Afghan Facts and Fiction?

[Majstorovic]

Ok.  if YOU are so smart.  Why did BBC talk of a a "gas" (natural gas) pipeline, and not OIL?
(Like you stated before).

Becareful who you try to patronize.  Because there are a lot of people on this forum who have a lot more experience with, and knowledge of what is going on in Afghanistan than you (may) ever will.  A lot of it first hand.

People here could just as easily bug you for seemingly trusting the media so much, and even more so for using Wikipedia as a source.  If you want to talk about lying, misinformation, and leaving out information...the main stream media is at least just as bad as the governments are.

*Ok....Too fast with the second button press there.  My bad.*

In my scurrying about to respond to the onslaught of posts about how insane my argument is, yes, I referred to oil insted of natural gas. My mistake, I admit.  That said, the "main stream media" isn't exactly trumpeting anti-war opinions.  Mainstream media is on the government's side for the most part.

 

[aesop081]

I chucked wikipedia in there, true, but what about BBC? Are they a shady source?

The mainstream media is about as honest as a used car salesman. Just look at the CBC here in Canada.

As for tone, I apologize, but in post after post I am made out to be some insane commie conspiracy theorist.  It gets old fast, and is a cheapshot.

So you adress that by taking a cheapshot of your own ? I've been here a long time. The tone you decided to take is indeed well past old. What you think people make you out to be is the way you come across to me. If you know Wikkipedia is not a reliable source, then why use it. You had to know what reaction it was going to get. Beyond that, you are not adressing the points people have brought up in response to your posts. Thats usualy the tell tale sign of someone whos position is not supportable.

That said, the "main stream media" isn't exactly trumpeting anti-war opinions.  Mainstream media is on the government's side for the most part.

Have you been sleeping under a rock on Planet Mars for the last 6 years ?

 

[Koenigsegg]

Mainstream media is on the government's side for the most part.

I agree, depending on the country.  We have a lot of negative stuff over here, a lot of it can be refuted.
CBC is also a liberal (literally, haha) media organization.  And too many people get all their news from them.
A liberal news station is fine by me, just as a conservative one is.  But a Liberal one is not, as they like to push the party agenda at times.

*Darn it.  Always late.  Don't worry about responding.  haha*

 

[aesop081]

  That said, the "main stream media" isn't exactly trumpeting anti-war opinions.  Mainstream media is on the government's side for the most part.

If you consider the MSM suspect ( as the above indicates) , how can you use it as a source to prove your point ? You cant pick and chose ! Either the media is suspect or its not. If the media has a government bias and is not to be trusted, then you cant use it to support your argument. Its hypocritical.

 

[Majstorovic]

The mainstream media is about as honest as a used car salesman. Just look at the CBC here in Canada.

So you adress that by taking a cheapshot of your own ? I've been here a long time. The tone you decided to take is indeed well past old. What you think people make you out to be is the way you come across to me. If you know Wikkipedia is not a reliable source, then why use it. You had to know what reaction it was going to get. Beyond that, you are not adressing the points people have brought up in response to your posts. Thats usualy the tell tale sign of someone whos position is not supportable.

Have you been sleeping under a rock on Planet Mars for the last 6 years ?

I have done my best to address points as they come up.  It is my points that have gone unanswered as replies spin off into accusations and irrelevant directions.

I've been right here for the past 6 years.  And from where I am, any questioning of the mission (read war) in the media is interpreted as an attack on the troops, and as support for the Taliban.
The problem with that is this:  People who are against the war are not against the troops. Bringing troops home is somehow an act of treason whereas sending them out to fight, kill, risk their own lives is an act of patriotism. They know that the troops are doing their best and that the problem doesn't lie with them.
The war, as it is being conducted right now, is counter-productive and will eventually fail.  If the aim really is as it is claimed, then war lords would not be given crucial posts in the government, the Taliban would be obsolete due to lack of any popular support at all, Pakistan would be forced to stop arming and aiding Taliban fighters, Kandahar and the rest of the country would have running water and electricity, the general populace wouldn't be living in exactly the same crappy conditions prior to the "liberation", etc., etc.

