American Cougar Visits Canadian Twink

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice isn't visiting Gander Newfoundland today, nor is the U.S. Ambasador to Canada, Dave Wilkins. They are visiting Halifax.

U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins will be in Gander, N.L. EWednesday for a memorial service. Gander took in many overseas flights that had been destined for the U.S.

Uh Dave its 9/11 not 9/13.

The people of Gander are outraged. And rightly so they bore the brunt of the re-directed flights on 9/11.Gander area ambivalent about 9/11 anniversary

Some 9,000 passengers from 44 flights spent the night of Sept. 11 in Nova Scotia school gyms, stadiums, cafeterias and hotels. Thousands more were stranded in Newfoundland and a couple hundred on Prince Edward Island. In total, some 200 planes were diverted to Canadian airports across the country after the U.S. attacks, including 64 to Newfoundland, 36 to Vancouver, and 19 to Toronto.

Halifax's role was second behind Gander.

So why is Condi, Condi going to Halifax really.To see her boyfriend.

Rice is expected to spend Tuesday in MacKay's home riding of Pictou County.

Ah come on everyone knows that after he was crushed by Belinda he found himself gushing over his new relationship with Condi. And it may not be one sided. After all Pictou county has nothing to do with 9/11 but Peter lives there.
















Condi, Condi

Oh Condi Condi beggin’ on my knees
Open up your heart and let me in wontcha please
Got no money but everybody knows
I love you Condi and I’ll never let you go
Sweet and dandy pretty as can be
You be the flower and I’ll be the bumble bee
Oh she loves me oops she loves me not
People say you’re cold but I think you’re hot

Oh, Condi, Condi
Oh, Condi, Condi

Oh Condi, Condi I’m talkin’ to you girl
What’s it gonna hurt come on give me a whirl
Shake your body now let me see you go
One time for me Oh Condi I love you so
Skank for me Condi show me what you got
They say you’re too uptight I say you’re not
Dance around me spinnin’ like a top
Oh Condi Condi Condi don’t ever stop

Oh Condi Condi Can’t you hear me call
I’m standin’ in the street outside your garden wall
Pocketful of money belly full of wine
Condi in my heart and romance on my mind
Listen to me Condi don’t be afraid
I come here tonight to chase your blues away
I’ll never hurt you I’ll treat you right
Oh Condaleeza won’t you come out tonight

Pretty little Condi precious as can be
Bet you never had another lover like me

Steve Earle




Also See

Peter McKay



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
9/11, Rice, Wilkins, Gander, Halifax, McKay, Canada, US, Gander, Pictou, Nova-Scotia, MP, Foreign, Affairs, SecretaryofState, Condi, Condelezza, Newfoundland, Airport, airplanes,

Trudeau Doesn't Live Here Anymore

The Jesuit trained dialectician. The Northern Magus and Philosopher King of Canada. Who turned Proudhons anarchist ideal of Federalism on its head; denying autonomy to regions in favour of one federal central state; PM Pierre Trudeau.

had cause to spin in his grave yesterday. His last political battle was the fight he waged and won against the distinct society clause. But now the three leading candidates in Quebec for the Liberal leadership, Stéphane Dion, Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff, all heartily support the concept that Quebecers form a distinct nation within Canada. Ignatieff: Liberal saviour or sorcerer?

Besides can you see any of these guys telling Harper to Fuddle Duddle?

And none of them have this kind of Charisma...

Also See:

Whigs and Tory's

Ignatieff Imperialist Apologist

Quebec BQ vs Conservatives

Trudeau

Proudhon

Liberal Leadership Race



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Liberal, Liberals, Leadership, Race, Canada, politics,

Ignatieff, Rae, Dion, Fry, Bennet, Findlay-Hall, Kennedy, Volpe, Dryden, Brison, Trudeau, PET, Pierre, Elliot, Federalism, Quebec, Canada, Proudhon, Jesuit, Philosopher-King, Northern-Magus

Sir Robert Bond Blusters Forth

My, my, for a man who throws around ad hominem arguments and insults, calling folks who disagree with him Dipocrits,Ed over at Sir Robert Bond Papers Blog sure is thin skined.

He says of my earlier post refuting his arguments as to why we should stay the course in Afghanistan....

