# Taliban Suffer Crushing Defeat



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

For a bit of balance:



> NATO forces claimed Monday killing 92 Taliban fighters in a heavy engagement in two districts of the southern Kandahar province where a massive operation is going on since early this month.


http://www.pajhwak.com/viewstory.asp?id=24225



> The insurgent body count is certainly rising sharply. Nato announced yesterday that so far more than 500 had died in the first nine days of Operation Medusa, led by Canadian forces to drive fighters out of an area where they were threatening the crucial city of Kandahar. That is a heavy blow to an organisation that is only reckoned to number 7,000 full- and part-time gunmen.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/12/wafghan12.xml



> NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Thursday claimed killing 21 Taliban fighters in Medusa operation in Pajnjwayee and Zhari districts of the lawless southern Kandahar province.


http://www.pajhwak.com/viewstory.asp?lng=eng&id=24109


----------



## depmode101 (Sep 4, 2002)

i think that Canada should be proud of our men and women serving in this important fight.

i was just in Britain last week and saw on the news that they mention Canada being the country that has taken the lead on the front line in the most agressive parts in this fight in Afghanistan.

i just pray for any families that have people fighting overseas and wish them well and hope for a quick and safe return.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Enemy Body Counts Revived
> U.S. Is Citing Tolls to Show Success in Iraq
> By Bradley Graham
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> ...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301273.html




> US Tactic To Lower Iraq Body Count: Exclude Car Bomb, Mortar Attack Deaths...
> McClatchy Washington Bureau | Mark Brunswick and Zaineb Obeid | Posted September 9, 2006 10:18 AM
> READ MORE: Iraq
> 
> ...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/09/09/us-tactic-to-lower-iraq-b_n_29045.html

Lies, damn lies....and statistics......

Some of us remember only to well what was reported as "success" in Vietnam "thousands of enemy dead"...."if we only had more troops we'd win" said the generals..........more more more....



> *Afghanistan efforts to ramp up with 200 more troops, tanks*
> 
> Meagan Fitzpatrick, CanWest News Service
> Published: Saturday, September 16, 2006
> OTTAWA -- The Canadian Forces are sending 450 more troops and a squadron of tanks to counter* the growing Taliban insurgency* in southern Afghanistan


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=33f4e491-f5ed-4d7d-b448-44c1f98f483d

..*growing*..!!!!?????....how revealing.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, while I concur with depmode101's hope that "i just pray for any families that have people fighting overseas and wish them well and hope for a quick and safe return", I recall all too well the nightly "bodycount" of Vietnamese killed in that war. In the final analysis, the US had killed three times the total population of North Vietnam based on these counts.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Odd how some people deplore "body count" yet they point to Canada's body count as justification for pulling out.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I say let it all come out. If people could understand the true cost of war maybe we would be more hestiant to wage war and put our citizens in the middle of other nations' civil wars.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

A thread discussing possible good news? That's allowed? 

Good idea IM. :clap: 

This speech briefly mentions successes then gets into plans and challenges, so perhaps that small amount of positive discussion is ok.

http://www.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/library/nadiri-en.asp
.............
Afghanistan has made extraordinary progress in the short period of four or five years
.............


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I don't measure "good news" or "progress" by how many people are killed.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Saying that the Taliban have suffered a crushing defeat with this recent loss is like saying the ocean is drying up because I took a bucket of water out of it.

These people are fanatics. They will do anything for their cause. They continue to recruit young, impressionable minds into their cult of hate.

Trying to defeat them is no easy task. We are talking decades here, not months.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I don't measure "good news" or "progress" by how many people are killed.


I consider success against the Taliban good news. There are also the other things going on (e.g. development). It's not all bad news and, considering how many gripe threads there are, this thread is a good idea.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I don't measure "good news" or "progress" by how many people are killed.


Indeed. Ironic that the day after this so-called defeat they managed to kill 4 soldiers and wound a dozen more.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Beej said:


> I consider success against the Taliban good news. There are also the other things going on (e.g. development). It's not all bad news and, considering how many gripe threads there are, this thread is a good idea.


I don't measure success by how many people are killed. If in killing x number of Taliban, we create 3x as many sons without fathers, brothers with dead siblings, etc that take up revenge, and the extremist mantle then we have not succeeded. Quite the opposite.

Let's measure success by declarations of surrender, peace talks, and treaties. Let's meassure success by lives saved instead of lives taken. Let's measure success by the number of bullets NOT fired.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I don't measure success by how many people are killed. If in killing x number of Taliban, we create 3x as many sons without fathers, brothers with dead siblings, etc that take up revenge, and the extremist mantle then we have not succeeded. Quite the opposite.
> 
> Let's measure success by declarations of surrender, peace talks, and treaties. Let's meassure success by lives saved instead of lives taken. Let's measure success by the number of bullets NOT fired.


Good thing we didn't use your method of success during World War II.

We'd all be speaking German or Japanese by now.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Let's measure success by declarations of surrender, peace talks, and treaties. Let's meassure success by lives saved instead of lives taken. Let's measure success by the number of bullets NOT fired.


Declarations of surrender? Ok.

How about things like schooling, elections and women's participation in society too? I don't see much interest in talking about those things, along with your list. I do see a lot of talk about Canadian soldiers killed and what is presumed to be propaganda, as if that was all that was happening and all that mattered. Discussion is good and, as IM mentioned at the start, some balance would be good. So, by all means, start looking for and discussing positive developments and consider lives saved and/or improved and areas secured BEFORE talking about who was killed. There's time enough to do both.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> How about things like schooling, elections and women's participation in society too? I don't see much interest in talking about those things, along with your list.


Just finished reading Maclean magazine where they implore the government to sell this war by listing achievements such as schooling etc... Have you been working for them Beej?

There has been no clear goals defined in Afghanistan (either by the Liberals or the Cons). 
It's a mess created by the Americans but Harper and company have appropriated themselves of this mission. The country is regressing and there seems to be no plan except for sending more troops.

Right now, I'm expecting a big PR exercise to justify our presence there but the bottom line is that Canadians don't want soldiers wasted in a war that does very little for Canada. 
Conservatives talk about the perceived wasted of the gun registry (2 billions), how much has been spent in Afghanistan? 4 Billion?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

SINC said:


> Good thing we didn't use your method of success during World War II.
> 
> We'd all be speaking German or Japanese by now.


I think you misunderstand me. We measure success with Germany and Japan in that the West obtained surrenders and peace treaties from those peoples. The success isn't in the killing of "enemies". Success is the end result. (need I remind some that Japan was a closed "backward" nation until the US invaded it militarily and opened it up to trade and modernization).

They don't put Canadians killing others in the "good news" label in the papers or under the "cheers" section.

Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Russia were all much greater threats to the West and peace was achieved. Afhanistan is a flyspeck of a country without much infrastructure and with much barren landscape. The fact is that after five years there we haven't achieved peace. WWII only lasted six years... and Afghanistan is only 0.01 the threat that the West faced in WWII. Let's face it, all the other great superpowers couldn't tame it, we can't either.

If at the end of the day WWII was dealt with faster than Afghanistan, I think we'll have to admit that our involvement there was a failure.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I liken a terrorist occupied area like Afghanistan to the seed of an Oak tree.

Let it grow freely and one day it will be tall and strong and shade you from your sunlight.

I don't want that to happen to Canada, thus Afghanistan is an important operation for future Canadians.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Just finished reading Maclean magazine where they implore the government to sell this war by listing achievements such as schooling etc... Have you been working for them Beej?


I'm asking that people openly discuss achievements as well as failures, challenges etc. instead of the current lop-sided discussions. I guess that's too much to ask when NDP talking points dominate the threads. Some work on the side AS?  See how easy that is to do?  

What is the problem with discussing achievements as well? Even for people who disagree with Canada's role, there shouldn't be any inherent problem with accepting and (gasp!) posting news on positive developments. After the standard response to this posts' blatant violation of implicit ehmac rules, a few posters should try it. 

Otherwise, the politicians have already won.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> What is the problem with discussing achievements as well? Even for people who disagree with Canada's role, there shouldn't be any inherent problem with accepting and (gasp!) posting news on positive developments.


Apart from sounding like Bush and his criticism of journalists covering the Iraq war (only reporting the negative stuff), what positive developments are you talking about?
Many humanitarian organizations have left, heroin production is way up, and "reconstruction" seem to be an after thought. I'm sure that giving candies to children does very little to help if they are hungry....
But please, name a positive development (the drive thru for tanks at the Tim Hortons does not count beejacon )


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I don't want that to happen to Canada, thus Afghanistan is an important operation for future Canadians.


You say it's an important operation but why?
We are now in more danger than before....


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Right now, I'm expecting a big PR exercise to justify our presence there but the bottom line is that Canadians don't want soldiers wasted in a war that does very little for Canada.


I would like to think we aren't that selfish. If we truly are, we are a part of the problem. I don't want soldiers wasted, but whether or not the war does anything for our national interests is not how one determines if they are wasted. We are the nation responsible for the duty to intervene doctrine that the UN adopted. We are the nation most responsible for making the argument that sometimes we in the Western world have a duty to make other nations a better place to live, even when it ISN'T in our narrow national self interest.

There are a LOT of legitimate questions to be asked about the methods being employed here. The mission appears to have been a failure thus far, and all indications are it will never be any kind of significant success. But if we are only going to consider it worth acting when it is in our self interest, we might as well close down the military completely.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt, when a war is sold to us because "it's in our national interest", I'd like to hear more than a rallying cry around the flag or the explanation that "we gave our promise". 
If we are altruistic as you'd like us to be, then the question becomes why Afghanistan and not some other region (like Darfur)? 
Why are we not trying to improve the lot of people in other countries that abuse human rights (Saudi Arabia)? 
Our foreign policy is based on perceived interests and the influence of ally nations...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> RevMatt, when a war is sold to us because "it's in our national interest", I'd like to hear more than a rallying cry around the flag or the explanation that "we gave our promise".


Agreed.



ArtistSeries said:


> If we are altruistic as you'd like us to be, then the question becomes why Afghanistan and not some other region (like Darfur)?


An excellent question, that no one is asking. I made a lengthy post about this quite some time back, but Haiti is actually the place where we could make the most valuable contribution, I believe. We have a language in common, and a long cultural tie. The Haitian people think very well of us, and consider us an ally. Well, they did, we may have squandered that by abandoning them as we have, I'm not sure.



ArtistSeries said:


> Why are we not trying to improve the lot of people in other countries that abuse human rights (Saudi Arabia)?


We can't be everywhere at once, and there is work to be done in Afghanistan. That doesn't excuse us from asking the questions about whether we are using the right tactics, whether we are working towards the best goal, and whether we are the best nation to do the work in Afghanistan that unquestionably needs to be done. And yes, it needs to be done in Saudi Arabia, too.



ArtistSeries said:


> Our foreign policy is based on perceived interests and the influence of ally nations...


It's more complex than that, of course. Don't forget the desire to be re elected  But I would certainly agree that far too much emphasis is placed on trying to please our big brother.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> And yes, it needs to be done in Saudi Arabia, too.


How very Kiplingesque of you. 

Does sovereignity mean nothing to you?

••

Beej



> How about things like schooling, elections and women's participation in society too


Never gonna happen at the point of a gun and western societies took their own sweet time about it.....and we still have a significant gender gap in just about every category you care to name.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Never gonna happen at the point of a gun and western societies took their own sweet time about it.....and we still have a significant gender gap in just about every category you care to name.


I'm referring to the seeming unwillingness of some to look for/mention _any_ successes/improvement examples. Not widespread "Mission Accomplished" type stuff or philosophical breakthroughs regarding individual rights, just pointing out examples like negative examples get repeatedly pointed out around here. It's not surprising, but I thought I'd try anyway.  

Also, I hope you're talking about an Afghanistan gender gap; don't get me started on perceptions of broad-based North American gender gaps.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm talking about REAL first world gender gaps - how many hands does it take to count Fortune 500 companies headed by women??
How many women MPs?

••••
The "successes" are sounding far far too much like the ones in Vietnam.......smoke to mask failure.

..."look we're winning, we're winning".....oops


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> How very Kiplingesque of you.
> 
> Does sovereignity mean nothing to you?


Very little. Far, far less than the humane treatment of my fellow human beings. Far less than the proper treatment of the environment, in fact. But, since I wasn't clear let me clarify - intervene need not mean invade. Invading would be the worst possible option.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Not widespread "Mission Accomplished" type stuff or philosophical breakthroughs regarding individual rights....


Don't you think that some of the reaction here is in response to the "Mission Accomplished" type statements that are released to the news media?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I'm talking about REAL first world gender gaps - how many hands does it take to count Fortune 500 companies headed by women??
> How many women MPs?


And I'm talking about real misreads of outcomes that are taken to imply much more than they do about society, as well as limiting the scope of outcomes considered, which also reinforces this. A long discussion.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Don't you think that some of the reaction here is in response to the "Mission Accomplished" type statements that are released to the news media?


Sure, and none of that would eliminate what I've asked about unless, of course, the politicians have already won. Cheers AS.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, start naming the positive achievements - board is all yours....
(yet you are quick to criticize that "we" have not cheered the mission there)

Start posting the positive news....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Beej, start naming the positive achievements - board is all yours....
> (yet you are quick to criticize that "we" have not cheered the mission there)
> 
> Start posting the positive news....


I see you've missed my point or are intentionally not addressing it. Why don't many bother with positive observations as well as the negative? Not to mention that I posted a link to a speech as an example and would like to see other examples. I read a lot of the negative news and will continue to do so because it is part of what is happening, but I would like a more fully fleshed out perspective than just that. Recall how media coverage makes many think that crime is out of control? This is not media's fault (if it bleeds, it leads) but there's no reason to reinforce that tendency (nor does it need to be offset in some alternatively unbalanced way). 

So, of course, you still use your approach to twist others' posts: _"yet you are quick to criticize that "we" have not cheered the mission there"_. This after I've mentioned many times about discussing both positive developments and the negative ones; you intentionally use the word "cheered" to mischaracterise. 

I've seen the AS treatment enough -- I refer people to some of MannyP's recent observations as points of reference. They were particularly funny while being accurate, although somewhat rude if looked at out of the context of repeated ASing.

AS, do your thing. I hope you come up with something as funny as the term "bum sex" (past Vandave ASing).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> Why don't many bother with positive observations as well as the negative?


This brings up an interesting question. 
The first issue comes as to what our role is there. 
The Liberals sold this as some kind of peacekeeping mission. The Cons, refused to say for the longest time this was a war.
The common theme to both parties was to bring “democracy” and “stability” to Afghanistan. 

If you look at Afghanistan, it a country that suffers from extreme poverty, 1 in 5 children die before the age of 5, schooling is not high and the average life expectancy is lower than it’s neighbours. 

The politicians have misled the difficulty and us. Now, you seem to object to a certain cynicism in many postings. 

