies) or other fundamentalists (Bush, Karzai and their chosen warlords).
- Recognize that the entire insurgency against foreign troops can’t uniformly be dismissed as “Taliban”. A large part of the insurgency is an indigenous resistance to foreign invasion, particularly by the Pashtuns of the south. You can never defeat an indigenous Pashtun insurgency (to even think you can shows an astounding ignorance of the history and culture of Central and South Asia, repeating the mistakes of the Raj). The foreign presence provides a pretext for Taliban recruitment amongst the Pashtun.
- Recognize that Canada is ultimately losing the war (which O’Connor refuses to even call a “war”). 2500 troops in a vast area like southern Afghanistan is symbolic, not a real attempt to fight a counter-insurgency. Civilian deaths are rising, and the rules of engagement alienate Afghan civilians. As insurgents are killed, more are created (as General Leslie has acknowledged), so you can never win (which General Leslie illogically will never acknowledge).
(For the sake of argument: Imagine if a foreign force, no matter the pretext for their presence, killed a 10 year-old boy, an old man, a taxi driver and other civilians in southern Alberta, or the Okanagan, or Eastern Ontario or the Saguenay. Would the people in those areas have any sympathy whatsoever for the “mission” of that foreign force? Why would we assume any less a reaction by Afghans?)
- Recognize that any genuine reconstruction or development effort must be led and determined by Afghan civilians. You don’t win “hearts and minds” out of a tank or APC, in fatigues, with a rifle, not even speaking the local language, while shooting at civilians and insisting that anyone that attacks you is “Taliban” and deserves to be killed.
Another related question is: Would the Taliban “take over” if Canada left?
Certainly not if support by funds and arms from Pakistan and allies in Saudi Arabia was removed. With the withdrawal of NATO troops, one of the main sources of grievance exploited by the Taliban would be eliminated. As argued by Sonali Kolhatkar (co-author of Bleeding Afghanistan), the Taliban today is stronger than in 2001, not geographically, but in popularity amongst a Pashtun base. NATO troops, and their actions, correlates directly with Taliban popularity. Get rid of those troops, and you remove a huge basis for Taliban popularity. That doesn’t mean the Taliban disappears, but it creates a political situation that deprives the Taliban of their oxygen.
Moreover, it’s a bit a stretch to think that 2500 troops in a vast area of southern Afghanistan, or even upwards of 35,000 NATO troops in the entire country, has “control” of a large, diverse and rugged nation like Afghanistan. Even mainstream military analysts (like RAND) acknowledge that.
Another question asked by several folks on this forum: Would a civil war result?
There is currently a civil war, with multiple fronts (including the gender front, with not just the Taliban but warlords defended by NATO attacking the rights and dignity of women). NATO has chosen a side in this civil war (and Western powers, particularly the US, perpetuated the civil war, with money and arms, throughout the 1980s). Canada’s presence does not help this situation.
This post constitutes a general answer to the question: what is the alternative? We have not addressed the neo-colonial underpinnings of NATO involvement in Afghanistan, or even delved into the details of the recent history of Western involvement in Afghanistan (which would expose greed, corruption, hypocrisy and self-interest, not some higher calling to “help” Afghans). These are important points, crucial, but usually dismissed on this forum (refer to the responses to: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578352.html#msg578352 )
The alternatives proposed above mean a radical shift, not just in policy, but in worldview, by government and army officials.
While struggling to make that shift happen (that’s what international social movements are all about), on-the-ground soldiers can refuse to participate in the mission. They can refuse to participate in a mission that: 1) is a cover for US-led counterinsurgency and long-term US presence in the Middle East and Central Asia; 2) kills civilians, and undertakes rules of engagement that allows for shooting at civilians; 3) hands over prisoners to forces – whether Afghan or US – that do not respect Geneva Convention protections); 4) cannot succeed even on its own terms, and perpetuates conflict and misery.
Putting into practice these alternatives (not in isolation, but with other radical shifts in worldwide geopolitics – regionally and globally), can begin to create space for Afghans to self-determine their future and their development, on their terms.
Again, hope this doesn't get heavy-handedly locked down, before we can make more responses to previous questions on the original thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578352.html#msg578352
---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca
which in turn refers to the following: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578352.html#msg578352
We indicated clearly that we would answer, but it seems like folks are being somewhat closeminded, by prematurely locking down threads.
Anyways, here's one of our responses, and we hope it doesn't get locked down before we can respond to the various other questions on the original debate and discussion about our Open Letter to the Soldiers of Valcartier (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm) which started this whole discussion ...]
Various folks have asked: “What is the alternative to the current Canadian mission in Afghanistan?”
The alternatives (interrelated and non-exhaustive) are:
- Stop allying with warlords, who are also fundamentalist and anti-women (a key demand of RAWA, an Afghan women’s group whose views members of this forum have so far refused to engage, despite previous citations in our posts).
- Stop propping up a US-imposed puppet (Hamid Karzai). Canadian civilian and military officials currently serve as his advisor.
- Spend money to pay genuine reparations to Afghan civilians – who have been killed in the thousands – by Western armed forces (predominantly killed by US forces, but also by Canadian Forces). Provide not token and condescending funds, but substantial funds to repair the damage that Western policy has caused in Afghanistan for decades.
