|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:06 am Post subject: Canada, get out of Afghanistan |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Scattered across South Africa's windswept veldt are the forgotten graves of 266 Canadian soldiers killed from 1899�1902 fighting to impose British Imperial rule on fiercely resisting Boer farmers.
A century later, Canadian troops have again been sent to fight as auxiliaries in another remote war � this time Afghanistan.
Since time immemorial, when great emperors went to war, they summoned contingents of their vassals and tributaries to their standards. So it was in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, when the U.S. decided to invade those nations and demand its allies join the so-called "war on terrorism."
Under irresistible pressure from Washington to aid its highly unpopular military expeditions in either Iraq or Afghanistan, America's allies and NATO partners opted for the lesser evil, Afghanistan.
That is why 2,100 Canadian troops have ended up in a nation in which Canada has absolutely no strategic, commercial, cultural or emotional interests.
Now, as the number of Canadian military casualties rises, the dismayed public rightly asks, "What are we doing there? We thought it was another peacekeeping mission."
Thank Ottawa and Canada's media for misinforming the public. There was no significant debate in Parliament. The media indulged in flag-waving instead of warning Canadians they were walking into a small, but real, war.
Canadians are not peacekeeping in Kandahar: There is no peace to keep. They are there to help impose U.S. rule over Afghanistan, and safeguard routes for planned oil pipelines.
Canadian soldiers are on a war-fighting mission, auxiliaries in the U.S.-led military occupation of Afghanistan. In the southern heartland of the nation's largest tribe, the famously warlike and xenophobic Pashtun, U.S. forces and their allies are seen as foreign occupiers and enemies of Islam. Pashtun are slow to act but ferocious, and they never forget a wrong.
For some reason, Ottawa agreed to put its little garrison into Afghanistan's most dangerous area, Kandahar, in the centre of Pashtun territory and the heartland of the Taliban. Afghans do not differentiate between Americans and Canadians.
Fierce tribes
Afghan tribes are taking up arms against their foreign occupiers. I saw this happen during the 1980s, when growing hatred of Soviet occupation forces ignited a national uprising.
Today, in the eyes of many Afghans, the U.S. has merely replaced the Soviets. All past occupiers, starting with Alexander the Great, were driven out by the fierce Afghan tribes.
Canucks are prime targets. They lack effective liaison with circling U.S. warplanes that normally bomb and rocket any attackers within 2�3 minutes of an assault. Such deadly instant response by U.S. air power forced the resistance to resort to roadside explosives and car bombs, as in Iraq.
National resistance is growing. The U.S.-installed Karzai regime in Kabul would not last a day without foreign bayonets.
The former Taliban regime almost totally suppressed the heroin trade. Today, Afghanistan is a narcostate. It supplies 90% of the world's heroin � the economy runs on drug money. This is the "democratic" r�gime Canadian troops are defending with their lives.
Parliament, media, and all Canadians have got to begin debating what their soldiers are doing in this war that lacks any foreseeable political resolution. Forget all the cheery propaganda fed to the gullible press: Afghanistan is a dangerous mess and Canadians are right in the middle of it.
When more body bags come home from Kandahar, as they likely will, Canada's politicians are going to have to start explaining to the public what, exactly, its soldiers are dying for in Afghanistan.
Eric Margolis -Sun Media
|
There was no debate when the troops went to Afghanistan. Now Conservatives are saying that there shouldn't be any debate because it would impact the morale of our troops(sound familiar?)
Just in case you're wonder, Magrolis is not a leftist/Chomskyite. He is a libertarian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
peppermint
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not a chance, they just put in a Tim Hortons! 
In all seriousness though, they probably shouldn't be putting down any sort of roots there. The region seems as stable now as it's ever been.(I know that's not saying much) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I agree. They should go.
Afgan democracy isn't worth the blood of one Canuck. If they want it, they can fight for it themselves. I have no desire to see my tax dollars being spent helping people who refuse to help themselves.
