# Afghan Facts and Fiction?



## Majstorovic (12 Feb 2008)

edgar said:
			
		

> One thing these retards miss, when they say nobody ever won a war in afghanistan, is that if the british and the russians lost, who won?
> The Afghanis of course. And whose side are we on? The afghanis of course. We can't lose. Unless we give up.



Nice little word game there.  
The Russians were on the Afghans side as well, then. They backed a government that was toppled by the Taliban (at that time called the Mujahadeen) thanks to US support (money and arms supply).

Sure Canada is on the Afghans' side, if you don't count all the people that don't want foreigners there.


----------



## Charon (12 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Nice little word game there.
> The Russians were on the Afghans side as well, then. They backed a government that was toppled by the Taliban (at that time called the Mujahadeen) thanks to US support (money and arms supply).
> 
> Sure Canada is on the Afghans' side, if you don't count all the people that don't want foreigners there.



Interesting statement, since the Taliban didn't actually become a unified force in Kandahar Province until 1992, and you might want to ask the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras about being Taliban


----------



## CE621 (12 Feb 2008)

If the NDP were to form the next federal government ( shudder ) the Military would be among the first to go to free up money for social programs and Canada would be finished.


----------



## 2 Cdo (12 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Nice little word game there.
> The Russians were on the Afghans side as well, then. They backed a government that was toppled by the *Taliban (at that time called the Mujahadeen) thanks to US support (money and arms supply).*
> 
> Sure Canada is on the Afghans' side, if you don't count all the people that don't want foreigners there.



Wrong. The Russians were toppled by the Mujahadeen who were overthrown by the Taliban. The remnants of the Mujahadeen morphed into the Northern Alliance.

The Mujahadeen were never the Taliban.


----------



## Teflon (12 Feb 2008)

As it stands now and I truely don't see them changing much I would never vote NDP, hell if we ever had an election and only the NDP showed up to run I would just not vote


----------



## Celticgirl (12 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> "Afghans" would be the term you are looking for.
> 
> "Afghanis" is the name of their money



Afghani = adjective form, used to describe nouns (Afghani culture, Afghani people)

Afghan = noun form (Afghans)

It's a logical error to make since many nationalities use the same word as both a noun and an adjective. Some examples would be:
(1) Canadians; Canadian culture
(2) Americans; American laws
(3) Mexicans; Mexican border

*I purposely selected *-an * endings to show why Afghan/Afghani seems unnatural to some.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Feb 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Afghani = adjective form, used to describe nouns (Afghani culture, Afghani people)
> 
> Afghan = noun form (Afghans)
> 
> ...



I just go by what the guys who have been there have told me. Have you been there ?


----------



## Celticgirl (12 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I just go by what the guys who have been there have told me. Have you been there ?



No, I haven't. As you are probably aware, I am not even in the military yet. I was simply taking the language perspective, as in my soon-to-be-former life, I was a language instructor at two Canadian universities. None of my students were Afghans, but several were Arabs and therefore, knowing how to properly phrase/name people and things was part of our classroom lessons. People hear "Afghan/Afghani" this or that in the news and aren't sure which form to use when. That's natural. As I have pointed out above, it's a somewhat irregular adjective form. I'm sure even some who've been to Afghanistan have made the error. 

Just saying... ;D


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Nice little word game there.
> The Russians were on the Afghans side as well, then. They backed a government that was toppled by the Taliban (at that time called the Mujahadeen) thanks to US support (money and arms supply).



Actually, it is quite a word game, and you have fallen into it.  The Taliban and the Mujahadeen are not as closely related as you seem to imply.  Yes, some Taliban may have been Mujahadeen in the past, but that doesn't mean that all Mujahadeen became Taliban.  Some would have become members of the Norther Alliance.  Others became Warlords in their own little spheres of influence.  Others became politicans.  Others became happy civilians after the Russians left.

So, yes, a nice little word game indeed.


----------



## scoutfinch (12 Feb 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Afghani = adjective form, used to describe nouns (Afghani culture, Afghani people)
> 
> Afghan = noun form (Afghans)
> 
> ...



CDN Aviator was correct.  Please see this link below which references the highlighted information.  

Full name of country: The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan  
Short Name of Country: Afghanistan 
Short Name of Country for Lists and Tables: Afghanistan 
*Adjective of Nationality: Afghan * 
Capital City: Kabul 
Currency Unit: afghani 
Currency Symbol: Af  
Remarks: The formal name was adopted in November 2004, as per the letter of 9 November 2004 from the Permanent Mission of Afghanistan to the United Nations. (UNTERM, UN, 2004)  
Official language of communication English 
UNDP Country Code: AFG 
ISO country code (alpha-3-code) AFG 
ISO currency code AFA 
General information: See FAO Country profile 


Celtic girl, you might want to be careful who you correct on this site.  Staying in your lanes is very important.  English language rules may not apply to foreign cultures and in this case you were wrong to do so.  Using your examples, it would still be Afghan culture, Afghan laws, Afghan border.  The use of the word aghani would not work.

Link from the Food and Culture Organization of the United Nations  http://www.fao.org/faoterm/nocs.asp?lang=EN&source=EN&country=004


----------



## Celticgirl (12 Feb 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator was correct.  Please see this link below which references the highlighted information.
> 
> Full name of country: The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
> Short Name of Country: Afghanistan
> ...



Scoutfinch, I did not correct CDN Aviator. I was agreeing with him. He was indeed correct, and upon further research, I see that I used the term Afghani in the wrong context. Feel better?   

My whole point was that it's an easy mistake to make (Afghan/Afghani) as we hear both in the media. Perhaps you  should go back and read my post again, hmm? By the way, what does this mean: "you might want to be careful who you correct on this site"? If I didn't know better, I would think you were threatening me, Scoutfinch.  

[Edited to correct gender error.]


----------



## Teflon (12 Feb 2008)

How about the Afghan/Afghani debate just end so that this thread can continue on topic 

(If any of the interested parties wish maybe a MOD could split this bun fight off into it's own)


----------



## scoutfinch (12 Feb 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Scoutfinch, I did not correct CDN Aviator. I was agreeing with her. She was indeed correct, and upon further research, I see that I used the term Afghani in the wrong context. Feel better?
> 
> My whole point was that it's an easy mistake to make (Afghan/Afghani) as we hear both in the media. Perhaps you  should go back and read my post again, hmm? By the way, what does this mean: "you might want to be careful who you correct on this site"? If I didn't know better, I would think you were threatening me, Scoutfinch.



I'll take it to PMs.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Feb 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Scoutfinch, I did not correct CDN Aviator. I was agreeing with her. She was indeed correct, and upon further research, I see that I used the term Afghani in the wrong context. Feel better?



CDN Aviator is a "HE" thanks.



> My whole point was that it's an easy mistake to make



Its a mistake, made by a member, which i promptly corrected. With all due respect to your language experience, your post wasnt required.




> "you might want to be careful who you correct on this site"? If I didn't know better, I would think you were threatening me, Scoutfinch.



It was friendly advice to keep you out of trouble. Some people here have been there and know bette than you. 

Now, back to NDP bashing   ;D


----------



## Celticgirl (12 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator is a "HE" thanks.
> 
> Its a mistake, made by a member, which i promptly corrected. With all due respect to your language experience, your post wasnt required.
> 
> ...



Sorry about the gender confusion. I think I have you mixed up with another member. 

I guess you are right. My post wasn't required. My posts very rarely are.  

Please continue with the NDP bashing.  ;D


----------



## Old Ranger (12 Feb 2008)

Bash, Baash, BBBAAAASSSSH!

All on track again, Those Driver control sticks always come in handy ;D


----------



## Reccesoldier (12 Feb 2008)

> Will you vote NDP in the next election?



Will the Kennedy's be supporting the NRA?

Will Osama Bin Laden be suntanning on a nude beach in Florida?

Will Stephan De yawn find his spine in the HOC anytime soon?


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2008)

I take it; "No!" then.


----------



## Majstorovic (12 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, it is quite a word game, and you have fallen into it.  The Taliban and the Mujahadeen are not as closely related as you seem to imply.  Yes, some Taliban may have been Mujahadeen in the past, but that doesn't mean that all Mujahadeen became Taliban.  Some would have become members of the Norther Alliance.  Others became Warlords in their own little spheres of influence.  Others became politicans.  Others became happy civilians after the Russians left.
> 
> So, yes, a nice little word game indeed.



You are being very coy with your arguments.  Perhaps not every single Mujahideen member stuck around until they became the Taliban, but certainly the most important members/leaders DID remain. Namely Osama Bin Laden.  So, yes they are pretty darn closely related.  This semantics tactic you are employing is childish. 

I'm not really understanding the primary motivation behind the NDP bashing here.  
The case of WWII is commonly brought up in attempting to show that if the NDP was in power at the time then Canada wouldn't have joined in WWII. Afghanistan is NOT anywhere in the same league as WWII Germany/Japan/Croatia/Latvia/Estonia/Lithuania/Italy/etc.   The thread is not anywhere near the same level or of the same type.

In any case here is a nice, straightforward article that, if you would be so kind to read, might make you rethink your positions.

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/10/06/Afghanistan/


----------



## George Wallace (13 Feb 2008)

I see you are a big fan of Prof Michael Byers.  Not a very credible person around these parts.

Oh!  By the way, where did you get your information on Osama Bin Laden?  I think you weren't paying much attention in class that day.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2008)

There are plenty of reference works regarding the history of Afghanistan and the wars, but they are pretty consistent in the division between the Mujahideen and the Taliban. 

The Mujahideen were a very fragile coalition of dissimilar partners united in the common goal of defeating the Soviet invasion. Once the Soviets left in 1989, they fell apart and fought each other either to gain power over Afghanistan as a whole, or later (once they had exhausted most of their resources) to keep a hold of their local fiefdoms.

The Taliban were formed as a reaction against the predation of the ex-Mujahideen warlords, and gained support from the locals by their promise to suppress these warlords. The locals may have found the endless predation of the Warlords bad enough, but soon had reason to regret their choice of savior.

As for Osama Bin Laden, he was never a Mujahideen in the proper sense, but rather an adventurer and mercenary. The AQ moved into Afghanistan after Saudi Arabia and Africa became unwelcoming, and they were and are almost universally despised by the Afghans, collectively known (regardless of origin) as "the Arabs".


