Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Questioning Afghan Mission Is Not Being Disloyal

By agavero in Culture
Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 12:00:00 PM EST
Tags: war, terror (all tags)

It's important to debate Canada's war  mission in Afghanistan. It's a legitimate and necessary debate. It's a debate occurring in all the NATO countries now being asked to send more troops. Most of these countries, with the exception of Poland and Canada, have resisted further commitments.

As in Canada, there is broad questioning within their populations about the core wisdom and merits of this mission. This is not, or as some are suggesting, a re-staging of the Second World War. The fate of the Western world is not hanging in the balance.


This is a regional engagement of foreign troops on one side of a civil conflict in Afghanistan. It's an extension of the American led "war on terror" to try to obliterate the militant leadership of Islamic fundamentalism as embodied by the Taliban.

It's not respectful of legitimate differences in this debate to begin, as some would say, with the absurd notion that to question the mission is somehow "disloyal" to our troops.

I think we can accept that Canadians have deep respect and concern for the dangerous situation of our troops. It is deeply respectful and loyal to the Canadian troops to be concerned about their lives and safety. When they return in caskets from an ill-planned and failing mission, we need to ask questions out of loyalty to them and to our national reputation as peacekeepers.

Afghanistan is an extremely poor nation. Fewer than 11 million of its 36 million people are even part of a cash economy. Many of its people are starving. Over 60% of export earning come from opium poppy production. Afghanistan needs and deserves our help, but not in the form of endless bullets, rockets and bombs.

The complex history and civil conflict in Afghanistan can't be reduced to simple-minded slogans such "stay the course" or "cut and run." If heavily armed troops, rockets and bombs were an effective measure to subdue and dominate the Afghan people, the Russians - and, before them, the British - would still be there in a peaceful context. They would not have "cut and run" after the loss of thousands of loyal soldiers who tried to do their job.

In this past year, the Canadian Mission was drastically changed. When Canadian troops were first sent to Afghanistan in 2001, it was to provide security, reconstruction support and humanitarian assistance in the capital region of Kabul.

Now we're engaged in a broad and expanding military offensive against the Pashtun tribe in the Kandahar region. Pashtuns are the dominant ethnic group (roughly 15 million) in Afghanistan. For every one we kill, Taliban or not, there are many anxious replacements wanting to defend their homeland against the foreign invaders.

The Karzai government we are trying to prop up in this civil conflict is itself contaminated by warlords with their own long history of violence and brutality against Afghan women and rival tribal groupings.

The government of Pakistan, an ally of Canada, recently negotiated a cease-fire agreement with the Pashtun(Taliban) in order to bring peace and stabiity to that region. A similiar result may be possible in Southeast Afghanistan.

Negotiations can restore peace and stability, as recently witnessed in Northern Ireland, South Africa and Central America. A growing chorus of military analysis has accessed the current NATO engagement as never-ending unless there is a parallel process and option for negotiations. British Army Captain Leo Docherty recently stated in the London Telegram, Sept. 11, that the Nato forces were "sucked into a problem unsolvable by military means."

We are all concerned about the fate of our troops, the role of our country and the fate of the people of Afghanistan. It is legitimate to debate both the means and the ends in this conflict without questioning the loyality and basic motives of those pursuing the debate.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Afghanistan
o NATO
o opium poppy
o civil conflict
o Also by agavero


Display: Sort:
Questioning Afghan Mission Is Not Being Disloyal | 159 comments (137 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden)
Perhaps it has less to do with peace than it does (3.00 / 3) (#1)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 01:37:27 PM EST

with saying to America that we are willing to do business with them.

As crass as that is, it might be a case of taking one for the team in behalf of the better good.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.

I agree with this, Egil... (none / 0) (#5)
by agavero on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:01:40 PM EST


"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
So let me get this straight... (none / 0) (#77)
by thefirelane on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 05:41:14 PM EST

Are you saying that even if Canada is doing good things in Afghanistan, and even if being their improves the lives of the people there... that Canada should pull out just to spite the US?

In other words, you have no problem using the lives of the 3rd world poor as pawns for your own temporary political vendettas?

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
I dont think anyone said that Canada (none / 0) (#78)
by agavero on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 05:54:27 PM EST

should pull out, did they?
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
Fine.. (none / 0) (#81)
by thefirelane on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 08:23:21 PM EST

The question is still the same... which is more important, the people of afghanistan, or international political games?

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
International political games. (nt) (none / 1) (#88)
by Intoxicated Rabbit on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 06:32:21 AM EST



[ Parent ]
classic western idiocy (1.47 / 21) (#2)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 01:41:18 PM EST

"Afghanistan needs and deserves our help, but not in the form of endless bullets, rockets and bombs."

classic idiocy from a pampered isolated westerner

gee genius: excepting where there are already endless bullets, rockets and bombs being wielded against the populace already

or are you forgetting about the taliban and their methods?

remember, it's the people we are protecting from the taliban. that's why we're there, remember that small insignicant point?

or are western troops there to just kill random innocent afghans for no particular reason every now and then? that's why we're there?

the taliban's efforts are pointed against the innocent populace, whom we are defending

understand that tiny insignificant detail?

these bullets, rockets, and bombs are wielded by fundamentalists, whom if they were operating in canada, you would have nothing but withering words for and an extreme desire to fight, whether muslim or christian

but when the same fundamentalists are considered abroad, you seem to completely ignore or forget their menace

until it is too late, and they have conslidated their power enough to bring it abroad

oh: that never happens?

so i see your concern for the people of afghanistan: you have none

please: by all means, make the argument that you want canadian troops home. but at the same time, be honest: you only care about canadians, you don't care about afghans. let the country go to hell in handbasket as far as you care, right?

not that there's anything wrong with not caring about afghans, but don't in a million years pretend or delude yourself into thinking it is actually the suffering of afghans that motivates your words

do you honestly believe we can go there with money and campfire songs and beat back the taliban?

do you honestly believe allowing the taliban to return will not result in any suffering in the west or elsewhere in the world down the road? does that matter to you?

you're just small and selfish. so please have some intellectual honesty in your words, and don't try to pretend to us or to yourself that you give one last shit about what happens to afghans

because if you did, you would be asking for an increase in troops being sent over there

as it is, your motivations are obviously shallow and ignorant and selfish, and in the end, eventually self-defeating, considering how the taliban likes to export its madness elsewhere in the world

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

from what I can see, (2.00 / 2) (#4)
by agavero on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:00:53 PM EST

we are not protecting anyone. the Taliban is alive and well and kill one, and 20 take their place. I believe that the peoples themselves are no better off then they were before the troops were there. All that we are doing, is going into someones house and telling them that they live wrong and the West is the only way, this after centuries of their own culture. I would not allow ANYONE to come into my home and tell me that my culture is the wrong way. Going in for Bin Laden is one thing, but trying to change a country to your belief system I believe is wrong. This is my opinion.
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
and we go further into moronic cynicism (1.05 / 18) (#7)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:14:55 PM EST

"you know, there will always be pedophiles in this world

they will always spring anew

therefore, we should stop fighting pedophiles: what's the point? they will always exist"

do you understand the idiocy in what i just said?

good, now can you understand that your words are the moronic idiocy?

the problem of the taliban is not something you fight once, defeat, and never see again. a problem like the taliban is like taking the trash out every thursday: you don't take out your trash once, and then never again. trash accumuluates. the taliban accumulates. there are still nazi assholes in this world, and there are still efforts at minimizing their influence. except they are small and disjointed. to stop fighting them means they would grow in power. oh: the far right isn't on the rise in europe?

fighting evil vile ideologies is not a matter of shoot once game over, like some stupid video game which seems to be the only source of your understanding about how the world works

it is a MAINTENANCE issue. it NEVER ends. the point is to enable the afghans to fight these assholes themselves, and keep them forever under our thumb, small and disjointed

now, pop quiz genius: what does walking away now do about the taliban?

and now we have this genius-level insight:

"...centuries of their own culture. I would not allow ANYONE to come into my home and tell me that my culture is the wrong way"

DEAR GERMAN K5ERS:

AGAVERO WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU THAT NAZIISM IS AN INTRINSIC PART OF YOUR CULTURE. AND OTHER PEOPLE COMING TO YOUR COUNTRY TO KILL NAZIS WAS AN INSULT ON GERMAN CULTURE

sound stupid right?

YOU SOUND THE SAME WAY YOU INBRED IGNORANT FUCK WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT AFGHANS AND THE TALIBAN

you are seriously two things:

  1. low iq
  2. hopelessly inbred and sheltered

so go to your local van houtte and order a coffee. that seems to be the only task you can successfully handle with your vast levels of insight and intellect and empathy. seriously: your ability to comment on what is going on in afghanistan is severely sheltered, cloistered, insulated and ignorant. you are not fit to step outside of canadian suburbia. your understanding of the real world is a flat zero, dear fat ignorant sheltered rich westerner

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
no, you are the ignorant asshole here, (3.00 / 2) (#8)
by agavero on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:20:54 PM EST

you cant even debate without stooping to name calling and idiotic statements. you do not know me or what I am about, nor do you know my iq. In other words you know fuck all except you assume. I used to watch you debate with sense and all, but lately you have gotten into name calling etc, thinking that makes you look real smart. Well it doesnt. it makes you look the fool and more mentally unstable than michael crawford, who can at least make sense at times.
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
dear fucktard (1.00 / 13) (#9)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:26:04 PM EST

when i see a duck

i call it a duck

based on your words

you are:

inbred
sheltered
lacking in empathy
and STUPID

dear fat rich western turd: go to your coffee house, and order your coffee

it's the most stressful thing for you to do all day, it's the only thing your vast intellect is sufficiently prepared to negotiate in terms of complexity and keeping track of all the issues involved in your head when forming a decision or an opinion

ordering a coffee. that's your level of intellectual abilities

but please dear ignorant inbred suburban retard, try to refrain from commenting on what you are obviously completely unable to understand, due to your sheltered ignorant of the real world and how it works background

you've taken it upon yourself, like so many of your ignorant western brethren, to have your job be to be fat and to whine

but apparently, not to understand

that's your problem

such a whiner, so fucking stupid


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

maybe you should just (none / 1) (#12)
by agavero on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:32:25 PM EST

take your valium and other meds and crawl back under that rock you came out of..not to worry, I will not respond to any of your garbage again :)
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
you chooose to abandon the subject matter (1.00 / 17) (#56)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:45:45 AM EST

much like your ability to perceive any other difficult issue in the world, when things get a little heated, you run away

your mistake is in thinking your particular malformed psychology has anything to teach us, except that there are a lot of weak, ineffable pointless and yet loud and whiny people in the west

go to your coffee shop dear fat clueless rich westerner

you've chosen to engage in subject matter you can't understand, and if it's a little complicated, you run away

thinking that is going to be the proper route we should take, or that that solves any problems

run away! run away weak little child!

things are hairy and dangerous! oh no! avoid! watch tv! play videogames!