We gotta start leaving people alone.
I think, instead, this should be the job of the (apparently, everywhere) Moderate Muslim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've always felt the Canadian troops are just peacekeepers, helping out nations in time of need. I think this time, we're a little worried that Canada has been "used" by the United States for their war on terror campaign.
It would be nice if we could use our military to help other nations than fight wars. If the whole world could use their military like Canada does, the world would be a much better place.
Personally, I am happy my tax dollars go to help people who are stuck in dire situations which they have no possibility of getting out of. One day, I think people will look back and thank us for being there.
With Afghanistan, I am a bit iffy on whether we should be there or not, but I think as long as the Canadian troops aren't being attacked left right and centre (like the Americans are in Iraq) we should just stick it out and help the poor, starving people... no matter what government they have. I think Afghanistan has a much brighter future than Iraq. Anyone with me on that one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not sure how long their mandate is for. Once it expires then there definitely should be a debate about whether to extend it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There was no debate when the troops went to Afghanistan. |
There was no debate on pretty well everything passed in the Martin / Chretien government..
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yoda
Joined: 19 Jan 2003
Location: Incheon, South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
That is why 2,100 Canadian troops have ended up in a nation in which Canada has absolutely no strategic, commercial, cultural or emotional interests.
Now, as the number of Canadian military casualties rises, the dismayed public rightly asks, "What are we doing there? We thought it was another peacekeeping mission." |
This is an outrageous misrepresentation of what happened. Before I start, I will say I am opposed to any Canadian involvement in Iraq whatsoever. That was a blunder on the American part that they are paying dearly for. However, Afghanistan is not Iraq. Have you forgotten the facts?
Fact 1: America is and has been our ally since WWI. WE are a member of NATO, remember? If we didn't like it we should have gotten out before it came time to ante up.
Fact 2: Al Quaeda did attack our ally in the horrible events of 9-11.
Fact 3: The Taliban harbored Al Quaeda right up to the very end. The attacks were planned in Afghanistan.
Fact 4: Therefore, the Taliban was responsible under international law for the attacks that took place.
Fact 5: We are obliged to come to the aid of our allies under the terms of NATO.
Connect the dots for chriss sakes. We are not the only country in this position. The Germans who also are opposed to American actions in Iraq are in Afghanistan. That position as outlined in the article is just pure moral cowardice. Our interests lie in fulfilling our obligations to our allies.
Added: However, I don't think our obligations involve a blank check for a mission of an undetermined time frame lasting years and years into the future. I'm just saying questioning the initial decision to participate is wrong. I agree that debate should begin when the initial mandate is finished. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ultimately Afghanistan is America's project and they are in charge of things. All in all our resources could be much better put to use somewhere else where they would also be much needed.
If we wanted to do something effective and daring for the American people (and potentially *beep* over the American government at the same time) could we could put our secret services to work looking for OBL in Saudi Arabia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US has no right to tell Canada what to do , and Canada has to do what it is their interest. That being said let us look at what Eric Margolis said:
| Quote: |
Canadians are not peacekeeping in Kandahar: There is no peace to keep. They are there to help impose U.S. rule over Afghanistan, and safeguard routes for planned oil pipelines |
that is just false that the US is Afghanistan cause of the oil pipe lines
but this is not the first misinformation by Margolis.
He also claimed the Bin Laden tapes were made by the US government.
| Quote: |
September 4, 2003
Two years after the Sept 9 suicide attacks on the United States, this earthshaking event remains clouded by mystery and misunderstanding.
Was al-Qaida behind the operation? Most likely, but not for certain. Secretary of State Colin Powell promised a white paper proving al-Qaida's guilt. It never came. A tape that surfaced in 2002, purporting to show Osama bin Laden gleefully chortling over the attacks, was a fake. |
http://www.bigeye.com/090403.htm
Eric Margois - his business is slander and misinformation. That is what everyone needs to know about him! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Everyone catch President...err PM Haper's big trip to Afghanistan? The right wing is even talking about how they might be "proud to be Canadian again". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| that is just false that the US is Afghanistan cause of the oil pipe lines |
 That probably isn't the sole reason, but it probably has been factored in
There were two pipeline routes discussed prior 9/11 and one went through Turkey and the other through Afghanistan.
In regards to the topic, it is kind of a red herring as it makes the case of a loss of troops in history and relates them to a recent event. The problem is though that canada lost many more in europe and that ended up being a success though it took 5 years.
The real point that could be drawn from the article is that Canadians shouldn't die for people who live in a country where the predominant color isn't white as they would never benefit from it.
Doesn't sound so pure when it comes out that way, but try and read it again.  ( I am not trying to stir, but it reads that way I guess: post edit). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Quote: |
| that is just false that the US is Afghanistan cause of the oil pipe lines |
That probably isn't the sole reason, but it probably has been factored in
There were two pipeline routes discussed prior 9/11 and one went through Turkey and the other through Afghanistan.
In regards to the topic, it is kind of a red herring as it makes the case of a loss of troops in history and relates them to a recent event. The problem is though that canada lost many more in europe and that ended up being a success though it took 5 years.
The real point that could be drawn from the article is that Canadians shouldn't die for people who live in a country where the predominant color isn't white as they would never benefit from it.
Doesn't sound so pure when it comes out that way, but try and read it again. ( I am not trying to stir, but it reads that way I guess: post edit). |
There were other routes for the Pipe lines other than Afghanistan. Afghanstan isn't better than any route either |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that we need to deal with failed states, as a western and developed deomcracy we need to help those states which have failed for whatever the reason. We owe these people (Afghani's, Sudanese, etc) because it is usually the West's fault to some degree that they are in the position they are in. In the case of Afghanistan the Soviets invaded and then the US armed and funded the Mujahedeen who would eventually tear the country apart. So we owe the people our time and lives and money to help stabilize the country.
Also, as a personal friend of CDS Rick Hillier, I can say that if the task can be achieved it will be done by this man, there is nobody more able to do it.
What is concerning me is that we (Canucks) will sacrifice what we believe (equality, freedom, rule of law, western values) to prop up a government that will slide back into the crazys that Muslims can become. Particularly concerning is this:
http://365gay.com/Newscon06/02/022706afgan.htm
If we are dying for this country then this country's value have to line up with our own, otherwise we should not be there.
And it was about an oil pipeline:
http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oil Pipeline?
| Quote: |
Oil Pipeline
Proposed Unocal Pipeline in Afghanistan
Deceits 27-30
This segment is introduced with the question, "Or was the war in Afghanistan really about something else?" The "something else" is shown to be a Unocal pipeline.
Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while Bush was governor, over a possible pipeline deal with Unocal. But Moore doesn��t say that they never actually met with Bush or that the deal went bust in 1998 and had been supported by the Clinton administration.
Labash, Weekly Standard.
Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the Unocal company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in August 1998.
Jonathan Foreman, "Moore��s The Pity," New York Post, June 23, 2004.
In December 1997, a delegation from Afghanistan��s ruling and ruthless Taliban visited the United States to meet with an oil and gas company that had extensive dealings in Texas. The company, Unocal, was interested in building a natural gas line through Afghanistan. Moore implies that Bush, who was then governor of Texas, met with the delegation.
But, as Gannett News Service points out, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What��s more, Clinton administration officials did sit down with Taliban officials, and the delegation��s visit was made with the Clinton administration��s permission.
McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times.
Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington.
Isikoff & Hosenball, MSNBC.com.
Moore claims that "Enron stood to benefit from the pipeline." To the contrary, Enron was not part of the consortium which expressed interest in working with Unocal on the pipeline.