----------



## George Wallace (13 Feb 2008)

Osama bin Laden supported the jihad against the Russians and in the mid 1980's moved to Afghanistan where he established an organization, Maktab al-Khidimat (MAK), to recruit Islamic soldiers from around the world who later form the basis of an international network. (The MAK maintained recruiting offices in Detroit and Brooklyn in the 1980s.)   In 1989, bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia and worked in his family's construction business. He founded an organization to help veterans of the Afghan war, many of whom went on to fight in Bosnia, Chechnya, Somalia, and the Philippines.   Bin Laden was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991 because of his anti-government activities. He eventually wound up in Sudan, where he worked with Egyptian radical groups in exile.  In 1992 bin Laden claimed responsibility for attempting to bomb U.S. soldiers in Yemen and for attacking U.S. troops in Somalia the following year. In 1994 pressure from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia prompted Sudan to expel bin Laden, and he returned to Afghanistan where the Taliban offered him sanctuary in 1996.  He wasn't a member of the Taliban, but supported them with funding from his organization, al-Qaeda.


----------



## Majstorovic (13 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I see you are a big fan of Prof Michael Byers.  Not a very credible person around these parts.
> 
> Oh!  By the way, where did you get your information on Osama Bin Laden?  I think you weren't paying much attention in class that day.



Who said I was a fan of anyone?  I don't have to be a fan of someone in order to think their argument is sound.  
And why isn't he credible "around these parts"? Because he disagrees with you?


----------



## Majstorovic (13 Feb 2008)

And seriously, if you think that Canada/NATO is in Afghanistan for human rights, etc., and if you think that in general, wars are fought for noble principles like justice, equality, blah, blah. then you are sorely mistaken to be blunt.  
If that was the case, why was nothing done in Rwanda? Why is nothing being done in Darfur? Why are so many of NATO/US/Canada's allies some of the worst human rights violators on the planet? 
Are you telling me that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc. are our "friends" because they are democratic,  human rights respecting, upstanding global citizens?  Doubt it.  They are our friends because it suits our interests.
And nothing was done in Rwanda and Darfur because it's not in our interest to do something there. Simple cost/benefit basis.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Feb 2008)

I was kind enough to read the article.  Please allow me to retort, point by point.
Before I do, however, please note that I shall focus on the asserted facts of the article, which, I suppose, will lead a reasonable person to rethink the author's conclusions, given that many of the premises are false.
It states that in "2005 the focus of Canada's military effort reverted to the counter-insurgency mission in Kandahar."  Wrong. It focussed on the PRT, and when I was in Kabul in 2003, discussions were already underway for many of the ISAF nations to push out of Kabul and into the provinces.  As I recall, a critique of ISAF at the time was that it was sitting in relative safety in Kabul, neglecting the provinces.  To this day, securing Khandahar so that the PRT can do its job remains the focus.  Building schools, digging wells and what have you don't make news: operations that make those multitude of successes possible do, such as Op MEDUSA.

There is one line that is total guesstimation on the author's part:
"Hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent civilians have died in such strikes, prompting angry family members and friends to join the insurgency."
Have civilians died in bombings?  Damn straight.  Have all of those bombings been from "heavy handed US strikes?"  No fucking way.  When US or other forces kill civilians, it is error, either of judgement in the assessment of the target area or due to blind, rotten luck.  Not so when the taliban detonate devices, sometimes in the midst of children.  To call what the US forces do as "heavy handed" is a blantant anti-americanism that holds up what is perceived as a largely white nation to one standard, while failing to hold that same standard of conduct to a "non-white" group, eg: it is racist.



The article talks of the 39 dead Canadians (accurate to the time of the article's creation).  That number is nearing 80.  80 soldiers killed in action in some 6 years.  We were at war against Germany for 6 years and lost thousands dead, and many more wounded.  Some 40,000 if I'm not mistaken.  In the past year alone, there have been well in excess of 80 murders in Canada.  Those deaths in Afghanistan, though tragic, are indeed noble because of the sacrifice those people knew that they could be making.  Where is the nobility in getting a shiv in your back because you wear the wrong colours in the wrong neighbourhood?  Because your husband is an abusive wretch?  If I had a choice of the method in which I would meet my maker, I would rather it be in the service of what I believe to be right.
39 deaths (at the time of the article's writing) is not a sobering number.  Neither is 80.

I shall only examine one more point.  It is this:



> First, it's argued that the mission is necessary to protect Canadians from the threat posed by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. This is a serious argument, but it can be exaggerated. The Taliban do not pose a threat to the existence of Canada. They're not about to invade. Nor are they developing weapons of mass destruction and missiles capable of reaching North America.


First of all, the author is correct in that Canada will continue to exist.  I just hope that ALL Canadians will continue to exist.  Unlike the author, I care about the parts of Canada, not just its mere existence.  This includes my family, my friends, strangers: Hell, it even includes Montreal Canadiens fans!  
We know that they aren't going to invade: what kind of fool does the author take us for?  No "missiles" capable of reaching North America?   Dude, that author has to get with the times.  This is not a nation-state, such as Germany, building V weapons and launching them en masse prior to the Panzer invasion.  These are fanatics who stab stewardesses and drive planes full of people into buildings.  These are people who strap bombs to the mentally challenged and then blow them up remotely.  These are people who would go to any lengths to see you strung up because, oh, I don't know, because you reject God.

I cannot read any more of the article, because in only a few paragraphs, the author has proven himself to be ignorant of the facts, head firmly in the sand to the reality that (a) the USA is not all that bad and (b) extremism is a threat to us all, be it Islamofascism, or the blatherings of Lenin's little idiots, such as we see even in our House of Commons.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> And seriously, if you think that Canada/NATO is in Afghanistan for human rights, etc., and if you think that in general, wars are fought for noble principles like justice, equality, blah, blah. then you are sorely mistaken to be blunt.
> If that was the case, why was nothing done in Rwanda? Why is nothing being done in Darfur? Why are so many of NATO/US/Canada's allies some of the worst human rights violators on the planet?
> Are you telling me that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc. are our "friends" because they are democratic,  human rights respecting, upstanding global citizens?  Doubt it.  They are our friends because it suits our interests.
> And nothing was done in Rwanda and Darfur because it's not in our interest to do something there. Simple cost/benefit basis.


Your position is really alarming.  You suggest that we go to Darfur.  Why?  Explain why we don't go to OIL RICH Darfur instead of sand flea infested Afghanistan?  Please do it with a straight face, because I really want to know the reason for invading a sovereign nation, vice coming to the help of a government, partially for our own good, and partially for theirs.  We abandoned Afghanistan once before.  Never again.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Who said I was a fan of anyone?  I don't have to be a fan of someone in order to think their argument is sound.
> And why isn't he credible "around these parts"? Because he disagrees with you?


His arguments are not sound because his premises are rarely true.  They may be valid arguments, but they certainly aren't sound.

He is not credible around any parts because of the above.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Feb 2008)

Slightly OT:
Majstorovic: could you fill out your profile?  It helps people know where you are coming from, whether you are an ill-informed teen, or whatever.  Thank you.


----------



## warspite (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> In any case here is a nice, straightforward article that, if you would be so kind to read, might make you rethink your positions.


Why yes it did make me think.... probably just not in the way you had hoped for, allow me to present my modest views....

Hmm that article did raise many "good" point's -X ahhh it burns to say) but it missed one.... namely....
For the supporting side....
A. Its the right thing to do...case closed. No more need be said for the supporting side.

Also i found it amusing how the author advocates peacekeeping in Lebanon and darfur. Because these are obviously much safer and nobler causes and therefore where we must be. The author even goes so far as to say... 


> The agents of this destruction -- the Janjaweed (who ride camels and horses) and the Sudanese military (which pushes crude barrel bombs out of the back of cargo planes) -- would be no match for a well-trained, well-equipped Western military


Now I'm a little short on first hand experience but it seems to me that the taliban would be no match for a well-trained, well-equipped Western military. Does the author think arments are only to be found in Afghanistan and insurgents in Africa are armed only with the fearsome sharpened mango.

Some other comments were also "amusing":


> Canada's Chief of Defence Staff, Rick Hillier, hasn't helped matters by publicly characterizing the insurgents as "detestable murderers and scumbags."


They are detestable murderers and scumbags. Or are you arguing that they are noble freedom fighters riding out against the infidel western monsters to fight for the right to oppress those who disagree with them. I view them as detestable scum bags.


> Take Lebanon, for instance. On August 11, 2006, the UN Security Council imposed a ceasefire on Hezbollah and Israel. It authorized a peacekeeping operation of 15,000 soldiers with a robust mandate to "use all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind."





> Many of the peacekeepers have been provided by France, Italy and Spain. Belgium, Finland, Norway and Poland are sending smaller contingents, with Germany and Denmark providing maritime support


There we go peace keepers have already been provided. Last time i checked Canada is busy in Afghanistan is not solely responsible for supplying the UN with peace keepers.


> Canada is conspicuously absent


See above comment.


> There are financial costs. In August 2006, the Polaris Institute estimated that the counter-insurgency mission would cost Canadian taxpayers around $4 billion over two years. That, of course, works out to $2 billion per year. This compares to the $1 billion, over ten years, that Canada is providing for reconstruction and development in Afghanistan, which works out to $100 million per year -- or five per cent of what we're spending on the military mission.


1. Bullets cost much more than nails. deal with it.
2. You assume that combat is an unnecessary expense and that if we directed our efforts solely to construction the insurgents would nicely let us be therefore eliminating the need to buy bullets. WHY HAS NO ONE THOUGHT OF THIS BEFORE...... ITS THE PERFECT SOLUTION ...... oh wait it defies logic :brickwall:


> These financial costs also constitute opportunity costs. Four billion dollars could provide a massive amount of development and humanitarian assistance, and not just in Afghanistan.
> Wisely spent, this money could save millions of lives, especially in disease and famine-ridden sub-Sahara Africa.


Excellent point, money could be spent on this, it would help others and there are far worse ways to spend money. However i suggest the professor find a way to raise said money other than government funds. Perhaps go before the almighty UN itself to petition member nations to donate. Perhaps his university departments budget could be donated as well. Or even for every dollar he raises the federal government will match. Just don't suggest that the federal government be responsible for using the funds of 32 million citizens taxes solely based on his words and opinion not his actions.

Now that being said its late and so i have probably missed some key point so anyone who disagrees fire away.