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of those who would have our country withdraw from Afghanistan now is best displayed by arguments such as those put forward by La revue gauche among others. But beyond the ad hominem swipes and inaccurate information, there is simply nothing else in the post you will find by following that link.

Now who is being insulting. I am morally and intellectually bankrupt, and provide inaccurate information. Oh really. The fact is besides these assertions he DID NOT REFUTE MY ARTICLE. My article raised over twenty points of contention about what the real mission was in Afghanistan. He has replied to nary a one.

And I note that his original protest against the Left was that should we pull our troops out we would be abandoning women and girls to the Taliban. He no longer uses that particular feint. Because I have demolished it in a series of articles I have written.

He says

Canada's mission includes reconstruction. It is an essential component of the NATO force approach and has been since Canadian troops first arrived in Afghanistan.

As I have shown here no such reconstruction is happening in Kandahar. In fact the very use of the concept of PRT's is a cover for combat operations. In the north the NATO troops have been used for peacekeeping and reconstruction. But that mission has changed. It changed as of last year as I have documented here and here.

Since Ed refuses to even debate the original points I made I will not reiterate these here. But I await anyone on the right, and yes Ed I consider you on the right, to refute them point by point.

If New Democrats can possibly offer something of substance as an alternative to Canada's current policy in Afghanistan, then let's engage in a discussion.

I have Ed and you failed to respond instead you took the cowards way out by dismissing my arguments. Here let me enlighten you on how I think this debate is going to work out. Hints of it were made through out the last week by Jack and Alexa.

Withdrawl of Canadian forces from the warzone in Kandahar. Deployment of a smaller unit of peacekeepers to Kabul to reinforce Karzai's city state. Peacekeepers will do policing, increased funding and use of NGO's to help with development projects, diverting funding from munitions and war materials to actual reconstruction projects. Encouraging NATO and the UN to begin peace talks with all parties involved in the regional conflict.

But if the best the New Democrats and others on the political left can come up with is a withdrawal of our soldiers who are there to establish the peaceful basis on which reconstruction and reconciliation can take place, then they are offering nothing - absolutely nothing - that deserves serious consideration.

There can be no peaceful basis of reconstruction and reconcilliation in Kandahar as long as the mission is to engage the Taliban, destroy opium crops and villages. I will say it again our troops are not there for any peaceful purpose. That was a fient by the Tories to gain Liberals acceptance that their mission was the same as the Liberals. Harpers mission is war making. On behalf of the U.S. who want NATO to take over combat operations. That is clearly in conflict with reconstruction and peace making.

The vilification of the Left by those on the right, including Liberals, as pacifists and appeasers is historical revisionism. The Left went to Spain during the civil war seventy years ago, despite the Liberal government declaring it illegal, and the allies blockading the Republican government.

They went to fight fascism, which the Right supported and still does. Those same veterans and volunteers, the few that survived that brutal war, came back and signed up to continue the fight against fascism in Europe. Because fascism is anti democratic and anti socialist.

The Left led the resistance to fascism in France, Greece, Italy, etc. during WWII. The right created the Vichy collaborationist government in France. The right supported the monarchists collaborators in Greece. The right supported the fascists in Croatia. Etc. Etc.

After WWII the Left supported Wilsonian national liberation movements, the right organized military coups. Democracy in Europe was undermined by CIA support for the mafia, right wing paramilitaryists and former fascist politicians.
In Latin and Central America it supported coup de dats for big American monopoly coporations. It orchestrated the coup against democratically elected Salvadore Allende government in Chile.

The historic war between the Left and the Right is between socialist democracy and militarism/fascism Between the rights of the people and the rights of the pwoer elites.

And when push comes to shove wars are either about authentic struggles for liberation or else they are geopolitical games of Imperialism. The latter is the case in Afghanistan.

Clearly on this issue the line is drawn in the sand. There is no mushy middle. And this is where the Liberals will fail to offer any real alternative to the Left or Right.

So Ed has at least made it clear, that despite being on the Progressive Bloggers list he has sided with the Blogging Tories and the Conservatives on this issue.