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Dude, what'd you expect? (3.00 / 4) (#51)
by Wilkes on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:43:28 PM EST

It's CTS afterall. This shit's a given. He'll probably troll me and make odd and somewhat unfitting anecdotes for this post alone. Don't feed the trolls.

[ Parent ]
On idiocy and other stuff (none / 1) (#115)
by KaptajnKold on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 05:31:33 PM EST

do you understand the idiocy in what i just said?

Your idiocy far surpasses my means of comprehension.

good, now can you understand that your words are the moronic idiocy?

In an effort to communicate at your level: It takes one to know one.

the problem of the taliban is not something you fight once, defeat, and never see again. a problem like the taliban is like taking the trash out every thursday: you don't take out your trash once, and then never again. trash accumuluates. the taliban accumulates.

Wrong. You are wrong. And besides: You just made that up. You don't know what you are talking about.

there are still nazi assholes in this world, and there are still efforts at minimizing their influence. except they are small and disjointed. to stop fighting them means they would grow in power.

Where do you get this stuff? Is it off the internet? The movies? TV? I assure you: You haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

oh: the far right isn't on the rise in europe?

The far right is not the same as nazism. And you don't have to be a nazi to be an asshole, as you so clearly demonstrate.

But wait! Of course you are right. We DO have a problem with nazis everywhere in Europe. Luckily all europeans who are not nazis are practically commies as is widely understood, so maybe the two evils can cancel each other out. The problem is what to do about the far right in the US? Oh, it's not the same I hear you say; they are not evil, at most misguided...

To sum up: You know nothing.

fighting evil vile ideologies is not a matter of shoot once game over, like some stupid video game which seems to be the only source of your understanding about how the world works

That's true! Fighting evil ideologies (let's just call it "evil" or "pure evil") is a matter best left to super heroes, like in some comic book. I was going to say "like the ones that seem to be your only source of understanding blablabla", but then it occured to me, that you propably don't do much reading.

it is a MAINTENANCE issue. it NEVER ends. the point is to enable the afghans to fight these assholes themselves, and keep them forever under our thumb, small and disjointed

Yes, just like the way that the typical super hero can't quite seem to finish off his arch nemesis. Otherwise there would be no possibility of sequels.

now, pop quiz genius: what does walking away now do about the taliban?

Nobody knows, but everybody sure has an oppinion. Intelligent people are interested in other opinions than their own. You on the other hand are interested only in suppressing opinions that deviate from your own. Which makes you a dumbass.


you are seriously two things:

   1. low iq
   2. hopelessly inbred and sheltered

This is the best part of your post! I won't comment on your IQ, because for all I know, you are an expert at mathematical problem solving. But you ARE dumb as shit. I mean really!

I also won't comment on the structure of your family tree, as there are potentially millions of other reasons that could explain your personality just as well.

But sheltered!? Let me repeat what I wrote above: You know nothing! You get your oppinions from soundbites from tv or you just simply invent them. You have no clue! You may think that you do, and you may think you have rhetorical skill, but the only skill you possess is the ability to flood K5 with your endless spew of posts to the extend that finally nobody bothers to fight with you anymore. Which, might I add, reflects positively on their intelligence.

so go to your local van houtte and order a coffee. that seems to be the only task you can successfully handle with your vast levels of insight and intellect and empathy. seriously: your ability to comment on what is going on in afghanistan is severely sheltered, cloistered, insulated and ignorant. you are not fit to step outside of canadian suburbia. your understanding of the real world is a flat zero, dear fat ignorant sheltered rich westerner

Did you know that this level of projection is often considered to be the consequence of neglect in the early childhood? Maybe you should see someone about that?

[ Parent ]

typical wooly pseudoracism (2.50 / 4) (#10)
by Corey Haim on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:28:51 PM EST

when non-whites perform the most horrific atrocities, it is "their culture" or "their belief system" - even if the perpetrators are a non-representative dictatorship.

"the west", on the other hand, are censured for having the audacity to even suggest that we intervene on the behalf of the oppressed. we are held to a higher standard, it seems. we can't expect the non-whites to live up to our exalted non-violent ideals, can we?

can you see the contradiction here? it's okay for the taliban to use the most shocking cruelty against civilians, because this is "their way of doing things, which we should respect," and yet when the rest of the world wants to stop this, we are in the wrong.

what if interventionism is now "our way of doing things?" "our beliefs?" by your own reasoning, you are wrong for trying to dictate to NATO how they should handle their affairs.

cultural relativism is like fireworks: far too easy for idiots to obtain and misuse.

[ Parent ]

It's very simple (1.50 / 2) (#30)
by vadim on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 04:02:22 PM EST

There's this concept of 'sovereignity' you might have heard about. It's their country and their problem. If they want to kill themselves, then so be it. And if the population doesn't like it, they can organize a revolution.
--
<@chani> I *cannot* remember names. but I did memorize 214 digits of pi once.
[ Parent ]
it's called "sovereignty" (2.50 / 2) (#35)
by Corey Haim on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 04:21:15 PM EST

and the Taliban never had it in international law. Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE ever recognized them as having de jure sovereignty, but then they withdrew it Sep. 2001.

Besides, sovereignty is overrulable if a country doesn't play nice. See Sudan.

[ Parent ]

Ok, longer explanation (2.00 / 2) (#40)
by vadim on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 05:24:49 PM EST

Granted, Afghanistan and Iraq were quite messed up places (quite an understatement too) to begin with. Now, the problems people have you with going there and "fixing" things are mostly two:

1. You invade a country expecting a reception with people shouting "Yay! Our saviors have come!", then are completely baffled at that many people don't seem to appreciate a bunch of foreigners breaking into their country and trying to force them to do things their way. Well, duh. It might be messed up, but it's their country after all, even if that's not all that great.

2. While those countries were indeed messed up, people see this as a slippery slope. Should you ever run out of messed up places to "fix", will you let your huge army sit idle, or will you decide to lower your threshold of what a country in need of "american leadership" is?

--
<@chani> I *cannot* remember names. but I did memorize 214 digits of pi once.
[ Parent ]

OK, but you shifted the argument completely. (2.50 / 4) (#47)
by Corey Haim on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 06:33:07 PM EST

I was arguing specifically against the idea that intervention against non-white postcolonial dictatorships is wrong, "because that's their way of doing things and who are we to judge."

It's patronising and racist - despite the best intentions of the nominal liberals espousing it - because it assumes that, no matter how bad things get, this is acceptable because, deep down, these people are not as civilized as us and cannot be held to the same ethical standards.

It's usually couched in phrases like, "but that's their culture", as if torture and repression and killing is an essential part of an ethnic grouping rather than the modus operandi of a specific group of thugs in power.

Meanwhile, we have absolutely no qualms "judging" westernized nations. The massacres in the Balkans, French forces in Algeria, the UK in Ireland, apartheid South Africa - we feel free in criticizing and no-one ever complains, "But that's just the way South African Boers are. They're racist and they think blacks are subhuman. We have no right to meddle because that is their culture."

So that was my argument. Your points are all about the practical aspects of interventionism, of which I said nothing. But anyway:

We're talking about Afghanistan, which never was a case of, "Let's fix this country, and they'll greet us with flowers." (btw, "fix" is a horrible analogy to use here. We're talking about mass graves and children being burnt to death as punishment, not a simple ideological difference and a "freedom deficit". I'm absolutely not talking about the likes of Cuba, Iran, N Korea)

The sequence of events, Powerpoint-style:

1. Taliban takes power, is not internationally recognized. Shelters and supports Osama and friends.
2. 9/11
3. US and allies oust Taliban after they refuse to hand over OBL et al.

Thus far, we're talking about national defence, not unwarranted meddling. Then:

4. We put a moderate in power and help him build up primitive state infrastructure. This government is internationally recognized by everyone including the UN.
5. Internationally recognized sovereign government now pleads with NATO to provide military aid, in order that ousted bad guys don't re-take power. Ironically, in Canada...

Now there are two basic continuations:

6A. We provide military support. Clearly this ends up in a good deal of casualties. The outcome is uncertain but we are aiming at stability and a reasonably democratic society.
6B. We pull out. Taliban re-takes power, in what I expect would be a hugely bloody civil war involving the warlords, shockingly high civilian casualties and the grim torture-deaths characteristic of the past few decades there. We have to go back anyway once al-Qaeda jump back over the border.

If you're rooting for 6B, then at least state it in full. This is the hidden payload behind the catchier, "Pull the troops out. Our war is wrong and costly." The potential stack of bodies is higher and contains a higher proportion of civilians, as far as I can see.

At which point, it's a case of game theory and not politics. It's not a case of left versus right or high-minded ideals. It's a case of, "How big are the piles of bodies this choice produces?" and "Who are the piles made up of? Taliban, NATO soldiers or civilians?" Because both choices involve a stack of corpses.

[ Parent ]

Um... (2.66 / 3) (#96)
by trhurler on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 02:12:34 PM EST

If our army was "huge", we wouldn't have troop level issues. Also, in case you haven't noticed, the majority of Afghans not only are happy to have us there, but are begging us not to leave. Sure, some don't like us there - there's going to be some people who complain about a church providing free spaghetti dinners, too. Life's a bitch.

And as for running out of messed up places, what planet do you live on? There are between 150 and 200 countries on this planet depending on what day of the week it is, and approximately half of them are stable. Of the half that ARE stable, approximately a third have governments that any decent person MIGHT respect. And of that third, most of them are first world peoples' republics.

