quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]You can not be serious? The CBC has not reported anything accurate in years, I have seen them in many places around the world, and they have horrible reporters.[/b]
Thank God for the Canadian Armed Forces and its truthful accurate reporting of world affairs. Please convey my personal gratitude to your colleagues.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Of course you're shocked. You weren't old enough when the people of Viet Nam sent the U.S. scurrying like rats out of their country. And it was a Republican in power, not the NDP, not even the Democrats.[/b]
The doctor and madman bombed hell out of VietNam and Cambodia. Millions died and many more were left homeless and several family members light. If you think the Vietnamese won that war, guess again. Not one thin American dime went to reparations in VietNam for the massive loss of life and destruction, all for the sake of a handful of warfiteering sonsobitches. No, it was not a party for the people who had to endure it, unionist. They could have used the help of good people all over the world. Like western world leaders stood by and watched Franco destroy democracy in Spain, and watch Stalingrad unfold over two years, and ignored the carnage in Afghanistan from 1992 to 1995 - Afghans need people in NATO countries to do the right thing and vote for troop withdrawal and get the hell out of Central Asia altogether. Now.
quote:
[b]You think the U.S. and Canada are powerful enough to carry on this war for years? That is the same delusion that afflicted the Soviet Union. Not only did the Soviets suffer a humiliating military defeat at the hands of plain ordinary Afghan folks, but arguably this cowardly invasion was the last nail in the coffin for that dying society.[/b]
There were more than just "ordinary Afghans" in that country and Pakistan during the 1980's. We've been over this before, and you it looks like you understand about as much now as you did before about the proxy war.
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]So are Can-Am troop numbers in Afghanistan relatively small. They don't intend on "stirring up the hornets' nest" again like the 1980's. Millions of proxy fighters are waiting to pour in over the borders from surrounding countries if a larger occupation and conflicts were to begin. I really believe that Canadians would come home to their families in plastic bags in greater numbers at that point. If the Soviets found it somewhat easy to arm NVA in VietNam, imagine how easy it would be for SCO countries to arm the Taliban in their own backyard. Yanks are just playing around right now. They don't know what to do next other than maintain grinding poverty and the overall war on democracy/poor people.[/b]
Fidel
The Red Army made hundreds of serious mistakes when they were invited into Afghanistan in 1978.
Anything from poor equipment, tactics and training, the type of soldiers involved, medical staff and supplies, the list is endless.
I believe the NVA and the VC were armed pretty good from their communist allies. All those AK-47s did not just appear out of nowhere.
Hanoi had an impressive SAM and defence system provided by the Soviets.
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Afghans need people in NATO countries to do the right thing and vote for troop withdrawal and get the hell out of Central Asia altogether. Now.[/b]
Correct. At last you got it. Now write to your party please (as I've been doing since 2005, when Layton forgot what McDonough had said) and just ask them please to proclaim what you just said in that sentence. Please do it. Then not only will they be on the side of the angels... they will get a whole huge truckload of votes, as Mulcair did in my riding.
Please, just do it.
Unionist
There is no organization called the Canadian Armed forces, the Liberal government removed the word “Armed” in about 1996.
Did you not see the memo?
They though it seemed too aggressive and army like.
My mistake, Webgear. I thought they removed the word "Canadian".
quote:
Even though they don't see their soldiers as warriors, the study suggests a vast majority of Canadians -- 71 per cent -- regard the military as a source of pride."
DND poll.
quote:
Canadians "are resistant to change to the Canadian Forces, a brand with historic roots that they clearly admire and respect," said the analysis portion of the survey.
How does it feel to be a brand, Webgear? Like Nike. Or Kotex.
The unsettling part of the article and survey is that the results (Canadians don't want the military fighting imperial wars) are seen as a failure; a perception management issue that can be changed by clever marketing.
quote:
"Political leaders were not generally believed to be an accurate source of information about Afghanistan, with some attributing ulterior motives to the government's reporting of events."