Peter MacKay wrote an op-ed piece saying that his benchmarks include 
- an Afghan army/police for security
- some anti-corruption legislation in the government
- more women in the workforce
These are based on the Afganistand compact
http://www.ands.gov.af/admin/ands/ands_docs/upload/UploadFolder/Afghanistan Compact.pdf


This week, Hamid Karzai will be showed-off around Ottawa, isn’t this the right time to start asking questions about what is basically a puppet government?
If the goals are “democracy” should we not start questioning the so-called leader? What is the relationship between him and the warlords? The drug trade? 

You spoke of free elections and that is positive but there are issues when an elected member of the Afghan government states


> Indicative of this sad state of affairs is the fact that the "democratically elected" president relies on U.S. special forces troops for his personal bodyguards.
> In advance of Karzai’s promotional visit to Ottawa, a member of the Afghan parliament embarked on a one-woman campaign to discredit her own government. At a number of speeches across Canada, 28-year-old Malalai Joya told all who would listen that the Karzai regime is a sham and that the so-called progress made by the U.S. occupation to date is a complete lie.
> "The U.S. government did remove the medieval regime of the Taliban and their al-Qaida masters," she said. "But instead, they brought back the Northern Alliance to power and they are brothers-in-creed of the Taliban and as brutal and anti-democracy as (the) Taliban and even worse."
> The most severe criticisms levelled by the outspoken Afghan MP were aimed at Karzai himself. "Instead of relying on people to bring the criminal warlords to trial, (Hamid Karzai) appoints these criminals to higher posts," she said. "For instance, this year he appointed 13 former commanders with links to drug smuggling, organized crime and illegal militias to senior positions in the police force."
> Evidence of the "free speech" currently enjoyed in Afghanistan is the fact that there have already been four attempts made on her life. "I am well aware of the hardships, challenges and death from anti-democracy forces. One day they may kill me as they have guns and power and the support of the U.S. government," admits Joya.


http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/529010.html

For sure, there seems to be an escalation of the war – why else are we sending more troops? 

So all the reforms that you’d see as positive mean nothing if it’s only a surface gloss.

I find it somewhat naïve that we should focus on pyrrhic victories.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Wahhhhhhh! We can never defeat these rogues! Better we should go home and wait for them to get us. At least we'll be able to watch TV while they make the final preparations.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Well MF, another insightful post. 
Who are the rogues?
What preparations would these be? 
Are you sure they are out to get us? 
If you watch TV, stay away from the news - Coronation Street is much better.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

What I find truly naive is that no one ever talks about the consequences of a Western pull-out of Afghanistan. Let's see a show of hands from the anti-war camp to the following questions:

Do you want to see the Taliban back in power?
Do you want the Taliban to shelter al-Qaeda?
Do you want a pull-out to be seen as a victory for religious fundamentalists and once again affirming the wimpiness of the Western democracies?

C'mon, raise your hands!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'll raise AS's hand for him!


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

SINC said:


> Good thing we didn't use your method of success during World War II.
> 
> We'd all be speaking German or Japanese by now.


Heaven forbid that the Allies shouldn't turn their forces around at the first sign of a kamikaze attack! :lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So all the reforms that you’d see as positive mean nothing if it’s only a surface gloss.
> 
> I find it somewhat naïve that we should focus on pyrrhic victories.


That's finally something resembling an answer. Thanks. 

Of course, it's an answer but not a good reason. :heybaby:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I suspect Colonel Klink could have defeated this stalwart group at EhMac single-handedly. 

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Do you want to see the Taliban back in power?
> Do you want the Taliban to shelter al-Qaeda?
> Do you want a pull-out to be seen as a victory for religious fundamentalists and once again affirming the wimpiness of the Western democracies?


Maybe we should go after Pakistan, after all, they have recently releases hundred of al-Qaida prisoners, signed a deal with the Taliban saying they would no longer chase them.....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

*Benefits of Bringing Back the Taliban*

Yes, let's bring back the Taliban!

- Women back in the home so more jobs for the men.
- Drug production down so good news for the West.
- Less noise as music is forbidden so great for those who need more sleep!
- No running allowed as kiteflying is forbidden which is good since the hospitals can't handle the injuries when people fall!
- No wasteful pursuits such as "art".
- More mosque-going so souls will be saved!
- More "tourists" from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Chechnya who will stay at their own "resorts".
- Strong, central government so no need for "Western" interference which is great news for those who believe in self-determination.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I suspect Colonel Klink could have defeated this stalwart group at EhMac single-handedly.
> 
> Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh!


Ahh yes, the famous MF line of soundbytes without answering questions...

So tell us furious one, why should we be in Afghanistan and what are our goals here (try to stay away from the empty rhetoric is possible)


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Maybe we should go after Pakistan, after all, they have recently releases hundred of al-Qaida prisoners, signed a deal with the Taliban saying they would no longer chase them.....


Did I say anything about not exorciating them?

BTW, where is your hand?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Yes, let's bring back the Taliban!
> 
> - Women back in the home so more jobs for the men.
> - Drug production down so good news for the West.
> ...


- Not good: the men should spend more time with their kids (sons at least)
- Not good: nuff said.
- Not good: then all you can hear is the sound of misery
- Not good: many kite manufacturers will lose their jobs; Good: and spend more time with their sons; Not good: listening to the silent misery
- Not good: no Afghanistan version of Kevin Spencer
- Not good: heaven already over-crowded with self-righteous do-gooders
- Not good: less tourism opportunity for Canada
- Not good: all politics is local

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> without answering questions...


Yeah MF, you didn't answer IM's questions but instead used a one-liner.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> - Not good: no Afghanistan version of Kevin Spencer


I would really hate to see what he'd look like....
What would the equivalent of Allen the magic goose be?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I would really hate to see what he'd look like....
> What would the equivalent of Allen the magic goose be?


Given that KS is somewhat of a low-brow shocktoon, I'd guess either a magic talking kite or an educated woman in a pants-suit.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I'm sure that KS would be enjoying the heroin....


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> These people are fanatics. They will do anything for their cause. They continue to recruit young, impressionable minds into their cult of hate.
> 
> Trying to defeat them is no easy task. We are talking decades here, not months.



remind me who are you talking about here? 

Texans? Mid westerners?
Canadians (well, some of them) ? I could go on guessing.....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> They continue to recruit young, impressionable minds into their cult of hate.


Sounds like intramural football rivalry to me.
....or the Marines....



> Below is an excerpt of a message I received from a Marine recruit who ditched boot camp to save his own humanity:
> 
> Mr. White,
> 
> ...


http://www.counterpunch.org/white05292004.html

say again.....??


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

IronMac said:


> What I find truly naive is that no one ever talks about the consequences of a Western pull-out of Afghanistan. Let's see a show of hands from the anti-war camp to the following questions:
> 
> Do you want to see the Taliban back in power?
> Do you want the Taliban to shelter al-Qaeda?
> ...


What? No Taliban supporters around here? Could have fooled me what with all the belly-aching about changed missions and casualties.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In one fell swoop MacDoc has destroyed the U.S. Marines with a single quote attributed to a supposed U.S. Marine recruit--well done, brave fellow.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I think you mean Italy instead of Soviet Russia?




Paul O'Keefe said:


> I think you misunderstand me. We measure success with Germany and Japan in that the West obtained surrenders and peace treaties from those peoples. The success isn't in the killing of "enemies". Success is the end result. (need I remind some that Japan was a closed "backward" nation until the US invaded it militarily and opened it up to trade and modernization).
> 
> They don't put Canadians killing others in the "good news" label in the papers or under the "cheers" section.
> 
> ...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

That sounds like one of George Bush's Code Red State of Emergency statements.

More danger now? Perhaps, but we're more careful now.




ArtistSeries said:


> You say it's an important operation but why?
> *We are now in more danger than before....*


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One marine .....I don't think so. The literature and articles are extensive....and damning.



> Soldiers trained to kill, not to cope
> 
> By Charles Duhigg
> Los Angeles Times
> ...


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001984566_combat21.html

The deaths and physical wounds are not the only casualties....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

*More Taliban Deaths*

Eleven more Taliban insurgents killed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091900364.html



> Police killed eight militants and wounded four in the Khakhtapul area of Garmser district, Rasool said. A separate clash in the Miankhail area of the same district killed three Taliban.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macdoc, you're not supporting our troops
get ready for a RevCan audit


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A short history - 
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/War_Peace/History_of_Killing_in_War.html

It's a horrendous read.....you are warned and significant paragraph



> Racism in all its forms (cultural ethnocentrism, scientific racism and broadly-based ideas about 'national character') was a key factor in the prevalence of atrocities in certain theatres of war. The most vicious and widespread atrocities carried out by British, American and Australian troops occurred in circumstances, in all three conflicts, where the enemy was considered to be racially very different (as in the war in the Pacific between 1939-45 and in Vietnam). Prejudice lay at the very heart of the military establishment (for instance, during the Second World War, drill instructors told recruits: 'You're not going to Europe, you're going to the Pacific. Don't hesitate to fight the Japs dirty' and, in the Vietnam context, Calley was originally charged with the premeditated murder of 'Oriental human beings' rather than 'human beings'), and undeniably, men who carried out atrocities had highly prejudicial views about their victims. Calley recalled that on arriving in Vietnam his main thought was, 'I'm the big American from across the sea. I'll sock it to these people here.' Even Michael Bernhardt (who refused to take part in the massacre) said of his comrades at My Lai: 'A lot of those people wouldn't think of killing a man. I mean, a white man - a human so to speak


Demonizing occurs and is being undertaken in every account and the rhetoric is being wound up by both sides for their own ends- a bicycle bomb is "cowardly - a miss from 30,000 feet "collateral damage"  

I would prefer Canada to NOT be grouped with "warmakers" in the minds of peoples of the world nor in my mind. 

...and we're sliding down that path very very quickly.
Other NATO nations are second guessing too......we need a debate - not the sham that occurred last time.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

you ever notice that wars by the west always include a racial/ethnic slur in describing the enemy in an obvious attempt to de-humanize them?

and then why would you negotiate with someone that you don't even regard as human?

and those that build war machines laugh all they way to their offshore banks

we're involved in a "war on terror" but captured prisoners are referred to as "detainees" since "POWs" are covered by the Geneva Conventions, which make them much more difficult to legally torture

makes one sick


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Only the West? What are you, an "infidel?"




MACSPECTRUM said:


> you ever notice that wars by the west always include a racial/ethnic slur in describing the enemy in an obvious attempt to de-humanize them?
> 
> and then why would you negotiate with someone that you don't even regard as human?
> 
> ...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Only the West? What are you, an "infidel?"


i must be since i enjoy eating pork


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> I would prefer Canada to NOT be grouped with "warmakers" in the minds of peoples of the world nor in my mind.


Canada, as a nation, has participated in WWI, WWII, and Korea. Peacekeeping is a relatively recent idea. What? Is it so hard to morph from warmaking to peacekeeping to warmaking again?



MacDoc said:


> Other NATO nations are second guessing too......we need a debate - not the sham that occurred last time.


Not Poland:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14819364/



> Poland on Thursday commited 1,000 new troops for Nato's force in Afghanistan


The time for debate is before and after a conflict. Debating now will only give the enemy courage that the coddled masses of the Western democracies are going to cut and run.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> The time for debate is before and after a conflict. Debating now will only give the enemy courage that the coddled masses of the Western democracies are going to cut and run.


Seems that the Polish "allies" is being questionned.


> *Poland's Afghan mission disputed at home, praised by NATO*
> 
> What surprised the Law and Justice government coalition partners had been the *lack of consultations on the decision* concerning the scope of Polish participation in the NATO Afghan mission as well *as its character and duration*. The operation will cost Polish taxpayers some 75 million euros and for the first time Polish troops would be *engaged in direct combat and not peace keeping* duties.
> 
> ...


http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1703656/posts


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

To turn back now and withdraw our troops would brand us as cowards, a name I would bet would never be imagined in Holland.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> To turn back now and withdraw our troops would brand us as cowards, a name I would bet would never be imagined in Holland.


better to live to fight another day and for a good reason as opposed to kissing white house a$$


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If 50 years is "relatively recent" ......:
















We should be building on the foundation Pearson laid for efforts in the UN and brokering peace around the world.

You guys living in past wars with a very different world need to wake up before it ends up with another one" kill the Jerries....err ********" and another disgrace like Somalia 
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/canadas_military/69302

The world has far more need of effective peacekeepers and even more in need of effective peace makers. It has enough guns and tanks and bullets and not enough initiatives like the Land Mine treaty which one of the proudest efforts by a Canadian I've seen in a long while and puts the Feds to shame.

That's the vision of Canada I'd like others to have.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Tucking our tails between our legs and retreating from Afghanistan, leaving our allies (not just the US by the way) to fight our battles is despicable and dishonourable. That is NOT the view of Canada I want to see.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Ahh, the patriotism and not letting down your "friends"....

How about looking at if our failed strategies are working, the state of affairs there and if we are not exacerbating the situation there with our efforts. Hardly a surrender but if you prefer to waste Canadians lives and taxpayers money....

Asking for debate is not equivalent running away.
O'Connor has said we cannot win this war militarily yet he's asking for more troops. 

The chickenhawks are all for war (but never served or deferments of their service), the chickenhawks never send their own children to war (aren't the Bush children of age?) 

So how do you think that this "nation building" and "reconstruction" will work when it's been a disaster in Iraq...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i could be more convinced of 'our mission' in afghanistan if the u.s. had NOT invaded iraq and instead had sent in all those soldiers into afghanistan to find usama bin laden and properly rebuild afghanistan

the fact that our ally lied to garner support for their invasion of iraq should be reason enough to pull out of afghanistan


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

SINC said:


> To turn back now and withdraw our troops would brand us as cowards, a name I would bet would never be imagined in Holland.


If you view putting an end to a failed military strategy and saving the lives of our citizens as "cowardly" that's up to you.

Canada has been a "coward" in the past by creating "peace-making", abandoning nuclear weapons, and by signing a land-mine treaty ban.

I prefer if foreign policy and military intervention is based on intelligence, logic, compassion, realism, social justice, etc and not on concepts of machismo, on bravado, perceptions of cowardess, wimpyness, or "balls and guts".

It is better to admit to a mistake and fix it rather than to bravely keep making the same mistake over and over again.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

SINC said:


> Tucking our tails between our legs and retreating from Afghanistan, leaving our allies (not just the US by the way) to fight our battles is despicable and dishonourable. That is NOT the view of Canada I want to see.


What's to retreat from? A new government has been formed. A police force and military has been trained. It's been about five years. The job that was set out to be done is done.

Why should Canada continue to fight in Afghanistan because Pakistan is immune to reprieve and allows its extremists to come across the border?

Where is the end to the war then? Pakistan is a nuclear nation. Afghanistan can't be secured unless Pakistan is secured. Do you suggest we hike up our jock straps and declare war on Pakitstan to make Afghanistan completely safe?

Because here is the kicker: Afghanistan will never be safe enough for some people.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i could be more convinced of 'our mission' in afghanistan if the u.s. had NOT invaded iraq and instead had sent in all those soldiers into afghanistan to find usama bin laden and properly rebuild afghanistan
> 
> the fact that our ally lied to garner support for their invasion of iraq should be reason enough to pull out of afghanistan


One has absolutely nothing to do with the other--the US's (BS) reasons for going to Iraq does not detract from, nor blur, the (UN sanctioned) mission to Afghanistan. Implying that our role in Afghanistan would be less questionable in your mind if only the US had focused primarily on Afghanistan is completely hogwash.