- Provide substantial funds to grassroots Afghan groups, and their allies, who determine their own needs, and not have those needs decided for them by NATO officers or Western bureaucrats. Stop making “aid” contingent on collaboration with NATO/US-led counterinsurgency. Stop pretending that PRT efforts are a substitute for genuine development as led and determined by Afghans themselves.
- De-link genuine development and reconstruction from NATO-led counterinsurgency. To not do so destroys the credibility of the sometimes good-faith efforts of development workers.
- Allow freedom of movement for Afghan refugees to settle where they want to (instead, they languish in other poor countries like Pakistan and Iran, or resettled in Afghanistan with very few economic prospects). Western countries – Germany, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the United States – should offer full asylum to Afghan refugees (this is exactly what the family of Nasrat Ali Hassan -- the taxi driver killed by a CF soldier, demanded).
- Listen to the voices of progressive Afghans themselves (not puppets who worked as consultants for Western corporations), who refuse to choose between one set of fundamentalists (the Taliban and their allies) or other fundamentalists (Bush, Karzai and their chosen warlords).
- Recognize that the entire insurgency against foreign troops can’t uniformly be dismissed as “Taliban”. A large part of the insurgency is an indigenous resistance to foreign invasion, particularly by the Pashtuns of the south. You can never defeat an indigenous Pashtun insurgency (to even think you can shows an astounding ignorance of the history and culture of Central and South Asia, repeating the mistakes of the Raj). The foreign presence provides a pretext for Taliban recruitment amongst the Pashtun.
- Recognize that Canada is ultimately losing the war (which O’Connor refuses to even call a “war”). 2500 troops in a vast area like southern Afghanistan is symbolic, not a real attempt to fight a counter-insurgency. Civilian deaths are rising, and the rules of engagement alienate Afghan civilians. As insurgents are killed, more are created (as General Leslie has acknowledged), so you can never win (which General Leslie illogically will never acknowledge).
(For the sake of argument: Imagine if a foreign force, no matter the pretext for their presence, killed a 10 year-old boy, an old man, a taxi driver and other civilians in southern Alberta, or the Okanagan, or Eastern Ontario or the Saguenay. Would the people in those areas have any sympathy whatsoever for the “mission” of that foreign force? Why would we assume any less a reaction by Afghans?)
- Recognize that any genuine reconstruction or development effort must be led and determined by Afghan civilians. You don’t win “hearts and minds” out of a tank or APC, in fatigues, with a rifle, not even speaking the local language, while shooting at civilians and insisting that anyone that attacks you is “Taliban” and deserves to be killed.
Another related question is: Would the Taliban “take over” if Canada left?
Certainly not if support by funds and arms from Pakistan and allies in Saudi Arabia was removed. With the withdrawal of NATO troops, one of the main sources of grievance exploited by the Taliban would be eliminated. As argued by Sonali Kolhatkar (co-author of Bleeding Afghanistan), the Taliban today is stronger than in 2001, not geographically, but in popularity amongst a Pashtun base. NATO troops, and their actions, correlates directly with Taliban popularity. Get rid of those troops, and you remove a huge basis for Taliban popularity. That doesn’t mean the Taliban disappears, but it creates a political situation that deprives the Taliban of their oxygen.
Moreover, it’s a bit a stretch to think that 2500 troops in a vast area of southern Afghanistan, or even upwards of 35,000 NATO troops in the entire country, has “control” of a large, diverse and rugged nation like Afghanistan. Even mainstream military analysts (like RAND) acknowledge that.
Another question asked by several folks on this forum: Would a civil war result?
There is currently a civil war, with multiple fronts (including the gender front, with not just the Taliban but warlords defended by NATO attacking the rights and dignity of women). NATO has chosen a side in this civil war (and Western powers, particularly the US, perpetuated the civil war, with money and arms, throughout the 1980s). Canada’s presence does not help this situation.
This post constitutes a general answer to the question: what is the alternative? We have not addressed the neo-colonial underpinnings of NATO involvement in Afghanistan, or even delved into the details of the recent history of Western involvement in Afghanistan (which would expose greed, corruption, hypocrisy and self-interest, not some higher calling to “help” Afghans). These are important points, crucial, but usually dismissed on this forum (refer to the responses to: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578352.html#msg578352 )
The alternatives proposed above mean a radical shift, not just in policy, but in worldview, by government and army officials.
While struggling to make that shift happen (that’s what international social movements are all about), on-the-ground soldiers can refuse to participate in the mission. They can refuse to participate in a mission that: 1) is a cover for US-led counterinsurgency and long-term US presence in the Middle East and Central Asia; 2) kills civilians, and undertakes rules of engagement that allows for shooting at civilians; 3) hands over prisoners to forces – whether Afghan or US – that do not respect Geneva Convention protections); 4) cannot succeed even on its own terms, and perpetuates conflict and misery.
Putting into practice these alternatives (not in isolation, but with other radical shifts in worldwide geopolitics – regionally and globally), can begin to create space for Afghans to self-determine their future and their development, on their terms.
Again, hope this doesn't get heavy-handedly locked down, before we can make more responses to previous questions on the original thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578352.html#msg578352
---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
This is in reply to MCG's post at http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579438.html#msg579438, a thread that has subsequently been locked down (despite the fact that many people were waiting on that thread for our responses).
