# Uninformed chatter on the wars in the Sandbox....



## deserter (21 Oct 2006)

Canadian soldiers are committing ethnic cleansing in southern Afghanistan.  Canada is not helping Afghan citizens, we are murdering them.  Having killed thousands of Afghans opposed to our occupying forces in recent months alone, our soldiers are sacrificing Afghans themselves, particularly young Afghan males.  Our soldiers are not standing around waiting to rescue babies as Harper would have us believe; they are raiding homes, shooting first and asking questions later, and generally taking part in what future generations will regard as simply another massive Western crime – the attack and occupation of Afghanistan.  

Just in the past few days there is another reports of soldiers (“the good guys”) executing a injured young boy.  No doubt such a revelation will be met by aa nother ‘ho-hum’ from Canadian militarists and anti-Islamists who foolishly believe our troops are fighting for “good” in Afghanistan when in reality we are jus taking part in a cultural war against some of the most oppressed people on earth.    Why don't Canadian troops just admit they don't know who they're fighting or who the enemy is?  Why don't soldiers admit that they are trying to change a culture by force and that historically all such missions are doomed to failure and violence?

Given all of the anti-Muslim prejudice and hatred being whipped up by all major Western media outlets, including our own governments, it is not surprising that soldiers’ own hatred and anger is being unleashed on people whose culture they do not understand or appreciate. Given the rate at which Afghans die at the hands of NATO troops, Afghanistan will need all the help they can get.  A good starting point for Canada would be to stop contributing to the massive death and injury by pulling its troops out immediately and then apologizing to the world community for its needless attack on the people of that country which has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.


----------



## McG (21 Oct 2006)

deserter,
By your very first line in your very first post, it seems to me you have come here to be a troll.


			
				deserter said:
			
		

> Canadian soldiers are committing ethnic cleansing in southern Afghanistan.



If you want to join this site with some intelligent dabate, then feel free to do so.  However, do not come here to level these false (and unsubstantiated) allegations against the brave men & women that serve our country.  I encourage you to make use of the following helpful links for new members:

***********************************

*Army.ca Conduct Guidelines*: MUST READ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

MSN and ICQ "short hand" -  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33247.0.html

Regarding the use of "MSN speak" versus the employment of prose which is correct in grammar, spelling and punctuation, please see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34015/post-260446.html#msg260446

FRIENDLY ADVICE TO NEW MEMBERS - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937/post-259412.html#msg259412

Recruiting FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html

Infantry FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21131.0.html

Search page - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced

Google search of Army.ca - http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=+site%3Aarmy.ca+%22search+term%22&btnG=Search&meta= (follow the link then replace "search term" with what you are looking for)

Army.ca wiki pages  - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

***********************************

Consider this your warning.

We have plenty of threads debating the merit and methods of this war already.  Therefore, this thread is now locked.


----------



## deserter (21 Oct 2006)

Dannatt is only saying what anti-war protesters have ben saying all along.  Afghanistan is in the same shape (increasing insurgency, more casualties, government collapse)

Not only should NATO forces keave Iraq and Afghanistan, but the United NAtions should bring charges of war crimes against The US and its allies for launching wars which have resulted in the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the arbitrary detention and torture of many others.  

The US and its allies are guilty for the outcome of the situation in these countries.  It is not good enough to say "Well, we tried but I guess they don't want our help."  Most academics and decent human beings predicted the bloodshed from the getgo, but only pro-war ideologues blinded by hatred after 9/11 were able to push these wars forward despite the overwhelming opposition. I hope people who supported these wars feel terrible for having taken part, and hopefully George BUsh, Blair and others will one day be headed to the Hague to explain themselves and pay the consequences.


----------



## Danjanou (21 Oct 2006)

Ok that first line in and of itself is an introduction to the warning system here, PM to follow. 

If you can substantiate these claims of yours with a credible valid source then please do so. Otherwise you are in violation of the site guidelines posted above.


----------



## armyvern (21 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> Dannatt is only saying what anti-war protesters have ben saying all along.  Afghanistan is in the same shape (increasing insurgency, more casualties, government collapse)
> 
> Not only should NATO forces keave Iraq and Afghanistan, but the United NAtions should bring charges of war crimes against The US and its allies for launching wars which have resulted in the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the arbitrary detention and torture of many others.
> 
> The US and its allies are guilty for the outcome of the situation in these countries.  It is not good enough to say "Well, we tried but I guess they don't want our help."  Most academics and decent human beings predicted the bloodshed from the getgo, but only pro-war ideologues blinded by hatred after 9/11 were able to push these wars forward despite the overwhelming opposition. I hope people who supported these wars feel terrible for having taken part, and hopefully George BUsh, Blair and others will one day be headed to the Hague to explain themselves and pay the consequences.


Just so much more El Toro Poo Poo

Afghanistan? The UN? They sanctioned the formation of ISAF, we are there with their approval. Do your homework. Leave here...go do your homework then come back when you can post some facts.

I am PROUD!! Read the very very bottom of my post....

And now, I put you on ignore.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Oct 2006)

That's  twice you have said Afghanistan is in the same shape as Iraq. 

Have you been to either because there are plenty of users on here who have been to both.

Well?...tick,tick,tick,...


----------



## McG (21 Oct 2006)

deserter ,
Nothing you've said seems to be supported by any facts.  I suppose you count the United Nations amoungst the "pro-war ideologues" or have you forgoten that it has given its endorsment to the Afghan mission.

Stop posting until you are ready to argue intelligently (with facts & not with fiction).


----------



## deserter (22 Oct 2006)

The United Nations? 

This is the same organization you guys have been bashing for years.  It is dominated by the wealthy nations that have a controlling stake in the operation of that body.  It is not that surprising they have given the official stamp of approval to the Afghan mission, given that the UN was strongarmed into passing some resoutions before the invasion which gave partial legitimacy to the US attack on the country.  The United Nations is simply wrong in this case, although I do believe in a world government and that the UN needs to be reformed.

I restate my arguments that the war we're partaking in in Afghanistan is mainly a cultural war.  We claim to sympathize with the people who have had to endure growing up in Afghanistan, yet how quick we are to write off tens of thousands of the people there as "Jihadis" simply because the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim.  

Of course, the Taliban was a terrible regime, but the Taliban - like all Afghan insurgents opposing occupying troops - are a product of the culture.  What's worse is that many of the Afghans opposing us are warlords who have families and workers of their own to support.  Soldiers are trying to shut down their grow-ops knowing full well that they are no other means of getting an income.  

We don't sympathize with Afghans, we treat and think of them like "the other" - as savages needing correcting.  You only have to read a few stories about NATO troop getting pelted with stones by regular people to know that we are involved in an immoral war fueled by our pride and power, rather than our intellects.  

I know many in the military do not think this way, or do not like to think they think that way, but I'm surprised at how little understanding there is for how Afghan society came to be as it is currently.  Canadians (and the rest of NATO) are using violent intervention when in fact the society has to be changed from within. Try to remember that all so-called modern societies became civilized by their own doing, not because of the treatment by outsiders.  How many people on this board acknowledge that Afghanistan has the subject of military intervention and arming by the West, yet we are willing to go in there and put down the people opposing us as if we're so great.  Let's stop being so ethnocentric and arrogant. 

 Also, I don't need to have gone to either country to form my own opinions.  Thats like saying you can't talk about heroin addictions until you've shot up.  There is ample information available from all sides about the true nature of the conflict and the views of the people there.  I could form my whole argument against the war simply based on how Hamid Karzai is a corrupt invididual whose government we are supporting. (Karzai, despite his outward niceties, is a fundamentalist himself who used to be allied with the Taliban), but that would only be but one fact out of hundreds that could be used to oppose the war.  Here I am putting forward more basic arguments against what is simply Imperialism in a 21st century guide.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

Deserter,
You are all over the map here, you are using fallacious arguments and your “facts” are not supported.  

You want the UN to bring war crime charges against the nations involved in Afghanistan, and you claim the UN to be a puppet.  



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> I restate my arguments that the war we're partaking in in Afghanistan is mainly a cultural war.


Have you made this argument before?  I seemed to have missed it.



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> how quick we are to write off tens of thousands of the people there as "Jihadis" simply because the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim.


Which tens of thousands?



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> We don't sympathize with Afghans, we treat and think of them like "the other" - as savages needing correcting.


How have you come to this conclusion?  I’ve seen no efforts to “correct” the Afghan people.  Please provide examples.



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> You only have to read a few stories about NATO troop getting pelted with stones by regular people to know that we are involved in an immoral war fueled by our pride and power, rather than our intellects.


This is a fallacious argument.  If I were to toss stones at you, it would not prove you to be immoral.  What are we doing that is immoral?



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> I am putting forward more basic arguments against what is simply Imperialism in a 21st century guide.


How is this imperialism?



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> Hamid Karzai is a corrupt invididual whose government we are supporting


Okay, he may come with baggage & there are some very big corruption problems.  However, his government was also democratically elected by the Afghan people.  As “outsiders” is it our position to depose their choice?  (especially when the government is making visible efforts to resolve the corruption)


----------



## Koenigsegg (22 Oct 2006)

"Karzai, despite his outward niceties, is a fundamentalist himself who used to be allied with the Taliban"

You are aware that a lot of the Warlords who rose up against the Taliban, were "allied" with them, right?
The Warlords were the ones who removed the Taliban.  

The Germans were allied with the Japanese in WW2 (unless you write your own revisionist history), did they like them?  No...It was an alliance of convenience to begin with.
They were waiting to stab them in the back. (depending on the source)


----------



## career_radio-checker (22 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> Also, *I don't need to have gone to either country to form my own opinions.*  Thats like saying you can't talk about heroin addictions until you've shot up.  There is ample information available from all sides about the true nature of the conflict and the views of the people there.  I could form my whole argument against the war simply based on how Hamid Karzai is a corrupt invididual whose government we are supporting. (Karzai, despite his outward niceties, is a fundamentalist himself who used to be allied with the Taliban), but that would only be but one fact out of hundreds that could be used to oppose the war.  Here I am putting forward more basic arguments against what is simply Imperialism in a 21st century guide.


No you don't. But I would hope you knew the difference and value of a 1st hand source, as opposed to a 2nd hand source of information


----------



## tlg (22 Oct 2006)

Why is that there are soo many people that think they are experts on subjects, yet have no experience in the matter itself. I believe we are in this mess due to the poor quality of journalism these days(by days I mean years). Now this may be my completely off the wall thinking, but are people "claiming" to "know" what's "true" and what's "false" with only the information handed out to them by the media? Having the media attached to units in the field to "inform" the people back home about what is going on appears to be a good idea in theory, but there are way too many issues about making money for their parent company. Instead of relaying what is going on in the field, the media has a hay day by exaggerating about the events going on. Or instead of focusing in on the big picture, they focus in on one sector and blow it out of proportion. 

Now that I've written my introduction.

deserter, WHERE IN SAM HELL ARE YOU GETTING YOUR CACK AND BULL FROM? Please don't tell me, I really don't want to know. 

Next if you remember from highschool, the hamburger paragraph I'm sure there are other names to it) method of writing essays and arguements, you would know that you are to open the paragraph with a statement, then say WHY you believe this, then close it off by backing it up by not one but two and preferably THREE pieces of FACT. Rather rinse repeat, three times for the three or more middle parts of the essay/arguement. To open the essay/arguement you open with the topic of the essay/arguement, state three(or more) statements about the topic, then close it  off by restating your first paragraph.

What was in the previous paragraph has no flow. Much like your pathetic arguement.

It's ALL ABOUT THE FLOW.

I'm done with my rant as I've got 5 puppies to watch and its now 0151.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Oct 2006)

:rofl:


----------



## patrick666 (22 Oct 2006)

> Also, I don't need to have gone to either country to form my own opinions.  Thats like saying you can't talk about heroin addictions until you've shot up.



Well, who has more credibility?



> Of course, the Taliban was a terrible regime, but the Taliban - like all Afghan insurgents opposing occupying troops - are a product of the culture.



