Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Pakistani insurgents join forces on Afghan border

SAEED SHAH

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 9:09 AM EDT 17/12/07

Move bodes ill for Canadian troops who are fighting nearby in Afghanistan's Kandahar province ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Mr X from Edmonton, Canada writes: Taliban has opened up a second front in Pakistan now. In some respects they have lost their safe haven and now are getting squeezed from both sides.
  2. Raymond Conway from London, United Kingdom writes: With all due respect to the reporter, the Taliban did not originate as a Pakistani-based militia. The term Taliban means literally 'student' and the Taliban began in Afganistan as a student-based movement which was formed to stand-up against the lawlessness and atrocities of the ruling Afghan warlords. Warlords who filled the vacuum left by the Soviet pull out of Afghanistan. While the Taliban eventually was taken over by fundamentalsit extremists, it's origins were in fact laudatory.

    We will never achieve a peaceful end to the conflict in Afganistan, if we are continually fed with misleading, and inflamatory, propaganda!
  3. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    I believe we need to read alternate sources of information......some which are very different that what we are being fed and do not paint the rosy picture:

    Headline: British 'success' under siege in Afghanistan

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IL15Df03.html

    Headline: No hope of victory soon in Afghanistan

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/comment/story/0,,2228425,00.htm

    This is somewhat disturbing:

    'Experts fear an infection caught by troops in Afghanistan will invade civilian hospitals!'

    ' ....Canada are facing growing fears over a drug-resistant 'superbug' being brought back by wounded soldiers from Afghanistan that threatens to contaminate civilian hospitals.

    'The intensified concern comes amid sharply rising infection rates in the US and fresh worries in Canada that the bug could be imported into its civilian healthcare system.'

    '.. troops in Afghanistan have also been infected. Canada's public health service last week revealed it had ordered the screening of all its wounded soldiers being repatriated from Afghanistan.'

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2228230,00.html

    .
  4. Robert Boyd from Windsor, Canada writes: Save your daughters from the sodden Private Bloggins.

    R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes: '.. troops in Afghanistan have also been infected. Canada's public health service last week revealed it had ordered the screening of all its wounded soldiers being repatriated from Afghanistan.'
  5. dallas mcquarrie from Regina, Canada writes: This story points out yet again the sheer ineptness of the 'coalition of the willing' (ie-the Bush wanna-bees) in the Middle East. Saudia Arabian militants orgnized, financed and staged 9-11; Bush refused to recognize his Saudia Arabian 'ally' was the real source of terrorism and so invaded Iraq in a tawdry, illegal attempt to seize another nation's oil and distract the world from the truth about the crisis. The results are obvious - and now the massive failure of the Bush administration and its lap-dogs have created a 'home grown' Taliban in Pakistan - supporting the old dictator there cerainly paid big dividends ...

    OK, let have all those who always say 'its somebody else's fault' line up to explain it all away - and how our only choice is to 'stay the course.'
  6. L.B. MURRAY from Canada writes: R. Carriere, good morning and thanks for the link about the superbug :

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2228230,00.html

    A couple of weeks ago there were whispers about some injured vandoos being treated in a civilian hospital in Quebec who had been screened for superbug... this was all very hush hush ....

    Well, after stories appeared in some German, Swiss, Belgian and UK newspapers, it seems that some of the U.S. media is waking up. Now, I wonder if our mainstream media, especially in Alberta, Ontario and the Maritimes will keep us informed about troops infected with a superbug being treated in CIVILIAN hospitals. Perhaps it would be wise, before sending people to war, to make sure there are enough MILITARY HOSPITALS to take care of our troops.

    -
  7. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: By the way, when is the Feast of the Sacrifice coming up?
  8. David Bakody from Dartmouth, Canada writes: Here we ago again, mis-information by the Canadain Press. Reports from CNN state clearly Afghanistan is disaster and will be worst than Iraq. Afghanistan is 3rd most corupt country in world. 62% of Afghanistan is controled by the Taliban. Pakistan now has an open border for NATO's emimies to cross. The drug trade has seen a increase of over 60% and Karzi has told NATO to keep there hands off. General Hillier was on national radio yesterday telling Canadians all sorts of things that are in sharp contrast to what has been stated.

    Fact #1 Bill Clinton has stated Afghanistan is a disaster and be worst than Iraq. So is he correct YES or NO! I say yes!!!!!!!!!!!!
  9. Devil and Deep blue sea from Canada writes: dallas mcquarrie, Bush (& the West in general) had to appease the 'devil' because people like you, me and everyone else needs some cheap oil, not that it's any cheaper nowadays thanks to the speculators.

    Raymond Conway's right. Soon after the Soviets left, the West should have moved in to fill in the vacuum. Instead it became a no-man's land and ended up being a 'swamp' for the baddies.
    Initially there were resourceful Afghans willing to fight the talibans. But the CIA was gullible enough to work with the pro-taliban Pakistani ISI and ended up inadvertently helping the taliban to grow.
    Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but then CIA wasn't a newly created organization. So ignorance is no excuse. Maybe politics is.
  10. Midtown Bob from Toronto, Canada writes: If the bad guys are organizing AND we know about then why hasn't an airstrike been called? Nothing will break up an organization like a few 2,000 pound bombs.
  11. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Midtown Bob from Toronto, Canada writes: If the bad guys are organizing AND we know about then why hasn't an airstrike been called? Nothing will break up an organization like a few 2,000 pound bombs.
    ___________________________________________________________
    Your faith in 2000 lb bombs is touching. However the history of modern warfare has shown repeatedly that there are far more civilian deaths than enemy deaths that result. Rather than defeat the enemy, they drive the people into their arms. The enemy merely moves around and reforms. Carpet bombing Vietnam and Cambodia was not a winning strategy, nor did 'shock and awe' eliminate resistance in Iraq.
  12. L.B. MURRAY from Canada writes: Here's some interesting information regarding Afghanistan. There's another NATO meeting to be held in Romania, April 2008. No doubt Canada will be put under extreme pressure to supply more boots on the ground in Afghanistan and once again, extend the deadline. What will the excuse be this time?? Not the ''We're bringing democracy'' ?? or the ''We're sending little girls to school'' ??
    ----------------------------------------------

