 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Karzai and his brother have a lot of swag. Maybe he imagines he can pay for protection.
When NATO leaves the whole rotten edifice they constructed will come crashing down.
And it will be NATO's fault. NOT the peace movement's. Because having committed us to this path, NATO had an obligation to do something good and lasting. Of course they didn't because they had no intention of doing anything but slap together a puppet state to grant the USA air bases to project air power in Central Asia.
It will be THEIR failure.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Of course the dominant US discourse will say it's all because the goddamned peaceniks didn't let the US forces bomb enough people. Look at how many people manage to honestly believe the Americans lost Vietnam because they weren't allowed to go all out. I don't even know what they mean by that, and neither do they, but they believe it all the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What they're also unable to ever explain is why their terrible puppet governments always seem to be more fragile than indigeneous nasty dictatorships.
You know what I mean? How could Saddam Hussein or the Taliban have provided years, or even decades of stability when NATO, with all their power, can't even provide stability to the capital?
It says something about the varying degrees of incompetence, cruelty, and corruption about US puppets that they fail in competition with some very unpopular, very scuzzy rivals.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dictators have ways of ensuring "stability". It's miserable stability, but for sure nobody tries to rock the boat. They usually have a good track record of making trains run on time, too.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sibjyn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1120
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thwap wrote: | | It says something about the varying degrees of incompetence, cruelty, and corruption about US puppets that they fail in competition with some very unpopular, very scuzzy rivals. |
Maybe it just means that they're not as cruel as their scuzzy rivals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess I should have expected such responses.
1. Magoo - I am not arguing for those dictatorships. Not in the slightest.
2. Sibjyn - It's important that you included the word "maybe" in your reply: "Maybe it just means that they're not as cruel as their scuzzy rivals."
Afghanistan warlords human rights abuses
I was going to provide links for torture, murder of journalists, executions, etc., under Maliki in Iraq, but I can't be bothered.
The long history of US support for thoroughly brutal monsters in Vietnam, Guatemala, Chile, Iran, Haiti, etc., etc., is well documented.
My point isn't that maybe we should reconsdier Saddam Hussein. My point is that the USA imposes bloody, thieving dictatorships that manage to make many home-grown, independent dictators look good in comparison.
Think of that the next time the Western media starts trumpeting about some human rights catastrophe unfolding somewhere that's just begging for the virtuous USA to intervene.
The USA is run by imperialist scum-bags. The governments they construct will reflect that.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh I didn't think you were cheerleading for them. I was just pointing out that sometimes ruthless = effective.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3746
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | What they're also unable to ever explain is why their terrible puppet governments always seem to be more fragile than indigeneous nasty dictatorships.
You know what I mean? How could Saddam Hussein or the Taliban have provided years, or even decades of stability when NATO, with all their power, can't even provide stability to the capital?
It says something about the varying degrees of incompetence, cruelty, and corruption about US puppets that they fail in competition with some very unpopular, very scuzzy rivals. |
Indigenous dictatorships, whether pro-American (Marcos, Pinochet, Zia etc.) or anti-American (Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, the almost 50 year rule of the paranoid Burmese junta with changing heads of state) tend to last for years and decades for a very good reason: there are immediate and tangible benefits that flow to those who suck up to them. If I were a corrupt official in Zimbabwe, Saddam era Iraq, Duvallier era Haiti or Pakistan under its various dictatorships, sucking up to the guy in charge will get me property, foreign goods, university spots for my kids and jobs in the civil service or military for my entire family. There is also the guarantee that barring sudden revolutions (such as the one that overthrew Baby Doc) or foreign invasions (modern Iraq, Afghanistan) the big guy (or his family and/or political party - often interchangeable in places like Iraq or North Korea) will be in charge for a looong time.
US imposed puppets like poor pathetic Karzai on the other hand are completely understood by everyone to be just that: impotent puppets. Unlike even other pro-US dictators like Pinochet or the Shah of Iran (both lasted for decades), they have zero native authority. They don't even control their own armed forces or police (as Eric Margolis noted in one of his last Sun columns, Karzai is called the Mayor of Kabul but Margolis noted that even Mayors control a police force). Karzai's only sources of authority come from the US and NATO. Someone wanting to become rich through corruption and cronyism would be far better off sucking up to the Occupation authorities directly, or failing that the warlords of the Northern Alliance, the Uzbek Militia of General Dostom, the pro-Pakistani Taliban outfits or the Opium drug lords. The only thing thing that sucking up to Karzai will get you is a bullet to the head once the Americans leave (and EVERYONE knows they're leaving).
