Asian Sexy Babe

Commitment in Afghanistan

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
onthebottom said:
I think with a few word replacements you could map this to the isolationist's reasons for trying to keep the US out of WWI and WW II

OTB
.. the US 's reasons for entering WW1 are very muddy, WW2 was in the East for Economic dominance of Asia, particularly China. Which Japan was shutting the US out of.
In Europe it was becuase the Nazis presented a very real danger to the US.
If you think that controlling Afghanistan is a key to controlling the Oil in the Middle East.
Then I guess on some level I can agree with you, as to any similarity to WW2.
If you are arguing we are there to stem a tide of Islamo Fascism or
the US is in the Middle East and Afghanistan to spread Democracy.
I would say you believe in fairy tales, in this case a fairy tale that may ruin the US.
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
38
Earth
assoholic said:
.. the US 's reasons for entering WW1 are very muddy, WW2 was in the East for Economic dominance of Asia, particularly China. Which Japan was shutting the US out of.
So Pearl Harbour had nothing to to with it? Interesting:rolleyes: .
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..The US/Japan fight had been brewing for years, Pearl Harbour was just the start of a War both sides knew was going to come.
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
11,261
3,918
113
assoholic. If you think that controlling Afghanistan is a key to controlling the Oil in the Middle East. Then I guess on some level I can agree with you said:
So 9/11 had nothing to do with going into Afghanistan. What going into Afghanistan really all comes down to, is controlling the oil in the ME.
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
11,261
3,918
113
smyth said:
The US media never mention the state terrorism exercised by the USA on other countries. Since 1945, the United States has intervened abroad 67 times, causing twelve million deaths, about half by overt action (Pentagon) and covert action (CIA). These are practically unknown to most Americans, and rarely mentioned, with the notable exceptions of Chalmers Johnson's book "Blowback" and Bill Blum's "Rogue State: a Guide to the World's Only Superpower."
Only the enlightened elite are aware of American state terrorism. Good point smyth.
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
Anbarandy said:
So 9/11 had nothing to do with going into Afghanistan. What going into Afghanistan really all comes down to, is controlling the oil in the ME.
..I was responding to OTB's analogy of Afghanistan to WW2, which in my opinion is pretty weak.
I was not talking about the reasons for going into Afghanistan.
Which considering OBL was caught and let go at Tora Bora, is not as clear cut as most want to believe.
 

CapitalGuy

New member
Mar 28, 2004
5,765
2
0
Canada should quit Afghanistan immediately so I never have to lose another 6 months of my life in that toilet of a landmass.
 

scroll99

New member
Jan 17, 2004
1,257
0
0
Harper's war: Nothing to do with peacekeeping

Brian Mulroney was fond of saying “Give me twenty years and you won't recognize this country.” But he was a piker compared to Stephen Harper who is changing the ethics and political culture of this country faster than Mulroney ever dreamed.

The most obvious case in point is the vote on May 17 that extended Canada's participation in the occupation of Afghanistan until the spring of 2009. The next step in this appalling transformation of Canada into a lap dog of U.S. imperialism will not be far behind. We will agree to NATO's “request” that we take over command of the whole sordid enterprise. It is almost certain to come out at some point that Mr. Harper pushed NATO to make the request.

None of this, of course, should come as any surprise from a man who is infatuated with everything American and contemptuous of his own country and what it has stood for, for decades. Harper has always detested Canada's peacekeeping role, schooled as he was by the Yankee lovers at the Calgary School of political science and its intellectual guru, Tom Flanagan.

How could this happen in a country that is deeply suspicious of American military adventures and committed to the principles of multilateralism?

A good deal of the answer lies in the decay and political corruption of the so-called “natural governing party,” the Liberals. The danger Canada faces at the hands of Stephen Harper is not dissimilar to that experienced by the U.S., despite the enormous differences in political culture. I am reminded here of Ronald Reagan and one of the reasons he was so popular. Most people forget — if they ever knew — that in polling on actual issues, a majority of Americans disagreed with almost everything Reagan did.

So why was he so popular? Because people looked at Reagan, then looked at the Democrats, and concluded one simple thing: Reagan, at least, was a man who believed in what he was doing. Voters were so tired of the opportunism and lack of political principle on the part of the Democrats that they supported a president simply on the basis that at least he believed in something.

The danger in Canada is that many have come to the same conclusion about the Liberals. They have always been a party of opportunists, with an uncanny instinct for where the middle is. Under Paul Martin they were truly a party without principle, vision or ethical core. People remember.

But Stephen Harper is no Ronald Reagan. He is mean, condescending and viscerally arrogant, and his nature will ultimately betray him. Until it does, however, he can do enormous damage. In a Parliament with a separatist party, the Liberals trying to divine what the opportunistic thing to do is on any given issue, and the NDP sticking to its bizarre line that Canadians want it to “make Parliament work,” Harper has been given lots of room to maneuver.

While the vote to extend the occupation is history, its consequences are not irreversible and that is just what Canadians committed to peace and the international rule of law should be working towards. Canadians are divided on this issue in part because they rightly care about the fate of soldiers' lives, but also because the facts are elusive and the peace movement is weak.

Yet the facts are overwhelmingly on the side of Canadian values and against the Afghanistan adventure. Just as the debate in the Commons began, the Polaris Institute revealed just how much this commitment has distorted Canada's role in the world. The decision to support the U.S. in Afghanistan (which the Liberals admit was done to appease the U.S. over our decision to stay out of Iraq) has already cost $4.1 billion since Sept. 11, 2001.

Afghan and related operations account for 68 per cent of the $6 billion spent on international missions during that time frame. Equally disturbing: according to Polaris, during that same period Canada devoted a mere $214 million, about three per cent of international mission spending, on United Nations missions.

Our “peacekeeping” is a joke: We now have just 59 military personnel devoted to UN missions. Canada, which virtually invented peacekeeping, once ranked among the top 10 contributors to UN missions in terms of military personnel. We are now 50th.

Equally important, however, is the actual nature of this farcical “humanitarian” effort. So few investigative journalists know the facts or will tell them, it is not surprising people are bamboozled by the warmongers. But one who does have the jam to tell the story is columnist Eric Margolis. He is worth quoting:

“Afghanistan's complexity and lethal tribal politics have been marketed to the public by government and media as a selfless crusade to defeat the 'terrorist' Taliban, implant democracy, and liberate Afghan women. Afghanistan is part of the 'world-wide struggle against terrorism,' we are told.

“None of this is true. In 1989, at the end of the Soviet occupation, Afghanistan fell into anarchy and civil war. An epidemic of banditry and rape ensued. A village prayer leader, Mullah Omar, who lost an eye in the anti-Soviet jihad, armed a group of 'talibs' (religious students), and set about defending women from rape. Aided by Pakistan, Taliban stopped the epidemic of rape and drug dealing that had engulfed Afghanistan, and imposed order based on harsh tribal and Sharia religious law.”

The Taliban stopped the production of opium and heroin — except in the area controlled by the Northern Alliance: the thugs, drug pushers and rapists who are now Canada's “allies.” The Taliban were hardly humanitarian and imposed an extremely harsh Sharia regime on the country. But with them gone, the epidemic of rape has returned and our “allies” are responsible for 80 to 90 per cent of the world's heroin.

It is important also to revisit the original relationship between the U.S. and the Taliban and the U.S. invasion. The U.S. poured millions into Taliban coffers until, says Margolis, about four months before 9/11. It was only cut off when the regime refused to sign a contract with U.S. oil giant Unocal to build a pipeline south from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan.

It is also surely relevant that the Taliban knew nothing of the plan to attack the U.S. (The plot was hatched in Germany.) Much was made of the fact that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. But Bin Laden was a national hero wounded six times in the anti-Soviet struggle — which the U.S. financed. When the Taliban offered to turn him over to an international tribunal upon seeing evidence of his guilt in 9/11, the U.S. refused. And then invaded. This was by any international legal standard a totally illegal war, which could only have been justified if Afghanistan threatened the U.S. It is also an illegal occupation.

This is the “mission” that Stephen Harper, Yankee sycophant and budding warmonger, has “extended.” The mission is not intended to ever end because its purpose was and is to ensure the U.S. permanent access to Mideast oil and Afghani land for pipelines. But end it will — just as every other colonial occupation of Afghanistan has ended — when the occupiers tire of bleeding. Too bad dozens of Canadian soldiers, who should be peacemakers, will have to die to teach us an old lesson

http://www.rabble.ca/politics.shtml?x=50149
 

CapitalGuy

New member
Mar 28, 2004
5,765
2
0
I quite proudly served my country (in several far off lands), and will undoubtedly do so again. I have the right to be tired of it all. The CF is so small that the same people go overseas again and again and again. Our fair government (no matter which party leads it) is happy to commit military resources but has done little to expand or support those resources. And internal CF political correctness contributes to assuring that its slender, fit, capable soldiers who continually deploy, while the chubbier, lazier, less competent ones get to stay home and enjoy Canada (on full salary of course). But that's another conversation altogether. Point is, three more years in Afghanistan might earn the government a little bit of credibility down south, but it means the SAME soldiers can look forward to another 6-12 months in the sand, during those 3 years. I wouldn't be so bitter if there were still 120 000 pers in the CF and the burden was shared a little more equitably.
 

The Mugger

Guest
Sep 27, 2005
592
0
0
enduser1 said:
Hello,

Canada is not equipped to step into the breach and get Bin Laden and win the war on terror. So we are just wasting our time. Our soldiers are NOT hunting Bin Laden or even AL Queda. They are basically sitting in the dust and running supplies to villages and protecting convoys.

Oh and that bastard Bin Laden is not my "Hero"

Enduser:D
Well I'm very glad to hear that Bin Laden the assh@#@ is not your hero. As much as I think Harper's idea of linking himself in a patriotic manner to this action is politically foolishness, I am more than satisfied that Canadian soldiers are sufficiently equipped to take on this role.
 

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0
Things are just peachy in Afghanistan. Thanks for finding OBL dead or alive, George.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5026350.stm

The unrest began after a US military vehicle apparently lost control and smashed into at least 12 civilian cars during morning rush-hour in Kabul's northern suburbs. Hundreds of Afghans gathered after the accident, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Karzai". They pelted the US military vehicles with stones before scattering when the shooting began. The protesters then headed for the city centre, towards the presidential palace and parliament, setting fire to police cars and police checkpoints. Bursts of heavy gunfire could also be heard close to the US embassy, whose staff were moved to a secure location.
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
11,261
3,918
113
enduser1 said:
Hello,

You see there I disagree with you. I had no problem with going after AL Queda and frankly the decision of the Taliban to play games after September 11, 2001 was stupid on their part. If the Taliban were intelligent they would have made a deal with the USA.

The deal would be: we give you Al Queda and that scum Bin Laden and you give us the Northern Alliance. The Taliban were stupid. Plain and simply put, the Taliban fell because they were idiots. They deserved everything they got.

The problem is that the USA and Canada have lost sight of the military objective. If the USA was not in Iraq Mullah Omar and Bin Laden would be captured or dead. Bush has tried to do too much and blown it. Bush doesn't seem to get it: every day Bin Laden lives he is winning.

Canada is not equipped to step into the breach and get Bin Laden and win the war on terror. So we are just wasting our time. Our soldiers are NOT hunting Bin Laden or even AL Queda. They are basically sitting in the dust and running supplies to villages and protecting convoys.

Oh and that bastard Bin Laden is not my "Hero"

Enduser:D
Somehow I doubt that the US would have let the Taliban remain in Afghanistan if they handed over Bin laden, Mullah Omar and the rest of the wrecking crew. To let the Taliban crew remain in power in Afghanistan in some sort of 'deal with the US' would never have been a consideration.

Bin Laden and whatever is left of his crew are in Pakistan. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist killers are using Pakistan as a safe haven and sanctuary from where they plan, support and ultimately cross over into Afghanistan to carry out terrorist murders. No amount of troops and military resources can be used by the US to root the scum out of Pakistan because of the delicate situation of Pakistan leadership vis-a-vis radical Islamists in the Pakistan. This whole 'Iraq diversion of resources from the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan' argument does not hold water.

Bin Laden is irrelevant to the functioning of whatever exists of Al Qaeda today. Morally it would be a great victory if he were caught dead or alive. Practically though it makes no difference. If or whenever Pakistan decides to 'get real' with the terrorists and their supporters in Pakistan, then and only then will Bin Laden and whatever remains of his crew will be caught dead or alive.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts