Author Topic Options
Offline



Profile
Posts: 0
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:50 am
 


<strong>Written By:</strong> Lex
<strong>Date:</strong> 2006-03-04 10:50:00
<a href="/article/225004434-afghanistan-what-does-it-serve-canada">Article Link</a>

Afghanistan:
What Does it Serve Canada?

C. L. Cook

PEJ News
March 3, 2006

Just a year ago, while holding the Defence portfolio, the now nominal leader of the Liberal party, Bill Graham went on a ghoulish public relations tour, warning every rubber-chicken devotee who would listen about the coming Canadian casualties. The effort seemingly designed to "soften up" a public already dubious of Afghanistan. That unease was magnified today by Canadian Forces honcho, Rick Hillier who says Canada could expect to be in Afghanistan for at least a decade, or more. Hillier is the shoot from the lip General who marked his arrival on the Aghan scene last year, talking tough as George W. "Bring 'em on!" Bush, who last week lamented in the national press the too-dumb public's failure to grasp the vital importance impoverished, distant, hopeless Afghanistan poses Canada, and why a "decade, or more" military occupation is its duty.

This past week, Stephen Harper too sputtered across the front pages, outraged that "any Canadian" would challenge the country's commitment to "its men and women in uniform, etcetera ..." That commitment deepened with Canada's leadership ascension of Nato's ISAF mission in the Kunar, centre of Taliban activity. Until recently, Canadians had it relatively easy, based at Camp Julien, outside the capital, Kabul. But, that all ended last year, when Defence Minister Graham, addressing another banqueting gaggle of camp followers, pronounced Canada's improved military, apparently equipped with a spanking new set of marching orders; orders bearing an unmistakable echo.

<a href="http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4299&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0">http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4299&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0</a>





[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 6, 2006]


Offline

Newbie

Profile
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:54 pm
 


What does it Serve Canada?

A better question would be why does Canada serve the United States of America, but not its self?

Canada is in Afghanistan because Alqada, a known terrorist faction and operation, was beening helped assisted and protected by the ruling political and religious party of Afghanistan called the Taliban. Canada's involvement in the UN and international treaties required Canada to assist and help the United States of America after being attacked by Alqada and the fact that she declared war on Afghanistan in accordance with international law.

What I don't understand is why the United States of America is running what going on in Afghanistan now that the war is over and the United Nations is supposed to be looking after it as to its rebuilding and security.

Is the U.S. war on terrorism not separate from their war in Afghanistan and their illegal war in Iraq?

Or is this a gray area of judgment and understanding?


---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.


Offline

Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 195
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:11 pm
 


GOOD MORNING VIETNAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---
A little peice of heaven is found in good deeds.



General strike could be coming to a place near you...are you ready? Boycott 2010 Olympics,I don't my grandkids still paying for Campbells soup.


Offline

Junior Member

Profile
Posts: 22
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:58 pm
 


Good question - why are we serving the US?<br />
<br />
This is a US mission (the rotating command is just window-dressing). And the mission is carrying out US geo-strategic goals which have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda but everything to do with control of central Asia and containment of Russia.<br />
<br />
Lex, what info have you got about prison camps at airbases and torture of prisoners? Is it an educated guess on your part, or do you have something more for sure? And what did you mean about 3000 shallow graves near Bagran??? Tell us more!<br />
<br />
Here's what I've been able to find:<br />
At this link lots of stories are listed about Bagram prison - but you can't open the stories:<br />
<a href="http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:mvPQXc-ePu8J:www.newsxs.com/en/preset/Guantanamo_Bay/more/30+%22worse+than+Guantanamo%22+Bagram+Baghram+torture&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1">http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:mvPQXc-ePu8J:www.newsxs.com/en/preset/Guantanamo_Bay/more/30+%22worse+than+Guantanamo%22+Bagram+Baghram+torture&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1</a><br />
<br />
Also this one:<br />
The Australian<br />
February 23, 2006<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18245780%255E23109,00.html">http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18245780%255E23109,00.html</a><br />
<br />
via news.com.au network and Reuters<br />
<br />
BREAKING NEWS <br />
<br />
Torture blamed for detainee <br />
deaths<br />
<br />
From correspondents in Washington<br />
<br />
AT least eight detainees of the roughly 100 who have <br />
died in US military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan <br />
were tortured to death, human rights lawyers said in a <br />
report released today.<br />
<br />
"These are detainees who were beaten, suffocated or <br />
otherwise died in circumstances that meet the definition <br />
of torture that is in the federal law that bans the practice," <br />
said Hina Shamsi, a lawyer for New York-based Human <br />
Rights First and author of the report.<br />
<br />
Analysing military documents and press accounts, Human <br />
Rights First examined 98 detainee deaths, and concluded <br />
that torture by US military personnel caused eight deaths<br />
and may have been responsible for four others.<br />
<br />
All of the deaths have been disclosed previously.<br />
<br />
The Pentagon said at least 108 detainees have died in US <br />
custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002, not counting <br />
those killed in insurgent mortar attacks on jail facilities. <br />
<br />
"Critically, only half of the cases of detainees tortured <br />
to death have resulted in punishment; the steepest <br />
sentence for anyone implicated in a torture-related <br />
death has been five months in jail," the report said.<br />
<br />
The military has said it has a policy against torture, but <br />
has acknowledged using interrogation techniques that <br />
include placing detainees in stress positions.<br />
<br />
The report said that of the 98 deaths it examined, only <br />
12 led to punishment of any kind for US personnel.<br />
<br />
"People are dying in US custody and no one's being <br />
held to account," said Deborah Pearlstein, who heads <br />
the Human Rights First US law and security program. <br />
(end of The Australian story)<br />
<br />
But, Lex, I've never heard anywhere else about 3000 shallow graves. Tell us what you know.<br />
<br />
Eleanor