    Here's one link among others:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601823.html

    ''U.S. Army Gen. Dan K. McNeill, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, is asking for an additional three battalions of troops from NATO countries -- the equivalent of another brigade combat team -- but colleagues believe that would not be enough. U.S. officials are doubtful that allies will provide all the requested troops, and predict Bush will be faced with a request for even more U.S. troops, possibly after attending a NATO summit in April in Bucharest, Romania. '' (Today's WP)
    -
  13. Bohemian Grove Club Member from Canada writes: L.B. MURRAY from Canada: US Tones Down Aid Appeals to NATO Allies
    Shifting tactics, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that the Bush administration has decided to tone down its appeals to NATO allies for more troops and other aid in the fight against the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. After two days of talks here with his counterparts from Britain, Canada and five other NATO countries whose troops are doing the bulk of the fighting in Afghanistan's violent south, Gates said he would continue making the case for greater allied military assistance. But he said he would be doing it differently, keeping in mind the 'political realities' faced by some European governments whose people may see less reason to intervene in Afghanistan. 'We're going to try to look at this more creatively than perhaps we have done in the past when we basically have just been hammering on (allied governments) to provide more,' Gates said in a post-meeting interview with a small group of reporters traveling with him from Washington. He said there would be 'brainstorming' for ideas on how to enable some NATO allies to contribute more. He cited, as an example, the possibility that an ally that has helicopters but insufficient resources to outfit them for the harsh environment of Afghanistan might get the money from another NATO country to upgrade the aircraft.
    What???? Two stories that are completely opposite from each other???
    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4Y2OIVhugHSGoXJPn_opoNf6tIwD8THSF9G1
  14. L.B. MURRAY from Canada writes: Sorry, Bohemian, but intelligent people can read between the lines when U.S. Defence Secretary Gates says:

    '''We're going to try to look at this more creatively than perhaps we have done in the past when we basically have just been hammering on (allied governments) to provide more,' Gates said in a post-meeting interview with a small group of reporters traveling with him from Washington. He said there would be 'brainstorming' for ideas on how to enable some NATO allies to contribute more. ''

    We all know what ''look at this more creatively'' means and we also know what ''brainstorming'' for ideas means... ChaneyBush have given us the meisterspinning for the last couple of years...

    Enough.

    Good day.
    -
  15. Brendan Caron from Vancouver, Canada writes: Now that the border is being opened to incursions by thousands of Taliban/al Quaeda terrorists then they should and will be attacked where they are. The thousands that fled from their town recently had claimed that they were going to fight and the only fight that they put up could be seen in dust settling as they fled. The masses from the mountains doesn't work anymore. They'd be smarter to thrown down their guns rather than to needlessly throw down their lives for another kook that thinks he's bad. Go troops. Go! God Bless. Stay strong. Stay safe.
  16. Steve D from St. John's, Canada writes: The insurgents (actually they are terrorists are they not?) must be getting desperate for them to get together like this. Bring on the airstrikes.
  17. A good Canadian from Canada writes: L.B. MURRAY from Canada writes: R. Carriere, good morning and thanks for the link about the superbug :

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2228230,00.html

    A couple of weeks ago there were whispers about some injured vandoos being treated in a civilian hospital in Quebec who had been screened for superbug... this was all very hush hush ....

    Well, after stories appeared in some German, Swiss, Belgian and UK newspapers, it seems that some of the U.S. media is waking up. Now, I wonder if our mainstream media, especially in Alberta, Ontario and the Maritimes will keep us informed about troops infected with a superbug being treated in CIVILIAN hospitals. Perhaps it would be wise, before sending people to war, to make sure there are enough MILITARY HOSPITALS to take care of our troops.
    --------------------------------------

    Too bad there are no military hospitals in Canada anymore, after they were all closed or merged into civilian hospitals in the 90's to save money.
  18. bruce weaver from Canada writes: You are correct Taliban does mean student but they did originate in Pakistan., They are not to be confused with those who fought off the Soviets who were largely Afghans defending their own country with some outside support. The Taliban are largely from Pakistan with help from otehr countries and some sympathetic Afghans and other Afghans forced to fight for fear of execution. I didnt know an insurgent could be from another country though. I thought an insurgent was someone from a country who in their opinion was being invaded and they were fighting back. That does not describe the Taliban from Pakistan. They are invaders.
  19. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...from reading reports in the foreign presses, it quite obvious that we're being sold a bill of goods by the Neocon warmongers...the noises being made by Ricky Wonderboy (Stevie's point man on the war) is just setting us up for further escalation of this doomed undertaking...
  20. Paul Jay from Ottawa, Canada writes: What's the problem? Beloved former U.S. president Ronald Reagan characterized these Afghanio-Pakistananian Islamic nut jobs as the 'equivalent of our (U.S.) founding fathers' when they were jihading against the Soviets. Can they really be so bad now? Surely the U.S. would never have given them billions of dollars in training and weapons if they were going to turn around and cause the West trouble.
  21. Atlantic Geezer from Canada writes: nothing good will happen from 2000 lb bombs. Massive infostructure and employment initatives. Get people working, remove the appeal of the fanatic. People have less tendency to be radical if they have a job. We need to spend a lot more money, much like the Marshall plan.
  22. Atlantic Geezer from Canada writes: What surprises me about our belief in the press is that we watch more and more of the media being controlledd by fewer and fewer people and we are surprised that the slant is a little off based. When's the last time we read anything about that great world problem of over population. It is no longer a problem because that over population is working for 50 cents a day.
  23. p m from Canada writes: why don't we let them solve their own problems..

    all efforts at the moment at exacerbatilng the problems.