Canada (and a lot of other allies) did not follow Bush's lies which is why we're not in Iraq.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Because here is the kicker: Afghanistan will never be safe enough for some people.


Nor will the future Canada if we don't do our part now.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> One has absolutely nothing to do with the other--the US's (BS) reasons for going to Iraq does not detract from, nor blur, the (UN sanctioned) mission to Afghanistan. Implying that our role in Afghanistan would be less questionable in your mind if only the US had focused primarily on Afghanistan is completely hogwash.
> 
> Canada (and a lot of other allies) did not follow Bush's lies which is why we're not in Iraq.


I remember there being somebody else who intentionally blurred Iraq and Afghanistan issues in speeches to try to promote his own poorly supported notions. What was his name?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Nor will the future Canada if we don't do our part now.


SINC, realistically, what are the dangers of a terrorist attack on Canada pre 9/11?
And look at all the money wasted on what? 
It's costing the Canadian taxpayers a fortune for a little war with no goals or clear objectives (little soundbytes don't count as objectives).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I remember there being somebody else who intentionally blurred Iraq and Afghanistan issues in speeches to try to promote his own poorly supported notions. What was his name?


Harper? Mackay? Bush? Cheney? Rice?

This thread is named "Taliban Suffer Crushing Defeat" --- what defeat was it?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, realistically, what are the dangers of a terrorist attack on Canada pre 9/11?
> And look at all the money wasted on what?
> It's costing the Canadian taxpayers a fortune for a little war with no goals or clear objectives (little soundbytes don't count as objectives).


http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1703

What's not clear?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Oh that's right Manny - 
We have *2200+ killing* people (Taliban and other), *35 helping* train the Afghan *army to kill*, and *15* planning military actions with the Afghans...

I feel so much better knowing that this is "defending Canadian interests at home" and really rebuilding... lol

Maybe if politicians spoke the truth there would be less cynicism... 
As much as Iraq is a joke, so it Afghanistan.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> One has absolutely nothing to do with the other--the US's (BS) reasons for going to Iraq does not detract from, nor blur, the (UN sanctioned) mission to Afghanistan. Implying that our role in Afghanistan would be less questionable in your mind if only the US had focused primarily on Afghanistan is completely hogwash.
> 
> Canada (and a lot of other allies) did not follow Bush's lies which is why we're not in Iraq.


gee, i seem to remember afghanistan and iraq being lumped in to the 'war on terror'


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

« MannyP Design » said:


> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1703
> 
> What's not clear?


Thanks Manny, you saved me the trouble.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> gee, i seem to remember afghanistan and iraq being lumped in to the 'war on terror'


Wasn't the mission to Iraq two years later?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> Oh that's right Manny -
> We have *2200+ killing* people (Taliban and other), *35 helping* train the Afghan *army to kill*, and *15* planning military actions with the Afghans...
> 
> I feel so much better knowing that this is "defending Canadian interests at home" and really rebuilding... lol
> ...


Got any numbers as to how many men, women and children have been killed by the Taliban et al? Beheadings... dismembering... you know, all *good* things they're known for before we got there.

Just don't tell them to go fly a kite, okay?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> You guys living in past wars with a very different world need to wake up before it ends up with another one" kill the Jerries....err ********" and another disgrace like Somalia
> 
> The world has far more need of effective peacekeepers and even more in need of effective peace makers.


Actually, you're the one who seems to be living in a very different world. It takes *BOTH* sides in order to make a peace happen.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ahh, the patriotism and not letting down your "friends"....
> 
> How about looking at if our failed strategies are working, the state of affairs there and if we are not exacerbating the situation there with our efforts. Hardly a surrender but if you prefer to waste Canadians lives and taxpayers money....
> 
> ...


First of all, you're not even letting the strategies that we do have in place time to work out.
Second, nation building and reconstruction do not happen when those efforts are under physical attack, much less being stabbed in the back by the Taliban-supporters here at home.
Third, Afghanistan is not Iraq.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i could be more convinced of 'our mission' in afghanistan if the u.s. had NOT invaded iraq and instead had sent in all those soldiers into afghanistan to find usama bin laden and properly rebuild afghanistan
> 
> the fact that our ally lied to garner support for their invasion of iraq should be reason enough to pull out of afghanistan


No, it's reason enough not to have anything to do with Iraq.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Third, Afghanistan is not Iraq.


What was I thinking, let's use the same tactics and expect different results....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

*Maybe the Taliban Should Go Back to Pakistan?*

Time for the Taliban to pull out because they are suffering casualties! Maybe they should head back to Pakistan to debate their "mission"?



> Four insurgents were killed in a clash with Afghan soldiers in eastern Paktika province Tuesday, a Defense Ministry statement said, while in the central province of Wardak, one policeman was killed and two wounded after dozens of fighters attacked police, said Mohammed Hassan, the deputy provincial police chief.


http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/20/asia/AS_GEN_Afghanistan.php

From the same article for those who support a pull-out of our troops:



> Karzai told the U.N. assembly that millions of Afghans have voted in elections and the country's per capita income has doubled since 2002. But he said an increase in terrorist attacks has resulted in schools and medical clinics being razed, and that the country's schools now have 200,000 fewer students than two years ago.


Come on, raise your hands if you support people who would *intentionally* destroy schools and medical clinics!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Time for the Taliban to pull out because they are suffering casualties! Maybe they should head back to Pakistan to debate their "mission"?


Since the Taliban has a truce with Pakistan, it's only natural....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

A couple of weeks back, I read an article in the Globe where a young child asked her dad why he was going to fight in Afghanistan? He replied that he was going to fight people who would not let girls like her learn how to read. The girl, who loved reading, then hugged her dad and, presumably, wished him well.

If a little girl can understand one of the most important rationales of this fight, why can't the peaceniks do so too?  



> When the Taliban government ruled Afghanistan, forbidding girls to attend school and women to teach, girls were taught by radio.


http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/En/REN-218125534-PZP



> With the help of Canadian soldiers who are risking their lives to stamp out the insurgency in Afghanistan, women in the country are gaining rights they were never afforded under the Taliban rule, like the chance to go to school.
> 
> It's an uphill battle, however, and there is still some violent opposition to the concept that all children deserve an education regardless of sex.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060202/afghan_canadian_0602010/20060210/



> Teachers are in the front line. In December assassins dragged a man who defied warnings to stop teaching girls from his classroom in Nad Ali, another Helmand district, and shot him at the school gate. Four other teachers have been killed and hundreds more threatened with "night letters" - handwritten notices delivered in the dark, ordering them to stop teaching or die.


http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=7700

Come on! Raise your hand if you support the Taliban! It's not that hard!

Raise your hand and repeat after me:

"I support a pull-out of Canadian troops with the full knowledge that, by doing so, I am going to allow men who would willingly shoot teachers and destroy schools to rule Afghanistan."


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

IronMac said:


> If a little girl can understand one of the most important rationales of this fight, why can't the peaceniks do so too?


Because they don't WANT to understand--this is why they keep asking why "we" are there and yet repeat ad naseum about how the mission has changed. Even when it's pointed out to them, they change the subject.

Quick... let's talk about Iraq!


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Again, the black and white, either in or out silliness prevents us from having a real discussion. To be there doesn't mean we have to do what we are doing now. To be opposed to the current strategy and think it stupid and doomed to fail does not mean that the troops have to come home.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Because they don't WANT to understand--this is why they keep asking why "we" are there and yet repeat ad naseum about how the mission has changed. Even when pointed out.


@#$%%^&* coddled masses!  

This is one of the few issues that *really* gets my dander up. Ever since the Taliban came to power I have wanted to see their butts kicked and I am going to ride every peacenik here who does not see the consequences of a withdrawal from this fight. 

C'mon, raise your hands if you support the Taliban!


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1703
> 
> *Why are we there?*
> 
> More than 2000 members of the Canadian Forces (CF) are in Afghanistan today at the request of the Afghan Government, most of them as part of the UN-Sanctioned NATO-led International Stabilization Assistance Force (ISAF) mission


This is retroactive history if ever I heard it. The Harper government loves its newspeak.

The Afghan Government did not at any time ask Canada to invade and occupy it. Now the puppet government that was eventually set up there might have requested we stay there, but that's something different all together.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

WTF? Retroactive? Hardly.

Someone wanted to know what the mission is--I point to the most *obvious* source since they, apparently, can't figure it out. I leave it to those with half a brain cell, and who really give two pence to search Google for the previous PMs' newspeak--I'll wager they'll find the same thing.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

As a person holding prodominantly isolationist stances, I'm in favour of the sovereignty of nations and the acknowlegement that "our way" is NOT the only way and necessarily the best way for all people and all places.

I believe we have the right to spread the ideas of "our way", but not through the barrel of a rifle or at the business end of a sword. I beleive in the right to defend our nation, but not to initiate agression on other nations and peoples. I don't believe that "nationhood" is the only way a people can manifest their group identity and values.

I believe we should open our land to others who seek amnesty and refuge during times of war. I believe in a society where were are free to do and say what we want as long as we are not harming others or threatening to harm others.

There are many things about other nations and peoples that I do not understand and that I fear. Others have values and traditons that conflict with my own. Some customs and laws of others I deem completely wrong and heinous. However, it is not by belief to force others to renouce their ways to adopt mine. I will defend my ways within our jurisdiction. I may even seek to changes the ways of other through peaceful means through free of my own expression. I believe that we DO NOT have the right to others change their ways through agression. We are allowed to act in defense of our ways and jurisdiction though. When defence becomes nothing more than agression than it cease to be defence.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"Canada has never been a nation to sit on the sidelines. We did not pick this fight. But we will finish it. Because on the side of justice...in a just cause.. there can be only one outcome."


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> WTF? Retroactive? Hardly.
> 
> Someone wanted to know what the mission is--I point to the most *obvious* source since they, apparently, can't figure it out.


Give me two dates.

First date: When we went to Afghanistan in a military capacity.

Second date: When the government of Afghanistan asked us to be there.


If you can prove to me that we were invited by the Afghanstan government *before* we were already there than I will admit I was wrong. I will completely change my position.

If not you will concede to the retroactive rewriting of history by the Harper government.

Please provide links to back up your dates.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"Our enemies have made a fatal miscalculation. They have mistaken our freedom for weakness. They have mistaken our openness and generosity for a lack of spine. They have mistaken our values for a lack of resolve.

And they will be proven wrong. On every count.

Mr. Speaker, the road ahead will be long. But our victory will be complete!"


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Someone wanted to know what the mission is--I point to the most *obvious* source since they, apparently, can't figure it out. I leave it to those with half a brain cell, and who really give two pence to search Google for the previous PMs' newspeak--I'll wager they'll find the same thing.


I'm trying to help them along MP. Sorry, but I couldn't just, "leave it to those..." you cold-hearted elitist.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"This incident is a painful reminder that defending our values and doing our duty in the international campaign against terrorism can exact a very high price. All Canadians owe a great debt of gratitude to the men and women of the Canadian Forces who willingly and bravely venture forth on our behalf. We will not forget the sacrifices these soldiers have made to make Canada and the world a safer place."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> @#$%%^&* coddled masses!
> 
> This is one of the few issues that *really* gets my dander up. Ever since the Taliban came to power I have wanted to see their butts kicked and I am going to ride every peacenik here who does not see the consequences of a withdrawal from this fight.


Join the army if you are so keen! Go for it, or are you a wimp?

If you can't get into the Canadian army, try the American one, they accept recruits up to the age of 44 or 45....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> "This incident is a painful reminder that defending our values and doing our duty in the international campaign against terrorism can exact a very high price. All Canadians owe a great debt of gratitude to t*he men and women of the Canadian Forces who willingly and bravely venture forth on our behalf*. We will not forget the sacrifices these soldiers have made to make Canada and the world a safer place."


It's their job.

Safer? Lol....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> "Our enemies have made a fatal miscalculation. They have mistaken our freedom for weakness. They have mistaken our openness and generosity for a lack of spine. They have mistaken our values for a lack of resolve.
> 
> And they will be proven wrong. On every count.
> 
> Mr. Speaker, the road ahead will be long. But our victory will be complete!"


Spoken by Jean Chretien. So?
Different time, different mission before Harper so graciously decided that debate was no good...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"Our collective freedom has come under attack today by those who would use violence and murder to force extremism upon the world. We must and we will stand against these terrorists. We will do so together. And we will prevail."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"Consistent with Canadian values, the men and women of the Canadian Forces are in Afghanistan to help bring peace, stability, hope and opportunity to the Afghan people. This mission involves significant risks but the members of the Canadian Forces have the leadership, training, equipment and support they need to succeed."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"All Canadians understand what is being asked of the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families. As always, they are ready to serve. As always, they will do Canada proud."


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Wwjd?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"I cannot promise that the campaign against terrorism will be painless. But I can promise that it will be won!"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, trying to get your posting count up?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"Let us therefore begin this task, not with a partisan litany of issues from the past, but rather with a recognition of the great role that our forces have played to date and a collective determination to work together to build on this record, to improve on one of our greatest national assets so that it may continue the role of defending us while contributing to the security of others who live in far less fortunate circumstances than ourselves."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dude, on post, not 100....
Apart from the quotes, any argument to put forth?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"I am not saying we are going to be in Afghanistan anything like 10 years, but I hope the hon. member would agree with me that we must remain there long enough at least allow President Karzai's government to have control over the situation in that own country. If we do not pacify that region and if we do not deal with that particular region, the chances of stabilization in Afghanistan will never take place. That is obviously the strategic reason that caused us to go there and we will discuss that further in the debate tonight."


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> "I cannot promise that the campaign against terrorism will be painless. But I can promise that it will be won!"


Quoting without sources is a little sketchy, but also unlike you, so I assume this is going somewhere. In any case, whoever said this must think they know something that history doesn't show. It won't be won with current tactics.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej want's us to GASP! some of those quotes are Liberal... oh my.....
Like it really makes a difference who said it....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Quoting without sources is a little sketchy, but also unlike you, so I assume this is going somewhere. In any case, whoever said this must think they know something that history doesn't show. It won't be won with current tactics.


Mostly just amusing myself. It would be great if we could get out of the leave/don't leave discussion, as you mentioned; but there was some uncertainty about why we're there and I guess MP's link wasn't clear enough.

A lot of what the Conservatives say that gets whined about was said by the Liberals to much less complaining (we just got constant corrupto-updates  ). A lot of flawed rationale is tossed around here, MP made a point and I saw an opportunity to entertain myself. Good times. And my post count is up (AS, you do care :love2: )!


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

ffs, this is not a liberal vs conservative argument, and making it one is assinine. Are we really so unable to think about politics outside of party lines?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> ffs, this is not a liberal vs conservative argument, and making it one is assinine. Are we really so unable to think about politics outside of party lines?


Check out some of the posts and you'll see it is being made heavily partisan. Very much attack-the-Conservatives.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> Mostly just amusing myself. It would be great if we could get out of the leave/don't leave discussion, as you mentioned; but there was some uncertainty about why we're there and I guess MP's link wasn't clear enough.


