Afghanistan, Still Losing the War, Part 10
Tue, 2008-09-23 10:50
#1
Afghanistan, Still Losing the War, Part 10
Tue, 2008-09-23 10:50
#2
Continued from [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=004240]h...
Wed, 2008-09-24 06:06
#3
[b]Robert Fisk on Afghanistan[/b]
quote:
What Makes Obama and McCain Think They Can "Win" Afghanistan?
By Robert Fisk, [url=http://www.alternet.org/story/99801/]The Independent[/url], UK, September 22Poor old Algerians. They are being served the same old pap from their cruel government. In 1997, the Pouvoir announced a "final victory" over their vicious Islamist enemies. On at least three occasions, I reported -- not, of course, without appropriate cynicism -- that the Algerian authorities believed their enemies were finally beaten because the "terrorists" were so desperate that they were beheading every man, woman and child in the villages they captured in the mountains around Algiers and Oran.
And now they're at it again. After a ferocious resurgence of car bombing by their newly merged "al-Qa'ida in the Maghreb" antagonists, the decrepit old FLN government in Algiers has announced the "terminal phase" in its battle against armed Islamists. As the Algerian journalist Hocine Belaffoufi said with consummate wit the other day, "According to this political discourse … the increase in attacks represents undeniable proof of the defeat of terrorism. The more terrorism collapsed, the more the attacks increased … so the stronger (terrorism) becomes, the fewer attacks there will be."
We, of course, have been peddling this crackpot nonsense for years in southwest Asia. First of all, back in 2001, we won the war in Afghanistan by overthrowing the Taliban. Then we marched off to win the war in Iraq. Now -- with at least one suicide bombing a day and the nation carved up into mutually antagonistic sectarian enclaves -- we have won the war in Iraq and are heading back to re-win the war in Afghanistan where the Taliban, so thoroughly trounced by our chaps seven years ago, have proved their moral and political bankruptcy by recapturing half the country.
It seems an age since Donald "Stuff Happens" Rumsfeld declared, "A government has been put in place (in Afghanistan), and the Islamists are no more the law in Kabul. Of course, from time to time a hand grenade, a mortar explodes -- but in New York and in San Francisco, victims also fall. As for me, I'm full of hope." Oddly, back in the Eighties, I heard exactly the same from a Soviet general at the Bagram airbase in Afghanistan -- yes, the very same Bagram airbase where the CIA lads tortured to death a few of the Afghans who escaped the earlier Russian massacres. Only "terrorist remnants" remained in the Afghan mountains, the jolly Russian general assured us. Afghan troops, along with the limited Soviet "intervention" forces, were restoring peace to democratic Afghanistan.(...)
[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Thu, 2008-09-25 09:42
#4
remind
quote:
Pakistan military fires warning shots at NATO helicopters
NATO disputes Pakistani president's claim that helicopters crossed border
Last Updated: Thursday, September 25, 2008 | 1:00 PM ET Comments93Recommend72CBC News
The Pakistan military fired "flares" at NATO helicopters on Thursday after they crossed into the country from Afghanistan, says Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.NATO reported on Thursday morning that Pakistani troops fired small arms at two International Security Assistance Force helicopters that were patrolling along the eastern Afghanistan border.
The Pakistani military said in a statement that the helicopters were "well within" Pakistani territory and returned fire before flying back into Afghanistan.
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/09/25/helicopter-pakistan.html]http:/...
Sat, 2008-09-27 09:08
#5
quote:
Washington Post September 25, 2008As crime increases in Kabul, so does nostalgia for Taliban
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign ServiceKabul -- Mirza Kunduzai, 58, a slight man with a short white goatee, had
almost reached his house after a day of trading in the capital's open-air
currency market when his taxi was forced to stop by six heavily armed men
dressed in Afghan National Army uniforms....[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR200809... to full article[/url]
Sun, 2008-09-28 11:51
#6
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b][url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/09/25/helicopter-pakistan.html]http:/...
You've gotta love the CBC. Warning shots? They were signal flares. Warnings? Yes. Shots? No.
Sun, 2008-09-28 13:09
#7
[url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080928/afghanistan..., Afghanistan -- The Taliban had threatened her with death before, and on Sunday they finally made good.
Lt.-Col. Malalai Kakar, Kandahar's first female police detective and the highest-ranking policewoman in southern Afghanistan, was shot and killed by gunmen as she was on her way to another day of trying to bring law and order to this war-torn city.