    Get george to hire some east germans and israeli's to build a wall around them or something equally as expensive and useful
  24. Atlantic Geezer from Canada writes: the world is too small, remember 9/11, that's what got this particular ball rolling. We need to solve problems not build walls to hide them.
  25. Harry Wart of Annon from Canada writes: Turn that whole area into glass and lets move on.
  26. Jim OKeefe from Toronto, Canada writes: wrt military hospitals, Canada does have several, usually where there is a large troop concentration and/or where there are few civilian facilities. However, since soldiers sailors and airmen/women are for the most part a very healthy bunch, they are underutilized. Most places simply have a Medical Infirmary Room (MIR), like Toronto. Furthermore, if the doctors treat only military personnel, then they would get quite rusty, so they are encouraged to work in civilian hospitals/private practise to keep their skills current. In the US they send their docs/medics to inner city hospitals so they can get to work on gunshot and other trama victims. ---------- As for the current problem, well we know what leaving them alone did - we left them alone after the Brits pulled out in the 1860's apart from supplying weapons to the Mujadeen (NOT the Taliban) when the Soviets invaded. Military intervention brings enemies together, so is there a third option? Even building infrastructure brings on terrorist attacks.
  27. I R from White Rock, BC, Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes,

    I think your post at 6:04 is bang on. There are some very disturbing reports coming out of Afghanistan, including that anti-biotic resistant bacterium that both the British and Canadian health officials fear of its entering the domestic medical system (as reported in the Guardian). Apparently it makes MRSA look relatively benign. I have heard and read nothing of this in the Canadian media.

    What I have heard is that NATO is taking a rethink of the Afghan operations. This is a claim we have heard before and frankly, I doubt anything will come of it. Business will be as usual.
  28. Doug Edwards from Canada writes: There is a war going on in Afghanistan. We are in it. While I understand the arguments for getting out I support our effort to maintain some type of freedom in this region. We should stay there and fininsh the job.

    What I don't support is the half-assed effort by NATO. I do not believe that we can ever wrap this up by attempting to engage in limited ground battles, most of which are of the enemy's choosing. Let's get the air support and men over there to do the job properly.
  29. J. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Gotta love the goof-balls whose solution to every internatational problem is: Nuke 'em. Wonder what rarified air they are breathing that has so efficiently killed their cerebral cortex while leaving their ability to type intact?
  30. chris jenkins from Free the West, Canada writes: Yet another pro-Taliban piece by the G&M. Funny how hard they search to find slants that 'bode ill' for the Canadian military. The Lefties always love the enemy and hate the people that are protecting them.
  31. Rolly Beethoven from Canada writes: The only thing worth supporting that god forsaken part of the world is our troops. Rock on guys and be safe!!
  32. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: Special report to the Globe and Mail by Saeed Shaw that is a pro Taliban piece. I particularly liked the paragraph 'The news is especially troubling for Canadian troops, who are fighting nearby in Afghanistan's Kandahar province.' According to whom? Mr. Shaw? The Canadian Army? Taliban Central? Doesn't journalistic standards impose a duty to quantify statements like that?
  33. iqbal paul from Montreal, Canada writes: Yes, Taliban does mean student. But in this case the students were only studying Jihad and hatred against everything 'kafir', the US and the non-muslim world. It was Pakistan army with the help of its intelligence services who created it out of Afghani refugees sheltering in Pakistan's border areas. Its main objective was to counter the victorious advance of Northern Alliance which was made-up of ethnic Afghanis of Tajik, Uzbeks and Turkman origin, who fought aginst the Russian occupation. Northern Alliance was not that fond of Pakistan and had friendly relations with India. Pakistan did not want the vacuum left by Russian exit filled with a hostile new afghan government. Contrl of Afghanistan would also give opportunity for the Pakistan rulers and army to operate terrorist camps in and out of Pakistan and Afghanistan and brew trouble in Indian Kashmir.
    Nothing has changed. The Talibans and other terrorist groups are still being trained in boot camps inside Pakistan and sent across into Afghanistan and Kasmir. And by the way all with the help of Uncle Sam who is funding its great ally Pakistan for its participation in 'the Colition of the Willing' in fight againt global terrorism.
  34. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Calling the Taliban from Pakistan foreign is foolish. The border was arbitrarily drawn by a British officer and the locals never recognized it. They are all the same people.... The Taliban began when a woman in Kandahar ran into a mosque screaming that she had just been raped by two Northern Alliance soldiers. A crowd of young men ran out, caught the rapists and lynched them. Their leader was Mullah Omar. They only gained power because the Northern Alliance was so hated by the Afghan people.
  35. Gopal Bhattacharyya from Toronto, ON, Canada writes: To be successful against the Talibans you have to go after them. Remember the Talibans are the terrorists. They are the one killing our soldiers. Go after them even if they cross the border to Pakistan. The present government of Pakistan will not help us. Let our field commanders decide if and when to cross the border. Otherwise, our soldiers will get killed as a sitting duck. Look at the prsent situation. Americans are in Afganishtan for over 6 years and can't eliminate Al-Qaeda or Talibans. The most powerful nation on the earth can't finish a job. Either we do a proper job or get out.
  36. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Joel Fitzgibbon, the new Defense Minister of Australia says, 'The previous government would have us believe that good progress is being made in Afghanistan. The reality is quite a different one..... We are winning the battles and not the war, in my view. We have been very successful in clearing areas of the Taliban but it's having no real strategic effect.'