Now having done my rant for the day back to the issue at hand...
Would I vote for the ndp.....
This indeed is a deep and interesting question and in trying to answer it I was faced with a delema.
Should i answer:
1 NO
2 HELL NO
3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHA........ETC....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH you have got to be kidding....of course HELL NO.
4. Just as soon as hell freezes over and the 29 signs of the Apocalypse come to pass and the four horsemen of said Apocalypse come knocking at my door....... I will still say HELL NO
Someone help me decide... ;D


----------



## Majstorovic (13 Feb 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> There is one line that is total guesstimation on the author's part:
> "Hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent civilians have died in such strikes, prompting angry family members and friends to join the insurgency."
> Have civilians died in bombings?  Damn straight.  Have all of those bombings been from "heavy handed US strikes?"  No ******* way.  When US or other forces kill civilians, it is error, either of judgement in the assessment of the target area or due to blind, rotten luck.  Not so when the taliban detonate devices, sometimes in the midst of children.  To call what the US forces do as "heavy handed" is a blantant anti-americanism that holds up what is perceived as a largely white nation to one standard, while failing to hold that same standard of conduct to a "non-white" group, eg: it is racist.



The defence of "collateral damage" is worthless in the eyes of those who have lost a loved one. If the Taliban went to blow up a military target, and accidentally misidentified the target, due to bad weather, or whatever, and killed your child, would you forgive them because they didn't mean it? 



			
				Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> The article talks of the 39 dead Canadians (accurate to the time of the article's creation).  That number is nearing 80.  80 soldiers killed in action in some 6 years.  We were at war against Germany for 6 years and lost thousands dead, and many more wounded.  Some 40,000 if I'm not mistaken.  In the past year alone, there have been well in excess of 80 murders in Canada.  Those deaths in Afghanistan, though tragic, are indeed noble because of the sacrifice those people knew that they could be making.  Where is the nobility in getting a shiv in your back because you wear the wrong colours in the wrong neighbourhood?  Because your husband is an abusive wretch?  If I had a choice of the method in which I would meet my maker, I would rather it be in the service of what I believe to be right.
> 39 deaths (at the time of the article's writing) is not a sobering number.  Neither is 80.



Maybe to you, the number of Canadian casualties that are acceptable or not varies from other people's.  BUT, the number of Afghans killed, wounded, and the number of people affected by those deaths/injuries is not for you to judge as being acceptable or not.
Yes, people will die even if there is no war. In fact, 100% of the world will die eventually from something, so it would be OK to take 100 million lives because that's less than would have died anyways.





			
				Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I shall only examine one more point.  It is this:
> First of all, the author is correct in that Canada will continue to exist.  I just hope that ALL Canadians will continue to exist.  Unlike the author, I care about the parts of Canada, not just its mere existence.  This includes my family, my friends, strangers: Hell, it even includes Montreal Canadiens fans!
> We know that they aren't going to invade: what kind of fool does the author take us for?  No "missiles" capable of reaching North America?   Dude, that author has to get with the times.  This is not a nation-state, such as Germany, building V weapons and launching them en masse prior to the Panzer invasion.  These are fanatics who stab stewardesses and drive planes full of people into buildings.  These are people who strap bombs to the mentally challenged and then blow them up remotely.  These are people who would go to any lengths to see you strung up because, oh, I don't know, because you reject God.



There is no doubt that the people you are referring to are awful, nasty human beings. But awful, nasty human beings exist everywhere on the planet.  Does going to a place where some of these people live and killing them, along with other innocent ones solve the problem? No. There will always be more as a reaction to the foreign occupation of their land.
And while we are comparing numbers, how many people can improvised, low budget tactics like suicide bombing and hijacking take out compared to missiles, planes, tanks, artillery and helicopter gunships?  Very little by comparison.

Whatever threat is posed by psychos in Afghanistan is being made worse by the fact that the West is propping up a corrupt government there whose job it is to help the West secure oil resources, not human rights, and all that nonsense.



			
				Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I cannot read any more of the article, because in only a few paragraphs, the author has proven himself to be ignorant of the facts, head firmly in the sand to the reality that (a) the USA is not all that bad and (b) extremism is a threat to us all, be it Islamofascism, or the blatherings of Lenin's little idiots, such as we see even in our House of Commons.


Seriously, what planet are you from? "Lenin's little idiots"? Where? Oh, you mean the party without whom you'd have the wonderful health care system that you see in the US? Right, they're such crazy Commies.  
Yeah, it's better that we have a PM who believes that the Earth is 5,000 years old, that dinosaurs co-existed alongside humans and that global warming is a socialist plot to bring Capitalism to its knees.


----------



## Yrys (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Whatever threat is posed by psychos in Afghanistan is being made worse by the fact that the West is propping up a corrupt government there whose job it is to help the West secure oil resources,



OIL ? Go back to yours reading...

C.I.A. world factbook

Oil - production: 0 bbl/day (2005)
Oil - consumption: 5,000 bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - exports: 0 bbl/day (2004)
Oil - imports:	4,120 bbl/day (2004)
Oil - proved reserves:0 bbl (1 January 2006 est.)


----------



## Majstorovic (13 Feb 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> OIL ? Go back to yours reading...
> 
> C.I.A. world factbook
> 
> ...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/afghan.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2017044.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
> http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/afghan.htm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2017044.stm
> ...



 :rofl:

Tin foil time.........


----------



## eurowing (13 Feb 2008)

op:


----------



## Koenigsegg (13 Feb 2008)

The proposed pipeline is for natural gas, as most of your sources say...so your comment of...


> being made worse by the fact that the West is propping up a corrupt government there whose job it is to help the West secure oil resources


...is crap.  Make sure your sources support what you say.  Natural gas does not equal Oil.  And it would do almost nothing for us, economically.  It would help the countries it goes through (like Afghanistan), and even China.
But we're good over here.

*Edit*
Oh, and key word is, "proposed".
A lot of things have been proposed in history.  Doesn't mean they came to fruition.  Like "War Plan Red", Canada's acquisition of MGS, Beta tapes (Sadly they lost), and my putting aftermarket pipes on my bike.  A proposal in a lot of cases doesn't mean ****.


----------



## Majstorovic (13 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Tin foil time.........



Yes, that's right. It's ridiculous to think that governments do things for reasons other than stated. All governments are totally forthcoming with all their plans and intentions. I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist and the BBC is run by a bunch of commies. Oh, you are so smart.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Oh, you are so smart.



Smart enough to know theres no Oil in Afghanistan. Smart enough to know the difference between oil and natural gas. Smart enough to know that natural gas in asia is of no consequence here in North America.

Even the anti-war wingnuts have given up on using oil as an argument against the war because it doesnt stand up to examination.


----------



## Koenigsegg (13 Feb 2008)

Ok.  if YOU are so smart.  Why did BBC talk of a a "gas" (natural gas) pipeline, and not OIL?
(Like you stated before).

Becareful who you try to patronize.  Because there are a lot of people on this forum who have a lot more experience with, and knowledge of what is going on in Afghanistan than you (may) ever will.  A lot of it first hand.

People here could just as easily bug you for seemingly trusting the media so much, and even more so for using Wikipedia as a source.  If you want to talk about lying, misinformation, and leaving out information...the main stream media is at least just as bad as the governments are.

*Ok....Too fast with the second button press there.  My bad.*


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Yes, that's right. It's ridiculous to think that governments do things for reasons other than stated. All governments are totally forthcoming with all their plans and intentions. I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist and the BBC is run by a bunch of commies.



Your tone not withstanding, you do not make a compeling argument. You use Wikkipedia as a source. Theres a reason why most academic institutions do not recognize it as a source. Also, if you wish to convince me that you are correct, you are certainy taking the wrong aproach.


----------



## Majstorovic (13 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Your tone not withstanding, you do not make a compeling argument. You use Wikkipedia as a source. Theres a reason why most academic institutions do not recognize it as a source. Also, if you wish to convince me that you are correct, you are certainy taking the wrong aproach.



I chucked wikipedia in there, true, but what about BBC? Are they a shady source?
As for tone, I apologize, but in post after post I am made out to be some insane commie conspiracy theorist.  It gets old fast, and is a cheapshot.


----------



## Majstorovic (13 Feb 2008)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> Ok.  if YOU are so smart.  Why did BBC talk of a a "gas" (natural gas) pipeline, and not OIL?
> (Like you stated before).
> 
> Becareful who you try to patronize.  Because there are a lot of people on this forum who have a lot more experience with, and knowledge of what is going on in Afghanistan than you (may) ever will.  A lot of it first hand.
> ...



In my scurrying about to respond to the onslaught of posts about how insane my argument is, yes, I referred to oil insted of natural gas. My mistake, I admit.  That said, the "main stream media" isn't exactly trumpeting anti-war opinions.  Mainstream media is on the government's side for the most part.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> I chucked wikipedia in there, true, but what about BBC? Are they a shady source?



The mainstream media is about as honest as a used car salesman. Just look at the CBC here in Canada.



> As for tone, I apologize, but in post after post I am made out to be some insane commie conspiracy theorist.  It gets old fast, and is a cheapshot.



So you adress that by taking a cheapshot of your own ? I've been here a long time. The tone you decided to take is indeed well past old. What you think people make you out to be is the way you come across to me. If you know Wikkipedia is not a reliable source, then why use it. You had to know what reaction it was going to get. Beyond that, you are not adressing the points people have brought up in response to your posts. Thats usualy the tell tale sign of someone whos position is not supportable.



			
				Majstorovic said:
			
		

> That said, the "main stream media" isn't exactly trumpeting anti-war opinions.  Mainstream media is on the government's side for the most part.



Have you been sleeping under a rock on Planet Mars for the last 6 years ?


----------



## Koenigsegg (13 Feb 2008)

> Mainstream media is on the government's side for the most part.



I agree, depending on the country.  We have a lot of negative stuff over here, a lot of it can be refuted.
CBC is also a liberal (literally, haha) media organization.  And too many people get all their news from them.
A liberal news station is fine by me, just as a conservative one is.  But a Liberal one is not, as they like to push the party agenda at times.

*Darn it.  Always late.  Don't worry about responding.  haha*


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> That said, the "main stream media" isn't exactly trumpeting anti-war opinions.  Mainstream media is on the government's side for the most part.



If you consider the MSM suspect ( as the above indicates) , how can you use it as a source to prove your point ? You cant pick and chose ! Either the media is suspect or its not. If the media has a government bias and is not to be trusted, then you cant use it to support your argument. Its hypocritical.


----------



## Majstorovic (13 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The mainstream media is about as honest as a used car salesman. Just look at the CBC here in Canada.
> 
> So you adress that by taking a cheapshot of your own ? I've been here a long time. The tone you decided to take is indeed well past old. What you think people make you out to be is the way you come across to me. If you know Wikkipedia is not a reliable source, then why use it. You had to know what reaction it was going to get. Beyond that, you are not adressing the points people have brought up in response to your posts. Thats usualy the tell tale sign of someone whos position is not supportable.
> 
> Have you been sleeping under a rock on Planet Mars for the last 6 years ?