On December 9, 2003, the new Afghanistan government did sign a protocol with Turkmenistan and Pakistan to facilitate a pipeline. Indeed, any Afghani government (Taliban or otherwise) would rationally seek the revenue that could be gained from a pipeline. But the protocol merely aims to entice corporations to build a new pipeline; no corporation has has agreed to do so. Nor does the new proposed pipeline even resemble Unocal's failed proposal; the new pipeline would the bring oil and gas from the Caspian Sea basin, whereas Unocal's proposal involved deposits five hundred miles away, in eastern Turkmenistan.
Fahrenheit showed images of pipeline construction, but the images have nothing to do with the Caspian Sea pipeline, for which construction has never begun. Nor do they have anything to do with the Unocal pipeline, which never existed except on paper.
According to Fahrenheit, Afghanistan's new President, Hamid Karzai, was a Unocal consultant. This is false. Sumana Chatterjee and David Goldstein, "A lowdown on the facts behind the allegations in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'," Knight-Ridder newspapers, July 2, 2004. The origin of the claim appears to be a December 6, 2001 story in the center-left French newspaper Le Monde. The story does not cite any source for its claim. (The story is available on-line from Le Monde's website; registration and payment are required.) Unocal has denied that Karzai was ever a consultant.
(Deceits: 1. Governor Bush never met the Taliban; 2. The Unocal pipeline idea was abandoned; 3. The new pipeline is different from the Unocal proposal; 4. Construction has not begun. Bonus deceit: Enron.)
[Moore response: Regarding Karzai, cites the article in Le Monde, and two later articles which appear to use Le Monde's information. Moore's translation is: "He was a consultant for the American oil company Unocal, while they studied the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan." The actual sentence was "Après Kaboul et l'Inde ou il a étudié le droit, il a parfait sa formation aux Etats-Unis ou il fut un moment consultant de l'enterprise pétrolière américaine Unocal, quand celle-ci étudiant la construction d'un oléduc en Afghanistan." Translated: After Kabul and India where he had studied law, he completed his training in the United States where he was briefly (literally: "for a moment") a consultant for the American petroleum business Unocal, when it was studying the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan." Neither Le Monde nor Moore has provided any evidence to substantiate the claim about Unocal and Karzai.
Regarding Enron, Moore cites a 1997 speech a professor, in which the professor said that Enron would be interested in helping to build the Unocal pipeline. There is no reason to doubt the professor, but the fact is that Enron was not among the companies which Unocal chose to work with. There is no evidence supporting Moore's assertion that Enron would benefit from the new Caspian Sea basin pipeline.
Moore does not attempt to defend the other falsities which are detailed in this section: that Unocal had abandoned the project in 1998, that the 2003 Protocol involves an entirely different pipeline, and that the pipeline footage in the movie has nothing to do with either the 1998 or 2003 proposals.]
Bush Administration Relationship with the Taliban
Deceit 31
Moore also tries to paint Bush as sympathetic to the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan until its overthrow by U.S.-led forces shortly after Sept. 11. Moore shows a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban envoy, saying the Bush administration "welcomed" the official, Sayed Hashemi, "to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban."
Yet Hashemi��s reception at the State Department was hardly welcoming. The administration rejected his claim that the Taliban had complied with U.S. requests to isolate Osama bin Laden and affirmed its nonrecognition of the Taliban.
"We don��t recognize any government in Afghanistan," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on the day of the visit.
Frank, Newsday.
[Moore response. Quotes some articles showing that the Taliban visited the U.S. in 2001 to appeal for the lifting of sanctions on their government. Shows no evidence that the Taliban were "welcomed" by the Bush administration. Does not explain why Fahrenheit omits the fact that the Bush administration rebuffed all the Taliban's requests.] |
http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#Proposed_Unocal_Pipeline_in_Afghanistan
HOW ABOUT THE BBC?
| Quote: |
Monday, 29 October, 2001, 20:56 GMT
Afghanistan: the pipeline war?
Some commentators have asked if it's all about oil
By BBC Eurasia Analyst Malcolm Haslett
Some attractively original theories have been going the rounds about the real reasons for the Afghan war.