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
    story/0,25197,22934596
  37. J Hart from Canada writes:
    One more reason to get our troops out of Afganistan , when the Pakistan powder cake blows ,,and it will,, our forces in Afganistan will be the first tagets.
    Only the people of the middle east can fix the middle east , all others will be seen as occupiers.
  38. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Sorry, the page I referred to has already been removed and the remarks by Fitzgibbon softened by the reporter.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/
    0,25197,22934596-601,00.html
  39. Goburp Inyorpooshootia from Bangladesh writes: The Taliban are nothing but theives and rappists. All they want is to control the trade of heroin to make money to buy arms for Al Quieda. The women are stiffled and treated harshly. The education system was pathetic and the younger people are all trained to be a fighter. I wish the NATO troups stay and finish their job. We need to be able to walk our streets without having to be shot at by these Taliban dogs.
  40. Robert Dresser from Parksville, Canada writes: I agree with Doug Edwards, go big or go home. No country in recent history knows more about losing to insurgencies than the United States. That's why the famed Petraeus led a team that digested the lessons learned over the past few centuries and produced the new US counter-insurgency field manual, FM-324. It's available free on the internet in PDF. It notes that successful counterinsurgency warfare is enormously labour-intensive, roughly one counterinsurgent (rifle) for every 25 civilians. In Kandahar we have one rifle for every 30 sq.kms. That leaves us unable to control the countryside, giving the insurgents the intiative and leaving the civilian population completely vulnerable to the predations of the insurgents, bandits and their own police. We need about 20,000 combat soldiers in Kandahar province alone, not a battle group of 1,000. It's pathetic. We're asking so few soldiers to do so much, more than we have any right to expect. Lousy leadership at the top is a fatal flaw in this effort.
  41. Goburp Inyorpooshootia from Bangladesh writes: I agree with you Robert whole heartedly. The biggest problem in Canada are the politicians, mainly the Liberals. Do you think if some politicians were made to go into battle that they would be happy with only a few of them there? They would be whining and crying for thousnads more to back them up. But being the crooked politicians they are they put the army in a bad and vulnerable position.
  42. Raymond Conway from London, United Kingdom writes: Interesting discussion, actually.

    A couple of platitudes to lay some context down: However the Taliban began, whether noble or not, what they became was nothing better than that which they sought to remove.

    The then Government of Afghanistan, controlled by the extremists of the Taliban, admitted that they had given Al Qaeda and its leader safe haven and that they would not turn him over.

    I believe that the NATO driven invasion of Afghanistan was both justified and legitimate under NATO articles.

    When our troops go into a conflict - whether you agree with the politicians that got us into the fight, or you don't, is irrelevant. These soldiers are out there risking their lives, day in and day out. Doing what has to be done, based on someone else's decision. Don't blame the military for war! They fight the wars, but they don't start 'em.

    Iraq is another matter and I'm just as proud that we are not in Iraq as I am that we are in Afghanistan.

    Final comment: as long as there is one warlord left, either on ourside or the other, there will never be peace in that region.
  43. J Lee from North Vancouver, Canada writes: I woke up to the CBC news with Hillier saying that our boys are winning over there. And that spirits are fine and that we will fight the good fight until we have overcome the forces of evil. And then I read this article. Hillier didn't mention that the forces of evil were grouping together to fight the forces of good. Maybe he doesn't know that and somebody should tell him. Or on the other hand maybe it isn't that important. Or on the other hand maybe it is important that they are amalgamating - and somebody should/better/must tell him.
  44. Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: Waht if they don't want US style democracy - what then? A few countries in the world are not 'democracies' Canada has only 30% support of our government.

    It was curious to think that the sky was the same for everybody, in Eurasia or Eastasia as well as here. And the people under the sky were also very much the same—everywhere, all over the world, hundreds or thousands of millions of people just like this, people ignorant of one another's existence, held apart by walls of hatred and lies, and yet almost exactly the same&8212;people who had never learned to think but were storing up in their hearts and bellies and muscles the power that would one day overturn the world.

