Manley Panel Submits Report On Afghanistan

Posted on Wednesday, January 23 at 09:34 by N Say
The biggest problem facing the ISAF mission is that there are not enough military forces deployed against the insurgents, the panel observes. "The mission is in jeopardy. There simply are not enough troops to ensure that the job can be properly done in Kandahar province ... we hope that this [report] is not a poison pill. We need to be very direct with NATO," Manley said in a news conference shortly after the release of the report. The panel says Canada needs to remain in Afghanistan provided two conditions are met: * The assignment of an additional battle group of about 1,000 soldiers to Kandahar by NATO and/or other allies before February 2009. * That the government secure new, medium-lift helicopters and high-performance unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance before that date. The additional troops would expand security coverage in Kandahar, help prevent incursions from Pakistan, and accelerate training of Afghan army and police units. If these conditions are not met, "the government should give appropriate notice to the Afghan and allied governments of its intention to transfer responsibility for security in Kandahar," the panel says. The timing of a Canadian military withdrawal depends on the Afghan army and police increasing its capacity, the panel reports. Progress, especially from the Afghan National Army, has been encouraging but modest, it notes, adding there was no consensus as to when Afghan security forces will be competent enough to handle security themselves. "The hard truth is than an ISAF retreat from Afghanistan before that country's own forces can defend its security would most likely condemn the Afghan people to a new and bloody cycle of civil war and misrule — and raise new threats to global peace and security," the panel says. "In sum, an immediate military withdrawal from Afghanistan would cause more harm than good." Peacekeeping role not an option: panel The panel also rejects an option to allow troops to adopt a traditional peacekeeping role in Kandahar, using force only as self-defence, saying that there is not yet peace to keep in Afghanistan. "We've heard it again and again, 'This is NATO's most important mission.' Well, it's time for the rhetoric to end," Manley told the news conference. "Either they mean it, that this is the most important mission, or they don't. If they don't, then we need to look to the well-being of our young people." The panel — which includes former broadcaster Pamela Wallin, Derek Burney, former ambassador to Washington and one-time chief of staff to former prime minister Brian Mulroney, Paul Tellier, former clerk of the privy council, and Jake Epp, a former Mulroney cabinet minister — spent 10 days touring Afghanistan in November. It said Canada's role must place greater emphasis on diplomacy and reconstruction, and the Canadian military focus must shift gradually from combat to training Afghan national security forces. Among the other recommendations: * Canada's civilian reconstruction and development should concentrate more on aid that directly benefits the Afghan people. * The government should conduct a full-scale review of the performance of Canadian civilian aid programs. * Effectiveness of Canada's military and civilian activities, and progress of Afghan security and government must be tracked. * The federal government should improve its communications about the Canadian mission. Manley also had tough words for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, saying he must "step up" and make the mission a top priority, and be supported by a special cabinet committee and full-time task force to co-ordinate Canada's efforts. But more importantly, Harper should personally oversee diplomatic efforts to put pressure on NATO, he said. The findings aren't binding, but will carry weight in the discussions about Canada's future role in Afghanistan given that Harper has also promised to allow MPs to vote on the issue in Parliament. In a statement, Harper thanked the panel for the "substantive and thoughtful report," adding that the government will "thoroughly review" the recommendations and comment in the next few days. 200 submissions considered The panel received more than 200 submissions from interested people and organizations, including from the Liberal party and the Green party, the CBC's Rosemary Barton reported. The NDP and the Bloc Québécois, which have been critical of the panel, didn't submit suggestions, she said. The Liberals have indicated they would like to see Canada's combat role in the south wind down by the 2009 deadline, with more emphasis placed on the development element of the mission. Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said he had not yet read the report and declined to offer detailed comment. ... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/22/afghan-manley.html

Note: http://www.cbc.ca/canad...

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:40 pm
    Thank you, Mr. Manley. And I take back all those things I said about you, even though I meant them.

