CENSURER GENERAL ATTACKING CORPORO-FASCISM @ THE ROOT QSLS POLITICS Loading... TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2008 Post #1: On the Drug war v.s. T.J. Burke Original Comment: Putting the "Special" into Specialized Courts My Response: " If you're a drug dealer and your caught distributing illegal narcotics then it's unlikely you're going to a Drug Treatment Court." Why have the only 'drug dealers' I've heard of being taken down in NB are the two our cops allowed to be burnt out of house and home and potentially beaten to death ( 1), rather than dealing with the situation? How are our police so continuously inept, are the policies of Los Angeles in the 80s being replicated here in NB? It seems like the power given to LEO to search and use drug dogs, like you love to parade in front of submissive airline passengers and frightened teenagers, would be enough to track and take down the big drug honchos? But, then again - our troops are propping up the growers (2, 3), why shouldn't the legal system be coddling the importers and upstream dealers?
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CENSURER GENERAL A T T A C K I N G C O R P O R O - F A S C I S M @ T H E R O O T
Q S L S P O L I T I C S
Loading...
T U E S D A Y , M A R C H 2 5 , 2 0 0 8
Post #1: On the Drug war v.s. T.J. Burke
Original Comment:
Putting the "Special" into Specialized Courts
My Response: " If you're a drug dealer and your caught distributing illegal narcotics then
it's unlikely you're going to a Drug Treatment Court."
Why have the only 'drug dealers' I've heard of being taken down in NB are the two our
cops allowed to be burnt out of house and home and potentially beaten to death (1),
rather than dealing with the situation?
How are our police so continuously inept, are the policies of Los Angeles in the 80s
being replicated here in NB?
It seems like the power given to LEO to search and use drug dogs, like you love to
parade in front of submissive airline passengers and frightened teenagers, would be
enough to track and take down the big drug honchos?
But, then again - our troops are propping up the growers (2, 3), why shouldn't the legal
system be coddling the importers and upstream dealers?
Too bad so sad for you if they do Chucky. Why you keep blocking my responses or
editing my words to dudes such as Snotty Scotty Baby Agnew is something I will never
understand. whatever your nasty game is I ain't playing it
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
S U N D A Y , A U G U S T 0 5 , 2 0 0 7
This New Brunswick Day support the troops
I hear a fair amount of talk in the media from people who claim to not support Canada’s mission in Afghanistan but in the same sentence say they support our soldiers. The same people seem to have more sympathy for the Taliban than our own soldiers so I find that a little hard to believe but in certain cases it certainly is possible. However when you have members of the legislature in Quebec refuse to even stand when soldiers enter the House of Assembly, well it's tough to believe that’s the case. In Fredericton on New Brunswick Day there’s a chance to prove you do support the troops. Members of the military will be at Old Government House as part of New Brunswick Day celebrations. This is an annual event and every year there are a handful of protestors at Canadian Armed Forces Day who get a disproportionate amount of media attention claiming to support the soldiers but not wanting them in Fredericton to talk about what they do. Yeah, it doesn’t make sense to me either. So this year head on down and talk to some of the soldiers. If you don’t support the mission, that’s fine, tell them that, but don’t bother getting into a debate with them. Take that up with your Member of Parliament. If you really support the troops, wish them all the best and that if sent overseas that they stay safe. You can also say that you appreciate that they have signed up for the service and are willing to put their lives on the line for Canada and you. Otherwise, saying you support the troops, while giving them the equivalent of the finger doesn’t wash. You can’t have it both ways. “If you don't stand behind our troops, then feel free to stand in front of them.”
P O S T E D B Y S P I N K S A T 1 0 : 2 4 A M - L I N K . . . . . . 57 Comments
mikel said... It's very possible, particularly since you don't seem to understand even the basics of opposition to the forces in Afghanistan. Show just ONE comment from somebody who doesn't support having troops in Afghanistan showing 'more sympathy for the Taliban'. Virtually NOBODY has even said they supported the Taliban or are sympathetic to them, and you know it. However, some people feel that the 'least they can do' is not criticize what soldiers have to do, and tell others to do the same. Far from it, thankfully the numbers are swelling and Harper won't have such an easy time prolonging the mission this time around. Those 'certain
cases' are the majority of canadians. Of course it depends what is meant by support. Since talk is cheap its easy enough to wish a soldier good luck. I'd add that since Canada is a signatory to the International Criminal Court that I'd mention that to a soldier because what they do in Afghanistan, whether following orders or not, may come back to haunt them. I'll change that recommendation. Since its a free country feel free to go talk to soldiers about whatever you want to. That's your right as a canadian. Protest if you want, carry a sign if you want, and talk to the soldiers about whatever you want. That's what its all about. Those who REALLY should be standing wth the soldiers are the ones who say they support them, but seem to be too busy with their own lives to actually act on their principles. It's a pretty backward scenario for people to claim that THEY are the ones 'supporting the troops' when they are the ones that suppport putting them in the line of fire. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me either. 5:55 PM
Spinks said... Since you've compared Canadian soliders to Nazis in the past mike, I'm pretty clear where you stand. 5:59 PM
Anonymous said... However, mentioning his previous comments don't really address the current comments. In fact, I would suggest it's a bit of a dodge. He challenged: "Show just ONE comment from somebody who doesn't support having troops in Afghanistan showing 'more sympathy for the Taliban'. Virtually NOBODY has even said they supported the Taliban or are sympathetic to them, and you know it." Is this something worth addressing or should we all just be quiet and go bake a Canada flag cake to show our support? Can you back it up or is this just what you accuse every other media outlet of doing? 9:30 PM
Spinks said... Hmmm still trolling here eh anonymous. However I'll grant you it's a pretty short retort from my end and that's because frankly I have little time for mike especially on a subject like this where he has compared Canadian soldiers to Nazis. However if you want one comment, fair enough. You don't have to go farther than mike's own comments about soldiers doing their duty and it coming back to haunt them. Doesn't sound like someone rooting for the Canadian soldier does it? 10:38 PM
Kit said... MikeL 5:55. "...since Canada is a signatory to the International Criminal Court that I'd mention that to a soldier because what they do in Afghanistan, whether following orders or not, may come back to haunt them." Please explain what you mean by insinuating that Canadian soldiers are acting as war
criminals? A strong accusation to be sure - better have the proof to back it up. 10:59 PM
Anonymous said... "Doesn't sound like someone rooting for the Canadian soldier does it?" Nor does it sound like someone rooting for the Taliban... I'd hardly call asking you to clarify (or gasp, justify) your comments as trolling. But as I'm not one of the kitchen-logic spewing disciples of your blog, I can understand why you might call me that. In that regard, I'm not trolling here any more than you are. Using the nick "anonymous" is about as behind the mask as "spinks" or any other handle, in my humble opinion, anyway. The questions remain the same. 1:36 AM
Spinks said... When you change your nickname and go off topic as you have done here in the past "anon" you're trolling. Granted, on this post you're being consistent so your comments stay. Read my post instead of skimming it and you'll read where I wrote, "seem to have more sympathy for the Taliban than our own soldiers". What mike wrote is his business but his comments easily "justify" what I wrote. And disagree all you wish but leave the name calling of others at the door. If you don't like their opinions that's fine, disagree with them but calling people "kitchen-logic spewing disciples" is uncalled for and refrain from it in the future or take it to another blog where someone else will put up with it. 7:33 AM
mikel said... I think that says it all if Spinks thinks that what I wrote sounds sympathetic to the Taliban. Where exactly would that be? And Spinks knows fully well that all I said about nazi's was that like any military many of them were simply following orders and were punished accordingly, and the vast majority had nothing to do with the attempted genocide and were appalled by it. The nazis were a political party and can be compared to any other. In fact, we can easily compare the act of aggression in Afghanistan to Germany's takeover of Austria-except Afghanistan was far more brutal and violent. That's our political leaders, sorry, LEADER, because in Canada, unlike most industrialized countries, its up to ONE MAN what our country does in foreign affairs (and one man who doesn't even get the support of most canadians) What Spinks likes to do is make any opposition to his views sound extreme so that he doesn't actually have to argue it. That's how jingoism works. Leave reason out of it, just do what we say and shut up about it. As they say, 'truth is the first casualty of war'. We see that in the 'conditions' he sets in how he expects people to behave around soldiers. Obviously he doesn't know many if he thinks soldiers can't handle themselves. But like I said, some people think its their duty to at least try to keep people in line since they don't do much else. However, they don't even have to pass the military's entry requirements to follow on their ideals, as the number of 'contractors', or rather, mercenaries, is rapidly increasingly in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And they'll take