No, the world will not be "fixed" anytime soon.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Kudos sir! (2.50 / 2) (#130)
by cr8dle2grave on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 04:22:56 PM EST

cultural relativism is like fireworks: far too easy for idiots to obtain and misuse

I concur wholeheartedly. And, fwiw, I am a self professed "cultural relativist", which I take to be superset containing its more notorious cousin "ethical relativism". But my recourse to relativism is an outgrowth of what I see as intractable problems in epistemology, rather than an essentially political anxiety over "effacing" or "essentializing" the "Other".

The species of woolly-headed and politically driven relativism you indentified isn't really a species of relativism at all. While much of the language and argument used would suggest a relativist framework, a closer look reveals that there is always an assumption of a singular transcendent norm in the form of an absolute principle of non-intervention akin to Prime Directive of the Star Trek mythos. Which, as you note, in practice really boils down to the old truism, "wogs will be wogs".

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
I reluctantly agree (2.50 / 2) (#89)
by army of phred on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 07:26:17 AM EST

after all, the US under Bush deliberately let Osama go, so we the US have to admit that we fucked up in Afghanistan too. Essentially all of the goals we the US have put forth in these invasions have been lies.

I'm not against fighting extremism, but in the current theater of combat (guerilla / insurgent warfare), we in the west have lost the war and can only hope to fight on as western style external insurgencies (futile pissing away of my tax dollars) if we want to make any sort of point at all.

We in the west should be required to have as an end game of all our military adventures the return of the land to the local population even if this means the local population consists of warring tribes. Some "countries" are in reality feuding localities in themselves, I bet that if back in 1991 we had made a kurdistan and another country in the south ("shiitesville" anyone?) we could have left bagdad to rot like the disrespectful pit of hell it seems to be today anyways but now dragging the rest of the country down with it.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]

Deliberately? (none / 1) (#95)
by trhurler on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 02:08:36 PM EST

Do you have any honestly or sense of shame whatsoever?

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
well (none / 0) (#123)
by army of phred on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 06:00:11 AM EST

someone makes the decisions, and somebody decided that Osama wasn't that big a priority.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
No... (none / 0) (#132)
by trhurler on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 07:30:42 PM EST

What happened was that the people who made the decision screwed up. By definition, "screwed up" is not "deliberate." You have forgotten: never attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by stupidity.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
I don't buy it (none / 1) (#134)
by army of phred on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 04:53:31 AM EST

sure, I know that theres plenty of incompetency to go around, but only saps like you reward them for it.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
I don't understand your reply (none / 0) (#146)
by trhurler on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 01:14:52 AM EST

You don't buy what? That they're incompetent? "Saps" like me don't like the way things are going, but we remember what your crew did. Deliberately allowing bin Laden to get away multiple times out of spite for those who had captured him, for instance. The only reason the screwups are pinned on Bush and Co is because they happen to be in office at the moment when difficult things have to be done. I'm not a fan of Republicans; their social policy is odious to say the least. However, I'm not a fan of Democrats either. Can you imagine the speech had Kerry or Gore been president in 2001? "I feel your pain, and we're doing everything we can. Today I ordered a cruise missile strike against an aspirin factory to show these terrorists we mean business!"

Yes, they're incompetent. So are their political opponents. No decent person can get a major party nomination in the US because the major parties are run by scum - so we get scum instead. Arguing over who's the worse chump or liar or whatever is pointless.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
you people (none / 0) (#153)
by army of phred on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 06:50:54 AM EST

love to pin everything you can on the other guys instead of accepting how completely mistaken you are and learning from your mistakes. I don't mind you doing this but like I said, I'm not buying it.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
False (3.00 / 2) (#94)
by trhurler on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 02:07:07 PM EST

It is not true, nor is there even a kernel of truth to the statement that if we "kill one, twenty take his place." The reality is, the Taliban WERE a nationwide government. Then we killed a WHOLE LOT of them. Now they're a militia band with influence in one part of the country, and they're losing people at a rate that isn't sustainable. EVEN IF they could get one for one replacement, which is hard for anyone to do when you're losing men left and right, it takes months of training to make a soldier usable. If you just pick him off the street and hand him a rifle, he will do NOTHING except get himself and maybe some of his comrades killed. Every experienced USSR-era Taliban fighter we kill is irreplacable. Every Taliban weapon we take is one they don't have the money to replace. Every Taliban facility we ransack and destroy is one they don't have the means to replace or repair.

20 for 1? Who's kidding who? That's what you WANT to believe because it would seemingly justify your spineless, mindless "peace activism." There's no evidence to support it. The evidence says they're probably not replacing one man for every two we kill.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Relax, (3.00 / 3) (#11)
by boomi on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:31:15 PM EST

he's asking whether sending more troops is doing any good. A valid question.

The third-party-troops that are being sent to pick the winners of Afghanistan's civil war are there for a limited amount of time. How can they strengthen the people against Taliban and warlords? I don't see any progress in that direction. Or as Malalai Joya, a female member of the Afghani parliament, put it: "The difference for the women is that they're either stoned to death by the Taliban, or raped by the northern alliance."

[ Parent ]

your cynicism is stupid and typical (1.05 / 17) (#13)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:34:59 PM EST

based on your words, it's not worth it to fight for anything, right?

there will never be progress in aghanistan, right?

we shouldn't care about what happens there, right?

it never does any good in this world to actually fight for improvement, right?

it's just so heavy and hard... it makes my head hurt... better to go home and play videogames, right?

typical, stupid lowest common denominator cynicism

never meant anything in this world

congratulations on your choice not to matter

you'll forgive me if i choose to matter


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

LOL Posting on k5 MATTERS! $ (3.00 / 6) (#15)
by Mylakovich on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:52:15 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Could you also choose to (3.00 / 7) (#17)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:54:37 PM EST

from proper sentences you immigrant, Engrish-speaking, dick?

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

i think you misunderstand. (none / 1) (#19)
by Corey Haim on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:03:39 PM EST

like beowulf or a hitler speech, they are best appreciated when spoken out loud. and breathe from the diaphragm, not the upper chest.

lol diaphragm

[ Parent ]

Labeling me a non-matterer sure helps Afghanis (3.00 / 3) (#21)
by boomi on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:10:25 PM EST

Please cut out the stupid rhetorical questions. Of course it can be worth fighting. The question is what you're fighting for and how you go about it. I state that there have been no improvements after a lot of fighting, religious zealots and corrupt criminals still rule the land.

I'm wary of the idea that merely increasing troop size will improve anything but the strength of the warlords. The idea is so much like playing video games. (I assume you've been playing  Civilizations too much to actually know any other way.)

What about not supporting any extremists, rather than bungling with one side to get rid of the other? (According to script you should now label me as impractical whiner, thank you.)

[ Parent ]

if you don't want to be labeled (1.07 / 13) (#31)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 04:08:46 PM EST

don't look at the label, try it on, and then boldly declare it to be all about you:

"I state that there have been no improvements after a lot of fighting, religious zealots and corrupt criminals still rule the land"

i called you a typical lowest common denominator in cynic

in your reply to that accusation, you fling out some typical lowest common denominator cynicism

"I state that there have been no improvements after a lot of fighting, religious zealots and corrupt criminals still rule the land"

REALLY?

THAT'S REALLY THE CASE?

SO NOTHING HAS MATTERED IN INTERVENTION IN AFGHANISTAN?

REALLY?

you win

you win the prize in choosing not to matter

because your view of the world is wrong, and useless

if the world and its problems are so hopeless to you, why do you even bother fucking commenting? it's all so hopeless and pointless, right?

pofffft

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

True on one account (3.00 / 2) (#45)
by boomi on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 06:24:55 PM EST

"it's all so hopeless and pointless, right?"

Yes, so true. It's hopeless to argue with you. If you don't agree with my proposition that there's been no improvement for Afghanistan's people, say so. Your uninformed and cynical judgement on my world view is pissing me off.

[ Parent ]

i guess i got your number dead to rights (1.00 / 9) (#55)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:42:44 AM EST

because you chose to completely abandon the subject matter


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
thats the point he's trying to make (none / 0) (#157)
by army of phred on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 10:22:31 PM EST

if you're not with him, you're with the terrorists.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
I agree with you also, about progress (none / 0) (#14)
by agavero on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:36:15 PM EST

being made to strenghen the people and yes,I read that comment made also.
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
so you've posed a question (1.07 / 13) (#20)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:07:51 PM EST

do you have an answer?

or do you just pose questions, and never pose any valid solutions?

is that useful?

acting without thinking is counterproductive and eventually evil

take a wild guess what thinking without acting is

SAME THING

so we should stop trying to solve anything because you have stupid questions and absolutely NO alternative solutions?

what do you consider your worth to be exactly?

PROPOSE SOMETHING

BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION, JUST A BUNCH OF HALF-ASSED MALFORMED QUESTIONS, DON'T OBSTRUCT PEOPLE TRYING TO DO GOOD


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Jesus... (3.00 / 3) (#32)
by Just this guy on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 04:11:50 PM EST

Better to do something than nothing, even if the something you're doing is making it worse, eh?

[ Parent ]
oh wow! (1.00 / 11) (#38)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 04:42:58 PM EST

i've never considered that concept before!

doing something can make something worse!

what a lightning bolt of realization!

(snicker)

how about this you fucking turd: the FEAR that taking a risk to try to improve the world might make things worse is one thing. but it does not justify the CERTAINTY that the world will be worse if you do nothing

how's that concept float your boat einstein?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I can use caps too! (none / 1) (#39)
by Just this guy on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 05:01:03 PM EST

How about the OBSERVATION that the SOMETHING you have chosen to be DOING seems to be KILLING an awful lot of PEOPLE, while not particularly IMPROVING the situation?

But hey, at least you didn't do nothing.

Christ. I wish you'd been almost hit by a drunk driver instead of 9/11 so you'd be bitching and moaning incoherently about something with less world-shattering potential to fuck up the solution to.

[ Parent ]

i just can't understand you (1.00 / 9) (#54)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:41:25 AM EST

"How about the OBSERVATION that the SOMETHING you have chosen to be DOING seems to be KILLING an awful lot of PEOPLE, while not particularly IMPROVING the situation?"

who? what? if what you said were true afghanistan would be a total mistake. except what you just said IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING

something the international forces in afghanistan are doing is killing a lot of people?

what are you fucking smoking?

seriously, how the fuck do you come to view what is happening in afghanistan like that?

how the fuck does reality get warped into that delusion?

you're ocmpletely out of touch with reality!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Wheee (3.00 / 4) (#76)
by Just this guy on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 04:24:36 PM EST

The topic started out being about Afghanistan, true, but I was talking about intervention in general.