And that is how this debate will play out across Canada. Politically it will leave the Liberal's isolated. Along with its lame duck leadership race, it gives validity to Jacks call this weekend to prepare for an election, one that will give Canadians an opportunity to decide between Left and Right, the NDP or Conservatives.

The Liberals have no mushy middle to wallow in on this issue. Which is why they refuse to debate it, rather like Ed they would rather reiterate their Conservative talking points, over and over again claiming that is discussion and debate.

Afghanistan






Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Nukes, Pakistan, Taliban, Balochistan, Harper, Bush, Afghanistan, nuclear, nuclearfuel
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values, Men, mysogyny, women, Afghanistan, Canada, Harper, war, Taliban, Kabul, Karzai, Islam, fatewha, girls, school


Tags
Canada
USA
War
Friendly Fire
Canadian Troops
Afghanistan
Kandahar
NATO

Tanks for the Memories

Galloping Beaver blog is reporting that Canada is increasing its troop deployments in Afghanistan, despite comments by Hillier, O'Connor and McKay to the contrary. Its one of those slimy backdoor kind of deployments that the Harper government is doing which avoids having to report to Parliament.

It is the deployment of Tanks and support crews, over three hundred soldiers into Kandahar. But the Globe and Mail is reporting the deployment maybe half the size. Obviously the announcement today is only part of the deployment planned.

Ironically the last time the tanks were used was in Bill Clintons Humanitarian War in Kosovo. Remember Kosovo it's another failed state.

Again the Harper government is failing to inform Canadians exactly what we are committing to.

For the last two weeks there have been conflicting comments coming out of the government where one minute we are not sending more troops and the next we are, More troops readied for Afghan duty,

The fact is that if the big NATO nations of Germany, France, Italy do not step up to the plate and both increase and mobilize their existing forces to join us in Kandahar, we will be forced by circumstances to increase our troop deployment.

Current Afghan mission a far cry from 2002's reconstruction effort
By the time a fresh batch of Canadian troops stepped into Afghanistan early last month, illusions of peacekeeping had already dissipated from their minds.

This wasn't the Afghanistan soldiers Morgan Spurrell, Chris Desjardins and Shane Schofield visited in 2002, a few months after a U.S.-led invasion overthrew the Taliban government. Four years into supposed reconstruction and rebuilding, the country was descending deeper into drugs and violence.

This mission, they knew, was not about peacekeeping. Not yet. This was about war fierce attacks that have shaken Canada awake to a new reality.

As reported here the reason NATO is in Afghanistan is to become a world geo-political military force. The U.S. needs to get Europe involved in military campaigns, because they can't do it all themselves. They have pushed NATO to take on more of that role. NATO welcomed the opportunity to become militarly relevant as they say, starting with the Balkans war.

By 2003 the NATO operations in Afghanistan were seen as a way of releaving the U.S. troop deployment as they moved onto their second war front in Iraq.

But until this spring all NATO operations were peacekeeping. Now it is full scale combat operations. And the allies are balking even Britain. Who promised more troops last spring and has not delivered.

Inevitably it will be Canada who will continue to step up to the plate and provided troops. That is why the Harper government refuses to provide peacekeeping forces in Darfur or Lebanon. The government is holding back due to its two year commitment to war in Afghanistan, and its going to need more of our Men and Women to sacrifce themeselves for Harpers friendship with Bush.

Afghanistan






Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Nukes, Pakistan, Taliban, Balochistan, Harper, Bush, Afghanistan, nuclear, nuclearfuel
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values, Men, mysogyny, women, Afghanistan, Canada, Harper, war, Taliban, Kabul, Karzai, Islam, fatewha, girls, school


Tags
Canada
USA
War
Friendly Fire
Canadian Troops
Afghanistan
Kandahar
NATO

Internationalism BT Style

This is the new logo for the Blogging Tories.
It shows that they are truly internationalists.




Unfortunately it also shows they are out of step with the average Canadian.
- Bush ties leave Harper in bind

Which despite their criticisms of Jack Laytons attacks on Harper connecting him with Bush, it's a winning strategy.

And clearly from this logo we know where Conservatives and conservatives in Canada stand, they approve of appeasement.....with the Bush Doctrine.