As are the rest of us. We only live on the other side of the world. 

Ah, crap - ride's here...  :crybaby:

Otherwise, interesting discussion and perspective.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Oct 2006)

I wonder what our new 'friend' deserter has to say about this from the International community:

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2341&l=1



> *Joint Statement by The International Crisis Group, Care International, and the International Rescue Committee on The Expansion of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan*
> Statement
> 31 October 2003
> 
> ...



Does the Canadian Peace Alliance not follow what other Peace organizations around the world are doing?  Perhaps it has its own subversive agenda?  As noted elsewhere, approximately 50% of its support for the 28th Oct Rally comes from Islamic fundamentalist groups, Communist and Socialist organizations, and Student organizations.  None of which would truly be considered supporters of a safe, orderly, Democratic Society.


----------



## GAP (22 Oct 2006)

*31 October 2003*  

Is there any more recent statements....the date kinda negates the intent.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Oct 2006)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> "Karzai, despite his outward niceties, is a fundamentalist himself who used to be allied with the Taliban"
> 
> You are aware that a lot of the Warlords who rose up against the Taliban, were "allied" with them, right?
> The Warlords were the ones who removed the Taliban.
> ...


To add to that, in 1939 (in late August, I believe), the Germans and the USSR signed a non-aggression pact.  In reality, they were waiting to stab one another in the back (the Germans beat the USSR to the punch on that one, though the USSR managed to not only survive, but kick Teutonic Arse from the Volga to the Elbe)


----------



## ArmyRick (22 Oct 2006)

Deserter, go away. Smoke some more pot and talk some more sh*t with your other hippy wanna be friends and let the grown ups run the real world.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

Just a general reminder on tone & content here.


----------



## dglad (22 Oct 2006)

The truly glaring flaw in Deserter's argument is conflating Iraq and Afghanistan.  They are two different operations, with two different realities.  One could argue at length about the wisdom of the US engaging itself in Iraq, and the effect that has had on the Afghanistan operation.  But to automatically equate these two theatres in terms of, for example, international law, is completely fallacious.  To do so simply because they are geographically close and predmoninantly Islamic is an excellent example of the very type of ethno-centrism he decries.

So, focusing on Afghanistan, it is a UN sanctioned operation, and the majority of the country is actually in a state of relative peace and is in the process of progressing and rebuilding (source - Nelofer Pazira, Indian-born, Afghan citizen for 14 years living in Khabul and Khandahar, journalist, and star of the movie "Khandahar"; Nelofer returned from a trip through Afghanistan earlier this year.  I attended a talk by Nelofer a few weeks ago and spoke with her at some length afterwards).  The Pashtun-dominated region in the south and east is, indeed, still in a state of turmoil, largely because of various flavours of Taliban insurgency leaking across the border from Pakistan.  It's not surprising that citizens in this area want an end to the fighting and, being a practical people, will embrace whatever means seems most expeditious for doing so.  If the choice seems to be a return to Taliban rule or ongoing conflict, then it's the lesser of two evils.  Nelofer is adamant, however, that there is NO love for the Taliban; if ISAF/NATO could gain momentum in the development and reconstruction department in the southeast, the people there would happily abandon the Taliiban.  Like most people around the world, the primary concern of these people is just feeding and sheltering their families and having something resembling a decent standard of living.

As for imperialism--well, since Afghanistan has no meaningful resources and isn't, in the greater scheme of things, situated with any particular strategic advantage (unless you want to subscribe to the old "encirclement doctrine" the US employed throughout the Cold War re the Soviet Union), then it's a rather costly and meaningless form of imperialism.  Imperialism implies empire; Afghanistan represents far more of a burden than an asset to any of the countries currently operating there in terms of "empire".

Finally, Nelofer doesn't mince words about the unfortunate reality of having foreign troops in Afghanistan.  But she is equally clear that a simple withdrawal would be a disaster.  The country would descend into sectarian violence that would--I would hope--horrify even our friend Deserter.  So, to paraphrase the philosopher, failure by the international community in Afghanistan isn't an option.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> *31 October 2003*
> 
> Is there any more recent statements....the date kinda negates the intent.



Not really.  What it shows is the lack of communication between the Peace Groups and their constant changing of agenda with the changes of the wind.  There are more recent posts at that site that would clear up many of their misconceptions, such as: Afghanistan’s New Legislature: Making Democracy Work, Asia Report N°116, 15 May 2006;   Rebuilding the Afghan State: The European Union’s Role, Asia Report N°107, 30 November 2005;   Afghanistan Elections: Endgame or New Beginning?, Asia Report N°101, 21 July 2005;  Political Parties in Afghanistan, Asia Briefing N°39, 2 June 2005; all on this page:   http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1266&l=1 

One year they are all supporting UN intervention, the next they call the UN/NATO Forces a bunch of Imperialistic murdering thugs.  These people have a serious problem with ADS.  They are afraid to do any real research, and look at any research with an unbiased point of view.  Their simplistic views of Life are totally unrealistic.  They have no concepts of Human Nature, nor of how many truly 'Evil' people are in these parts of the world.  If they refuse to do the research or perhaps travel to other lands to see first hand, they are doomed to go through life with blinders on and no concept of reality.  I would imagine many of their concepts about Americans would be drastically changed if they would simply jump in their car or on a bus and go down to the States and visit/vacation and see for themselves who Americans really are.......but that would be too easy for them to do......it would distroy so many of their misconceptions.......

I guess they have yet to face 'Reality'.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Oct 2006)

Of course we could be forgetting the obvious........'deserter' is just pissed cause we are kickin' the living crap out of his fellow Taliban.


----------



## armyvern (22 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> Of course, the Taliban was a terrible regime, ...
> 
> ... I could form my whole argument against the war simply based on how *Hamid Karzai is a corrupt invididual whose government we are supporting. (Karzai, despite his outward niceties, is a fundamentalist himself who used to be allied with the Taliban*), but that would only be but one fact out of hundreds that could be used to oppose the war.  Here I am putting forward more basic arguments against what is simply Imperialism in a 21st century guide.


So in your mind...the Taliban was a terrible regime (and hey I'm not about to argue with you on that)...
so we
should pull out because Hamid Karzai used to be allied with them.......
so that
the Taliban can walk right back in and take over.

And with exactly those kind of thoughts from ill-informed people like yourself from the left, I can almost guarantee you that the average citizen of Afghanistan (who overwhelmingly thank our soldiers as they walk by and support them by the way- but hey they don't show THAT on the news clips and soundbites-) says: Thank Allah that these people are not in charge of the government of Canada.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Oct 2006)

"Deserter", eh?  How does your mind feel about the fact you vacated it?


----------



## Popurhedoff (22 Oct 2006)

Do not feed the Trolls...  Deserter is just that...a Troll.


----------



## RangerRay (22 Oct 2006)

Is this "deserter" one of those American deserters currently in our country who will soon be repatriated for service in Leavensworth, or is he the so-called "Canadian deserter" who bailed after one week of reserve training, and would never have gone to A'stan unless he begged his chain-of-command to be sent?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (22 Oct 2006)

*(I hope I am not feeding a troll - If I am,  feel free to wipe this post Mods)*

I just read this thread,  and honestly I see no reason to respond to the allegations.  (Others did it just fine)  I just want to say two things.  Firstly,  I honestly hope that we are able to make a better argument to the Muslim world as to why we are in Afghanistan than the argument presented here by deserter against it. I think that if we come across as tendentious and poorly reasoned as Deserter appears to me,  I don't think we'll ever have an agreement.  Secondly, I do want to commend those on this thread who replied with both dignity and grace to some rather absurd and offensive things.  It takes character to keep calm and to continue to present one's position in an intelligent manner.  Good work - it is constructive to be able to keep calm and continue to appear rational and not like a foaming at the mouth radical.  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Oct 2006)

deserter
I am a Muslim convert (thanks to Malaysian law) if you don't think radical Islam is a threat to personal freedoms and to the health and welfare of a country, I suggest that you go and live as a Muslim and then start asking questions. You will find the results quite illuminating.

I certainly don't hate Muslims, that would mean hating my wife, her family and her friends. But I do hate the radical Islamicist as they will kill me, my family and they desire to turn the world into a single strict Islamic theology, where freedom of thought, speech and religion is banned, not to mention democracy.

Most Muslims are moderate, but they sit back and do little to prevent the radicals in their midst and that is why they share the blame.

As for accusing Canadian soldiers of war crimes, if you have proof, bring it forward to the UN war crimes commission, if not stop making groundless accusations against soldiers who are not allowed to publicly defend themselves.


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> :rofl:



+1  :rofl:

- "no war for oil"
- "this is bush's war"
- "the west are war criminals"
- "illegal occupation"
- "I am gainfully employed"

= routine slogans and lies that you hear from these types...


----------



## deserter (22 Oct 2006)

Wow, a lot of anger on this board. 

As far as Karzai is concerned, I thought it was important to point out that he is a religious fundamentalist in many ways.  He broke with the Taliban, but for tactical reasons not moralistic ones.

It's important to look at thing from the insurgents point of view.  They're the ones that live there and the troops are the ones who are the invaders, doesn't it just make sense that they would oppose our dictates?  If foreigners were marching around your homeland riding humvees up and down your dirty streets getting into firefights, wouldn't you be pissed off?  Why should they not be allowed to govern themselves as they choose?  

Just because they're opposing or attacking our troops doesn't make them evil, because the truth is that we don't know what causes each and every insurgent to fight.  Because prisoners are denied the most elementary rights and are subject to torture, the media can't show the public the true nature of the situation.  

For every insurgent you could find a different reason of why they are fighting.  It's not their fault they don't support NATO.  From the regular Afghans point of view, who the hell is NATO anyway, other than the same sort of people (white) who have been invading Afghanistan for years. There were three wars between Britain and Afghanistan between 1839 and 1919, military funding and creation of the Mujahadeen by the Americans and of course attack by the Russians.  These people are tired of people kicked around by other countries.   

At some point you are going to have to accept that the insurgency is composed of regular Afghans, and they will continue to be Islamic whether you like it or not.  You can't kill them all even though you'd like to, and the ones that survive will only be so full of hate that the risk of terrorism in the future will only increase.

If the Southern regions don't want to recognize the government of Karzai then that's their choice and outside troops have no reason to enforce it.  If Quebec votes someday to not recognize Ottawa's authority, I won't like it but I'll respect their vote.

Afghanistan is not our country, folks.  Canada shouldn't be in the business of forging a nation together by force.  It's like pounding a square peg in a round hole.  When NATO troops use white phosphorus on Afghan insurgents, it's no worse than Saddam using poison gas on the Kurds.  The goals are the same in each case after all, to decimate and terrorize the population into submission for the sake of having a central government.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

deserter,
Why have you not provided anything to back yourself up?

You have not taken any advice from this board.  You have not answered any of the counter arguments raised so far.  You do not know what you are talking about.  I am convinced that you are only here as a troll.

If your next post does not provide something of a fact based coherent argument (feel free to link to references) then you will be gone.

Cheers.


----------



## deserter (22 Oct 2006)

Someone posted the thoughts of an Afghan who gave a speech in which she supported the war.  Here's a statement from an actual Afghan still living in the country that couldn't escape the US-led attack on the country. 

"...For Rukia the worst day of the war was the day she lost all five of her children. US bombs flattened her Kandahar home, now a pile of rubble, and blood, and bits of shrapnel that tore through flesh. Her children's. 
For Haji Khan the war is an endless succession of worst days. "It never ends," he explained, from a Pakistani refugee camp, on the border near Afghanistan. "It was boom, boom, boom, boom, and then boom again. It was like being inside a nightmare. Everyone was crying. There were dead people everywhere." Now he hangs on, fighting off cold, fighting to get enough to eat, so he can live another day, another nightmare, another worst day."

There are literally thousands of newspaper accounts like this one.  Her children will never get a chance to experience the freedom that you envision.  If the West had taken a peaceful approach to change in Afghanistan, 30,000 dead Afghans could still be alive today, and you'd have a hundred thousand less vengeful insurgents to deal with.  Canada is culpable for this alongside our allies.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

What is your source, or did you write that quote?