Offline

Newbie

Profile
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:23 pm
 


>>the rotating command is just window-dressing<<

I agree with you there.

Its talked about and advertised as a Canadian General being in command but he answers to an American General who is in total command.

---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.


Offline

Newbie

Profile
Posts: 9
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:26 pm
 


"What I don't understand is why the United States of America is running what going on in Afghanistan now that the war is over and the United Nations is supposed to be looking after it as to its rebuilding and security."<br />
<br />
First, maybe check out these two internet sites:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html">http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/q7.html">http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/q7.html</a><br />
<br />
And a simple Google on the subject will reveal a whole host of information that part, at least, provides an explanation for what lies behind the US attack on Afghanistan. Again as in Iraq, is this old issue of oil. Only Iraq came up first in the order of battle for Empire because of an already fairly highly developed oil infrastructure built under Sadaam, and US anxiety after 9/11, and the discovery that all of those who carried out the attack on the Twin Towers were in fact Saudi, to reduce its dependance on Saudi oil. They wanted an alternative source of supply, to provide them with some assurety of supply, if and when Saudi Arabia suddenly went/goes south.<br />
<br />
And there is a French journalistic source out there, who wrote a book, both of which I forget right now, whom/which claims that the real underlying reason for the attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan, while Bin Laden is certainly an element, was more that the Taliban refused a deal with the Bush Administration and his oil buddies, when it was first coming to power in the US, to allow an oil pipline across Afghanistan to carry oil from the northern 'stan countries of the former USSR, through Pakistan and India to US bound tanker bottoms in the Arabian Sea. Indeed, this particular French writer, who is certainly traceable with a modicum of effort, claimed that the reason the Taliban released Al Quaida to attack the US was, as a consequence of a US ultimatum that the Talibani had a choice; personal riches beyond their wildest dreams in exchange for the oil pipeline, or they would be bombed back to the stone age.<br />
<br />
In any case, even allowing that one only accepts the US official Neocon Bushie explanations, there is a clear and understandable motivation for the US initiation of its Endless War strategy, that is part of the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) vision that provided the Neoconservative ideological underpinning of the Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al Republican regime from its earliest days in the run to Washington and formal political power.<br />
<br />
For this country, what we have at stake in the staged and evolving decisions of both Liberal and Conservative governments in this country, to move over to militarily supporting these adventures of US Imperialism in empire building are no less crass. Simply and straight forward put, this country has evolved into a kind of quasi-colonial, economically dependant client state of this same US Empire, initially resisting but in the end finally being forced to concede and listen to its Master's Voice, and do as it is told in the Middle East. There is a long history of this colonial dependant tradition and behaviour in this country, going back even to the old British Empire, giving likewise the US Empire what it wants, and doing what it tells us, from the time of the early Cold War DEW line system and BOMARC missles, scuttling of the AVRO ARROW, and involvement on the side of the US in Korea etc. etc., currently in Haiti, and running interference for the Empire in every major global theatre. <br />
<br />
Trudeau and Chretien resisted some, too slavishly bowing to these Washington attempts to involve us in their global Empire machinations, but in the end they all paid the price of it, and the pattern of bootlicking Washington's boots, for whatever words, would always again reassert itself. Now, with the rise of the Neoconservatives under Harper in this country, there is a renewed effort by these Washington genuflecting political elements within the more extreme right in this country, to abandon all restraint and get on board completely with the wishes of our Empire Master.<br />
<br />
It goes along with the policies of deep economic and structural integration and harmonization that have been going on under both Liberal and Conservative governments in this country anyway, since even before the time of Mulroney, who got it really going with NAFTA and all that has come since. Proving that in the contest between politics and economics, it is the bent given to economic development that in the end always asserts itself and wins, even over secondary political will. Hence is the hot water in which we currently find ourself, in consequence of our failure to develop a real national backbone of our own.


Offline

Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 586
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:38 pm
 


If we want to be peace keepers and actually help out in Afghanastan,we should be there as Canada+the UN.WITHOUT the Americans.We can send in our own troops/snipers/whatever to help that country get up on its feet.The war on terror is a ruse.Think Heroin.



X


Offline

Junior Member

Profile
Posts: 52
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:53 pm
 


The only thing it serves is to free up US troops for other conflicts, such as invading Iran or Syria. We should and need to get the hell out of there right now.


Offline

Junior Member

Profile
Posts: 92
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:10 am
 


Exactly. Did anyone hear the discussion last Sunday on "Cross Country Check-Up"? I only heard part of this but it appears that most people phoning in were being "screened" in order to give Rex Murphy what he wants...a cheering section for "our boys" etc.. [This is the same person who wrote an editorial in the Globe trying to claim NO connection between the London transport bombings and Iraq.] The CBC has been going down hill for years ...


Offline

Newbie

Profile
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:01 pm
 


I was going to bung up this C section with a tirade but I think I pretty much covered that here on my own blog...<br />
<br />
<a href="http://youngfoxredux.blogspot.com/2006/03/end-canadian-occupation-of-afghanistan.html">http://youngfoxredux.blogspot.com/2006/03/end-canadian-occupation-of-afghanistan.html</a><br />
<br />
(not trying to whore just short on typing time)<br />
<br />
” The CBC has been going down hill for years ...” <br />
absolutely agreed and now with the Neocons in power they will tow the line so the funding cut knives do not come out of the Neocon drawer as quickly as they would expect.<br />
It is a shame to loose them.<br />
I am glad that “legitimate” blogs like the Vive’ are discussing this war so rationally.<br />
Bring em’ home – NOW!


Offline

Forum Elite

Profile
Posts: 1659
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:28 pm
 


With the amount of denatured uranium dust in some areas, we'll soon not have to worry about whose troops are where simply because they'll eventually be too sick to fight.

Then the government will bring them home, and ignore them as they slowly die off.



Most people would prefer a comforting lie over a painful truth.


Offline

Newbie

Profile
Posts: 2
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:20 am
 


I’ve read with great interest the recent unofficial debates over our involvement in
Afghanistan; and feel that as Canadians, we need to revisit our role as Peacekeepers.

After the attack on the World Trade Centre, we joined an international effort to capture
Bin Laden, dismantle al-Qaida and remove the Taliban. However, when soon after 911,
George W. Bush; capitalizing on the renewed patriotism and global sympathy; launched
his assault on Iraq; many of us took a step back. This was not what we’d signed on for.

We are now in a position where we have a new, untested government, and despite efforts
to hide behind a Tory blue smoke screen; Stephen Harper’s party is still the
Reform/Alliance with a Reform/Alliance platform, and it was his party that was so
adamant that we join the American led invasion.

Then we have as our new Minster of Defense; retired Brigadier-General Gordon
O’Connor; who plans on touring Canada to sell his party’s foreign policy. I have the
utmost respect for his credentials; but after retiring from the Canadian military, he took a
job as a lobbyist for the PR firm Hill and Knowlton. Many Canadians may remember, or
can certainly verify, that Hill and Knowlton was engaged by both the Reagan and Bush
administrations to sell the justification of war to the American people.

Now that Mr. Harper is stating that his decision to stay the course is not open for
discussion, and Peter McKay is looking at a commitment of up to ten years; we need to
force the issue. This is not about being cowards, and most Canadians, including myself,
fully support the men and women of our armed forces. However, we have no desire to
put them in harm’s way, if the initiative is just to support more American aggression. We
need to force our government to stick to our original mandate or bring our people home.

Promoting Democracy is fine; but not at the expense of our own


Offline

Forum Junkie

Profile
Posts: 643
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:14 am
 


No Crap says:
"...he took a
job as a lobbyist for the PR firm Hill and Knowlton. Many Canadians may remember, or
can certainly verify, that Hill and Knowlton was engaged by both the Reagan and Bush
administrations to sell the justification of war to the American people."

Really? It's that kind of happening that really makes me wonder if our military is no longer concerned about their duty as a Canadian and protecting Canada. I would really love for someone to do a documentary on our military training. I'd like to see how many USAmerican trainers would be present and how instructions were worded with regards to a North American rather than Canadian armed force.


---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Vive Le Canada.ca. Powered by © phpBB.