Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Octavius Hite]

lol, that was just the first link i found in a quick search, here are some more.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1997%2F12%2F14%2Fwtal14.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

Now 2 things, a "I hate michaelmoore site" which no doubt recieves some form of support from the republican party is not a credible source.

The point Moore and all of us on the left are trying to make is that major US companies (with clear support from the US and state governments) should not have been doing buisness with the Taliban. It is intellectually dishonest to say that the oil pipeline has no bearing on the foriegn policy when dealing with the world's largest consumer(s). However I don't think anyone believes that the cause of the war was the pipeline, just that we shouldn't be denying that the US government was more than happy to do buisness with the Taliban pre-9/11

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Bulsajo]

Debate and increased public awareness on the role of Canadians in Afghanistan is a good thing.
The mission started with the Liberals in power, so it's not (or shouldn't be) a partisan issue.
Basically, the mission from 2001 isn't over- it's as simple as that.
Leaving now would roll back all accomplishments since 2001, and unlike Iraq there is hardly any doubt that force was required in Afghanistan.

[igotthisguitar]

Frankly i don't know how i feel about this one. Should they stay or should they go?

The Taliban were ( and still are ) quite a nasty, extreme & intolerant bunch.

Illicit opium entanglements aside, i'm confident the Canadian "peacekeepers" situated in Afghanistan do a lot of good work in ... well ... uhh ... keeping the peace.

The recent apparent upsurge of Taliban et al. popularity in the area ( in no small part due to the bloody impact of western regional occupation ), certainly raises the stakes.

How many Russians were killed during their futile 10 year liberation / occupation?

Also, anyone else out there NOT know that the Shiite / Sunni ratio is almost OPPOSITE what it is in IRAQ?

i.e. Afghanistan's ethnic population is comprised of a significant Sunni majority, while in Iraq they make up the minority.

How very interesting.


Child Bride
Posted by Kevin Sites
on Mon, Mar 20 2006, 4:55 PM ET
Video Audio Photo Essay

Married at the age of four, an Afghan girl was subjected to years of beatings and torture,
finally escaping to discover that within all the world's cruelty, there is also some kindness.

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/20060320/hz_afghanistan_0306/blogs2986

Death Could Await Afghanistan's Christian Convert
U.S. lawmaker: Christian-conversion prosecution 'outrageous'

Wednesday, March 22, 2006; Posted: 1:03 a.m. EST (06:03 GMT)

Television footage shows Abdul Rahman being interviewed last week during a hearing in Kabul.



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the days of the Taliban, those promoting Christianity in Afghanistan could be arrested and those converting from Islam could be tortured and publicly executed.

That was supposed to change after U.S.-led forces ousted the oppressive, fundamentalist regime, but the case of 41-year-old Abdul Rahman has many Western nations wondering if Afghanistan is regressing.

Rahman, a father of two, was arrested last week and is now awaiting trial for rejecting Islam. He told local police, whom he approached on an unrelated matter, that he had converted to Christianity. Reports say he was carrying a Bible at the time.

"They want to sentence me to death, and I accept it," Rahman told reporters last week, "but I am not a deserter and not an infidel."

The Afghan constitution, which is based on Sharia, or Islamic law, says that apostates can receive the death penalty.

( Watch how Rahman's case could cast doubts on Afghanistan's commitment to democracy -- 1:17 )

Afghanistan's population is 80 percent Sunni Muslim and 19 percent Shiite Muslim, according to the CIA. The other 1 percent of the population is classified as "other."

http://us.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/21/afghan.christian/index.html

[coolsage]

Leave them to come up with their own 'velvet revolution' or 'orange revolution', but leave them. These bronze-age primates are not worth shedding blood for.

[TheUrbanMyth]

[thepeel]

Afghanistan is about as backwards a gong-show, failed state as one can get. Canadian troops are fighting and dying so that they can have democracy. Well, when they finally get democracy the Idiot Islamic Element will elect the friggen Taliban v2.0 and we can start back at square one.

Their culture is far too screwed up and backwards to accept secular liberal democracy. So WHY TRY?

[Benbby]

Afghan is okay because it is an UN approved operation and other nations are there also. I was told the other day it was the best thing ex-PM Jean Chretien did was not send Cdn troops to Iraq. Afghan is a failed state and we are there so they do not harm us. A country where a convert from Islam to another religion can get executed is a country that has immense problems. 2000 troops is not a huge number.

However after this Kandahar mission, it is time to discuss exactly whey they are there. The US, if they really want to squash al-Qaeda and the Taliban could commit a few thousand more troops rather than have military exercises with the armed forces of India.

Whenever Cda has an issue involving foreigners, like say immigration, when the Progressive Conservatives increased immigration to about 250,000 per year from about 100,000, in 1987, there was little debate over this momentous change.

[bignate]

Truthfully, I cannot see what they will accomplish in Afghanistan. I mean, we can have our troops there, and try to maintain peace, but truthfully, they will not accomplish anything, because once they have to leave, the country will self regulate itself anyways. Change occurs because the population in that country wants it, not because another nation or nations tells it it should.

Canadians in Afghanistan means Canadians die, Afghanis die, and in the end the self determination will win anyways. The longer they are there, the longer the backlash. Ask the English, ask the Russians, ask the Americans.....

I agree, get them out...

[Bulsajo]

I'd really like to think differently.
The Soviet mission isn't the Canadian one and the need is great and the justification is solid.
But then you think that this is the country that broke the Red Army, and you have to wonder what a relatively small multinational force can accomplish that a Superpower couldn't...
If the US were able to focus on Afghanistan, great, but it's pretty obvious why/how that isn't going to happen.

No easy answers, it's just another rock vs. hard place situation.

But, given our commitments and the mission need, and the state of the Canadian military today, if we fold up and go home now we might as well disband the entire military and become the next Costa Rica.

I haven't read the transcript of the Throne speech today, but I believe there was no mention of increased military spending, among other campaign promises (more icebreakers, etc.)

[Gopher]

[Bulsajo]

Sure, to an extent... the US certainly provided supplies and arms (notably Stingers) and the Saudis provided money, but the tribes and jihadists did most of the heavy lifting. The money's not as plentiful these days, but enough is probably still around (Narco-funds, Islamic fund-raising, etc.), as are many of the aforementioned heavy-lifters.

If the winds blew the right way, you could see Iran eagerly taking on the role that Pakistan had in the 80s...

Like Iraq, Afghanistan is a 'time will tell' situation.

And the domestic front is important too, as Americans know all too well.
I doubt Canada has the will to stay in a difficult situation right now, too many are worried- rightly or wrongly- that it'll become "another Iraq".
It's not exactly 'difficult' at the moment, but it could get that way fast depending on whether the threats of a renewed Spring offensive are are real or BS.

And of course there is another minority govt in Canada which will not be able to make any tough decisions even if it wanted to.

The thing that most Canadians don't seem to realize is that our force isn't really all that consequential, in the big picture- at the moment we have leadership of the multi-national NATO force, but most other NATO countries could backfill our troop levels at not much more than the drop of a hat if we pull out. That sort of truth can be hard to swallow, if you're one of the 'Molson-nationalism' crowd...

[Gopher]

[Bulsajo]

[bigverne]