----------



## Trinity (22 Oct 2006)

If there were thousands of newspaper articles like this

you could provide a few for us....???


----------



## deserter (23 Oct 2006)

Go onto google and search for Rukia Afghanistan children.  This one account is hosted by university websites (.edu), blogs, online journals and other sites.

Or just type in the words civilian casualties afghanistan and you can find many similar accounts.  Why do you seem so incredulous?


----------



## Infanteer (23 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> If the West had taken a peaceful approach to change in Afghanistan, 30,000 dead Afghans could still be alive today, and you'd have a hundred thousand less vengeful insurgents to deal with.  Canada is culpable for this alongside our allies.



Ah yes, the Mullah Layton strategy.  Please, explain the "peaceful approach to change" that we should have undertaken and how it could have been put into place.

You do remember who we're dealing with, no?  Hanging teachers and beheading opponents.  There are people on this forum who've met Taliban and other jihadis while in Afghanistan; perhaps you should listen to what they have to say rather than calling them war criminals....


----------



## McG (23 Oct 2006)

deserter,
Don't come here and ask us to do your homework for you.  If you want to argue a point, give us the reputable source.


----------



## gaspasser (23 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the Mullah Layton strategy.  Please, explain the "peaceful approach to change" that we should have undertaken and how it could have been put into place.
> 
> You do remember who we're dealing with, no?  Hanging teachers and beheading opponents.  There are people on this forum who've met Taliban and other jihadis while in Afghanistan; perhaps you should listen to what they have to say rather than calling them war criminals....


+1 Infanteer!


----------



## armyvern (23 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> "...For Rukia the worst day of the war was the day she lost all five of her children. US bombs flattened her Kandahar home, now a pile of rubble, and blood, and bits of shrapnel that tore through flesh. Her children's.
> For Haji Khan the war is an endless succession of worst days. "It never ends," he explained, from a Pakistani refugee camp, on the border near Afghanistan. "It was boom, boom, boom, boom, and then boom again. It was like being inside a nightmare. Everyone was crying. There were dead people everywhere." Now he hangs on, fighting off cold, fighting to get enough to eat, so he can live another day, another nightmare, another worst day."


Now the reporter should ask them whether they want the Taliban back in power. I bet I know what their answers would be.


			
				deserter said:
			
		

> There are literally thousands of newspaper accounts like this one.  Her children will never get a chance to experience the freedom that you envision.  If the West had taken a peaceful approach to change in Afghanistan, 30,000 dead Afghans could still be alive today, and you'd have a hundred thousand less vengeful insurgents to deal with.  Canada is culpable for this alongside our allies.


Hmmm, negotiate with those insurgents and Taliban who just don't negotiate (except with a large knife cutting at your throat if you happen to be an infidel, and oops with a rope or gunshot in a football stadium if your an Afghan woman who dared let your hair show). Funny seems I've heard this line of speach from someone else recently.... :


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> Afghanistan is not our country, folks.  Canada shouldn't be in the business of forging a nation together by force.  It's like pounding a square peg in a round hole.  When NATO troops use white phosphorus on Afghan insurgents, it's no worse than Saddam using poison gas on the Kurds.  The goals are the same in each case after all, to decimate and terrorize the population into submission for the sake of having a central government.



Canada was forged in battle, natives against Vikings, French against natives, French against English, English against Americans, Canadians against Americans, Boers, Germans, Red Russians, Germans again, Italian's, Japanese, etc.

I guess by your logic, we should not have any role in UN peacekeeping forces either?

WP is very nasty, but it was not designed like a WMD, plus the Kurds were citizens of his country. Now if we used posion gas at Oka, then you would have a point. 

Basically your whole logic is to stick our head in the hole and hope nobody bothers us. It won't work, we are not alone in the world, the world will have an impact on us and you will have to make choices, often the choices are not great, it is not about choosing right or wrong, it is about what is the best we can do for now. 

You accuse people here of being criminals murderers and you wonder why they annoyed with you? If they were the people you think they were, then you would be hanging from a lamp post with gut cut open like the Taliban do to people they don't like.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> If foreigners were marching around your homeland riding humvees up and down your dirty streets getting into firefights, wouldn't you be pissed off?  Why should they not be allowed to govern themselves as they choose?



I'm going to be a but of a nit-picking fuss here but

1)  I live in Toronto,  the streets are clean thank you very much.  

2)  We do have foreigners come here driving around in SUVs getting into gun fights, terrorizing the locals. It is called carabana - the weekend I and everyone I know goes camping.  
    (A really bad joke I think only Torontonians who live DT will understand)

3)  We tried to let them govern themselves,  we were attacked.  We tried diplomacy,  we had embassies bombed in Africa.  We tried strong diplomacy and got September 11th attacks.  We tried asking nicely for the ones who did it,  we were flatly refused.  We received more threats.  We believed that in Afghanistan there was a group that not only possessed the desire but also the ability to harm us - and that they had done so.  We have the right to defend ourselves.  We will not allow others to attack us with impunity.  

4)  We now have a duty to help rebuild the country.  Before,  we left the Afghan people the mercy of a rather unpleasant group.  We paid the price for that,  perhaps we are only now paying for that mistake.  We can not allow Afghanistan to fall into the hands of terrorist - or in 5 years we will know nothing but terror.   

#4 is my personal opinion,  #2 is a joke (It is meant to be humorous if you found it offensive,  pm me and I'll retract it with an apology.  The rest I could google for supporting links/news articles, but since my argument is tendentious I don't see the point.  (oh and #1 ... okay most of our streets are clean)


----------



## dglad (23 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> Wow, a lot of anger on this board.
> 
> As far as Karzai is concerned, I thought it was important to point out that he is a religious fundamentalist in many ways.  He broke with the Taliban, but for tactical reasons not moralistic ones....



...and so on.

Unfortunately, you're just as ethno-centric and culturally biased as you accuse others of being.  You suggest that there are as many reasons for insurgents fighting as there are insurgents (which is potentially true) and then generalize the thinking of all Afghans:



> From the regular Afghans point of view, who the hell is NATO anyway, other than the same sort of people (white) who have been invading Afghanistan for years. There were three wars between Britain and Afghanistan between 1839 and 1919, military funding and creation of the Mujahadeen by the Americans and of course attack by the Russians.  These people are tired of people kicked around by other countries.



It's really got very little to do with anger, except insofar as you seem to be attempting to provoke it from those on this site by taking a completely unidimensional point of view on the conflict.  It's about your style, or lack thereof.  There are multiple sides to this story and some of those, belonging to Afghans themselves, are actually opposed to the insurgency (evidence - my earlier cited source, journalist Nelofer Pazira; the fact that NATO is able to obtain useable intelligence from Afghan locals) .  The situation is far more nuanced that you're making it out to be, which suggests you either a) can't or b) refuse to understand it in its real-world terms--which really makes no difference.  Perhaps, if you were prepared to commit to a cogent discussion, using reasoned and supported arguments, you would receive a much more reasoned series of replies.

Unfortunately, what seems to be the case is that you've come to these boards with an agenda, that you intend to prosecute using unfounded assertions and one-sided claims.  Most Afghan people probably are, quite reasonably, tired of conflict and will, as I stated earlier, reasonably be expected to adopt whatever course of action seems most expedient for seeing an end to that conflict.  If supporting NATO is seen to offer that, then the Taliban will fold because they will lose their support among ordinary Afghans, and be reduced to fairly meaningless raids along the Pakistani border (or they'll turn their attention towards molding Pakistan into a "pure" Islamic state and forget about Afghanistan).

I think you need to accept that the situation is much more complex and multi-dimensional than you seem to think, and that a simple withdrawal by NATO will, far from "making everything better" as you apparently believe, ignite rounds of brutal, sectarian violence leading to any number of unpleasant outcomes for Afghanistan.

In any case, that's about the extent of my interest in this particular psycho-drama.  If I see anything that looks like an actual debate breaking out, maybe I'll be back.  Until then...out.


----------



## McG (23 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> It's important to look at thing from the insurgents point of view.  They're the ones that live there and the troops are the ones who are the invaders, doesn't it just make sense that they would oppose our dictates?  If foreigners were marching around your homeland riding humvees up and down your dirty streets getting into firefights, wouldn't you be pissed off?  Why should they not be allowed to govern themselves as they choose?


This is a stupid analogy.  How are our troops “invaders” when we are there at the request of the democratically elected government?  How are the insurgents “the ones that live there” when a good many are Pakistani?



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> Just because they're opposing or attacking our troops doesn't make them evil, because the truth is that we don't know what causes each and every insurgent to fight.


True, not every insurgent is “evil” (nobody said they were).  However, the Taliban supported an organization that most definitely was evil (do you remember Al Qaeda?) 



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> prisoners are denied the most elementary rights and are subject to torture, the media can't show the public the true nature of the situation.


Lies.  Stop lying!



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> For every insurgent you could find a different reason of why they are fighting.  It's not their fault they don't support NATO.  From the regular Afghans point of view, who the hell is NATO anyway, other than the same sort of people (white) who have been invading Afghanistan for years. There were three wars between Britain and Afghanistan between 1839 and 1919, military funding and creation of the Mujahadeen by the Americans and of course attack by the Russians.  These people are tired of people kicked around by other countries.


 NATO is there to support the government that the Afghans’ elected.  As long as you paint NATO as some independent occupying force, your arguments will continue to be foolish.



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> At some point you are going to have to accept that the insurgency is composed of regular Afghans, and they will continue to be Islamic whether you like it or not.


Nobody is trying to convert them.  More irrelevant lies.



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> You can't kill them all even though you'd like to, and the ones that survive will only be so full of hate that the risk of terrorism in the future will only increase.


You need to look up the amnesty program.  This is more irrelevant nonsense.



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> When NATO troops use white phosphorus on Afghan insurgents, it's no worse than Saddam using poison gas on the Kurds.


We are not using WP as a weapon.



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> The goals are the same in each case after all, to decimate and terrorize the population into submission for the sake of having a central government.


More unsubstantiated lies.



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> There are literally thousands of newspaper accounts like this one.


Why can you not find them for us (why can you not find this one for that matter), and how do they prove some “evil” intent on the part of NATO?



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> If the West had taken a peaceful approach to change in Afghanistan, 30,000 dead Afghans could still be alive today, and you'd have a hundred thousand less vengeful insurgents to deal with.


What would that “peaceful approach” be?  Where do your numbers come from?



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> Canada is culpable for this alongside our allies.


Culpable for what?


----------



## RHFC_piper (23 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> Or just type in the words civilian casualties afghanistan and you can find many similar accounts.



Ok... I have... unfortunately I've found nothing credible... but then again, most of the internet isn't credible.

Example.


			
				deserter said:
			
		

> If the West had taken a peaceful approach to change in Afghanistan, 30,000 dead Afghans could still be alive today, and you'd have a hundred thousand less vengeful insurgents to deal with.



Here is a website that says there were 3485 civilian deaths and 6273 seriously injured in Afghanistan.
http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

This one says between 1000 and 1300... hmmm.
http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html#appendix1

And even Wikipedia can't decide on a total number


> According to Marc W. Herold's Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing up to 3600 civilians were killed as a result of US bombing. According to Jonathan Steele of The Guardian between 20,000 and 49,600 people may have died of the consequences of the invasion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

Could you please post your sources... I just want to try to see things from your point of view before I question why so many Afghans shook my hand and thanked me for helping to free their country while I was there... Maybe I was just getting lip service from the childeren who thanked me for helping them be able to go to school, fly kites, sing and dance and learn to write.

I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I'm afraid I'm going to be a hard sale after witnessing these things. I want to understand your point, but its just a little fuzzy.


----------



## Aries (23 Oct 2006)

I was sitting around smoking and joking with an interpreter, some ANA guys and some other new guys from kandahar city.

So i thought it would be a hoot to show them this post and having it tanslated by the interpreter.

