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

[deserter]

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

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

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

 

[McG]

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

Canadian soldiers are committing ethnic cleansing in southern Afghanistan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider this your warning.

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

 

[deserter]

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

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

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

 

[Danjanou]

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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

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

Just so much more El Toro Poo Poo

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

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

And now, I put you on ignore.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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

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

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

 

[McG]

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

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

 

[deserter]

The United Nations?

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

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

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

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

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

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



 

 

[McG]

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

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

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

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

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

Which tens of thousands?

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

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

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

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

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

How is this imperialism?

Hamid Karzai is a corrupt invididual whose government we are supporting

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

 

[Koenigsegg]

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

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

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

 

[career_radio-checker]

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

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

 

[tlg]

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

Now that I've written my introduction.

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

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

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

It's ALL ABOUT THE FLOW.

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

 

[Infanteer]

:rofl:

 

[patrick666]

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

Well, who has more credibility?

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

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

Ah, crap - ride's here...  :crybaby:

Otherwise, interesting discussion and perspective.

 

[George Wallace]

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

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

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

Our organizations have just completed a round of consultations with NATO in Brussels and Washington on the expansion of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The following are the key points we conveyed to NATO:


1.  Our organizations welcome UN Security Council resolution 1510 authorizing ISAF expansion beyond Kabul, as well as recent NATO expressions of its willingness to take on this important additional responsibility.


2.  We believe that an expansion of international peacekeeping beyond Kabul is an essential element of support by the international community to Afghan authorities over the next year in the run-up to the constitutional loya jirga and national elections. Improving security outside Kabul is also vital to reconstruction efforts, which have been hampered by an increase in attacks on aid agencies – from one per month to one every two days – over the past year.


3.  Now that NATO has agreed to lead ISAF expansion, we urge it to move quickly from planning to implementation. While careful planning is important, timely action is also essential to respond to the numerous threats – including extremist elements, powerful warlords and a resurgent drug trade – to continued progress in Afghanistan. It is also imperative that ISAF’s presence outside Kabul be meaningful in scale. The deployment of a handful of additional Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) would simply not be adequate to fulfill its mandate.


4.  While we welcome the willingness of the German government to send an ISAF team to Kunduz, we urge that NATO give priority in subsequent deployments to the most insecure locations in Afghanistan. We also call on all NATO member governments, and other governments interested in the future of Afghanistan, to commit the additional troops, equipment and funds required to support ISAF’s expanded mandate. Without significant additional resources, the recent UN and NATO decisions to expand ISAF will be little more than hollow gestures.


5.  We also urge NATO to focus the activities of all ISAF forces in Afghanistan, including additional teams deployed outside Kabul, on security-related tasks, leaving reconstruction to the Afghan government and civilian aid agencies. In particular, we urge that ISAF focus on: training professional Afghan police and military forces; and assisting in the implementation of a comprehensive program of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration into civilian life of those militia forces that do not qualify for the new police and army. Given ISAF’s mandate as an “assistance” force, building the capacity of the Afghan government to provide for the security of its people should be the central focus of its activities.

In conclusion, our organizations welcome NATO’s decision to take on the challenge of ISAF expansion in Afghanistan. We now urge it to implement this decision quickly, and to do so in a manner that will improve the security of the Afghan people and aid agencies involved in reconstruction, while also creating conditions for the successful completion of the Bonn process. To do less would be to risk the collapse of international efforts to help the Afghan people create a more peaceful, prosperous and democratic Afghanistan.


Brussels, 31 October 2003

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

 

[GAP]

31 October 2003

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

 

[vonGarvin]

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

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

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

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

 

[ArmyRick]

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

 

[McG]

Just a general reminder on tone & content here.

 

[dglad]

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

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

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

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