    Everything I've been saying these past years is in this report. 2000 troops cannot do the job they are tasked to do. NATO has 1 million soldiers who could carry some of the load and get Afghanistan rebuilt from decades of war.

    Time to step up to the plate.

    ---
    The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

  2. by Rural
    Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:30 pm
    Given that every news outlet has a different spin it might be good to read the actual report, I have not done so due to the long download time on dial up, but I hope others here do read it and see how accurate the reporting is! The information I have seen seems to indicate that it is at least realistic in its assessment if perhaps less so in its recommendations. <br />
    Here is a link to the full report (96 page PDF) <br />
    <a href="http://independent-panel-independant.ca/pdf/Afghan_Report_web_e.pdf">http://independent-panel-independant.ca/pdf/Afghan_Report_web_e.pdf</a><br />
    <br />
    and an overview of where we stand from CBC news at<br />
    <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/canada.html">http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/canada.html</a><br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <p>---<br>When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp

  3. by N Say
    Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:31 am
    coverage in Al-Jazeera:<br />
    <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BAAAE18F-20AC-4661-8026-01AE8C9CA934.htm">http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BAAAE18F-20AC-4661-8026-01AE8C9CA934.htm</a><br />
    <br />
    & Financial Times:<br />
    <br />
    Canada weighs exit from Afghanistan<br />
    <br />
    By Bernard Simon in Toronto <br />
    Published: January 23 2008 02:00 | Last updated: January 23 2008 02:00<br />
    <br />
    Canada should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan next year unless its Nato partners deploy at least 1,000 more soldiers in the dangerous Kandahar region where the Canadians are based, a government-appointed panel has recommended.<br />
    <br />
    The parliamentary mandate of the 2,500-strong Canadian contingent, seen as crucial to the success of the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) mission, ends in February 2009.<br />
    <br />
    The panel, led by John Manley, a former Liberal deputy prime minister and ambassador in Washington, was set up last October to lower the heat in the politically charged debate on the future of the mission.<br />
    <br />
    Public opinion is sharply divided. The minority Conservative government views the mission as an opportunity not only to bring stability to Afghanistan, but to regain diplomatic and military influence. Critics say Canada should focus on development work and on training Afghan soldiers and police.<br />
    <br />
    The Canadians have suffered 77 fatalities, just nine fewer than the British, whose force is three times bigger. Like the US and UK, Canada has been pressing other Nato members, such as Germany, France and Spain, to assign more troops to the troubled southern regions and to ease restrictions on their combat role. The US agreed this month to send 3,200 marines to Afghanistan, mainly in the south.<br />
    <br />
    The panel said that while Canada's involvement was -justified on legal, humanit-arian and political grounds, "Canadian resources, and Canadians' patience, are not limitless".<br />
    <br />
    "Despite recent indicators of imminent reinforcements," it says, "the entire Isaf mission is threatened by the current inadequacy of deployed military resources."<br />
    <br />
    It concludes that "if no undertakings on the battle group [about 1,000 troops] are received from Isaf partner countries by February 2009, or if the necessary equipment is not procured, the government should give appropriate notice . . . of its intention to transfer responsibility for security in Kandahar".<br />
    <br />
    The extra troops would enable Isaf to expand security coverage in Kandahar province, help prevent incursions from Pakistan and facilitate Afghan training. The panel urged Ottawa to provide new medium-lift helicopters and aerial drones.<br />
    <br />
    Mr Manley wrote that expectations of success must be carefully defined. "There should be no thought that after five or even 10 years of western military presence and aid, Afghanistan will resemble Europe or North America."<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/62af1302-c954-11dc-9807-000077b07658.html">http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/62af1302-c954-11dc-9807-000077b07658.html</a><p>---<br>"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

  4. Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:52 am
    "The report said it could find 'no operational logic' for choosing February 2009 as the end date for the Canadian military mission in Kandahar, and there was nothing to indicate that it would be completed by that date."

