Quebecker's = P***ies

[Richelieu]

They're not done killing.

[Wezil]

Cronos - There are several places around the world with similar stories. Our good friends the Saudis look alot like that. Perhaps we should occupy Saudi Arabia while we're at it?

Richelieu - The good times keep on rolling.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil


Because Lotm engages in "shoot the messenger" on this issue. You ask him if you want. I won't bother.

From everything I can gather, the Northern half of Afghanistan, is fairly secure. Thats WHY certain NATO countries prefer to keep their troops there. The almost half of the country thats Pashtun, has a substantial problem with the insurgents. Resulting from a number of things, including Taliban regrouping in Pakistan, failure of reconstruction leading to revival of the opium problem, and corruption among local Afghan governors. And perhaps neglect by the US.

About Kharzai, Im not sure. He may well have remained in power too long, but the major opposition to him, IIUC, is from northerners likely to be less popular among the Pashtun.

Miltarily, my impression is that the Taliban are not doing all that well, they cant hold anything, they can create some disruption, and for the most part coalition forces DO operate well beyond base. But maybe its worse in Kandahar, then in the eastern provinces where US troops are operating, which is what I read about the most.

I dont think its hopeless (far from it) and I dont know that it would get better if NATO forces withdrew.

I hope this response isnt seen as shooting the messenger.

[lord of the mark]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6237290.stm

[Wezil]

LoTM - Good post.

You are right, the 'Taliban' (read Afghanis) can't hold ground in the conventional sense in that they obviously can't go toe to toe with NATO. They tried that and failed and have now reverted to a much more effective strategy. By confining us to our bases we don't 'control' the area either.

Yes, the trouble is mainly in the south for now, but I have no doubt the entire country would go to **** w/o NATO troops enforcing Karzi's rule. He is our stooge. (Please, no "freely elected democratic leader" crap. He was our choice.)

Btw, Canadian casulaties in Afghanistan have now passed the Brits. Domestic pressure on our PM is growing to insist NATO function as an alliance where ALL members share in the pain. Still waiting on the Germans and French....

As to shooting the messenger - I cited a source on Afghanistan whom you dismissed as a "Milosevic appeaser"! Wrong country, wrong continent. Maybe he beats his wife as well but that wasn't the point was it? It was easier to discredit the source than what he had to say.

[Drake Tungsten]

Btw, Canadian casulaties in Afghanistan have now passed the Brits. Domestic pressure on our PM is growing to insist NATO function as an alliance where ALL members share in the pain. Still waiting on the Germans and French....

It's not our fault that French troops fight better than Canadian ones.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Btw, Canadian casulaties in Afghanistan have now passed the Brits. Domestic pressure on our PM is growing to insist NATO function as an alliance where ALL members share in the pain. Still waiting on the Germans and French....

It's not our fault that French troops fight better than Canadian ones.

Um, you mean "choose not to fight".

I agree, they are the wise members of NATO. Why put your troops at risk when some other schmuck will do it?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wezil
LoTM - Good post.

You are right, the 'Taliban' (read Afghanis)

Er, again, AFAIK, most non-Pashtun afghanis, and at least a few Pasthuns support the govt.

can't hold ground in the conventional sense in that they obviously can't go toe to toe with NATO.

Its not clear that they can go toe to toe with the Afghan National army, at least when the ANA is backed by NATO air power. They do pretty well at knocking over isolated Afghan police stations, though.

They tried that and failed and have now reverted to a much more effective strategy. By confining us to our bases we don't 'control' the area either.

We dont control most of the rural areas in the Southern provinces. However my impression, again, is that our forces are far from confined to base.

Yes, the trouble is mainly in the south for now, but I have no doubt the entire country would go to **** w/o NATO troops

Even pre-2001, a small corner of the northeast remained under Northern Alliance control. One presumes that the Afghan National Army is strong enough to hold that, plus probably the area reaching to Mazar and Herat. Whether they could hold Kabul, I dont know. But the south and east would be totally f**ked up without coalition troops.

enforcing Karzi's rule. He is our stooge. (Please, no "freely elected democratic leader" crap. He was our choice.)