 

[Majstorovic]

If you consider the MSM suspect ( as the above indicates) , how can you use it as a source to prove your point ? You cant pick and chose ! Either the media is suspect or its not. If the media has a government bias and is not to be trusted, then you cant use it to support your argument. Its hypocritical.

Yes, the MSM is suspect, but since the MSM is not a monolithic entity, there are tidbits here and there that are relatively less propagandized than the majority of stories.  Usually these are buried in back pages or if on TV, shown at 2 in the morning.
Take a look at the Iraq war as an example. At first everyone in the MSM was on board, rah-rah, gung-ho, flag-waving cheerleading, etc. Eventually, after thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and the country was plunged into chaos worse than during Sadaam's rule, bit by bit, information started trickling through that confirmed many non-MSM media stories regarding the false basis for the war and the intentional deception that was used to justify the invasion.
So, yes, I can pick and choose, since not all stories have the same journalistic value.  Every station/newspaper will have some good stories and some poor ones.

 

[Majstorovic]

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what any of us here think because we don't get paid/trained to criticize and analyze foreign policy.  We behave like good little boys and girls and do what we are told. That is the basis upon which the chain of command works. Without it there would be no military.
We could get told to go attack our own mothers tomorrow and we would have to comply. 
It's the winners who write history, correct?  If WWII had turned out differently, Canada would be the evil ones and its soldiers would be put on trial as the culprits. Might makes right.
I'm not being sarcastic.  Can we not agree on that much?

 

[meni0n]

We could get told to go attack our own mothers tomorrow and we would have to comply. 

Slept thru ethics and lawful command lectures on BMQ?

Your claims are really off base. Afghanis are not living in the same conditions as they have before the taliban were ousted. There has been major improvements. It will take years to rebuild all of the infrastructure.

Just because Talibal Jack said the mission will fail doesn't make it true. Not everthing in the world is easy and sometimes you have to work hard for something to work.  Please give an example of what is done now counter-productive? Building schools, hospitals, training a professional army and police is counter-productive? You're way out to lunch.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what any of us here think because we don't get paid/trained to criticize and analyze foreign policy.  We behave like good little boys and girls and do what we are told. That is the basis upon which the chain of command works. Without it there would be no military.
We could get told to go attack our own mothers tomorrow and we would have to comply. 

Listen up sunshine.....................yup, thats the sound of your verbal warning.

If you post anything as stupid as that comment again you will be gone.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Does going to a place where some of these people live and killing them, along with other innocent ones solve the problem? No.

But Majstorovic, according to you we should go to Darfur and Lebanon.  So please please tell me why our military force would work in those places and not Afghanistan. 

I'm not even going to mention that Sudan is a sovereign nation that has already said that it will not allow the UN to operate in Darfur and to do so would be an invasion of a sovereign Muslim nation.  You might want to think about how much that invasion would be seen by the Muslim world, hell they already think the WOT is the 22nd Century crusade.  Invade Sudan?  Holy freaking crap-storm Batman!

Your argument seems to be that because the UN would be in charge that the mission would be peaceful. WTF?  Obviously you have never been on a UN tour like Bosnia and Rwanda where the opposing forces don't want to play nice, or perhaps you've never been on a tour at all and slept through the  pertinent newsclips from those peaceful missions .  The UN are the people who brought you the slaughter of 500,000 in Darfur, the massacre at Srebrenitza, Congoleese mass murders, the list goes on and on.

You can't spell unable, unproductive unresponsive or unproficient  without UN

As for why I won't vote for the NDP, they have nothing to offer my Canada, which is to say the vision I have for Canada.  They would turn this nation (as Bob Rae did to Ontario) into a huge bloated bureaucratic welfare state where every special interest is pandered to and paid for by those who work hard enough to be truly successful.  They would punish the industrious and reward the sloth, they would hobble the brilliant and exalt the mediocre.  They are socialists and collectivists.  Don't try to talk to me about shades of socialism, scratch the surface and you will find the same Ideals that led to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the rest.

"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much."

fuck the NDP.

 

[Celticgirl]

They would turn this nation (as Bob Rae did to Ontario) into a huge bloated bureaucratic welfare state where every special interest is pandered to and paid for by those who work hard enough to be truly successful.  They would punish the industrious and reward the sloth, they would hobble the brilliant and exalt the mediocre.  They are socialists and collectivists.  Don't try to talk to me about shades of socialism, scratch the surface and you will find the same Ideals that led to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the rest.