I have done my best to address points as they come up.  It is my points that have gone unanswered as replies spin off into accusations and irrelevant directions.

I've been right here for the past 6 years.  And from where I am, any questioning of the mission (read war) in the media is interpreted as an attack on the troops, and as support for the Taliban.
The problem with that is this:  People who are against the war are not against the troops. Bringing troops home is somehow an act of treason whereas sending them out to fight, kill, risk their own lives is an act of patriotism. They know that the troops are doing their best and that the problem doesn't lie with them.
The war, as it is being conducted right now, is counter-productive and will eventually fail.  If the aim really is as it is claimed, then war lords would not be given crucial posts in the government, the Taliban would be obsolete due to lack of any popular support at all, Pakistan would be forced to stop arming and aiding Taliban fighters, Kandahar and the rest of the country would have running water and electricity, the general populace wouldn't be living in exactly the same crappy conditions prior to the "liberation", etc., etc.


----------



## Majstorovic (13 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If you consider the MSM suspect ( as the above indicates) , how can you use it as a source to prove your point ? You cant pick and chose ! Either the media is suspect or its not. If the media has a government bias and is not to be trusted, then you cant use it to support your argument. Its hypocritical.



Yes, the MSM is suspect, but since the MSM is not a monolithic entity, there are tidbits here and there that are relatively less propagandized than the majority of stories.  Usually these are buried in back pages or if on TV, shown at 2 in the morning.
Take a look at the Iraq war as an example. At first everyone in the MSM was on board, rah-rah, gung-ho, flag-waving cheerleading, etc. Eventually, after thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and the country was plunged into chaos worse than during Sadaam's rule, bit by bit, information started trickling through that confirmed many non-MSM media stories regarding the false basis for the war and the intentional deception that was used to justify the invasion.
So, yes, I can pick and choose, since not all stories have the same journalistic value.  Every station/newspaper will have some good stories and some poor ones.


----------



## Majstorovic (13 Feb 2008)

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what any of us here think because we don't get paid/trained to criticize and analyze foreign policy.  We behave like good little boys and girls and do what we are told. That is the basis upon which the chain of command works. Without it there would be no military.
We could get told to go attack our own mothers tomorrow and we would have to comply.  
It's the winners who write history, correct?   If WWII had turned out differently, Canada would be the evil ones and its soldiers would be put on trial as the culprits. Might makes right.
I'm not being sarcastic.  Can we not agree on that much?


----------



## meni0n (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> We could get told to go attack our own mothers tomorrow and we would have to comply.



Slept thru ethics and lawful command lectures on BMQ? 

Your claims are really off base. Afghanis are not living in the same conditions as they have before the taliban were ousted. There has been major improvements. It will take years to rebuild all of the infrastructure. 

Just because Talibal Jack said the mission will fail doesn't make it true. Not everthing in the world is easy and sometimes you have to work hard for something to work.  Please give an example of what is done now counter-productive? Building schools, hospitals, training a professional army and police is counter-productive? You're way out to lunch.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what any of us here think because we don't get paid/trained to criticize and analyze foreign policy.  We behave like good little boys and girls and do what we are told. That is the basis upon which the chain of command works. Without it there would be no military.
> We could get told to go attack our own mothers tomorrow and we would have to comply.



Listen up sunshine.....................yup, thats the sound of your verbal warning.

If you post anything as stupid as that comment again you will be gone.


----------



## Reccesoldier (13 Feb 2008)

> Does going to a place where some of these people live and killing them, along with other innocent ones solve the problem? No.



But Majstorovic, according to you we should go to Darfur and Lebanon.  So please please tell me why our military force would work in those places and not Afghanistan.  

I'm not even going to mention that Sudan is a sovereign nation that has already said that it will not allow the UN to operate in Darfur and to do so would be an invasion of a sovereign Muslim nation.  You might want to think about how much that invasion would be seen by the Muslim world, hell they already think the WOT is the 22nd Century crusade.  Invade Sudan?  Holy freaking crap-storm Batman!

Your argument seems to be that because the UN would be in charge that the mission would be peaceful. WTF?  Obviously you have never been on a UN tour like Bosnia and Rwanda where the opposing forces don't want to play nice, or perhaps you've never been on a tour at all and slept through the  pertinent newsclips from those _peaceful_ missions .  The UN are the people who brought you the slaughter of 500,000 in Darfur, the massacre at Srebrenitza, Congoleese mass murders, the list goes on and on. 

You can't spell unable, unproductive unresponsive or unproficient  without *UN*

As for why I won't vote for the NDP, they have nothing to offer my Canada, which is to say the vision I have for Canada.  They would turn this nation (as Bob Rae did to Ontario) into a huge bloated bureaucratic welfare state where every special interest is pandered to and paid for by those who work hard enough to be truly successful.  They would punish the industrious and reward the sloth, they would hobble the brilliant and exalt the mediocre.  They are socialists and collectivists.  Don't try to talk to me about shades of socialism, scratch the surface and you will find the same Ideals that led to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the rest.

"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much."

fuck the NDP.


----------



## Celticgirl (13 Feb 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> They would turn this nation (as Bob Rae did to Ontario) into a huge bloated bureaucratic welfare state where every special interest is pandered to and paid for by those who work hard enough to be truly successful.  They would punish the industrious and reward the sloth, they would hobble the brilliant and exalt the mediocre.  They are socialists and collectivists.  Don't try to talk to me about shades of socialism, scratch the surface and you will find the same Ideals that led to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the rest.
> 
> "Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much."
> 
> frig the NDP.



Golden. Very well-said.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what any of us here think because we don't get paid/trained to criticize and analyze foreign policy.



Now i know that you have run out of retoric to spew here. "it doesnt matter what we think" is the troll version of " because i said so" !!! Your points have indeed been adressed.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Seriously, what planet are you from? "Lenin's little idiots"? Where? Oh, you mean the party without whom you'd have the wonderful health care system that you see in the US? Right, they're such crazy Commies.
> Yeah, it's better that we have a PM who believes that the Earth is 5,000 years old, that dinosaurs co-existed alongside humans and that global warming is a socialist plot to bring Capitalism to its knees.


From which planet do I originate?  I am from Earth.  As for our "wonderful" health care system, you must be thinking of the same system that makes my sister wait and wait for treatment for her cancer.  The same one that sees line ups, making people wait way too long for basic health care services.  Is that the system to which you refer?

As for a PM who believes Earth is 500 years old and all that jazz, well, maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.  So far as I can tell, it's not affecting his ability to lead the country.  Heck, I have some wacky beliefs too, such as with rights come responsibilities, and that people are responsible for their own actions.  

As for global warming/climate change, don't get me started.  My opinion is that once we figure out what's warming Mars, we can than figure out what's warming the Earth.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Feb 2008)

Hello!
I beleive this Mastrojvic or whoever is in fact Tweetypie, who attempted to horn his/her way on here.
Tweetypie floods the Canoe website. Just check it out for yourselves. I will leave you to form your own opinions

As for the NDP????.....not a chance


----------



## MG34 (13 Feb 2008)

Not if they were the only party running...not in a million years...not ever,no way no how...if Taliban Jack saved me from a burning car wreck I would roll over a spit in his face.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what any of us here think because we don't get paid/trained to criticize and analyze foreign policy.  We behave like good little boys and girls and do what we are told. That is the basis upon which the chain of command works. Without it there would be no military.
> We could get told to go attack our own mothers tomorrow and we would have to comply.
> It's the winners who write history, correct?   If WWII had turned out differently, Canada would be the evil ones and its soldiers would be put on trial as the culprits. Might makes right.
> I'm not being sarcastic.  Can we not agree on that much?



Sorry, but this blithering has only justified my opinion that you should do a heck of a lot of reading on this site to find out what the Canadian Forces are all about, and what it means to be a member of the Canadian Forces.  The above nonsense that you just spewed out shows how ignorant you are of the facts.  You should refrain from posting any more of this nonsense until such time as you have actually done some research on this site, and then gone out and actually talked to a member or two of the Canadian Forces.


----------



## Majstorovic (13 Feb 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Slept thru ethics and lawful command lectures on BMQ?
> 
> Your claims are really off base. Afghanis are not living in the same conditions as they have before the taliban were ousted. There has been major improvements. It will take years to rebuild all of the infrastructure.
> 
> Just because Talibal Jack said the mission will fail doesn't make it true. Not everthing in the world is easy and sometimes you have to work hard for something to work.  Please give an example of what is done now counter-productive? Building schools, hospitals, training a professional army and police is counter-productive? You're way out to lunch.



Did you sleep through the class of real life?  Things taught from a book don't always apply in practice. Oh, the Army tells me it is wrong to do X, well I guess X must never happen, since it is wrong for X to happen.

Afghanis ARE living in the same crap conditions prior to the invasion.  Sure, a few schools get built here and there, and there are token, albeit massively corrupt, elections that take place, but more or less the same.  Just that the awful leaders from before have been replaced with awful leaders that are more friendly to NATO.

I'm not sure who this Taliban Jack that you are referring to is, but what will make the mission fail is the way success has been defined.  It has been defined in a very non-orthodox way such that it guarantees ongoing battle operations. Unless you wipe everyone in the country out, resistance to foreign occupation will never be stamped out.  Afghani cultural evolution is still lagging behind and it can't be brought up to speed overnight.  Democracy didn't originate in Europe or the West as a result of a foreign imposition of political terms, it emerged after a slow but steady internal social development.  The same might eventually happen there, but it's not likely. Democracy isn't the default condition.  Most countries in the world are not democracies.  If you want to go convert each country into one, you would be fighting for the next trillion years. 
I'll give you examlples of what is being done that is counter-productive:  
The fact that people there see the hypocrisy of trumpeting democracy and looking at their lives and seeing the same tribal allegiances, corruption and oppression that still rules their life. 
Building schools, hospitals, training a professional army and police is not counter-productive in theory, but in practice, what will that army and police do when Canada is gone?  Will they forsake their traditional loyalties and beliefs overnight? Hells no.


----------



## Majstorovic (13 Feb 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> But Majstorovic, according to you we should go to Darfur and Lebanon.  So please please tell me why our military force would work in those places and not Afghanistan.


I'm not saying force can't work in Afghanistan.  What I am saying is it can't work if it isn't accompanied by honest political effort to



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> I'm not even going to mention that Sudan is a sovereign nation that has already said that it will not allow the UN to operate in Darfur and to do so would be an invasion of a sovereign Muslim nation.  You might want to think about how much that invasion would be seen by the Muslim world, hell they already think the WOT is the 22nd Century crusade.  Invade Sudan?  Holy freaking crap-storm Batman!


Yeah, so what if Sudan is a sovereign nation? Afghanistan was a sovereign nation, and I don't remember anyone caring what its opinion was regarding if it wanted to be invaded.  The UN doesn't need permission to operate in a country if that country violates human rights of its own citizens.



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Your argument seems to be that because the UN would be in charge that the mission would be peaceful. WTF?  Obviously you have never been on a UN tour like Bosnia and Rwanda where the opposing forces don't want to play nice, or perhaps you've never been on a tour at all and slept through the  pertinent newsclips from those _peaceful_ missions .  The UN are the people who brought you the slaughter of 500,000 in Darfur, the massacre at Srebrenitza, Congoleese mass murders, the list goes on and on.



Where did I insist that pacifism was necessary on any mission?  Combat is essential and inevitable in any operation in a hostile zone. That's not the problem. It's what other initiatives are pushed along with the force.



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> As for why I won't vote for the NDP, they have nothing to offer my Canada, which is to say the vision I have for Canada.  They would turn this nation (as Bob Rae did to Ontario) into a huge bloated bureaucratic welfare state where every special interest is pandered to and paid for by those who work hard enough to be truly successful.  They would punish the industrious and reward the sloth, they would hobble the brilliant and exalt the mediocre.  They are socialists and collectivists.  Don't try to talk to me about shades of socialism, scratch the surface and you will find the same Ideals that led to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the rest.
> 
> "Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much."
> 
> frig the NDP.


Nobody cares who you want to vote for, that's your own thing. But where are you getting this idea that a left-leaning party in power would bring about the apocalypse.  Take a look at countries that do have some sort of social democracy.  Have they enslaved the brilliant and descended into a cesspool of mediocrity?
Communism has about as much to do with socialism as Fascism has to do with conservatism.
By the way, capitalism isn't predicated on the thinking of "All men should have so much." It is based on the pursuit of individual self interest. It is theorized that as a result of this, the collective good of society is unintentionally brought about. 
In theory it works fine, just like in theory Communism works fine.  
In reality both have serious problems.


----------



## Teflon (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic 

Just for my information, are you for real?

I mean honestly? I've pretty much read everything you have had to say about Afghanistan already in the online comments of the Globe and Mail posted by different names, same buzz words, same misconceptions and opinions - invasion, corrupt government etc etc What handle(s) do you use there?

I'm just wondering


----------



## Majstorovic (13 Feb 2008)

Teflon said:
			
		

> Majstorovic
> 
> Just for my information, are you for real?
> 
> ...



I can't speak for anything you've read in the Globe and Mail comments, since I don't know what is written there. But,believe it or not, it's not a conspiracy where I am the only one with opinions that run contrary to the official government line, and I go around spending all my free time and energy posting under various aliases, on various internet sites.  There actually are people who think the government doesn't know its butt from its elbow when it comes to certain  things. Yes, corrupt governments. How absurd and unthinkable. Honestly, who could believe that? Everyone is so honest and well-meaning.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic:
For starters, an Afghani is a unit of currency used in Afghanistan.
An Afghan is a person from Afghanistan.  Just thought I'd throw that out there, see where it lands.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Feb 2008)

Where or where to start?



			
				Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Did you sleep through the class of real life?  Things taught from a book don't always apply in practice. Oh, the Army tells me it is wrong to do X, well I guess X must never happen, since it is wrong for X to happen.



As I previously posted, do your research.  You are posting lunatic rants.  You have no concept of what it is like to serve, if that statement is your honest opinion.



			
				Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Afghanis ARE living in the same crap conditions prior to the invasion.  Sure, a few schools get built here and there, and there are token, albeit massively corrupt, elections that take place, but more or less the same.  Just that the awful leaders from before have been replaced with awful leaders that are more friendly to NATO.



You have to stop and get rid you your "Mcdonald's Generation Thoughts" and become a little more analitical of what you read.  How long did it take for us to bring a stable economy and peace to Europe after WW II?  And they had similar cultural and religious believes as we do.  When did Canada finally withdraw all its troops from Europe?  So you figure we can bring peace and joy to the Afghan people (NOT THEIR MONEY or AFGHANIS) who have a totally different culture and religion to ours, in a matter of a couple of years?  Do you seriously believe that we could build hundreds of Schools and other parts of infrastructure in those few years?  Do you have some sort of majicwand with which this can be done?



			
				Majstorovic said:
			
		

> I'm not sure who this Taliban Jack that you are referring to is,



TROLL!



			
				Majstorovic said:
			
		

> but what will make the mission fail is the way success has been defined.  It has been defined in a very non-orthodox way such that it guarantees ongoing battle operations. Unless you wipe everyone in the country out, resistance to foreign occupation will never be stamped out.  Afghani cultural evolution is still lagging behind and it can't be brought up to speed overnight.  Democracy didn't originate in Europe or the West as a result of a foreign imposition of political terms, it emerged after a slow but steady internal social development.  The same might eventually happen there, but it's not likely. Democracy isn't the default condition.  Most countries in the world are not democracies.  If you want to go convert each country into one, you would be fighting for the next trillion years.
> I'll give you examlples of what is being done that is counter-productive:
> The fact that people there see the hypocrisy of trumpeting democracy and looking at their lives and seeing the same tribal allegiances, corruption and oppression that still rules their life.



RUBISH!



			
				Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Building schools, hospitals, training a professional army and police is not counter-productive in theory, but in practice, what will that army and police do when Canada is gone?  Will they forsake their traditional loyalties and beliefs overnight? Hells no.



The idea is to give them the infrastructure and training to be self-sufficient and able to run their own nation.  Stability is what this is all about.


----------



## Teflon (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic

First off I know it's not "a conspiracy where *I am the only one * with opinions that run contrary to the official government line" since if you where the only one, it couldn't be a conspiracy. A conspiracy of one not being by definition possible. And yes I am well aware that there are many, many people who don't think the government "know its butt from its elbow when it comes to certain  things" and from my view the number of those people seem to be strangly close to the number of people who don't know their butt from elbow when it comes to many  things.

as to





> corrupt governments. How absurd and unthinkable. Honestly, who could believe that? Everyone is so honest and well-meaning.



YUP They are out there for sure as well as some good ones as well and about honest and well meaning people, is it so hard for you to accept that some of them are out there and here  involved in Afghanistan as well?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Feb 2008)

Hey lad,



			
				Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Nobody cares who you want to vote for, that's your own thing.



 since that is what this thread WAS about methinks you are even stupider than I originaly gave you credit for,....I won't make that mistake again.



Has been split into another topic now.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Yeah, so what if Sudan is a sovereign nation? Afghanistan was a sovereign nation, and I don't remember anyone caring what its opinion was regarding if it wanted to be invaded.  The UN doesn't need permission to operate in a country if that country violates human rights of its own citizens.



With respect to your comment, there is a big difference between the Sudan and Afghanistan in terms of international intervention.  Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and the subsequent multi-national political agreements and alliances came about as a result of the attacks of 11 September 2001.  Al-Queda had become intertwined with the ruling Taliban government of Afghanistan.  A similar _casus belli_ does not exist with Dharfur.

T2B

p.s. For the record regarding the thread title, how I vote or affiliate is a private matter and I make no comment on the various parties.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> I'm not saying force can't work in Afghanistan.  What I am saying is it can't work if it isn't accompanied by honest political effort to



And it isn't?  That is news to most of us.



			
				Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Yeah, so what if Sudan is a sovereign nation? Afghanistan was a sovereign nation, and I don't remember anyone caring what its opinion was regarding if it wanted to be invaded.  The UN doesn't need permission to operate in a country if that country violates human rights of its own citizens.



Ignorance is bliss.  You have "Selective Hearing" and "Blinders" if you haven't read all that in the MSN that you have used to quote and support your arguments.  This makes you a liar and a Troll.

You haven't used any unbiased analytical processes in coming to the conclusions you have.  You are blindly following sound bites of the extreme Left and Fifth Columnists.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Feb 2008)

Don't worry Bruce..........This Topic is now called "Afghan Facts and Fiction?"


----------



## BF1 (13 Feb 2008)

*Afghanis *ARE living in the same crap conditions prior to the invasion.  

First, Afghani is not a person, it is a currency. If you must make comments about Afghanistan at least try to have an understanding of the difference between an Afghan (a person of Afghan nationality) and an Afghani (a currency used in Afghanistan).
Second, not all Afghans  are living in the same "crap conditions" since we arrived.  During my tour in Kabul I saw young ladies wearing jeans, teenage boys cruising downtown with music blasting from their Toyota vans, and kids flying kites. Try doing that under Taliban rule.


----------



## GAP (13 Feb 2008)

. op:


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Feb 2008)

Well this is entertaining to say the least!! :rofl: op:


----------



## Reccesoldier (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> I'm not saying force can't work in Afghanistan.  What I am saying is it can't work if it isn't accompanied by honest political effort to



Stop drinking the coolaid and getting your news from Moveon.org.  What do you think Glyn Berry was doing in Afghanistan planning tea parties?



> Yeah, so what if Sudan is a sovereign nation? Afghanistan was a sovereign nation, and I don't remember anyone caring what its opinion was regarding if it wanted to be invaded.  The UN doesn't need permission to operate in a country if that country violates human rights of its own citizens.


  

As others have already pointed out the cause is missing.  And if you think dead people are enough to spur action in the UN take a gander at their stellar response to Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia et al.



> Where did I insist that pacifism was necessary on any mission?  Combat is essential and inevitable in any operation in a hostile zone. That's not the problem. It's what other initiatives are pushed along with the force.


  

So I'll ask again what is it about Darfur that makes the waste of Blood and treasure worth it and Afghanistan not?  UN involvement?  But Afghanistan is a UN sanctioned NATO mission.  Mandated by the security council and everything.  Come on use your brain...  What is the difference?



> Nobody cares who you want to vote for, that's your own thing.


  

That was the name of the topic sunshine.



> But where are you getting this idea that a left-leaning party in power would bring about the apocalypse.  Take a look at countries that do have some sort of social democracy.  Have they enslaved the brilliant and descended into a cesspool of mediocrity?


  

Sure, lets compare capitalistic countries and socialist ones.  Lets compare human rights, because lets face it all other things are secondary to a persons fundamental rights.  You take Cuba, I'll take Canada, or do you want Zimbabwe and I'll take Botswana.  How about China and the USA.



> Communism has about as much to do with socialism as Fascism has to do with conservatism.


  

Bullshit.  Communism has everything to do with socialism.  They are symbiotic philosophies.  



> By the way, capitalism isn't predicated on the thinking of "All men should have so much." It is based on the pursuit of individual self interest.


  

Picking fly shit out of pepper now?  Okay, how about "all men should be allowed to have so much"  Not that it matters, the quotation is very clear in its intent and only a pedantic troll would pick that particular nit.



> It is theorized that as a result of this, the collective good of society is unintentionally brought about.
> In theory it works fine, just like in theory Communism works fine.
> In reality both have serious problems.



Screw theory, you show me a successful socialist nation and I'll show you 10 capitalist ones.

Ooh, and while you're digging that hole care to tell me just exactly what is "_*fine*_" about Communism?


----------



## George Wallace (13 Feb 2008)

Loved the way that she overlooks the results of Bob Rae's tenure as Premier of Ontario.  Very selective hearing on her.


----------



## RangerRay (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Yeah, so what if Sudan is a sovereign nation? Afghanistan was a sovereign nation, and I don't remember anyone caring what its opinion was regarding if it wanted to be invaded.  The UN doesn't need permission to operate in a country if that country violates human rights of its own citizens.



Ummm...last I heard, our mission is mandated by the UN and NATO was INVITED by the sovereign government of Afghanistan.  We have NOT been invited to Sudan, if we were to invite ourselves, as you suggest, it would be a bloodbath the likes of which would make Iraq look like a picnic.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Loved the way that she overlooks the results of Bob Rae's tenure as Premier of Ontario.  Very selective hearing on her.



And the results of Mike Harcourt/Glen Clark here in British Columbia...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Feb 2008)

An older post by me that might prove helpful 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50522/post-462640.html#msg462640

And, on the so-called "Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline", I'll offer this from the US DoE:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgase.html



> In July 1997, Turkmenistan signed a memorandum of understanding with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan to build a Central Asia Gas pipeline to carry 0.7 Tcf of natural gas per year via Afghanistan to Pakistan (and possibly on to India). In October 1997, Unocal set up the Central Asian Gas Pipeline (Centgas) consortium to build the pipeline, which would run 900 miles from the Turkmen natural gas deposit at Dauletabad through Kandahar, Afghanistan, and terminate in the Pakistani city of Multan. The pipeline was estimated to cost $2 billion.
> 
> However, in June 1998, Russian natural gas giant Gazprom bowed out of the international consortium formed to build the pipeline, and in early August 1998, Unocal announced that Centgas had not secured the financing necessary to begin the work. On August 22, 1998, Unocal suspended construction plans for the pipeline due to the continuing civil war in Afghanistan and the U.S. missile attacks on suspected terrorist training camps. In April 1999, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan agreed to reactivate the Centgas project, and to ask the Centgas consortium, now led by Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil, to proceed, but continuing fighting in Afghanistan, as well as sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the United Nations on Afghanistan, kept the project on hold.
> 
> ...



The Asian Development Bank was to have completed a study on the feasibility of a pipeline (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm), but I can't find any record that they've done so (although they have done some minor work on gas development projects within Afghanistan:  

http://www.adb.org/Afghanistan/projects.asp

and

http://www.adb.org/Projects/summaries.asp?ctry=AFG&type=2&query=&browse=1

So, Unocal or the US itself has had nothing - zero - to do with any pipeline activity for over nine years.  The current proposal is for a Pakistani-Indian effort to fund the project, something that's hardly likely to happen...

It's a "pipe" dream...heh...


----------



## Greymatters (13 Feb 2008)

Reading Majstorovic's posts is like reading a post by some anti-war protestor - limited sense, unintended hilarious remarks, contradictory logic, defensive innocence...


----------



## Teflon (13 Feb 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Reading Majstorovic's posts is like reading a post by some anti-war protestor - limited sense, unintended hilarious remarks, contradictory logic, defensive innocence...



Yes each one is like a compilation of numerous comments for any Afghanistan/military related article in the Globe and Mail online site, same buzz words, same refs and same avoidence of confronting facts


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Communism has about as much to do with socialism as Fascism has to do with conservatism.



Both Communism and Fascism are subsets of the political philosophy of Socialism (and there are lots of threads right here in Canadian Politics about these very topics)

Politics with more dimensions  
"Flavours of Democracy"
Euston Manifesto
Why Socialism can never die
Jon Rawls and Theories of Distributive Justice
Deconstructing "Progressive " thought 
Putting the Socialism Back Into National Socialism
Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread 

Incidentally, there are almost as many threads about the Afghanistan mission in Canadian Politics as well. You could also read up on some issues on Ruxted.ca for another POV.


----------



## JaneBella (13 Feb 2008)

> Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and the subsequent multi-national political agreements and alliances came about as a result of the attacks of 11 September 2001.



Well in reality the current occupation of Afghanistan has nothing to do with 9/11.
The United States had been planning an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan 3 years prior to 9/11



> Ummm...last I heard, our mission is mandated by the UN and NATO was INVITED by the sovereign government of Afghanistan.



So what sovereign government invited the United States to invade and occupy Afghanistan?
I dont think it was the American supported Taliban government, who just months before 9/11 were given a 43 billion dollar gift from the American government for eradicating the poppy fields.
And seeing as how the current American puppet government of Afghanistan were not even in existence when the United States began the occupation, with Canada joining in soon after, it could not have been them who handed out the invitation.
So who exactly did the inviting?


----------



## JesseWZ (13 Feb 2008)

JaneBella said:
			
		

> Well in reality the current occupation of Afghanistan has nothing to do with 9/11.
> The United States had been planning an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan 3 years prior to 9/11


In most places when you make claims, you have to cite your sources. Conspiracytheory.org doesn't count as a source.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2008)

JaneBella said:
			
		

> Well in reality the current occupation of Afghanistan has nothing to do with 9/11.



Explain



> The United States had been planning an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan 3 years prior to 9/11



Source ?



> So what sovereign government invited the United States to invade and occupy Afghanistan?



The US ( and allies) went in there as a response to attack which is permitted under international law. The mission there now is done by NATO on behalf of the UN and at the invitation of the democraticaly ellected Afghan government.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (13 Feb 2008)

JaneBella said:
			
		

> Well in reality the current occupation of Afghanistan has nothing to do with 9/11.
> The United States had been planning an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan 3 years prior to 9/11


...sure they were. Cripes, take off that shiny foil hat you've got there.
Why don't you enlighten us. Share us your great wisdom on how you came to such a conclusion. *(post proof)*


> So what sovereign government invited the United States to invade and occupy Afghanistan?


 Al-Qaeda attacking, murdering 2 700 innocent people, and the Taliban aiding them led to the invasion. Once the invasion was 'finished' and the CF left Afghanistan, the new sovereign Afghan government invited the CF to partake in NATO's ISAF mission.



> And seeing as how the current American puppet government of Afghanistan were not even in existence when the United States began the occupation, with Canada joining in soon after, it could not have been them who handed out the invitation.
> So who exactly did the inviting?


Read above statement.

Midget


----------



## JaneBella (13 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The US ( and allies) went in there as a response to attack which is permitted under international law.



OH.I didnt realize Afghanistan attacked the United States.
I guess maybe the American government should not have been rewarding the Talibamn with a 43 billion dollar gift just months before 9/11
( what gratitude)
And earlier some other uninformed person said the occupation was at the request of the government
And.If anyone thinks the current Afghani government is anything but a United States controlled government, then you indeed need to seek help


----------



## JesseWZ (13 Feb 2008)

Methinks that you've stumbled onto some conspiracy theory website which itself probably doesn't have evidence for the claims it makes.
Then you come here to show all us dumb grunts what morons we really are (puppets of the Americans -because I haven't heard that one before)
Yet you STILL haven't provided any sources for any of the claims you've made although you seem to believe them with heart and soul.
That is called trolling.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2008)

JaneBella said:
			
		

> OH.I didnt realize Afghanistan attacked the United States.



An international terrorist group aided, and harboured by the Taliban government attack the United States.



> And earlier some other uninformed person said the occupation was at the request of the government



I'm very well informed thank you. It is not an occupation by any measure of the word. I believe it is you who need to get informed. I doubt you are anything but an anti-war activist who cannot bother to for an independent opinion.



> And.If anyone thinks the current Afghani government is anything but a United States controlled government, then you indeed need to seek help



It is you who requires help. You must have slept through the elections in Afghanistan where the current AFGHAN ( notice the term) government won its mandate.

Now...lets see your sources that the US was planning an invasion 3 years prior to 9/11.........


----------



## Mike Baker (13 Feb 2008)

JaneBella said:
			
		

> OH.I didnt realize Afghanistan attacked the United States.
> I guess maybe the American government should not have been rewarding the Talibamn with a 43 billion dollar gift just months before 9/11
> ( what gratitude)
> And earlier some other uninformed person said the occupation was at the request of the government
> And.If anyone thinks the current Afghani government is anything but a United States controlled government, then you indeed need to seek help


Wow, you don't know how much of that is wrong :


----------



## JaneBella (13 Feb 2008)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Methinks that you've stumbled onto some conspiracy theory website which itself probably doesn't have evidence for the claims it makes.



Yes, you caught me.I just made that up.
The American government never gave the Taliban 43 billion dollars months before 9/11
The American government never attacked Afghanistan back in 99 with cruise missles.
There were never plans abandoned for a pipeline.3 years prior to 9/11
Plans that could only be carried out, with the removal of the Taliban the American government were being told.
I just made that up


Yes sir


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2008)

JaneBella said:
			
		

> Yes, you caught me.I just made that up.
> The American government never gave the Taliban 43 billion dollars months before 9/11
> The American government never attacked Afghanistan back in 99 with cruise missles.
> There were never plans abandoned for a pipeline.3 years prior to 9/11
> ...



If your next post doesnt contain sources to back up your claims you will be banned......understand ?

Milnet.ca staff


----------



## Reccesoldier (13 Feb 2008)

JaneBella said:
			
		

> OH.I didnt realize Afghanistan attacked the United States.



So you are so dense as to not understand the principal of aiding and abetting?  Right...  _Note to self dumb down all arguments with this one._



> I guess maybe the American government should not have been rewarding the Talibamn with a 43 billion dollar gift just months before 9/11
> ( what gratitude)



In keeping with my first point...  Proof please.  Something reputable preferably.  No, that doesn't include Wikipedia or bushitlerliedpeopledied.com



> And earlier some other uninformed person said the occupation was at the request of the government


  

In conjunction with what was noted earlier, apparently you also can not recognize the passage of time.  _I'm wondering if someone taught a shittzu to type.  Certainly lower order animals have little/no concept of time either._



> And.If anyone thinks the current Afghani government is anything but a United States controlled government, then you indeed need to seek help



I was going to post something sarcastic but there is little use.  You are a troll, a mindless conspiracy theorist, and your posts aren't worth the bandwidth they are wasting on this site.  

just edited to make the post look better..

dileas

tess


----------



## JaneBella (13 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If your next post doesnt contain sources to back up your claims you will be banned......understand ?
> 
> Milnet.ca staff



I demand a link to a credible source saying the invasion of Afghanistan was not being planned prior to 9/11
And a link to prove the Taliban were behind the planning of 9/11 

And a link to why Saudi Arabia, who have one of the worst human right records on Earth, and from where almost all the 9/11 suicide attackers originated from, and who by coincidence are one of the United States best friends, are not being occupied, making life better for those citizens by Canadian soldiers



> Once the invasion was 'finished' and the CF left Afghanistan, the new sovereign Afghan government invited the CF to partake in NATO's ISAF mission.



Left and came back? By invitation?
You are kidding? Right?

Got a credible link to that wild claim?

You see what is so hilarious.
You demand links.
But yet you people are already saying certain links dont count.
I mean if the link were the Toronto Star or the CBC you would make some ridiculous comment about that.
What you are looking for is a link to Fox News or the Western Standard.
Now in your minds, those are credible links, no others are


----------



## Reccesoldier (13 Feb 2008)

op: This ain't going to take long.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2008)

JaneBella said:
			
		

> I demand a link to a credible source saying the invasion of Afghanistan was not being planned prior to 9/11
> And a link to prove the Taliban were behind the planning of 9/11
> 
> And a link to why Saudi Arabia, who have one of the worst human right records on Earth, and from where almost all the 9/11 suicide attackers originated from, and who by coincidence are one of the United States best friends, are not being occupied, making life better for those citizens by Canadian soldiers
> ...




bye bye troll......


----------



## armyvern (13 Feb 2008)

Holy fucking loopy wonders of the world ...  :


----------



## midget-boyd91 (13 Feb 2008)

JaneBella said:
			
		

> Left and came back? By invitation?
> You are kidding? Right?
> 
> Got a credible link to that wild claim?


Avec plaisir
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=490


> The CF units and formations committed to Op APOLLO are organized under the Commander, Canadian Joint Task Force South West Asia (CA JTFSWA). The headquarters of the CA JTFSWA is the Canadian National Command Element (NCE), employing approximately 40 CF members, co-located with U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) at MacDill Air Force Base near Tampa, Florida. The NCE links the Chief of the Defence Staff with U.S. CENTCOM and the various CF units assigned to Op APOLLO.
> 
> In mid-August 2003, following the re-alignment of Canadian activities in southwest Asia, the NCE was reduced to a liaison staff. This liaison team is part of a new mission known as Task Force Tampa (TFT) or Op FOUNDATION.



http://www.nato.int/isaf/topics/mandate/index.html


> In August 2003, upon request of the UN and Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, NATO took command of ISAF




http://www.mdn.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1593


> Task Force Kabul (TFK)  comprises all Canadian Forces (CF) units and formations committed to Op ATHENA.
> Background
> 
> ISAF is not a UN operation; on August 11, 2003, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) took over the mission. ISAF was authorized by the UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1386 on December 20, 2001, with a mandate to assist the Afghan Transitional Authority (ATA). The United Kingdom was the first country to serve as lead nation, from December 2001 to June 2002. UNSCR 1413 extended the ISAF mission and authorization to December 20, 2002. Germany and the Netherlands shared the lead under the original UN mandate (UNSCR 1386), which was extended on November 27, 2002 by UNSCR 1444 to run until December 20, 2003.



Midget


----------



## armyvern (13 Feb 2008)

Just google her username ladies & gents and you'll see exactly how loopy her ravings against YOU, the soldier actually are ...  :

No story here. Just more left-wing ultra-lunacy anti-soldier (and anti-LEO) rants.

Do enjoy your _googling_ ... I highly recommend it.


----------



## Charon (13 Feb 2008)

Heck, I get a chuckle out these people that can apparently read my mind!!

Hey Vern, get back to work, woman!!

( I mean that in a politically correct way)


----------



## Koenigsegg (13 Feb 2008)

Are there sources that can be used that would not be seen as very biased by the "opposition"?...
Government sites are all well and good, but of course, regardless of whether the information is right or wrong, they are very biased.

Just like you (and myself) shoot down CBC, The Sun papers, and Fox.  They would think the same about the sources you provide.  Understandably so.
Surely outside sources would be easy to find since most of the points raised by CDN Aviator, Boyd, and the like are well known, and correct.

So if you want _them_ to use reputable, unbiased sources, could we use fewer government sites?


----------



## midget-boyd91 (13 Feb 2008)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> Are there sources that can be used that would not be seen as very biased by the "opposition"?...
> Government sites are all well and good, but of course, regardless of whether the information is right or wrong, they are very biased.
> 
> Just like you (and myself) shoot down CBC, The Sun papers, and Fox.  They would think the same about the sources you provide.  Understandably so.
> ...



As for the sources JaneBella asked from me, yes, they are government, but no, I honestly do not see any bias in the text I quoted. They included facts like dates, by whom the missions were mandated, and the likes of that. Hard to put a bias spin on dates explaining the mission backgrounds. 
Those people will just disagree with anything that counters their cooky little rants, blaming it on "puppet-controlled governmental websites" et cetera. Facts mean nothing to them.



> Just more left-wing ultra-lunacy anti-soldier (and anti-LEO) rants.


I see you've discovered enMasse.ca and their thread on the RCMP? 

Midget


----------



## Koenigsegg (13 Feb 2008)

I agree with you on what you used as a source, and you are absolutely right.  I meant in general.

Haha, Yeah...I suppose I was giving them a little more credit than they deserve when it comes to bias, and facts...My bad.   

Thanks for the response, although I should have thought it through more.  If I had of, it would saved you some time.
I am humbled.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (13 Feb 2008)

JaneBella said:
			
		

> I demand a link to a credible source saying the invasion of Afghanistan was not being planned prior to 9/11
> And a link to prove the Taliban were behind the planning of 9/11
> 
> And a link to why Saudi Arabia, who have one of the worst human right records on Earth, and from where almost all the 9/11 suicide attackers originated from, and who by coincidence are one of the United States best friends, are not being occupied, making life better for those citizens by Canadian soldiers



Your first demand is like demanding proof that there is no Loch Ness Monster.  You have to prove your theory.  9/11 caught the US and the West pretty much flat-footed.  The 9/11 conspiracy theories are both monstrous and hilarious the same time. 

Al-Queda was behind 9/11, and the Taliban were intertwined with Al-Queda.  The Taliban had a chance, but they went with the conventional wisdom that they were safe in Central Asia.

While the 9/11 terrorists themselves were from Saudi Arabia and other locales, they were trained in Afghanistan by a terrorist organization openly linked with the Taliban government.  Al-Queda was based in Afghanistan with training and C2 infrastructure.

Right now, Canadian forces are working with Afghan and coalition allies to support the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan.  It is not a grand conspiracy to build some pipeline.

Anyhoo.


----------



## RangerRay (13 Feb 2008)

JaneBella said:
			
		

> I demand a link to a credible source saying the invasion of Afghanistan was not being planned prior to 9/11
> And a link to prove the Taliban were behind the planning of 9/11
> 
> And a link to why Saudi Arabia, who have one of the worst human right records on Earth, and from where almost all the 9/11 suicide attackers originated from, and who by coincidence are one of the United States best friends, are not being occupied, making life better for those citizens by Canadian soldiers



I know the troll is gone (aww, I wanted to play!), but I thought this needed pointing out...

He (or she) who makes (wild) claims must back up their claims with (credible) sources before demanding sources from others that counter their position.

N'est pas?

Edit to add:

Thanks T2B...stated better what I could.  Didn't see your post.

If I'm not mistaken, were the Taliban not composed of students (_talib_?) from Pakistan?  And are not most of their fighters foreigners?

For the chronologically and reality challenged:


Mujaheddin composed of disparate groups form to fight Soviet occupation;


After Soviets leave, Mujaheddin splinters, leaving a power vaccum for the foreign Taliban (which include some elements of the Mujaheddin) to fill;


Taliban invite Osama bin-Laden and Al-Quaeda to set up shop in A'stan;


OBL and AQ conduct attacks on American targets, US launches cruise missiles at AQ camps;


9/11  AQ claims responsibility and the Taliban refuse to hand over OBL;


Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is invoked by NATO;


With the assistance of US special forces and air power, the Northern Alliance overthrows the Taliban; NATO assists;


New internationally recognised gov't in A'stan set up; elections soon held;


Newly elected government requests aid from the international community to stabilise the country;


UN approves of ISAF; A'stan invites ISAF into their country to stabilise (including defeating the Taliban).


Please inform me if some details are incorrect.


----------



## DBA (13 Feb 2008)

A web comic that also matches my thoughts: xkcd - A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.


----------



## armyvern (13 Feb 2008)

> author=Koenigsegg link=topic=70803/post-674500#msg674500 date=1202955122
> 
> So if you want _them_ to use reputable, unbiased sources, could we use fewer government sites?



No offense, but it really doesn't matter what type of "official" sources we use when dealing with these types ...

Once upon a time they were the first to quote "United Nations" peace-loving links, statistics, & sources to justify their left leaning views --- these days they'd even refute the UN references we could provide regarding the legalities and timelines of operations within Afghanistan with a "the UN is a pawn of the US Government and George W" comment. That always seems to be the way with them ... just dismiss any credible and official source of information as "US controlled & operated" ... unless, of course, it happens to be agreeing with their POV.

Regardless, I'd wager that the UN is a whole lot more credible than the left/communist/socialist blog sites and source links they like to use as their "sources."


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> Regardless, I'd wager that the UN is a whole lot more credible than the left/communist/socialist blog sites and source links they like to use as their "sources."



Uhm Vern,

I call BS on that statement....I have links and proof...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy)#UN_takeover_of_the_USA.3B_internment_camps

dileas

tess


----------



## JesseWZ (13 Feb 2008)

I wont lose any sleep over these people. I rest comfortably with the fact that they are pretty much limited to their internet ramblings and masturbatorily agreeing with eachother without any real political support.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (13 Feb 2008)

Is it me or has troll season come real early this year  ???


----------



## Koenigsegg (13 Feb 2008)

> No offense



None taken.  You are correct.  You have a lot more knowledge and experience with this sort of thing than I do, and I see that my comment was made out of ignorance.  Good intentions in my eyes, but ignorance as to the other party.