[/url]
Sun, 2008-09-28 14:49
#8
quote:
Originally posted by Harumph:
[b]You've gotta love the CBC. Warning shots? They were signal flares. Warnings? Yes. Shots? No.[/b]
So you apparently agree with the Pakistan claim that they only fired "flares" --and disbelieve NATO's widely reported statement that they were "fired upon".
What does that have to do with the CBC?
Sun, 2008-09-28 15:17
#9
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]Lt.-Col. Malalai Kakar, Kandahar's first female police detective and the highest-ranking policewoman in southern Afghanistan, was shot and killed by gunmen as she was on her way to another day of trying to bring law and order to this war-torn city.
[/b]
Them's the breaks.
Mon, 2008-09-29 11:27
#10
remind
quote:
KABUL — The United Nations says 20,000 Pakistani refugees have fled to Afghanistan to avoid fighting between militants and Pakistan's military.Pakistan's military launched an offensive in Bajur, the most northerly of Pakistan's wild tribal regions, several of which have fallen largely under the control of militants opposed to the Afghan and Pakistani governments.
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080929.wrefugees092... of thousands of civilians have fled into other parts of Pakistan as a result of the 2-month-old offensive.[/url]
Mon, 2008-09-29 12:14
#11
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9985]Blackwater-li... firm to train Canadian troops[/url]
quote:
By Allan Woods | OTTAWA–Canadian soldiers could get training from a U.S. company closely linked to Blackwater USA, a private security firm implicated in the killings of hundreds of Iraqi civilians, if the Department of National Defence has its way.The military gave notice this week of its intention to award an $850,000 contract for advanced counterinsurgency training to the Terrorism Research Center, a Virginia-based firm that specializes in terrorism training for military and law enforcement officials. The contract is for one year with the option for a two-year extension.
The counterinsurgency school, which boasts close links to the U.S. government, is listed as a branch of Total Intelligence Solutions, a company that is run by former director of CIA counterterrorism Cofer Black and Erik Prince, a former U.S. Navy Seal.
Both are top executives with the Prince Group, the chief holding company for Total Intelligence Solutions and Blackwater.
“It will shock many Canadians to think of our soldiers, who are amongst the best trained in the world, to be sent down to the U.S. to work with a private war-making company that has been indicted in some of its operations in Iraq in the past,” said NDP defence critic Dawn Black. “It raises a terrible spectre.”
It's good to know that Canadian boys will be learnin' the latest tricks from professional terrorists the likes of Backwater. First class asshole-deluxes for sure.
Mon, 2008-09-29 12:24
#12
The Canadian military IS a low-rent Blackwater.
Doing America's bidding but for free, complements of the Canadian taxpayer.
Mon, 2008-09-29 15:28
#13
It was a very interesting course; I took it several years ago. There was no tactics or theory of war content.
The course is very cultural intense, much of the course was dealing with problems of today as seen by Muslims.
Afghanistan was about 85% of the Canadian course content. It was also taught by Afghans from various parts of the country.
I also had the chance to meet Karzai’s cousin.
At this time there is no equivalent in the Canada.
In my view Canada is paying to much for the course.
Mon, 2008-09-29 15:43
#14
Why can't RMC organize a course like that?
They should have connections with universities all over the world. For that matter, if it is locals you want, why not have the Forces in Afghanistan hire them? Bring them back to Kingston for some teaching in a safe and calm environment.
Mon, 2008-09-29 15:50
#15
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]I also had the chance to meet Karzai’s cousin.[/b]
And what an honour it must have been. Did you meet any Backwater people while there?
Mon, 2008-09-29 16:43
#16
No, I did not meet any Blackwater People.
Mon, 2008-09-29 20:54
#17
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]Why can't RMC organize a course like that?They should have connections with universities all over the world. For that matter, if it is locals you want, why not have the Forces in Afghanistan hire them? Bring them back to Kingston for some teaching in a safe and calm environment.[/b]
Because as soon as RMC touches it, it'll turn to crap. That, budget, and design. The PMC crowd is generally ex-special forces. Having regular army design and run the course (especially non-combat trades, which Kingston is packed with) would likely result in an inferior product.
Besides, if we're ditching Afghanistan in 2011, there's no point in investing in the planning, infrastructure, etc. that we won't use in 2-3 years.