"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much."

frig the NDP.

Golden. Very well-said. 

 

[aesop081]

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what any of us here think because we don't get paid/trained to criticize and analyze foreign policy. 

Now i know that you have run out of retoric to spew here. "it doesnt matter what we think" is the troll version of " because i said so" !!! Your points have indeed been adressed.

 

[vonGarvin]

Seriously, what planet are you from? "Lenin's little idiots"? Where? Oh, you mean the party without whom you'd have the wonderful health care system that you see in the US? Right, they're such crazy Commies. 
Yeah, it's better that we have a PM who believes that the Earth is 5,000 years old, that dinosaurs co-existed alongside humans and that global warming is a socialist plot to bring Capitalism to its knees.

From which planet do I originate?  I am from Earth.  As for our "wonderful" health care system, you must be thinking of the same system that makes my sister wait and wait for treatment for her cancer.  The same one that sees line ups, making people wait way too long for basic health care services.  Is that the system to which you refer?

As for a PM who believes Earth is 500 years old and all that jazz, well, maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.  So far as I can tell, it's not affecting his ability to lead the country.  Heck, I have some wacky beliefs too, such as with rights come responsibilities, and that people are responsible for their own actions.  

As for global warming/climate change, don't get me started.  My opinion is that once we figure out what's warming Mars, we can than figure out what's warming the Earth.

 

[OldSolduer]

Hello!
I beleive this Mastrojvic or whoever is in fact Tweetypie, who attempted to horn his/her way on here.
Tweetypie floods the Canoe website. Just check it out for yourselves. I will leave you to form your own opinions

As for the NDP????.....not a chance

 

[MG34]

Not if they were the only party running...not in a million years...not ever,no way no how...if Taliban Jack saved me from a burning car wreck I would roll over a spit in his face.

 

[George Wallace]

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what any of us here think because we don't get paid/trained to criticize and analyze foreign policy.  We behave like good little boys and girls and do what we are told. That is the basis upon which the chain of command works. Without it there would be no military.
We could get told to go attack our own mothers tomorrow and we would have to comply. 
It's the winners who write history, correct?   If WWII had turned out differently, Canada would be the evil ones and its soldiers would be put on trial as the culprits. Might makes right.
I'm not being sarcastic.  Can we not agree on that much?

Sorry, but this blithering has only justified my opinion that you should do a heck of a lot of reading on this site to find out what the Canadian Forces are all about, and what it means to be a member of the Canadian Forces.  The above nonsense that you just spewed out shows how ignorant you are of the facts.  You should refrain from posting any more of this nonsense until such time as you have actually done some research on this site, and then gone out and actually talked to a member or two of the Canadian Forces. 

 

[Majstorovic]

Slept thru ethics and lawful command lectures on BMQ?

Your claims are really off base. Afghanis are not living in the same conditions as they have before the taliban were ousted. There has been major improvements. It will take years to rebuild all of the infrastructure.

Just because Talibal Jack said the mission will fail doesn't make it true. Not everthing in the world is easy and sometimes you have to work hard for something to work.  Please give an example of what is done now counter-productive? Building schools, hospitals, training a professional army and police is counter-productive? You're way out to lunch.

Did you sleep through the class of real life?  Things taught from a book don't always apply in practice. Oh, the Army tells me it is wrong to do X, well I guess X must never happen, since it is wrong for X to happen.

Afghanis ARE living in the same crap conditions prior to the invasion.  Sure, a few schools get built here and there, and there are token, albeit massively corrupt, elections that take place, but more or less the same.  Just that the awful leaders from before have been replaced with awful leaders that are more friendly to NATO.

I'm not sure who this Taliban Jack that you are referring to is, but what will make the mission fail is the way success has been defined.  It has been defined in a very non-orthodox way such that it guarantees ongoing battle operations. Unless you wipe everyone in the country out, resistance to foreign occupation will never be stamped out.  Afghani cultural evolution is still lagging behind and it can't be brought up to speed overnight.  Democracy didn't originate in Europe or the West as a result of a foreign imposition of political terms, it emerged after a slow but steady internal social development.  The same might eventually happen there, but it's not likely. Democracy isn't the default condition.  Most countries in the world are not democracies.  If you want to go convert each country into one, you would be fighting for the next trillion years.
I'll give you examlples of what is being done that is counter-productive: 
The fact that people there see the hypocrisy of trumpeting democracy and looking at their lives and seeing the same tribal allegiances, corruption and oppression that still rules their life.
Building schools, hospitals, training a professional army and police is not counter-productive in theory, but in practice, what will that army and police do when Canada is gone?  Will they forsake their traditional loyalties and beliefs overnight? Hells no.

