spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Major Tom said:Any of us who lives in a country that supports US policies in the middle east.
We are not on the same side.
Major Tom said:Any of us who lives in a country that supports US policies in the middle east.
spring-peeper said:I'm sorry, the only reference to my plan that I could find was
Sorry, I was missed the second part of your post.
As for my idea, Canada just did it!!!!
And we did it with OUR money, not the US or UK money, ours.
spring-peeper said:
We are not on the same side.
Major Tom said:Any of us who lives in a country that is supporting US policies in the middle east.
if you knew where i come from would that really change the argument.
tbh i'm pissed off with the slanging matches you get on here between US posters and UK posters each trying to blame the other person;s country for some atrocity or other.
We're all culpable.
Major Tom said:well good for canada - and i'll will fully support such attempts - but it doesn;t change the fact that the US and UK are following through on an illegal act, are continuing to carry out atrocities, have installed a pro-US puppet government, and are lying about the reasons for doing all this.
And do you really think that Canadian initiatives such as this - laudible as it is - is really going to sway the neo-con plan at all?
spring-peeper said:Child, I keep asking you where you are from. And now - what, I'm supposed to have some crystal ball to let me know where you live and what you think?
Hello, by the way - I'm from Canada. See the cute little location field? Canada. You do realize that Canadian and American foreign policy are quite different, right?
While you are looking around your browser, you did notice that you are in world politics, right?
spring-peeper said:What makes you think that Canada supports US foreign policy?
Any idea what the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is?
fng!!!
spring-peeper said:Child, I keep asking you where you are from.
Major Tom said:and you can fuck right off if you're going to take that attitude
spring-peeper said:You still haven't answer me.
Major Tom said:
you're making me very confused here
i was arguing against mears - who i know is from the US - and you picked a fight with me
Major Tom said:I know you're Canadian
I know Canada is not the US
Where did I say otherwise?
I did not want to get into a international slagging match
but you clearly did
spring-peeper said:No where.
spring-peeper said:My approach of accepting what is happening now and offering assistance to the Afghan people is really a bit pointless, don't you think?
Please continue discussing whose fault it is - I'll go discuss what is happening right now.
spring-peeper said:I think that we should concentrate on who invaded this country and why - tracing the plight of this nations people through-out all recorded history.
Major Tom said:From the point of view of those of us who live in US-UK and allies - who's politicians stoked up this illegal invasion - making sure our policitans are held to account, and that a similar blood bath could never happen again - in our name - is of major importance.
Or are you content to take on the role of minor nation cleaning up after out of control super-power?
If we can;t learn from the lessons of history, etc...
or not?
Fez909 said:Interesting topic, TOM/SP.
What happened to the "you break it, you fix it" convention that was often talked about before the invasion, refering to the rebuilding/reconstruction efforts? Or was that Iraq? I don't recall.
Major Tom said:they certainly had to do something - given that an aggressive superpower was trying to subvert a government on the Soviet border.
I like to think that my logic is nowhere near as fucked up as yours appears to be
i thought this was the official US line.
Afghanistan was a deliberate policy of provocation - i find it hard to believe you're unaware of Zbignev Bzezhinski's revelations regarding this episode in your history.
Major Tom said:I'm certain that our troops aren;t in there to help the Afghan people.
Maybe we should ask people in Afghanistan what they need us to do? And I don;t mean ask the government either.
mears said:The people are speaking:
"77 percent of Afghans say their country is headed in the right direction — compared with 30 percent in the vastly better-off United States. Ninety-one percent prefer the current Afghan government to the Taliban regime, and 87 percent call the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban good for their country. Osama bin Laden, for his part, is as unpopular as the Taliban; nine in 10 view him unfavorably."
"Despite the country's continued problems, 85 percent of Afghans say living conditions there are better now than they were under the Taliban. Eighty percent cite improved freedom to express political views. And 75 percent say their security from crime and violence has improved as well. After decades of oppression and war, many Afghans see a better life."
http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1363276
no - i consider myself fairly impartial re US versus USSR - i was opposed to both superpowers - but of course there's only one now.mears said:So again you support the Soviet policy of invasion and subsequent actions in Afghanistan? They had no choice? The Soviets had to carpet bomb areas of Afghanistan because the puppet regime on their border was falling. Are you really saying this?
but they didn'tFollowing your logic, an American invasion of Mexico in 1979 would be justified if the Soviets had brought about some type of revolution that threatened to bring in the communists. After the death of over 1 million Mexicans it was really the Soviets fault for provoking the yanks in the first place?
all america all the timeI wonder if you understand how creepy you have allowed yourself to become
nino_savatte said:The thing is, what passes for democracy in Afghanistan is nowt but a series of signs in a signifying chain that leads some to believe that 'democracy' exists in the country. It's an illusion of a mirage.
spring-peeper said:Same can be said of any country, imo.
so why do you think the nato's are there nino_savatte?nino_savatte said:More so, in the case of Afghanistan because the government and the media have all claimed that "democracy has returned to the country" as a result of the invasion and occupation. Because the Taliban were ostensibly swept from power (well, swept from Kabul at any rate), this automatically meant that 'democracy' was around the corner. Once the elections were held and then won by Karzai and his boys, the rest was a "done deal", as they say.
However my point is this: Afghanistan was not invaded or occupied with democratic principles in mind; it was a military/police operation designed (ha) to defeat the Taliban, AQ et al. The idea of 'democracy' came second to military action. To say that those troops from the UK, US, Canada and other countries are there for the purpose of fighting for 'freedom' and 'democracy' is a little too simplisitic and rather reductive to say ther least. It's an easy way to avoid thinking about the horrible realities of this ugly conflict.
snorbury said:so why do you think the nato's are there nino_savatte?
nino_savatte said:More so, in the case of Afghanistan because the government and the media have all claimed that "democracy has returned to the country" as a result of the invasion and occupation. Because the Taliban were ostensibly swept from power (well, swept from Kabul at any rate), this automatically meant that 'democracy' was around the corner. Once the elections were held and then won by Karzai and his boys, the rest was a "done deal", as they say.
However my point is this: Afghanistan was not invaded or occupied with democratic principles in mind; it was a military/police operation designed (ha) to defeat the Taliban, AQ et al. The idea of 'democracy' came second to military action. To say that those troops from the UK, US, Canada and other countries are there for the purpose of fighting for 'freedom' and 'democracy' is a little too simplisitic and rather reductive to say ther least. It's an easy way to avoid thinking about the horrible realities of this ugly conflict.