    I can find 'no operational logic' for staying in Afghanistan for any period or time, which is always something the government and its various propaganda mouthpieces always gloss over.

    "Among the other recommendations:

    * Canada's civilian reconstruction and development should concentrate more on aid that directly benefits the Afghan people."

    How about the Canadian government start doing more to concentrate on the people who fund the f'ing thing! Where I live, I see schools being shut down, with kids being crammed into dilapidated 30+ year old schools with trailer parks bolted on to house the excess "baggage". Let the American's foot the bill for the 'deconstruction' they alone caused!

    "* The government should conduct a full-scale review of the performance of Canadian civilian aid programs."

    How about a full-scale review of the Canadian government and how poorly it runs our own country!

    "* Effectiveness of Canada's military and civilian activities, and progress of Afghan security and government must be tracked."

    Who the hell cares!

    "* The federal government should improve its communications about the Canadian mission."

    In other words, the Ministry of Propaganda has failed to convince the masses that the so-called 'mission' makes any sense, so now they want to direct more of our stolen tax loot into better and more effective means of generating and disseminating this well worn out 'mission' propaganda.

    How about we spend some of that stolen tax loot on educating the Canadian people about the 9/11 scam and how the American government used it to kick off two major wars of aggression?

  5. by Rural
    Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:40 pm
    PM's gag order erodes support, Manley says<br />
    MICHAEL VALPY <br />
    From Thursday's Globe and Mail<br />
    January 24, 2008 at 5:05 AM EST<br />
    The government's decision to gag Foreign Affairs and other departments from speaking to the media has left Canadians with a flawed understanding of what the Afghan mission is about, members of the panel reviewing Canada's role in Afghanistan charged yesterday.<br />
    The panel members called the policy unhelpful and said it was undermining public support for the mission and presenting a skewed picture of why Canadian troops are being asked to put their lives on the line in Afghanistan.<br />
    Chairman John Manley, a former foreign affairs minister, said the decision taken at the "centre" - in the Prime Minister's Office or the Privy Council Office - to allow only the Defence Department to speak on the mission means Canadians are being told their young men and women are dying without being given "any context in which they can say this is why and this is meaningful and this is tragic but it's worth it."<br />
    "In Kosovo [where Canada was part of a NATO intervention in 1999], media had regular and frequent briefings on the record from officials in Foreign Affairs and Defence," Mr. Manley said at a meeting with The Globe and Mail's editorial board.<br />
    "What we're finding in this conflict is that virtually all your information is coming from Defence. Neither Foreign Affairs nor CIDA [Canadian International Development Agency] nor other government departments that are involved are able to give on the record briefings."<br />
    Journalists have been aware of the silence that has shrouded Foreign Affairs since Stephen Harper's government took office in February, 2006, but this is the first time an official body has reported on it. The Afghanistan panel was established by Mr. Harper in late 2007.<br />
    The muzzling of Foreign Affairs and other departments has led to Canadians being confused about the mission, said panel member Derek Burney, a former ambassador to Washington.<br />
    <br />
    (They got that right, I know I am confused, mostly from lack of reliable information – Rural)<br />
    <br />
    More at <br />
    <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080124.wmanleycommunications24/BNStory/Front">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080124.wmanleycommunications24/BNStory/Front</a><br />
    <br />
    <p>---<br>When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp

  6. Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:15 pm
    John Manley kept reiterating that... "NATO keeps saying this is their most
    important mission..." so prove it!

    Why is this mission so important? The only reason I can think of is that it is a
    training ground for fighting insurgents or trying to make a case for actually
    being able to fight a "War on Terror"? Either way, insanity prevails and Manley
    leads the way.

    ---
    "The most sustainable product is the one you never bought in the first place."
    Alex Steffan

  7. by siljan
    Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:28 pm
    The Canadian Army is not in Afghanistan to represent people of that Country nor Canadians. They are simply there to represent US Imperialist's and Western corporation's interests, nothing more nothing less.