virtually anybody. So if you really support the troops, by all means prove it. As for the International Criminal Court, Canadian soldiers have been indicted in the past in absentia for NATO bombings in Kosovo. As we saw in the past canadian soldiers routinely handed 'suspected' Taliban over to the americans and to Afghan officials knowing full well they would tortured. For my part I support the troops, since its very difficult for a soldier to disobey orders and refuse to hand a person over. However, that can easily be determined a war crime. And that doesn't even get into actual aggression. As mentioned in the REAL media, more Afghan's have been killed this year by OUR forces than have by Taliban. And of course we have NO IDEA what it might be like on the ground and what people may be ordered to do. Somalia should have gotten rid of any idealist notion of military life. But some love to jump on any statement and stretch it out to their conclusions. I didn't say soldiers WOULD have to be accountable to the ICC, I just said that its possible and something they should know-and probably not something they DO know. Saying 'I just followed orders' doesn't cut it, and senior officers almost never get the same treatment as 'the grunts', Nurembourg proved that. 8:25 AM
Anonymous said... Incidentally, I've never posted under anything but Anonymous, and only a couple of times on this blog, so your accusations of me changing nicks are unfounded, but there's nothing I can do about that. By saying that someone's comments makes them "seem to have more sympathy for the Taliban than our own soldiers"... then you're making just a big a leap than saying that Cdn soldiers "seem" to be acting like Nazis. I don't agree with either statement, but think they're both pretty large and unwarranted jumps of logic. I find this rather contradictory to your whole "No Spin" claim. In this instance it rings as hollow as it does on Fox. Someone can be against a mission that has been ill-conceived, ill-equipped, logistically challenged and not fitting the role most believe the Cdn military fit without wishing for their deaths. One can hope everyone comes home safely (sadly, not everyone has) in spite of being troubled by the role we've assumed in Afghanistan. History shows that militaries far larger than ours can fight a protracted conflict there, and lose. I fully agree with your notion that if you support the cause, or at least the individuals fighting for it, do what you wish to support them (although Mike does have a point that much of that support tends to err on the side of shallow, hence my admittedly snarky comment about baking a cdn flag cake). My concern wasn't about that, it was the white-washing "shut down" with no real addressing of the commenter's question. As for him mentioning warcrimes and ICC and such - yes, bogeyman and rhetoric - but again, hardly siding with the "bad guys".... If you don't have a lot of time for the commenter and don't wish to properly respond to his questions, then why respond at all? 8:37 AM
Thanks for the backup, but again, thats hardly rhetoric to talk about the ICC. There are several canadian pilots that can no longer travel through several countries in Europe or they will be arrested. And war crimes are often not prosecuted right away, such things are often political-which is why the US refused to sign. Remember, a canadian who hands a suspect to an american who may torture them stands in the bizarre situation where they can be tried for war crimes while the people who actually do the torturing cannot-since they didn't sign onto the ICC. That's REALITY, not rhetoric, which is another good reason why 'supporting' the soldiers means getting them out of their before they have to choose between a court martial and the prospects of the ICC. Of course they 'claim' that such things don't go on anymore, but just because the media doesn't talk about it doesn't mean much. The 'fall guy' in most political decisions is always the soldier, not the guy in the suit, or even the General who says "its the canadian military's job to kill people". A quick look at how the feds are treating those who are claiming to have been affected by Agent Orange in Gagetown, or recent reports of underfunding psychiatric services should tell any soldier what their government REALLY thinks of them. And again, Nazism literally means 'national socialism', which is a political ideology (so a soldier CAN"T be compared to them). The specific atrocity of the germans in world war 2 we all know too well, however, virtually every country in the world functions along very similar lines of national socialism, in fact most of europe. So there a LOTS of 'similarities' there, without making any insane claims about genocide. The Norwegians can easily be called national socialists, but nobody says they are anything like the monsters who committed genocide-however, they do have a similar political ideology (people shouldn't confuse a political ideology with a specific governments acts). Apart from the genocide, Germany's 'system' was virtually identical to virtually every country it opposed. Remember, Canada had an advanced eugenics program as well at the time, interned japanese with no charges, refused to let jews into the country. In fact, even after the horrors of world war 2 were public, Canada was actively practising the genocide of native culture. There are numerous books on the subject about babies being left to die and even the recent acts of police taking natives out to freeze to death are part of a long and sordid history. Again, thats not to say its the SAME, that's obvious to everybody. But there's a reason the US and Canada and Australia made sure the UN didn't define genocide to include 'cultures', but only people. 9:22 AM
Spinks said... We discussed this last week friend when you posted under the nick, "It just keeps getting better". However post under whatever name you wish, simply stay on topic (as you have done here) and refrain from name calling and write what you wish. As for Mike I have little time but not zero. Our Ontario friend and I go way back with some long drawn out diatribes from both sides. I'm pointing out some of his background for context. He's reiterated it above and the reader can decide what they wish. 9:25 AM
Kingston said... Mikel on your previous post you made a comparison between the IRA and the Taliban to justify the need for negotiations. Could you please expand on that as I see no relationship concerning their handling of their own people in regards to human rights and or the fact that
the taliban allowed for the facilitating of a known terrorist organization that attacked not in the name of their political or national interests but world wide.( Kenya, New York, London, etc) Would it also be possible to expand on your comment concerning Canadian pilots and Kosovo and your statement concerning their inability to travel to foreign countries by providing a link to that information. As to your comparison of Afgan and Austria that is totally inaccurate and misleading, Austria was annexed by Hitler's regime with no intention of ever leaving it, unlike the present UN approved, NATO lead ISAF mission. 11:20 AM
Kingston said... Mikel, Would also appreciate a link to the indictments against Canadian soldiers as issued by the ICC 11:24 AM
The Pedgehog said... For heaven's sake, Spinks, I'm inclined to agree with the commenter above about your "no spin" tag line. I don't often hear such Bill O'Reilly-esqu drivel even from you. I don't support the war - I think it's a bad idea. Does that mean I support the Taliban? No. Shock and horror! There are more than two sides to the issue! I never would have imagined! Yellow ribbons and car magnets are all capitalist BS. Anyone who actually gives any thought to the issue or cares at all will do something other that spouting hackneyed slogans about "supporting the troops" (what does that even MEAN?) and, at the very least, take part in intelligent discussions about Canada's military role without resorting to "You're a terrorist!" "No you're a terrorist!" inanity (a word? Who knows?). I'm disappointed, Spinks. Usually you have (somewhat) sound reasoning behind your attacks on the left. 11:42 AM
Anonymous said... Hey Spinks, As you may already know, I served for approximately 4 1/2 years with the US Military. I have directly seen combat and have lost good friends as a result. My 28 year old brother lost his leg this year while serving in Iraq. Not only do I support our soldiers, I am prepared to stand in front of them to show my support! Irrespective of what people think about the politics behind the mission, soldiers do what they are told and are tasked to finish the job they are told to do. Unfortunately, people forget this minor detail. T.J. Burke 12:49 PM
mikel said... Good comments. For the IRA, definitely talk to some Irish people if you are under the impression that the IRA didn't use terror. In fact, they often used it more. Two recent reports from the BBC concerned how the Taliban were not harassing opium growers like they used to, and that the Taliban has actually built more rural schools (including to educate women) than the Afghan government (and remember, 'our' mission has nothing to do with building schools).
The IRA was and in many cases still is extremely brutal. If you were not friendly towards the IRA then you were/are in deep trouble. Ireland is even now a very dangerous place. People routinely disappeared and were murdered. One of their favourite 'tools' was a bat with a nail through that they would use for 'kneecapping'. And many buildings were bombed, not just in London. The IRA was extremely brutal to their own population (the ones who didn't support them of course). And this is not ancient history we are talking about. For Austria, if you'll remember your world war 2 history, it was NEVER the case that Germany 'invaded with no intention of leaving'. Austria already had a national socialist party, though not in power, and already had a large german friendly military. When the Austrian President sought to have a referendum to hopely legitimize Austrian independance, Hitler flipped and essentially warned him that if his policies didn't become more german friendly then things wouldn't go so well. So the referendum was held, while german friendly austrians stood next to the voting booth and counted each person's ballot while they voted. So no surprise that in the referendum, which was still held to be completely illigitimate (sound familiar?), the people of austria voted to join Germany. That's all without a shot being fired. That's why I say Afghanistan is far worse, where tens of thousands of Afghans have died, and that number is giving the benefit of the doubt. The other part is 'intent'. Germany 'intended' that Austria would become part of the German empire, which is true so far as we know. However, just because we don't intend to stay there doesn't mean the action is different. 'We' invaded Afghanistan, simple as that. We can polish it up and say they aren't nice people or that they are better off now, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an invasion. An invasion is not defined by a country's 'intent'. We can intend to kill everybody or intend to make everybody dress up like Harry Potter, an invasion has a very definite definition. So Germany 'took over' Austria with far less bloodshed. However, we should add here that the EXACT same thing could have been done in Afghanistan. Afghan's were not fans of the Taliban and had a large group opposing them. The Taliban was not in control of all the country. The taliban was built up and trained by the CIA, they knew more than anybody how they could be marginalized. And of course we know exactly how 'effective' the invasion was, according to most intelligence organizations terrorism has increased by 25 times , and I don't recall seeing Osama Bin Laden in jail anywhere lately. So again, for all those reasons people can support soldiers, as mentioned above, soldiers don't choose their targets or their mission. They can't hang around the cities to protect rebuilding infrastructure, or even more importantly, root out the massive corruption that makes up Afghanistan's current government. Support for the MISSION has zero, nada, zip, to do with soldiers. Those are policy decisions made by politicians. That is a line that is used by people to marginalize dissent, its been around for centuries. It's quite obvious that nobody would support the politicians forming the policy, hell, barely a third of the voting public, which only makes up just over half of the over 18 population even voted for the guy(s). But the line 'for the sake of the soldiers shut the *&^% up' is far harder to dance around because its not wholly disreputable. The thinking is that since you can't do anything about policy anyway, the least you can do is shut up about it and not make life harder for soldiers.
Of course we CAN do something about policy, thanks to a minority government, however, like Spinks I don't think there is much point in directing anything at soldiers...they don't make the decisions, the MP's do that (well, the PM actually). I have a feeling anybody dumb enough to walk up to a soldier and point their finger into their chest and shriek "I don't support the war in Afghanistan" is very likely to become even dumber in the near future with far fewer brain cells operating. 3:10 PM
Spinks said... It's a passionate topic isn't it? When something strikes me I never know how its going to play out here at the blog and this one is no exception. I just got back from the NB Day celebrations and it was nice to see a good crowd out. There were a handful of "protestors" if you will handing out pieces of paper about Stephen Harper killing children (and puppies probably). The folks were nice enough when I was there, non-confrontational but the sheet they were handing out was pretty far out in left field. There are pretty good arguments out there but this page being handed out wasn't it. I doubt any converts were won with it. Pedgehog, we disagree on something? ;) Let me leave this with you to ponder. If you agree the Taliban had to go, how do you recommend that take place? War sucks but it did get rid of the Taliban. TJ, good to see you weighing in again. It's always politics isn't it but regardless of the how and why, this corner contends that the soldiers themselves are fighting a noble battle to try to make life better for the people of Afghanistan. Whether they'll be successful is debatable but improving life for the Afghan people is their goal and its a noble one. 4:08 PM
mikel said... Notice that the conversation has switched to IF the Taliban had to go how do you do it. Of course that was ancient history and nobody is talking about that. However, there are numerous ways to undercut any nominal government. 'We' played a marginal role in that, we essentially followed the crowd. That's the reason why people can say not to say bad things, because of the assumption that 'improving life for the afghan people is their goal and its a noble one'. If it WERE their goal then that would be true, but how exactly do you tell a country that here's how we are going to 'improve your life': Step 1: Cut off all foreign aid right before winter to 'the people' who live a subsistence life mostly on foreign aid. Step 2: Begin carpet bombing all cities and known habitable points, as well as civilian targets and dams, bridges, etc (which are war crimes by the way) Step 3: Kill anybody who doesn't want the invasion to occur. Step 4: Allow elections under the conditions that those most likely to win are the corrupt thugs and murderers who governed the country before the Taliban (and far more violently) Step 5: Keep a military presence, but not to protect infrastructure, but to protect military investments (like the water that the canadian army sells to the French and US armies). Step 6: Use the military presence to keep the crooked dictators in power and to hunt out
anybody, and we mean ANYBODY who doesn't accept the foreign takeover of the country and its resources. Step 7: Refuse to use military to investigate crimes perpetrated by government or protect the infrastructure being built. That, of course, is essentially what happened point by point. It takes a LOT of propaganda to get people to the point where they can look at the corpses all over Afghanistan (oh I forget, we never see those do we, we just see the military running around saving kittens) and say "we're doing this to help you...well, the ones still alive and willing to capitulate to the corruption now running your country anyway". If you want to believe that then fine, but don't be surprised when others, in fact the majority, don't agree. 4:31 PM
Kingston said... Mikel, As to comment 1, were talking about Afgan not Israel and the west bank region. I have served in Afgan and there was not extensive carpet bombing in any way. I know people confuse carpet bombing and ground air support but as a member of the military there is a huge difference. I would never dispute that the americans did invade Afgan in 2001 but you have to be fair in the context in the fact that they gave the taliban mulitple changes to turn over OBL before they invaded. I will have to ask for evidence concerning the your contention in your fourth point of the present afgan govt being more brutal and violent. I believe the stonings and official sanctioned beheadings have stopped under the present regime. Women rights are not equal to our own country but they are greatly improved and with time will improve even more so. I as I have stated served in KAF twice, and we do not sell water to the Americans or French, actually the water comes out of Kuwait or the UAE if your referring to bottled water, and if your referring to the water on camp for utility usage it is not potable and comes from a water plant operated by the US contractors. More to follow on your other points but supper is calling. 5:11 PM
Kit said... Spinks, went down as well with the family. I was a good turn out and a pleasant crowd. 5:58 PM
mikel said... True, that was a bit of a misnomer, however, cluster bombs, cruise missiles and B-52 bombers have essentially the same outcome as carpet bombing. The difference is merely one of intensity. So, OK, let's not say that it was Vietnam or the West Bank (although I wasn't aware of carpet bombings there). More on that here: http://www.cursor.org/stories /civilian_deaths.htm That's essentially the first site I came to that is fairly credible, a number of NGO's have similar stories to tell, it really doesn't take much, just type in 'afghanistan' and 'death toll' or 'carpet bombing'. As for the Taliban, relative to the rest of the world Taliban used to be around the middle of the pack. But like I said, in mainstream media it is accepted that since they are now elected