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2356
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Evil Twin wrote: |
Indigenous dictatorships, whether pro-American (Marcos, Pinochet, Zia etc.) or anti-American (Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, the almost 50 year rule of the paranoid Burmese junta with changing heads of state) tend to last for years and decades for a very good reason: there are immediate and tangible benefits that flow to those who suck up to them.
|
Another way of putting this is that a dictator must satisfy some sector of the population. A local dictator that satisfies only himself will require the armed might of some other nation to maintain control.
Little reported in the run up to the US invasion of Iraq (2002) was the fact the Hussein regime was handing out rifles and ammunition to the population. It seems pretty obvious Hussein felt they would use those rifles against the invading army, and not his own.
Given that the constant refrain of the gun crowd here is that governments want to prevent the possibility of armed insurrection by making people register their guns, one can only conclude that Saddam Hussein was pretty confident about how those rifles he was handing out were going to be used.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparqui
Dog tired
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 5152
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I do wonder if some regret how those rifles were used. Sadam played his hand poorly but you have to think that some of the armed Iranians also feel played by the US.
_________________
“If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.”
-- Gilles Duceppe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Dictators have ways of ensuring "stability". It's miserable stability, but for sure nobody tries to rock the boat. |
Well, up to a point. Quite often dictators do eventually get overthrown. Latin America has seen plenty of dictators turfed, sometimes by the next dictator, sometimes in favour of democracy or democracy lite. Seems like the specifics of the regime matter as much as whether it's a dictatorship.
| Quote: | | They usually have a good track record of making trains run on time, too. |
Actually, I think they have a rather poor record for that. Especially in Africa, but in lots of other places too. Lots of dictators seem to reason: What's the point of being a dictator if you can't pocket the country's loot? So corruption flourishes and the place gets bled white, and there's nothing left over for trains.
Karzai's regime isn't a dictatorship, exactly, but seems to be operating on that principle--everyone, including most of the foreign aid consultants, is grabbing what they can while the gravy train is running on time, and to heck with keeping the actual ones going. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sparqui wrote: | | I do wonder if some regret how those rifles were used. Sadam played his hand poorly but you have to think that some of the armed Iranians also feel played by the US. |
You mean armed Iraqis?
Well, the Sunni were playing a losing hand from the start. They'd been in charge. The Americans turfed their boy and, because American authorities think simplistically and seem only able to absorb one friend/enemy duality at a time, were backing the Shi'ites against them (and indeed deliberately fanning sectarian conflict).
So the Sunni had two problems: The American military which outgunned them and the Shi'ites, who outnumbered them. For some reason, they thought they could beat both and go back to being top dogs; seems they underestimated the Shia. To the extent that they had a strategy it seems like they were trying to kick the Americans out before the Shi'ites got organized. Armed or not, that was not likely to work. They failed and now instead of running the show they're an ethnic faction. They would have been better off accepting that they weren't gonna be the boss after the dust settled, acknowledging the Shi'ites, and pushing a nationalist rather than sectarian resistance; still might not have worked, but at least they'd have had a chance.
The Shi'ites on the other hand pretty much got what they wanted, albeit in a ruined shadow of the country they used to not have what they wanted in. They're the biggest frogs there now, they can play the Iran card any time the Americans lean on them too heavily. Plus the Americans know that if they couldn't take the Sunni, and the Shi'ites beat the Sunni, then the Shi'ites could turn Iraq into a nightmare for American troops (and politicians) if they were pushed too far. Through the whole thing the Shi'ites used, perhaps not deliberately, a pretty effective good cop/bad cop routine, where they mostly co-operated with the occupiers but gave tastes of what it would be like if they stopped.
If anything, IMO it's the Americans who should feel played by the Shi'ites, who now are mostly in charge of a country they used to be the underdogs in, and who have managed, by using Iran, to avoid pledging even as much allegiance to the US as Saddam used to have before Kuwait.
Unfortunately for the Americans, while there is ethnic conflict in Afghanistan and they are more or less by default taking advantage of it, the dimensions are quite different. For instance, in Afghanistan it's the biggest ethnic group that's the backbone of resistance, which means the ones on the US side aren't going to be tough enough to take them down. Plus, the conflict doesn't seem to be descending into ethnic strife as thoroughly, and other groups are increasingly doing resistance as well. Even the Tajiks don't seem to care that much about going after the Pashtun. So the Americans aren't going to get lucky and have the locals do the job for them so they can declare victory and pull out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparqui
Dog tired
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 5152
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
That was a slip, Rufus.
Interesting analysis, especially the contrast between Iraq and Afghanistan.
In terms of Sectarian faults in Iraq, do you figure the Kurds are satisfied?
_________________
“If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.”
-- Gilles Duceppe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yet to be seen. Not totally at the moment, and probably not in the end, no. They're better off than they were, but the Shia are no more interested in Kurds getting either autonomy or control of any of the oil than the Sunni were. And the Americans, for all the Kurds welcomed them, don't care.