Anyways, we'll just have to reply here:
MCG asks: 1. Do you understand that Canadian & American forces operate under different rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan? Do you think this is a relevant fact?
[NOTE: for reasons of operational security, the details of the differences cannot be discussed here.]
Yes. But Canadian ROE result in civilian death and injury. If those ROE were imposed anywhere, they’d alienate the civilian population. You can see the Canadian ROE in practice in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsO54MQi6es&mode=related&search=
MCG asks: 2. What should be done in Afghanistan? Who should do it?
See our recent response on this thread. But one quick (if glib) response: trust progressive Afghans (like the women at RAWA) to decide what should be done. Of course, Afghans should do it, and we should facilitate that, not impose our vision. Importantly, in fighting for genuine alternatives, we should reject the pretence, paternalism and colonialism inherent in questions like "What is your plan for the future of Afghanistan". Of course, it's Afghans that should determine their own future, and not have one imposed from abroad, whether by NATO, or Saudi Arabia.
MCG asks: 3. What should be done in Iraq? Who should do it? (I know this is tangent to Afghanistan, but you like to come back to Iraq. Here I give you the opportunity)
The US and all other foreign forces should get out. Iraqis should have full control of their oil resources and profits (not Western companies). The US should pay reparations to Iraqis. We should trust Iraqis of good will, across sectarian and ethnic lines, to decide how they want to go forward in their communities. Western occupation only worsens the situation. The alternative is still difficult, but tangibly better.
Do you acknowledge that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 is perhaps one of the greatest military and foreign policy blunders in history? And that the invasion and occupation has made the world considerably less safe? And that the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians as a result of this invasion and occupation (not to mention millions of refugees, as well as the thousands that died due to the economic embargo in the decade before the war) are war crimes? If so, shouldn’t the architects of that crime be tried and punished?
MCG asks: 4. What would happen in Afghanistan if the UN endorsed mission were to give up? Do you think the average Afghan would suddenly have a better standard of living? If yes, how?
Who talked about “giving up”? That’s posturing. A substantive and radical change in how we, the West, engage with Afghanistan is not giving up. De-linking geunine, Afghan-determined, reconstruction and development from NATO-led counter-insurgency is not “giving up”.
There would be no “sudden” better standard of living. But if allowed self-determination, over time, Afghans would certain have better lives.
MCG asks: 5. Do you think that more people (Afghan & NGO) have been killed by western soldiers than would have been killed in our absence?
According the most recent news reports, and NATO admissions, there has been a troubling and striking increase in civilian deaths. US airstrikes killed more than 3000 civilians in the early stages of Enduring Freedom. Yes, fewer Afghan civilians would be killed if the NATO counter-insurgency were to end.
MCG asks: 6. Do you believe that, if we were not there, Afghanistan would not currently be involved in a civil war?
There is currently a civil war, that’s lasted for almost three decades. We have taken a side, with Karzai and certain warlords, against the Taliban, but also against average Afghans who don’t want to have to choose between either side. RAWA (www.rawa.org) has made this clear (and people on this forum have refused to engage their arguments, which argues that Western governments are complicit in keeping anti-women fundamentalist warlords in power).
MCG asks: 7. Why do the people of Afghanistan not deserve the same help that we spent a decade giving to the people of Bosnia?
If the Canadian mission in Afghanistan was based on genuine reconstruction and development, and not counter-insurgency (using PRT programs as cynical psy-ops on the civilian population), then the mission would be radically different. Are you comparing Bosnian “peacekeeping” to the current mission? Other posts on the previous (locked-down) thread have made a clear distinction, as do we.
Readers might be interested in a previous reply to MCG here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578953.html#msg578953
---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca
Anyways, we'll just have to reply here:
MCG asks: 1. Do you understand that Canadian & American forces operate under different rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan? Do you think this is a relevant fact?
[NOTE: for reasons of operational security, the details of the differences cannot be discussed here.]
Yes. But Canadian ROE result in civilian death and injury. If those ROE were imposed anywhere, they’d alienate the civilian population. You can see the Canadian ROE in practice in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsO54MQi6es&mode=related&search=
MCG asks: 2. What should be done in Afghanistan? Who should do it?
See our recent response on this thread. But one quick (if glib) response: trust progressive Afghans (like the women at RAWA) to decide what should be done. Of course, Afghans should do it, and we should facilitate that, not impose our vision. Importantly, in fighting for genuine alternatives, we should reject the pretence, paternalism and colonialism inherent in questions like "What is your plan for the future of Afghanistan". Of course, it's Afghans that should determine their own future, and not have one imposed from abroad, whether by NATO, or Saudi Arabia.
MCG asks: 3. What should be done in Iraq? Who should do it? (I know this is tangent to Afghanistan, but you like to come back to Iraq. Here I give you the opportunity)
The US and all other foreign forces should get out. Iraqis should have full control of their oil resources and profits (not Western companies). The US should pay reparations to Iraqis. We should trust Iraqis of good will, across sectarian and ethnic lines, to decide how they want to go forward in their communities. Western occupation only worsens the situation. The alternative is still difficult, but tangibly better.