PMC-run courses are not a rarity. The BW scandal forced the cancellation of quite a few training plans, but the approach isn't flawed because one company is now a pariah. The fact of the matter remains that you're not going to find better training with no strings attached (IE infrastructure).
Edit:
quote:
Originally posted by contrarianna:
[b]So you apparently agree with the Pakistan claim that they only fired "flares" --and disbelieve NATO's widely reported statement that they were "fired upon".
What does that have to do with the CBC?[/b]
"...Pakistani military fired at NATO helicopters after they crossed into the country from Afghanistan."
Launching flares is hardly "shooting at" - the President didn't acknowledge "shooting at" the helicopters, he acknowledged his army as having launched flares.
As to whether they were actually flares, who knows? Seems they're defaulting to believing NATO though.
[ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: Harumph ]
Tue, 2008-09-30 09:49
#18
[ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: contrarianna ]
Wed, 2008-10-01 16:18
#19
quote:
British Envoy Says Mission in Afghanistan is Doomed, According to Leaked MemoWednesday 01 October 2008
by: Charles Bremner and Richard Beeston, The Times UK
[url=http://www.truthout.org/100108R]Link to article[/url]
Wed, 2008-10-01 17:59
#20
Shhh nothing to see here.
Fri, 2008-10-03 13:14
#21
quote:
Forty years ago, the United States began to mount raids into Cambodia and to undermine the government of King Sihanouk in order to cut Vietcong supply lines.As a result, America's war with Vietnamese Communism spread into Cambodia, leading to the triumph of the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide. But these horrors occurred after the U.S. itself had quit Vietnam and after the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam had collapsed. Washington's widening of the war benefited neither America nor its local allies.
The U.S. is now making the same mistake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If continued, ground incursions by U.S. troops across the border into Pakistan in search of the Taliban and Al Qaeda risk drastically undermining the Pakistani state, society and army....
[url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/01/opinion/edlieven.php]Link to article[/url]
Fri, 2008-10-03 19:57
#22
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:
British Envoy Says Mission in Afghanistan is Doomed, According to Leaked Memo
quote:
[b]The allied governments should start preparing public opinion to accept that the only realistic solution for Afghanistan was to be ruled by "an acceptable dictator".[/b]
Sat, 2008-10-04 01:27
#23
It'll be a repeat of 1979 Iran.
Sat, 2008-10-04 04:34
#24
Cueball
Not much similar at all.
Sat, 2008-10-04 15:59
#25
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Not much similar at all.[/b]
Name the vicious empire which propped up either brutal rightwing dictatorships or narco-kleptocracies in those two countries bordering one another while the people lived in grinding poverty and despair? Karzai is not supported by the people, and neither was the Shah.
Sat, 2008-10-04 18:38
#26
[url=http://news.antiwar.com/2008/10/03/taliban-rejects-karzai-call-for-talks... reject Karzai call for talks[/url]
quote:
Afghan President Hamid Karzai gave an interview on Pakistani television in which he implored Taliban leader Mullah Omar to return to the country and compete in the next presidential election. Karzai promised to be “wholly solely responsible for his safety.”But top Taliban official Mullah Brother phoned Reuters rejecting the offer “by the Afghan’s puppet and slave President Hamid Karzai.” He insisted that Karzai “only says and does what he is told by America,” and that he was in no position to negotiate. Indeed, the US State Department is still offering a $10 million reward for information leading to the capture of Mullah Omar, so it is unclear how President Karzai planned to guarantee his safety if he were to return to a nation still crawling with US troops.
But perhaps even more interesting is that Mullah Brother was the one who made the satellite phone call. The Mullah is indeed a high ranking official and a close associate of Mullah Omar, but Afghan General Ghulam Muhiddin Ghori claimed that Mullah Brother was killed in Helmand Province over a year ago.
Sat, 2008-10-04 18:52
#27
The end is nearer and nearer and nearer:
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/04/afghan-war.html?ref=rss]Victory impossible in Afghanistan: senior British commander[/url]
quote:
Western forces in Afghanistan will never be able to win the war against insurgents and may need to include the Taliban in any long-term solution, [b]Britain's senior commander in the country[/b] says in a report.An absolute military victory in Afghanistan is impossible, Brig.-Gen. Mark Carleton-Smith told England's Sunday Times newspaper.