Also See

Blogging Tories


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
blogs, bloggers, blogging, blogaggregators, Canada, poltics, Conservatives, Bush, Harper, appeasement, BloggingTories, Tories,

Negotiating With The Taliban

The Conservatives and their Blogging Tories echo chamber claim that Jack Layton and the NDP want to negotiate with the Taliban. Wrong.

Unfortunately for Mr. Harper it is his NATO allies who want to negotiate with the Taliban. Now who is being unrealistic.

I expect an immediate telegram from the PMO to Tony Blair to tell him to end this politics of appeasement and rapproachment.

Failing that perhaps Jack has a point, eh.

British Minister hails Pak-Taliban deal in Waziristan
The peace deal between the Pakistan government and pro-Taliban militants to end the five years of unrest in the tribal area bordering Afghanistan is a "great step forward" and could be a "future model" for insurgency-ridden Kabul, a British Minister has said.

Visiting British Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Howells told reporters during his visit to Peshawar yesterday that the accord was a "great step forward" and would be closely watched by the Afghans, who might also attempt a similar sort of deal to quell the violence in their country.

Taliban resurgence, Pak’s Waziristan pact cause deep concern.
Indian Express, India - 12 hours ago
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 10:

There is no doubt in India that Taliban will get bolder and try to execute more ambitious plans in the South. And while this is imminent, grounds are being prepared in Pakistan’s Waziristan area from where troops would be withdrawn under the agreement worked out by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

Though Musharraf claims that the Durand Line will remain sacrosanct, there are not many takers for the promise in India. Unlike the Taliban dominated South and South-East Afghanistan, sources say, this area is shared with Al-Qaeda cadres.

Deal with militants a license to promote Talibanisation: PPP
It is alarming that the Taliban, which had been routed after the fall of Kabul, have regrouped and gained in strength virtually enforcing their writ in the tribal areas, carrying out punishments, policing the area and now forcing a peace treaty through which their confiscated arms and vehicles are to be returned to them, the spokesman said.

Almost all the Taliban demands were met by the deal including the release of their men, return of their weapons and vehicles, dismantling of the army checkposts in the area, and monetary compensation for those killed or injured during military operations, the spokesman claimed.


Pakistan

Afghanistan






Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Nukes, Pakistan, Taliban, Balochistan, Harper, Bush, Afghanistan, nuclear, nuclearfuel
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values, Men, mysogyny, women, Afghanistan, Canada, Harper, war, Taliban, Kabul, Karzai, Islam, fatewha, girls, school


Tags
Canada
USA
War
Friendly Fire
Canadian Troops
Afghanistan
Kandahar
NATO

Why We Fight

We are fighting in Afghanistan to end oppression by the Taliban like this.

"Taliban's Afghan Hound" De De La Rue 1st Place Other Best entry depicting a Dog from the Hound Group Best entry depicting a Sighthound Best entry depicting an Afghan Hound

Afghanistan






Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Nukes, Pakistan, Taliban, Balochistan, Harper, Bush, Afghanistan, nuclear, nuclearfuel
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values, Men, mysogyny, women, Afghanistan, Canada, Harper, war, Taliban, Kabul, Karzai, Islam, fatewha, girls, school

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Afghan, hounds, hound, Burka, dogart, dogshows, dogshow,
Tags
Canada
USA
War
Friendly Fire
Canadian Troops
Afghanistan
Kandahar
NATO

How Many Troops In Afghanistan?

The Afghanistan assignment, which involves 16,000 NATO-led soldiers now and a projected 25,000 by the end of the year

Forgot to to mention that did we Mr. Harper.

And that will replace the Americans who are withdrawing. As they need more troops in Iraq they will reduce troop deployments to Afghanistan while NATO takes up the slack.

Even if the US left 15, 000 troops along with the 25,000 NATO forces this would be exactly how many troops the Soviet Union initially used in 1979 when it invaded Afghanistan. However this will stil not be enough to neutralize the Taliban threat.

Afghanistan

The Soviet armed forces that invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 consisted of about 40,000 officers and men and their equipment. The fierce resistance by Afghan guerrilla forces mujahidiin, literally meaning warriors engaged in a holy war. forced the Soviets to increase the size and sophistication of their military units, and in late 1985 a United States government official estimated that Soviet units in Afghanistan comprised about 118,000 men, of which about 10,000 were reported to be in the Soviet secret police and other special units.