That's the propaganda about why we are there, that doesn't make it intelligent or helpful commentary.



Beej said:


> A lot of what the Conservatives say that gets whined about was said by the Liberals to much less complaining (we just got constant corrupto-updates  ). A lot of flawed rationale is tossed around here, MP made a point and I saw an opportunity to entertain myself. Good times.


Fair enough. All the more reason to put this stupid, stupid party line talk behind us.



Beej said:


> And my post count is up (AS, you do care :love2: )!


The size of your post count is not actually related to the size of your certain body part. You know that, right?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> Check out some of the posts and you'll see it is being made heavily partisan. Very much attack-the-Conservatives.


So? It's stupid and unhelpful no matter whom is doing it. Our politicians have consistently proven themselves incapable of complex thought. If all we want to do is join the chorus of parrots, these threads are entirely pointless.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> Fair enough. All the more reason to put this stupid, stupid party line talk behind us.


But you see, if we criticize that the nature of the mission has changed, it's taken as an anti-Harper rant... 
You see, it's the Liberals that put us there and they most always be responsible...

The point that the "so called debate" that we had when the mission was extended was a farce, and even some Liberal supporters being mad at the Liberals that did vote in favour of the extension, is lost upon Beej.

Sorry, Beej - the nature of the mission has changed - it's not the same and should be spoken about. If blind patriotism is called supporting our troops, then I should be hanged for treason.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> So? It's stupid and unhelpful no matter whom is doing it. Our politicians have consistently proven themselves incapable of complex thought. If all we want to do is join the chorus of parrots, these threads are entirely pointless.


So why do you think we're there? 

I think the past Liberal and more recent Conservative speeches do relatively consistently describe why we're there. The parrots complain louder about the Conservative ones (actually, sometimes there was no complaining in the before-time  ). So now, with those old Liberal quotes and some more recent Harper speeches, can you answer the question of why we're there?

Pundits are saying Canadians don't know why, thus more anxiety. So let's start understanding.

And yes, some of these threads are entirely pointless.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> And yes, some of these threads are entirely pointless.


You really have to stop dissing the Shang...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Join the army if you are so keen! Go for it, or are you a wimp?
> 
> If you can't get into the Canadian army, try the American one, they accept recruits up to the age of 44 or 45....


Sorry, the age for the US Army is 40 and I'm just about there.  Besides, I'd hate to be stabbed in the back by the peaceniks.

Care to raise your hand in support of the Taliban?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> But you see, if we criticize that the nature of the mission has changed, it's taken as an anti-Harper rant...
> You see, it's the Liberals that put us there and they most always be responsible...
> 
> The point that the "so called debate" that we had when the mission was extended was a farce, and even some Liberal supporters being mad at the Liberals that did vote in favour of the extension, is lost upon Beej.
> ...


As I said before, dissension in our ranks now only encourages the enemy to fight on. You don't see them sitting around yapping away about issues such as "casualties being too heavy" or that the enemy is not playing fair because they have jets. :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Sorry, the age for the US Army is 40 and I'm just about there.  Besides, I'd hate to be stabbed in the back by the peaceniks.


No, they have raised it twice lately - it's not too late.
You'd be safer over there if you are afraid of being stabbed by peaceniks - and I hear you can get a bitching tan over there...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and lots of great heroin at a great price
'market forces' and all


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Karzai hopes to meet kin

_OTTAWA—Afghan President Hamid Karzai plans to meet with the families of Canadian soldiers killed in his country during a visit to Ottawa this week.

Karzai will express his thanks for Canada's sacrifices in Afghanistan, and deliver the same message in a speech to Parliament on Friday.

Karzai is aware of the growing controversy over the mission, and will argue that *Canadian involvement is making his country better*, said Omar Samad, Afghanistan's ambassador to Ottawa. He added that Karzai would meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham, but has no immediate plans for a private exchange with NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has called for a withdrawal of Canadian troops_​

 Karzai hopes to convince Canadian politicians of need for Afghan mission

_OTTAWA (CP) - Afghanistan's president hopes to convince Canadian skeptics about the need for this country's continued involvement in Afghanistan during a speech to Parliament on Friday.

Hamid Karzai will not make specific references to the NDP, which has called for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, nor will he target other MPs who personally oppose the mission.

He wants to avoid being dragged into domestic politics - but he does want Canadian politicians to hear his message, said Afghanistan's top envoy to Ottawa.

"He is going to explain the Afghan perspective and convey the wishes and hopes of the Afghan people," said Omar Samad, Afghanistan's ambassador to Ottawa.
"And hopefully, maybe, somebody in the audience will realize that reality lies somewhere other than where they thought."

...

*Karzai will emphasize the humanitarian role Canada plays in his country and how it can continue to help in several areas, including human rights, governance and developmental work.*_​


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and just what did you expect the u.s. installed president of afghanistan to say?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and just what did you expect the u.s. installed president of afghanistan to say?


F O you cowards who want Canadian troops returned?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and just what did you expect the u.s. installed president of afghanistan to say?


I was expecting that reply. How very typical.

I'm sure you could have come up with something far wittier and definitely more creative than that. :lmao: 

Regardless, he was in fact elected to his position despite his initial appointment... but then again, I would also expect you to rebut with some asinine retort to that as well. beejacon


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

oh yeah,'elections' 
like the ones in florida 2000 for president?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> F O you cowards who want Canadian troops returned?


SINC, weren't you the dude telling us that swearing is a sign that you don't have a coherent argument anymore? Just wondering.....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

swearing supports our troops


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, weren't you the dude telling us that swearing is a sign that you don't have a coherent argument anymore? Just wondering.....


Didn't see the  did you?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*Challenge to MannyP Design*



« MannyP Design » said:


> WTF? Retroactive? Hardly.
> 
> Someone wanted to know what the mission is--I point to the most *obvious* source since they, apparently, can't figure it out.


Give me two dates.

First date: When we went to Afghanistan in a military capacity.

Second date: When the government of Afghanistan asked us to be there.


If you can prove to me that we were invited by the Afghanstan government *before* we were already there than I will admit I was wrong. I will completely change my position.

If not you will concede to the retroactive rewriting of history by the Harper government.

Please provide links to back up your dates.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*Not pointless debate.*



Beej said:


> So why do you think we're there?
> 
> Pundits are saying Canadians don't know why, thus more anxiety. So let's start understanding.
> 
> And yes, some of these threads are entirely pointless.


Beej, not all threads are pointless. For instance look at my challenge. If MannyP can face and disprove my assertion, than I'll change my point of view. I'll be cheering "stay the course" and "don't pull out of 'er!" with the rest of them.

Few times do we really have the opportunity to change people's minds. This is one of those opportunities. I'm willing to be convinced if the facts match up with the rhetoric.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> So why do you think we're there?


I think we are there for a variety of complex reasons, most of which stem from an overabundance of testosterone. We went in the first place seeking vengeance, both for our own dead, and for our shattered sense of security. We also went out of loyalty to a nation that we would like to think is a close friend (misplaced loyalty at that - we are friends in the way that the nerd is friends with the jock). From the very beginning our "leaders" were wise enough to realise that they couldn't just say that, and so they used the rhetoric of the day. And, as with anything else, if you say something often enough, eventually you will start to believe it. I don't doubt that Martin et al and Harper et al believe what they say these days. But that doesn't make it actually true.

We are there now because the place is a horrible mess, and somewhere deep inside we know we caused it. Admitting that, and trying to do the hard work that might actually succeed might be damaging politically, but, more importantly, would be humiliating for our leaders. And so, like something out of a bad cartoon, we just keep smacking our heads against the wall. hrm, that didn't work. Maybe if I.... *whack* hrm, that didn't work. Maybe if I....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> I think we are there for a variety of complex reasons, most of which stem from an overabundance of testosterone. We went in the first place seeking vengeance, both for our own dead, and for our shattered sense of security. We also went out of loyalty to a nation that we would like to think is a close friend (misplaced loyalty at that - we are friends in the way that the nerd is friends with the jock). From the very beginning our "leaders" were wise enough to realise that they couldn't just say that, and so they used the rhetoric of the day. And, as with anything else, if you say something often enough, eventually you will start to believe it. I don't doubt that Martin et al and Harper et al believe what they say these days. But that doesn't make it actually true.
> 
> We are there now because the place is a horrible mess, and somewhere deep inside we know we caused it. Admitting that, and trying to do the hard work that might actually succeed might be damaging politically, but, more importantly, would be humiliating for our leaders. And so, like something out of a bad cartoon, we just keep smacking our heads against the wall. hrm, that didn't work. Maybe if I.... *whack* hrm, that didn't work. Maybe if I....


Thanks. I don't agree with all that but it is clear. I think we went with much of the sentiment expressed by politicians (not quite as over-the-top though) in that they write these things as a combination of trying to influence public opinion and show understanding of public opinion. For many, though, I think there was an unexpressed sentiment of, "As long as it's quick and we don't do the most dangerous work." For many others, it was not subject to a clause of this sort.

So, moving beyond that, the question then becomes how best to proceed from where we are now. Leaving would make things worse, but can anything about the tactics be changed (more or less aggressive?). Finally, if other countries are hesitant to contribute to the more dangerous work, is it their expression of the sentiment I mentioned or a real disagreement over NATO's tactics.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> For instance look at my challenge.


What is the relevance? Which 'government' are you referring to? Elected, assigned, Taliban, pre-Taliban?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Give me two dates.
> 
> First date: When we went to Afghanistan in a military capacity.
> 
> ...


Concede? I'll concede that you don't bother reading posts. :lmao:

Did you even read it in the first place? *It was with regards to the MISSION.* ArtistSeries apparently had no clue WHAT the mission is, but knows "it's changed" and "is a joke."



> *Someone wanted to know what the mission is--I point to the most obvious source since they, apparently, can't figure it out. *I leave it to those with half a brain cell, and who really give two pence to search Google for the previous PMs' newspeak--I'll wager they'll find the same thing.



I said NOTHING about invitation of any sort. But I guess you're looking for any means to bypass my subsequent post about Afghanistan's ELECTED President lauding Canada's efforts.

But I guess you wouldn't have bother reading that, either? 

Lovely, though--your tactics are much more clever than AS or MS: change the subject, and if the person doesn't give YOU the exact answer YOU want, then they concede by default. Very clever.

However, Canada didn't recognize the Taliban as the ruling government so I guess you could say that both a) Canada wasn't invited by Afghanistan's government; and b) There was no ruling government. In fact, there were only three states that DID recognize them.

Odd, innit? beejacon










Looks like she forgot to pay the parking meter.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

RevMatt said:


> I think we are there for a variety of complex reasons, most of which stem from an overabundance of testosterone.


One needs testes in order for that to happen. beejacon


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> One needs testes in order for that to happen. beejacon


ah the old chicken hawk mantra of spreading "democracy" at the business end of an m-16 rifle

no stomach for death and destruction?
you must not believe in democracy and you're not a man (no testes)


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ah the old chicken hawk mantra of spreading "democracy" at the business end of an m-16 rifle


Canadians use the C8, not M-16. But I guess a "yella-bellied pot-licker" such as yourself wouldn't know that. :lmao:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> What is the relevance? Which 'government' are you referring to? Elected, assigned, Taliban, pre-Taliban?


how about the one that is allowing record poppy production?
hint: post-Taliban


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> So, moving beyond that, the question then becomes how best to proceed from where we are now. Leaving would make things worse, but can anything about the tactics be changed (more or less aggressive?). Finally, if other countries are hesitant to contribute to the more dangerous work, is it their expression of the sentiment I mentioned or a real disagreement over NATO's tactics.


Yes, that is the question I've been trying to get people to talk about. But I guess this p*ssing match is more fun.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has asked why other NATO nations are reluctant, or why they weasel out by sending troops who aren't permitted to leave the base. Lots of us think we know, but no one really asks. It needs to be. We also need to ask what we realistically think we can accomplish, and whether we are the right people to be handling this particular task. I've given my opinion on those last two several times around here, and been more or less completely ignored each time.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

RevMatt said:


> Yes, that is the question I've been trying to get people to talk about. But I guess this p*ssing match is more fun.


Nah. That one is *way* too easy. :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> I've given my opinion on those last two several times around here, and been more or less completely ignored each time.


You are not supporting the troops RevMatt - you should be ashamed  
Coward  
We were asked to help and we must obey  
This is about your freedom, little ingrate  
The Taliban are bad bad people  
We are freeing these people no matter what they say  
There is no opposition to this war in Canada  
We just have to be there, it's good on Canada's resume  

(I'm I missing any talking points?)


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Nah. That one is *way* too easy. :lmao:


The urination competition is too easy? If the "where do we go from here" question is too easy, then please share. I presume from the smiley you are being somewhat humourous here, but I haven't had any caffeine yet this morning, so it's not computing.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> You are not supporting the troops RevMatt - you should be ashamed
> Coward
> We were asked to help and we must obey
> This is about your freedom, little ingrate
> ...


OK, you've made your sarcasm point. Any opinions of your own to contribute?


----------



## William (Jan 5, 2004)

*Crushing defeat?*

According to this morning's Globe & Mail, NATO now says that more than 1,000 Taliban, and perhaps as many as 1,500, have been killed. According to the same report, the high casualty rate can be explained as a result of the Taliban's having used "stand and fight" tactics. They have now retreated and are on the run. Between a quarter and half of the Taliban forces have now been destroyed.

The reported casualty rate in the last few days had already seemed suspiciously high to me, but this reports makes me even more incredulous. It would be very strange if the Taliban had given up the tried and true tactics of NOT standing and fighting, but harrassing and running. Why would they offer a target? It just does not make sense. It is a very tall story.

What is credible is that between 1,000 and 1,500 Afghans have been killed in the last month. How many were actually Taliban is a different matter. Both the Canadian and the other NATO commanders seem to have adopted the same policy regarding the use of body counts that have been used by the US in VietNam and Iraq in order to claim imminent victory.

The veracity of these reports can be tested. If they are telling the truth, the Canadian casualty rate will drop precipitously, and by Christmas we shall be getting a very different picture from what we have been getting for the last five or six months. Any bets?

William


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> OK, you've made your sarcasm point. Any opinions of your own to contribute?


Why do you call it sarcasm? It's pretty much all the arguments used by a few here...

I'm still waiting for Ironmac to join any Army though....

Thanks William.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I had a lengthy rebuttal written but I accidently hit command-B instead of command_V. The bookmarks page opened up and when I clicked back my text field was empty.

My post talked about concepts such as nationhood, governance, recognition, official recognition, tribalism, and the overall mission.

I don't think I can reinvest the time right now to rewrite.

Let me just say that both MannyPDesign and Beej make good points and are right to seek and offer clarification.

However when we say MISSION let us mean mission in the large sense. What was our mission for waging war in and against Afghanistan? While the names and purposes of individual missions (and there are hundreds of them that Canada has gone on in Afghanistan) let us focus on the *overall* mission.

Why were we there? Who asked us to be there? We are doing the same thing we did there when we first arrived... killing and capturing Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects. However we did not go there because Afghanistan asked us to go there. This is fact. This is truth. It cannot be denied.