Actually, I tell a lie. Mostly I just wanted to poke you so you'd bloviate a bit. You've demonstrated absolutely no inclination to be either rational or intellectually consistent in your posts to this site in general, so in turn I feel no need to extend anything of the sort to you.

YHBT. In general. By life.


[ Parent ]

well yeah (1.00 / 2) (#87)
by circletimessquare on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 03:57:49 AM EST

being trolled is to be duped into caring about something, about caring about something

if you say i've been trolled by life, i take that as a major compliment

one should fucking care about the world we live in, no?

if you laugh at me because i care, what do you think you're proving about me that's negative in some way?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

lol you make me laugh CTS (3.00 / 2) (#59)
by horseskin spacesuit on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 05:57:04 AM EST

but you are such a hypocrite



This is quite literally the only computer I'm capable of not being offended by. ~ balsamic vinigga
[ Parent ]
Unlike Iraq (2.66 / 3) (#3)
by alba on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 01:43:43 PM EST

You actually have a chance in Afghanistan.
There are many different ethnicities.
Expectations of inhabitants are low.
And with Pakistan there is a friendly neighbor willing to do the ugly things.

Ok, it would take decades, a lot of money and some yet to be found measure against corruption.

Giving up in Afghanistan means to admit the war on terror is fraud.

well, I actually believe that this (none / 1) (#6)
by agavero on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:05:18 PM EST

"war on terror" is an excuse to cross borders on a whim. No one is actually going out to kill only terrorists as no one really knows who a terrorist is, accept maybe Bin Laden.If one wants to kill all the terrorists, perhaps they should start with the children as a lot of them are suicide bombers - and that is just plain nuts to even think of that..
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, this really is an Us or (none / 1) (#16)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:53:35 PM EST

Them situation. Much like the Romans vs. the Germanic tribes, eventually somone is going to take over, and at present Canada sits with Rome. So, when in Rome....

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

It's the economy, stupid (none / 0) (#18)
by alba on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:03:09 PM EST

As long as they can't produce their own Kalashnikovs, there is nothing to fear about.
Apart from the fearmongers in the west, that is.

[ Parent ]
This article fails it (none / 0) (#22)
by GhostOfTiber on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:12:05 PM EST

I was willing to entertain it until:
Afghanistan is an extremely poor nation. Fewer than 11 million of its 36 million people are even part of a cash economy. Many of its people are starving. Over 60% of export earning come from opium poppy production. Afghanistan needs and deserves our help, but not in the form of endless bullets, rockets and bombs.

You said it yourself:  Most of the population doesn't participate in a cash economy.  What is the economy over there?  Drugs.  Can we pay them in drugs?  No.  Can we hand out drugs on the street and fix the situation?  No.  Can we give them equipment to farm, etc?  They don't want it.

Like the man says, "The killing is good," says one Afghan villager who has taken part in rajm, the public stoning of an adulterous couple. "it keeps people obedient."

'Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived'.  CTS got it right when he called you a pampered westerner, I hope you get your ass kicked in highschool this year to illustrate this point.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne

ROR. I doubt i will get my ass kicked in (none / 0) (#24)
by agavero on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:36:21 PM EST

high school. I have been out of high school longer than you have been alive most likely.
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
OK (none / 0) (#60)
by QuantumFoam on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 10:00:28 AM EST

What the hell does ROR mean and why the hell is anyone who claims to be an adult using it?

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Roughing Out Roud (none / 0) (#71)
by GhostOfTiber on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 02:35:26 PM EST

It makes fun of Asians and was probably coined by 4chan.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

linking right back at you (none / 0) (#91)
by kromagg on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 09:10:33 AM EST

An excellent read on why afghan farmers grow drugs.

[ Parent ]
Also, are you even white? (1.00 / 6) (#27)
by kurobots are funny on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:46:39 PM EST

Why are you trying to involve yourself in Canadian politics?

Canada's policies not decided in Ottawa (2.50 / 4) (#34)
by United Fools on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 04:19:16 PM EST

It is decided in Washington!

If you just argue with your MPs or politicians in Canada, that will produce no results!

You need to talk to the people in Washington, even though you did not elect any of them!

We are united, we are fools, and we are America!

you are so right with this. (none / 0) (#36)
by agavero on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 04:31:06 PM EST


"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
I would disagree with your conclusions (3.00 / 2) (#42)
by hatshepsut on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 05:55:25 PM EST

But I agree that it is important to talk about and debate this issue.

Personally, I think there is a chance at making things better in Afganistan (unfortunately, I don't hold the same belief for Iraq...though there is always some hope).

The general (non-Taliban) populace seems open to having our troops there, they have seen that our troops (our generals, our parliament) are not actually trying to run their country. While the troops aren't having flowers thrown at them (and I wouldn't have expected that anyway), the reported mood is more positive than not.

Digging out a well armed (though one can always hope that we are able to blockade them sufficiently that they, at the very least, start to run out of bullets and bombs) determined group of people who have holed up in terrain that is suited to guerilla warfare takes time.

But, these are my opinions. I want to hear more debate on how long we can expect our troops to be there, what are their goals and milestones, and (I think, most importantly) how will we know when it is time to bring them back...what, in fact, constitutes a completed mission? Our government has changed since the mission began, it is possible it could change again (I have heard rumours of a spring election). We need this as a topic of debate, it is going to affect our lives, our international policies, and quite likely our internal politics, for years to come.

yes, I do agree with you that the (none / 0) (#43)
by agavero on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 06:01:30 PM EST

general populace appreciates our troops there and I do think that something good can become of all this mess. It is nice to be able to debate in a reasonable fashion too :)
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
Try and be more objective (2.42 / 7) (#46)
by redqueen on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 06:28:17 PM EST

At least provide some information on the justifications for being there until 2009.  Military action is a means to an end (see the notes below.)

And, by the way, to let you know where I'm coming from -- My older brother and father are both soldiers who've served in Afghanistan.  My older brother, who is just starting a family, will probably be back before it's over.

And, yes, I support our gov'ts decision to have them there.  

The Gov't of Canada's Web site sums it up better than I can:

How will success in Afghanistan be measured?
The Afghanistan Compact, National Development Strategy and National Drug Control Strategy - which represent the Afghan government's priorities -- lay out benchmarks guiding Afghanistan's recovery for the next five years.

Please note: These benchmarks have been identified and espoused by the Afghan government as the best way to ensure future security, good governance and prosperity for the Afghan people.

These benchmarks include:

  • reduction by 70% of the land area contaminated by mines and unexploded ordnance;
  • destruction by end-2007 of all stockpiled anti-personnel mines;
  • destruction by end-2010 of all unsafe, unserviceable and surplus ammunition;
  • establishment of a nationally respected, professional, ethnically balanced Afghan National Army;
  • an Afghan National Police and Afghan Border Police with a combined force of up to 62,000;
  • ratification by end-2006 of the UN Convention against Corruption, to be followed by adoption by end-2007 of national legislation and establishment by end-2008 of monitoring mechanism to oversee implementation;
  • full implementation by end-2010 of the National Action Plan for Women in Afghanistan and strengthening of female participation in all Afghan governance institutions;
  • functioning institutions of justice in each province;
  • electricity to reach 65% of households, 90% of non-residential establishments in major urban areas and at least 25% of households in rural areas;
  • more employment opportunities for youth and demobilized soldiers;
  • reduction by 20% of chronically poor female-headed households, and increase by 20% of their employment rates; and
  • new business organization laws to be tabled in the National Assembly by end-2006.


Best "interesting female" (impersonator): redqueen. - sausalito
You have the right to disagree (1.20 / 5) (#49)
by Duke Gonzo on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:12:08 PM EST

with the Afghanistan war, it is within your freedom of speech to do so. Of course it also labels you as a traitor and terrorist sympathizer and your IP has been logged and traced back to your home adress. It is now a part of your perminate record and future employers will be able to read it and reject you based upon it. Have a nice life!

You are so funny.....:) (none / 0) (#50)
by agavero on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:23:05 PM EST


"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
I became funny (none / 0) (#52)
by Duke Gonzo on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:11:09 PM EST

when I reached Nerdvana and became one with the Internet just like Orion Blastar did. That allows us to transcend our humanity like Orion Blastar did. Orion Blastar is the K5 Buddha that a lot of K5 Humor comes from. Lord High Admiral Orion Blastar is shining on us all and making us funnier.

[ Parent ]
the ethnic angle isn't quite right here (none / 1) (#53)
by Delirium on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:54:57 PM EST

This is hardly NATO versus the Pashtuns: Most of the power in the government we're propping up is concentrated in the hands of Pashtuns as well, and NATO is actually moderately popular among civilians in many areas. In fact most complaints have been that NATO isn't doing enough—not enough troops, not enough willingness to establish order—rather than that it's doing too much. The Taliban does have its power base among Pashtuns, but it's not wildly popular or anything. It rose to power because it promised order in a chaotic post-Soviet vacuum, not because everyone was really enamored with Islamic fundamentalist theocracy (something similar is currently going on in Somalia). Granted, they may grow popular again if NATO proves to be inept and the Taliban convinces people that them rising back to power will produce stability. But that's still very much an "if", and NATO has a chance not to screw that one up.

You've obviously never been in combat. (1.81 / 16) (#57)
by sllort on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:51:26 AM EST

Trust me, when you've been eating shit for 15 months and all you've got is an M-16, a tent and a prayer that the sacrifice you're making is for a good cause, when you've seen your friend's brains smeared across the desert by land mines, you better fucking belive that getting a newspaper full of accusations that you're out in the desert to fuck over a bunch of innocent people is a pretty huge kick in the balls. The problem with the idea that you can support the troops while disagreeing with their mission is that the troops are dying for that mission.

Here, try this. Go tell some Peace Corps volunteers that you support them! Also tell them that, despite your support for them, you can't support their mission, because you believe that the people they're trying to help can't be educated, that technology is as lost on them as democracy is on the Afghans. Smile while you do it. See if they buy it, you fucking chump.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.