Honest to goodness, i never seen locals laugh so hard...one threw up his little breakfast and water.

Point it, as weak as our society may be getting by continually producing people like deserter there....at least they are good for a laugh.


----------



## Trinity (23 Oct 2006)

Aries said:
			
		

> I was sitting around smoking and joking with an interpreter, some ANA guys and some other new guys from kandahar city.
> 
> So i thought it would be a hoot to show them this post and having it tanslated by the interpreter.
> 
> ...



That's awesome.....

deserter...  that's straight from Afghanistan.  You don't get any more concrete than the ANA laughing at you
to know you're out to lunch.


----------



## deserter (23 Oct 2006)

I am finding proof of Afghan hostility for those confused by the assertion our troops might not be welcome. In the meantime I wanted to counter some of Dglad's arguments.

Dglad wrote: "The truly glaring flaw in Deserter's argument is conflating Iraq and Afghanistan.  They are two different operations, with two different realities.  One could argue at length about the wisdom of the US engaging itself in Iraq, and the effect that has had on the Afghanistan operation.  But to automatically equate these two theatres in terms of, for example, international law, is completely fallacious.  To do so simply because they are geographically close and predmoninantly Islamic is an excellent example of the very type of ethno-centrism he decries."

They are not dissimilar.  Both are countries where a large minority oppose both the US and US-installed governments.  Both are countries where the insurgents want independence and not a centrally-controlled state.  Both are countries where large parts of the general population sympathize with the insurgents and are putting pressure on their governments to soften Western military tactics or even withdraw.  Both are countries where factions are splitting up along tribal or ethnic lines and the insurgency is growing. And I'm only assuming that most people on this board are aware that both the government of Iraq and Afghanistan have BOTH critized the US publicly recently for their military transgressions.

This article is from Oct. 22nd (Pakistan Tribune): KABUL: President Hamid Karzai has regretted killing of 19 civilians and wounding of 11 others by NATO forces in the southern Helmand and Kandahar provinces. According to statement, the President said that killing civilians was intolerable for the Afghan government after frequent demands from the foreign troops to stop inflicting civil casualties during their operations... The NATO forces bombed a residential house in Greshk district of the southern Helmand province early Wednesday, killing 11 villagers. They also killed nine civilians in bombing of a house in Zhirai district of the neighbouring Kandahar province in a similar air strike. "

With regards to WP, this chemical was used in Iraq against insurgents and as well by Israel against Lebanon.  Why should Canadians not just assume that WP is being used? We are told day after day by Hillier et all that we're at war with thousands of monsters, so WP would make sense.  It's not like the military will come forward willingly with this information. We already know that Canadian soldiers in the field have access to white phosporus and have used it in the field.  In this article WP is being used at least to destroy property. WP is also part of ammunitions allocation in the artillery unit of the military is it not?(http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/10/12/canada.troops.marijuana.reut/index.html)

Military secrecy news article links ---> (See Hamilton Spectator http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160689838797&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112188062581)  (Victoria Times-Colonist  http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/canada/story.html?id=407ba3d3-0be4-4148-9b15-684af47a5931 and Ottawa Citizen link (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=645db0d6-c3dd-465c-9588-59bdfb9ca40a&k=8050


----------



## RHFC_piper (23 Oct 2006)

Aries said:
			
		

> I was sitting around smoking and joking with an interpreter, some ANA guys and some other new guys from kandahar city.
> 
> So i thought it would be a hoot to show them this post and having it tanslated by the interpreter.
> 
> ...



What, specifically, were they laughing at?  Did they make any points about what has been posted?  And what did the little breakfast consist of? (I kinda miss Afghan food... especially the flat bread.. good stuff)


----------



## deserter (23 Oct 2006)

Gee, well if someone of such high intellectual calibre as an ANA recruit thinks I'm wrong for opposing the conflict then I guess I should just shut up and support the carnage.

'Git them opium-growers!

On second thought, nawww...


----------



## RHFC_piper (23 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> Gee, well if someone of such high intellectual calibre as an ANA recruit thinks I'm wrong for opposing the conflict then I guess I should just shut up and support the carnage.
> 
> 'Git them opium-growers!
> 
> On second thought, nawww...



Sooo... you mock the people you want to save?  

You are a very complex individual.


----------



## McG (23 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> I am finding proof of Afghan hostility for those confused by the assertion our troops might not be welcome. In the meantime I wanted to counter some of Dglad's arguments.


You have failed to heed the warning.  You are still posting without proof.



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> They are not dissimilar.  Both are countries where a large minority oppose both the US and US-installed governments.  Both are countries where the insurgents want independence and not a centrally-controlled state.  Both are countries where large parts of the general population sympathize with the insurgents and are putting pressure on their governments to soften Western military tactics or even withdraw.  Both are countries where factions are splitting up along tribal or ethnic lines and the insurgency is growing.


What is your point?  You cannot make an observation on the situation in one of the countries and thereby declare that to be common in both countries.  They are both unique and each has its own cultural/political dynamic.



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> And I'm only assuming that most people on this board are aware that both the government of Iraq and Afghanistan have BOTH critized the US publicly recently for their military transgressions.


I’m only assuming you know that the US is not commanding international operations in Afghanistan?  I also assume you know we are not the US.



			
				deserter said:
			
		

> With regards to WP, this chemical was used in Iraq against insurgents and as well by Israel against Lebanon.  Why should Canadians not just assume that WP is being used? We are told day after day by Hillier et all that we're at war with thousands of monsters, so WP would make sense.  It's not like the military will come forward willingly with this information. We already know that Canadian soldiers in the field have access to white phosporus and have used it in the field.  In this article WP is being used at least to destroy property. WP is also part of ammunitions allocation in the artillery unit of the military is it not?


Pure speculation on your part and conspiracy building on your part.  WP is used for illumination (not as a weapon).  (and again you are confusing Canada with both the US and Isreal).

You were told not to come back until you had something to back-up your arguments, and you were told to stop the fallacious arguments.  You’ve thrown about many links but they are only fallaciously linked to any of your arguments.  Further, you have provided nothing to support most of your arguments and yet you continue to post.   

Your warning has just been bumped higher.


----------



## Trinity (23 Oct 2006)

Your first link says we have WP  ok...  we never denied that.
We deny using it on people

The next two links say that the government is now not releasing
information that is already available and previously released...  

Big deal.  Anything that is now classified is still easily available.
So... what's the big secret the government is hiding.  If there was one
you would have already talked about it.

It's amazing how fast you can produce links for trivial points of your argument
but it's incredible to get any good proof out of you......  :

Sadly.. now that you're on C & P  it looks like you have one week to 
get your information and facts together as thats how long you have to
wait until you post.....   :-\


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Oct 2006)

I am not allowed to reply to new members with less than 10 posts... or to Trolls.

I don't think he will bother to come back in a week.  I think he was just on here to kick up some dust and have a giggle.  I did notice some rather bad ESL-isms in his posts,  who knows maybe he is a sleeper agent who is on the internet to destroy the Canadian moral.   ;D

RHFC_piper 
"I kinda miss Afghan food... especially the flat bread.. good stuff"
If you live in the GTA I'd be happy to direct you to several good Afghan markets and restaurants.  (I still have yet to muster up the courage to go in and toss out the little Dari I know ... Hey I just found my reading week goal!)


----------



## FastEddy (23 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> Gee, well if someone of such high intellectual calibre as an ANA recruit thinks I'm wrong for opposing the conflict then I guess I should just shut up and support the carnage.
> 
> 'Git them opium-growers!
> 
> On second thought, nawww...




Well there's one thing for sure, you certainally picked the right Handle.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Oct 2006)

I am going to blab a super secret, we were using WP in artillery shells way back in the 80's and the shells were likely made in the 60's.  :


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Oct 2006)

Actually it could be argued that the US kicked it's own butt, they certainly rarely missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity! I think the only shining moment they had was in the later part of the war with their Great lakes navy. Of course it helps to pick on Britian when it was fully engaged in a life and death struggle with Napoleon.


Hmm, a threadjack might be the only useful thing about this thread....


----------



## paracowboy (23 Oct 2006)

"thet by jest ain't right", to quote my favourite Newf. (Note: when reading it, don't pause between words, or you've totally lost the flavour)


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Oct 2006)

>I am finding proof of Afghan hostility for those confused by the assertion our troops might not be welcome.

Why bother?  Do you think anyone who reads here regularly doesn't already know that Afghanistan is a fractious nation?  I'll stipulate to it right now: some Afghans, and some tribes, villages, and regions, are hostile toward Canadian troops in Afghanistan.  If no-one were hostile, our troops wouldn't need to be there to provide security for the non-military work.  Your observation is devoid of any particularly noteworthy insight.

>They are not dissimilar.

One can find points of congruity between any two conflicts, but so what?  All the similarities you enumerated are trivially obvious.  Suppose the US is involved in a conflict in a foreign nation and supports the recognized government.  Are the following likely to be true:
1) A portion of the population will oppose the US?
2) A portion of the population will oppose the US-supported government?
3) Insurgents (ie. combatants opposed to the US and/or US-supported government) will fight for a greater degree of sovereignty?
4) A portion of the population will sympathize with the insurgents (really just a restatement of (1))?
5) Factions will be split along ethnic (cultural) lines?
6) Military transgressions will occur?

In a word: duh.  These may be earth-shattering revelations to you, but why don't you catch up with the rest of us?


----------



## TN2IC (23 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> who the hell is NATO anyway,



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

Enjoy Little One,
TN2IC


----------



## probum non poenitet (24 Oct 2006)

First you said:


			
				deserter said:
			
		

> We don't sympathize with Afghans, we treat and think of them like "the other" - as savages needing correcting.


But then you said:


			
				deserter said:
			
		

> Gee, well if someone of such high intellectual calibre as an ANA recruit thinks I'm wrong for opposing the conflict then I guess I should just shut up and support the carnage.


You dismiss the courage and the intelligence of actual Afghans on the ground. I _*really * _ don't like your choice of words here. Think about what you have said, and what it says about you. I won't comment further. 

And third time the charm:


			
				deserter said:
			
		

> Most academics and decent human beings predicted the bloodshed from the getgo


Implying of course, that only those who agree with you are "decent human beings." Check yoursefl, bro.

The war in Afghanistan is complex. Soldiers understand that more than most.

I am proud that Canada has a free society. It's good to debate and discuss things openly. "May not agree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it" and all that ...
But to come at an argument with the position that those who disagree with you are by definition stupid and immoral won't get you far beyond this:

 :argument: 

One thing I have learned in life is that people with first-hand experience of a situation have far more weight than those who have not. 
When you say this:


			
				deserter said:
			
		

> I don't need to have gone to either country to form my own opinions.  Thats like saying you can't talk about heroin addictions until you've shot up.


I ask you this - who do you think would have more pertinent information about what life is like in Vancouver's East Hastings - an 'academic' who has surfed some web pages and attended some rallies, or a police officer, addict, and/or social worker who is down there 'in the trenches.'
The three examples I have listed would likely have very different viewpoints, but I would never presume to read a bit of Noam Chomsky, and then roll up to the closest needle park and start laying it down to the cop/junkie/nurse with mouth open and ears closed about the way it really was. 

You may not agree with the military, but a little respect and knowledge goes a long way towards getting heard.


----------



## Aries (24 Oct 2006)

I dunno what the breakfast was made up of....Ramadan and all so they early in the morning and it was almost ccompletely digested by then.

I dunno what comments they made after cause they spoke mostly with the interpreter and i had to show buddy where to get a hose to clean the puke.

He was angry cause they don't eat all day and he now had nothing in his belly.

But hey! looks like deserter left....'bout time!