It is errie to read this...which is oft repeated these days in the media refering to NATO operations moving from Peacekeeping to combat.


The Soviet Army also quickly realized the inadequacy of its preparation and planning for the mission in Afghanistan. The initial mission—to guard cities and installations—was soon expanded to combat, and kept growing over time. The Soviet reservists, who comprised the majority of the troops initially sent in, were pulled into full-scale combat operations against the rebels, while the regular Afghan army was often unreliable because of the desertions and lack of discipline.
The Soviet Experience in Afghanistan: Russian Documents and Memoirs
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 57
Edited by John Prados and Svetlana Savranskaya
October 9, 2001


The irony is that the U.S. which funded the collapse of Afghanistan in order to force a Cold War defeat on the USSR now has to clean up its historic mistake. What began with Jimmy Carter was expanded by Reagan and later Bush I and II.


According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction as a nation.

The Bush White house adopted the neo-con limited engagement strategy when it invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq. With the same success that the Russians had with it in Afghanistan.

The limited contingent in Afghanistan

In 1979, however, the Soviet Army intervened in a civil war raging in Afghanistan. The Soviet Army came to back a Soviet-friendly secular government threatened by Muslim fundamentalist guerillas equipped and financed by the United States. Technically superior, the Soviets did not have enough troops to establish control over the countryside and to secure the border. This resulted from hesitancy in the Politburo, which allowed only a "limited contingent", averaging between 80,000 and 100,000 troops. Consequently, local insurgents could effectively employ hit-and-run tactics, using easy escape-routes and good supply-channels. This made the Soviet situation hopeless from the military point of view (short of using "scorched earth" tactics, which the Soviets did not practise except in World War II in their own territory). The understanding of this made the war highly unpopular within the Army. With the coming of glasnost, Soviet media started to report heavy losses, which made the war very unpopular in the USSR in general, even though actual losses remained modest, averaging 1670 per year. The war also became a sensitive issue internationally, which finally led Gorbachev to withdraw the Soviet forces from Afghanistan. The "Afghan Syndrome" suffered by the Army parallels the American Vietnam Syndrome trauma over their own lost war in Vietnam.

And lets not forget that it was in the Post Soviet internecine civil war period; 1990-1999 that lead the Taliben to take power. Because the Americans cut and ran, leaving the country to the Mujahedin, War Lords, and Drug Lords. Not our problem said the CIA who conducted the anti-Soviet war.

One long-term effect of the Soviet invasion and pull-out was the establishment of a weak state full of religious hatred and hatred of richer nations: a breeding ground for terrorism. Though supplying the Afghan resistance with American guns and anti-aircraft missiles seemed like a good idea for the US in the 1980s, and was the reason for the Soviets’ defeat, now as the US invades, they are met with their own guns. The significance of the sophisticated guns has yet to be determined. In light of the US involvement today in Afghanistan after the September 11th terrorist attacks, it is especially important to understand the history of the Soviet's involvement there so we can avoid making the same mistakes.

The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979: Failure
of Intelligence or of the Policy Process?

1989–1991, after the official Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan,
when both the Soviets and the US nevertheless continued to support their
proxies in the Afghan conflict. The group also considered the consequences
of American policy decisions to withdraw from engagement in Afghanistan;
consequences which not only gave free license to years of internal Afghan
turmoil, but profoundly impacted US strategic and security interests as well.



And it makes for a great movie too. Not like all these 9/11 Memorial TV and Movie shows but the real reason for 9/11; the CIA failure in Afghanistan. All else is conspiracy theories. Osama bin Laden could not have attacked America if America had not destabilized Afghanistan in the first place. And five years after ousting the Taliban we are still no better off.

Also See:

9/11

CIA

Afghanistan






Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Nukes, Pakistan, Taliban, Balochistan, Harper, Bush, Afghanistan, nuclear, nuclearfuel
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values, Men, mysogyny, women, Afghanistan, Canada, Harper, war, Taliban, Kabul, Karzai, Islam, fatewha, girls, school


Tags
Canada
USA
War
Friendly Fire
Canadian Troops
Afghanistan
Kandahar
NATO