    No population in any country wants a foreign military force on their soil. That is no different in Afghanistan, said Hillier.
  45. Francois A. from Calgary, Canada writes: solution? AC130U Spectre gunships...
  46. Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: Raymond Conway from London you are wrong. the Daily Telegraph carried an extraordinary story under the heading 'Pakistan halts secret plan for bin Laden trial', a story which completely undermined Blair's case for war. (Telegraph, 4 October, 2001. 9) Leaders of two Pakistani Islamic parties, the Jamaat-i-Islami and the Jamaat Ulema-e-Islam, negotiated bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for the 11 September attacks. Under the conditions of the agreement, bin Laden would have been held under house arrest in Peshawar, and then tried. The first stage of the negotiations was carried out in Islamabad in Pakistan, on Sat. 29 September, when Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, the Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan, met with Qazi Hussain Ahmad, leader of the Jamaat-i-Islami, and Hamid Gul, a former director of Pakistan's powerful Inter Service Intelligence agency. The final stage of the negotiations was in Kandahar, on Mon. 1 October, when Qazi, and Maaulana Fazlur Rahman, head of the Jamaat Ulema-e-Islam, met Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar. 'The proposal, which had bin Laden's approval, was that within the framework of Islamic shar'ia law evidence of his alleged involvement in the New York and Washington attacks would be placed before an international tribunal. The court would decide whether to try him on the spot or hand him over to America', reported the Telegraph. There had been earlier indications from the Taliban that it was willing to extradite its troublesome guest. There were three striking features of this report. Firstly, extradition was not only possible, it had actually been agreed. Secondly, the deal is said to have had 'bin Laden's approval'. Finally, breaking with earlier offers from the Taliban, it was stated that extradition to the United States (previously anathema) would have been a real possibility.
  47. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: I truly think we should encourage this separate state where Taliban and Pakistanis willing to take order from Al Qaida should gather and be entrenched. Honestly it would make things easier from a military viewpoint: no more ambiguous claims that those living there were/are peace loving wonderful people who would never strike you in the back, no more risky missions and 19th century warfare. That 's the perfect case for use of the Neutron Bomb, a tactical nuke that sends high energy particles through walls and rocks. Please set up your state sooner than later so we could finish it off, cleanly, swiftly. Otherwise, NATO operations are bound to fail...
  48. Red Fox from Canada writes: Canda should flee Afghanistan...........
    There is no shame in retreating from a battle you are destined to lose.

    Even a huge bear knows when it is outmatched and outnumbered by a pack of wolves... and retreats.

    Declare Victory and retreat NOW.
  49. J. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: That 's the perfect case for use of the Neutron Bomb, a tactical nuke that sends high energy particles through walls and rocks. Please set up your state sooner than later so we could finish it off, cleanly, swiftly.
    ___________________________________________________________
    Gotta love the goof-balls whose solution to every internatational problem is: Nuke 'em. Wonder what rarified air they are breathing that has so efficiently killed their cerebral cortex while leaving their ability to type intact?
  50. Terry F from Edmonton, Canada writes: Nato should warn the cililian population against entering Afghanistan from this region in Pakistan or be treated like a combatant. Whoever defies this edict knows what to expect.
  51. Chris H. from Edmonton, Canada writes: Red Fox- So you're proposing run away, put our heads under the pillow and hope for the best? Who cares about those poor Afghans who put trust and hope in Nato to bring them some stability? I guess as long as you're safe here in Canada, far from harm, you don't have to watch those Afghans get butchered in the wake of our retreat. That applies to lots of people on these forums. As long as we undermine the 'evil neo-Conservative conspiracy to dominate the world', we can declare victory and bath in our smugness and turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the Taliban.

    I'm grateful that your type wasn't around during any of the world wars. You probably would've been arguing the Germans case for domination in Europe and constantly screamed 'quagmire!' in the wake of Dunkirk or Dieppe.

    Why is that those who actively participate in the Afghan campaign are the campaign's biggest supporters? And why is that those who have nothing to lose and stay safe here in Canada the campaign's biggest opponents? Most of the opposition really has nothing to do with Afghanistan, but is aimed at Harper's government. That's the ugly world of politics I guess.
  52. Neiland Robert from Canada writes: Alleged CBC-Liberal collusion triggers Tory complaint
    Canada.com, Canada - 15 Dec 2007

    OTTAWA -- The Conservatives have fired off a complaint to the CBC ombudsman in response to allegations that CBC journalists and Liberal mps teamed up....

    http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=46d01740-62ea-47c3-a2fb-db916d0dad3d&k=52460
  53. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: So in response to NATO's continued attacks on the Taliban in the south and east, groups in Waziristan have united under a common front to resist the attacks. (In case you didn't know it, Waziristan was formerly not Taliban territory. It was run by tribal interests that, while not necessarily fighting the Taliban, remained unaligned with them.)

    We've got them right where we want them. Stay the course!
  54. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: "Militant groups in Pakistan's wild northwest region have come together in a single organization for the first time..."

    I'm so glad the war in Afghanastan has been able to bring people together like this. I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy inside... we've given these people a single cause to fight for...
  55. Mei-Xing Xu from Canada writes: foreign presses, news channels indicate our government is lying to us, and I think some people do not even mind or care.
  56. globefan EH from Canada writes: Wonderful article in the Walrus last month about Highway 1 in Afghanistan. The case is made that the battle for Afghanistan apparently rests on the only highway remaining open, is it doesn't we lose the battle. Worth a read.
  57. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Raymond Conway from London:

    1. The Taliban were not as bad as what they replaced. They were far better. (Of course, they still had a long way to go.)

    2. Osama bin Laden operated in Afghanistan a full decade before the Taliban even began. After 9/11, the Taliban did eventually agree to hand him over. The U.S. scoffed and continued with their invasion.

    (I'm just wondering, when the IRA was bombing London and other British cities, did you advocate the invasion of Ireland?)

    3. NATO did not invade Afghanistan. The U.S. ALONE asked the United Nations Security Council for permission to invade, and were denied. They invaded anyway, with some assistance of Britain and minor assistance from Canada. It was not a NATO operation.

    NATO subsequently became involved when the UNSC authorized ISAF.

    4. By what rationale do you state that when our troops go into battle, whether or not a citizen agrees with that action is irrelevant? By my understanding, your belief is antithetical to democratic society.

    5. Iraq vs Afghanistan. Invading Iraq was a Very Bad Thing on a number of fronts. But the reality is that there was FAR more justification for invading Iraq than there was for invading Afghanistan.

    All that was justified in Afghanistan was a military/police action to catch Osama bin Laden. What's happened in Afghanistan is a number of ways worse than Iraq; you just haven't recognized that yet.

    6. Warlords. Believing you can get rid of them and thereby fix Afghan society is simplistic and as doomed to failure as all the other "solutions" that the West has tried to impose on Afghanistan.
  58. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: Neiland Robert from Canada - how does your post have anything to do with the article on Afghanastan? Were the questions raised to Mr. Mulroney based on the military actions in Afghanastan? Did the Aribus money come from Afghanastan due to the military actions? 9/11 was really fallout from the cash Mr. Mulroney accepted? Really, what's your point??
  59. Kathleen Degelder from TacomaWaSHINGTON, Canada writes: Chris H: Good post. I concur.-----The article stated that this happened in response to the coming elections. If not for the oil fields that were bombed in Nigeria and elsewhere, it's also the elections. Al-Qaedas mandate is a military offense. And I previously stated that commerce between countries have been around for centuries---disruption of them is a military tactic---If not for oil it would be the coffee trade.
  60. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: Goburp Inyorpooshootia ...mind your own business!!! just don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong....
  61. NR Connor from TO, Canada writes: I support the troops. I think Canadian military people are the finest in the world. Hillier on the other hand, is a problem. ~Recent reports of how we came to find ourselves in this particular situation in Afghanistan indicate that Hillier minimized the risks, spun up fallacious odds of success and overplayed our capabilities to mislead PM Martin into letting him pursue his pet mission. ~Since then he has more than once overstepped his proper role by participating in political commentary. ~I supported the initial deployment on the basis that our ally the United States had been attacked by forces harboured in Afghanistan by the Taliban regime. But the Taliban regime was defeated quite some time ago and we find ourselves mired in a conflict for no apparent reason. The government we are sustaining in Afghanistan has passed a theocratic constitution, it is riddled with corruption, and it has utterly failed to attract substantial organic support among the people. ~Now Hillier warns us that our (supposed) enemies are improving, but what is our response? Have we got a strategy capable of defeating them? Have we got a strategy at all except more of the same? What markers are we looking for on our path to victory? How can we judge whether we are succeeding? When will we have done enough? Our great general seems to have no answers to any of these questions. Nor does our crappy government. ~And what is our interest in this conflict? With victory apparently a mere pipe dream, what do we think we a doing half-way round the world battling one faction of madmen on behalf of another? It's time to bite the bullet. Support the troops -- bring them home!
  62. Chris H. from Edmonton, Canada writes: NR Connor- This mission is not Hillier's pet mission as you claim. He's doing what he's told to do by the elected government. Our involvement in Afghanistan predates Gen. Hillier's role as CDS. I have never heard him overplay our capabilities. Quite frankly, he's been the best man to be Chief of Defense Staff in recent memory. He's blunt and doesn't bother with buttering up our military's role. The military has NEVER been the 'peacekeeping institution' that so many people think it was or wish it to be. I have heard this said by many of the older generation of soldiers, such as Romeo Dallaire. Even during the Cold War the military used no more than 10% of its assets to perform peacekeeping tasks. The rest was used to prepare for fighting the Soviets in Europe. But that's simply not what people want to believe.

    You say you supported the initial deployment. Even back in 2002, Nato's military leaders were weary of declaring victory and warned that Afghanistan would be a long haul. There is no final, climatic 'Battle of Berlin' type end game to any counterinsurgency. That'd make it a hell of a lot easier, but that's never been the case. The government that's we're supporting is corrupt and it while take many years for them to gain trust and cooperation from the people. But the is no pretext for retreat. We cannot afford to abandon Afghanistan. The last time the US ran from a Muslim nation it had troops in, it didn't sway the Islamist extremists from attacking American targets around the world and eventually the United States itself. Remember that failed state called Somalia? Again, probably another fact conveniently forgot by the so called 'anti-war' crowd.

    Bringing home the troops is no way to support them. That'd just be an incredible insult. I know because I'm one of them.
  63. Gail Thomas from Canada writes: The definition of a soldier according to Webster's Dictionary is "a person who serves in the army, esp. a non-commissioned officer or private" ; to soldier on "to continue regardless of difficulties or dangers". Our soldiers are doing what they were trained to do and they are all volunteers. They understand the dangers of war and they are willing to put their lives on the line for those who cannot/won't defend themselves. General Rick Hillier will know when to bring the troops home. I support our troops too and say thanks to their families for their sacrifice. To just pull out would be a sign of defeat. Our Canadian troops deserve to be hailed as heroes.
  64. Anti Fascist from Canada writes:
    Hillier says they are getting smarter with more sophisticated weapons. This guy says they are now organized.
    How long has this insanity been going on for already?
    Is it longer than the WWII?

    This fiasco must be abruptly terminated.
  65. Paul Jay from Ottawa, Canada writes: I just re-watched the Sean Connery and Michael Caine classic "The Man Who Would be King". It's a great movie and as a bonus, compared at least to General Hillier, I am now an expert on the Afghanistan region.
  66. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Chris H., the "anti-war" crowd would support and if able participate in a war that was in our vital interests. What they can't support is fighting on one side in a basically tribal war on behalf of a government that you admit is corrupt. You say that it will take a long time for this same government to win the trust of the people. True enough, but are you suggesting they are suddenly going to renounce their corrupt warlordist ways and start playing nice? Not as long as the opium money is flowing in. And the Taliban is not going to be completely defeated without either a) their sanctuary in Pakistan being destroyed and /or b) a massive increase in commitment on the part of NATO. Do either of those scenarios seem likely to come to pass? You say that we need to prevent terrorists such as al-Queda from re-establishing bases there, while ignoring the fact that much of their aid and support comes from all over the Muslim world, including such "allies" as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Actually, and this is just my opinion now, I think al-Queda would be kind of dumb to set up camp in A'stan on a large scale in the unlikely event the Taliban were able to take over the entire country again, just as the Taliban itself would be crazy to let them do that. You're a soldier so you know that it is never a good idea to do what your enemy expects you to do. The best way to fight Islamist terrorism, IMHO, is to rely on solid international police and intelligence work (as opposed to the phony kind that led to the Iraq debacle) remove where possible some of the legitimate grievances the Muslim world has with the west, and something simpler such as leaving your car at home and walking, riding your bike, or taking public transpotation to work whenever possible.
  67. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: J Kenneth Yurchuk, bitter irony was lost on you I guess...
  68. D . from Canada writes: Paul Jay from Ottawa, Canada writes: " I am now an expert on the Afghanistan region." Yeah, just like many of the other "experts" on this thread.
  69. Earth is the insane asylum for the universe from Canada writes: Well the Brits say some of the troops leaving Basra may be re-deployed to Afghanistan now that Basra is in such great shape now.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2228690,00.html
  70. Devil and Deep blue sea from Canada writes: Gopal Bhattacharyya: ".....Go after them (the taliban) even if they cross the border to Pakistan. The present government of Pakistan will not help us. Let our field commanders decide if and when to cross the border. Otherwise, our soldiers will get killed as a sitting duck....Americans are in Afganishtan for over 6 years and can't eliminate Al-Qaeda or Talibans..."

    It's amazing the West is p*ssy-footing around Pakistan. It's pretty obvious that the West has no real desire in getting hold of the beardy guy (B-Laden)
    The US certainly didn't think twice when going after the commies during the Vietnam era. Vietnam's neighbors Laos (& Cambodia?) were not spared of military actions.
    Perhaps it's pakistan's nuke that uncle sam is worried about?
    Politics is really intriguing...
  71. NR Connor from TO, Canada writes: Chris H. writes: This mission is not Hillier's pet mission ... You say you supported the initial deployment. Even back in 2002, Nato's military leaders were weary of declaring victory and warned that Afghanistan would be a long haul. There is no final, climatic 'Battle of Berlin' type end game to any counterinsurgency. ... The government that's we're supporting is corrupt and it while take many years for them to gain trust and cooperation from the people. But the is no pretext for retreat. We cannot afford to abandon Afghanistan. ... Bringing home the troops is no way to support them. That'd just be an incredible insult. I know because I'm one of them. ================== Thank you for your reply, Chris. A recent backgrounder in the Globe discussed in some detail that Hillier was keen to deploy in the Kandahar theatre and convinced Paul Martin, despite Martin's misgivings, by assuring him it would be less problem than it has turned out. I understood the initial mission to be overthrow the Taliban and extract AlQueda. At the time I recall no talk of rebuilding Afghanistan, or facing any kind of insurgency. As for the 'long term' job of creating a democratic utopia in the country, I see no reason that Canada should undertake it, and many reasons not, foremost being the impossibility of it, second being the cost in lives, limbs and taxes. Personally I believe that a society such as ours owes a responsibility to those in uniform to protect them from unnecessary and pointless risks, yes, even if you would willingly undertake it. I mean no insult, but I still stand by my views: Support the troops -- Bring them home!
  72. dan vanman from vancouver, Canada writes: I love how Richard Roskell writes like he is some great and cherished authority on this conflict. His post reeks of anti war sentiment. I am one of those who wholeheartedly is against the Iraq war, just for oil, but for the Afghani conflict, as that is more about human rights.

    Mr Roskell, I suppose you lived in Afghanistan for years right? How else can you make such an asinine statement as that the country was better off under the Taliban? That is ridiculous.

    Women being killed for wanting to go to school. Better huh Richard? The country of Afghanistan wants and needs our help.

    I support peace, and have been in numerous peace marches here in Vancouver. I would never say what you are saying Richard. It is stupid.

    The only way to win in Afghanistan is to hit them hard. Our fighters are better equipped. So find this mysterious Emir, and send a laser guided missile in. Or do the same thing they just did in the province they just freed. Overwhelm them with force.

    Don't listen to misguided fools like Richard Roskell.

  73. David Blott from Moncton, NB, Canada writes:

    dan vanman writes:
    "Women being killed for wanting to go to school. Better huh Richard? The country of Afghanistan wants and needs our help."

    In fact Dan, women (especially westernized women) and school teachers were the favoured targets of the mujahadeen during the Soviet occupation and long before the formation of the Taliban. Further, many now in Karzai's government are former Taliban. Any liberalization of womens' rights in Afghanistan is as likely a function of western aid as anything else, and certainly not reflective of the thoughts of those running the country.