----------



## dglad (24 Oct 2006)

deserter said:
			
		

> Dglad wrote: "The truly glaring flaw in Deserter's argument is conflating Iraq and Afghanistan.  They are two different operations, with two different realities.  One could argue at length about the wisdom of the US engaging itself in Iraq, and the effect that has had on the Afghanistan operation.  But to automatically equate these two theatres in terms of, for example, international law, is completely fallacious.  To do so simply because they are geographically close and predmoninantly Islamic is an excellent example of the very type of ethno-centrism he decries."
> 
> They are not dissimilar.  Both are countries where a large minority oppose both the US and US-installed governments.  Both are countries where the insurgents want independence and not a centrally-controlled state.  Both are countries where large parts of the general population sympathize with the insurgents and are putting pressure on their governments to soften Western military tactics or even withdraw.  Both are countries where factions are splitting up along tribal or ethnic lines and the insurgency is growing. And I'm only assuming that most people on this board are aware that both the government of Iraq and Afghanistan have BOTH critized the US publicly recently for their military transgressions.



As has been pointed out, these similarities are superficial.  It's facile and, frankly, insulting to those who live there to lump together two countries which have rich, diverse and complex cultures and histories on the basis of an insurgency.  



> This article is from Oct. 22nd (Pakistan Tribune): KABUL: President Hamid Karzai has regretted killing of 19 civilians and wounding of 11 others by NATO forces in the southern Helmand and Kandahar provinces. According to statement, the President said that killing civilians was intolerable for the Afghan government after frequent demands from the foreign troops to stop inflicting civil casualties during their operations... The NATO forces bombed a residential house in Greshk district of the southern Helmand province early Wednesday, killing 11 villagers. They also killed nine civilians in bombing of a house in Zhirai district of the neighbouring Kandahar province in a similar air strike. "



I assume you're attempting to show that NATO has made some unpleasant mistakes in Afghanistan.  That's unfortunately true, and unfortunately something that happens when lethal force is applied by all-too imperfect human beings.   I don't think you'll find any thoughtful members of this board arguing that events like this one aren't deeply regretful, don't harm NATO's cause, or that the ultimate answer to stabilizing Afghanistan to the point at which the NATO forces can quite happily withdraw is a strictly military one.  It may have escaped your notice, but the military efforts in SE Afghanistan are designed to create a stable and secure environment, in which reconstruction by the international community of the basic pillars of civil society--water treatment and distribution, waste management, emergency services, schools, hospitals, etc.--can be accomplished.   Given the Taliban's track record in governance, this isn't something that would have been likely to happen under their rule.  Of course, I supposed we could have waited until the Afghan people came to their senses and just voted the Taliban out of office, and installed a progressive, reform-minded government....



> With regards to WP, this chemical was used in Iraq against insurgents and as well by Israel against Lebanon.  Why should Canadians not just assume that WP is being used? We are told day after day by Hillier et all that we're at war with thousands of monsters, so WP would make sense.  It's not like the military will come forward willingly with this information. We already know that Canadian soldiers in the field have access to white phosporus and have used it in the field.  In this article WP is being used at least to destroy property. WP is also part of ammunitions allocation in the artillery unit of the military is it not?(http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/10/12/canada.troops.marijuana.reut/index.html)



Not entirely sure where this came from.   If you're trying to suggest that an atrocity or war-crime has been committed, then you'll need to provide better information than this, to support such a serious claim.  A CNN article in which Canadians are reported as attempting to burn marijuana plants with WP is a far cry from a "war crime".   They also used diesel fuel, according to the article, but you don't decry its possible use as an agent of terror or destruction.  Or perhaps you have some other agenda point you're trying to make here.  I'm just not sure.



> Military secrecy news article links ---> (See Hamilton Spectator http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160689838797&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112188062581)  (Victoria Times-Colonist  http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/canada/story.html?id=407ba3d3-0be4-4148-9b15-684af47a5931 and Ottawa Citizen link (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=645db0d6-c3dd-465c-9588-59bdfb9ca40a&k=8050



The first one is an op-ed piece that focuses on the refusal of the CF to release details of the Canadian Rules of Engagement.  Much as the author would like to make this into a sinister issue, the fact is that ROEs are carefully guarded, for the reason given in the article--to prevent the enemy from exploiting whatever limitations they may contain.  If Canadian ROEs say that our soldiers can't use lethal force against left-handed pink baboons, and we publicize that fact, then the enemy could, potentially, make use of that limitation in some detrimental way.  The second article deals with keeping additional secrets, like the number of Canadian wounded.  Okay...arguable, I suppose, regarding how much propaganda value such may provide to the enemy.  What these two articles do prove is that the military likes to keep secrets.  That has something to do, perhaps, with facing an enemy who's very anxious to kill you dead.  Not surprisingly, such secrecy is a time-honoured military tradition; the Romans didn't broadcast their strategic planning for the Punic Wars, either.

The third article deals with a lack of transparency in spending and procurement, and, okay, that is worrisome....as a tax-payer, I like to know that my tax dollars aren't being wasted.  But that's not really germane to Afghanistan and is, in fact, a systemic problem with our entire federal government (try getting detailed spending figures out of Public Works Canada in a timely way).


----------



## Trinity (24 Oct 2006)

Aries said:
			
		

> But hey! looks like deserter left....'bout time!



ummm.. C & P will do that too you...
for at least 7 days  

He'll be back... they always return.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (24 Oct 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> He'll be back... they always return.


I'll avoid making the all to easy pun about returning.....

okay I wont

So Trinity,  you think there will be a second coming?


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2006)

Well guys.......let's just say (s)he has been/likely has been back.  As you all know one does not always have to log-in as themselves to read the site.  We usually have twice as many guests reading the posts, as members.


----------



## Legless_Marine (25 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> What are your thoughts? [ On the invasion of Afghanistan from a military standpoint ]



I can't really see how the stated goals are even remotely possible.   So much Afghanistan-related dialogue is centered on the "Should", with insufficient focus on the "Can", or the "How" - But there just doesn't seem to be enough discussion or evaluation of the nuts-and-bolts of this mission in practical terms.   The strategy of the ISAF seems facile and oversimplistic, reminiscent of the underpants gnomes' incomplete business plan:

1.   Send more troops and money to Afghanistan.
2.   ?
3.   Rebuild and make peace.

Afghanistan is a big place, full of a lot of tested and hardened folk who have survived multiple wars, if not participated in them directly.    They're split up into hundreds of regional tribes that hate foreigners as much as they hate each other.   The Insurgents are on their home turf, being resupplied, and are learning, and like any insurgency, won't be removed without destroying the host population.   Afghanistan is decentralized, and spheres of control are many and limited in scope - Controlling a city means only that, and doesn't ensure any control of the surrounding region.   It's inconcievable that a patchwork force of ~30,000 internationals from dozens of different nations are going to tame a nation of 30,000,000 people with a traditional hatred for foreigners, and who have spent more time torturing the neighboring tribe's daughters than they have watching TV.

The Russians tried to occupy Afghanistan with far more men than NATO has there now.   Like us, they deceived themselves into thinking an invitation from a single faction would somehow be honored by all of the others.    Before they finally figured out they were unwelcome, 15,000 soldiers had come home in body bags, and another 400,000 thousand on stretchers.     What didn't make it home is hundreds of tons of hardware, including 100+ rotting T-62s north of Kabul.    I'm sure our handful of Leopards will look spendid beside them - Sort of like the aftermath of a 1980s-era war re-enactment.

Afghanistan, next to Reagonomics and the lack of Levi's 501s, was one of the biggest nails in the coffin of the Russian empire.

Pakistan's Musharref tried to tame his side of the Pasto belt with 70,000 men.   Unlike the ISAF's patchwork of cake-eating foreigners, his soldiers are from the 'hood, and are familiar with the religion, culture, and language(s).    Nonetheless, he soon figured it was pragmatic to recall his men and leave well enough alone.


Nato is arrogant and delusional think it's half-hearted efforts will succeed where so many better qualified invaders have failed.    

There is no possibility of victory in Afghanistan - Unless the definition of victory is drastically redefined.


----------



## boondocksaint (25 Oct 2006)

Im suprised you didnt bring up a comparison to Vietnam, it's as relevant as the Soviet arguement. 

We are not the Soviets, not there for any of the same reasons. Nor are our combat  capabilities comparable. Dont use numbers in an attempt to draw parallels. Our vehicles, troops, kit and tactics are far more capable then mere numbers indicate.

When Germany and Japan were defeated, literally bombed into the middle ages, re-construction took time. Afganistan is starting from the stone ages, re-construction will take time. In our seven months there we saw drastic changes in many areas. Positive changes.

There is no other option except to win.


----------



## paracowboy (25 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> They're split up into hundreds of regional tribes that hate foreigners as much as they hate each other.


they also work with foreigners, express gratitude to foreigners, and welcome foreigners. Depends entirely on the behaviour of the foreigner in question.  



> The Insurgents are on their home turf, being resupplied, and are learning, and like any insurgency, won't be removed without destroying the host population.


incorrect. One does not have to 'destroy' the host population. In fact, that is entirely contrary to proper strategic/tactical thinking. One doesn't remove the bad fish by draining the ocean. One does it by swimming amongst them and convincing the good fishies, and apathetic fishies, that the bad fishies gotta go. "Destroy" the host population. What are you? Gestapo? We are there to HELP the host population!



> Afghanistan is decentralized, and spheres of control are many and limited in scope - Controlling a city means only that, and doesn't ensure any control of the surrounding region.


  so we get out and swim. As we're doing.



> It's inconcievable that a patchwork force of ~30,000 internationals from dozens of different nations are going to tame a nation of 30,000,000 people with a traditional hatred for foreigners, and who have spent more time torturing the neighboring tribe's daughters than they have watching TV.


we're not there to 'tame' anyone. Enough with the Attila School of Warfare, dude. Geez! That ain't the way we play.



> The Russians tried to occupy Afghanistan with far more men than NATO has there now.


 by following the Guidelines you've laid out above. Homey don't play dat. (3 points to anyone who remembers where that's from.)



> Like us, they deceived themselves into thinking an invitation from a single faction would somehow be honored by all of the others.


  ahhh, no. They ENGINEERED an "invitation" by placing their own people into power, removed those people, then murdered the guys they replaced the first lot with. Hardly an "invitation".



> Before they finally figured out they were unwelcome, 15,000 soldiers had come home in body bags, and another 400,000 thousand on stretchers.


 poorly trained, under-equipped, un-motivated conscripts fighting for a cause they didn't believe in. Yeah, that's a fair analogy. :    



> What didn't make it home is hundreds of tons of hardware, including 100+ rotting T-62s north of Kabul. I'm sure our handful of Leopards will look spendid beside them - Sort of like the aftermath of a 1980s-era war re-enactment.


 and Timmie Taliban is employing any of that equipment, how? I haven't heard of any T-62 rolling into a FOB lately. Have I missed something?    



> Afghanistan, next to Reagonomics and the lack of Levi's 501s, was one of the biggest nails in the coffin of the Russian empire.


we're not building an empire. We're assisting the Afghan people get their shit together.



> Pakistan's Musharref tried to tame his side of the Pasto belt with 70,000 men.


 no, he didn't. He sent some guys just short of actually moving into the 'disputed' territories. 



> Unlike the ISAF's patchwork of cake-eating foreigners, his soldiers are from the 'hood, and are familiar with the religion, culture, and language(s).    Nonetheless, he soon figured it was pragmatic to recall his men and leave well enough alone.


His own Int agencies are a virtual rogue element, and specific military commanders are sympathetic to the Taliban. He can't trust them to wage war against AQ or Timmie, so he doesn't. Look at the nation he inherited from Zia: Islamic fundamentalist. And you expect him to be able to turn that around in under a decade?



> Nato is arrogant and delusional think it's half-hearted efforts will succeed where so many better qualified invaders have failed.


 we are not invaders. That is the difference.  



> There is no possibility of victory in Afghanistan - Unless the definition of victory is drastically redefined.


I dunno what your definition of 'victory' is, but ours is a safe and secure environment wherein the Afghan people can rebuild their nation. That's on-going right now, and getting better every day.


----------



## patrick666 (25 Oct 2006)

Homey the Clown from In Living Colour, the preceded phrase to hitting one of the kids over the head.

3 points for me! Woo!  

Anyways, back on track!