    Canadian soldiers who have died have not 'died for their Country' nor for freedom of Afghanistan, but for tyrants and profiteers. Has Afghanistan threatened our Country in any way shape or form? If the answer is no, then what are we doing there?

    "Operation Enduring Freedom" Orwellian language for permanent war, is a fraud. It has been fabricated by core elements of the Anglo-American-Israeli axis of terror and their G8 supporters and designed to stampede people into casting aside hard won civil liberties, while moving to a global Government/military/economic order based on the values of power and money - not social development, equity and justice.

  8. Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:20 pm
    "Has Afghanistan threatened our Country in any way shape or form? If the answer is no, then what are we doing there?"

    The answer is 'Yes' however.

    4C! Long time, it seems! To answer your question:

    "Why is this mission so important?"

    Rebuilding a country to be self supporting is an obligation under the Geneva Conventions. Although we didn't put it in the state it's in, we feel it's now our obligation to help out where we can.

    The frustrating part, is that we can see the road we need to take to help them get there, we just can't do it alone. As this report shows.

    The importance lies in that can we do what we say we are going to do? Can we help these people? If we can't, then how can we do the same for anyone else. Amidst the calls for help from Darfur or Armenia, how could we help them if we can't help Afghanis? (We can't help them, because we are helping Afghanis is besides the point). That we couldn't help the Afghanis will come back on us in the future, when someone who we can help needs our help.

    Sijans' implication that we must be attacked by someone in order to help them out is fallicy. Darfur needs us, but they have not attacked us, same as Nicaragua or Gaza or Crete.

    If we just pack up and leave will only prove we are no different than the invaders Afghanistan has seen over the last couple generations. It will give more credence to the calls that Afghanistan is nothing more than US imperialism, no different than the British or Soviet Imperialism before.

    The people who are on the ground there don't believe it is, they believe they are there for "social development, equity and justice". That Women are educated, can go to a Salon and can vote is only one small step on that path. People are calling for us to return to our 'traditional peacekeeping role' (which is B.S., but . . .) we can't ever again be taken seriously in that if we first don't bring peace and stability here.

    The World consciousness has an amazingly short memory for the good deeds that are done, but incredibly long for the bad ones.

    ---
    The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

  9. by siljan
    Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:43 am
    "The answer is 'yes' however..."
    I'm not sure I follow. Could you please elaborate?

    I agree with rebuilding a Country that has been ravaged like Afghanistan, but how can that be done, working hand in hand with the forces that destroyed it? The US empire has no interest in helping 'the people' in any Country, least of all Iraq and Afghanistan, the latest victims of brutal conquest.

    Geneva conventions, yes. Pre-emptive war, torture, systematic bombing and destruction of non-military targets etc. all crimes according to these same conventions and Human rights.

    I did not imply that we have to be attacked in order to help people, what I was trying to say is that we have no buisness collaborating with those who wage pre-emptive war against countries that pose no threat to them, nor attacked them (the US empire).

    "The women are educated, can vote..."
    Well the people of Afghanistan would have celebrated 30 years of freedom, had the social revolution not been destroyed by the same forces we are now collaborating with.

    In 1978 The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan overthrew the extreme conservative dictator Mohammad Doud and a revolutionary government proclaimed. The PDPA set up extensive literacy programs, trained teachers, increased hospital beds and provided medical care for the peasants for the first time. Threy removed the landownership inequalities and usury.

    Yes indeed, after the revolution the women could tear off their veils (if they wanted to) freely go out in public, attend school for the first time and get an education. Another important decree was was to prohibit bride-price and give women freedom of choice in marrige. True social development, freedom and justice was surely happening.

