News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Ace Hanlon

03/13/06 7:44 AM

#6536 RE: Amaunet #6535

Canada, Get Out of Afghanistan

by Eric Margolis


        

PARIS – Scattered across South Africa's windswept veldt are the forgotten graves of 266 Canadian soldiers killed from 1899–1902 fighting to impose British Imperial rule on fiercely resisting Boer farmers.

A century later, Canadian troops have again been sent to fight as auxiliaries in another remote war – this time Afghanistan.

Since time immemorial, when great emperors went to war, they summoned contingents of their vassals and tributaries to their standards. So it was in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, when the U.S. decided to invade those nations and demand its allies join the so-called "war on terrorism."

Under irresistible pressure from Washington to aid its highly unpopular military expeditions in either Iraq or Afghanistan, America's allies and NATO partners opted for the lesser evil, Afghanistan.

That is why 2,100 Canadian troops have ended up in a nation in which Canada has absolutely no strategic, commercial, cultural or emotional interests.

Now, as the number of Canadian military casualties rises, the dismayed public rightly asks, "What are we doing there? We thought it was another peacekeeping mission."

Thank Ottawa and Canada's media for misinforming the public. There was no significant debate in Parliament. The media indulged in flag-waving instead of warning Canadians they were walking into a small, but real, war.

Canadians are not peacekeeping in Kandahar: There is no peace to keep. They are there to help impose U.S. rule over Afghanistan, and safeguard routes for planned oil pipelines.

Canadian soldiers are on a war-fighting mission, auxiliaries in the U.S.-led military occupation of Afghanistan. In the southern heartland of the nation's largest tribe, the famously warlike and xenophobic Pashtun, U.S. forces and their allies are seen as foreign occupiers and enemies of Islam. Pashtun are slow to act but ferocious, and they never forget a wrong.

For some reason, Ottawa agreed to put its little garrison into Afghanistan's most dangerous area, Kandahar, in the centre of Pashtun territory and the heartland of the Taliban. Afghans do not differentiate between Americans and Canadians.

Fierce tribes

Afghan tribes are taking up arms against their foreign occupiers. I saw this happen during the 1980s, when growing hatred of Soviet occupation forces ignited a national uprising.

Today, in the eyes of many Afghans, the U.S. has merely replaced the Soviets. All past occupiers, starting with Alexander the Great, were driven out by the fierce Afghan tribes.

Canucks are prime targets. They lack effective liaison with circling U.S. warplanes that normally bomb and rocket any attackers within 2–3 minutes of an assault. Such deadly instant response by U.S. air power forced the resistance to resort to roadside explosives and car bombs, as in Iraq.

National resistance is growing. The U.S.-installed Karzai regime in Kabul would not last a day without foreign bayonets.

The former Taliban regime almost totally suppressed the heroin trade. Today, Afghanistan is a narcostate. It supplies 90% of the world's heroin – the economy runs on drug money. This is the "democratic" régime Canadian troops are defending with their lives.

Parliament, media, and all Canadians have got to begin debating what their soldiers are doing in this war that lacks any foreseeable political resolution. Forget all the cheery propaganda fed to the gullible press: Afghanistan is a dangerous mess and Canadians are right in the middle of it.

When more body bags come home from Kandahar, as they likely will, Canada's politicians are going to have to start explaining to the public what, exactly, its soldiers are dying for in Afghanistan.

March 13, 2006

Eric Margolis [send him mail], contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada, is the author of War at the Top of the World. See his website.

icon url

otraque

03/13/06 10:37 AM

#6540 RE: Amaunet #6535

<<Officials tell the Financial Times that the US is looking at "creative" ways of addressing the energy worries of China, Japan and India - major buyers of Iranian oil.

The US is searching for a viable energy framework that would persuade such thirsty customers to halt planned investments in Iran's energy sector or even contemplate the shock of a sudden break in oil exports.>> This outrageous arrogance, the U.S./Israel moving to make the this a tempest in a teapot to a war with capital W.
We are now asking the world to "sacrifice" your economies FOR the U.S. and Israel because we are deranged paranoids ready to rip the world apart because some country we don't like, if they get the Nuke will pre-emptively use it.
This contention is wrong!!!

We are witnessing evil now, and it is us.
For those knee-jerk patriots that leap to any POTUS/WH dangerous thinking like lemmings running to a cliff , and that get upset with my remark i am going to say wake up. Your country doesn't give damn about you.
They will crash our economy in order to create a war for the benefit of who???
The answer should be obvious.




icon url

Amaunet

03/13/06 9:58 PM

#6555 RE: Amaunet #6535

China, Russia Blocking U.S. Bid to Pressure Iran (Update1)

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- China and Russia are blocking agreement on a U.S.-backed statement by the United Nations Security Council that Iran must suspend uranium enrichment activities, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said.

Envoys from China, France, Russia, the U.K. and U.S., the council's five permanent members, ended a third round of talks today on a draft statement that also asks the UN's nuclear watchdog agency to report on Iran's response to the suspension demand. Another meeting is scheduled for tomorrow in New York.

``We've been trying to get this issue into the Security Council for close to four years and other countries, including other permanent members, haven't had that view, so it's no surprise that different views remain,'' Bolton told reporters at the UN.

U.K. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said Britain, France and the U.S. want a statement supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency's demand for greater cooperation by Iran, urging Iran to comply and seeking an IAEA report on the response.

Iran, holder of the world's second-largest reserves of oil and gas, said it has the right to produce enriched uranium, which can be used in nuclear reactors and bombs. The IAEA can't ``conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,'' Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in a report send to the Security Council's 15-member governments last week.

Enrichment

Iran announced that it would resume uranium enrichment after talks with the France, Germany and the U.K. broke down.

Chinese and Russian envoys have said they don't want to go beyond an expression of support for the IAEA in the Security Council. Sanctions on Iran aren't being considered.

Jones Parry said the U.S., U.K. and France would circulate a text to the Security Council's 10 elected members as early as tomorrow, regardless of whether agreement is reached with China and Russia. He said there is agreement among the permanent members on very basic goals.

``On strategic goals there is absolutely no disagreement,'' he said. ``Our aim is to avoid proliferation of nuclear weapons, encourage Iran to come into compliance with what the governing board of the IAEA has asked. We are discussing the best means by which we can apply pressure to encourage Iran and demonstrate support for the board.''

Bolton said the U.S., U.K. and France might submit their text as a resolution that would be voted on by the Security Council, and which China and Russia could veto. Their initial plan was for a statement adopted by consensus, without a vote.

In Washington, President George W. Bush today extended economic sanctions against Iran that have been in effect since March 1995. The routine annual notice, which prevents trade between the U.S. and Iran, keeps the sanctions from expiring on March 15.

The ``crisis'' between the U.S. and Iran ``has not been resolved,'' Bush's notice to Congress says. Iran's policies are ``contrary to the interests of the United States in the region and pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States,'' the statement says.



To contact the reporter of this story:
Bill Varner at the United Nations at wvarner@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 13, 2006 19:22 EST


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aisOO_E.ZMII&refer=top_world_news