----------



## McG (25 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> The strategy of the ISAF seems facile and oversimplistic, reminiscent of the underpants gnomes' incomplete business plan:
> 
> 1.   Send more troops and money to Afghanistan.
> 2.   ?
> 3.   Rebuild and make peace.


By that question mark and your over simplification, I see you have not really tried to understand the international strategy in Afghanistan, and you have been bought by Jack Layton's fear campaign.  Some of the idea has been adressed here:

[quote author=The Ruxted Group]Mr Layton continually insists that the mission is “unbalanced” but he does not suggest what a balanced mission would look like. Mr Layton continues to fearmonger with tales of “no exit strategy,” but that exit strategy has long been articulated. Part of the rebuilding is capacity building. We are building the capacity of the democratically elected Afghan government to fight its own battles and maintain its own security. Once that capacity is built then Afghanistan will have self-sustaining stability, and we can begin our exit. However, until that capacity is built we need to carry a heavy load in the fight.[/quote]

It is also important to note that stability/security operations and reconstruction operations are not independant and consecutive.  They are parallel and mutually supporting lines of operation.  ISAF knows this; our military knows this; our operations are being conducted with this in mind.

If you feel that you can see so much wrong in the mission, why is it that you have only critisism and not recomendations?


----------



## Koenigsegg (25 Oct 2006)

> Nato is arrogant and delusional think it's half-hearted efforts will succeed where so many better qualified invaders have failed.



Many better qualified invaders?  We have all their experiences to learn off, and we are doing so.
the Russians, were not very well "qualified" invaders, unless by "qualified" you mean impatient, brutal, poorly trained and sadly motivated.
And the British, well, in their first war they looked down upon the Afghans, and expected them to be pushovers...
I will stop there.

We, Have done none of this today, and we are not invaders...

We have NOT done the following:

entered forcefully as an enemy
entered as if to take possession
entered with the intent to affect injuriously or destructively, as disease

Oh, and it is NATO, not Nato..it is an acronym.  you did get ISAF right though.


----------



## Legless_Marine (27 Oct 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> Just throwing this out there but perhaps if the government had some sort of propaganda
> campaign going on, sort of like what you see from WWII, it could help raise public support.



An excellent idea, warspite.   I've been thinking along much the same lines.  It is always 
possible to bring the people to do the bidding of the leaders.  All we need to do is 
tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and 
exposing the country to danger.

Modern humanitarian missions are too complex for the average person to grasp, and 
they may need help understanding some of the complexities. Towards this end, I've 
developed the following three-pronged strategy:

1)   Create fear by emphasising otherwise hypothetical, distant, or improbable threats.
2)   Deliberately conflate American interests with Canadian interests.
3)   Repetition via a variety of media outlets.

In line with these three core concepts, I submit that such a program would could be implemented
by the promulgation, repetition, and reinforcement of the specific ideas:

1)   Remind Canadians that "they" attacked "us", without provocation, on 9/11.     Be vague 
about the "them" and the "us", and soon you'll have Canadians believing that the CN tower was 
attacked by Hamas.   Show lots of teary widows on TV.

2)   Emphasize that "they" are conspiring to attack "us", and must be attacked "there" 
first.   When they fight back, emphasize it as proof of their evil intent all along.   

3)   Demonize the opposition:   Accuse anyone who doesn't support total war of being a slave 
to any one of several extreme ideologies:    Hezbollah/Taliban/Hamas/Islam/NDP.   Accuse 
them of being un-Canadian, or cowards.

4)   Invoke Canadian freedoms as being dependant upon success overseas.    If we don't deal 
with the enemy there, they'll end up in Canada where they will try to pass laws allowing
wiretapping, unlawful detention, and warrantless search.

5)   Disseminate and repeat meaningless, but pleasant sounding phrases such as "Support the 
troops", "fight for freedom", "Stay the course", and "Victory is the only option".     There 
is a comfort in clarity and decisiveness.   The phrases will become both shibboleth and mantra.

6)   Confuse cause and effect in order to demonize the enemy.   Remind people that if it 
wasn't for the enemy there fighting us, we wouldn't have to be there fighting him.   We need 
to send our soldiers there to protect our soldiers from the suicide bombers that are blowing 
them up.
   
7)   Minimize and justify civilian casualties caused by us, and condemn them when done 
by the enemy.    If we kill civilians, it was because the enemy was using them to hide.   If 
they kill civilians, discuss the enemy's callous disregard for life.  And show lots of baby pictures.


I'm still working on this program, and am open to any suggestions.  Ultimately, once it's
mature, I'd like to sell it it to Canwest-Global, where it can be disseminated to Canadians via
70% of print and televised media.


[ This message may or may not contain spelling errors, peanuts, and/or shamelessly
  plagiarized quotes from dead war criminals. ]


----------



## paracowboy (27 Oct 2006)

wow, aren't you clever, I can only juuuuuust make out the smarmy, pseudo-intellectual, smugness. :


----------



## paracowboy (27 Oct 2006)

by the way, Marine, what MEU were you in?


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Oct 2006)

tick tock,

And very interesting moniker as well....

Where did you lose them?

dileas

tess


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (28 Oct 2006)

There's another version of his list that perhaps "Legless_Marine" should consider:

1.  Demonize the military.  Characterize military personnel as unthinking automatons, duped into serving the imperialist war machine to escape poverty or to indulge in war fantasies.

2.  Simplify the situation.  Describe the effort in Afghanistan as "George Bush's war" or as "blood for oil".  Play upon the public's suspicions of the current American administration to serve political ends.

3.  Alter facts to suit a perceived reality.  Claim that there's an American pipeline planned for Afghanistan.  Claim that there was a US "invasion" in 2002.  Claim that the Canadian mission in the country "changed" in 2005.  Ignore UN involvement in Afghanistan and UN pronouncements on the Canadian mission there.  Create a false link between current Canadian operations in Kandahar Province and Iraq.  Claim that Canada is guilty of war crimes, despite Red Cross pronouncements to the contrary.

4.  Present politically motivated "experts" to support your position.  Quote the Senlis Council, Polaris Institute and other organizations that criticize Canadian policy in Afghanistan while ignoring the plethora of real experts, many from the international community that support that policy.

5.  Cynically play upon public emotions created by casualty repatriations to undermine support for the mission by claiming withdrawal from Afghanistan somehow "supports the troops".

6.  Cravenly link support for the mission to support for the Republican party, neo-conservatism and, especially, George Bush.

7.  Ignore fundamentalist Islamic positions on women, gay rights, property rights, treatment of animals, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and use of violence in an effort to portray fundamentalists as "oppressed" and as the victim.

8.  Ignore the link between left-wing opposition to Canada's presence in Afghanistan and far right neo-Nazi positions on the same topic.

9.   Disseminate and repeat meaningless phrases such as "No Blood for Oil", "Canada out of Afghanistan", "Bush is a war criminal", and "Bring the troops home now".  There is a comfort in clarity and decisiveness.   The phrases will become both shibboleth and mantra.

Happily, I don't have to sell this to 70% of the mainstream media.  They're already using it...  :


----------



## Slim (28 Oct 2006)

> 1)   Create fear by emphasising otherwise hypothetical, distant, or improbable threats.
> 2)   Deliberately conflate American interests with Canadian interests.
> 3)   Repetition via a variety of media outlets.



Sunshine

You're on thin ice with garbage like that. Consider yourself warned.

Slim
STAFF


----------



## Trinity (28 Oct 2006)

Slim said:
			
		

> You're on thin ice with garbage like that. Consider yourself warned.



ME thinks.. he doesn't care.  :


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine,
I believe you are here only as a troll.  You post lengthy inflammatory posts and have so far made no effort to respond to any counter arguments made against you (here or against the posts you still have in the source thread).  Please note the site guidelines:



			
				Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> You will not troll the boards



Consider this your warning.  Post intelligent arguments or go away.  We have no time for your provocative logical fallacies & seditious witticisms.


----------



## boondocksaint (28 Oct 2006)

Noone used _tripe_ yet?


----------



## Infanteer (28 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> blahblahblah



Eugene, is that you?


----------



## Legless_Marine (28 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> Legless_Marine,
> I believe you are here only as a troll.
> You post lengthy inflammatory posts



My posts are not intended to  be inflammatory, although it is clear that my thoughts diverge from the prevalent sentiments here.    I did not come here to "Troll", but obviously, trolling is the in the beholders eyes, and will inevitably be invoked by people who don't like other's posts, regardless of the reason.   Sadly, I find that this ill-defined and much-abused term is more often than not used to condemn content, not conduct.




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> and have so far made no effort to respond to any counter arguments made against you (here or against the posts you still have in the source thread).



Most of the replies to my posts have not been worthy of response.    They are either insulting, contain blatant lies, or misrepresent my position.    It is less controversial to simply ignore them, but there were a few worthy of response, and I will go back and do so.      I  hate replying to only a few messages as it seems the neglected parties always end up with their feelings hurt.    

 





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Please note the site guidelines:



I will definitely give them a read.




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Consider this your warning.  Post intelligent arguments or go away.  We have no time for your provocative logical fallacies & seditious witticisms.



My posts are articulate and cogent - Far moreso than some of the abusive and dishonest replies that have been made to me.   I believe that the fundamental issue here is one of intolerance of differing points of view, and in-group hostility to out-sider.  

If you feel I have engaged in logical fallacies, please call me on them, specifically.  They are intellectually dishonest, and not a practice I wish to engage in.    I'd like to believe that there's still room to have differing opinions without the need to fudge facts, engage in fallacy, or stoop to abuse.


----------



## armyvern (28 Oct 2006)

Well I find this statement by you very intersting (and telling) indeed:



> They are either insulting, contain blatant lies, or misrepresent my position.



Turn around and take a good look in the mirror and sort yourself out Mr. Legless Marine; Your posts ARE insulting, contain baltant lies and misrepresent soldiers, the mission and the situation on the ground.


----------



## paracowboy (28 Oct 2006)

not too mention that, unless you are a Marine who has lost his lower limbs, you have chosen a deliberately offensive screen-name. Indicative of trollish behaviour from the very start.


----------



## warspite (28 Oct 2006)

Soooo.... trying to generate public support of a war is a bad bad idea. Ohhh I get it now. :
Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on these "lovely" anti-war protests that my clock tells me should be occurring today? Any complaints here.
  
So what exactly is the problem with some sort of propaganda campaign? I seriously doubt that the Taliban and all their friends don't engage in propaganda... but wait. Video's of captives being executed, but that couldn't be propaganda... or what about how their clerics preach war against us to those who take their religion very seriously?
  
How does us doing some positive campaigning make us a bunch of war mongering baby killers? In WWII both sides engaged in major propaganda campaigns. Both sides trying to raise their public support while trying and lower their enemies. Public support is a major factor in any war so does it make sense to just ignore it?



			
				Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> They are either insulting, contain blatant lies, or misrepresent my position.


I have made a point of not insulting anyone in this post so come on and feel free to reply.


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2006)

warspite,  
Here are my thoughts from the other thread:


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> [We] Don't need the propaganda campaign.  Just need to keep Canadians informed with the truth & not to let attention seekers toss-out lies without being corrected in the media.



Maybe I'm being finicky with words, but I think "propaganda" can imply a certain degree of dishonesty that you don't mean to suggest.  The truth is what we need, and we need a government official to go on record and correct every misconception that the media is willing to print.  (See the C130 vs A400 thread for information about the media not printing known information just because a DND official would not quote it to them).


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (28 Oct 2006)

> If you feel I have engaged in logical fallacies, please call me on them, specifically.  They are intellectually dishonest, and not a practice I wish to engage in.



*ahem*  

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52451/post-469928.html#msg469928


----------



## Infanteer (28 Oct 2006)

Eugene, is that you?


----------



## Slim (28 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Eugene, is that you?



Whoever he is he is about one post away from a warning for trolling and posting deliberately offensive material on the site. Right now he is violating so many of the conduct rules that I'd need a page just to quote them.


----------



## Legless_Marine (28 Oct 2006)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> Many better qualified invaders?  We have all their experiences to learn off, and we are doing so.
> the Russians, were not very well "qualified" invaders, unless by "qualified" you mean impatient, brutal, poorly trained and sadly motivated.
> And the British, well, in their first war they looked down upon the Afghans, and expected them to be pushovers...
> I will stop there.



You raise some excellent points, particulary the one about motivation.   I had initially wondered how many of ~500,000 Russian wounded were the result of self-harm - Now I find myself wondering just how big that proportion was.  

In Canada's favor is the knowledge gleaned from the experiences of the British and the Russians,  even the Americans in Iraq.   Against Canada is it's value of modern civilities, which mitigates and attenuates it's potential for ruthlessness - Limitations likely not felt by the red army.



			
				Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> We, Have done none of this today, and we are not invaders...
> 
> We have NOT done the following:
> 
> ...



What matters is not whether we think we're Invaders, but whether the myriad Afghan tribes and factions see us as invaders.    Perception is everything.  Afghans have a history of being hostile to ousiders.   As mentioned previously, an invitation from one is not an invitation from all.    Time will tell. 




			
				Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> Oh, and it is NATO, not Nato..it is an acronym.  you did get ISAF right though.



Pedantry is ignorant and petty, and sullies an otherwise  respectable response.   Any moron can point out a spelling error, and I'm sure you have much more value to contribute to this discussion.


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> If you feel I have engaged in logical fallacies, please call me on them, specifically.  They are intellectually dishonest, and not a practice I wish to engage in.


Okay.  It has already been demonstrated in this thread that this one is a red herring:


			
				Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> The Russians tried to occupy Afghanistan  . . .


----------



## paracowboy (28 Oct 2006)

I want to hear some answers:

1) why do you insist on using terms insinuating that we are in Afghanistan as an occupying force akin to the Soviets? The 'tactics' you advocate are draconian, and reminiscent of Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan.

2) your post on propaganda advocates disturbing machiavellian manipulation of the media and populace, in direct contrast to everything a Western democracy stands for, and the ideals for which we fight. 

3) your tone in every post is either that of an extreme Leftist trying to sound 'cleverly sarcastic', or, if you are not tongue-in-cheek, that of a Fascist. 

Wassup wit' that?


----------



## Legless_Marine (28 Oct 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> Soooo.... trying to generate public support of a war is a bad bad idea. Ohhh I get it now. :



I thought we were talking about a humanitarian relief mission, not  war....?



			
				warspite said:
			
		

> So what exactly is the problem with some sort of propaganda campaign?



It is a government's place to implement policy as guided by public opinion - Not implement policy, and then promote retroactively.     The idea of the government using my tax money to influence public opinion is horrifying.    I am horrified that it doesn't horrify you.



			
				warspite said:
			
		

> I seriously doubt that the Taliban and all their friends don't engage in propaganda... but wait. Video's of captives being executed, but that couldn't be propaganda... or what about how their clerics preach war against us to those who take their religion very seriously?



Using excessively bad examples to benchmark our own behavior is a dangerous road.    We should benchmark or own choices and behavior against the highest standard - Not the lowest.



			
				warspite said:
			
		

> How does us doing some positive campaigning make us a bunch of war mongering baby killers? In WWII both sides engaged in major propaganda campaigns. Both sides trying to raise their public support while trying and lower their enemies. Public support is a major factor in any war so does it make sense to just ignore it?
> I have made a point of not insulting anyone in this post so come on and feel free to reply.



I don't know what "war mongering baby killers" has to do with this.    Perhaps you are confusing this thread with another.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Oct 2006)

Eugene, you gonna answer TeddyRuxpin's response, or are you going to stick to tapdancing with a guy from Europe and a 16-year old?


----------



## Infanteer (28 Oct 2006)

Explain to me how this is Bush's war?


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> Most of the replies to my posts have not been worthy of response.    They are either insulting, contain blatant lies, or misrepresent my position.    It is less controversial to simply ignore them, but there were a few worthy of response, and I will go back and do so.


For someone so ready to suggest the inferiority of other posters, you do a good job of ignoring the solid replies to your posts.  Is it that all the well crafted replies come from people that have misrepresent your position?  That might suggest it is worth replying just to clarify your position.

Try living up to all you present yourself to be and give these some answers:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-468085.html#msg468085
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-468103.html#msg468103
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-468250.html#msg468250
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-470387.html#msg470387
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-470360.html#msg470360



			
				Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> If you feel I have engaged in logical fallacies, please call me on them, specifically.  They are intellectually dishonest, and not a practice I wish to engage in.


We've called you on some in the other thread.  Why are you shy to respond?


----------



## Legless_Marine (28 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm being finicky with words, but I think "propaganda" can imply a certain degree of dishonesty that you don't mean to suggest.  The truth is what we need, and we need a government official to go on record and correct every misconception that the media is willing to print.  (See the C130 vs A400 thread for information about the media not printing known information just because a DND official would not quote it to them).



FWIW, I agree:  Propaganda, fundamentally, is dishonest.   It is the antithesis of truth and freedom, and it is disappointing to hear those who give lip-service to freedom advocating it.

Nothing wrong with the military having a public relations office to correct misinformation - provided it doesn't turn into one of those 2000 employee government buracracies that throws giant house boat parties but doesn't invite me.


----------



## paracowboy (28 Oct 2006)

Why have you chosen such an obviously offensive screen name, without answering my questions as to your service in the United States Marine Corps? Or were you in the Royal Marines?


----------



## Infanteer (28 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> What matters is not whether we think we're Invaders, but whether the myriad Afghan tribes and factions see us as invaders.    Perception is everything.  Afghans have a history of being hostile to ousiders.   As mentioned previously, an invitation from one is not an invitation from all.    Time will tell.



Well, one of our own members actually talked to the guys during his trip to southern Afghanistan:



			
				boondocksaint said:
			
		

> I've met several former Muhajideen, in various capacities over there, they dont view us as anything like the Russians.



What has your many miles of travel in Khandahar province done to give you a handle on Afghan perception?


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Oct 2006)

Ladies and Gentleman,

Integrity.

Don't pretend to know the color of the boat house....

dileas

tess


----------



## Legless_Marine (28 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> Okay.  It has already been demonstrated in this thread that this one is a red herring:
> [ The Russians tried to occupy Afghanistan  . . . ]



How so?


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> How so?


We are not Soviets
We are not seen to be the same as the Soviets.
We are not using the same methods as the Soviets
We are not using the same tools as the Soviets.
We do not have the same intentions as the Soviets.

Maybe you want to demonstrate how your position is not a red herring?


----------



## paracowboy (28 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> How so?


stop. You don't ask questions any more until you've answered some. That's how it works.

And just so's we're clear: you don't post a statement either, unless you are stating an answer to the questions already put to you.


----------



## HItorMiss (28 Oct 2006)

It's White......


Everything in England is white  ;D


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (28 Oct 2006)

Please forgive my ignorance - does Canada really have 2,000 people working on Public Relations for the CF?  I know I feel rejected when someone throws a party and I'm not invited – it happens. I'm sorry if you feel left out.

--------------------------------------------
Now,  this is just a passing note,  I thought there was a a chance that someone had just made a new handehandleto similarties - I've been informed otherwise. My apologies


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2006)

These two are geographically seperated.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Oct 2006)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> Does anyone else but me find it strange that everyone in the west is pointing to our troops and calling us invaders, but no one is pointing at the Pakistanis and Uzbek's, the Arabs and Chechen's, and the dimwits from our own shores who have signed up to carry the spear against us in Afghanistan?  Has it occurred to no one, save the aid workers and soldiers on the ground in happy Afghanistan that it is two sets of foreigners battling to determine the future of the Afghans?  Both sides can claim to have native Afghans fighting along side them.  Only our side is determined to leave the Afghans in charge when we leave; the Taliban was the poisoned offshoot of Pakistani fundamentalism, and ruled Afghanistan as a base for its continued efforts to destabilize those richer, stronger nations they viewed as the real prizes.



+1 mjt!

I told the Afghans along side of whom I worked in their own government offices --  helping them to rebuild their own nation -- that my job and those of my fellow Canadian soldiers, in the many capacities in which we serve in Afghanistan, will be done when Afghans decide that they no longer require our direct assistance in their efforts to rebuild their own country.  I continue to correspond regularly with many of them, and I feel deeply honoured that they continue to suffix my name with their culture's sign of friendship and mutual respect...  -jan.

Legless_Marine, you and others can build whatever malevolent intent in your own minds, but it saddens me that you seem unwilling to accept at face value much that those of us who have served in Afghanistan are trying to inform others of -- the gains (not just security, but the development and leadership assistance that gains very little exposure from the press) that are being achieved by Canadian soldiers on a daily basis.

G2G
_
*edited for spelling and grammar*_


----------



## McG (29 Oct 2006)

givepeaceachance,
I've deleted your post.  I'm tiered of people showing up here with posts opposing the war using the full assortment of numbers pulled out of their back sides, untruths , and attempts to play on emotions.  When we ask your lot to argue facts, you ignore us.

If you can prove that half the Afghans do not want us in their country, then post the proof.  If you can prove that the military is there to "decimate the population" then prove it.  Otherwise, good bye.


----------



## Legless_Marine (29 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> givepeaceachance,
> I've deleted your post.  I'm tiered of people showing up here with posts opposing the war using the full assortment of numbers pulled out of their back sides, untruths , and attempts to play on emotions.  When we ask your lot to argue facts, you ignore us.
> 
> If you can prove that half the Afghans do not want us in their country, then post the proof.  If you can prove that the military is there to "decimate the population" then prove it.  Otherwise, good bye.



There are so many things wrong with this, one doesn't really know where to start.     

I had set aside an hour today to continue answering posts on this site, but now I really couldn't be bothered.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> I had set aside an hour today to continue answering posts on this site, but now I really couldn't be bothered.



Ah, I see.  So you can't answer the basic questions that were put forth above or deal with evidence given by those who have actually been there and seem contrary to the line you put forth.  That's what I figured.

See you at the NDP Rally, Eugene.  Bring the anarchist leaflets....


----------



## McG (29 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> There are so many things wrong with this, one doesn't really know where to start.


So, now you beleive that it is legitimate debate to invent statistics, pass-out lies, argue fallacies and baselessly accuse people of crimes against humanity?  Come now.  This tread is 13 pages already.  Certainly we deserve honest logical arguments & something that acknowledges the arguments we’ve already gone through.



			
				Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> I had set aside an hour today to continue answering posts on this site, but now I really couldn't be bothered.


I think this is your easy out for the too hard questions we asked of you yesterday.


----------



## Legless_Marine (29 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ah, I see.  So you can't answer the basic questions that were put forth above or deal with evidence given by those who have actually been there and seem contrary to the line you put forth.  That's what I figured.



You can figure that, but the truth is that I have no interest in sinking time into a discussion that is not free and open and is being inconsistently and arbitraily overmoderated by the very people I am engaging in the discussion with. 

If that's an intellectual victory for you, then we have fallen on hard times.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Oct 2006)

You haven't been overmoderated.  None of your posts have been deleted - you have been given a "verbal" due to your tapdancing here.

Just answer the question.

How is this "Bush's War"?


----------



## paracowboy (29 Oct 2006)

all you gotta do is provide ONE straight answer. But you can't even do that, can you? Typical troll.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine, while you may not have had the opportunity to gain first-hand knowledge of reconstructive efforts in Afghanistan as many of us posting have, please do us the courtesy of providing more than mere rhetoric or unsubstantiated facts.

I provide below, publicly-available links on Afghanistan's own Government web-site indicating details of the Afghan National Develop Strategy that provides the plan for the ongoing development of Afghanistan.  This is about as much "hard proof" as I can give to those asking "why are we there?" -- that there is a plan to develop the country and it is slowly working its way to all levels of Afghan Society...the speed at which this is occurring, is not as fast as many would like, but compared to life under the Taliban Regime, any progress forward is better than none.  Others may wish to comment how development continues to take place as the security aspect is addressed.  In the work I was involved with (including assisting the Afghan government with the organization and production of the strategic plan) we were proud to be of assistance at a critical juncture in Afghan Development.  Of particular note was $10.5B pledged to Afghanistan over a three-year period from the International Community based on the ANDS.