Hmm. The public isn't quite as stupid as Conservatives, Liberals and the DND hoped they'd be.
quote:
Creating 10,000 seasonal jobs through the ongoing project to rehabilitate Kandahar's crumbling Dahla dam, and its irrigation and canal systems.
Build, expand or repair 50 schools in Kandahar. So far, only one is complete.
Train 3,000 teachers in Kandahar. So far, none has gone through Canada's training program.
Eradicate polio in Afghanistan through vaccine. In 2007, 27.7 million vaccines were administered, but 17 cases of polio were reported nationally.
Well if the dysfunction and disorganized CIDA start doing what they are suppose to do, more would have been completed by now.
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]Fidel
The Red Army made hundreds of serious mistakes when they were invited into Afghanistan in 1978.
Anything from poor equipment, tactics and training, the type of soldiers involved, medical staff and supplies, the list is endless.[/b]
The Soviets had dated "equipment" yes. The CIA armed mujahideen with stinger missiles and bullets costing U.S. taxpayers $5 bucks apiece. Cold warriors would have loved for that one to have gone on and on.
There are few stinger missiles in Taliban hands now. And there are few U.S. helicopter gunships or troop carriers or cargo planes buzzing around in broad daylight in this war. Canada is going with drone aircraft for reconaissance, and I don't believe this is because they are simply better at making war than the Soviets were - they simply aren't taking any chances. 15, 000 U.S. troops more in 2009. Meanwhile, as I was saying before, millions of proxy fighters in Iran and surrounding stani nations would pour in over the borders if their religious minorities in Afghanistan were to come under direct threat from either NATO or Taliban or a combination of the two sides with an escalated war. The U.S. want to keep this thing low level and stretch it out over a long time ... for reasons other than establishing full control or even "democracy building" or the all-time knee-slapper, "nation building" in Afghanistan.
quote:
[b]I believe the NVA and the VC were armed pretty good from their communist allies. All those AK-47s did not just appear out of nowhere.Hanoi had an impressive SAM and defence system provided by the Soviets.[/b]
The NVA had a will to win. Kalashnikovs were dropped in muddy river water and retrieved three weeks later by "the unseen enemy", women and kids and the NVA. Women and children learned how to build booby traps in the jungle, and leave instructions for other NVA with something as simple as a broken twig or jungle fern bent the right way. Jerry West knows all about it. U.S. troops' will to fight was at an all time low toward the end. Lowest tech army didn't beat the highest tech army in the world, as Jerry West said they outlasted the Americans and their will to fight an immoral war against poor people. A ten thousand day war was no match for a culture several thousand years old, it's true. But the massive loss of life and destruction caused great hardship to VietNamese for decades after and to this day.
[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Jingles
It is disappointing to be branded like consumer product, personally I feel dissatisfied.
quote:
personally I feel dissatisfied
That's okay. The give out a medal for that now.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Correct. At last you got it. Now write to your party please (as I've been doing since 2005, when Layton forgot what McDonough had said) and just ask them please to proclaim what you just said in that sentence. Please do it. Then not only will they be on the side of the angels... they will get a whole huge truckload of votes, as Mulcair did in my riding.
Please, just do it.[/b]
Troop withdrawal from the U.S.-led counterinsurgency is NDP policy and right there in Dawn Black's report, once in the introduction and again in the conclusion. Patsies to an immoral, U.S.-led military occupation in
Afghanistan is the wrong mission for Canada.
The NDP should be reiterating its policy for troop withdrawal soon, even though it's in printed document form, and even though Dewar and Black have both been highly critical of the mission from just about every angle thus far.
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]The Soviets had dated "equipment" yes. The CIA armed mujahideen with stinger missiles and bullets costing U.S. taxpayers $5 bucks apiece. Cold warriors would have loved for that one to have gone on and on.