 

[Majstorovic]

But Majstorovic, according to you we should go to Darfur and Lebanon.  So please please tell me why our military force would work in those places and not Afghanistan. 

I'm not saying force can't work in Afghanistan.  What I am saying is it can't work if it isn't accompanied by honest political effort to

I'm not even going to mention that Sudan is a sovereign nation that has already said that it will not allow the UN to operate in Darfur and to do so would be an invasion of a sovereign Muslim nation.  You might want to think about how much that invasion would be seen by the Muslim world, hell they already think the WOT is the 22nd Century crusade.  Invade Sudan?  Holy freaking crap-storm Batman!

Yeah, so what if Sudan is a sovereign nation? Afghanistan was a sovereign nation, and I don't remember anyone caring what its opinion was regarding if it wanted to be invaded.  The UN doesn't need permission to operate in a country if that country violates human rights of its own citizens.

Your argument seems to be that because the UN would be in charge that the mission would be peaceful. WTF?  Obviously you have never been on a UN tour like Bosnia and Rwanda where the opposing forces don't want to play nice, or perhaps you've never been on a tour at all and slept through the  pertinent newsclips from those peaceful missions .  The UN are the people who brought you the slaughter of 500,000 in Darfur, the massacre at Srebrenitza, Congoleese mass murders, the list goes on and on.

Where did I insist that pacifism was necessary on any mission?  Combat is essential and inevitable in any operation in a hostile zone. That's not the problem. It's what other initiatives are pushed along with the force.

As for why I won't vote for the NDP, they have nothing to offer my Canada, which is to say the vision I have for Canada.  They would turn this nation (as Bob Rae did to Ontario) into a huge bloated bureaucratic welfare state where every special interest is pandered to and paid for by those who work hard enough to be truly successful.  They would punish the industrious and reward the sloth, they would hobble the brilliant and exalt the mediocre.  They are socialists and collectivists.  Don't try to talk to me about shades of socialism, scratch the surface and you will find the same Ideals that led to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the rest.

"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much."

frig the NDP.

Nobody cares who you want to vote for, that's your own thing. But where are you getting this idea that a left-leaning party in power would bring about the apocalypse.  Take a look at countries that do have some sort of social democracy.  Have they enslaved the brilliant and descended into a cesspool of mediocrity?
Communism has about as much to do with socialism as Fascism has to do with conservatism.
By the way, capitalism isn't predicated on the thinking of "All men should have so much." It is based on the pursuit of individual self interest. It is theorized that as a result of this, the collective good of society is unintentionally brought about.
In theory it works fine, just like in theory Communism works fine. 
In reality both have serious problems.

 

[Teflon]

Majstorovic

Just for my information, are you for real?

I mean honestly? I've pretty much read everything you have had to say about Afghanistan already in the online comments of the Globe and Mail posted by different names, same buzz words, same misconceptions and opinions - invasion, corrupt government etc etc What handle(s) do you use there?

I'm just wondering

 

[Majstorovic]

Majstorovic

Just for my information, are you for real?

I mean honestly? I've pretty much read everything you have had to say about Afghanistan already in the online comments of the Globe and Mail posted by different names, same buzz words, same misconceptions and opinions - invasion, corrupt government etc etc What handle(s) do you use there?

I'm just wondering

I can't speak for anything you've read in the Globe and Mail comments, since I don't know what is written there. But,believe it or not, it's not a conspiracy where I am the only one with opinions that run contrary to the official government line, and I go around spending all my free time and energy posting under various aliases, on various internet sites.  There actually are people who think the government doesn't know its butt from its elbow when it comes to certain  things. Yes, corrupt governments. How absurd and unthinkable. Honestly, who could believe that? Everyone is so honest and well-meaning.