It is obviously much more, some columnists and political theorists suggest, than a simple effort to stamp out terrorism.
Apart from the popular theory (in some parts of Europe as well as the Middle East) that this is a war on Islam, there is also the theory that it is a war motivated mainly - or even purely - by long-term economic and political goals.
The importance of Central Asian oil and gas has suddenly been noticed.
The valuable deposits of fossil fuels in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, previously discussed only by regional experts and international energy companies, are now being mulled over on the opinion pages of popular dailies.
Economic imperatives
The Afghan war, it has been discovered, has an economic side to it.
Oil is undeniably important to the Americans
Some writers, indeed, have gone further, suggesting that economic considerations provide the main, or at the very least a major, motivation for US and western involvement in Afghanistan.
If one discounts the more extreme and emotional versions of this theory, the argument boils down to this:
Afghanistan has been proposed by more than one western oil company (the US-based Unocal is often mentioned, but it is not the only one) as the best route by which to export the Central Asian republics' important output of oil and gas
Given the increasing importance of finding and exploiting new sources of fossil fuel, governments like those of the US and the UK are enormously keen to gain influence in the Central Asian region in order to secure those supplies for the West
In order to achieve that, and get those energy supplies moving out of Central Asia, they need to set up a pro-western government in Afghanistan.
Flawed theory
This line of argument falls down on a number of points.
It is undeniably true that the Central Asian republics do have very significant reserves of gas and oil, and that they have been having difficulty in getting them on to the world market on conditions favourable to them.
Until recently Russia had an almost total monopoly of export pipelines, and was demanding a high price, in economic and political terms, for their use.
Niyazov: main proponent
But it simply is not true that Afghanistan is the main alternative to Russia.
On the contrary, very few western politicians or oil companies have taken Afghanistan seriously as a major export route - for the simple reason that few believe Afghanistan will ever achieve the stability needed to ensure a regular and uninterrupted flow of oil and gas.
There have been exceptions, of course, like Unocal and the Argentine company Bridas.
The main proponents of the Afghan pipeline idea, however, apart from the Taleban regime itself and its backers in Pakistan, was the government of the eccentric Turkmen President Saparmyrat Niyazov, known as "Turkmenbashi".
Caucasus route
The West, in contrast, and particularly the US, has put almost all its efforts into developing a major new route from the Caspian through Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Black Sea.
This had the potential advantage (from a western point of view) of bypassing Russia and Iran, and breaking their monopoly of influence in the region - allowing the states of the Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaijan and possibly Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan) to develop a more balanced, independent foreign policy.
The Afghans would benefit from a pipeline
That, of course, worries many in Russia, and to a lesser degree in Iran.
They also now fear that the Central Asians' willingness to entertain US forces on their territory could substantially increase US influence in the region.
Such a scenario, however, is far from certain.
The western powers have caused considerable annoyance among the authoritarian regimes of Central Asia by harping on human rights abuses - particularly, incidentally, against Muslims - and the need for greater democratisation.
It seems highly unlikely, moreover, that the US-led "Coalition against Terrorism" has any illusions about how "pro-western" any potential new Afghan Government would be.
The main prerequisite for the survival of a new administration in Kabul, is that it win wide acceptance among the various ethnic and political groupings in Afghanistan itself.
No US stooges
And very few of those groups are exactly pro-western.
Western influence in Afghanistan would, at best, remain shaky.
In addition, if peace and stability were to return to Afghanistan, and a new pipeline to Central Asia was to be built, the principal beneficiaries would undoubtedly be the Afghans, as well as Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and the other Central Asians.
In brief, then, considerations of economic and political influence will undoubtedly play a part in western strategies in Afghanistan.
It would be strange if they did not. But the argument that these are the main motivations behind US actions, not the desire to stamp out international terrorism, will probably find support mainly among those who already have a fondness for conspiracy theories. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1626889.stm
COUNTERPUNCH IS A DISHONEST SOURCE.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