Support is not the word (2.80 / 5) (#69)
by svampa on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 02:11:03 PM EST

Instead of "we support" should be "we don't think your are risponsible"

"We don't support your mission, but we don't think you, soldiers, are risponsible. And we wish you to come back home as soon as posible, safe and alive"

Going through the hell of a combat zone is less hard if you believe in your mission. To achieve this, you have two ways: First one, never wonder about the mission and trust in the command. Second one, wonder about the mission, and conclude it is a good cause. The second option has the risk that the conclusion could be the opposite.

As soldier in a democracy, you must be ready for the second option, because the civil society has opinions, talks, and nothing can't prevent you from listening them. It is much easier to be a soldier in a dictatorship that in a democracy.

I would be ready to defend the soil of my country as soldier without questions. But if they wanted to send me abroad, they should explain me why and convice me, and I would demand to keep my right of refusing to go, or demanding to return home.

As soldier you have given away part of your liberty. You can't question the orders or the mission. You can't tell your superior "I don't believe in this mission any more, I resign." Complaining against those who have kept their full liberties is futile. If you don't like heath don't go to the kitchen.

Perhaps it looks that I show no qualms for those who defend my country. But in my opinion, The army defends my country as long as it stays at home. I am not very sure if it is defending my country when they send soldiers to a foreing land. If they explain it to me why, and if I don't buy it, I will rise my objections publicly.

I symphatize with soldier's suffering (I've never been in a war, but I've seen pain, wounds and fear in another environment). But that is what they chose. Unfortunately, perhaps they weren't aware of long term consecuences when the enroled.

Anyhow, you are right. It's stupid to say "I support you, but not your mission".



[ Parent ]
thank you for your comments. (none / 1) (#70)
by agavero on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 02:16:45 PM EST


"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
Exactly (none / 1) (#74)
by IAmNos on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 04:06:12 PM EST

I think this is the way a lot of us (Canadians) feel, me included. I would not do well in the armed forces, I have an aversion to authority. I question our (Canada's) reasons for being there. I do believe that we have an obligation to defend ourselves on foreign soil, and to defend our allies.

Notice how I said defend. There can be circumstances that dictate a pre-emptive strike, but this still amounts to defense, or protecting ourselves. Sometimes there is an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves. However, in that type of situation, we must weight the potential benefits against the costs. A lot of soldiers have died in Afghanistan. What have we accomplished? Is that worth the lives of 37 Canadians? Karzai thinks so but do Canadians?

That's the real question here. Asking the question "Is it worth it?" is not questioning the ability, loyalty, or morality of our troops. I believe in our troops. I believe when called up, they will do the best job possible, and generally make Canada proud of what they do.

In short, I support our troops, but not necessarily what they are told to do.


http://thekerrs.ca
[ Parent ]
my take on this (2.50 / 2) (#75)
by khallow on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 04:18:58 PM EST

Trust me, when you've been eating shit for 15 months and all you've got is an M-16, a tent and a prayer that the sacrifice you're making is for a good cause, when you've seen your friend's brains smeared across the desert by land mines, you better fucking belive that getting a newspaper full of accusations that you're out in the desert to fuck over a bunch of innocent people is a pretty huge kick in the balls. The problem with the idea that you can support the troops while disagreeing with their mission is that the troops are dying for that mission.

I don't get it. We're supposed to rubberstamp everything the President does so our delicate troops won't feel unwanted? Right. The military gets tough shit jobs all the time from the sausage makers in Washington. The grownups in the US understand that. Sure you get people that will never show a bit of gratitude to a soldier, or that view soldiers as some pitiable sort of naive loser. But most of us understand that the job isn't the fault of the soldier nor are they sheep being lead to the slaughter.

As a voting citizen of the US, I have a responsibility to understand and judge the actions of the US. You seem to be claiming that I should forgo this responsibility in order to hypothetically raise the morale of the soldier.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

what? this is a really weird argument. (3.00 / 2) (#79)
by livus on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 07:41:40 PM EST

If they were risking their lives to boil babies in a volcano I'm sure they'd also feel demoralised at criticism, but this doesn't mean you should blithely support the boiling of babies.

If people feel shitty because they get called on immoral actions there's an easy way to avoid that - don't perform immoral actions.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Oh, I Get It (2.66 / 3) (#110)
by czolgosz on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 04:39:21 PM EST

The problem with the idea that you can support the troops while disagreeing with their mission is that the troops are dying for that mission.

"Support the troops" is a fig leaf for not having any real arguments.


You are saying that it's much better to lie to them and tell them that the mission has a point when it fucking well doesn't.


Sounds Straussian somehow.


But if it's wrong, it's wrong, and all your ineffectual refried right-wing talk radio bluster can't hide that. You're in favor of putting troops in harm's way for no good reason. That's the crime, not the potential impact on morale of them learning the truth.


Unlike Bush, Cheney or most of the other trigger-happy incompetent REMFs who started this fiasco, I've served my country. And you insult me by implying that I'd rather be lied to than told what's really going on. Same goes for the men and women whose patriotism is being abused by the power-mad, corrupt Pinochet-clones in Washington and their poodles in Ottawa and London.


The real long-term way to keep morale high is accountability. Try the war criminals in the upper ranks, the liars who got us into Iraq, the ass-kissers who agreed to go in without a strategy. Those are the enemy within, not those of us who see what's going on and call them on it.  



And as for the sorry-ass bloggers who cheerlead them, piss on 'em. There are always cowards who suck up to the powerful. And when the pendulum swings, they'll go on to find new uses for their kneepads.


Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
[ Parent ]
So, soldiers should just die for no reason? (none / 0) (#158)
by cburke on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:49:16 PM EST

The problem with the idea that you can support the troops while disagreeing with their mission is that the troops are dying for that mission.

EXACTLY.  The troops are dying for that mission; thus the discussion of whether or not that mission is appropriate is of the utmost importance.  Failing to consider at every step whether that mission is working, whether that mission is ill-conceived, whether that mission is a waste of our soldiers lives is the very essence of supporting them.

But instead you're saying we shouldn't disagree with that mission, we should just let the soldiers continue to die for a mission that we believe to be detrimental to the future of the country they are fighting for, just so that we don't have to admit that those soldiers who died have done so for no reason?!  That's insane and incredibly disrepsectful to the soldiers who are still alive and would appreciate us telling them when they can stop dying for no reason.

No I've never been in combat, thank god, but my uncle is a 'nam vet who you damn well better believe would have appreciated being told that his mission was useless and he could come home now before he was stricken with all the horrors of that war that haunt him to this day.

People just like you didn't want to admit that 'nam was a fools errand and that our soldiers were dying uselessly.  So instead he got to experience a full tour in Vietnam, going through all that hell, for what was in the end was unequivocably a foolhardy mission.

Of course our soldiers were fighting and dying for that mission, and for that I respect them.  But that doesn't make it a good mission.

Here's the way it is supposed to work:  The Commander in Chief and other top leaders command the troops into war, and gives them a mission.  The soldiers obey their orders and try to accomplish the mission.  The job of the civilians is to look at the leaders and ask them: "Are you using our troops correctly?"  Anything else is to abandon our troops to the whims of the leaders, which is the opposite of supporting them.

But instead you want to pretend that their mission is worth, that it's right and good and most of all working, just so that the soldiers don't feel bad about their past and continuing deaths?  Way to support the troops, asshole.

"Stay the course" is the most anti-troop slogan since Hanoi Jane got airtime.

[ Parent ]

The best thing to do (none / 1) (#58)
by A Bore on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 04:28:37 AM EST

..would be to keep the oil flowing. Oil means money, money props up legitimate governments. Our troops are wasting their time out in the sticks, being shot and blown up, with the very civilians around them helping the Taliban remnants. It would be better to have strategic points in defense of the oil pipelines and industry, and a complete withdrawal from the outer areas.

Then, weaken the resistance by arming death squads - perhaps the kurds could help - which will terrorise and destroy the local population at an arms length from our policies, and provide a valuable counterbalance against the taliban.

Whilst the chaos begins, we could corrupt the bureaucratic mechanisms with kickbacks and excessive patronage. Then, when the people are beaten enough, they will welcome the inevitable hardman character that will come through the ranks of the remaining armed forces, impose harsh discipline on the areas under his control, and begin the long process of pressing the taliban back across the pakistan border, leaving us to withdraw our troops (except for some stategic lilypad airbases) and proclaim victory.

Is there a problem? (2.20 / 5) (#63)
by khallow on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:22:27 AM EST

You seem to think there's a problem with Canada's role in Afghanistan. But I note a few problems with your viewpoint. This is a regional engagement of foreign troops on one side of a civil conflict in Afghanistan. It's an extension of the American led "war on terror" to try to obliterate the militant leadership of Islamic fundamentalism as embodied by the Taliban.

We ignore, here that the Taliban was the side of that civil conflict that materially aided Al Qaeda at the time of the September 11 attacks on a Canadian ally.

Now we're engaged in a broad and expanding military offensive against the Pashtun tribe in the Kandahar region. Pashtuns are the dominant ethnic group (roughly 15 million) in Afghanistan. For every one we kill, Taliban or not, there are many anxious replacements wanting to defend their homeland against the foreign invaders.

At a glance, 37 Canadian soldiers have died since 2002 inclusive, 10 of those deaths were due to accident or friendly fire. If Canada is engaging in a "broad and expanding" military offensive against 15 million people, then where are the bodies?

I think "cut and run" accurately describes illogical behavior like this, namely abandoning a national interest like this in the absence of a serious problem. While technically there is a war in Afghanistan, it's so low intensity that anti-war opponents can only speak of it by ignoring the purpose of the war, casualty figures for the war, and what's actually occuring there. You should be asking that if war is so wrong, then how do we put into place something more effective? Something with teeth.

Perhaps I stereotype the anti-war argument, but it seems that "diplomacy" is the magical answer. Somehow diplomats will get together and fix all those problems that diplomacy has historically failed to solve. Someone kills 3000 civilians? We'll just talk it over and they'll see reason and stop, right?

Stating the obvious since 1969.

Well thats just it (3.00 / 4) (#119)
by DrToast on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 10:17:28 PM EST

It's not about 9/11 anymore. When we first went into Afghanistan in the months following 9/11, things made a little more sense. An ally was attacked and we came to their aid. It was simple.

But now our ally is behaving very irrationally. Invading countries that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack that started the war. Our ally is torturing people. Our ally is slowly taking away the rights of their citizens.

And its now plainly obvious to all Canadians that our ally's leadership is completely incompetant.