Sun, 2008-10-05 10:09
#28
ceti
Interesting -- it's one thing to say we are losing which is open to all types of responses including most certainly escalation. It's another to say that the task is altogether impossible and even misguided as any further escalation or sustained occupation would certaintly be counterproductive.
This is a key point to hammer home.
Tue, 2008-10-07 11:46
#29
M. Spector
[url=http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp10072008.html][b]HAPPY ANNIVERSARY![/b][/url]
quote:
October 7, 2008. Seven years ago today the U.S. began the assault on Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban regime and produced the present mess. Abetted by U.S. bombing and commando operations, the Northern Alliance took Kabul on November 13, 2001. This was the initial U.S. response to 9-11, an assault on the U.S. by Saudi Islamist fanatics based in Afghanistan. The al-Qaeda attacks killed 3000 people. By March 2002 the U.S. bombing had produced that many Afghan civilian fatalities. This was just the beginning.The invasion produced little change in the daily life of the average Afghan. Fanatical Sunni leaders who’d had a genuine social base and had been able to control 95 per cent of the country with minimal outside help were driven back to their villages. They were replaced by other fanatical Sunni leaders---those who had toppled the “leftist” government in 1993, then been overthrown themselves by the Taliban in 1996. These Northern Alliance forces had been nurtured in the duration by India, Russia and Iran as their idea of the better bet among competing Islamist fundamentalists.
But in the seven years since, this collection of tribal-based warlords has been unable to stabilize Afghanistan - even though they’re propped up by tens of thousands of foreign troops who’re told that they’re there to fight terrorism and help create “democracy.” Indeed, its hold on power becomes more tenuous every year, while a resurgent Taliban with no foreign government’s support exacts an ever heavier price from the foreigners and their local allies.
According to the United Nations, 1,445 civilians were killed in the war from January through August this year - a rise of 39 per cent over 2007. At least 577 of these deaths were due to the actions of pro-government forces. Deaths from air strikes have tripled since 2006. “Mistakes by the US and Nato have dramatically decreased public support for the Afghan government and the presence of international forces providing security to Afghans,” declares Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. Francesc Vendrell, a Spanish diplomat with eight years’ experience in Afghanistan, recently noted that civilian deaths at the hands of foreign forces have created “a great deal of antipathy” and the situation in the country is the worst it’s been since 2001. Members of the Afghan Parliament have staged a one-day walkout to protest the civilian casualties.
Puppet president Hamid Karzai has also protested the strikes and their “collateral damage” in the last two years in fairly strong language. But hand-picked for his post by U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad in the Loya Jirga of June 2002, he is commonly known as the mere “mayor of Kabul.” Why should the U.S. pay any attention to his protests? His authority hardly extends beyond the city limits, and even Kabul has become insecure. Elsewhere warlords hold sway in virtually independent ethnic baronies, issuing their own laws and printing their own currency, filling their coffers with the proceeds of opium and human trafficking - activities the Taliban had effectively banned.
Opium poppy production had been effectively wiped out by 2001. Today Afghanistan supplies about 90 per cent of the world’s illegal opium. And then there are the sad continuities. The burqa, vilified before the attack as the symbol of Taliban misogyny, remains the normative female costume and leading political figures insist upon its use. Women are still imprisoned for refusing arranged marriages.
Tue, 2008-10-07 12:04
#30
M. Spector
[url=http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/07]3,200 civilians have been killed in NATO and US action in Afghanistan since 2005.[/url]
quote:
Canadian per person condolence payments to Afghans since 2006 range from 1,100-9,000 dollars...This compares to $1.85 million paid for victims of the 1988 bombing of a flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, and 150,000 dollars per victim of a 1999 US bombing on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade that killed three Chinese and wounded 23 other people.
[ 07 October 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Tue, 2008-10-07 15:40
#31
writer
[url=http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5IG10FEcpyZeGZOP4vVd2Ryzk... mission price tag to be revealed Thursday[/url]
Wed, 2008-10-08 15:42
#32
[url=http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12267] The Department of Defense announced today the activation of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A), a functioning command and control headquarters for U.S. forces operating in Afghanistan.
USFOR-A will be commanded by Gen. David D. McKiernan, who also will continue to serve as the NATO/International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) commander.[/url]
This is so wrong.
Wed, 2008-10-08 18:42
#33
For whom do you work, exactly?