It's not fair, but there you go. There's Kurds in Iraq, Kurds in Iran, and Kurds in Turkey and the one thing that Iraq, Iran and Turkey always agree on is there is no way they're going to let the Kurds put those territories together and go independent. Especially before the oil runs out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3746
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The now independent blogger Eric Margolis (since like Rick Salutin, Gwynne Dyer and others, he's no longer acceptable in the MSM):
| Quote: | Three reports about Afghanistan emerged last week in Washington.
First, a political whitewash issued by the Obama White House claiming the war was going well and some US troops might be withdrawn next year. This ‘don’t worry be happy’ summary was trumpeted by the pro-war New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other members of the tame US media.
Second, the Red Cross issued a grim report showing that Afghans were suffering widespread malnutrition and serious health problems after nearly a decade of Western occupation. So much for US-led nation-building.
Third, there were leaks about a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the combined findings of all 16 US intelligence agencies. This key intelligence report is explosive and may not be fully revealed.
The NIE reportedly asserts that the $13 billion a month Afghan War is at best stalemated; at worse, Western occupation forces are on the defensive and their vulnerable supply lines increasingly threatened. Taliban is expanding its control, particularly in northern Afghanistan.
Claims by US generals that “progress” is being made in the war are false.
Afghan president Hamid Karzai, who was installed by CIA, put it bluntly last year, saying the US-led war was “ineffective apart from causing civilian casualties.” |
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/washingtons-afgh...
Karzai seems to be increasingly outspoken against the US and I have two theories about this:
1) Karzai is honestly getting frustrated and knowing his neck is on the line (literally) once the US leaves, is looking to make post-NATO alliances with those opposed to the occupation.
or, more likely IMO:
2) He is being deliberately coached by his US/NATO/CIA advisers to play the pissed off "Native ruler trying to do the best for his people under difficult circumstances" hoping this will fool those opposed to the occupation. If so, this good cop (Karzai)/Bad cop (Obama, Clinton, Petraeus) routine won't fool anyone and Karzai is still a "Dead Man Walking" once NATO leaves.
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Something tells me that Karzai and his family will leave Kabul from the roof of the presidential palace with a US military cargo helicopter helping him abscond with millions of dollars cash plus assorted luxurious loot.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, this is the assessment from the US in 2010?
| Quote: | Third, there were leaks about a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the combined findings of all 16 US intelligence agencies. This key intelligence report is explosive and may not be fully revealed.
The NIE reportedly asserts that the $13 billion a month Afghan War is at best stalemated; at worse, Western occupation forces are on the defensive and their vulnerable supply lines increasingly threatened. Taliban is expanding its control, particularly in northern Afghanistan.
Claims by US generals that “progress” is being made in the war are false. |
It makes me think ruefully about the pro-war editorial that started this thread back in 2008, wherein the writer farted:
| Quote: | Are we winning the battle against the insurgents in Afghanistan?
Almost any Canadian soldier, diplomat or NATO official asked that question invariably answers: Yes, we are, but there is still a long way to go. |
One would hope these fools would have learned some humility but they're as arrogant and deceitful as ever. Stupid shits.
Thanks for drawing my attention to this:
| Quote: | Second, the Red Cross issued a grim report showing that Afghans were suffering widespread malnutrition and serious health problems after nearly a decade of Western occupation. So much for US-led nation-building.
|
Here's the link to the report.
A suggestion: Since the Taliban and other insurgents are angry about foreign troops occupying the country, what would they say to foreign development projects guarded (because the situation is inarguably dangerous) by Afghan nationals?
Ending the fighting and helping people rebuild their lives and getting them enough to eat while they do so is something that needs to be done. If a foreign country spent money on genuine development efforts but used native guards it wouldn't be an occupation.
There would have to be enough cash set aside to bribe the local claims on "tax" revenue (from the mayor of Kabul's gov't officials to the insurgents who pretty much control the area) but it might bring an end to the fighting.
| Quote: | According to the ICRC, those challenges are civilian casualties, internal displacement, and insufficient access to medical care, all of which are occurring against the background of a proliferation of armed groups.
"In a growing number of areas in the country, we are entering a new, rather murky phase in the conflict in which the proliferation of armed groups threatens the ability of humanitarian organizations to reach the people who need their help," said Reto Stocker, head of the ICRC delegation in Afghanistan. "One armed group may demand food and shelter in the evening, then, the next morning, another may demand to know why its enemy was given sanctuary." The emerging groups, which also include criminals, remain difficult to identify.
"Many people see fleeing as their only solution and many end up in camps for the displaced or with relatives in neighbouring districts," said Mr Stocker. Together with its partner organization, the Afghan Red Crescent Society, the ICRC has provided just over 140,000 people throughout the country with food and other items since January 2010. Rural and urban water projects gave 412,000 people access to safe water. |
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
A bushel of truth-S arrived at my house late this afternoon.