An Afghan president or authority or government that's been appointed after the fact, after the invasion can NOT retroactively ask us come to Aghanistan militarily. We were already there.

In regards to the OVERALL mission, why are we there and who asked us to go?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Why do you call it sarcasm? It's pretty much all the arguments used by a few here...
> 
> I'm still waiting for Ironmac to join any Army though....
> 
> Thanks William.


It's clearly not your point of view. Perhaps sarcasm wasn't precisely the right word.

Still hoping for someone else to offer opinions and some point. Hasn't been long, I realise, just sayin'


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> In regards to the OVERALL mission, why are we there and who asked us to go?


That's an important question, but in my mind secondary to where we go from here.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

RevMatt said:


> The urination competition is too easy? If the "where do we go from here" question is too easy, then please share. I presume from the smiley you are being somewhat humourous here, but I haven't had any caffeine yet this morning, so it's not computing.


Sorry, I wasn't very clear; it was a "There's a joke in there, but I won't bother because it's too cheap and predictable" sort of thing.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*Some random thoughts on nationhood and recognition*

Do Canadians realize that our government does not fully officially recognize Jerusalem as being part of Israel or its capital?

For years Canada did not recognize our own tribal "nations", nor does it completely.

Canada does not recognize and indpendent Kurdistan either.

Thailand recently underwent a coup d'etat. Do we recognize the the previous government or the coup organizers as the legitimate goverment? Perhaps we don't recognize either. I guess Thailand doesn't exist in that case.

Quebec doesn't recognize the same boundary of Labrador as part of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The US doesn't recognize the North West passage as falling under the sovreignty of Canada.

Most of the planet is not organized into the concept of "nationhood".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> You are not supporting the troops RevMatt - you should be ashamed
> Coward
> We were asked to help and we must obey
> This is about your freedom, little ingrate
> ...



"measured response"


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

We support the troops - therefore you should be ashamed 
Chickenhawk 
We volunteered willingly 
This is about liberation of a people who can't help themselves  
The Taliban are are tolerant of other religions, art, education, gender equality, basic humans right, freedom of expression, and the right to govern others as they see fit without any process 
We are oppressing these people because the Taliban couldn't do the job right 
There is absolutely no approval of this war in Canada 
We have to be there, and the Afghans don't thank us. 
Polls lean towards approval whenever a Canadian dies, and lean towards disapproval when we progress. 
It's about blood for oil, although we supply the US 80% of their oil 
We destabilized Afghanistan by giving them their first elected President.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

poppy production in Afghanistan is at an all time high

oops, that's not a talking point, that's the truth


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> poppy production in Afghanistan is at an all time high
> 
> oops, that's not a talking point, that's the truth


I guess that means you'll be able to afford opium again. beejacon


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> we supply the US 80% of their oil


Funny post MP. I'll just note that the 80% isn't correct. That may have been your intention though, given the tone of the post.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

Beej said:


> " This mission involves significant risks but the members of the Canadian Forces have the leadership, training, equipment and support they need to succeed."


Late in responding to this, but I question whether our troops have the equipment or support they need. Since we need to bum rides in helicopters from our Nato allies like the Dutch, who are flying used helicopters the WE sold them. WTF is up with that?? Never mind the mini-Jeeps they have to use, in harm's way, in spite of assurances to the contrary. Now we are sending tanks? Granted the Leopard is a good tank, but I think they are older than the kids driving them!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It will interesting to see post Kharzi visit situation



> Karzai meets with Layton
> Canadian Press
> Montreal — As the bodies of four Canadian soldiers arrived home from Afghanistan on Saturday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai maintained that the sacrifices of Canadians are making his country a safer place.
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060923.wlayton/BNStory/National/home

There is SOME truth in this but I want to see a proper debate and broader support for the nature and scope of the currrent effort.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

For some balance:



> *Canadian, Afghan forces find Taliban weapons cache
> *
> TheStar.com - News - Canadian, Afghan forces find Taliban weapons cache
> Daybreak fighting near Afghan compound leads soldiers to grenades, rifles, anti-tank weapon
> ...


15-20 Taliban fighters allegedly killed...believe it when they display their bodies.

And look at the last sentence! :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

For some re-balance.....



> Rebuilding the house of Pashtunistan
> By Michael Shank The News International (Pakistan) February 3, 2007
> "O Pathans! Your house has fallen into ruin. Arise and rebuild it, and remember to what race you belong," uttered by one of Islam's exemplary non-violent leaders. This quote is relevant now more than ever before, one-hundred years after Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan pleaded with his people. Estimated at 40 million, the 'house' to which Khan refers to is the world's largest patriarchal lineage tribal group, stationed within Afghanistan and Pakistan's border regions. Ethnically homogenous, the house split in two in 1893 by the Durand Line, the two countries' 1610-mile border, resulting in geographically specific identities, Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pathans in Pakistan.
> 
> ...


There are about 10-20 million Pathans on EACH side of an artificial border.

The insurgency of the Pathans is also affecting Pakistan now.

24 soldiers killed in suicide attack in Pakistan; troops sent north to avert call for jihad - International Herald Tribune

In my view Canadians should stick with the north where there has been progress in the past.

If Pastunistan emerges so be it - it already exists in the minds of the Pathans- at least it may be contained by stable states around it. This is NOT going to go away by wishful thinking or poking a stick at the hornets nest.

Secure the north instead of squandering lives and resources in the south.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> For some balance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Since you have said that the Taliban look like civilians, are we do believe that?
There is a lack of credibilty in anything that the good old gov publishes....
Maybe it's the lack of transparency and accountability and their need to futher stop the information (how many prisoners are we really giving over to the narco state to be tortured?)


Still waiting for you to edify us on this _need _for war....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

As I was saying



> Pakistan Truce Appears Defunct
> Insurgents Strike Police, Troops; At Least 44 Die
> 
> By Griff Witte and Imtiaz Ali
> ...


washingtonpost.com


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Since you have said that the Taliban look like civilians, are we do believe that?
> There is a lack of credibilty in anything that the good old gov publishes....
> 
> Still waiting for you to edify us on this _need _for war....


First off, I never said that they look like civilians. I just want to ascertain how many are dead.
Second, the Canadian government didn't say how many were killed. Your political views are blinding you again.
Third, why don't you tell us why you're constantly supporting the Taliban?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> First off, I never said that they look like civilians. I just want to ascertain how many are dead.
> Second, the Canadian government didn't say how many were killed. Your political views are blinding you again.
> Third, why don't you tell us why you're constantly supporting the Taliban?


corollary;
_If you're not with us, you support the terrorists_

once again, straight out of the neo con book of talking points


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> First off, I never said that they look like civilians. I just want to ascertain how many are dead.
> Second, the Canadian government didn't say how many were killed. Your political views are blinding you again.
> Third, why don't you tell us why you're constantly supporting the Taliban?


Please - you and VD have accused them of hiding within the civilians and are pissed that they don't wear a uniform....

It's quite the wingnuttery that you associate criticism of the mission with supporting the Taliban. Can't wait to be called a traitor for thinking that this is a fools mission.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Please - you and VD have accused them of hiding within the civilians and are pissed that they don't wear a uniform....


Do you dispute that the Taliban hide amongst the civilians? It seems obvious to me that this is their primary tactic, as is the case with almost all guerrilla wars.

I am not 'pissed' about that any more than I am that we have to fight to begin with. It's just a reality that our troops have to deal with. All is fair in love and war.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Do you dispute that the Taliban hide amongst the civilians? It seems obvious to me that this is their primary tactic, as is the case with almost all guerrilla wars.
> 
> I am not 'pissed' about that any more than I am that we have to fight to begin with. It's just a reality that our troops have to deal with. All is fair in love and war.


especially when you describe the POWs you capture as "enemy combatants" as a convenient way to avoid the Geneva Conventions


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Please - you and VD have accused them of hiding within the civilians and are pissed that they don't wear a uniform....
> 
> It's quite the wingnuttery that you associate criticism of the mission with supporting the Taliban. Can't wait to be called a traitor for thinking that this is a fools mission.


A. I've never accused them of hiding among civilians and I never said anything about uniforms. Is this as baseless as your "jingoism" comment?

B. When are you going to raise your hand, eh?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> especially when you describe the POWs you capture as "enemy combatants" as a convenient way to avoid the Geneva Conventions


You mixing Afghanistan with Iraq?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> You mixing Afghanistan with Iraq?


Hillier and O'Connor run and hide behind bureaucrats when it comes to the treatment of "POWs"

The hiding of information is typical that something is not right.... Hey, what do they have to hide?


> The Strategic Joint Staff has given strict guidance to National Defence's director of Access to Information, Julie Jansen, on what documents should be withheld. The result is that the flow of documents about detainees has virtually dried up and the department has summarily rejected requests for the same kind of documents it released earlier.


http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmai.../DETAINEES09/Front/frontpage/frontpage/1/1/4/


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

So, in other words, you are mixing up the two.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I am not 'pissed' about that any more than I am that we have to fight to begin with. It's just a reality that our troops have to deal with.


We don't HAVE to fight them. We never did. This is just misleading.
The Taliban are just another in a long series of bad governments the world over.
<sarcasm>I know! Lets overthrow all the bad governments on the planet! We can start in the USA with Bush! Ra Ra army! </sarcasm>


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> We don't HAVE to fight them. We never did. This is just misleading.


You're right, we didn't need to go into Afghanistan but, hey, if the Americans are willing to bring down a truly reprehensible ruling clique then we might as well make sure that it ends up a better place.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> You're right, we didn't need to go into Afghanistan but, hey, if the Americans are willing to bring down a truly reprehensible ruling clique then we might as well make sure that it ends up a better place.


This is a joke right?
Maybe we (I'm also American as well as Canadian) should start at home. Or perhaps in a country with even worse problems (North Korea).
Still you continue to ignore your own admissions. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SUPPORT TO FIX AFGHANISTAN!!!! You have admitted this but you still cling to this fantasy about making Afghanistan a bastion of democracy despite your own admissions that we lack the will to succeed. Afghanistan will not end up better, it is going to end up a blood bath and people like you will be to blame. You have not answered to any of my postings except to say "it is the only chance we have". I have asked you to back up this idea of a chance and you continually fail to do so because you know that you are living a fantasy. Again as you have admitted there is not the will to see this through and you have still not explained how a half measure is better than leaving Afghanistan alone while I have pointed out that a half measure means more civilians killed now and in the future when the US backed troops leave and the revenge killing starts. The longer we are in Afghanistan, the more people are going to be tortured and killed when we leave.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> if the Americans are willing to bring down a truly reprehensible ruling clique then we might as well make sure that it ends up a better place.


How's that working out for Iraq?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> This is a joke right?
> Maybe we (I'm also American as well as Canadian) should start at home. Or perhaps in a country with even worse problems (North Korea).


Given the attitudes around here, I doubt very much that people are even willing to start at home. Even staring down the barrel of a gun there'd be hand-wringing as to what to do.



martman said:


> Still you continue to ignore your own admissions. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SUPPORT TO FIX AFGHANISTAN!!!! You have admitted this but you still cling to this fantasy about making Afghanistan a bastion of democracy despite your own admissions that we lack the will to succeed.


First off, I never said I wanted Afghanistan to be a bastion of democracy. Second, why don't the whiners of the West press their governments to press the other wimps to push harder?



martman said:


> Afghanistan will not end up better, it is going to end up a blood bath and people like you will be to blame. You have not answered to any of my postings except to say "it is the only chance we have". I have asked you to back up this idea of a chance and you continually fail to do so because you know that you are living a fantasy. Again as you have admitted there is not the will to see this through and you have still not explained how a half measure is better than leaving Afghanistan alone while I have pointed out that a half measure means more civilians killed now and in the future when the US backed troops leave and the revenge killing starts. The longer we are in Afghanistan, the more people are going to be tortured and killed when we leave.


It's pathetic really. It really is. Leave Afghanistan and then what happens? A religious theocracy where people are tortured and killed in any case? Is that what you want?

Do you want a "state" which will provide a safe haven for a terrorist group that's shown itself more than capable of launching attacks on Western targets?

You will say "no" of course but what sort of excuses are you going to hide behind? The accidental killing of civilians? Conveniently forgetting that the enemy are deliberately targetting civlians. The deaths of Western soldiers? What? Did you think that war was clean and free of death? The cost of the effort? Too cheap to protect your way of life?

What sort of contemptible excuses are you willing to trot out in order to justify the existence of a failed state that's willing to harbour a terrorist group out to slit your throat at the first chance it gets?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> It's pathetic really. It really is. Leave Afghanistan and then what happens? A religious theocracy where people are tortured and killed in any case? Is that what you want?
> 
> Do you want a "state" which will provide a safe haven for a terrorist group that's shown itself more than capable of launching attacks on Western targets?
> 
> ...


Firstly Afghanistan has nothing to do with my way of life. This is just BS spewed by the gov't to wip us into fear.
Second A botched adventure in Afghanistan is not going to stop the Islamists from effing up Afghanistan.
Third torture is not just the province of the Taliban. (What planet are you hiding on?)
Fourth What is pathetic is your insistence that leaving Afghanistan in the future will be any better than leaving Afghanistan now.

Afghanistan WILL be ruled by some form of theocracy. We can't prevent it. The Northern Alliance types are just as Conservative as their Taliban counterparts. Their show of moderation (sic) is just that a show. When we leave the honor killings, the religious cops, the burkas, and the torture will go on. The only difference is we have some amount of influence on the NA. Problem is they can't rule the country without us and we are not willing to occupy Afghanistan forever.
Hell most of this is going on right now. You think the Northern Alliance isn't torturing people? All we are doing is prolonging the inevitable and by doing so making the inevitable worse. Afghanistan is going to have to solve its own problems and will never be able to do so while we are in there with our armies effing things up. All our invasion is doing is setting up another civil war in Afghanistan. They just finished one a year before the US invasion. Now they will have another.
Meanwhile you keep talking about the mission like people are going to magically fall into your political line. Support is shrinking not growing yet you still stand on the sideline waving your flag and cheering like that is enough. You support this mission so much? Why don't you join the army and go fight?
Oh right, maybe you don't support the mission that much. Talk about pathetic.
Keep tying yellow ribbons to things and waving that flag. That will win the conflict.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> Firstly Afghanistan has nothing to do with my way of life. This is just BS spewed by the gov't to wip us into fear.


What a laugh! Did u miss my thread on how al-Qaeda states its intent on conquering the world?



martman said:


> Second A botched adventure in Afghanistan is not going to stop the Islamists from effing up Afghanistan.


Then, why not insist on improving the mission rather than just pulling out?



martman said:


> Third torture is not just the province of the Taliban. (What planet are you hiding on?)


Let's get this through your head if possible. We can leave and let the Taliban go around torturing people or we can stay and possibly have an influence on what goes on. Hrmmm...I don't know but it seems awfully simple to me.



martman said:


> Fourth What is pathetic is your insistence that leaving Afghanistan in the future will be any better than leaving Afghanistan now.