Wed, 2008-10-08 19:28
#34
[url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20971.htm]Time To Face The Facts On Afghanistan[/url]
quote:
By sharp contrast, I recently asked Karl Rove, President Bush’s former senior advisor, how the US could ever hope to win the war in Afghanistan. His eyes dancing with imperial hubris, Rove brightly replied, `More Predators(missile armed drones) and helicopters! Then we’ll go into Pakistan.’
Wed, 2008-10-08 22:43
#35
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
[b][url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20971.htm]Time To Face The Facts On Afghanistan[/url][/b]
Rove's opinion is exactly the WRONG approach to Afghanistan.
Our problem isn't attriting the Taliban, it's denying them access to the population. That requires forces (ideally Afghan) living with the population - IE protected villages/ strategic hamlets. Once security is established, you recruit and involve the local populace in their own defense, thereby giving them a vested interest in the government forces. You hire villagers to help in their own development programs - IE public works, etc. thereby increasing the standard of living while increasing the personal stake that the public has in protecting their assets and continuing the relationship with government forces.
Concurrently, you use more combat-oriented forces (IE Canadian/American/British conventional forces) to engage in offensive operations against the insurgency.
The main effort is the general population, destroying insurgents is a secondary means to the same end.
The problem is manpower - counter-insurgency (COIN) is very manpower intensive. We don't have that kind of manpower, that's why the OMLT and ANA/ANP are so important. They're also the best equipped, culturally, to engage in long-term interaction with the Afghan public. Hopefully the American and British troop increases will free up more ANA/ANP forces to concentrate on local security, forming village militias, etc.
Thu, 2008-10-09 09:03
#36
quote:
Originally posted by Harumph:
[b]
Our problem isn't attriting the Taliban, it's denying them access to the population. That requires forces (ideally Afghan) living with the population - IE protected villages/ strategic hamlets.[/b]
That that probably won't work either if it involves foreign troops, and without foreign troops the Afghans get to go back to their business of having a civil war unimpeded.
What is really need in Afghanistan is a change in culture. The social and religious views of the Taliban and their supporters need to be discredited and rejected. The best way that non-Afghan countries can help in this is with soft power at arms' length.
Of course this denies a considerable profit to foreign defense industries, along with whatever other benefits the foreign powers may be pursuing.
Just for info, in today's NYT:
quote:
October 9, 2008
U.S. Study Is Said to Warn of Crisis in Afghanistan
By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITTWASHINGTON — A draft report by American intelligence agencies concludes that Afghanistan is in a “downward spiral” and casts serious doubt on the ability of the Afghan government to stem the rise in the Taliban’s influence there, according to American officials familiar with the document.
The classified report finds that the breakdown in central authority in Afghanistan has been accelerated by rampant corruption within the government of President Hamid Karzai and by an increase in violence by militants who have launched increasingly sophisticated attacks from havens in Pakistan.
The report, a nearly completed version of a National Intelligence Estimate, is set to be finished after the November elections and will be the most comprehensive American assessment in years on the situation in Afghanistan. Its conclusions represent a harsh verdict on decision-making in the Bush administration, which in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks made Afghanistan the central focus of a global campaign against terrorism.
Beyond the cross-border attacks launched by militants in neighboring Pakistan, the intelligence report asserts that many of Afghanistan’s most vexing problems are of the country’s own making, the officials said....
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/world/asia/09afghan.html]Link to full article[/url]
[ 09 October 2008: Message edited by: Jerry West ]
Thu, 2008-10-09 13:57
#37
quote:
Our problem isn't attriting the Taliban, it's denying them access to the population.
quote:
What is really need in Afghanistan is a change in culture.
What we need is to get the fuck out and leave them alone. Our problem is our holier-than-thou colonialist attitudes that make us believe that we know best.
Thu, 2008-10-09 14:11
#38
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
[b]What we need is to get the fuck out and leave them alone. Our problem is our holier-than-thou colonialist attitudes that make us believe that we know best.[/b]
You oppose attitudes that support the equality of women, equating them to colonialism?
It is not a question of whether these kinds of attitudes should be eradicated from global society, but only of how. No society or culture should have an unfettered right to abuse people or the environment.
Having said, I would agree that advancing human rights has nothing to do with the current occupation of Afghanistan, other than as a propaganda tool.
Thu, 2008-10-09 14:47
#39
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:
[b]The social and religious views of the Taliban and their supporters need to be discredited and rejected. The best way that non-Afghan countries can help in this is with soft power at arms' length.[/b]
So this would mean what - dropping anti-Muslim tracts and birth control pamphlets from B-52's?
What about the social and religious views of the Afghan government? or the "Northern Alliance"? or the NATO countries? Do we declare these all to be superior to the social and religious views of the Taliban and therefore to be adopted by all Afghans?
Thu, 2008-10-09 15:45
#40
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]So this would mean what - dropping anti-Muslim tracts and birth control pamphlets from B-52's?[/b]
Is it about Islam? Or is it about opposing the denial of human rights? Or, are you equating Islam with cultural aspects that are anti-human rights?
As for what this means, look into soft power, there are lots of peaceful ways to influence people without oppressing or attacking them.
quote:
What about the social and religious views of the Afghan government? or the "Northern Alliance"? or the NATO countries? Do we declare these all to be superior to the social and religious views of the Taliban and therefore to be adopted by all Afghans?
We are not talking about superior social or religious views, we are talking about basic human rights. Granted that the definition of what is a basic human right can be debatable.
Are you supporting the right to subjugate women and enforce strict religious beliefs on a society? Sounds like it.
Personally I think that freedom of religion includes the freedom to be free from religion, and the obligation of governments to be strictly secular. And, I think that everyone who believes that has a right to have that belief and its practice respected, no matter where they live.
I also believe that people of all sexes, ethnic background, and sexual orientation (within limits, pedophilia and non-consensual sex being outside of limits) have equal rights without regard to those criteria. Are you arguing against this?
I do not believe that cultures have equal rights. There are elements in most if not all cultures that transgress what I hold to be a human right, and I believe that we should oppose those elements.
We are not in Afghanistan for those reasons, for one, and for two invading Afghanistan and occupying the country hinders rather than advances those goals.
Do you see supporting the culture of the Taliban as necessary in opposing the western invasion and occupation of Afghanistan? I don't.
Thu, 2008-10-09 15:50
#41
That's exactly what I was going to say, Jerry, but you beat me to it. By quite a bit. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-10-09 15:55
#42
N.Beltov
This all sounds like what Jean Bricmont calls "humanitarian imperialism".
Thu, 2008-10-09 16:01
#43
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]This all sounds like what Jean Bricmont calls "humanitarian imperialism".[/b]
What did he say about reversing the CIA's, and Saudi Princes', and British, and Pakistani's Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan during the 1980s-90s?
Thu, 2008-10-09 17:30
#44
[img]http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/b52/B52-2.jpg[/img]
![http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/b52/B52-2.jpg[/img]](http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/b52/B52-2.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
Humanitarianism in action.
Thu, 2008-10-09 18:49
#45
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]This all sounds like what Jean Bricmont calls "humanitarian imperialism".[/b]
Are you arguing that we should tolerate and accept the subjugation of women and the denial of basic freedoms?
Perhaps the UDHR should be rescinded, no?
Thu, 2008-10-09 18:52
#46
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:
[b]Is it about Islam? Or is it about opposing the denial of human rights? Or, are you equating Islam with cultural aspects that are anti-human rights?[/b]
Gee, I dunno, Jerry. Which religion did [b]you[/b] have in mind when you referred to the “religious views of the Taliban and their supporters”?
quote:
[b]As for what this means, look into soft power, there are lots of peaceful ways to influence people without oppressing or attacking them.[/b]
Gee, Jerry, how do you propose to use soft power at arms’ length to discredit and reject the social and religious views of the Taliban and their supporters? We’re dying to know.
quote:
[b]We are not talking about superior social or religious views…[/b]
Gee, Jerry, if you don’t know which social and religious views are superior, how do you decide which ones we should be trying to discredit and reject?
quote:
[b]Are you supporting the right to subjugate women and enforce strict religious beliefs on a society? Sounds like it.[/b]
Gee, Jerry, are you supporting Canada’s right to tell the Afghans what social and religious views they are allowed to have? Sounds like it.
quote:
[b]Do you see supporting the culture of the Taliban as necessary in opposing the western invasion and occupation of Afghanistan? I don't.[/b]
Gee, Jerry, do you see discrediting and rejecting the social and religious views of the Taliban and their supporters as the necessary alternative to invasion and occupation of Afghanistan? I don’t.
Nor do I understand how you decide which of the world’s cultures (which you don’t believe have equal rights) are to be tolerated by us civilized western folk, and which are to become the targets of our “soft power” efforts to discredit and reject them. Who else is on your hit list, besides the Taliban? The Northern Alliance, which rules Afghanistan today, and which Malalai Joya calls “brothers-in-creed of the Taliban and as brutal and anti-democracy as Taliban and even worse”? The United States? Israel? Saudi Arabia? Canada?
Thu, 2008-10-09 19:20
#47
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Gee, Jerry, are you supporting Canada’s right to tell the Afghans what social and religious views they are allowed to have? Sounds like it. [/b]
Taliban fundamentalism was not really their religion in Afghanistan - not until the CIA's operation cyclone, and with cooperation of General Zia and ISI in Pakistan during the 1980s.
Fri, 2008-10-10 01:08
#48
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:
[b]No society or culture should have an unfettered right to abuse people or the environment.[/b]
I agree with this, but IMV, male supremacy is not going to go away without a fight.
We can see its re-emergence here in NA too.
Fri, 2008-10-10 10:45
#49
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Gee, ....[/b]
Gee, MS, you dodged all of the questions presented to you. Don't have any good answers? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
Which religion did you have in mind....
Any and all religious fantasies that deny basic human rights. Which ones do you have in mind to be given a free pass to do this?
quote:
how do you propose to use soft power
There are lots of ways to aid and support people to make change without bombing them or occupying their territory. I bet that you know that. You want a discussion that enumerates them, start a separate thread and maybe somebody will take you up on it. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
if you don’t know which social and religious views are superior, how do you decide which ones we should be trying to discredit and reject?
Why do you frame it as superior or inferior, I don't. What I do suggest, however, is that discredit and reject any that do not conform to the [url=http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html]UDHR[/url]
quote:
are you supporting Canada’s right to tell the Afghans what social and religious views they are allowed to have?
Actually, not, and it isn't about Canada in this case, either. Do you oppose the UDHR?
quote:
do you see discrediting and rejecting the social and religious views of the Taliban and their supporters as the necessary alternative to invasion and occupation of Afghanistan?
Are you now arguing for the invasion? Supporting the UDHR and invading Afghanistan are two unrelated subjects in my view, aside from the fact that former was used falsely to support the latter.
quote:
Nor do I understand....
You digress far afield. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2008-10-10 17:04
#50
O dear, little propaganda jibes like these are just plain.... insensitive.
quote:
'We should expect Mulla Omar in W.H.'
Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:08:42 GMTIran's Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani has condemned the Western countries for deciding to engage in backdoor talks with Taliban leaders.
“The trend is such a way that we should anticipate that the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, will attend the White House's parties along with Western officials,” he added.
“If you could reach a compromise with terrorists so easily, why did you stage such a massacre in the region?” he asked.
He pointed to recent remarks made by a senior British military commander who has called for talks with the Taliban and establishing dictatorship in Afghanistan....
[url=http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=71682§ionid=351020101]PressTV Iran[/url]
Fri, 2008-10-10 17:19
#51
Frustrated Mess
quote:
The intruders blindfolded Hedayatullah and, screaming with fury, forced him to the ground. An Afghan voice told him not to move or speak, or he would be killed. He listened for sounds from the next room, where his brother Noorullah slept with his family. He could hear his nephew, eight months old, crying hysterically. Then came the sound of an automatic rifle, after which his nephew fell silent.The rest of the family -- 18 people in all, including aunts, uncles, and cousins -- was herded outside into the darkness. The Afghan voice explained to Hedayatullah's terrified mother, "We are the Afghan National Army, here to accompany the American military. The Americans have killed one of your sons and his two children. They also shot his wife and they're taking her to the hospital."
"Why?" Hedayatullah's mother stammered.
"There is no why," the soldier replied. When she heard this, she started screaming, slamming her fists into her chest in anguish. The Afghan soldiers left her and loaded Hedayatullah and his cousin into the back of a military van, after which they drove off with an American convoy into the black of night.
The next day, the Afghan forces released Hedayatullah and his cousin, calling the whole raid a mistake. However, Noorullah's wife, months pregnant, never came home: She died on the way to the hospital.
[url=http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174986]An ugly little war making Canada an ugly little nation[/url]