    All this freedom and alternative economic order terrified the US Empire and global capitalists. The revolution was shortlived. The people were not allowed to build on what they had started. 'Something had to be done'. Afghanistan was turning socialist (read communist). So the CIA began building a mercenary army , recruting Afghan warlords and their servants for a 'holy war' against the 'commies' who had liberated 'their' women and 'their' peasants. The rest is 'recent' history. The American empire is engaged in an unending 'war on terror' with some stirred up moslems, which the empire themselves 'stirred up'.

    "You create the disease, so you can offer the cure", there is profits to be made. Afghanistan is a perfect military base for control of that part of the World.

  10. Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:15 pm
    "I'm not sure I follow. Could you please elaborate?"<br />
    <br />
    The government of Afghanistan (Taliban) set up training camps and trained people to attack western countries. People trained in these camps killed Canadians on 9/11/2001.<br />
    <br />
    "I agree with rebuilding a Country that has been ravaged like Afghanistan, but how can that be done, working hand in hand with the forces that destroyed it?"<br />
    <br />
    That is what the Geneva Conventions state. If you invade a country, and destroy it's infrastructure, you must rebuild it.<br />
    <br />
    "The US empire has no interest in helping 'the people' in any Country, least of all Iraq and Afghanistan, the latest victims of brutal conquest."<br />
    <br />
    I think you confuse Afghanistan with Iraq. And as for 'any' country - look to South Korea and see if it fits your mold. The US is also not the only country in Afghanistan. The UK, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, Japan . . .are also there.<br />
    <br />
    "Geneva conventions, yes. Pre-emptive war, torture, systematic bombing and destruction of non-military targets etc. all crimes according to these same conventions and Human rights."<br />
    <br />
    Except Afghanistan was after the fact, and in accordance with the Conventions and UN resolutions authorizing the use of force. Civillian targets were not targeted during the invasion. Only Taliban.<br />
    <br />
    "Well the people of Afghanistan would have celebrated 30 years of freedom, had the social revolution not been destroyed by the same forces we are now collaborating with.<br />
    <br />
    "The PDPA set up extensive literacy programs, trained teachers, increased hospital beds and provided medical care for the peasants for the first time. Threy removed the landownership inequalities and usury. . . ."<br />
    <br />
    ". . . Yes indeed, after the revolution the women could tear off their veils . .. "<br />
    <br />
    I think you need to re-read history. The PPDA was torn apart under the Taliban. Women and children were chattel under the Taliban. Women were not to be educated. Women could not see a male Doctor; and since women could not be educated there were few Women doctors. Women had to wear a head-to-toe burqua in public, or be stoned to death.<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.rawa.org/zarmeena2.htm">http://www.rawa.org/zarmeena2.htm</a><br />
    <br />
    The soccer pitch in Kabul was a regular place of execution for the Taliban. People hanging from the goal posts or shot on the pitch was a half time 'show'.<br />
    <br />
    It's still going on too:<br />
    <a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20071017094712228">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20071017094712228</a><br />
    <br />
    "True social development, freedom and justice was surely happening. "<br />
    <br />
    I think we have different definitions of 'freedom and justice'.<p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />

  11. by Rural
    Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:06 pm
    It is called the Manley report but.............<br />
    <br />
    Tuesday, January 22, 2008<br />
    The Manley Panel Plagiarized, And Possibly Lied <br />
    <br />
    The Manley Panel's Report came out today, I have just completed reading it as well as another interesting report, John Manely's contribution to a journal, Policy Options. In the October issue of that journal, John Manley wrote an entry on Afghanistan, this was before he was picked to head the 5 person panel appointed by Stephen Harper. In reading both, two passages struck me. They were not only similar, but bordering on exactly the same.<br />
    <br />
    Why this troubles me is two points: the first, it seems quite perplexing how John Manley's opinion before he spent three months looking at facts and talking to witnesses can be so similar to his opinion after; the second point, is plagerism and how it affects the Panel.<br />
    Much more and several other similarities between the article and the report at <br />
    <a href="http://thescottross.blogspot.com/2008/01/did-manley-panel-make-up-or-plagerize.html">http://thescottross.blogspot.com/2008/01/did-manley-panel-make-up-or-plagerize.html</a><br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <p>---<br>When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp

  12. Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:30 am
    "The government of Afghanistan (Taliban) set up training camps and trained people to attack western countries. People trained in these camps killed Canadians on 9/11/2001."<br />
    <br />
    Yes a few Canadians died during the 9/11 attacks, but it was an inside job, and the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by Dr. Steven Jones and many other highly qualified and credible researchers. The reality is that the Afghan government of the day had nothing to do with 9/11, it's only the thoroughly discredited US government that says otherwise while offering up nothing even remotely credible as evidence to back up their assertions.<br />
    <br />
    "That is what the Geneva Conventions state. If you invade a country, and destroy it's infrastructure, you must rebuild it."<br />
    <br />
    Let the Americans do that, it was they who destroyed the country after suckering others to join in with their false flag 9/11 attacks. The reality is that prior to the invasion, the Taliban had brought a level of peace to the people of Afghanistan that had not been seen in decades. It is also a reality that the Taliban government did nothing to lift a finger against Canada and its citizens, which remains true to this day, other than fighting the invasion forces to liberate what's left of their country.<br />
    <br />
    What is also clear, is that the Afghan people don't want all of this phony "reconstruction" going on, which is nothing more than another lie to remain as an occupier. More than enough time has elapsed to rebuild the country 10 times over, yet next to nothing of significance has been done other than to spend effectively all of the "aid" on the military side of the occupation.<br />
    <br />
    "I think you confuse Afghanistan with Iraq."<br />
    <br />
    Somehow I don't think he's confused. The largest force by far is the American force, and they have displayed nothing but contempt for the people of Afghanistan since day one of the invasion, having bombed and strafed sleeping villages on a regular basis - not to mention making up confirmed lies as an excuse to invade.<br />
    <br />
    "The US is also not the only country in Afghanistan. The UK, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, Japan . . .are also there."<br />
    <br />
    Yes, and with the exception of the UK and Canada, they are all doing an extremely minor role of playing fiddle to the American overlords. <br />
    <br />
    Deaths in Afghanistan From Wikipedia ...<br />
    <br />
    481 American, 87 British, 78 Canadian, 25 German, 23 Spanish, 14 Dutch, 12 French, 11 Italian, 9 Danish, 5 Romanian, 4 Australian, 3 Norwegian, 2 Estonian, 2 Portuguese, 2 Swedish, 1 Czech, 1 Finnish, 1 Polish, 1 South Korean.<br />
    <br />
    "Except Afghanistan was after the fact, and in accordance with the Conventions and UN resolutions authorizing the use of force. Civillian targets were not targeted during the invasion. Only Taliban."<br />
    <br />
    Yeah, it is only the "Taliban" living in all those sleeping villages and wedding parties that continue to be bombed and strafed.<br />
    <br />
    "Women and children were chattel under the Taliban. Women were not to be educated. Women could not see a male Doctor; and since women could not be educated there were few Women doctors. Women had to wear a head-to-toe burqua in public, or be stoned to death."<br />
    <br />
    That's nothing compared to what the Afghan people have been suffering through since the American led invasion took place, and it's still going on too:<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm">http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm</a><br />
    <br />
    "I think we have different definitions of 'freedom and justice'."<br />
    <br />
    I sure as hell would not want to be living under Taliban rule, especially when the culture of the country is nothing at all like what we're used to, however it is perfectly clear that living under the rule of American military forces has been documented to be many times much worse that the regimes it has displaced. <br />
    <br />
    If Canada really wants to help the Afghan people, it would be doing whatever it could in trying to rid the country of the American occupation. Instead the Canadian government is playing party to the American crime, and it continues to do so even after knowing full well that the 9/11 excuse is a false one, which means there's simply no excuse left to remain as the United States whipping boy.<br />