Not that you would know now would you?



martman said:


> Afghanistan WILL be ruled by some form of theocracy. We can't prevent it. The Northern Alliance types are just as Conservative as their Taliban counterparts. Their show of moderation (sic) is just that a show. When we leave the honor killings, the religious cops, the burkas, and the torture will go on. The only difference is *we have some amount of influence on the NA*. Problem is they can't rule the country without us and we are not willing to occupy Afghanistan forever.


There, highlighted in bold is the difference!



martman said:


> All our invasion is doing is setting up another civil war in Afghanistan.


No, I believe that our invasion is one way of forestalling al-Qaeda from having a base area.



martman said:


> Meanwhile you keep talking about the mission like people are going to magically fall into your political line. Support is shrinking not growing yet you still stand on the sideline waving your flag and cheering like that is enough. You support this mission so much? Why don't you join the army and go fight?
> Oh right, maybe you don't support the mission that much. Talk about pathetic.
> Keep tying yellow ribbons to things and waving that flag. That will win the conflict.


The only flag I've seen being waved around here happens to be lily-white.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Looks like the Germans might become more involved:

Germany to boost presence in Afghanistan - Financial Times - MSNBC.com



> The German chancellor Angela Merkel said on Monday Berlin would "intensify its engagement in Afghanistan"


:clap:


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

75 Suspected Taliban killed:



> U.S.-led coalition and Afghan troops killed up to 75 suspected Taliban militants in three separate clashes in southern Afghanistan, officials said Tuesday.


Clashes said to kill 75 suspected Taliban in southern Afghanistan - International Herald Tribune

:clap:


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> 75 Suspected Taliban killed:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This makes me want to puke. Applauding death.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> What a laugh! Did u miss my thread on how al-Qaeda states its intent on conquering the world?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1) USA wants to run the world too. Neither is going to happen.


2)Because the mission doesn't have enough support to succeed. With out that support the mission is WORSE than no mission.

3) NA tortures people and supports theocracy. Their "moderation" only lasts as long as it is expedient for them.


4) Whatever. As I said before, I don't see you enlisting.


5) As I said this difference only lasts as long as it is expedient. When we go so does the pretense. Meanwhile the OPIUM production is up and we are basically funding it.

6) Good for you.

7) Are you referring to the fact you haven't enlisted? I thought so.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

> 75 Suspected Taliban killed:
> 
> Quote:
> U.S.-led coalition and Afghan troops killed up to 75 suspected Taliban militants in three separate clashes in southern Afghanistan, officials said Tuesday.
> ...


A few weeks ago, there was a rally on ehMac to save one American life, somebody who potentially had an unfair trial, and faced the death penalty. Now we have people applauding the death of 75 _*SUSPECTED*_ militants. I wonder how fair their trial was.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> A few weeks ago, there was a rally on ehMac to save one American life, somebody who potentially had an unfair trial, and faced the death penalty. Now we have people applauding the death of 75 _*SUSPECTED*_ militants. I wonder how fair their trial was.


BINGO! :clap:


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> A few weeks ago, there was a rally on ehMac to save one American life, somebody who potentially had an unfair trial, and faced the death penalty. Now we have people applauding the death of 75 _*SUSPECTED*_ militants. I wonder how fair their trial was.


About as fair as the trial the victims on Air India got; about as fair as the trial the victims of 9/11 got; about as fair as the trial the victims of the Spain and Britian bombings!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Kosh said:


> About as fair as the trial the victims on Air India got; about as fair as the trial the victims of 9/11 got; about as fair as the trial the victims of the Spain and Britian bombings!


:clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Kosh said:


> About as fair as the trial the victims on Air India got; about as fair as the trial the victims of 9/11 got; about as fair as the trial the victims of the Spain and Britian bombings!


So you equate the killing of innocent people with "us" killing people because you may think they are terrorists? Or are you trying to equate a terrorist act with our deliberate killings?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT ArtistSeries!!

Okay, let's get a link to this news because the link is probably a few posts back. 

linky Macleans.ca - Canada - Features | 75 suspected Taliban killed in air strikes, clashes; NATO launches offensive

and here's the quote to make it easy on you:



> Afghan and U.S.-led coalition troops called in air strikes after being ambushed by militants in southern Helmand province, the U.S.-led coalition said. The coalition said at least 36 insurgents were killed Monday but no Afghan or coalition troops were hurt.
> 
> In neighbouring Uruzgan province, police clashed for three days with militants blocking the road leading to Kandahar province, leaving 26 militants and two policemen dead, said Wali Jan, the Uruzgan deputy highway police chief. NATO-led and Afghan army troops joined the battle Tuesday, reopening the road for civilian traffic, he said.


And then there's another bunch of terrorists killed in Khandar which are added to the count.

Now let's see if your ambushed by militant terrorists, you think we should go ask these militant terrorists that are shooting at us because they hate us and are terrorists, if they are terrorists? They purposely ambushed you to kill you. 

THEY'RE Terrorists ArtistSeries! They know who they're shooting at.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

some stuff just won't go away;


> U.S.-led coalition and NATO forces fighting insurgents in Afghanistan have killed at least 203 civilians so far this year — surpassing the 178 civilians killed in militant attacks, according to an Associated Press tally


USA Today

you can't build peace without killing more civilians than the bad guys, eh?
but on the positive side poppy production is way up


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Military action should never be applauded. War is never something to be celebrated. People die. It really doesn't matter if they are "guilty" or "innocent". The only thing to ever applaud and celebrate is the end of war. War is sometimes a very necessary evil. We must always remember that it is evil. 'Peace Keeping Missions' are just a politcally correct term for war. If you have to walk around with a rifle strapped to your back, you are in the middle of a war.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Dozens of Afghan civilians die in air raids*



MACSPECTRUM said:


> some stuff just won't go away;
> 
> USA Today
> 
> ...


Another day and:


> KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Dozens of civilians, including women and children, have been killed in two foreign air strikes in southern Afghanistan, residents and a local member of parliament said on Friday.
> 
> One of the raids by NATO hit houses in the Girishk district of Helmand province on Thursday evening, killing up to 50 civilians, a group of some 20 residents reported to journalists in Kandahar, the main city in the south.
> 
> ...


http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKISL26107920070727

At the rate of all these crushing battles against the Taliban, it's a surprise they are still around.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

it doesn't matter when Afghani civilians die
after all, the don't donate money to, nor vote for, Kanadian or Amerikan political parties

ergo, by neo con logic, they aren't real people and real people don't count as real deaths

Amazing how politicians can spend so much time and energy on a person that was brain dead for over 25 years and debating whether she had a hope of recovering, but have no qualms about killing hundreds of Afghani and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians citing them as "collateral damage" or the "price of freedom" and using quaint phrases like "we don't do body counts"

and worse, the religious right doesn't speak up about killing, which I understand is a big no-no according to some stone tablets that judeo-christian philosophy is based on


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> it doesn't matter when Afghani civilians die
> after all, the don't donate money to, nor vote for, Kanadian or Amerikan political parties


I find it genuinely sad referring to your own country in such a manner. It is very distasteful.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> I find it genuinely sad referring to your own country in such a manner. It is very distasteful.


Perhaps there is somewhere else he would prefer to reside and be a citizen?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Using a k: political statement.
Using "the": 'spectacular hypocrisy.

But, "the" can be used as a political statement, as in a snide commentary on, say, the Russian governments' undue influence in Ukrainian politics. Then 'spec would have to be okay with it, after much of his usual hypocritical statements about defending the honour of such and such peoples while being perfectly willing to insult many others. Now it's all just "political statements". 

But that, "political statement" bit was a weak defence to begin with, so maybe there will be some more swiftboating and other standard tactics.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Military action should never be applauded. War is never something to be celebrated. People die. It really doesn't matter if they are "guilty" or "innocent". The only thing to ever applaud and celebrate is the end of war. War is sometimes a very necessary evil. We must always remember that it is evil. 'Peace Keeping Missions' are just a politcally correct term for war. If you have to walk around with a rifle strapped to your back, you are in the middle of a war.


I've disagreed with you a bit lately but here you are spot on! :clap: 
Very eloquent and to the point.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

ArtistSeries Changing the topic = priceless.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------



 guyToronto said:


> Military action should never be applauded. War is never something to be celebrated. People die. It really doesn't matter if they are "guilty" or "innocent". The only thing to ever applaud and celebrate is the end of war.
> .


I think occupied France, Poland, Netherlands and others would disagree with you. I'm sure there was many in those countries that applauded the military action taken to rid the Nazis from their countries.

I'm sure the Saudis and Kawaitis celebrated when NATO came to fight the Iraqis back.



guyToronto said:


> 'Peace Keeping Missions' are just a politcally correct term for war. If you have to walk around with a rifle strapped to your back, you are in the middle of a war.


I would seriously disagree. The Peace Keeping Mission in Cyprus was not a war. I'd mention the Peace Keeping in Isreal/Lebanon/Syria, Jordan, but that was just a farce. Wikipedia seems to list a few other successful Peace Keeping Missions I didn't know of.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Kosh said:


> Changing the topic = priceless.


That is all fine and dandy but those quotes are from guytoronto 
NOT MACSPECTRUM

edit please!

Falsely attributing quotes to the demon of the day: priceless!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Kosh said:


> I think occupied France, Poland, Netherlands and others would disagree with you. I'm sure there was many in those countries that applauded the military action taken to rid the Nazis from their countries.
> 
> I'm sure the Saudis and Kawaitis celebrated when NATO came to fight the Iraqis back.


This is similar to using this argument for capital punishment:
"If it was your daughter killed by this man, you'd want him executed." Just because it may be true doesn't mean policy should be based on it. Likewise just because people may have cheered soldiers in these situations you brought up doesn't mean it is right to applaud the death of others.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

This is to everyone not specifically aimed at KOSH and is a response relating to several recent threads.
Constantly questioning MCASPECTRUM's sanity is getting a bit old. If you don't like his style of discourse then say so but your complaints about him seem extremely hypocritical when you continually mock his sanity. 
Instead of resorting to fallacy why not try and elevate the level of discourse? What if he really did have mental issues? Wouldn't you feel like a jack ass?
Aren't you embarrassed?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> Instead of resorting to fallacy why not try and elevate the level of discourse?
> Aren't you embarrassed?


Elevating the discourse with 'spec...:lmao: Maybe that's possible, as long as you agree with him. Otherwise, swiftboating and many other fun "neocon" tactics ensue...like being called neocon or, more recently and reminiscent of the religious-right, "evil". Yes it's all old, as are many forms of entertainment. 

I'm as embarrassed about this as I am about liking South Park or Family Guy. Guilty entertainment, particularly in watching the idiotic antics of characters like Cartman and Peter as they interact with their "world". Pale shadows of the complexity of Homer, but a common element is there.

If it's any consolation, I do not comment on all of 'spec's hypocrisy, flawed arguments and non sequiturs (not even close). You can think of it as my gift to you, personally, to address your concern.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> If it's any consolation, I do not comment on all of 'spec's hypocrisy, flawed arguments and non sequiturs (not even close). You can think of it as my gift to you, personally, to address your concern.


I'm not saying you shouldn't call him on hypocracy etc if that is what you believe is happening. I'm saying the constant attacks on his sanity serve no purpose but to make you look like a hypocrite. You can do what you want but I think it looks lame. We (almost) all resort to name calling but the real argument is in the facts and opinions. You know this as well (if not better) than I. 
I guess what I am saying is it has been said before. If you don't want to stop at least try new avenues of ridicule.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Kosh said:


> I think occupied France, Poland, Netherlands and others would disagree with you. I'm sure there was many in those countries that applauded the military action taken to rid the Nazis from their countries.
> 
> I'm sure the Saudis and Kawaitis celebrated when NATO came to fight the Iraqis back.


Comparing this mission to WW2 = specious or is that priceless?

As for the Saudis, seems many of the Taliban are Saudis...
Are you sure the Kuwait war was a NATO? I remember it being sanctioned by the UN.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> I'm not saying you shouldn't call him on hypocracy etc if that is what you believe is happening. I'm saying the constant attacks on his sanity serve no purpose but to make you look like a hypocrite. You can do what you want but I think it looks lame. We (almost) all resort to name calling but the real argument is in the facts and opinions. You know this as well (if not better) than I.
> I guess what I am saying is it has been said before. If you don't want to stop at least try new avenues of ridicule.


All fair comments and thanks for speaking up.

You may note that my last post in this thread (not counting the reply to you) did not attack 'specs' alleged sanity. <--Ooops.

That said, you should try entertaining yourself a little more. Guiding 'spec is much more fun than debating with Kosh or Ironmac. beejacon

I will stop for today, though. You owe me one.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I will stop for today, though. You owe me one.


Just when I was getting into it...


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

martman said:


> That is all fine and dandy but those quotes are from guytoronto
> NOT MACSPECTRUM
> 
> edit please!
> ...


Ooops, I definitely didn't mean to infer that.

Sorry MACSPECTRUM, if you got some flak over that.

I've editted it to add ArtistSeries name in and add a separator.

Re-Editted (I really screwed up that post). MartMan was of course referring to the quote which I had attributed to MACSPECTRUM... big oops... corrected that. Those were indeed from guytoronto.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

martman said:


> This is similar to using this argument for capital punishment:
> "If it was your daughter killed by this man, you'd want him executed." Just because it may be true doesn't mean policy should be based on it. Likewise just because people may have cheered soldiers in these situations you brought up doesn't mean it is right to applaud the death of others.


Correct, there is always two sides to every story. What one side celebrates, another side mourns.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Just when I was getting into it...


I owe you one. Can I transfer mm's obligation to you?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Comparing this mission to WW2 = specious or is that priceless?


They are both occupations. (Although I really really really didn't want to mention the "N" word because then you get into things like "was anybody as bad as the Nazis"). The Taliban occupied Afghanistan.



ArtistSeries said:


> As for the Saudis, seems many of the Taliban are Saudis...
> Are you sure the Kuwait war was a NATO? I remember it being sanctioned by the UN.


It was a NATO supported UN war, and since the UN has very little power, it's basically a NATO war.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Kosh said:


> Ooops, I definitely didn't mean to infer that.
> 
> Sorry MACSPECTRUM, if you got some flak over that.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you are trying to re-write "history"... 
A little like revisionist history that seems to be the rage in some circles...
Like the excuse of preemptive war....
Not a big transgression, but still annoying an trait.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Kosh said:


> martman said:
> 
> 
> > This is similar to using this argument for capital punishment:
> ...


Celebrating anybodies death is sad. You either celebrate their life, or mourn for their actions.

Take for instance Hitler. We shouldn't celebrate his death. We should mourn the fact that he was an evil person and the cause of so many other deaths.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Kosh said:


> They are both occupations. (Although I really really really didn't want to mention the "N" word because then you get into things like "was anybody as bad as the Nazis"). The Taliban occupied Afghanistan.


And the U.S. is occupying Iraq. 
We are occupying Afghanistan.
That may not have been the intention, but it's the reality at the moment. 
I won't get into the equivalence of the Taliban/Nazis - fine.

But to consider that somehow WW2 is equivalent this mission sounds like you are elevating a danger that frankly never existed. The Taliban were not on the march, from most accounts, they were surprised by what Al Queda did. They even offered up Bin Laden. 