Do you acknowledge that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 is perhaps one of the greatest military and foreign policy blunders in history? And that the invasion and occupation has made the world considerably less safe? And that the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians as a result of this invasion and occupation (not to mention millions of refugees, as well as the thousands that died due to the economic embargo in the decade before the war) are war crimes? If so, shouldn’t the architects of that crime be tried and punished?
MCG asks: 4. What would happen in Afghanistan if the UN endorsed mission were to give up? Do you think the average Afghan would suddenly have a better standard of living? If yes, how?
Who talked about “giving up”? That’s posturing. A substantive and radical change in how we, the West, engage with Afghanistan is not giving up. De-linking geunine, Afghan-determined, reconstruction and development from NATO-led counter-insurgency is not “giving up”.
There would be no “sudden” better standard of living. But if allowed self-determination, over time, Afghans would certain have better lives.
MCG asks: 5. Do you think that more people (Afghan & NGO) have been killed by western soldiers than would have been killed in our absence?
According the most recent news reports, and NATO admissions, there has been a troubling and striking increase in civilian deaths. US airstrikes killed more than 3000 civilians in the early stages of Enduring Freedom. Yes, fewer Afghan civilians would be killed if the NATO counter-insurgency were to end.
MCG asks: 6. Do you believe that, if we were not there, Afghanistan would not currently be involved in a civil war?
There is currently a civil war, that’s lasted for almost three decades. We have taken a side, with Karzai and certain warlords, against the Taliban, but also against average Afghans who don’t want to have to choose between either side. RAWA (www.rawa.org) has made this clear (and people on this forum have refused to engage their arguments, which argues that Western governments are complicit in keeping anti-women fundamentalist warlords in power).
MCG asks: 7. Why do the people of Afghanistan not deserve the same help that we spent a decade giving to the people of Bosnia?
If the Canadian mission in Afghanistan was based on genuine reconstruction and development, and not counter-insurgency (using PRT programs as cynical psy-ops on the civilian population), then the mission would be radically different. Are you comparing Bosnian “peacekeeping” to the current mission? Other posts on the previous (locked-down) thread have made a clear distinction, as do we.
Readers might be interested in a previous reply to MCG here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578953.html#msg578953
---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca
- Reaction score
- 1,300
- Points
- 1,040
Valcartier 2007
I disagree with your point of view. That being said, I think that the end state for this war* we would both agree *should* be a more stable Afghanistan, not "Canada-East". (*which is being lost only in the minds of defeatists, who generally have no idea of what is going on "on the ground". They are fed stories, from all sides, that rarely reflect the truth. By this I mean that neither Main Stream Media reports nor official NATO communiques tell all).
There are fundamental flaws in your argument (eg: that Karzai is a US puppet. I mean, how often do puppets lash out at their masters? Also, he was elected by Afghans, not appointed by Haliburtun, or whatever). I will not go through what I see as flaws in your argument for the very reason that regardless of what I say about your premises, you will maintain your conclusion: Canada out! Now!
I would rather you consider this UN Mandated Mission from an internationalist point of view. Since I am indeed in the army with years of experience and yet I don't have the expertise to run a strategic level counterinsurgency operation, I can only assume that you don't have that expertise as well. So, the nit-picking details of whether or not we should have Canadians running around "over there" without body armour or armoured vehicles, I would rather ask that you seek out all the information that you can regarding Southern Afghanistan.
I would offer that Canada is in the good fight. Mistakes have and will continue to be made. In the end, I don't judge the morality of something based on its consequences, nor the act itself, but rather the motivation behind that act (see: Aristotle). In the case of Afghanistan, NATO is, I believe, acting on good faith and with good intentions. The fact that Canadians have to go over there and kill people who would kill us is tragic, but necessary. Just as we had to bomb Caen in France in 1944, causing the deaths of hundreds of French Civilians, in the end, it was just. In Afghanistan, we are making every possible effort to avoid such deaths.
In the end, I fear that Anti-Americanism may be the driving force behind much of the "Anti-Afghanistan" movement in Canada. We don't have Iraq to protest, so let us pick on Afghanistan. I would offer that you go south, visit with the Left in the US, and see that they are indeed in the same position as I (in the most part) about Afghanistan: it is a just war.
I look forward to your reply.
Cheers
(Edited for clarity and to keep points relevant)
I disagree with your point of view. That being said, I think that the end state for this war* we would both agree *should* be a more stable Afghanistan, not "Canada-East". (*which is being lost only in the minds of defeatists, who generally have no idea of what is going on "on the ground". They are fed stories, from all sides, that rarely reflect the truth. By this I mean that neither Main Stream Media reports nor official NATO communiques tell all).
There are fundamental flaws in your argument (eg: that Karzai is a US puppet. I mean, how often do puppets lash out at their masters? Also, he was elected by Afghans, not appointed by Haliburtun, or whatever). I will not go through what I see as flaws in your argument for the very reason that regardless of what I say about your premises, you will maintain your conclusion: Canada out! Now!
I would rather you consider this UN Mandated Mission from an internationalist point of view. Since I am indeed in the army with years of experience and yet I don't have the expertise to run a strategic level counterinsurgency operation, I can only assume that you don't have that expertise as well. So, the nit-picking details of whether or not we should have Canadians running around "over there" without body armour or armoured vehicles, I would rather ask that you seek out all the information that you can regarding Southern Afghanistan.