  13. by siljan
    Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:35 am
    "The government of Afghanistan set up camps and trained people to attack western countries. People trained in these camps killed Canadians on 9/11/2001."<br />
    <br />
    Oh, I see, this will of course change the way you see the invasion of Afghanistan. You are a defender of the official conspiracy theory . In other words you believe the official fiction, when there has never been ONE piece of credible evidence to support the US goverment conspiracy theory, not one. Besides, the decision to "bury the Taliban in a carpet of bombs" had been made at least 3 mos. before 9/11. This had to do with the Taliban's refusal to go along with US oil and gas corporations plans to use Afghanistan as a base and pipeline to be built for the rich Caspian oil and gas resources. The propaganda that the invasion was in retaliation for 9/11 is just that; propaganda for the masses. A very convenient one.<br />
    <br />
    "Civilian targets were not targeted during the invasion."<br />
    <br />
    False. There are numerious examples of warcrimes in Afghanistan and deliberate bombings of civilians and civilian targets. The corporate media in the US and Canada tried to imply the bombing of a wedding party for example, as a 'unique and excusable error.' This is false. It was not even the only wedding party that was deliberately bombed. There are too many examples of these crimes in both Iraq and Afghanistan to dismiss as mistakes. In Afghanistan every kind of civilian infrastructure was bombed - dams, telephone exchanges, schools, power stations, bridges, civilian trucks on roads, mosques, Al Jazeera media centers and even well-marked Red Cross facilities in Kabul. There is every reason to believe that civilians continue to be legitimate targets of US and NATO air and ground attacks. I for one am not supporting this. Neither are the majority of Canadians. <br />
    <a href="http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm">http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm</a><br />
    <br />
    "The PPDA was torn apart under the Taliban..." <br />
    <br />
    Well that's exactly my point. A classic case of a terror organisation trained and financed by the CIA and then used as a proxy army first aganist PPDA and then aganst the Russians. This was and is a mirror image of Chile, Nicaragua, El Salavador, Indonesia, and Columbia to name some examples that comes to mind. You have to remember that in the last 1/2 century the United States of America has overthrown over 50 goverments, the majority of these democratically elected. Further, out of those 50 countries, some 30 of them were bombed, hitting mostly civilian targets including civilians, to create maximum terror and destruction. But this is not news, because it is our terror. Western terror. It's like it never happened. <br />
    <br />
    "The soccer pitch in Kabul was a regular place of execution for the Taliban. People hanging from goal posts or shot on the pitch was half time show."<br />
    <br />
    'We can live with that', US military leaders were quoted as saying in respose to these kind of atrocities as long as they (the Taliban) went along with the dictates of the Empire.<br />
    <br />
    Here is a good summary of Afghanistan "The West in Afghanistan: Six Years of "Operation Enduring Freedom" not found in the National Post or any other Western corporate media outlet, written by Hamayon Rastgar an Afghani-Canadian and a member of Afghanistan-Canada Research Group;<br />
    <a href="http://www.newsocialist.org/index.php?id=1442">http://www.newsocialist.org/index.php?id=1442</a><br />
    <br />
    <br />

  14. Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:45 pm
    "You are a defender of the official conspiracy theory "

    See, that's the showstopper. Now, no matter what evidence I present, or opinions I hold, it's all part of 'conspiracy theory'. I'm therefore ether blind to it, or part of it.

    For example, when you state 'it's all about oil, they defend an oil pipeline' but I point out they are in the wrong part of the country to defend a non-existent pipeline, this doesn't detract from you assumption of 'conspiracy'.

    Example:

    "Civilian targets were not targeted during the invasion."

    "False."

    True! They targeted Taliban infrastructure. That they hit civilian installations was accidental. Bombing targets only works so well, then you need boots on the ground to prevent civillian casualties.

    But, thanks for the debate.



    ---
    The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news