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

[Zell_Dietrich]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dglad]

Wow, a lot of anger on this board.

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

...and so on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[McG]

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

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

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

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

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

Lies.  Stop lying!

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

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

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

Nobody is trying to convert them.  More irrelevant lies.

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

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

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

We are not using WP as a weapon.

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

More unsubstantiated lies.

There are literally thousands of newspaper accounts like this one. 

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

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

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

Canada is culpable for this alongside our allies.

Culpable for what?

 

[RHFC_piper]

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

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

Example.

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

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

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

And even Wikipedia can't decide on a total number

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

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

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

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

 

[Aries]

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

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

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

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

 

[Trinity]

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

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

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

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

That's awesome.....

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

 

[deserter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RHFC_piper]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[deserter]

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

'Git them opium-growers!

On second thought, nawww...

 

[RHFC_piper]

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

'Git them opium-growers!

On second thought, nawww...

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

You are a very complex individual.

 

[McG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your warning has just been bumped higher.

 

[Trinity]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

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

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

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

 

[FastEddy]

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

'Git them opium-growers!

On second thought, nawww...

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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


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

 

[paracowboy]

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

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

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

>They are not dissimilar.

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

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

 

[TN2IC]

who the hell is NATO anyway,

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

Enjoy Little One,
TN2IC

 

[probum non poenitet]

First you said:

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

But then you said:

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

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

And third time the charm:

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

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

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

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

:argument:

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

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

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

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