I would offer that Canada is in the good fight. Mistakes have and will continue to be made. In the end, I don't judge the morality of something based on its consequences, nor the act itself, but rather the motivation behind that act (see: Aristotle). In the case of Afghanistan, NATO is, I believe, acting on good faith and with good intentions. The fact that Canadians have to go over there and kill people who would kill us is tragic, but necessary. Just as we had to bomb Caen in France in 1944, causing the deaths of hundreds of French Civilians, in the end, it was just. In Afghanistan, we are making every possible effort to avoid such deaths.
In the end, I fear that Anti-Americanism may be the driving force behind much of the "Anti-Afghanistan" movement in Canada. We don't have Iraq to protest, so let us pick on Afghanistan. I would offer that you go south, visit with the Left in the US, and see that they are indeed in the same position as I (in the most part) about Afghanistan: it is a just war.
I look forward to your reply.
Cheers
(Edited for clarity and to keep points relevant)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
GreyMatter asked questions here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579717.html#msg579717
We replied to bulk of GreyMatter’s post here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-580635.html#msg580635
And here are the rest of the responses:
GreyMatter asks: 1) Why are you only protesting the deployment of Van-Doo's at Valcartier to Afghanistan? Is there a special reason why they shouldn’t go when every other army unit in Quebec contributes people there? And why did you start now?
We oppose all Canadian military involvement, not just the VanDoos, and not just Quebec involvement. We’re not nationalists (either Canadian or Québecois). But, the Valcartier base’s proximity to us, in Quebec, prodded us to act more tangibly in our local context.
We didn’t just “start now”. We’ve been active against Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan since 2002. Some of us have been protesting since October 2001 (when “Operation Enduring Freedom” was announced). Recently, we have picketed Hamid Karzai, Gordon O’Connor and Stephen Harper when each of them visited Montreal.
GreyMatter asks: 2) Does your group (or other anarchist groups) support intervention in Sudan? What method of intervention do you propose?
There is a humanitarian crisis in the Sudan, a genocide. If intervention (non-imperialist intervention) can stop killing, then it should happen. As we’ve stated before, we’re not all pacifists.
BTW, many of our members have been active in defending the rights of Sudanese refugees (one important aspect of this crisis). Some of us were present in Ottawa, in January 2006, after the Cairo Massacre, alongside Sudanese refugees (including Darfur refugees) residing in Canada. The photos of that demo, with explanatory captions, are here: http://photos.cmaq.net/v/SudaneseDemoinOttawa/ (click on the photos for captions)
GreyMatter asks: 3) Canadian forces leave Afghanistan, immediately. How will this improve the country? What is the anarchist plan for helping the country other than getting rid of the imperialist forces?
We’ve addressed that question here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-582874.html#msg582874
with a prelude here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579743.html#msg579743
---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca
We replied to bulk of GreyMatter’s post here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-580635.html#msg580635
And here are the rest of the responses:
GreyMatter asks: 1) Why are you only protesting the deployment of Van-Doo's at Valcartier to Afghanistan? Is there a special reason why they shouldn’t go when every other army unit in Quebec contributes people there? And why did you start now?
We oppose all Canadian military involvement, not just the VanDoos, and not just Quebec involvement. We’re not nationalists (either Canadian or Québecois). But, the Valcartier base’s proximity to us, in Quebec, prodded us to act more tangibly in our local context.
We didn’t just “start now”. We’ve been active against Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan since 2002. Some of us have been protesting since October 2001 (when “Operation Enduring Freedom” was announced). Recently, we have picketed Hamid Karzai, Gordon O’Connor and Stephen Harper when each of them visited Montreal.
GreyMatter asks: 2) Does your group (or other anarchist groups) support intervention in Sudan? What method of intervention do you propose?
There is a humanitarian crisis in the Sudan, a genocide. If intervention (non-imperialist intervention) can stop killing, then it should happen. As we’ve stated before, we’re not all pacifists.
BTW, many of our members have been active in defending the rights of Sudanese refugees (one important aspect of this crisis). Some of us were present in Ottawa, in January 2006, after the Cairo Massacre, alongside Sudanese refugees (including Darfur refugees) residing in Canada. The photos of that demo, with explanatory captions, are here: http://photos.cmaq.net/v/SudaneseDemoinOttawa/ (click on the photos for captions)
GreyMatter asks: 3) Canadian forces leave Afghanistan, immediately. How will this improve the country? What is the anarchist plan for helping the country other than getting rid of the imperialist forces?
We’ve addressed that question here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-582874.html#msg582874
with a prelude here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579743.html#msg579743
---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca
- Reaction score
- 5,563
- Points
- 1,360
Quote,
(non-imperialist intervention) = no US involvement
Nice to see Para's Jan Brady Syndrome Theory is alive and well.
(non-imperialist intervention) = no US involvement
Nice to see Para's Jan Brady Syndrome Theory is alive and well.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
This is in response to Olga Chekhova's post here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579784.html#msg579784
Olga Chekhova writes: 1) Rashid's book is an excellant study of the emergence of the Taliban.