And of course, "once upon a time" being, what?  6-7 years ago? haha
Ah...how things change.  IQ scores may be going up, but Intelligence seems to be going the other way.


----------



## armyvern (13 Feb 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Uhm Vern,
> 
> I call BS on that statement....I have links and proof...
> 
> ...



 :rofl:

Excellent & *very* credible source mongering there Tess!! I'd vote for you!!

Perhaps you should start a thread where we can all pose as ultra-liberal wingnuts --- hence any more visitors like this ... could quote you & I as a credible source !! Imagine that!!  >


----------



## JesseWZ (13 Feb 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Is it me or has troll season come real early this year  ???


Its really really cold out west. They probably don't have anything better to do then sit inside and keep warm and post inflammatory messages on army.ca.


----------



## armyvern (13 Feb 2008)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> None taken.  You are correct.  You have a lot more knowledge and experience with this sort of thing than I do, and I see that my comment was made out of ignorance.  Good intentions in my eyes, but ignorance as to the other party.
> 
> And of course, "once upon a time" being, what?  6-7 years ago? haha
> Ah...how things change.  IQ scores may be going up, but Intelligence seems to be going the other way.



My only ultra-left-wing experience & knowledge is that I've been around long enough to see them call something a "credible source" one day ... then write the very same source off the next as "incredulous" because it doesn't back whatever their claim is regarding one of their current _crises-du-jour_.

Seems to me that the UN is a perfectly fine source for them to quote when dealing with QOL issues for Canada's native populace, but all of a sudden is "a pawn of Uncle Sam" when someone else uses it as a source to point out fallacies with their "Afghanistan" arguments _to_ them.


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Feb 2008)

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/

dileas

tess


----------



## Greymatters (13 Feb 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Both Communism and Fascism are subsets of the political philosophy of Socialism (and there are lots of threads right here in Canadian Politics about these very topics)



That has always confused me - 'Fascism' politically belongs on the left hand of the spectrum, yet most generally accepted reference material produced by the academics (and many self-proclaimed SME's) places it on the far right with militant groups.  It supports the adage 'a lie will be accepted as the truth if it is repeated enough times".


----------



## Greymatters (13 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Now...lets see your sources that the US was planning an invasion 3 years prior to 9/11.........



That's funny, there actually are websites out there with 'evidence' of this.

The incredibly believable 'World Socilaist Web Site'...
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml

A keen individual named Paul Thompson who looks like he based all of his reporting on newspaper articles...
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/AAafghanwar.html 

The infamous WHAT REALLY HAPPENED web page that broke the story on ... nothing important.  Another tin-foil-hat type...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/preplanned.html

Of course some credible sites like BBC reported a US plan to invade Afghanistan before 9/11, but it was part of other ongoing political issues...  nothing like a conspiracy theorist to draw a straight line to connect unrelated issues... 

_Edit - I see JaneBella is gone now... nevermind..._


----------



## armyvern (13 Feb 2008)

Oh!! There's that world "socialist" mentioned again!! That means it's a truely "credible" (& primary) source for them to use!!


----------



## Greymatters (13 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> Oh!! There's that world "socialist" mentioned again!! That means it's a truely "credible" (& primary) source for them to use!!



With 'socialist' somehow translating as 'unimpeachable source of information'...


----------



## Harbinger (13 Feb 2008)

The USA initiated 85 yes-or-no votes in the UN general assembly in 2003;

- the arab league voted against the US position in 88.7% of the time,

-the ASEAN members voted against the US position 84.5% of the time,

- the islamic conference members voted against the US position 84.1% of the time,

- the African members voted against the US position 83.8% of the time,

-the non-aligned movement members voted against the US position 82.% of the time,

-European Union members voted against the US position 54.5% of the time.

Sounds like the the USA is really running the show at the good old United Nations. Shove that in a lefties face when he makes the claim that the UN is the US's lap-dog and watch the hate-filled ad hominem attacks fly!


----------



## armyvern (13 Feb 2008)

Harbinger said:
			
		

> The USA initiated 85 yes-or-no votes in the UN general assembly in 2003;
> 
> - the arab league voted against the US position in 88.7% of the time,
> 
> ...



But, the kicker is -- that if you quoted those statistics from the UN (you should cite sources for stats such as this BTW), they'd (the left) would write them off as being unreliable because they come from "the UN --- a pawn of the U.S." Quite simply ironic isn't it? Those stats must be LIES!!!


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> That has always confused me - 'Fascism' politically belongs on the left hand of the spectrum, yet most generally accepted reference material produced by the academics (and many self-proclaimed SME's) places it on the far right with militant groups.  It supports the adage 'a lie will be accepted as the truth if it is repeated enough times".



Too true. the source of the "Fascism/National Socialism is right wing" trope is the Soviet Union, which spread the theme as part of the "Popular Front" strategy of 1934-39 to build an alliance against Italy and Germany. Rather remarkably, the USSR and Comintern _suddenly_ saw Fascism and National Socialism in an entirely new light with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Minds were changed again in 1941 (with a Tokarev 9mm, if necessary).


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Feb 2008)

The troll in the castle has been defeated, and we've all said the same stuff a gazillion times.  Is this thread going to keep up one side of a debate for much longer?  If so, I'll grab a new torch, cuz this ones burning down to my hand, and I'd like to trade up for a lighter pitchfork.


----------



## Greymatters (14 Feb 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Too true. the source of the "Fascism/National Socialism is right wing" trope is the Soviet Union, which spread the theme as part of the "Popular Front" strategy of 1934-39 to build an alliance against Italy and Germany. Rather remarkably, the USSR and Comintern _suddenly_ saw Fascism and National Socialism in an entirely new light with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Minds were changed again in 1941 (with a Tokarev 9mm, if necessary).



I recall that bit of propoganda, but dont see how the fiction was maintained up to present. 
Can you keep going up to present, or is there a source on this I can read to save you typing?


----------



## 2 Cdo (14 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> Just google her username ladies & gents and you'll see exactly how loopy her ravings against YOU, the soldier actually are ...  :
> 
> No story here. Just more left-wing ultra-lunacy anti-soldier (and anti-LEO) rants.
> 
> Do enjoy your _googling_ ... I highly recommend it.



Took your advice Vern, very entertaining indeed. A plethora of socialist left wing sites filled with the usual suspects (rabble was conspicuously missing though) ??? In fact one sight I tried to find her comedy act notified me that I was banned, when in fact until today I  had never even heard of the site let alone visited it! ;D


----------



## Greymatters (14 Feb 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Took your advice Vern, very entertaining indeed. A plethora of socialist left wing sites filled with the usual suspects (rabble was conspicuously missing though) ??? In fact one sight I tried to find her comedy act notified me that I was banned, when in fact until today I  had never even heard of the site let alone visited it! ;D



Hmmm...  somebody got the list of current Milnet members and banned them all?


----------



## 2 Cdo (14 Feb 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Hmmm...  somebody got the list of current Milnet members and banned them all?



Kinda what I was thinking? Oh well, nothing of importance on those sites anyways. :boring:


----------



## Teeps74 (14 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Who said I was a fan of anyone?  I don't have to be a fan of someone in order to think their argument is sound.
> And why isn't he credible "around these parts"? Because he disagrees with you?



No, because he is speaking without working knowledge of the subject... I am sure he is very "book smart" however, that does not ever replace real time experience or ground truth.

The article you link is best used as toilet paper.


----------



## Teeps74 (14 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> I have done my best to address points as they come up.  It is my points that have gone unanswered as replies spin off into accusations and irrelevant directions.
> 
> I've been right here for the past 6 years.  And from where I am, any questioning of the mission (read war) in the media is interpreted as an attack on the troops, and as support for the Taliban.
> The problem with that is this:  People who are against the war are not against the troops. Bringing troops home is somehow an act of treason whereas sending them out to fight, kill, risk their own lives is an act of patriotism. They know that the troops are doing their best and that the problem doesn't lie with them.
> The war, as it is being conducted right now, is counter-productive and will eventually fail.  If the aim really is as it is claimed, then war lords would not be given crucial posts in the government, the Taliban would be obsolete due to lack of any popular support at all, Pakistan would be forced to stop arming and aiding Taliban fighters, Kandahar and the rest of the country would have running water and electricity, the general populace wouldn't be living in exactly the same crappy conditions prior to the "liberation", etc., etc.



This all sounds entirely too familiar... Does this board have the ability to check IP addresses?


----------



## Greymatters (14 Feb 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Kinda what I was thinking? Oh well, nothing of importance on those sites anyways. :boring:



It makes a kind of sense... they keep coming here and getting banned, why not return the favor?  Sort of a pre-emptive strike...

As to boring.. nah!  Its more like watching rattlesnake preachers... they're spouting fire and brimstone and putting on a great show, but you just know one of them going to get their ass bit sooner or later...


----------



## Yrys (14 Feb 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> This all sounds entirely too familiar... Does this board have the ability to check IP addresses?



Yep they have. And with the popularity that Majstorovic had, I'm sure a mod did it...


----------



## Teeps74 (14 Feb 2008)

Majstorovic said:
			
		

> Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what any of us here think because we don't get paid/trained to criticize and analyze foreign policy.  We behave like good little boys and girls and do what we are told. That is the basis upon which the chain of command works. Without it there would be no military.
> We could get told to go attack our own mothers tomorrow and we would have to comply.
> It's the winners who write history, correct?   If WWII had turned out differently, Canada would be the evil ones and its soldiers would be put on trial as the culprits. Might makes right.
> I'm not being sarcastic.  Can we not agree on that much?



No, we can not agree on your deliberate useage of misinformation here... You claim to be an engineer on your profile with 2 years. I say claim, because EVERY recruit in BMQ learns that not only must we report unlawful commands up the chain of command, but we MUST refuse to obey them. An unlawful command is any command that breaks our own laws, and the example you post above clearly falls under that category, just as the Mei Lei Massaquer did. Your lack of the basic concepts of military justice and ethics is clear, which opoints to a lack of even a basic understanding of the military ethos.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Feb 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> ... You claim to be an engineer on your profile with 2 years. I say claim, because EVERY recruit in BMQ learns that not only must we report unlawful commands up the chain of command, but we MUST refuse to obey them. An unlawful command is any command that breaks our own laws, and the example you post above clearly falls under that category, .............. Your lack of the basic concepts of military justice and ethics is clear, which opoints to a lack of even a basic understanding of the military ethos.




Very good point.  I guess this would make Majstorovic a Poser or another Francisco Juarez.


----------