and on 'our side', nothing critical is ever printed. The exception would be Aurthur Kent, and his site is at www.skyreporter.com and I encourage everybody to do some heavy reading there. There were human rights abuses certainly, no doubt about it. But nowhere nearly as bad as Indonesia, Uganda, Saudi Arabia or Columbia. You'll remember the big deal that made international headlines because 'those horrible Taliban are blowing up some statues'. Now that's real big human rights abuses. Now you can to to Skyreporter and read about the women who are murdered in their bed under 'the new regime'. Women were treated horribly under the Taliban, but they were alive (usually). Conversely, while Columbia is far worse than the Taliban, Harper just went down to visit the President, a guy also linked to criminal elements there, and smiled and shook his hand and said what great buddies we are and how we should be better friends. That also goes for Saudi Arabia. While people talk about the fear they have of Sharia, Saudi Arabia has governed under Sharia for years now and nobody blinks an eye. You can even get government training if you are a nurse telling you how to cover everything up. Even though its known that the terrorists were Saudis, not Afghani's. But that doesn't matter, they are 'good friends'. As for Osama Bin Laden, if you'll remember, all the Taliban said was 'show us some evidence'. Of course everybody knows there is no evidence, at least anybody who knows anythign about Al-Queda. Its a loose knit group with the same ideology, not the same structure. It operates in 'cells' that have little or no contact. Either way, lets look at a comparison. For example, there is a very famous terrorist, I can't remember his name right now, but he has been wanted by Venezuela for decades. And his crimes are extensive, for example, blowing up a Venezuelan jet liner killing dozens. He is quite free and walking around New York's upper east side. Now, under those conditions Venezuela COULD simply start bombing the US and say if its reasonable for them to do, its reasonable for Venezuela. As for the water, that was a media report about a year ago, but since I can't find the link anymore then I won't labour it, we'll just use this: To date, Canadian construction and rehabilitation include: 1,290 kilometres of roads, 6 bridges, 2 Km of retaining wall, 28 small irrigation projects, 39 schools, 3 health clinics, 43 drinking water facilities and 204 dug water wells with hand pumps. IN FOUR YEARS. That's according to CIDA. And as I've mentioned before, an NGO recently reported that more civilians have been killed this year by NATO bombing than have been killed by Taliban. Even the President, who is clearly on our side, has begged NATO to notify him before bombing. And of course none of this even gets into Pakistan, and Canada's increasingly cozy relationship with them while they continue to be the main training ground for terrorists. So again, there is no lack of reasons to oppose the mission in Afghanistan. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I personally do not agree with withdrawal, because when you blow the hell out of a place then you have a responsibility to rehabilitate it. However, when the option is propping up a corrupt government or getting out, then I say get out. The other option, of course, is to do what Spinks THINKS is going on,namely that 'noble mission'. We have the clout to create and protect a proper government there, we have the guns, not them. 8:54 PM
Patrick Ross said... "since Canada is a signatory to the International Criminal Court that I'd mention that to a soldier because what they do in Afghanistan, whether following orders or not, may come back to haunt them." Is that supposed to be supporting the troops? Apparently UN-mandated missions are war crimes all of a sudden. Hoo boy... 9:54 PM
Kit said... Mike L - "...because when you blow the hell out of a place then you have a responsibility to rehabilitate it." On principle, I would agree, but what the heck does that have to do with Canada's mission in Afghanistan? 10:04 PM
mikel said... It is definitely supporting the troops if you want to make sure they don't end up in court. Of course we can assume that NATO forces will never face trial, however, times change radically within a lifetime. No doubt German soldiers said the same thing in 1942. The Nurembourg court was set up 'after the fact', so we really have no way of knowing what the future will be. It's a pretty easy argument to make that handing somebody over for torture will make you an accomplice, it pretty much goes without saying. But again, in Afghanistan Canada is working under US authority and instruction. And while US soldiers CANT be targeted by the ICC, the same is not true of canadian soldiers.WE can argue that it won't happen, but of course WE never have to face the circumstance if it did. NOT telling a soldier that would be the most disrespectful thing I could think of. A good analogy would be to CFB Gagetown soldiers "Oh, by the way, that stuff we've been spraying on you might cause cancer, just thought you should know" Keep in mind that a UN 'mandate' is far different than a UN mission. It wasn't really a mandate, the UN simply signed off on it after the fact. The invasion was not a UN mission and there are no security council resolutions authorizing the use of force into Afghanistan. The UN CANT authorize it because of course it was an act of aggression, which UN peacekeeping forces are specifically trained to avoid. As for the final remark, thats essentially the point, the canadian mission in Afghanistan is NOT for 'peacekeeping' or for rebuilding (although some of that is done for photo ops). Just look at the latest 'offensive' just last May. The majority of canadians are now opposed to this mission, and ask yourself this, how many people were protesting canadian peacekeeping troops in Cyprus? Anybody? 10:34 PM
The Pedgehog said... To answer your question, Spinks: diplomacy. I hope that isn't too far out in left field for you. ;) 10:47 PM
Patrick Ross said... This post has been removed by the author. 11:51 PM
Patrick Ross said... "It is definitely supporting the troops if you want to make sure they don't end up in court. Of course we can assume that NATO forces will never face trial, however, times change radically within a lifetime. No doubt German soldiers said the same thing in 1942. The Nurembourg court was set up 'after the fact', so we really have no way of knowing what the future will be." You're clearly a very poor student of history. Among the premier charges laid against defendants at Nuremburg were related to the Holocaust. Whereas in Afghanistan we removed the Taliban from power -- a regime that had been known for efforts at genocide. "It's a pretty easy argument to make that handing somebody over for torture will make you an accomplice, it pretty much goes without saying. But again, in Afghanistan Canada is working under US authority and instruction. And while US soldiers CANT be targeted by the ICC, the same is not true of canadian soldiers.WE can argue that it won't happen, but of course WE never have to face the circumstance if it did. NOT telling a soldier that would be the most disrespectful thing I could think of. A good analogy would be to CFB Gagetown soldiers "Oh, by the way, that stuff we've been spraying on you might cause cancer, just thought you should know"" There is no proof that this has actually happened -- merely the complaints by Taliban prisoners repeated by a political science professor. You assume that because there are complaints that they're automatically legitimate. If you were really supporting the troops, you'd be holding out for proof. Furthermore, only in Canada would a "serious scandal" erupt because of how another country allegedly treats its prisoners. "Keep in mind that a UN 'mandate' is far different than a UN mission. It wasn't really a mandate, the UN simply signed off on it after the fact. The invasion was not a UN mission and there are no security council resolutions authorizing the use of force into Afghanistan. The UN CANT authorize it because of course it was an act of aggression, which UN peacekeeping forces are specifically trained to avoid." A mandate after the fact is still a mandate. Just like passive aggression is still aggression. The Taliban was harbouring Al Qaida terrorists, putting both ourselves and our allies at risk of attack. That is at the very least a passive aggressive act. You can't really classify an invasion that eliminates such a threat as "aggression". It's self-defense. "As for the final remark, thats essentially the point, the canadian mission in Afghanistan is NOT for 'peacekeeping' or for rebuilding (although some of that is done for photo ops). Just look at the latest 'offensive' just last May. The majority of canadians are now opposed to this mission, and ask yourself this, how many people were protesting canadian peacekeeping troops in Cyprus? Anybody?"
Peacekeeping isn't as different from war as you'd like to think. They're both interventionalist foreign policy tools. Any foreign policy doctrine that allows peacekeeping by necessity must also allow war. Furthermore, examples like Rwanda and Somalia show us how quickly "peacekeeping" missions can degenerate into warfare. 11:54 PM
mikel said... Genocide had nothing to do with it, the word didn't even have meaning then. The charges were 'crimes against humanity', which can mean anything (an economic journalist for example was one of the people tried at Nurembourg). Again, nobody is defending the Taliban, but they were far less violent than any of the other countries mentioned above. There were alarms concerning genocide, particularly 300 people killed who were part of an ethnic minority. However, there was no 'evidence' found because critics were all expelled. The only other evidence was that the Taliban forced Hindus to wear yellow. That was alarming, but certainly not genocide. Everybody else had practically left Afghanistan, except for a few hundred hindus, so there was no real genocide there. As for torture, complaints are exactly what set investigations in order. The evidence of torture is well documented and the countries and groups that do it are well known, so when people are handed over to Afghan officials, who are well known to practise torture, then I don't 'hold out' for proof because its well known that those who practise torture or those who take part in handing over suspects aren't likely to have an investigation. Also, the Norwegians made it a condition on serving there that they wouldn't hand over suspects to the US because of their concerns about torture. If they have concerns, it MAY be just rhetoric, but once again, its not unreasonable. And like I said, the issue isn't what you or I think, we have very limited information on what is going on. The point is that it COULD have an affect on a soldier in the future and they should at least be informed of that. But thats a good comment, because we see how it works, IF you support the troops then you'll keep your mouth shut about bad stuff. As for 'self defense', that is a VERY bizarre definition, although one that we heard from Bush all the time. It's not even close to being realistic because once again all these terms are defined in international treaties NOT by you and me on a whim. In fact, they frequently said that the US had 'terror cells' as does Canada. Should Spain and Norway attack us for harbouring terrorists? Of course not. Pakistan now has far more terrorists than Afghanistan, but our government has closer ties than ever to Pakistan. And like I said, the US is KNOWINGLY harbouring a terrorist who blew up a Venezuelan jet liner, should Venezuela start bombing Miami? To say that the invasion of Afghanistan was self defense because there were people there who may hurt us is stretching to the incredulous, that puts EVERY country on notice. If a mexican worker in Ontario shoots people should we invade Mexico? Self defense has a very specific legal definition, and Afghanistan wasn't even close. What it was was simple imperialism, the US is the strongest country so they do what they want. As said, the ICC can't touch them because they aren't a party to it, but Canada DID.
As for Rwanda, that was perfect evidence of the failure of a UN mission, just read whatsisnames book on it, Dancing with the Devil, there's even a documentary. ANd its well known WHY the tragedy occurred. In cases where genocide is deemed to occur by the UN security council, peacekeepers are OBLIGATED to intervene. In Rwanda the UN, mainly the US delegate Madeline Albright, REFUSED to call it genocide, and therefore the peacekeepers could do nothing. What THAT shows of course is the changes that need to be made at the UN, namely, not letting one country decide when intervention is necessary. But again, UN forces went INTO Rwanda under a UN mandate, the Afghanistan mission did not. So we KNOW the two are very different. So to claim that 'theyre sorta kinda the same because they are both intervention' is not even close. In Afghanistan WE are the offending party, WE are the group that is hunting down the muslims who oppose occupation and killing them. That is FAR different from Rwanda. But like I said, it COULD be different. You simply don't engage in offensive action like last May. Norway now has only lost two soldiers in their entire time in Afghanistan. 12:32 PM
The Pedgehog said... Shaking Hands with the Devil, by Romeo Dallaire. I highly recommend it. :) 12:45 PM
Mikel's a liar said... mikel said: "And Spinks knows fully well that all I said about nazi's was that like any military many of them were simply following orders and were punished accordingly, and the vast majority had nothing to do with the attempted genocide and were appalled by it." Not true. It was much worse than that and you know it. Here's proof: Mikel/Anon said (April 2007) on To Be Announced: "In the second there at least was a small glimmer of justification, even though it wasn't until Germany declared war on Britain that she reciprocated and Canada followed suit. Many try to use hindsight to justify it, saying what monsters nazi's were, and they WERE monsters, at least some of them, but genocide wasn't the issue then, in fact Canada had its own eugenics program as did almost every industrialized country." https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4264807594110273377&postID=1895647930121515021 Sounds like you are not only a Nazi sympathizer, but you believe Canadians are as bad as the Nazis for fighting an evil regime. How can anyone ever trust what's coming out of your mouth. Shame Mikel. 3:06 PM
Spinks said... Ah sheesh thanks a lot, now I have to come to Mike's defense. Calling mike a liar is uncalled for. I don't think he'a liar. Selective memory or trying a spin job (thus my reason for bringing up his Nazi connection) yes but liar no. Calling anyone on anything and disagreeing with them is fine but please leave the name calling at the door. While I'm on etiquette and mike. Mike can you keep the comments down to a more reasonable length or provide a link to your own blog? It's bordering on rants and I'm the only
one who gets to rant (kit during guest blogging) and even we try to keep ourselves in check. It's just too much for the average person (which this blog is aimed at) to go through. It clogs the system and turns people off. Rave all you wish just try to keep it to a reasonable length. The management and staff thanks you. 3:44 PM
mikel said... I don't see how somebody who says "they were monsters" can be called a nazi sympathizer. What the comment above says is that Canada didn't go into the war to stop the holocaust, they went into it because Germany declared war on Britain. At the time people didn't even know about the holocaust, however, they DID know that life was increasingly hard on jews, and Canada had a 'no jews allowed' policy. One MP even stated "one is too many". And Canada also interned the Japanese, so let's face it, human rights were not a big issue. However, nobody in their right mind would state that Canada's policy was on the same level as Nazi Germany's. But as the native situation showed right after the war, its not like Canada was some shining beacon for human rights. Keep in mind that most countries as well as natives, wanted genocide to include cultural attributes, not just people. That definition was rejected by Canada and the US for the simple reason that those countries would also be guilty of genocide in their treatment of natives up to and just after the war. Even now its very much policy to try to 'assimilate' natives into the larger canadian society. Short enough? 4:35 PM
Anonymous said... "handing out pieces of paper about Stephen Harper killing children (and puppies probably)." Puppies? No spin? Aw spinks.... 6:15 PM
mikel said... Everybody knows Harper doesn't kill puppies, that's the foreign affairs minister, Harper just EATS them:) An excellent interview on Afghanistan is available here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/ journal/06082007/watch3.html 7:48 PM
Longtooth said... I hate to break up a good family spat, but I just wanted to add a little something. Lets go back a bit. After 911 most people supported assisting in the Afghan effort. Most. Some reserved judgment awaiting more facts. I don't think the publics support was based on extending the theatre of war into Iraq. This changed the face of the entire mission in my view.
I believe that was when Canada should have said no. Fighting the Taliban / Mujadheen in this way is a fruitless endeavour at best. They didn't blow up any buildings in Canada and Yankee Doodle has lots of Military stuff in his toy box. I don't buy into this, "with us or against us" mentality at all. Its wolfpack behaviour anyway. Drivel from a John Wayne wannbe. 7:58 PM
Patrick Ross said... "Genocide had nothing to do with it, the word didn't even have meaning then. The charges were 'crimes against humanity', which can mean anything (an economic journalist for example was one of the people tried at Nurembourg)." Yes, and genocide is a crime against humanity. "Again, nobody is defending the Taliban..." Aren't you? They were removed from power because they harboured terrorists. When you label such an action as "an act of aggression", then you are defending the Taliban's right to harbour terrorists. "...but they were far less violent than any of the other countries mentioned above. There were alarms concerning genocide, particularly 300 people killed who were part of an ethnic minority. However, there was no 'evidence' found because critics were all expelled. The only other evidence was that the Taliban forced Hindus to wear yellow. That was alarming, but certainly not genocide." It's too bad you apparently haven't read this. You can just go ahead and do that now. "Everybody else had practically left Afghanistan, except for a few hundred hindus, so there was no real genocide there." A cab driver I rode with in Edmonton last year was from Afghanistan, and described to me in fairly decent detail how all the Jews in Afghanistan (yes, Afghanistan used to have Jews) were ethnically cleansed from Afghanistan. Ethnic cleansing, by the way, is still a crime against humanity. "As for torture, complaints are exactly what set investigations in order. The evidence of torture is well documented and the countries and groups that do it are well known, so when people are handed over to Afghan officials, who are well known to practise torture, then I don't 'hold out' for proof because its well known that those who practise torture or those who take part in handing over suspects aren't likely to have an investigation." There is no proof that anyone who has been handled by Canadian soldiers has been tortured. If you were supporting our troops, you'd be affording them the benefit of the doubt. I suppose to this end it's a good thing that you don't really mean to support the troops anyway. "Also, the Norwegians made it a condition on serving there that they wouldn't hand over suspects to the US because of their concerns about torture. If they have concerns, it MAY be just rhetoric, but once again, its not unreasonable. And like I said, the issue isn't what you or I think, we have very limited information on what is going on. The point is that it COULD
have an affect on a soldier in the future and they should at least be informed of that. But thats a good comment, because we see how it works, IF you support the troops then you'll keep your mouth shut about bad stuff." No. You just won't assume that our soldiers are handing Taliban prisoners over to torturers just because there's an unproven allegation. "As for 'self defense', that is a VERY bizarre definition, although one that we heard from Bush all the time. It's not even close to being realistic because once again all these terms are defined in international treaties NOT by you and me on a whim." Yes, they are. But you have to understand something about international law: international law works in two ways: what countries agree are the international law, and how countries actually execute their foreign policy. There is strong historical precedent for the invasion and induced regime change in states that knowingly and willingly harbour terrorists. Thus, it is actually perfectly legal to induce regime change, particularly in regards to criminal regimes like the Taliban, and particularly when a terrorist group harboured by that state has already attacked you (several times), and promised to attack -- and your allies -- again. "In fact, they frequently said that the US had 'terror cells' as does Canada. Should Spain and Norway attack us for harbouring terrorists? Of course not." Neither Canada nor the US are sheltering those terrorist cells. They're constantly being pursued by our law enforcement officials, whereas Osama bin Laden was an "honoured guest" of the Taliban. Huge difference, but thank you again for the sophistry. "Pakistan now has far more terrorists than Afghanistan, but our government has closer ties than ever to Pakistan." Perhaps so, but Pakistan is also pursuing those terrorists as well, especially after the recent Red Mosque uprisings. Again, big difference between terrorists simply happening to be unlawfully in your country, and harbouring them as "honoured guests". "And like I said, the US is KNOWINGLY harbouring a terrorist who blew up a Venezuelan jet liner, should Venezuela start bombing Miami?" I know nothing about that. "To say that the invasion of Afghanistan was self defense because there were people there who may hurt us is stretching to the incredulous, that puts EVERY country on notice." Every country that knowingly and willingly harbours terrorists who have either already attacked us or has announced they plan to attack us, yes. "If a mexican worker in Ontario shoots people should we invade Mexico?" I could go for a marguerita right about now. Let's do it. "Self defense has a very specific legal definition, and Afghanistan wasn't even close."
If you overlook that whole "terrorists who have already attacked us and have said they will do so again" thing. Which you are. "What it was was simple imperialism, the US is the strongest country so they do what they want." It's too bad you can't hear me laughing at that. You're not terribly creative. I suppose you probably think that's a good thing. "As said, the ICC can't touch them because they aren't a party to it, but Canada DID." And it will take some serious infractions against the laws of war for Canadian soldiers to be charged while executing a UN mandated mission. "As for Rwanda, that was perfect evidence of the failure of a UN mission, just read whatsisnames book on it, Dancing with the Devil, there's even a documentary. ANd its well known WHY the tragedy occurred. In cases where genocide is deemed to occur by the UN security council, peacekeepers are OBLIGATED to intervene. In Rwanda the UN, mainly the US delegate Madeline Albright, REFUSED to call it genocide, and therefore the peacekeepers could do nothing." Yep, and because our peacekeepers weren't properly equipped, and weren't allowed to act, they wound up in their headquarters being shelled. Tell me again that Rwanda didn't turn into war on our peacekeepers. What THAT shows of course is the changes that need to be made at the UN, namely, not letting one country decide when intervention is necessary. But again, UN forces went INTO Rwanda under a UN mandate, the Afghanistan mission did not. So we KNOW the two are very different." Not that different. Our forces in Afghanistan have a UN mandate. Tell me how different it is again. So to claim that 'theyre sorta kinda the same because they are both intervention' is not even close. They are both intervention. Do you want to dispute that? "In Afghanistan WE are the offending party, WE are the group that is hunting down the muslims who oppose occupation and killing them." Wrong. In Afghanistan the Taliban is the offending party, and their offences were numerous, for decades, before we finally did what is right. "That is FAR different from Rwanda." Not so much. In Rwanda, Hutus slaughtered Tutsis, and we could have stopped them. In Afghanistan, the Taliban slaughtered non-Muslims, and we could have stopped them. We didn't, either time. At least in Afghanistan we stopped them from allowing them to attack us via terrorist proxy. Finally -- how is knowingly and willingly harbouring terrorists not an aggressive act?
8:22 PM
Patrick Ross said... "I don't think the publics support was based on extending the theatre of war into Iraq. This changed the face of the entire mission in my view." You're precisely right. The unncessary and not UN-mandated war in Iraq has poisoned the public opinion environment against the necessary and UN-mandated Afghanistan mission. 8:26 PM
Longtooth said... I watched Mikels video link/interview after my last post. Good piece, pretty much how I have understood it. Even if Bush had have been successful in Afghanistan, then what? A democracy of 28 million in the midst of old Islam? Imagine a Liberal at a skin head rally. 8:27 PM
Charles LeBlanc said... WOW!!!! WHAT A WAR IN THIS BLOG!!!! Spinks? How come I can't get no Ministers leaving comments in my blog????? :P 9:08 PM
Longtooth said... I'm going to plagiarize it and send it to a publishing house. Perteneer a short story dont' ya think? 9:26 PM
mikel said... Nobody said that the Taliban weren't committing atrocities. Virtually everything that is linked to in that story about the Taliban is also going RIGHT NOW in Uganda and Somalia. In Uganda its far far worse. Virtually all of it is going on right now in Columbia as well as Indonesia. How often do you hear about that? How often did you hear about the atrocities going on in Indonesia while the RCMP and CSIS were arresting protestors when Canada's good friend the butcher Suharto was an 'honoured guest' in Canada? How often do you hear about the massacres and rapes going on in Columbia when Harper shakes hands with the President last week and says we must have much closer ties? Before the late nineties I'll bet nobody hear could even find Afghanistan on a map. Nobody had even heard the word 'Taliban'. How often did you hear about the massacring of Kurds in Turkey during the late nineties when Canada was sending more weapons to them, increasing trade, and even apologized because a Private Members Bill had dared to call the Turkish murder of Armenians genocide. And Afghanistan was NOT a UN mission. On September 28 the UN passed its final resolution 1373 which imposed restrictions on Afghanistan, and on October 8 aerial bombing began. LOTS of people, just not media and politicians, denounced that, especially since the
attackers were almost all SAUDIS, NOT Afghans. The CLAIM was made that they were 'trained in Afghanistan', but that turned out to be false, they were trained in the US, with american visas (sounds like 'honoured guest' to me). So by the above reasoning Venezuela is perfectly within its rights to start bombing the states. However, a country has to prove 'imminence' in order to even justify self defense, which wasn't even close. By the way, the US is the ONLY country in the world that has actually been found GUILTY by the criminal court because of course it has a LONG history of invading whoever it wants and saying 'but they were going to attack us'. In the 80's the US had a 'state of emergency' because those evil Nicaraguans were going to come up and take over the US. Yeah right, a bunch of peasants with rifles were planning on heading up to conquer the most powerful military in the world. For self defense and aggression these things have to be PROVEN, you can't just SAY them. There are conditions in the UN when a country is allowed to attack, say if missiles are coming right at them, but this was far from the case. And again, YOU may think there is no way that soldiers will ever face any kind of court, and that may be true, it may even be close to an impossibility, but you don't KNOW. So who REALLY is the one not supporting the troops? All I said was that soldiers should at least know what the international criminal court is and what kinds of crimes they prosecute. As well, you may say you KNOW that such torture and acts don't go on, even though you've probably never set foot in Afghanistan, but let's say for example that something like that COULD happen. Well, don't you think that if some lousy officer tells a private to hand over a suspect to somebody he knows will torture him, then it would be a good thing for that private to at least know his rights? To be able to say 'I cant do that because of charges that could be laid by the ICC'. So that information could PREVENT such a thing happening. And that's giving a pretty big benefit of the doubt, like I said, under war conditions Somalia should have taught us that anything can happen, and forewarned is forearmed. But like I said, 'support the troops' is really a byline to 'shup up and stop talking about it'. 11:17 PM
mikel said... The last UN Resolution is found here: http://www.ringnebula.com /Oil/UNSC_DOCS/UNSC1373.pdf As for torture: http://www.pww.org/article/ articleview/11063/1/266/ http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/02/canada- afghanistan-detainee-agreement.php http://www.crimesofwar.org/special /afghan/news-tortureafghan.html http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070504/afghan_scandal
_070504/20070504?hub=TopStories And this: Faced with the shocking accounts from Afghan detainees featured in The Globe and Mail this week, Harper had the audacity on Tuesday to dismiss the reports as “allegations of the Taliban.” Graeme Smith, The Globe and Mail correspondent in Afghanistan (and, by the Prime Minister's appalling logic, a Taliban spokesperson), conducted weeks of research touring “medieval nightmare” prisons and interviewing 30 detainees. Smith recorded accounts of beatings, electric shock, whipping, freezing and starvation among the methods employed by the security forces to which Canadian soldiers turned over their detainees. On Wednesday, The Globe and Mail delivered the knockout punch to Harper's and the Conservatives' evasions and denials. The headline summed it all up, “What Ottawa doesn't want you to know: Government was told detainees often faced 'extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and detention without trial'.” 11:55 PM
Anonymous said... I would love to stand in front of our troops and give them a lesson in civics. A lot of these kids signed up after Afghanistan and signed up to be part of this war. To support them is to support the war. I support neither. 1:34 PM
Kit said... Just what civic lesson would you teach them? How to be a good citizen? About self sacrifice? Perhaps a Neville Chamberlain type address about peace in our time? I'm curious. 3:57 PM
Kingston said... Anonymous, Is also very curious, just what would you teach us. Please tell us. 4:19 PM
mikel said... Personally, I'd just mention what is in this blog or at least get them to watch that interview above. The 'side' we are on is corrupt as you can see from all the articles, which makes any claim to be 'the good guys' pretty questionable. For guts and courage, though never mentioned, we can talk about the people who volunteer and work for NGO's to help rebuild infrastructure and protect womens rights and all those things our mission is NOT doing. And those people are doing it WITHOUT guns, artillery and air support. Those people are just as much heroes as soldiers are, in many cases moreso. So IF a person wants to 'help out' in Afghanistan, they should be made aware that there are other opportunities besides the military. If they want to serve militarily they should know that according to those media reports, it MAY involve handing people over to be tortured and it may involve working with known criminals in the Karzai government. It may involve any activity that has had many soldiers needing psychiatric help when they return. In other words, it should be more than flashy television ads.
That would at least make an informed decision. They should know also that in the military they won't get to pick and choose the battles-thats done for them and refusing orders is a court martial offense. That would be a good civics lesson, as somebody mentioned above, they could plagiarize this blog and make a book out of it. That's what 'creative commons' is all about. I wasn't expecting Spinks to have a 'no spin zone' on this thread, but I think it would have been interesting to see exactly what those flyers they were handing out said. 5:34 PM
Spinks said... In a nutshell the flyers said what you wrote mike, that Canada is evil, Stephen Harper is killing children (not puppies) and to use your words that Canada and its military are "corrupt". I disagree and maintain the soldiers themselves are on a noble misison to try to make things better not worse for the Afghani people. Whether they'll be successful and whether the best methods are used are certainly open to debate. Those points are worth discussing. However once it crosses into rhetoric of insinuating our Prime Minister wants to kill kids, that our army should be up on criminal charges, are comparable to Nazis and that they're corrupt, well you're entitled to your opinion as the folks handing the flyers out are but that's just plain ludicrous and I have little interest in debating something so far fetched. If someone else wants to though, have at it. 5:57 PM
Spinks said... PS : The shorter post are appreciated. 5:58 PM
Kingston said... Mikel, Well I have been there my friend and I know it is a worthwhile mission. I suggest you join a NGO org that if I may remind you is protected by these same soldiers that you want to give a civic lecture too, in the dangerous southern part of the country but just to clarify the ones that are still there and never left. Maybe if you walk the ground rather then reading about it on the internet you might be able to put some perspective. One of the problems with the internet on both sides of this debate is either me or you can find plenty of sites, quotes, etc to back up our arguments. Oh and bye the way, you have no idea how easy it is to get out of any overseas taskings in the CF. I know that sounds hard to believe but it is a fact. Just fail a social workers interview, your not going. Wives get interviewed too, the can stop you from going. Now what that tell me is everyone over there wanted to go, just like I did. 7:07 PM
NB taxpayer said... Here's a short post. I'm fifty!! Poster that is. lol 8:29 PM
mikel said... The truth hurts, but that's life. Spinks can try to expand what was said so that his ideals can stay intact, that's his business. However, as the above articles state, canadian soldiers are handing over suspects who are then tortured. A soldier who does that knowingly is committing a war crime, simple as that. It was true for nazi's, its true for canadians.
The simple thing, of course, is to NOT do that-the Norwegians don't do it and came out and told the US to *&^% off and that they wouldn't even hand prisoners to them because they couldn't be trusted. As mentioned above, the likelihood that any soldier will face trial may be nil or implausible, but that doesn't make it right. Taking somebody to somebody else to be tortured is a crime against humanity in my book, whether you don't like the person or not. However, nobody said ANYTHING about soldiers who are guarding infrastructure, and for those too lazy too read I'll repeat again that I am not a person who beleives they should be pulled out, I believe they SHOULD NOT be handing people over to be tortured, SHOULD NOT be engaged in what the US THINKS are offensive operations that simply hurt the mission, and should be doing peacekeeping. They should be doing all those things the poster mentions above as worthwhile operations and I agree. But when the COO of the armed forces says "the duty of the canadian soldier is to kill people" then you can't pretend the mission is pure and noble. And those aren't MY comments above, those come from the Globe and Mail reporter who DID walk the ground in Afghanistan and who investigated the torture allegations. 10:38 PM
NB taxpayer said... Far be it for any of us to disagree with a Glib and Frail reporter, especially one who walked the Afghan soil in his Batas and khakis after hanging out at the Timmys stand for six hours. 11:10 PM
Kingston said... Mikel, Not being glib, has any other MSM org in Canada, and I do not mean a anti-war, progressive site been able to substantiate the G&M. The last I heard on this was there was no proof that it even happened. I could trot out the proven evidence that all members of AQ and no doubt the taliban also are told to scream torture if captured. I do know from reading an article by Mr.Taylor of Esprit de Corp who loves to find fault with the CF that he could find no evidence of these allegations when he conducted his own tour including a walk through of the prison. I can understand people not being impressed with the conditions in the Afgan prison system especially when compared to a western one, but it is their way of doing things, remember we do not want to colonize them in our image, hmmm, trys to remember who suggested that was the plan. LOL 12:05 AM
mikel said... Well, I guess for some people if it doesn't come from the mouth of Bill O'Reilly then its just propaganda. However, the above story didn't originate from the Globe reporter, but from Canadian Diplomats in a report that was heavily censored which the Globe then used the Access to Information Act to get the complete story of. Besides that we have the Crimes of War Project from the University of Berkeley, one of the same groups,incidentally, which brought out all those stories you hear about the Taliban. So it seems odd to disbelieve them in one case, yet believe them in others. And if that's not enough, you can see Harpers 'damage control' weighing in and claiming that NOW canadian forces will have access to the prisoners (but no mention on whether they'll have any power to stop torture). 12:21 AM
Kingston said... Mikel, On Bill O'Reilly we do agree, he is way over the top, trust me I am far from a far right wing person as I am from a far left. I tend to view MSM news with a healthy skepticism until I do further research. The days of impartial reporting seems to be long gone but I digress. Sorry I do not have more time but I have to scoot to work but I did quickly scan the "Crimes of War Project site" concerning Afgan. I did not see any things concerning torture by Afgan authorities since 2003 and it is a allegation against a Warlord or by ISAF troops. Can you direct more accurately. As to the Report from Foreign Affairs give it a gander, it was a world wide report that is completed I believe annual is quite interesting, the old saying of you never know what goes on behind your neighbors closed doors in very relevant. 8:39 AM
mikel said... Fair enough. But ruling out all the organizations and the mainstream media means pretty selective information gathering. For government, you have to remember who is IN government. The Globe and Mail is a fairly reputable source, its not like they LIE. However, if a reporter has a story where he talks to people who have been tortured and people say he was probably just drinking coffee and making it all up or they were lying then obviously its pointless talking to that person. Anything that doesn't agree with their way of thinking simply won't register. That, of course, is another casualty of mainstream media, partly thanks to government-and that is HIDING the face of war. Refusing to publish pictures of body parts lying at the side of the road, children sitting next to dead parents, the limbless and diseased and just filling the papers with tough looking soldiers doing lovely things. So again, the mainstream media is far more reliable than, say, a bunch of blogs or websites. But that was canadian diplomats. Now, if you want to discount THEM too, then we're getting into the point where the only people you'd believe are those complicit in it. So there's a link above to The Jurist, certainly not a 'partisan' paper, it comes from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. They report on allegations of Amnesty International, who DEALS with human rights daily, as well as teh British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. But then we get into 'ah, those are just left wing crazies'. Again, these are the same people who were telling us about the Taliban and the facts mentioned above that everybody apparantly agrees on. Here, though, the groups are saying things against US, or at least our representatives, and that seems to be the problem. 'We' are supposed to be the good guys. Admitting that perhaps we AREN"T always the good guys is something people have trouble with, especially in a nominally representative government which makes US accountable for actions of our government. So the simple thing to do is simply shut it out and make it go away, to assume the best and disbelieve the worst. That's unfortunate because like I said, it makes it impossible to analyze the mission without a 'in or out' framework. You are either 'for or against' the mission. And whenever somebody comes out with a specific criticism they are shouted down as unpatriotic or even treasonous. That, of course, leads to people simply avoiding the topic and simply saying 'lets just get the
hell out of there'. Which, again, does no favours for Afghani's, but at least is better than propping up a corrupt government. So again, go to Skyreporter.com and check out what they are saying. Check out what the critics are saying because IF the govenrment dealt with the criticism, people obviously wouldn't have anything to criticize. Got a prisoner.. .hand him over to the Norwegians. Keep in mind that virtually EVERYBODY believed this story when it came out, even tory bloggers, if you'll recall, Dion was laughed around the blogworld for daring to suggest that instead of handing them over to torturers that we bring them to Canada. So there was at least an attempt to deal with it, but again the assumption was 'just shut up about it and don't be crazy'. Again, for a good many of these people they are simply protecting their home. If a foreign country bombed us, then took over, what woudl YOU do? 9:17 AM
Awareness said... Gee Spinks. I thought you were taking the summer off :) Looks like I missed a heated bloggie conversation. 7:15 PM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:07:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Hey Mr Taft my father was in the RCAF too He named me after
his friend named David Hornell. Because of them I did not have to go