    As for getting the Taliban, we will never accomplish that as long as Pakistan stands in our way. For all of their claims to the contrary, it suits Pakistan to have the Taliban around. The Taliban not only provide a buffer against the influence of Iran and India (Pakistan's main rivals), but they also provide Musharraf with the extremist threat he needs to both stay in power and collect aid from the US. Until the west puts Musharraf in his place the Taliban will have a safe haven.
  74. Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: Just for the record. An insurgent is someone who fights against an established authority. For example, the Americans were insurgents against the British prior to the declaration of independence. Yes, the Bristish did view those insurgents as terrorists at the time. If the Taliban wins, they will no longer be insurgents just as they weren't insurgents prior to the current Afghanistan government. It is very easy to move in and out of the position of being an insurgent and is totally dependent on whether you are winning or not. It is just as easy to move in and out of being a terrorist such as Nelson Mandela, Osama Bin Laden, Yassar Arrafat, Kadaffi, Noriega, Saddam Hussein, etc. I'm not sure who decides these things but lately we need a program so we can tell who is or isn't a bad guy.
  75. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: The story in the Telegraph, "Pakistan blocks bin Laden trial", quoted by Interested Observer may be found here,

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/
    news/2001/10/04/wpak04.xml
  76. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: Paul Jay from Ottawa, Canada writes: "I just re-watched the Sean Connery and Michael Caine classic "The Man Who Would be King". It's a great movie and as a bonus, compared at least to General Hillier, I am now an expert on the Afghanistan region."

    No, you're just an ignorant and foolish pissant. General Hillier was the commander of ISAF in 2004. He is Chief of the Defence Staff and has 35 years military service to Canada.
  77. Jeremy Fewster from Delhi, Canada writes: David Blott,

    Your comment about Pakistan standing in the way of a resolution to the conflict is absolutly correct. For all the talk about the northwestern frontier, there seems to be scant attention paid the the Islamist groups that have been, and are still operating throughout the rest of the country; Islamabad, and particuilairly Karachi. I have been in India studying for the past 7 months, and most observers here agree (although you have to take Indian criticisms of Pakistan with a grain of salt) that the main strategic blunder made by the US and it's allies has been supporting Musharref, who, for reasons of his own domestic political survival, and the contiinuing conflict over Kashmir, has done precious little to curb these groups; many of whom end up fighting in Afganisthan, or comitting terrorist acts in Pakistan (the recent attempt on Bhuttos life is the most recent example). To claim that more bombs, attacks on the part of NATO will result in victory, when Pakistan, our alleged partner, is widely considered to be the most fertile ground for the recruitment of anti-NATO fighters is frankly naieve, and no victory (whatever that means) will be won unless this problem is resolved.
  78. Do Good from United States writes: .

    dan vanman,

    Re: Posted 17/12/07 at 9:09 PM EST

    What counts is the opinion of the whole of the Afghan peoples. They feel they were better of before the invasion, and they don't care for our cultural and moral values.

    I for one, like to hear what Mr. Roskell has to say. You see, he is not walking around with his pride between his legs, like you are doing. After 5 years of 'shock and awe', you haven't figured out that we are not fighting for that nation. We have been fighting for our cronies, against that nation.
    .
  79. dan vanman from vancouver, Canada writes: Well Do Good, whats between my legs has nothing to do with my opinion. If you can read Mr. Roskells post above and not see that he is out to lunch on his points...numbered for your ease of reading, then you probably are just another that wants these close minded people to win. I am a lefty in a lot of things, and I hate war, but you can't say the Taliban are FAR better than what was there before and not be challenged. You cannot say there is far more justification for going into Iraq ( a blatant oil grab) than going into Afghanistan ( a move that had most of the west's support after 9/11, as it has to do with human rights.

    I challenge him because I think his points are wrong, misguided, or written for effect and not honesty. You are welcome to your opinion Do Good. I won't try to be cute with any comments like you. (what's between your legs...how very weak my friend)

    Tell the men and families in the Canadian army that they are just fighting for "cronies" and not the people. People they have daily contact with. People that have their lives improved by the Canadian's presence.

    You are saying things for effect. Please try to actually have an opinion than just parroting the one that is popular right now.
  80. N B from Canada writes: David Blott from Moncton, NB

    Good posts , don't give up.

    Why can our major American media companies cover the entire life of OJ Simpson on prime time T.V. and never dig into the root causes of the tragedy of the middle east and the terrorism born there?
    Maybe they don't want us to know?
  81. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: dan vanman, my comments seem to have touched your nerves. I've simply stated facts.

    1. I've said the Taliban were far better than what they replaced, and that's a fact. Do you not know the state Afghanistan was in when the Taliban arrived on the scene? I've also stated the Taliban had a long way to go, which is an opinion, but not a controversial one surely.

    2. There was far more justification for invading Iraq because:

    a) Iraq had launched two unjustified wars causing horrific damage, one with over 2 million dead, and b) Saddam Hussein was guilty of genocidal behavior towards the Kurds, and c) Saddam Hussein set his own oil wells on fire causing one of the greatest environmental disasters in the world's history, and d) Iraq fired Scud rockets into Israel and financed suicide bombings, and e) Saddams' political policies brought his people massive physical hardships, and f) Saddam committed other war crimes for which he was eventually hanged. (He wasn't hanged for his genocidal acts against the Kurds.)

    Compare all that to the Taliban: a group of strict Islamic fundamentalists quite similar to the people running countries that Canada calls "allies". Do you rank the Taliban preventing girls from going to school as worse than Saddam's genocide? Do you rank the Taliban destroying ancient statues of the Buddha with Iraq starting two horrific wars with over two million dead? Perhaps you consider the Taliban's public executions of criminals worse than Saddam torturing and slaughtering his political opponents?

    You and I have one view in common, dan: we both think invading Iraq was a mistake. But you desperately want to believe that Canada is Doing The Right Thing in Afghanistan; that we're not just some USA-wannabe that invades other countries at will. Unfortunately for you, if you feel invading Iraq was unjustifiable, then history does not support your view that invading A-stan was right.
  82. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: J Kenneth Yurchuk, bitter irony was lost on you I guess...

    If it was irony I missed it. There have been a few here who propose nukes as a cure all in all seriousness. Glad to hear you aren't one of them.