I thought the stated goal was to get rid of Al Queda. 
The coalition of tin pot dictator (Karzai) and warlords are negotiating with the Taliban. I wonder if the makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
Maybe you can re-write history - you know the part where we sided with the Taliban and helped them gain power in the first place. 

After years there, we are still hearing about this wonderful progress, while not really seeing any real progress...
While the Taliban are out of power, there is still an insurgency and our methods of elimination are hitting civilians.
Bin Laden was never caught but he's no longer the focus it seems. 
That Freedom seems to be replaced by warlords, corruption and my favorite record opium production. 
The war on terror has put us in more danger.


If the US really wanted to win in Afganistan (and let's face only they have the resources), they would have not ventured into Iraq. 






Kosh said:


> It was a NATO supported UN war, and since the UN has very little power, it's basically a NATO war.


Thanks for the clarification. 
I was under the impression that Kuwait was Coalition War (chiefly American + British)


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> And the U.S. is occupying Iraq.
> We are occupying Afghanistan.
> That may not have been the intention, but it's the reality at the moment.
> I won't get into the equivalence of the Taliban/Nazis - fine.


I'm specifically talking about Afghanistan, so I'm not going to respond about Iraq. Iraq is a whole different war. We probably agree more on that war than disagree, as I also don't think the US should have invaded Iraq(maybe until at least they were done in Afghanistan). There may have been even other avenues to pursue there.

We are NOT occupying Afghanistan. We're freeing it from occupation and protecting it, at the request of the Afghanistan government and UN/NATO.

Celebrating anybodies death is sad. You either celebrate their life, or mourn for their actions.



guytoronto said:


> Take for instance Hitler. We shouldn't celebrate his death. We should mourn the fact that he was an evil person and the cause of so many other deaths.


Some think the way you do, others think the way I do. 

Why should I value someone's life who doesn't value their own life or the life of others, and who's life work is to bring chaos to the world. These people (if you can call them that) don't value their lives, the lives of their own people, or anyones. They are fanatics and all they want is world chaos.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Kosh said:


> They are fanatics and all they want is world chaos.


On this I think that your read is wrong. The looney's believe, in my opinion, that they bring order to chaos. Order at the cost of freedom, which is somewhat inherently chaotic. 

However, their attempts to enforce order, to the degree that they believe it is for the greater good, results in chaos because it goes far beyond the "organic". How they see the good is, essentially, wrong. To them, this is the failure of the non-believers/subversives etc. and not a fundamental failure in their philosophy. 

This is one of the common elements of the extreme left and right: enforced order instead of a disparately chosen order by empowering people to choose for themselves and work with each other. By organic I mean the somewhat chaotic and definitely imperfect (from any individual's point of view) order of the stable democratic nations. Criticism of foreign policy, internal wealth distribution, corruption etc. are all well and good, but there is a significant and, by most people's choice, preferable "order" to these nations despite letting people do what they want to a greater degree. Quick and easy equivalency arguments are common, particularly on the net, but empty.

Hobbes at work, looking at it a certain way.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Kosh said:


> We are NOT occupying Afghanistan. We're freeing it from occupation and protecting it, at the request of the Afghanistan government and UN/NATO.


The war in Afghanistan was a response to 9/11.
And while the Taliban government (you know the one we help place there) was (begrudgingly) ready to help us get Bin Laden, it rather a stretch to think we are not occupying it. Karzai controls a city and while he wants NATO there, I view him more as a puppet.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Kosh said:


> Why should I value someone's life who doesn't value their own life or the life of others, and who's life work is to bring chaos to the world. These people (if you can call them that) don't value their lives, the lives of their own people, or anyones. They are fanatics and all they want is world chaos.


Sounds like you are demonizing the "enemy". 
They are people and an assumption that they are not is part of the problem. 
World chaos.... not sure it's high on their list...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sounds like you are demonizing the "enemy".
> They are people and an assumption that they are not is part of the problem.
> World chaos.... not sure it's high on their list...


rule number one when running a war
and also "dehumanizing" the enemy

just think of all those colourful names reserved for enemy combatants we hear during war movies 

wwII - what colourful names were used to described germans (and it wasn't "jerry" as the Brits called them) and japanese soliders?

korean war - chinese and korean soldiers?

vietnam war - ....

iraq war 1 and 2 - ......

well, you get the picture

even U.S. presidential candidates aren't immune from using colorful names



> But like many in Orange County's Little Saigon, home to the largest group of Vietnamese outside Vietnam, he can't understand McCain's use of the word ``gooks'' to describe his prison guards.
> 
> ``You say this in anger when a bad thing happens, not so many years later when you're running for president,'' said Hoang, who fled Vietnam more than 25 years ago. ``This is bad. This offends not just Vietnamese people, but Japanese people, Chinese people. He must explain this.''


and not too long ago in a place not too far away...



> Detainees who had been demonstrating over a variety of grievances began throwing rocks at the guards. As the disturbance grew, the Army authorized lethal force. Four detainees were shot to death.
> 
> Mr. Delgado confronted a sergeant who, he said, had fired on the detainees. "I asked him," said Mr. Delgado, "if he was proud that he had shot unarmed men behind barbed wire for throwing stones. He didn't get mad at all. He was, like, 'Well, I saw them bloody my buddy's nose, so I knelt down. I said a prayer. I stood up, and I shot them down.' "


I guess that's what Jesus would do, eh?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sounds like you are demonizing the "enemy".
> They are people and an assumption that they are not is part of the problem. .


Okkay, if you want to call them demons, then demons they are. Never would of thought of that. Thanks. Demons aren't people. They like to kill people and they like to kill they're own kind. They love causing chaos. Yep, sounds good ArtistSeries.



ArtistSeries said:


> World chaos.... not sure it's high on their list...


Strange, they seem to love bombing subways and buses in Spain and Britian, holding missionaries/aid workers hostage, setting roadside bombs which kill soldiers, kids, women, children, and anything else nearby... I'd call that chaos. They're surely not up-standing citizens.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Why are you mixing in homegrown terrorism now?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Why are you mixing in homegrown terrorism now?


Why do you not seem able to grasp that there is a connection between groups in different countries? There are now a host of communications possibilities including cellphones and something wondrous called the "Internet".


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> rule number one when running a war
> and also "dehumanizing" the enemy


Right on, you infidel! You amoral servant of the Great Satan who's lower than a dog.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> And while the Taliban government (you know the one we help place there) was (begrudgingly) ready to help us get Bin Laden, it rather a stretch to think we are not occupying it. Karzai controls a city and while he wants NATO there, I view him more as a puppet.


Yet more ignorant claptrap. Where do you get this stuff? NATO was invited in and Karzai was voted in by millions of fellow Afghans. Look it up if you dare.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> they were surprised by what Al Queda did. They even offered up Bin Laden.


This saying that they offered up bin Laden may sound comforting because it seems to show that the Taliban were reasonable yet it ignores the fact that they were not offering up bin Laden to the US.



ArtistSeries said:


> I thought the stated goal was to get rid of Al Queda.
> The coalition of tin pot dictator (Karzai) and warlords are negotiating with the Taliban. I wonder if the makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.


And if they were not trying peace negotiations, you'd try to nail them on that too.



ArtistSeries said:


> Maybe you can re-write history - you know the part where we sided with the Taliban and helped them gain power in the first place.


Actually, the West never sided with the Taliban and we never helped them gain power.



ArtistSeries said:


> After years there, we are still hearing about this wonderful progress, while not really seeing any real progress...


What progress do you want to see? Little Canada?

If there was a "Little Canada" is there something else about it that you would whine about?



ArtistSeries said:


> While the Taliban are out of power, there is still an insurgency and our methods of elimination are hitting civilians.


Logically, you're saying that they should be back in power? I guess you're also ignoring the fact that the Taliban are deliberately targetting civilians too?



ArtistSeries said:


> That Freedom seems to be replaced by warlords, corruption and my favorite record opium production.


You're right, there are warlords in the government, there is corruption and there is record opium production.

Unfortunately, the solution is not to get out of Afghanistan. Without a democratic government, there may never be trials of those warlords such as are planned for the former Khmer Rouge's leaders; there may never be a rooting out of corruption; and there will still certainly be opium production.

BTW, if you're so concerned about opium production why not deal with the demand side. Drag the *WESTERN* buyers and users of the drug out into the street and shoot them? That'll solve the problem. :clap: 

I mean, they are the ones ultimately supplying the funds for the Taliban and who are putting their fellow citizens at risk.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Celebrating anybodies death is sad. You either celebrate their life


Why? Why are you able to celebrate their life but not their end? Especially when their end is a "good" thing?

Believe me, this is a viewpoint that's unique to Western society and to this time period. I don't know if it can be termed "progress".


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Kosh said:


> They are fanatics and all they want is world chaos.


No, they want to be able to dominate our lives and dictate what we want to do.

So far, the wimps of the Western democracies seem to be willing to let them do that.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Another day and:
> 
> Dozens of Afghan civilians die in air raids | World | Reuters
> 
> At the rate of all these crushing battles against the Taliban, it's a surprise they are still around.


Why is it so easy to believe one group but not the other? Biased?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Kosh said:


> GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT ArtistSeries!!
> 
> Okay, let's get a link to this news because the link is probably a few posts back.
> 
> ...


When AS is confronted by facts he's incapable of using them or he deliberately ignores them. Sounds exactly like some US president we all know and love. :lmao:


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> 1) USA wants to run the world too. Neither is going to happen.


Really? When terrorists struck Madrid in a bid to get Spanish troops out of Iraq what do you think happened? Yeah, the Spanish got out of Iraq.

The fundamentalists know that if they kill a few dozen Western troops then the wimps and whiners back home cave in.



martman said:


> 2)Because the mission doesn't have enough support to succeed. With out that support the mission is WORSE than no mission.


Refer to my "wimps and whiners" comment.



martman said:


> 3) NA tortures people and supports theocracy. Their "moderation" only lasts as long as it is expedient for them.


Care to look at the Taliban's track record? They'd hang your head in a local tree for being a "wimp and whiner".



martman said:


> 4) Whatever. As I said before, I don't see you enlisting.


A. I'm too old.
B. At least I'm not stupidly backstabbing a mission that's meant to protect my life and my way of life.



martman said:


> 5) As I said this difference only lasts as long as it is expedient. When we go so does the pretense. Meanwhile the OPIUM production is up and we are basically funding it.


Yes, as I suggested before, why don't we do something about the DEMAND side?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Yes, as I suggested before, why don't we do something about the DEMAND side?


A war on Drugs? Already there....
I prefer the legalization of drugs.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> A war on Drugs? Already there....
> I prefer the legalization of drugs.


It may hearten some of the addicts and pushers out there but Canada now has the highest percentage of marijuana users in the developed world.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> It may hearten some of the addicts and pushers out there but Canada now has the highest percentage of marijuana users in the developed world.


And Society has not fallen into chaos here...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> And Society has not fallen into chaos here...


some on this board consider the years of previous Liberal gov't to be such chaos
 

now that we have another "common sense" revolution we're having more of our soldiers coming home in boxes and maimed and we're part of a NATO force that kills more civilians than the enemy

way to go harpo !!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

IronMac said:


> It may hearten some of the addicts and pushers out there but Canada now has the highest percentage of marijuana users in the developed world.


Is _that_ what's the matter with so many people? Potheads rule, I guess.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Is _that_ what's the matter with so many people? Potheads rule, I guess.


Headline....
pot smoking reaches record levels since Harper takes office as Canadians look to escape Canada's "new" reality

Minister Stockwell "Doris" Day responds that back in his great grand parent's day Canadians were too busy killing dinosaurs to worry about reality
Initiates; "Kill a dinosaur a day" work fare program


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Headline....
> pot smoking reaches record levels since Harper takes office as Canadians look to escape Canada's "new" reality
> 
> Minister Stockwell "Doris" Day responds that back in his great grand parent's day Canadians were too busy killing dinosaurs to worry about reality
> Initiates; "Kill a dinosaur a day" work fare program



Well, that post certainly cleared things up for me.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Another Record Poppy Crop in Afghanistan*



> Afghanistan will produce another record poppy harvest this year that cements its status as the world's near-sole supplier of the heroin source, yet a furious debate over how to reverse the trend is stalling proposals to cut the crop, U.S. officials say.
> 
> U.N. figures to be released in September are expected to show that Afghanistan's poppy production has risen up to 15 percent since 2006 and that the country now accounts for 95 percent of the world's crop, *3 percentage points more than last year*, officials familiar with preliminary statistics told The Associated Press
> 
> Afghanistan last year accounted for 92 percent of global opium production, compared with 70 percent in 2000 and 52 percent a decade earlier. The higher yields in Afghanistan brought world production to a record high of 7,286 tons in 2006, 43 percent more than in 2005.


Another Record Poppy Crop in Afghanistan | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited

Yay! Higher yields...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

*They're Growing More Than Poppies*

While some people love their doom-and-gloom stories, here's a step in the right direction:

UN: Afghanistan's Cereal Output Doubled - Forbes.com



Forbes said:


> Afghanistan's cereal production has more than doubled in the six years since the fall of the Taliban regime, thanks mainly to good weather and the development work of aid organizations, a U.N. food agency said Monday.


:clap:


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

*More Assistance for Afghanistan!*

Looks like the Germans are finally stiffening their spines:



> Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has backed increased German assistance for training and equipping the Afghan security forces, in remarks published Monday.
> 
> "If we give up now, then the Taliban will have reached their goal," the Social Democrat said.


Germany's Steinmeier Backs Further Military Aid to Afghanistan | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 06.08.2007


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

*Russians Doing the Right Thing*

Interesting...I would have thought that with the fall of both of the contemporaneous governments that the debt would have been written off a long time ago. In any case, fantastic news for Afghanistan without this weight around the government's neck. :clap: 

Russia agrees to massive debt write-off for Afghanistan - International Herald Tribune



> The finance ministers of Russia and Afghanistan on Monday signed an agreement under which the Kremlin writes off 90 percent of Afghanistan's US$11 billion (€8.5 billion) debt and raises the possibility of writing off the remainder.
> 
> Russia is by far the biggest creditor nation for Afghanistan, mostly for weapon sales during the Soviet era, and the debt-forgiveness arrangement is a significant boon for the impoverished, war-shattered country.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

*Taliban Body Count*

Recovered the bodies along with weapons...conclusive enough for me.  

13 suspected Taliban killed in clash with Afghan, foreign troops - International Herald Tribune



> Afghan and foreign troops thwarted a Taliban ambush at a checkpoint in southern Afghanistan and killed 13 suspected militants, a local official said Monday.
> 
> Troops battled the militants for over two hours on Sunday in Zabul's Shahjoy district after they tried to attack the checkpoint on the main road linking Kabul to the southern city of Kandahar, said Ali Kheil, the spokesman for Zabul's governor.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Looks like the so-called "students" didn't study their manuals on which phase of the guerrilla war they were in and got slapped down again. :clap: 



> The U.S. military says nearly two dozen militants were killed during a rare frontal attack on a U.S. base in southern Afghanistan.
> 
> A statement from the U.S. led coalition says a group of 75 Taleban militants tried to overrun the base in southern Uruzgan province earlier Tuesday.
> 
> The statement says Afghan and U.S. forces backed by air support repelled the attack, killing more than 20 militants.


VOA News - Taleban Militants Killed in Attack on US Base in Southern Afghanistan


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Odd, I didn't know until now that Aussie troops were involved in reconstruction efforts. I thought that they were there solely for warfighting.

Diggers fight off Taliban - National - theage.com.au



> A small group of Australian engineers were working on a reconstruction project near the town of Tarin Kowt when, in the words of their commander, they noticed that "the atmosphere around them had changed".
> 
> They took up a defensive position and prepared for trouble. Thirty minutes later they faced rocket and machine-gun fire.
> 
> The engineers and the infantry protecting them called for help from an Australian armoured patrol operating nearby and returned fire.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

After all these "crushing defeats" make you wonder why we are even there....

Doubleplusgood citizen IronMac.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*How a ‘Good War’ in Afghanistan Went Bad*



> The debate over how the 2001 victory in Afghanistan turned into the current struggle is well under way.
> 
> “Destroying the Al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan was an extraordinary strategic accomplishment,” said Robert D. Blackwill, who was in charge of both Afghanistan and Iraq policy at the National Security Council, “but where we find ourselves now may have been close to inevitable, whether the U.S. went into Iraq or not. We were going to face this long war in Afghanistan as long as we and the Afghan government couldn’t bring serious economic reconstruction to the countryside, and eliminate the Taliban’s safe havens in Pakistan.”
> 
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/world/asia/12afghan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan...*



> Just what is anybody doing anymore - U.S. troops, British and Canadian soldiers, other NATO forces - in George W. Bush's war (or whatever it is) in Afghanistan? Does anybody know what its aims and strategy once were or are now supposed to be? Does Bush himself know or, as he sets off on the month-long vacation his handlers have renamed, with their usual, Orwellian touch, a "recess," does he even care?
> 
> Rumblings from and about the war zone:
> 
> ...


So much for the cowards...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> So American airstrikes are driving civilians into the arms of the Taliban. And what can the British forces on the ground use to make survivors forget their grief and not turn against the westerners? A few measly bucks.
> 
> *Maj. Dominic Biddick, commander of a company of British soldiers in Sangin, is making a big effort to ease the anger and pain as his men patrol the villages. He has a $5,000 good-will fund and hands out cash to victims he comes across, like the farmer whose two sons were shot in the fields during a recent operation.
> The magnitude of that insult is unimaginable. The dishonor and the disgust a father must feel when offered cash (in some amount under $5,000, no less) to compensate for the loss of two sons — that's truly brutal.*
> ...


http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/08/5132_british_to_us_f.html


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*AFGHANISTAN: Health services under strain in Helmand*



> The number of patients and other *people in need of medical assistance has tripled* in insurgency-hit Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan, in the last three years, provincial health officials told
> 
> Two hospitals in Helmand
> Helmand Province, with an estimated population of over 700,000, *has only two functioning hospitals.*


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/2a2e97ba9fc3a650f00f2ffda4592e57.htm


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Ironic how AS brings up an article where the last paragraph says EXACTLY what I have been saying all along for well over a year:



> “Symbolically, it’s more the epicenter of terrorism than Iraq,” he said. “If we don’t succeed in Afghanistan, you’re sending a very clear message to the terrorist organizations that the U.S., the U.N. and the 37 countries with troops on the ground can be defeated.”


Do you still want to get out? Of course, you do because you're so blind as to the consequences that you will even quote from an article that reinforces my argument. :lmao:


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Ahh...civilian casualties. Glad that you pointed that out because it gives me an opportunity to do this:

AFGHANISTAN - NATO Nato, “less powerful” bombs to reduce civilian victims - Asia News
FT.com / World - Nato plans smaller bombs for Afghanistan



> Nato is considering the use of smaller bombs in Afghanistan to try to curb the rising number of civilians killed during operations against the Taleban. Commanders have also *ordered troops to hold off attacking militants in some situations where civilians are at risk.*


It's interesting how you lament about accidental civilian casualties at the hands of NATO but you never mention anything about the Taliban deliberately targeting civilians:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/c919a7ba361878f48146090def4e855c.htm



> These abductions of civilians by the Taliban are part of a long line of such cases, including the Taliban's brutal killing a few months ago of Afghan journalist Ajmal Naqshbandi, kidnapped in Helmand province, and driver Sayed Agha. *Since the beginning of the year, the Taliban have kidnapped at least 41 Afghan civilians and killed at least 23 of them.* Eighteen remain missing.
> 
> "The Taliban's abductions and murders show contempt for human life and disregard for the laws of war," said Joanne Mariner, Human Rights Watch's terrorism and counterterrorism director. "The taking of hostages is a war crime."


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Health care under strain? Boohoo!!! Man! Talk about getting desperate when it comes to pointing out Afghanistan's problems. Look, why don't you come back when the West ends its polio vaccination program and the infant mortality rate skyrockets. Then, I can put a mirror in your face.

Substantial Improvements Achieved in Afghanistan's Health Sector



> Results from assessments conducted by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Indian Institute of Health Management Research show *substantial improvements in the health status of the people of Afghanistan* after decades of conflict. From 2004 to 2006, the health system has shown improvement for many key measures in a majority of provinces. *These results demonstrate that improvements in health service delivery have been achieved across the country in a short period of time, according to the researchers. *The results from the assessments were presented to the Ministry of Public Health in June.


If it wasn't for the West and its "occupation" do you think that there'd be such a thing as a healthcare system to be "under strain"? Laughable, really. :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A long assessment from the Herald Tribune International



> *How a 'good war' in Afghanistan went bad*
> By David Rohde and David E. Sanger
> Published: August 11, 2007
> 
> ...


7 pages of thoughtful commentary

How a 'good war' in Afghanistan went bad - International Herald Tribune

related

Pakistan, Afghanistan mired in extremism, Pakistan president says - International Herald Tribune


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*At this rate, we'll be there for 100 years...*



> For now, Afghan soldiers must rely on Soviet-era weapons, such as the Kalashnikov AK-47.
> 
> At best, the AK-47s are not as precise and have a shorter range than the C-7, which is the Canadian version of the American M-16.
> 
> ...


http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/852808.html

LOL.... 

Add this for contrast:


> Afghan police 3 years from readiness: outgoing Canadian commander


http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/30/afghan-grant.html
Man you can just smell the manure.... beejacon


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Interesting...so, why are you not yelling at the government to expedite delivery of the new C-7s to the Afghan troops so that we can leave there sooner? Or are you just here to whine?

As for the report about the Afghan police not being ready, weren't you the one who said that anything from a government official could not be trusted? Talk about hypocritical! :lmao: 

You've proven many times over that you will only believe what you *WANT* to believe.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> Interesting...so, why are you not yelling at the government to expedite delivery of the new C-7s to the Afghan troops so that we can leave there sooner? Or are you just here to whine?
> 
> As for the report about the Afghan police not being ready, weren't you the one who said that anything from a government official could not be trusted? Talk about hypocritical! :lmao:
> 
> You've proven many times over that you will only believe what you *WANT* to believe.


i yell at my MP to have our troops just leave Afghanistan
no need for C-7s saving Cdn. lives and taxpayer money

after all, we have an eroding health care system to support which will save a hell of a lot more Cdn. lives than fighting "over there"


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i yell at my MP to have our troops just leave Afghanistan
> no need for C-7s saving Cdn. lives and taxpayer money
> 
> after all, we have an eroding health care system to support which will save a hell of a lot more Cdn. lives than fighting "over there"


Probably save a lot more Canadian lives if we started conscription and sent over people to hump a year or two in the mountains of Afghanistan. That experience would improve the overall fitness level of all concerned. :clap:


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Contrary to what some people might think about how many MORE civilian casualties the Western forces are inflicting, here is AP's count:

Fact Check: Obama on Afghanistan - Forbes.com



> As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can't be attributed to one party.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> Probably save a lot more Canadian lives if we started conscription and sent over people to hump a year or two in the mountains of Afghanistan. That experience would improve the overall fitness level of all concerned. :clap:


drafting people into the military in Canada
yeah, that'll work
we'd be out of Afghanistan so fast

such neo con thinking
go to the army to get fit and if you get killed, well, you don't have to worry about your cholesterol levels anymore...
tptptptp


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> Contrary to what some people might think about how many MORE civilian casualties the Western forces are inflicting, here is AP's count:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


good guys kill more (almost 24%) innocent civilians than bad guys and you spin it as a good thing?

how many more innocent civilians can the good guys kill than the bad guys before you think it's a bad thing?
or
maybe the good guys should be killing a lot LESS innocent civilians than the bad guys?
duh.....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> drafting people into the military in Canada
> yeah, that'll work
> we'd be out of Afghanistan so fast
> 
> ...


LOL! Speaking about thinking...you suggest that getting out of Aghanistan will help with a deteriorating health care system. Let's look at this idea a bit more, is the system falling apart because of the Afghan endeavour? No, it is not.

Will the money saved really go towards health care? I doubt it. So, wasted argument there. Do you have anything better? Probably not...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> good guys kill more (almost 24%) innocent civilians than bad guys and you spin it as a good thing?
> 
> how many more innocent civilians can the good guys kill than the bad guys before you think it's a bad thing?
> or
> ...


The only reason I brought that up is because every other wimp and whiner is doing the same thing; that is, bringing up the idea of civilian casualties as if we're the only ones killing civilians. They neglect to show that the other side is causing almost as many civilian casualties and that they are deliberately doing so.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> The only reason I brought that up is because every other wimp and whiner is doing the same thing; that is, bringing up the idea of civilian casualties as if we're the only ones killing civilians. They neglect to show that the other side is causing almost as many civilian casualties and that they are deliberately doing so.


i certainly hope you're not involved with handling other peoples' money
since when does a gap of almost 24% qualify as; "almost as many?"

are you familiar with the Bizzaro world from the Superman comic?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> LOL! Speaking about thinking...you suggest that getting out of Aghanistan will help with a deteriorating health care system. Let's look at this idea a bit more, is the system falling apart because of the Afghan endeavour? No, it is not.
> 
> Will the money saved really go towards health care? I doubt it. So, wasted argument there. Do you have anything better? Probably not...





> i·ro·ny
> 
> The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
> 
> ...


please read and comprehend
snap quiz on friday


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i certainly hope you're not involved with handling other peoples' money
> since when does a gap of almost 24% qualify as; "almost as many?"


You're right...the Taliban just closed the gap some more with 3 dead children:



> Achakzai, two of his sons and a daughter were killed instantly, while two other sons were wounded, Ghafar said


washingtonpost.com


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

More Brits marching in along with more aid money:

With Iraq pullout in full swing, Britain turns its focus to Afghanistan - International Herald Tribune



> Britain will increase its troop strength in Afghanistan to 7,700 by the year's end, up from 7,000 today and 3,600 a year ago


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Can't be independently confirmed but at least that's a few more down. :clap: 

Scotsman.com News - International - 100 Taliban fighters killed by coalition forces



> MORE than 100 suspected Taliban insurgents have been killed in clashes with US-led and Afghan troops in southern Afghanistan.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Hope they can display his body like they did with the other one:

globeandmail.com: Feared Taliban commander believed killed in U.S. strike



> One of the Taliban's most cunning and feared military commanders is believed to have been killed in a U.S. Special Forces strike in southern Afghanistan.
> 
> According to the Afghan Ministry of Defence and an Afghan military commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani - who's better known as Mullah Brother- a member of the Taliban ruling council, was killed in Helmand province yesterday.
> 
> "Our units down in the area heard through the Taliban's radio communications that Mullah Brother has been killed," said General Muhiddin Ghori, the head of Afghan forces in Helmand.


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

A few more added to the body count:

Scores of Afghan Insurgents Killed | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited



> Afghan troops backed by foreign soldiers and airpower killed about 70 suspected Taliban fighters in raids close to the Pakistan border and throughout in the country, authorities said Saturday.


No civilians or allied troops reported killed. :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> A few more added to the body count:
> 
> Scores of Afghan Insurgents Killed | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited
> 
> ...


For ever the optimist....


> *Insurgent violence in Afghanistan is running at its highest level* since the 2001 ouster of the Taliban despite the presence of more than 50,000 foreign troops and 110,000 Afghan police and military officers.
> 
> I*t was not possible to independently verify any of the death tolls* because travel to the areas is extremely dangerous. Taliban commanders were not available for comment.


Same source as IM.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> For ever the optimist....


Yes, no civilians or allied forces killed with a strong possibility/certainty that the enemy suffered casualties. What's wrong with that?

BTW, I don't see you complaining about the Taliban's indiscriminate killing of civilians:



> Ten civilians were killed when Taliban rebels fired rockets at a US base in eastern Afghanistan Friday, while two Afghan soldiers died in a suicide bombing outside Kabul airport.
> 
> The attacks were the latest in the war-torn country that have targeted international troops combating the Al-Qaeda-linked Islamist movement but ended up claiming the lives of Afghans instead.
> 
> The 10 civilians died and another five were wounded when militants fired rockets at the US-led coalition base in eastern Kunar province's Chawkai district which hit a nearby village, police and officials said.


AFP: Twelve Afghans killed in attacks on foreign military


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Taliban back in strategic areas around Kandahar*



> OTTAWA — Taliban insurgents have re-occupied strategically important areas around the city of Kandahar, including ground won by Canadian forces in deadly, hard-fought battles last year, according to a report published Sunday in The New York Times.


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=6178a55a-7fae-426f-ace3-7aa56ef21b5d&k=32657

IM, the point is that we are losing the war there. 
Whatever goodwill existed is rapidly evaporating. 

If the Americans had actually concentrated in rebuilding, maybe "we" could have won. Given the prisoner abuse, corruption, criminals taking over, don't you think it's high time we re-examine our tactics?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Taliban back in strategic areas around Kandahar
> 
> IM, the point is that we are losing the war there.
> Whatever goodwill existed is rapidly evaporating.
> ...


I don't see that at all. I'm not going to deny that there are problems but progress is being made on health, education, the economy, and the security situation.

Re-examine tactics? Is that another euphemism for cut-and-run? Or, are you simply unaware of NATO's re-examination and changes of their military tactics?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS would like to see government revenue support a free day care program for his progeny instead, IronMac. Any success in Afghanistan is rebuked by merely redefining the parameters of success.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

IronMac said:


> Can't be independently confirmed but at least that's a few more down. :clap:
> 
> Scotsman.com News - International - 100 Taliban fighters killed by coalition forces


and



IronMac said:


> Hope they can display his body like they did with the other one:
> 
> globeandmail.com: Feared Taliban commander believed killed in U.S. strike
> 
> :clap: :clap: :clap:


You are a disgusting person... these posts are offensive. Hey Mods this crap needs to be deleted. Ironmac is literally cheering for the death of other human beings.

Pointing out the fact that these events have happened is one thing... he is literally being gleeful in these events. Comments like "a few more down" and "display his body like the other one" are uncalled for.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Threads where people can not discuss topics in a civil manner are going to be closed. 

Several members are being given some time off.


----------