Why Are We Still in Afghanistan?
Date:Today 17:48; Author:Ira Chernus
| Quote: | When I try to figure out why we are still in Afghanistan, though every ounce of logic says we ought to get out, an unexpected conversation I had last year haunts me. Doing neighborhood political canvassing, I knocked on the door of a cheerful man who was just about to tune in to his favorite radio show: Rush Limbaugh. He was kind enough to let me stay and we talked.
Conservatives are often the nicest people—that's what I told him—the ones you'd like to have as neighbors. Then I said: I bet you're always willing to help your neighbors when they need it. Absolutely, he replied.
So why, I asked, don't you to want to help out people across town who have the same needs, even if they're strangers? His answer came instantly: Because I know my neighbors work hard and do all they can to take care of themselves. I don't know about those people across town.
...
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/motherjones/main/~3/SkFwWCzjy1U/why-... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seems the sentiment of many though this one is basically justified by ethics as well as morals.
A War Built on Four Lies
Why Germany Must End its Deployment in Afghanistan
A Commentary by Jürgen Todenhöfer; 02/18/2011
| Quote: | The war in Afghanistan is based on four lies, including the premise that NATO allies are there to fight international terrorism, writes conservative ex-parliamentarian Jürgen Todenhöfer. It's time to end Germany's military engagement, he argues, and negotiating with the Taliban is the only solution.
Sleet was driving against our faces that cold, wet evening in Tübingen in December 1984. I was a member of the Bundestag, Germany's federal parliament, representing the electoral district of that southwestern German city, famous around the world for its prestigious university. Together with the Junge Union, the youth organization of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), I was protesting the Soviet Union's war in the Hindu Kush, which had already been raging for five years.
... |
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,744866,00.html#ref... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DSquared
aka Aristotleded24
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5570
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama's non-withdraw from Afghanistan not fooling anyone:
| Quote: | The US force on the ground in Afghanistan will still be more substantial than the force that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney put on the ground there.
Indeed, even by the most optimistic timeline proposed by Obama, the US occupation force will at the end of Obama’s first term be much larger than the US force that was there when Bush and Cheney left the White House in 2009.
Under Obama, the war will continue for years to come.
...
But what of the American people? Is there any reason to believe they will be impressed that Obama has added another footnote to the story of what has become his war?
No.
Will Obama gain any political advantage as a result of his much-ballyhooed announcement?
No way.
“Removing a few brigades this year, then several more next year, still leaves more than double the US troops in Afghanistan than when President Obama took office. There’s no military solution in Afghanistan. It’s time to bring all troops and contractors home and focus on the political solution, which is the only way this costly war will end,” explained Paul Kawika Martin, the political and policy director of Peace Action, who bluntly—and correctly—suggested that voters will be “disappointed” with Obama’s tepid timeline.
The president is out of touch with his base within the Democratic Party, which will neither be satisfied nor energized by a tepid troop drawdown.
That’s significant, as Obama needs to renew the faith and commitment of the base that nominated and elected him in 2008 if he hopes to be reelected in 2012. |
_________________
This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If US-Americans are as stupid as Canadians, they'll turf the contemptible neo-liberal/neo-con stooge Obama, and a large enough minority of them will give enough electoral college votes to the neo-liberal/neo-con/Christian fundamentalist nutbar closet-case racist fascist stooge who the Repugs nominate.
And then some people will stand impotently holding signs, and the majority will "realistically" re-align themselves to the new political realities.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DSquared
aka Aristotleded24
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5570
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thwap wrote: | | If US-Americans are as stupid as Canadians, they'll turf the contemptible neo-liberal/neo-con stooge Obama, and a large enough minority of them will give enough electoral college votes to the neo-liberal/neo-con/Christian fundamentalist nutbar closet-case racist fascist stooge who the Repugs nominate. |
It's like Bill Maher said, your choices are the guy who voted for the first Wall Street bailout or the guy who voted for the next ten. Although the rhetoric out of the Republican camp is quite scary, from a policy standpoint I don't see any difference. And let's remember that for all the talk about attacking Iran, Bush was never able to accomplish that.
What will be really interesting to see is voter turnout. Obama was elected on a high turn-out of people dissatisfied with the status quo. If they're unhappy with Obama, they certainly aren't going to vote Republican, but if enough of them stay home that could make the difference.
Anyways thwap, why are you so hard on the American public when public opinion polling on several major issues puts the crazy fringe in the minority?
_________________
This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
You'll notice that I said they'd have to be as stupid as we are right?
26% of the potential voters in Canada voted for the incompetent, anti-democratic harper.
The rest of us resign ourselves to it.
Except for the 5% who care enough to hold a sign and chant for the odd protest.
And the .0004% who think that smashing some windows and then run off to let the 5% suffer the consequences is the way to change things.
bush, Obama, Palin, Weiner-gate, Gingrich, Limbaugh, are all indictments of the US political culture.
harper, DiManno-Blatchford, Hudak-Harris, Paul Martin, Ezra Levant, etc., are all indictments of our political culture.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17640
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, it's officially done. Canada transfers command in Kandahar to the USA. We're still in there doing "training" but at least the offensive (on many levels) war/mission/intervention/whatever is finished.
What a waste. And what a disgrace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with every word: Canada's Afghan Blunder.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's a rebuttal to Rosie DiMoron's attempted validation of the Afghan "mission" at my blog.
(Don't feel like doing anymore formatting today.)
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparqui
Dog tired
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 5152
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent work, thwap!
_________________
“If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.”
-- Gilles Duceppe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tanks. i just had to write it.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17640
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, it'll be very interesting to see how this plays out. Ahmed Wali Karzai has just been assassinated. I've heard extremely mixed reviews of his role in Khandahar province (mostly not so good), but it does appear that he was a stabilizing factor in the area.
| Quote: | Ahmed Wali Karzai, the controversial king of Kandahar and younger half-brother of the Afghan president, was shot dead by one of his bodyguards on Tuesday.
The assassination sent shock waves through the country, throwing into doubt the already brittle stability of Kandahar province where the Taliban have murdered dozens of police officers and government officials over the last two years.
The Taliban immediately claimed responsibility. A spokesman said the bodyguard had been groomed by the Taliban for some time and, on its orders, killed Mr. Karzai with a shot to the head inside his heavily fortified compound in Kandahar city.
... The younger Mr. Karzai was a lightning rod for criticism, accused at various times of profiting from the lucrative drug trade and taking cuts from contracts with the foreign forces based at the huge Kandahar airbase just outside Kandahar city.
He always denied those allegations but he was the acknowledged powerbroker in the city, seeing a stream of supplicants daily who went to him to solve their disputes over land, money and family.
“For me personally, he was not the worse of the evils that Kandahar had,” said Rangina Hamidi, the daughter of the mayor of Kandahar and a prominent women’s activist. “I’m not saying he was perfect, but he was a decision-maker. He made a decision, right on the spot, and made people happy or angry.” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's probably got Harmid Karzai absolutely terrified.
Especially in a civil war, one is supposed to be able to trust their bodyguards. One should have enough loyal followers so as to be able to choose from the most dependable among them, and not put your life in the hands of strangers and then rely on their professionalism or need for your money.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cynical me wondering if this was the real Taleban or another fake one of one sort (USA deceived again) or another (USAn 'sting') or a mere propaganda fabrication of claim. Could be a 'peace offering' by a Taleban faction, too, as those 'talks' bear fruit at last <g>. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3746
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's bad enough the US is dumb enough to give the corrupt Karzai regime billions when the US is so deep in debt that they almost defaulted this year. Also bad enough when Canada - which is supposedly so poor that there is widespread anger at welfare recipients topping off their "generous cheques" with a few hundred dollar "special diet" allowances - can spend billions on the military occupation "humanitarian aid and reconstruction" as Harper bills it. But now India, which in spite of rapid economic growth still has hundreds of millions living in extreme poverty has now suddenly "found" billions of dollars in aid for Karzai and his corrupt cronies "Afghan development". All this for a regime that almost everyone realizes won't last long after the withdrawal of the US and NATO. Hey, but it pisses off the Pakistanis and ingratiates India further with the US, so I guess it's worth it. 
From the BBC
| Quote: | Afghanistan and India sign 'strategic partnership'
The leaders of Afghanistan and India have signed a strategic partnership agreement during a visit by President Hamid Karzai to Delhi.
Mr Karzai met Indian PM Manmohan Singh, who said violence in Afghanistan was undermining security in South Asia.
He also said that India would "stand by Afghanistan" when foreign troops withdraw from the country in 2014.
Mr Karzai's visit follows a series of attacks which have damaged ties between Kabul and India's rival, Pakistan.
Correspondents say the increasingly close relationship between Kabul and Delhi will be viewed with some suspicion by Pakistan, which sees Afghanistan as its backyard.
Close relationship
India is a major player in Afghanistan and has already pledged $2bn (£1.3bn) in assistance.
At a press conference in Delhi, Mr Singh said that the strategic partnership between the two countries will create an "institutional framework" so that India can help in Afghan "capacity building" in the areas of education, development and people-to-people contacts.
The pact is believed to include an Indian commitment to increase its training of Afghan security forces, including the police, although Mr Singh made no reference to that in his press conference remarks.
President Hamid Karzai (left) and Indian PM Manmohan Singh Mr Singh said that his Afghan counterpart had shown 'sagacious leadership'
The prime minister said that the two countries had also signed two agreements relating to Afghanistan's energy requirements which represented "a new dimension in economic relations" to enable Kabul to integrate more effectively with the Indian economy and other economies in South Asia. |
Some saner voices in the Indian media are warning the government to exercise caution, as the Karzai regime is hardly the most stable.
From Rediff:
| Quote: | Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai's two-day visit to New Delhi poses a unique challenge for Indian policymakers, says former diplomat M K Bhadrakumar
The televised speech to the nation by Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai on Monday night set the tone for his visit to New Delhi on Tuesday. He adopted a markedly softer tone toward Pakistan and fell back to the classic stance on Pakistan's centrality in the search for peace in Afghanistan. At the same time, Karzai began groping for a resumption of talks with the Taliban.
Once again, the Indian policymakers face the challenge of getting the Afghan plot right. And it has always been an intricate plot with tricky undercurrents, even while looking deceptively simple, linear and one-dimensional.
Post-Rabbani travails for Karzai
Karzai is arriving in the Indian capital as a much-diminished protagonist in the Afghan peace process. The assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, head of the Afghan High Peace Council, has significantly weakened him. He had depended on Rabbani to bridge the ethnic divide in the country and to get the non-Pashtun groups on board in an eventual settlement with the Taliban.
He tapped Rabbani's old links with the Pashtuns as well as the veteran Mujahideen leader's longstanding equations with the Pakistani military and security establishment.
Karzai's vulnerability to the pressure from hardline non-Pashtun groups of the Northern Alliance, who never wanted to countenance the return of the Taliban to mainstream political life and who harboured a visceral distrust toward Pakistan, has also increased in the recent days.
Besides, Karzai is caught in a political and constitutional stalemate with a hostile parliament, which incessantly challenges his presidential authority and day-to-day governance. Many cabinet posts remain unfilled because of the lack of the requisite parliamentary approval of the appointments.
|
ETA: regarding this quote from the BBC link: "Indian PM Manmohan Singh said that his Afghan counterpart had shown 'sagacious leadership'"
What the fuck does "sagacious leadership" mean? Is that a fancy term for "corrupt stooge who will stuff all our aid money into Swiss bank accounts first chance he gets"?
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
One sick thing is that for all its cynicism, India's investment in Afghanistan is world's smarter than our spending money to blow villages to bits and arm the police so that they can kill with greater impunity.
"Sagacious leadership" means staying alive and keeping as many revenue streams coming in.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronb
mocker
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2627
Location: Blackroof country, no gold pavement, tired starling
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Afghanistan was allied with India in the 70s, which was a pretty good era for Afghanistan all in all, so this doesn't necessarily sound entirely terrible to me. Pakistan's influence has been pure poison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3746
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ronb wrote: | | Afghanistan was allied with India in the 70s, which was a pretty good era for Afghanistan all in all, so this doesn't necessarily sound entirely terrible to me. Pakistan's influence has been pure poison. |
In theory no, it doesn't sound terrible. And you're right the secular socialist Afghanistan of Daoud Khan in the 70s was quite close to Indira Gandhi's India. The two countries also share links of blood, culture and history going back thousands of years. You're also right that Pakistan's influence from the late 70s (in partnership with Uncle Sam) has been disastrous, first creating the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets and then the Taliban in the 90s.
My problem with this current "Strategic Agreement" is that first, it seems calculated to provoke Pakistan (which it has, of course) and second that once the US leaves (as it's clear they will, either 2014 as scheduled or even if later, they will still leave), the Karzai regime is not long for this world. How will India possibly protect him from the Pakistan based guerillas we know are just waiting to cross the Khyber Pass (not just Taliban, but also the Haqqani Network and the Hizb-E-Islami? India has no land route to Afghanistan and if tries an airlift, it risks getting shot down by the PAF. So to me, short of stationing a permanent garrison in Afghanistan (we see how well that worked out for the US, Victorian Brits and USSR), there is nothing India can do. So the billions they have set aside as aid for Afghanistan, while in the short term serves Indian goals, in the long term it's a waste of money by a very poor country.
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronb
mocker
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2627
Location: Blackroof country, no gold pavement, tired starling
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yabbut, in a sense, India already has a permanent garrison in Afghanistan, in the blood and cultural ties that you mentioned. It seems like India has pledged itself to supporting those folks again. Frankly, they're better positioned to effect positive change there than any other country, what with the history and all. We can say that this should be allowed to happen on its own without interference, which is true, but we all know that Pakistan will not allow it. So India's gaining a foothold before the US leaves, I guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Gaining a foothold" that they won't be able to keep after the US-Americans leave.