We really need to reassess this war. We aren't giving aid to an ally anymore. We are defending an ally's interest in one country to free up their resources so they can invade other countries. Is this a moral thing to do?

And our ally isn't the same country it used to be. Should we be defending the interests of a country that is acting immorally and illegal with concerns to human rights?

And going back to the specifics of Afghanistan, our soldiers are starting to come up against the warlords that are involved in the opium trade. These aren't Talibani, these are drug lords. Should Canada be stretching the limits of our armed forces to do drug enforcement overseas?

These are the questions that Canada has to grapple with. This is not "cut and run" vs. "support our troops". These are very complicated and difficult questions and there are no simple answers.

[ Parent ]

No, I have not lived in the (none / 0) (#64)
by agavero on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:16:59 PM EST

"trenches" or been involved in fighting in war torn zones - but - both my parents, mom being in the British army and dad in the Canadian army in WW2. Both were involved in the fighting, mom on home soil and dad was involved in Belgium plus the landing on the beach along with my grandfather who was a naval captain in the British Navy.
I had many family member lose their homes and lives with the bombing of England in WW2 and many lived in fear of the iRA for years. One of my cousins served with the navy in the Korean war and came back in a body bag. Going back to my home town eight years to my home country after peace was declared after WW2, I saw what was left of my home after it was bombed.
I heard many war stories about WW2 and the Korean conflict while growing up, as we must all do from our parents or grandparents.
I lived many years with the results of WW2, of which i will not go into detail at this time.
I am glad I don't remember sleeping in a bedroom dresser drawer during bombing raids.
I am far from being knowledgeable about wars and all they entail. I just do not agree with them and that is my choice.
This story only asks if it is being disloyal upon questioning of NATO troops in Afghanistan for debate purposes, nothing more, nothing less.
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
It ceased being a civil conflict (2.62 / 8) (#67)
by LilDebbie on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 01:34:08 PM EST

when the Taliban started opening training camps for al-Qaeda.

As an American, I'm happy that your wiser countrymen have joined us in arms against global terrorism.

As a kuron, I'm happy to -1 this drivel.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

Join the army, meet interesting people, kill them (3.00 / 2) (#109)
by alba on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 02:13:47 PM EST

Five years after, and the Yankies are still chanting religious nonsense about the right to do something instead of using their brains to think about what to do.

Well, I like it. When the USA collapses we can all be free again.

[ Parent ]

what on earth does baseball have to do with this? (none / 1) (#151)
by the spins on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 10:24:15 PM EST


 _
( )
 X
/ \ SUPPORT THE DEL GRIFFITH MODBOMBING CAMPAIGN

[ Parent ]

plz2bunderstanding (2.50 / 2) (#128)
by actmodern on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:00:32 PM EST

the taliban were just an excuse to go in. the oil pipeline was the real motivator.

heck, the media could have put the spin on the northern alliance if they wanted to.

--
LilDebbie challenge: produce the water sports scene from bable or stfu. It does not exist.
[ Parent ]

+1 FP CTS ranting is humorous (1.50 / 4) (#72)
by Wilkes on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 02:47:37 PM EST



thank you , and yes, it is hilarious :) (none / 0) (#73)
by agavero on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 03:03:04 PM EST


"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure this addresses whatit sets out to (none / 0) (#80)
by livus on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 07:52:12 PM EST

namely the concept of loyalty. OTOH,  I approve of Canada-centricity.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

A few things I'd like to say (3.00 / 7) (#82)
by levesque on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 09:11:29 PM EST

Before 2001, and 9/11 specifically the Taliban received western support on many fronts.

At the time terrorists in Afghanistan where not supported by the Taliban any more than terrorist are supported in other countries by their leaders. The resources needed to effectively keep Al-qaeda out of the country are substantial.

Following 9/11 the Taliban had no problem with making Afghanistan inhospitable for terrorist and receiving help to accomplish this task from outside. And as is usual in international politics the Taliban wanted an exchange for servicing an other countries needs. This is standard procedure. Strong nations use this method all the time. The economic resources needed to remove an irritant is conjugated with its internal and external politic value.

The initial talks with the Taliban government came to an abrupt halt when the full content of negotiations started to drift into the public domain. The spin that was brewing hit full force at that moment and it was followed by a misguided, misdirected and precipitated military attack.

Since then the country has sank into more and more turmoil and has become more fractioned and socially stratified. The President has asked for continued help but complained that only killing and more killing is not solving anything, quite the contrary. Women's groups all over Afghanistan have clearly stated that their overall situation has deteriorate over the past 6 years.

These people are not any different from other people.  Fanaticism is mainly formented and maintained by external abuse and the resulting pressure it puts on citizens. The country needs more coherence and inclusion not exclusion and war. The mess before 9/11 in Afghanistan and the military escalation since are mainly the result of vested external international interests over decades concentrated on a small region culminating in a still ongoing international psychosis.

There are military needs in Afghanistan. One of the first being the control of ammunition and weapon sources. Overall there is a need to move away from the theory of elimination, a mirage at best, and work towards integration and to help the country reconnect and rebuild itself, it is a long process, an emotional and physical rebuilding, it needs time if we want more than a temporary superficial facade of change.

We need less "cut and run" or "stay the course" debates. We need to act responsibly and cooperate with the Afghans wishes, from the ground up, in a transparent fashion. When the objectives are clear and honorable -the results are overwhelming.

You cannot impose faith, or democracy, by the sword. -Someone said



was this not said by bush?.. (none / 0) (#83)
by agavero on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 09:57:21 PM EST

We need less "cut and run" or "stay the course" debates.
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
I don't know (none / 0) (#101)
by levesque on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 05:51:41 PM EST

if he did. I meant we need to question both global and particular objectives and the methods of achieving those objectives.

[ Parent ]
well, thats basically what this story says... (none / 1) (#102)
by agavero on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 06:02:33 PM EST


"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
uhn' (none / 0) (#104)
by levesque on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 07:39:18 PM EST

Yes, I'll rephrase. If Bush said "Less cut and run or stay the course debates" I'm not sure he meant to imply a reexamination of intentions or causes, and possible avenues of solution.

[ Parent ]
huh (none / 1) (#84)
by khallow on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:09:28 PM EST

I see you're trying to claim that the Taliban would have done something about Al Qaeda even though 1) Al Qaeda provided a substantial amount of the Taliban's military power and 2) the Taliban was sheltering Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks.

The blather about "social stratification" is garbage. For example, women's groups have clearly stated that their overall situation has improved in the past six years. The conflict between the Taliban and the Northern alliance is pretty much over as well. So there's less conflict as well.

Fanatacism is imposed from "outside". I don't buy that. It's in the head.

Last couple of paragraphs are ok, but you should have cut the rest out.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 1) (#103)
by levesque on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 07:28:20 PM EST

I see you're trying to claim that the Taliban would have done something about Al Qaeda

No, I'm claiming the outcome was not that "obviously they would do nothing"

even though 1) Al Qaeda provided a substantial amount of the Taliban's military power

This is possible but I don't see it as implying dissociation was impossible after 9/11. Assuming there was substantial or low level association of Al Qaeda with certain levels of the Afghan government, it would not be and was not a new or unusual type of international dynamic. Because of the prominance of the situation it demanded, and still demands, coherent local and international involvement beyond military action.

2) the Taliban was sheltering Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks.

What do you mean by sheltering.

The blather about "social stratification" is garbage.

I don't think complete garbage, but it was precipitated and vague. An example might be the   strong shift in social climate between the capital and the rest of the country. Possibly a similar situation is occurring in Iraq.

For example, women's groups have clearly stated that their overall situation has improved in the past six years.

Agreed, It's hard to measure or compare our sources without references

The conflict between the Taliban and the Northern alliance is pretty much over as well. So there's less conflict as well.

I don't think that is very clear either, possibly the conflict is also shifting in nature towards more internal disputes and lower level insatisfaction expressed in things like suicide bombings.

Fanaticism is imposed from "outside". I don't buy that. It's in the head.

I mean it's more like local weather, a function of the general climate.

Outside forces, punctually and over the years, can be a primary factor influencing internal levels of unrest which in turn affects levels of fanaticism. I didn't exactly say that, but it probably reflects better what I mean.



[ Parent ]

as I see it (none / 1) (#117)
by khallow on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 07:46:36 PM EST

No, I'm claiming the outcome was not that "obviously they would do nothing"

The Taliban had several months to stop the behemoth, they didn't avail themselves of the opportunity.

What do you mean by sheltering.

Such things as: provide a base of opperations and revenue for the military force that Al Qaeda operated in Afghanistan, and protect Al Qaeda members and officers from arrest.

As I understand it, there was a substantial group of several thousand Al Qaeda members in a military unit operating around Mazar-e Sharif. They had the extreme misfortune of surrendering to one of the nastier warlords, General Abdul Rashid Dostum (from the US point of view, he is blowback in action).

I don't think that is very clear either, possibly the conflict is also shifting in nature towards more internal disputes and lower level insatisfaction expressed in things like suicide bombings.

In other words, it's less conflict.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

I think there are positive developments (none / 0) (#133)
by levesque on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 07:55:14 PM EST

The Taliban had several months to stop the behemoth, they didn't avail themselves of the opportunity.

Such things as: provide a base of opperations and revenue for the military force that Al Qaeda operated in Afghanistan, and protect Al Qaeda members and officers from arrest.

I'm not denying low level links between Al Qa'ida and some persons in the Taliban government at the time of 9/11. I don't think this implies the Taliban where, as a whole, responsible for these ties or had the necessary power to control or contain the situation on there own without losing the relative fragile balance the country had attained over the past years.

 I see no reason to doubt that the government could have contained or dissociated themselves from the extreme elements in their ranks and would have evolved towards more moderate positions and more democratic processes with the appropriate outside help. To simply arrest Osama and deliver him to the US was a recipe for internal civil and governmental degradation. I have no doubt the Taliban's initial offer of building a solid base needed to permit a rapid resolution, in cooperation with the US, and delivery of Osama to the American government was genuine.

When it became apparent this was not going to happen the Taliban's offer to deliver Osama to an Arab country, as perceived by Arabs, seems coherent. Again, without help, simply delivering Osama to the US would plunge the country into chaos -so could the American government please accept he be delivered to one of the United States' Arab allies. This would have been a bit more complicated for the US, but seems to me as a reasonable offer considering the US seemed to have, in effect, refused a more grounded resolution to the problems locally and abroad created by the presence of Al Qa'ida in the region.

That's of course all speculation after the fact.

Lt. Gen. Michel Gauthier Canada's commander of foreign military deployment and former NATO commander in Afghanistan recently commented: "The extreme elements among the Taliban are the ones who actually do us harm", "like any large grouping, there's a spectrum". He has had contact with individuals who were part of the Taliban government and he also stated, to a lot of people's surprise, that he dined with sub-commanders in the Taliban's military one of which is now in the cabinet of Hamid Karzai.

Mr. Karzai on his recent visit to Canada commented that international forces have left Afghanistan in a state of ruin. I don't think he meant to state this only as a reproach but simply to point out that the situation in the the country is far from resolved. He also sent a thousand thanks and insisted international help is primordial and this does not exclude military support.

Where do we go from here.

As Mr. Karzai and Gauthier have noted: Pakistan must be part of the future, the power they hold over the conflict in Afghanistan must be addressed (of course Pakistan can neither be considered an autonomous entity in the region and they must also be considered, as all others, as part of a greater international dynamic).

Is there less conflict? Yes of a sort. But I would not draw conclusions from that concerning the daily lives of the average Afghan, or yet, concerning conflict on an international political scale. If things are getting better, may they get much better.

Locally and on an international scale we can certainly move together in that direction.

[ Parent ]

Don't forget. (3.00 / 2) (#113)
by driptray on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 05:09:33 PM EST

I see you're trying to claim that the Taliban would have done something about Al Qaeda...

Yes, remember how Bush made that ultimatum; "Give us Osama or else", and the Taliban dithered for a week or so before finally saying "OK, but we'll give him to a muslim country for trial there".

And Bush said "Sorry, it's war."

The Taliban were willing and able to give up Osama, and having the trial in a muslim country would have been a very smart thing for everybody except Osama who was enemy No. 1 for every muslim country at that time.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

as I see it (none / 1) (#116)
by khallow on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 07:31:48 PM EST

Yes, remember how Bush made that ultimatum; "Give us Osama or else", and the Taliban dithered for a week or so before finally saying "OK, but we'll give him to a muslim country for trial there".

The US is one of the larger muslim countries out there. Why wouldn't they turn Osama in to the US where the crimes were commited? If they were genuine, they'd also have captured Osama first.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Those rich fucks! This whole fucking thing... (1.40 / 5) (#85)
by the77x42 on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 01:32:17 AM EST

Donny was a good bowler, and a good man. He was one of us. He was a man who loved the outdoors... and bowling, and as a surfer he explored the beaches of Southern California, from La Jolla to Leo Carrillo and... up to... Pismo. He died, like so many young men of his generation, he died before his time. In your wisdom, Lord, you took him, as you took so many bright flowering young men at Khe Sanh, at Langdok, at Hill 364. These young men gave their lives. And so would Donny. Donny, who loved bowling. And so, Theodore Donald Karabotsos, in accordance with what we think your dying wishes might well have been, we commit your final mortal remains to the bosom of the Pacific Ocean, which you loved so well. Good night, sweet prince.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

lol north america (1.50 / 4) (#90)
by jellyfish for breakfast on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 08:13:38 AM EST

dipshits

Just to thank you all for the great (none / 1) (#105)
by agavero on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 08:53:45 PM EST

discussion that went on here. Its good when we can debate various issues not everyone agrees with. Again, thanks. :)
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
that's why i voted +1 fp (none / 1) (#107)
by circletimessquare on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 03:57:35 AM EST

i think you're a stupid sheltered turd

but it's good discussion, so +1 fp from me


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

well, thanks cts, but believe me, (none / 1) (#108)
by agavero on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 10:37:57 AM EST

i am no stupid sheltered turd..this is in your own mind..i have lived long enough to see and do lots of things in my lifetime..anyway, i have always enjoyed watching you when you debate things in a more rational manner..you are quite knowledgeable about many things..its when  you start yelling and calling people names which is terrible..we all have our own belief system, and because it does not necessarily agree with yours, is no reason for the name calling etc..anyway, thanks for your vote :)
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
you're a fucking moron (1.00 / 8) (#111)
by circletimessquare on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 04:39:52 PM EST

you really are

a genuine low iq fucktard

you live in a world of placid lies

sorry you can't handle a little ugly truth

you choose to shield your little way of looking at the world with fantasies about human behavior that don't exist

look at human behavior at it is, and know the truth

until then, shut the fuck up you fucking asshole


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

well, for one thing, I dont have a low iq, (none / 1) (#112)
by agavero on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 05:01:13 PM EST

for another I dont live in a fantasy world, and I think I know quite a bit about human behaviour, as it is a part of my career path. Also, I am not a fucking asshole. Anything else you would like to call me? You see, I know the truth about me, you have no clue my friend,:)
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of nonknowledge." Isaac Bashevis Singer
[ Parent ]
yes: smug (none / 1) (#114)
by circletimessquare on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 05:26:26 PM EST

you honestly believe your fantasies about human nature is in any way valid or informed when looking at world events and commenting on them intelligently or effectively?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Strange (none / 0) (#147)
by BJH on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 04:03:30 AM EST

Because you sure as hell never listen to what anybody else has to say.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
You are such an insecure little bitch. (2.33 / 3) (#118)
by Comrade Wonderful on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 09:59:51 PM EST



[ Parent ]
i'm a bitch, but i'm not insecure (none / 1) (#120)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 12:21:12 AM EST

seriously, if you want to insult me properly, you have to call me oversecure, blind. if i'm at fault, it's in the opposite direction of insecurity. try again, you fail at pop psychology


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, that too. (none / 0) (#149)
by Comrade Wonderful on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 07:58:04 AM EST

You try to present yourself as 'oversecure' to compensate for your actually feeling insecure.

[ Parent ]
Is that your "good discussion" ? nt (1.50 / 2) (#121)
by spasticfraggle on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 02:52:58 AM EST



--
I'm the straw that broke the camel's back!
[ Parent ]
yes, it is, asshole nt (none / 1) (#122)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 05:44:57 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
As good as you get anyway ^_^ (1.00 / 2) (#141)
by spasticfraggle on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 10:13:14 AM EST



--
I'm the straw that broke the camel's back!
[ Parent ]
-1 -- C, eh? N, eh? D, eh? /> (1.12 / 8) (#106)
by buck on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 10:58:34 PM EST


-----
“You, on the other hand, just spew forth your mental phlegmwads all over the place and don't have the goddamned courtesy to throw us a tissue afterwards.” -- kitten
why we're in afghanistan (1.08 / 12) (#124)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 06:16:17 AM EST

for sheltered clueless rich western morons like the author who don't understand what really goes on in this world:

Gunmen Kill Afghan Women's Affairs Official

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: September 25, 2006

Filed at 5:14 a.m. ET

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Two gunmen on a motorbike killed the provincial director of Afghanistan's Ministry of Women's Affairs outside her home in the southern city of Kandahar on Monday, officials said.

Safia Ahmed-jan was shot to death while walking to her office, said Tawfiq ul-Ulhakim Parant, senior adviser to the women's ministry in Kabul.

Aleem Sidique, the spokesman for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, said the U.N. was ''appalled at this senseless murder.''

''What we need to see in Afghanistan is peace, development and progress,'' Sidique said. ''We share the sentiment of the majority of Afghan people who are appalled at this killing.''

Ahmed-jan was an active proponent of women's rights in a region where insurgents are extremely active.

In other violence, two people were killed in eastern Afghanistan Monday when their car exploded near the eastern city of Khost, said Gen. Mohammed Ayub, the provincial police chief.

The two were planning a bombing in the town, but their explosive device went off prematurely on an open road, Ayub said. There were no other casualties.

Some 20 militants attacked the house of a district chief in neighboring Paktika province late Sunday, killing him, said Sayed Jamal, spokesman for the provincial governor.

Authorities launched a search operation for the perpetrators Monday, recovering the district chief's vehicle and detaining nine people for questioning, Jamal said.

Suspected Taliban militants, meanwhile, attacked and destroyed a medical clinic in Yaqoubi district of the eastern Khost province on Sunday, Ayub said.

this is what happens if we leave afghanistan now, for the low iq sheltered clueless western nitwits who don't comprehend reality:

  1. assholes like those above gain power again
  2. said assholes begin to export their madness
  3. 9/11 happens somewhere again in the west

with that in mind, maybe self-preservation, rather than simple human empathy, can motivate some of you clueless rich western coddled children to understand why we're in afghanistan

next you sheltered rich western children should ask "why should we go to darfur", right?

stupid coddled children

go back to your videogames and your coffee shops. leave issues like afghanistan to mature adults. your decadent suburban lifestyles seem to be the only thing you western children can understand and navigate in this world

man i HATE rich western morons. open their fucking mouths. bitch and moan. and know abosolutely NOTHING about what really happens in this world and their place it. spoiled fucking rich western children

SEE THE REAL WORLD OUTSIDE YOUR HAPPY LITTLE COMFORT ZONES

EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT REALITY OUTSIDE OF YOUR SAFE WESTERN COCCOONS

OR SHUT THE FUCK UP

SERIOUSLY

YOU ONLY REVEAL YOUR EXTREME NAIVETE ABOUT REAL MENACE IN THE WORLD

SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO APPRECIATION FOR HOW LUCKY YOU ARE TO BE SAFE FROM SAID MENACE

you just take it for granted, and you have no idea what it takes to maintain that safety from menace

you think safety from menace in this world is just reality, a static state of being. you don't see all that went into the creation of your little safe bubble. you just know that you are in a bubble, and it is safe

god knows why anyone would actually have to fight for their own safety, right?

stupid

fucking

rich

western

children

so loud, so fucking naive and stupid


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

holy crap! (none / 1) (#125)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 06:18:08 AM EST

Comment Ratings by A Bore

1) why we're in afghanistan [], by circletimessquare, Rated: 0
Posted on 09/25/2006 06:16:17 AM EST
Rated on 09/25/2006 06:16:38 AM EST


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

KuroRate v2.04-3334432 is online. (3.00 / 2) (#127)
by A Bore on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 06:31:13 AM EST

THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE
**************************************************
*KuroRate determined Grandparent was full of shit*
*Baysian analysis:-------------------------------*
*------------------------------------------------*
*Posted by CTS +4.50-----------------------------*
*CAPSLOCKED +0.80--------------------------------*
*Whitespace penalty +0.40------------------------*
*Mentions the war +1.25--------------------------*
*Counterfactual +3.20----------------------------*
*Total 10.15-------------------------------------*
*------------------------------------------------*
*Threshold: 6.8 (pissed)-------------------------*
*Rating: 0 (zero)--------------------------------*
*SEM: +-.24--------------------------------------*
**************************************************


[ Parent ]
That's "Bayesian". (none / 0) (#148)
by BJH on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 04:48:20 AM EST

PLS FIX IN NEXT RELEASE KTHX.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
The Taliban didn't do 11-9 (none / 1) (#126)
by A Bore on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 06:18:48 AM EST

Hi,

The Taliban weren't responsible for 11-9, it was apparently a lot of Saudia Arabians. I don't understand: could you possibly explain?

Thanks,

[ Parent ]
that statement is clueless beyond belief nt (none / 1) (#129)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:30:54 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Tisn't (none / 1) (#135)
by A Bore on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 07:51:02 AM EST

YOU SEEM TO ASSUME that if Afghanistan became a compliant client state, like Saudi Arabia, there wouldn't be terrorists. Almost all the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians - did you know this? It doesn't see to matter if the regime is in favour to the US or not - there is still terrorism.

[ Parent ]
well no shit sherlock (none / 1) (#136)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:00:29 AM EST

afghanistan is the result of oil-funded wahabbi fundamentalism from saudi arabia

the ideal solution is to stop using petrol: no funding of osama bin laden. osama bin laden, hugo chavez: all of the bogey men are funded by oil. if we depend upon something like nuclear instead, all of the money that funds the bogeymen in the world dries up. bingo: no more bogeymen

but that's a little long term, no?

how about some short term efforts?

the long term way to get rid of a wasp infestation is to burn the nest

however, it still pays to kill the angry wasps that are attacking you in the short term, right einstein?

so in your blazing intellect you've discovered the longterm solution: deprive saudi arabia of easy money

now genius: what about the SHORT TERM?

or does that problem not exist, asshole?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No it isn't (none / 1) (#137)
by A Bore on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:28:59 AM EST

Do you even know what Wahhabism is? Is that just a word you picked up from Wikipedia? The Taliban were Pakistani in origin, you stupid fuck.

Jesus, this is funny. You scratch the barest surface of your knowledge and find it's all gold leaf over shit.

But wait! As ever, for disagreeing with your facts about Afghanistan, I have to come up with some sort of credible solution for whatever you're imagining today.

And what you're imagining today is...the long term solution of the terrorist problem is to deprive Saudi Arabia of easy money. Nothing about alleviating poverty, or interference in their affairs. They aren't attacking us because of the airbases, or the troops, or the illegal invasion. Palestinians are angry because Saudi Arabians have all that money, and are using it to stir up trouble.

What a fucking idiot.

Just face it, the terrorists you're facing today can't be stopped. Drain the fucking swamp, and the mosquitos will go away. Either commit ten times as many troops, or get the fuck out. There's no other way. Don't have enough troops? Then get the fuck out. That's your short term solution.

[ Parent ]
zzz (none / 1) (#138)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:49:00 AM EST

http://www.google.com/search?q=taliban+wahhabi


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
LOL (none / 1) (#139)
by A Bore on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 09:35:57 AM EST

MSN search

[ Parent ]
thanks for admitting when you are wrong (none / 1) (#140)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 10:11:14 AM EST

you have a lot of integrity for admitting when you are wrong, thanks for that. i usually encounter a lot of people blindly stubborn in their ignorance, and unwilling to admit they are wrong. it's nice to meet someone who when confronted with facts contrary to their erroneous beliefs, admit that they might have erred in their ways, and that they need to rethink their opinions. i'm glad you are big enough person to do that

cheers!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I can't tell if I'm wrong or not (none / 1) (#142)
by A Bore on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 11:45:54 AM EST

Perhaps some sort of google search would help?

[ Parent ]
i know you can't tell (none / 1) (#143)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 12:00:39 PM EST

you can't tell much can you?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I can tell the difference (none / 1) (#144)
by A Bore on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 12:02:16 PM EST

between the Taliban and Wahabbism. Why don't you have the last word, you evidently need it?

[ Parent ]
i thought we've been over this cretin (none / 0) (#145)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 09:01:59 PM EST

focus moron

read moron

http://www.google.com/search?q=taliban+wahhabi


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

What happened to you cts? (none / 0) (#152)
by A Bore on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 02:29:21 AM EST

I remember the old days. I remember when you used to bellow at us across the swamp, like an enormous Stegosaurus with a tiny brain. When did your hands start shaking? When did you first entertain those thoughts that your lover wasn't true?

You'd been flirting with that saucy girl, Interventionism, for some time, eyeing her while she flashed her smile and twirled her skirts but it was nothing serious. You were a committed man. But every day now, you woke up, and looked in the mirror to begin shaving, and tried not to catch your own eye.

The ones you now love, the friends she's introduced to you, aren't good for you, cts. They don't even know you exist. Your support means nothing to them.

That's why you feel so useless and alone, and why you started with this. Even as you paper over the walls, more cracks form. To find your way out of this problem is something you'll have to do. I can't help you with that. A wise man (it was me) once said "You can't love anything else unless you love yourself."

Let me know when you get better.

With kindness,
AB

[ Parent ]
sorry bubble boy (none / 0) (#154)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 07:13:42 AM EST

you're the extinct one

the world is coming around to my way of thinking

thanks for playing

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

God, Flips are so damn stupid (none / 0) (#150)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 07:46:16 PM EST

No wonder the Amercians raped your cuntry.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

An Idea. (2.00 / 2) (#131)
by SnowBlind on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 06:11:47 PM EST

If you don't like the troops over there, how about starting a movement or discussion of how else we can achive the same objective without the troops?

That seems a lot more contructive then wondering if they should be there or not.

Come up with a great idea of what to do instead of using troops, do that, then when it works the troops can go home!

I support US troops over in the Middle East. I think they should be there and should continue to kill those that would kill us.

I would also prefer we had some other method of getting to the point of not needing them there anymore. The current "grow a democracy" is great idea, but it takes a long time, as it did in Japan and Germany. The West has lost the willpower to do that it seems.

(Discaimer: Comparing the ME to Germany and Japan is not really fair, but they are the most sucessful example and we STILL have more troops in Germany than in Iraq)

There is but One Kernel, and root is His Prophet.

A solution, if not THE solution (none / 1) (#155)
by k24anson on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 10:03:41 AM EST

First of all ...,

Snowblind, I believe the Prophet you refer to is actually dead? Am I correct? And the adjectives I will use in this post are intended to wrankle any kind of legitimacy you or anyone possesses for the ideas contained within the Islamic religion. The Islamic religion is not a stepping stone to, nor does it define the Creator of the Universe. The proof is in the pudding.

The "solution" for those people in those parts of the world is to realize that the West is the best. The common Islamic "man" (with that queer Book of theirs) will never organize a group of his fellow "men" to put a man on the moon (or to think of someday planting a nation's flag upon the entire surface sphere of the planet Mars to then call it OURS, NOT YOURS,) an Islamic will never organize a group to create an automobile company, a motorcycle company, a new franchise like McDonalds, Starbucks or Pizza Hut; no new inventions like a radio, television, or computer will come out of the mind of these pathetic Islamic "men." They love those Kalishnakov's though, those weapons that no Islamic group of "men" could ever think of and manufacture, even if their lives (or livelihood) depended on it.

Give Islamic leaders alot of Western money for their oil, and do so for decades and all they want is French wine, French women, investments in French real estate, etc., these same leaders then organizing themselves, sitting around in their free time to think of and propose new and wonderful interpretations of that dangerously dinosauric Book of theirs, and inspired they are by their (their definition of god is not my definition of God) Allah to conclude three hundred bull whip lashes are not enough for the adulterous fellating female, no, instead years of sitting around studying Wahabism have shined a light into their goofball heads and brought the wealthy, influential Islamic sages to interpret and then declare the Book says not only can her husband watch the Sharian prescribed whipping, she is to receive five hundred lashes according to their interpretations of that dumb Book. Brilliant Islamic "men," the best and the brightest of their ilk are now "thinking," and making the whole, wide world a better place for everyone.

In actuality the modern Islamic "man" is "goofy," to put it mildly. Only within a Western created culture is the potential for an Islamic person then able to conduct him or herself in a constructive, fruitful civil manner that is beneficial to everyone in the future.

Get a good Madison Avenue PR firm to sugar and spice the gist of what I'm saying, making the message more palatable than the way I'm presenting the idea within this post, the basic idea is presented to the average Islamic that the West is the Best ...! - (Jim Morrison and the Doors)

Massive propoganda such as ol' Glory is stuck on the surface of the Moon, and never, ever will your pathetic (Islamic) "men" organize together to put a flag anywhere in the solar system. Find instances where one can argue and completely humiliate the Islamic culture, at the grassroot level, into the realization that the future is best emulating the West, and that their brains are only retarded by their ...? present way of life; I'll leave it at that.

Islamic "men" couldn't punch their way out of a wet paper bag mentally. The last three hundred years of Judeo-Christian minds have brought so much! Fourteen hundred years of Islamic minds can not even compare to a certain few, in actuality only a handful (a couple thousand I imagine) of Western men.

Snowblind, Islamics lose in the history books written thousands of years from now. The Islamic religion will be perceived by the future learned scholars in a similar vein as the Mayan priests who threw kids into the fire from atop the pyramid. You know, to appease the gods.
KLH
NYC

Stay focused. Go slow. Keep it simple.

Here's a morsel (none / 1) (#156)
by k24anson on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 10:23:45 AM EST

Hi Arnie! Hi Linda! Hi Edward! Hi Robert!
KLH
NYC

Stay focused. Go slow. Keep it simple.
[ Parent ]

The above link is not direct ... so, (none / 0) (#159)
by k24anson on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 09:14:38 AM EST

find and then click the link tetra.mov
KLH
NYC

Stay focused. Go slow. Keep it simple.
[ Parent ]

Questioning Afghan Mission Is Not Being Disloyal | 159 comments (137 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!