I dont know exactly who is more popular there than he is. Certainly not the Taliban, who again, have no support outside the Pashtun regions. Perhaps one of the non-Pashtun politicians. Theres a quite real possibility one of them may succeed Kharzai even while we stay there - while we put him in at a time when elections in Afghanistan were infeasible, I see no particular evidence of our intervening in Afghan politics on his behalf.

Btw, Canadian casulaties in Afghanistan have now passed the Brits. Domestic pressure on our PM is growing to insist NATO function as an alliance where ALL members share in the pain. Still waiting on the Germans and French....

That makes sense, and this is a large burden to bear for a relatively small country.

As to shooting the messenger - I cited a source on Afghanistan whom you dismissed as a "Milosevic appeaser"! Wrong country, wrong continent. Maybe he beats his wife as well but that wasn't the point was it? It was easier to discredit the source than what he had to say.

I dont recall the incident. If someone is being cited as a source for facts, questioning bias is quite reasonable and not an ad hominem. I cited the Jerusalem post quoting unnamed sources about events in Gaza the other day, and Ramo said he doesnt trust the JP to when quoting unnamed sources. Hes entitled to that opinion.

[Wezil]

LotM - Yes, the troubles are mainly in the south but how does one disregard this part of the country when claiming the mission is in general a success? It is a package - I can't claim to be in good health (or even improving) when my foot has gangrene.

The casualties of late have been from IED's. Some within meters of our base. That is hardly exercising control over the area. The most recent attacks have been in areas already 'pacified'. Some much for that theory.

Karzi - I don't know who would take control of the country in our absence. 'Taliban' or 'Northern Alliance'? Don't know, and quite frankly, I don't care. That is for Afghanis to decide for themselves. You would think the West would learn that imposing our choice of leaders in Muslim countries is causing us more harm than good, yet we keep doing it (the Palestine events of recent weeks for example). We claim to want to work with "moderates" when all the word really means is "approved by the West". Muslims see it, too bad we don't.

Bias - I have a strong dislike for the Toronto Star b/c of their left wing bias. Fortunately, it is easy to discredit them by what they print, not who they are.

[Drake Tungsten]

Um, you mean "choose not to fight"

French troops have served in Afghanistan.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Um, you mean "choose not to fight"

French troops have served in Afghanistan.

You apparently are unaware of the issue. Do some research and get back to me when you are more informed.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Wezil
Cronos - There are several places around the world with similar stories. Our good friends the Saudis look alot like that. Perhaps we should occupy Saudi Arabia while we're at it?

Hi Wez,

Yep, you're right, and it's not our duty to establish our standard everywhere in the world. (maybe there some central human right that should be respected from any country; by any means necessary, military option included)

The video is not an argument to have a war on Afghanistan, otherwise like you said, we should be forced to go in war with many others country.

But, I posted this video because many quebecker's didn't knew how was the very nature of the taliban regime. I'm pretty sure if Quebecker's knew how bad it was... The % of people supporting the war would be higher.

[Drake Tungsten]

You apparently are unaware of the issue. Do some research and get back to me when you are more informed.

I understand the issue fine. Canadian troops get killed at a higher rate than any of the other NATO forces in Afghanistan because they are poorly trained. Canucks can't admit this, however, so they prefer to accuse other NATO members of not carrying their own weight. So, I say again, it's not our fault that French troops fight better than Canadian ones.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Wezil
Karzi - I don't know who would take control of the country in our absence. 'Taliban' or 'Northern Alliance'? Don't know, and quite frankly, I don't care. That is for Afghanis to decide for themselves.

The problem is; let the radical muslim have a country, an organized state and now you really have a big huge country doing whatever he can to propagate the Jihad.

[Wezil]

Drake - No you don't. You keep demonstrating that you don't.

Originally posted by Wezil


You apparently are unaware of the issue. Do some research and get back to me when you are more informed.

My advice still stands. I'd be glad to continue this discussion whenever you decide to stop talking out of your ass.