ANDS - Strategic Plan (draft for comment)

London Conference on Afghanistan (30-31 Jan 2006)

ANDS Documents

I would encourage those who wish to objectively compare their own individual or shared beliefs/facts with those they will find from Afghanistan's own view of its developing situation as contained at the above links.  People who simply parrot, "THEY say that [insert claimed fact here]!" or "This is George Bush's war, not ours!" without validating such statements have, IMO, no moral basis upon which to argue either for or against how Canada is assisting Afghanistan redevelopment.

G2G


----------



## Legless_Marine (29 Oct 2006)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Legless_Marine, while you may not have had the opportunity to gain first-hand knowledge of reconstructive efforts in Afghanistan as many of us posting have,



Anecdotes from soldiers are useful, but are but a small piece of a much larger puzzle.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> please do us the courtesy of providing more than mere rhetoric or unsubstantiated facts.



Sorry, I was just trying to fit in.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I provide below, publicly-available links on Afghanistan's own Government web-site indicating details of the Afghan National Develop Strategy that provides the plan for the ongoing development of Afghanistan.  This is about as much "hard proof" as I can give to those asking "why are we there?" -- that there is a plan to develop the country and it is slowly working its way to all levels of Afghan Society...the speed at which this is occurring, is not as fast as many would like, but compared to life under the Taliban Regime, any progress forward is better than none.  Others may wish to comment how development continues to take place as the security aspect is addressed.  In the work I was involved with (including assisting the Afghan government with the organization and production of the strategic plan) we were proud to be of assistance at a critical juncture in Afghan Development.  Of particular note was $10.5B pledged to Afghanistan over a three-year period from the International Community based on the ANDS.
> 
> ANDS - Strategic Plan (draft for comment)
> 
> ...



Your links are very appreciated.  I will read them.


----------



## Legless_Marine (29 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You haven't been overmoderated.  None of your posts have been deleted - you have been given a "verbal" due to your tapdancing here.
> 
> Just answer the question.
> 
> How is this "Bush's War"?



Huh?   What kind of a question is that.  Are you implying that I've said such?     Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

It's an odd mind that would hold people accountable and answerable for the words of others - And you wonder why I don't take you silly billys seriously any more.

If my refusal to answer such ridiculous questions is tapdancing, then I'm Fred Astaire.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Oct 2006)

Gee Fred!  You sure are entertaining tonight.  Tap dancing your way through the minefields of the site.  Too bad your credibility really sucks here.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> ...
> Your links are very appreciated.  I will read them.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> Huh?   What kind of a question is that.  Are you implying that I've said such?     Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.



Well, with statements like these, you'll have to forgive me for confusing you with someone else:



			
				Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> 2)   Deliberately conflate American interests with Canadian interests.





> 1)   Remind Canadians that "they" attacked "us", without provocation, on 9/11.     Be vague
> about the "them" and the "us", and soon you'll have Canadians believing that the CN tower was
> attacked by Hamas.   Show lots of teary widows on TV.



It is the usual line taken by the anti-war crowd these days.  I'll assume by your plea of innocence that you don't see this as "Bush's War" and rather than a unilateral war of aggression (complete with puppets and everything), this is a case of a multilateral war of aggression sanctioned by the US, Canada, NATO, and the UN who, in their combined capacity, are out to lunch with their actions in Afghanistan?

Anyways, Fred Astaire, I can see you're not interested in answering the questions.  Keep it up; the pilot's hit the green light and the the JM's giving the wave.

10...9...8...


----------



## Legless_Marine (29 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, with statements like these, you'll have to forgive me for confusing you with someone else:



You're not forgiven.   An honorable soldier says what they mean, and means what they say.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> You're not forgiven.   An honorable soldier says what they mean, and means what they say.



Uh huh....ramp's open.


5...4...3....


----------



## Legless_Marine (29 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It is the usual line taken by the anti-war crowd these days.



You'll have to take your concerns up with them.    As I said, it's an odd mind that makes someone accountable for the words of others.


----------



## McG (29 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> stop. You don't ask questions any more until you've answered some. That's how it works.



Legless_Marine,
You still are ignoring the many counter arguments that have been raised against your posts.  Stop wasting out time & implying your superiority over us (it just reaffirms the perception you are a troll).  



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> For someone so ready to suggest the inferiority of other posters, you do a good job of ignoring the solid replies to your posts.  Is it that all the well crafted replies come from people that have misrepresented your position?  That might suggest it is worth replying just to clarify your position.
> 
> Try living up to all you present yourself to be and give these some answers:
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-468085.html#msg468085
> ...





			
				Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> I have no interest in sinking time into a discussion that is not free and open


Yet, you feel we should sink time into a discussion in which the counter opinion does not do us the service of reading the thread?  We have 13 pages that disprove the trash that was dumped.  givepeaceachance can make whatever argument, but why should we have to go back and re-post all of our arguments from the previous 13 pages? It seems we have to do it for you too.  Why?


----------



## Infanteer (29 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> You'll have to take your concerns up with them.    As I said, it's an odd mind that makes someone accountable for the words of others.



2...1...0

That's what I thought - bye bye loser.

Anyways, I'm going for a run.....


----------



## Koenigsegg (29 Oct 2006)

> Quote from: Koenigsegg on October 25, 2006, 18:07:32
> Oh, and it is NATO, not Nato..it is an acronym.  you did get ISAF right though.
> 
> 
> Pedantry is ignorant and petty, and sullies an otherwise  respectable response.   Any moron can point out a spelling error, and I'm sure you have much more value to contribute to this discussion.



I see I am a little too late getting back here, but I was being honest.  I was not _necessarily_ trying to insult the guy...
If I wanted to insult him, I think everyone would know.


----------



## paracowboy (29 Oct 2006)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> I see I am a little too late getting back here, but I was being honest.  I was not _necessarily_ trying to insult the guy...
> If I wanted to insult him, I think everyone would know.


standard response of this sort. They never have any actual facts, so they try to imply some sort of moral or intellectual superiority. Then, when held to account, they scream censorship.


----------



## Koenigsegg (29 Oct 2006)

Haha, true.

It was just kind of shocking...I go back to see where my post was to catch up, and I come across that.  
It would be times like that, that I am glad I don't drink coffee, or else I may have had to buy a new keyboard.

I had to read his post twice to see if I was honestly being a wanker to him, and I came to the conclusion of no...he is just a knob.

**And I posted this right after a DS cleaned the thread up, didn't I?**


----------



## paracowboy (29 Oct 2006)

yes, you did. ;D


----------



## Koenigsegg (29 Oct 2006)

Perfect timing...
Don't want to make the staffs jobs too easy ya know?   ;D


----------



## Infanteer (29 Oct 2006)

Well, that was some good PT.  Windy as hell here.

Anyways, a further note on tone and content.  It works both ways.  We've asked the membership to try and dull their barbs directed to the crowd speaking out against the war as reasoned debate is what we like to see here and we can't have that if people are throwing buns all over the place.  However, we demand that same respect back.  There are many members here who have served in these conflicts in the headlines, who've got friends and family over there, or worse, lost somebody close.  

There is alot of direct, face-to-face experience on these forums with the war and I, nor any other of the staff members, are about to let anyone pop out of the comfort of their Canadian living wrong to piss on them with the tone and content we've seen in the last couple days.  We, as Canadian soldiers, have been called war criminals by this guy (who's been muzzled), sneered at and dismissed by this troll (who was banned because he doesn't even have the common courtesy to answer a simple question), and called a immoral warmonger by this chap  (who is, if I was a betting man, probably next to take the plunge).

Unacceptable.  Nobody comes here for this, surely not the members of the CF and their family who put everything on the line for the mission.  It is entirely possible to come here, state your opinion, and be respectful of those who this site exists for (Brihard's example of MP Paul Dewar is a good example).  Expect to get some very hard questions from those who have the experience and the credibility to ask them.

Anyways, I'm about finished with this.  Don't expect to be treated nicely if these words are not heeded.  There is alot of important things that this site has to deal with, and wasting time by sending the Israeli guys to take out the trash shouldn't have to be one of them.

Infanteer out!


----------



## dglad (30 Oct 2006)

Well, Legless Marine didn't last long.  Unfortunate, too, because he actually came across as quite articulate, and reasonably intelligent.  Even more unfortunate is that he couldn't see the most fundamental flaw in his own arguments--that NATO is, somehow, interesting in "occupying" Afghanistan, in some sort of colonial sense...as if Brussels has somehow become the centre of a modern empire which, it appears, will be founded on the conquest of a land-locked country with no significant resources and marginal strategic importance (as has been amply demonstrated, the old saw about the Trans-Afghan Pipeline is woefully obsolete).  The only reason for the developed world to have any enduring interest in Afghanistan is to stabilize it and make it a reasonably functional nation-state, so as to prevent it from destabilizing the surrounding region.  This seems to be an error made by most of those opposed to the NATO ops in Afghanistan (borne out of facile anti-Americanism, and little else) i.e. that, somehow, NATO is actually interested in an expensive, protracted engagement in Afghanistan.

Here's a thought for anyone else lurking out there, thinking of roaring in and strafing this site with what amounts to little more than anti-US diatribes.  Instead, come on-line, state your opposition to the current NATO policies in Afghanistan, and then begin proposing solutions.  It isn't sufficient to say "we shouldn't be there" (because we are, so saying that is purely academic), "we should pull out as quickly as possible" (because to do so would be a horrific disservice to the Afghan people and would likely create a worse situation than staying) or anything along the lines of "we're fighting Bush's war" (because whether it's true or not, it's a statement that's not useful, to the point of irrelevance with respect to the current situation in that country).  It would be nice, for once, to see someone with Legless Marine's intellect (but not attitude) actually turn it to constructive thought and debate.  But come on here to simply spew controversy for the sake of controversy?  Please.  The Internet has a low enough signal to noise ratio already.


----------



## cplcaldwell (30 Oct 2006)

> Even more unfortunate is that he couldn't see the most fundamental flaw in his own arguments--that NATO is, somehow, interested in "occupying" Afghanistan, in some sort of colonial sense...as if Brussels has somehow become the centre of a modern empire which, it appears, will be founded on the conquest of a land-locked country with no significant resources and marginal strategic importance (as has been amply demonstrated, the old saw about the Trans-Afghan Pipeline is woefully obsolete).



*+1*

Well said, dglad


----------



## FastEddy (30 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> An honorable soldier says what they mean, and means what they say.




"Legless_Marine"

Several questions, which I am sure you must have interesting answers to, considering your apparent  knowledge of the Area and Situation.

Presuming NATO., were to immediately withdraw, what would the Social, Political, Econominal, Humanitain and Freedoms of  Afghanistan be.

Would any of the above area's be enhanced due to such a action, if so, how would the present Government maintain or preserve those that are in existence ?.


----------



## paracowboy (30 Oct 2006)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> "Legless_Marine"
> 
> Several questions,


he can't reply. He was banned for refusing to...well, for several reasons actually.


----------



## Slim (30 Oct 2006)

> Would any of the above area's be enhanced due to such a action, if so, how would the present Government maintain or preserve those that are in existence ?.



Still, we all know what the truth of that is...NATO is the only thing providing security to that country right now...They'd go sraight back to a theocratic stone age if the soldiers from the West left.

And they know it. They are greatful for our presence there. The only people fussing (other than the TB of course) are those the TB is financing to cause poop over here so that public pressure will be aplied to bring the boys home...and some well meaning but completely misinformed college professor type who hates the thought of war and cannot abide it, regardless of how necessary.


----------



## Gnr_Harrison (3 Nov 2006)

I am sorry that i didn't see the post before.. I would have like to see what more Deserter had to say. If they were to pull the troops out  where does the public think the taliban is going to go? Do they think that they will just stay there i don't think so!! Just my feelings......

Cheers


----------