There are few stinger missiles in Taliban hands now. And there are few U.S. helicopter gunships or troop carriers or cargo planes buzzing around in broad daylight in this war. Canada is going with drone aircraft for reconaissance, and I don't believe this is because they are simply better at making war than the Soviets were - they simply aren't taking any chances. 15, 000 U.S. troops more in 2009. Meanwhile, as I was saying before, millions of proxy fighters in Iran and surrounding stani nations would pour in over the borders if their religious minorities in Afghanistan were to come under direct threat from either NATO or Taliban or a combination of the two sides with an escalated war. The U.S. want to keep this thing low level and stretch it out over a long time ... for reasons other than establishing full control or even "democracy building" or the all-time knee-slapper, "nation building" in Afghanistan.
[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ][/b]
The Soviets equipment in was not outdated, the Soviet high command did use their resources correctly.
The old Soviet army was based off of manpower not quality of soldiers. The only effective Soviet units in Afghanistan were their professional soldiers in special units like the Paratroopers and Special Forces.
There are plenty of helicopters and aircraft flying in the daylight.
Drone aircraft are being used by most nations, the Soviets used them in Georgia just last month.
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
[b]That's okay. The give out a medal for that now.[/b]
Why did you leave the military?
I do not qualify for the medal plus I do not care for medals.
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]The Soviets equipment in was not outdated, the Soviet high command did use their resources correctly.[/b]
What I've read about Panjshir Valley tactics, the Soviets had a habit of calling off the attack and retreating whenever their tanks had the Tajik mujahideen leader and his mountain warriors trapped. Massoud switched sides after the CIA cut off his funding in 1992 for declaring war on the Taliban. I wouldn't say the Soviets fought a perfect war against the Afghans and international mercenaries brought in from as far away as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and even Brooklyn New York. Men and women PDPA volunteers probably fought the most courageous battles against mujahideen who were armed to the eye teeth by the Americans and company. After the Soviets final withdrawals in 1989, the PDPA held out for over two years and even trounced the better armed mujahideen at Jalalabad.
This is not the same war. NATO and U.S. military aren't facing an insurgency comprised of international mercenaries in addition to Afghan warlords and mujahideen as it was in the 1980's.
"The Soviets" are not supplying the enemy similarly. And the U.S. isn't the only country to make heat-seeking shoulder rockets, and they understand that we can be sure. The Yanks worst fear in Iraq was that the Iranians would supply SAM's or Stinger equivalents to Iraqi and foreign insurgents in Iraq. I think Ahmadinejad wants to see the Americans bleed slowly. Theyve since denied any efforts to supply those kinds of weapons. RPGs are not as accurate but just as deadly for low flying pilots apparently
[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
The Soviets failed miserably in their war in Afghanistan.
Massoud is seen as a hero in northern Afghanistan, he is picture is painted all over Kabul, there is also a very large monument to him also.
The Russians left plenty of weapons and resources for the PDPA when they departed in 1989.
NH-5 and other MANPADs have been used in Afghanistan for the last several years.
There are plenty of international mercenaries fight for the Taliban.
Can you explain to me your thoughts on the origin of the Taliban? Perhaps in another thread?
quote:
Originally posted by webgear:
[b]The Russians left plenty of weapons and resources for the PDPA when they departed in 1989. [/b]
And the CIA was funelling billions of dollars worth of aid and weapons to Massoud and dozens of other mujahideen and their proxy warriors. It must have been like Stalingrad for the men and women volunteers of the PDPA, except that there would be no red army to sideswipe marauding invaders at the kessel.
The CIA spent more on that war than any other dirty war in cold war history. You're not going to convince me that NATO and U.S. military are fighting the same war.
And they're still there and squabbling with a bunch of barely equipped Taliban volunteer brigades. Next time you have the chance, tell those guys to either get their shit together and rout those peasants once and for all or find an enemy that doesnt fight its weight in wildcats.
[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
It is not the same war, that is my point, the Taliban is not the popular movement compared to the Mujahedeen of the Soviet/Afghan war.
I do not believe the Taliban are formed in to brigade size units.
The insurgents are determined however they are not the fighters their fathers and grandfathers were.
And they're not as well armed or as well paid as the mujahideen were in the 1980's.
A lot of the Arab and Turk, Pak, Tajik and some Afghan mujahideen leaders and their proxy warriors were transported to the Balkans in the 1990's in order to destablize Bosnia leading up to NATO bombing of a sovereign nation. Iranian Revolutionary Guard was there too and aided by SAS and CIA. NATO operates something like the mafia did at one time only they are quite a bit more ruthless. Well paid and well-armed Islamic Gladios served a purpose in the 1980's, and I believe the CIA never really did sever ties completely as they claimed to have done after 1992.
[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Where do you come up with this stuff? Honestly can you provide some links, footnotes?
You are bouncing all over the place with your statements.
Please help me out here, discussing this topic is frustrating with you because of your constantly using the same phrases and blanket statements over and over. You are not providing details to you points.
Five posts up, I believed you were attempting to liken this war to the 1980's proxy war.
[url=http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Ahmed/ahmed-con5.html]Khaled Ahmed[/url] described it as General Zia's covert war, a deniable war fought through mercenaries who used Pakistan as a staging country for marauding into Afghanistan. The Taliban apparently don't enjoy those same freedoms as Zia's militia society did in the 1980's. The Taliban aren't being funded and armed by the CIA, Brits and Saudi princes as the mujahideen were in the 1980's. And the Taliban apparently don't enjoy the multi-billion dollar CIA funding and weapons shipments that the mujahideen did when the Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan was underway in the 1980's. Twice for added emphasis.
In fact, there exists a UN security council resolution banning weapons sales to the Taliban today, The Russians said that resolution has no real teeth, but it at least exists in order to make the Yanks appear committed to the phony war on terror. Does any of this appear odd to you? Do you only trust certain U.S. and Canadian government-approved information sources? If so, then I'm afraid the man with the wonky leg and pink boxing glove won't be back until Tuesday next, if you know what I mean. "Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?"
[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
No, I was attempting to link the current war in Afghanistan to the Soviet Afghan war.
I believe most organizations and historians agree that the Taliban did not become an organization until 1994 as the earliest. Why do keep stating they existed in 1980s?
I gather my information from many sources, which have a wide range of political affiliations.
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]No, I was not attempting to link the current war in Afghanistan to the Soviet Afghan war.I believe most organizations and historians agree that the Taliban did not become an organization until 1994 as the earliest. Why do keep stating they existed in 1980s?
I gather my information from many sources, which have a wide range of political affiliations.[/b]
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]
I believe most organizations and historians agree that the Taliban did not become an organization until 1994 as the earliest. Why do keep stating they existed in 1980s?[/b]
As you know from your varied and diverse information sources, [url=http://www.rawa.org/glossary.html]Taliban[/url] means religious students - an Afghan fundamentalist force supported by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the US. (USA=planning agency; Saudi Arabia=funding agency; Pakistan=implementing agency) The many madrassahs set up taught a seventh century low school version of Islam to a burgeoning population of orphans of the 1980's war and through the 1990's when NATO turned its collective back on ensuing Darwinian battles that took place in Afghanistan up to 1995-96 causing millions of Afghans to flee the country.
Many Pakistanis are said to blame Afghans for the Talibanization of Pakistan, but it was actually their own country from where Talibanization of the two countries originated, as Lahore-London news journalist Khaled Ahmed explained to UC-Berkeley Institute of International Studies.
[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]No, I was attempting to link the current war in Afghanistan to the Soviet Afghan war.I believe most organizations and historians agree that the Taliban did not become an organization until 1994 as the earliest. Why do keep stating they existed in 1980s?
I gather my information from many sources, which have a wide range of political affiliations.[/b]
NATO supply cut by Pakistan:
quote:
BARA: In a major development, the federal government on Friday announced disconnection of supply lines to the allied forces stationed in Afghanistan through Pakistan in an apparent reaction to a ground attack on a border village in South Waziristan agency by the Nato forces.
[url=http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17051]here[/url]
Whoa! Long thread.