Agreed.
Olga Chekhova writes: (2) Don't cherry pick from your sources. Rashid's book discusses American involvement with the Taliban but it also discusses American efforts to curtail the persecution of women and to advance human rights by the late 1990s. It also notes that the Taliban first emerged without prodding of the US and that Taliban would have flourished without American involvement AND that the Taliban regularly flaunted their 'power' in the American faces and totally rejected most American efforts to influence the Taliban government. Moreover, America ultimately abandoned the Taliban because they could not maintain any influence over the Taliban. This point is quite clear in Rashid's work.
US (and Saudi, and Pakistani) funding of fundamentalist warlords and fighters in the 1980s resulted in the “blowback” of the Taliban. This was acknowledged in the 1990s, before 9-11. The term “blowback” (coined by the CIA) implies the lack of control over something you helped get going in the first place. There's no cherry-picking here. We're making a clear, direct point.
Olga Chekhova writes: (3) The mere suggestion that the elimination of progressive, secular movements in Afghanistan was not a DIRECT result of the Taliban is laughable. The Americans had so little control over the Taliban on this issue that their responsibility for this would be tangential at best.
Warlords funded by the US (and Saudis, and Pakistanis) in the 1980s, long before the formal emergence of the Taliban, were crucial in eliminating and marginalizing progressive, secular movements. This is clearly outlined in Rashid’s book. And yes, the Taliban continued, and continue, in that tradition.
Olga Chekhova writes: (3) Either you have selectively read or selectively cited from Rashid's work. Your reliance on his work for your position is quite academically sketchy. He is very clear: the Taliban regularly thumbed their collective noses at the Americans.
As shown in the above responses, there is no cherry-picking involved. We’ve drawn legitimate conclusions from Rashid’s well-researched book.
Olga Chekhova writes: I would ask you to contemplate one point as you talk about the dangers of an 'ahistorical' assessment of our involvement in Afghanistan: Is there a difference between the Taliban of the 1990s and the Taliban of 2007? Would we see a 'kindler and gentler' Taliban if we left them to reassume power in Afghanistan? Or would they do as they say they intend to do -- that is, revert, to a violent anti-Western, anti-women form of government?
There are both continuities in the Taliban of the 1990s and today, and differences. We don’t have any illusions about the Taliban remaining a patriarchal, violent, anti-woman force (like many of the jehadis currently in the Karzai government). We oppose both, unlike the Canadian Forces that is allied (and complicit) with one gang of warlords.
Another important point: the term “Taliban” is often used synonymously for any insurgent opposition to foreign occupation, and that’s a fatal error. Some insurgents are hardcore Taliban, others are allies, and others are simply Pashtun opponents with no clear alliance with the Taliban. The failure to recognize those nuances is disastrous. And it has been disastrous (for Afghan civilians).
---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca
Olga Chekhova writes: 1) Rashid's book is an excellant study of the emergence of the Taliban.
Agreed.
Olga Chekhova writes: (2) Don't cherry pick from your sources. Rashid's book discusses American involvement with the Taliban but it also discusses American efforts to curtail the persecution of women and to advance human rights by the late 1990s. It also notes that the Taliban first emerged without prodding of the US and that Taliban would have flourished without American involvement AND that the Taliban regularly flaunted their 'power' in the American faces and totally rejected most American efforts to influence the Taliban government. Moreover, America ultimately abandoned the Taliban because they could not maintain any influence over the Taliban. This point is quite clear in Rashid's work.
US (and Saudi, and Pakistani) funding of fundamentalist warlords and fighters in the 1980s resulted in the “blowback” of the Taliban. This was acknowledged in the 1990s, before 9-11. The term “blowback” (coined by the CIA) implies the lack of control over something you helped get going in the first place. There's no cherry-picking here. We're making a clear, direct point.
Olga Chekhova writes: (3) The mere suggestion that the elimination of progressive, secular movements in Afghanistan was not a DIRECT result of the Taliban is laughable. The Americans had so little control over the Taliban on this issue that their responsibility for this would be tangential at best.
Warlords funded by the US (and Saudis, and Pakistanis) in the 1980s, long before the formal emergence of the Taliban, were crucial in eliminating and marginalizing progressive, secular movements. This is clearly outlined in Rashid’s book. And yes, the Taliban continued, and continue, in that tradition.
Olga Chekhova writes: (3) Either you have selectively read or selectively cited from Rashid's work. Your reliance on his work for your position is quite academically sketchy. He is very clear: the Taliban regularly thumbed their collective noses at the Americans.
As shown in the above responses, there is no cherry-picking involved. We’ve drawn legitimate conclusions from Rashid’s well-researched book.
Olga Chekhova writes: I would ask you to contemplate one point as you talk about the dangers of an 'ahistorical' assessment of our involvement in Afghanistan: Is there a difference between the Taliban of the 1990s and the Taliban of 2007? Would we see a 'kindler and gentler' Taliban if we left them to reassume power in Afghanistan? Or would they do as they say they intend to do -- that is, revert, to a violent anti-Western, anti-women form of government?
There are both continuities in the Taliban of the 1990s and today, and differences. We don’t have any illusions about the Taliban remaining a patriarchal, violent, anti-woman force (like many of the jehadis currently in the Karzai government). We oppose both, unlike the Canadian Forces that is allied (and complicit) with one gang of warlords.
Another important point: the term “Taliban” is often used synonymously for any insurgent opposition to foreign occupation, and that’s a fatal error. Some insurgents are hardcore Taliban, others are allies, and others are simply Pashtun opponents with no clear alliance with the Taliban. The failure to recognize those nuances is disastrous. And it has been disastrous (for Afghan civilians).
---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Val you do understand that the Sudanes(Sp?) has refused international intervention in it's affairs and for any country or coalition of countries to intervene without the host governments consent often referred to as an "INVASION". So in essence we would invade a foreign nation with military assets and by doing so we would complicate the issue that much more.
This is where your premise on foreign matters falls short, Afghanistan wants us (NATO) in their country, in fact any Afghan person I have met and there are hundreds at this point has praised Canada for it's presence in their country. I think you need to spend more time studying the positive affects of the mission vice all the time on complaining about it. Since all the information you have is secondary source at best and usually skewed to your own thought process I think perhaps your entire argument fails in it's mission. Perhaps if your so inclined to want to help solve the problems of Afghanistan you ( as in all your members) should and could easily volunteer to go over to Afghanistan as part of an internationally recognized NGO and see first hand how the mission goes and how best you would then improve it.
If you are truly committed to making Afghanistan a better more stable country you would persue this course. I sincerely doubt any of you are however as most of people I have ever met that involve themselves with groups such as your are all about the talk and the complaining and never ever take any real action that would in anyway help anything along. It's all well and good to sit in nice safe Canada and sip your Half Caff No Foam Chai Latte and discuss "Imperial" US Policy and how Canada is just playing lap dog to it's southern Neighbour. But it's entirely another to up and decide to travel to this war ravaged nation and put yourself in danger for the betterment of Humanity.
EDIT: To correct an important typo... "Me fail English? Thats Unpossible!
This is where your premise on foreign matters falls short, Afghanistan wants us (NATO) in their country, in fact any Afghan person I have met and there are hundreds at this point has praised Canada for it's presence in their country. I think you need to spend more time studying the positive affects of the mission vice all the time on complaining about it. Since all the information you have is secondary source at best and usually skewed to your own thought process I think perhaps your entire argument fails in it's mission. Perhaps if your so inclined to want to help solve the problems of Afghanistan you ( as in all your members) should and could easily volunteer to go over to Afghanistan as part of an internationally recognized NGO and see first hand how the mission goes and how best you would then improve it.
If you are truly committed to making Afghanistan a better more stable country you would persue this course. I sincerely doubt any of you are however as most of people I have ever met that involve themselves with groups such as your are all about the talk and the complaining and never ever take any real action that would in anyway help anything along. It's all well and good to sit in nice safe Canada and sip your Half Caff No Foam Chai Latte and discuss "Imperial" US Policy and how Canada is just playing lap dog to it's southern Neighbour. But it's entirely another to up and decide to travel to this war ravaged nation and put yourself in danger for the betterment of Humanity.
EDIT: To correct an important typo... "Me fail English? Thats Unpossible!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Bzzliteyr said:
We're not twisting numbers. Just writing late at night, and made a typo. Do folks here sometimes make typos, or get a little sloppy?
To be clear: the number is 70%, not 75%. We stand corrected, but there was no intention to mislead.
More importantly, our argument is not based on opinion polls or popularity. We have not cited the unpopularity of the mission in Quebec as a reason to leave Afghanistan. That's an argument for politicians, not us. We'll stick to the arguments (and grassroots organizing, campaigning and mobilizing).
---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca
- Reaction score
- 1,300
- Points
- 1,040
Valcartier 2007 said:
Fair enough. Been there, done that.
I would offer that the inclusion of the stats (typo notwithstanding) implies its importance and/or relevance. I'm sure we can both agree that there are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.Valcartier 2007 said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Captain Sensible said:
What we wrote (correcting the stat) was: "there is a concerted “charm offensive” organized by the CF and Tories in Quebec to sell the Afghanistan mission (where at least 70% of the population is against the mission, according to recent polls).
The relevance of the stat is that the clear unpopularity of the Afghan mission in Quebec (according to polls) has prodded the Conservatives and the CF to ratchet up their "charm offensive" to sell the mission here.
Again, we're making arguments, not relying on polls.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,364
- Points
- 1,160
Ok you better explain yourself by what you mean for decades? After the withdrawal of the Soviet Union, the west basically left Afghanistan alone to determine it’s on fate (which seems to be your choice as well). It wasn’t until 2001 that the US & the west began to take a real interest in the area. We tried leaving them alone, it didn’t work. Now your solution is to throw huge amount of funds at them without any real control. Where are these funds coming from? Shall we reduce aid elsewhere?
-
2 problems, many of the donor nations made substantial pledges which they never honoured. How do plan to force them to? Also funding is sitting in banks not being used because the NGO’s won’t go out into the area. The only aid really getting into the contested areas is through the PRT’s which you wish to cut off. Are you going to be the judge of who gets the aid? How are you going to enforce your choices? Are you going to suspend the current Afghan government to do so?
As the Taliban have been quite clear that their goal is put in place a strict Islamic state into the NWF and Afghanistan. Can you explain why they should sit back and allow western based NGO’s subvert their process? Did you forget how they treated NGO’s during their regime? As far as they are concerned you are just as much their enemy as I am.
I am sure you are aware of the damaging nature of to much aid? My Muslim sister in-law worked in Aceh before and after the tsunami, her opinion of most NGO’s went into the toilet based on their performance there.
Would it be nice to get rid of the warlords and poppies? Absolutely, are you willing to go into a fullscale war to do so? It will mean mobilizing the Canadian population, possibly instituting a draft and fighting a war as least as big as Korea.
- Reaction score
- 1,300
- Points
- 1,040
Fair enough. Having said that, even in such a clear-cut Just War as World War Two, the government still produced the "Why We Fight" type of "charm offensives". One (not you, but others) cannot criticise the government for not 'explaining' the war and turn around complain when they do. I am not certain if you've criticised the government (incumbent or former) for lack of policy-explanation, so please don't take this as an attack against you or yours, but rather the likes of those who wouldValcartier 2007 said:
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
Valcartier 2007 said:
The CF that is complicit with with that democratically elected government of Afghanistan?? The same CF that operates under a UN madate within that country we were invited into?? It is very clear that you don't like democracy. You repeatedly call us complicit and occupiers despite the actualities and despite the provision to you of the clear references and mandates for which we serve in that nation. Despite the fact that the elections were broadcast worldwide on TV, and the fact that the people of Afghanistan spoke with their votes, you seem to want to ignore all of that because it does not suit your angle and take on the imperialistic American Empire you wish to believe exists south of our very own border here at home.
Yet, you condemn us as complicit occupiers when we were invited in by those very peoples, the overwhelming majority of whom support us and want us to remain there continuing with the good things we do. In the meantime ... you are contradicting your own morals on "occupation" by sanctioning the deployment of the CF into the Sudan, without a mandate from the UN and especially without any desire by that sovereign nation to have us there. You choose to call it genocide, so that makes it OK to bend the rules for you. What the hell do you think the female population was experiencing under the Taliban?? Or does that not count because it didn't get broadcast on worldwide television and happen on such a grand scale?? And the simple plain facts are ... THAT was occurring prior to 2001.
Why then, if you can justify the Sudan, can you not justify the US in Iraq? No, they weren't invited in there either (just like the Sudan) but heck, I'd argue there are many Kurds amongst other ethnic groups who were experiencing the wilful rampant murder of their peoples by the Hussein
How absolutely hypocritical of you. Are Afghan women/moderates not worth as much to you as the Sudanese? Are not the Kurds? Yet you continue to profess you speak for the oppressed in the world. I see that's only a priority when it's convenient for you or when it suits your anti-US agenda..
For me, this all boils down to your group being interested in nothing more than opposing any American, and that is your goal.
And you are going to sit here and tell us the difference between an insurgent and the Taliban?? We know the difference. And that is exactly why we are currently in Afghanistan my friend. You see that very Taliban
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Yes the US should pull all the troops of Iraq right away. That will make everything of so much better. :
Why deal with what is happening now when you can blast past mistakes.
These guys would have had us pull out of ww2 after Dieppe and Hong Kong . :
Why deal with what is happening now when you can blast past mistakes.
These guys would have had us pull out of ww2 after Dieppe and Hong Kong . :
Staff Weenie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 105
- Points
- 630
Vern - you don't know how right your statements are.
When I was an Undergrad, I was a long-haired protester too. I was even 'President' (or El Presidente...) of an on-campus group that worked for freedoms in El Salvador. Eventually, I became extremely disillusioned with all these groups, because once you strip away the cover of rabid anti-Americanism, or even thinly cloaked antisemitism, there's nothing left of any value.
These people protest and protest. They fight like pit-bulls to blame the Americans (or Jews, or American Jews) for everything.....and yet they cannot propose any viable options.
They have no real answers.
And all the reasoning and logic we can apply to address their issues only fuels the fire. Being 'cut down' by the soldier or policeman is their Red Badge of Courage. They can retreat to their academic Ivory Tower and play themselves the hero in the Grad Students Pub. 'Look at me, I'm the man now, somebody buy me a drink'
I know this, as many years ago it was me, bragging about how I faced down the 'fascist police' during anti-aparthied demonstrations...
When I was an Undergrad, I was a long-haired protester too. I was even 'President' (or El Presidente...) of an on-campus group that worked for freedoms in El Salvador. Eventually, I became extremely disillusioned with all these groups, because once you strip away the cover of rabid anti-Americanism, or even thinly cloaked antisemitism, there's nothing left of any value.
These people protest and protest. They fight like pit-bulls to blame the Americans (or Jews, or American Jews) for everything.....and yet they cannot propose any viable options.
They have no real answers.
And all the reasoning and logic we can apply to address their issues only fuels the fire. Being 'cut down' by the soldier or policeman is their Red Badge of Courage. They can retreat to their academic Ivory Tower and play themselves the hero in the Grad Students Pub. 'Look at me, I'm the man now, somebody buy me a drink'
I know this, as many years ago it was me, bragging about how I faced down the 'fascist police' during anti-aparthied demonstrations...
Similar threads