I agree with Evil Twin that this is India spending billions that it ought to be spending on its own people, but which it is spending in Afghanistan to compete with Pakistan.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3746
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oops! Another "boo-boo" by the "Great White Liberators":
NATO attack allegedly kills 24 Pakistani troops
| Quote: | ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan on Saturday blocked vital supply routes for U.S.-led troops in Afghanistan and demanded Washington vacate a base used by American drones after coalition aircraft allegedly killed 24 Pakistani troops at two posts along a mountainous frontier that serves as a safe haven for militants.
The incident was a major blow to American efforts to rebuild an already tattered alliance vital to winding down the 10-year-old Afghan war. Islamabad called the bloodshed in one of its tribal areas a "grave infringement" of the country's sovereignty, and it could make it even more difficult for the U.S. to enlist Pakistan's help in pushing Afghan insurgents to engage in peace talks.
A NATO spokesman said it was likely that coalition airstrikes caused Pakistani casualties, but an investigation was being conducted to determine the details. If confirmed, it would be the deadliest friendly fire incident by NATO against Pakistani troops since the Afghan war began a decade ago.
A prolonged closure of Pakistan's two Afghan border crossings to NATO supplies could cause serious problems for the coalition. The U.S., which is the largest member of the NATO force in Afghanistan, ships more than 30 percent of its non-lethal supplies through Pakistan. The coalition has alternative routes through Central Asia into northern Afghanistan, but they are costlier and less efficient.
Pakistan temporarily closed one of its Afghan crossings to NATO supplies last year after U.S. helicopters accidentally killed two Pakistani soldiers. Suspected militants took advantage of the impasse to launch attacks against stranded or rerouted trucks carrying NATO supplies. The government reopened the border after about 10 days when the U.S. apologized. NATO said at the time the relatively short closure did not significantly affect its ability to keep its troops supplied.
But the reported casualties are much greater this time, and the relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. has severely deteriorated over the last year, especially following the covert American raid that killed Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani garrison town in May. Islamabad was outraged it wasn't told about the operation beforehand. |
http://news.yahoo.com/nato-attack-allegedly-kills-24-pakistani-troo...
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3078
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You really think it was a "boo boo"? Pakistan gets HUGE money from the Excited States...and has been turning a blind eye to this Swiss cheese border, with "insurgents" running back and forth and to and fro seemingly at will...then there's the already-mentioned thing-y with India wanting to be in Afghanistan...and India and Pakistan don't get along...and if it starts to seem Machiavellian, don't forget those gits in Warshington think that's exactly what they are (!)...and if this "accident" causes Pakistan to flex the muscles it only thinks it has...munny is withdrawn at a time the States needs every penny it can get...thus weakening Pakistan and seeming to strengthen India AND giving the Hew Hess Hay an excuse to stomp around with boots on the ground in Pakistan just to show that they can't be butt-whipped by every damn country on earth.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Equal chance of the cause being: Nineteen year-olds watching television/computer-screens lose sight of reality often.
Try this scenario: Pakistani troops chase 'bad guys' back into Afghanistan (or where-ever) then noticed by imperialist forces, are followed back to their base and blown the hell up.
It is as likely if not more so as 'bad guy' officer or renegade has troops attacking super-bad-ass ally of superiors as a trick to earn more bribe money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2356
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to CBC:
Afghan troops called for NATO strike
| Quote: | | Afghan troops who came under fire while operating near the Pakistan border called in the NATO airstrikes that allegedly killed 24 Pakistani soldiers at two posts along the frontier, Afghan officials said Sunday. |
All those chickens the USA sent out in the '80s coming home to roost.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3746
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maestro wrote: | According to CBC:
All those chickens the USA sent out in the '80s coming home to roost. |
Just watched Rambo III for a joke (hey it's Sunday afternoon, I have 6 TB of hard disk space and I'm drunk and bored). I've wondered what the good ole "let's bash the Mooslim terrists" boys at Free Republic think of it now. A blatantly right-wing movie where the Muslim fundamentalist guerrillas (in fact many of the same dudes who later morphed into the Taliban) are the "good guys" and where the white, blonde haired invaders (Russians) are the "bad guys". It must be especially uncomfortable for the Robert Spencer types who hold that the West has been in "Long War" with Islam for 1300 years and that Muslims have ALWAYS been the enemy.
ETA: In the same vein, also attended an art exhibit at the Riverdale TPL a few weeks ago featuring art, poetry and letters home to Toronto from Canadian volunteers in the British Forces of the Crimean War. A lot of the poetry honours our allies in Olympian Odes to "the Glorious Muslim Caliphate of the Turkish Sublime Porte" and bashes the "tyrannical slave-serf empire" of Imperial Russia. Again, I wonder what the Freak Dominionists and Freak Republicans would make of it.
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2356
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
We've spoken of 'elephants in the living room' in other threads. Discussing the US support for Islamic terrrorism is almost as big a no-no as discussing Israeli nuclear weapons.
After all, it was Saint Ronald Reagan who provided most of the materiel for that effort, as well as calling them all 'freedom fighters'.
The duplicity is amazing. At one and the same time the right will revile Saudi Arabia all the while selling them arms (USD $60 billion was the last sale).
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronb
mocker
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2627
Location: Blackroof country, no gold pavement, tired starling
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| To be fair, Charlie Wilson's War did cover this era of history recently, albeit with an almost absolute lack of context. It is sometimes discussed, just not all that honestly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3746
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maestro wrote: | We've spoken of 'elephants in the living room' in other threads. Discussing the US support for Islamic terrrorism is almost as big a no-no as discussing Israeli nuclear weapons.
After all, it was Saint Ronald Reagan who provided most of the materiel for that effort, as well as calling them all 'freedom fighters'.
The duplicity is amazing. At one and the same time the right will revile Saudi Arabia all the while selling them arms (USD $60 billion was the last sale). |
The duplicity is indeed amazing. I've actually considered signing on to post on some of the rightie forums to respond to the "let's nuke Mecca" crowd but then just said "fuck it". Why waste my time arguing with clowns who know so little about *BASIC* International Relations (Um...for instance that you don't nuke your own allies, major arms clients and supplier of a vital commodity. Not to mention a nation that owns a lot of the US debt and dollar reserves....though they're far behind China here). If they know so little about even the US-Saudi relationship, I doubted it would do any good pointing out to these fools that whenever there was a left-wing secular threat to Western interests, the US (or Israel) supported Islamists to counter them (Islamic Brotherhood over Nasser, Zia over Bhutto, Hamas over Fatah).
Oh and ronb, thanks for reminding me about "Charlie Wilson's War", I've had it on my "Movies to watch" list for a while now but forgot about it. I know it's had mixed reviews but since it's one of the few movies to deal with this era (obviously "Rambo III" doesn't count lol), I think I'll watch it.
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Evil Twin wrote: | | ... The duplicity is indeed amazing. I've actually considered signing on to post on some of the rightie forums to respond to the "let's nuke Mecca" crowd but then just said "fuck it". Why waste my time arguing with clowns who know so little about *BASIC* International Relations (Um...for instance that you don't nuke your own allies, major arms clients and supplier of a vital commodity. Not to mention a nation that owns a lot of the US debt and dollar reserves....though they're far behind China here). If they know so little about even the US-Saudi relationship, I doubted it would do any good pointing out to these fools that whenever there was a left-wing secular threat to Western interests, the US (or Israel) supported Islamists to counter them (Islamic Brotherhood over Nasser, Zia over Bhutto, Hamas over Fatah).... |
Why argue, just 'seagull' them or organize a migrating flock of geese to pass through their space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The following wasn't in AP's International section but did appear as a USAn National item, a fact that must mean something (-: . I didn't see any mention of Pakistani military pleas mentioned elsewhere to stop the bombardment, etc. One supposes it is enough that the USAn military admits to being deceived, well possibly deceived at least.
US suspects NATO forces lured into deadly raid
Date:Today 07:49
| Quote: | | WASHINGTON (AP) -- NATO forces may have been lured into attacking friendly Pakistani border posts in a calculated maneuver by the Taliban, according to preliminary U.S. military reports on the deadliest friendly fire incident with Pakistan since the Afghanistan war began.... |
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_PAKISTAN?SITE=AP&S... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2356
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
'US Marines body desecration' video
| Quote: | Afghan President Hamid Karzai has condemned a video that appears to show US Marines urinating on the bloodied corpses of several Taliban fighters.
...The origin of the video is not known, nor is it clear who posted it online.
The footage shows four men in military fatigues appearing to urinate on three apparently lifeless men. They have brown skin, bare feet and are dressed in loose-fitting outfits. One appears to be covered in blood.
A man's voice is heard saying: "Have a great day, buddy."
|
Note the story, having almost no knowledge of the details of the incident still refers to the corpses as 'Taliban fighters'.
They don't know anything, but they know who the corpses are...
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparqui
Dog tired
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 5152
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess it's a matter of degrees of heinousness, Maestro.
White male westerners as the victims would incite cries for the death penalty.
Not going to happen with brown people, even if it were children and women. Local brown men would incite some shock and perhaps shame in the Marines. Brown Taliban Fighters might attract some they crossed the line reaction at best or enemy scum deserved it at worst.
In order to keep up the myth of US occupation in Afghanistan being somewhat justified and noble, I guess they decided to go with the enemy angle.
_________________
“If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.”
-- Gilles Duceppe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6040
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | White male westerners as the victims would incite cries for the death penalty.
|
Death penalty?
Hardly. Countries would be invaded; shocks would be awed. Justice would be done and democracy would continue its relentless spread around the globe.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics