War has changed throughout history, and now it is changing again...
In the beginning of times, when man was nothing more than an intelligent monkey, brute strength got him what he wanted. Battles or “wars” were fought through nothing more than individual might.
As time advanced, and man got “smarter”, he started developing tools, and with those tools he developed his weaponry. Now, when battles were fought, skillfull weapon wielding could make someone defeat an enemy much stronger. Even though weapons were used very early in man's history, they were not deadly enough to truly sway a battle. But now, a sharp sword, or a good sturdy crossbow shifted the focus of a battle from brute strength to skills in weapon wielding.
As weapons evolved, so did the battles. Slowly, individual weapon wielding skills weren't enough to win a battle. Strategy and how those individuals were used on a larger scale is what started winning battles. The focus of war moved from the individual fighting, to the individual leading on the battle field.
But strategy can only get you so far when your enemy has better technology and this leads us into the modern era. Having the best military strategist could not win you a battle anymore when your enemy had air capacity or night vision, or a faster better arsenal. Does this mean that strength, weapons and strategy do not help in battle? No of course not, but they are not the major advantage that can sway a battle.
Today, we are starting to see the new war. Technology does not win wars anymore as the tactics used in Iraq and Afghanistan have showed us. The meaning of traditional army is no more. We can cry injustice all we want, and we can call it cowardly, but the fact of the matter remains that war, is war. And war changes.
As war has changed throughout history, so has the shift in power. Many empires have grown and seemed invincible at their apotheosis, but all of them have fallen, as what gave them military strength in one era, was no longer what allowed them to win battles in the following.
So what is happening to our western empire? We have the strongest technology, yet we are losing more and more wars. Vietnam? Iraq? .... Afghanistan? Are we losing in Afghanistan? Is the tide of the battle turning against us? Our troop casualties are slowly increasing, local public support is slowly declining and all the technology and modern warfare we bring doesn't seem to defeat or deter the enemy... On the contrary... More and more retired military personnel are stepping out of the shadows claiming we need to pull out and regroup, and we need to do it soon. Can we really win this war? Is Iraq a glimpse of what will happen in Afghanistan?
Maybe it's time we started re-thinking our strategy. Our empire is growing thin, like too little butter stretched on a large piece of toast. Are we really in the middle east to defend ourselves and our “freedoms”, or are we there to defend the economic interests of dishonest individuals and industries? Are there not other threats to our empire? What about Iran, what about North Korea (to name only a few)? If we are really sending our troops across the globe to defend “our way of life” are Afghanistan and Iraq are biggest threats? If they are, how worried should we be that we are not winning those wars?
War is changing right under our fat noses, and we are not ready nor prepared to fight the new kind of war. The kind of war that involves everyone, not just the designated military. The kind of war that is not fought and won through the military, but rather through the local populations. The kind of war where the line between civilian and combatant is no longer distinguishable. The kind of war that has managed to kill innocents, on this side of the continent. The kind of war that changes...
Blind and zealous fervour is not an option for our empire anymore. We have been doing it for close to a century from imperialism to the cold war, and we have been getting away with it because of our technology and the superiority that is offered to us on the battlefield. But now war has changed, and so has our strength. We can't continue throwing oil in to the fire (pun intended) and not expect to get burned. Our technology won't protect us for ever.
Am I saying we are doomed? No, of course not. I am trying to get people to question our motives, and realize that this will not be a walk in the park. Victory is not assured, and our empire is threatened by many things (some of them even on the inside) and our military's might is not what it used to be. If history serves as an example, you will notice that our empire has all the traits of an empire who is on the verge of collapsing. Does that mean it will? I hope not. What is does mean is we need to be extremely careful of what we do with our military and what kind of diplomatic relations we hold, who we piss off, and why we piss them off.
So what are we doing in Afghanistan? What are we really fighting for? Is this the battle we should be fighting? Are we going to be better off after this war (considering we win it)? How far are we willing to go? We are setting wheels in motion, what are these wheels? What will they lead to? One thing is for sure, blind patriotism, intolerance, ignorance, religion and more oil, are not what should drive our military decisions. Maybe we are risking our whole way of life with this blind war, and I think REAL patriotism is questioning the motives, benefits and risks, rather than acting on personal belief and misinformation.
War has changed
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
War has changed
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
That's thought provoking Joe.
I tend to disagree though that war has changed in the way you suggest. Conventional wars like each of the World Wars and the most recent Gulf War 1 & 2 are fought army vs army. It's easy to determine a clear victory in that kind of conflict because it happens when one of the combatants army is vanquished. Of course the Americans won both GW 1 & 2 with superior tactics, training, equipment and technology...but that was the easy part. What has always been impossible throughout the ages is winning a war against ideology through the use of force, and we stupidly seem destined to relearn that lesson over and over again. Only brutal oppression can keep an ideology under wraps and even then only temporarily.
I tend to disagree though that war has changed in the way you suggest. Conventional wars like each of the World Wars and the most recent Gulf War 1 & 2 are fought army vs army. It's easy to determine a clear victory in that kind of conflict because it happens when one of the combatants army is vanquished. Of course the Americans won both GW 1 & 2 with superior tactics, training, equipment and technology...but that was the easy part. What has always been impossible throughout the ages is winning a war against ideology through the use of force, and we stupidly seem destined to relearn that lesson over and over again. Only brutal oppression can keep an ideology under wraps and even then only temporarily.
That's thought provoking Joe.
I tend to disagree though that war has changed in the way you suggest. Conventional wars like each of the World Wars and the most recent Gulf War 1 & 2 are fought army vs army. It's easy to determine a clear victory in that kind of conflict because it happens when one of the combatants army is vanquished. Of course the Americans won both GW 1 & 2 with superior tactics, training, equipment and technology...but that was the easy part. What has always been impossible throughout the ages is winning a war against ideology through the use of force, and we stupidly seem destined to relearn that lesson over and over again. Only brutal oppression can keep an ideology under wraps and even then only temporarily.
I tend to disagree though that war has changed in the way you suggest. Conventional wars like each of the World Wars and the most recent Gulf War 1 & 2 are fought army vs army. It's easy to determine a clear victory in that kind of conflict because it happens when one of the combatants army is vanquished. Of course the Americans won both GW 1 & 2 with superior tactics, training, equipment and technology...but that was the easy part. What has always been impossible throughout the ages is winning a war against ideology through the use of force, and we stupidly seem destined to relearn that lesson over and over again. Only brutal oppression can keep an ideology under wraps and even then only temporarily.
-
taxiway_matthew
- Rank 4
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:14 pm
I started to agree with it towards the end.
I have a cousin over in Afghanistan and he says he realized the biggest problem when he got home was the support from the country. People need to wake up, I think.
Theres two philosophical notions that come into play, that are new, but rampant, among Canadian society that fuel such a waning support for Canada and its Forces, that of defeatism and relativism.
Defeatism is most seen with how we view the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan. In general, we view these deaths as a tragedy (which, don't get me wrong, they are) but, a tragedy so bad we must pull out. Life is tough and we must leave is the attitude taken by most. Well, guess what, life is always tough, grow some balls and take it head on. Let me ask you this, which is going to be more tough, sending an army to fight in a foreign country, men and women who volunteer for such a profession, or going to the funeral of a family member because they were blown to shit at work, at the hands of a terrorist?
Life is tough, war is even tougher. But it is for a greater good. Look at World War II. That was 6 some odd years of hell, millions, upon millions of deaths, but for a greater good, no? Hell, most of Canada isn't Jewish, so what did we care right? People in Canada are saying we ought not be in Afghanistan, because its wrong for us to impose our beliefs on others. Well, we did it to Hitler, we imposed our beliefs of freedom, justice and equality on him, are you to say we're worse off because of it?
Which leads me to the next philosophy, relativism, the belief that no one's right or no one is wrong, that everything is subjective. Guess what, thats wrong. There is a right, and there is a wrong. In the previous years, such as those in the early 20th century, there were rights there were wrongs. Hitler was wrong, our ideals were right, so lets make it so.
Now? Well we have hundreds of terrorist sympathizers because they believe everyones right. I've heard people say, we ought not impose our ways of life on those in the Middle East. Really, why is that? You support sexism? You support mass murder? You support dictatorship? The very things you enjoy, such as liberty, justice and freedom, are the very things you are oppresing for other people.
I think the media is f***ing us over more than anything. People tend to combine Iraq and AStan in the same boat. They're not. Afghanistan was a haven for terrorism, proven to be so, and thus ought to be fixed for the liberty of our country and the free world.
I also think that there isn't one solution to the problem. Its complicated, and stems from American foreign policy, muslim extremism among other things.
Did anyone watch the Fifth Estate episode on the Toronto terrorist? That sure opened my eyes.
I have a cousin over in Afghanistan and he says he realized the biggest problem when he got home was the support from the country. People need to wake up, I think.
Theres two philosophical notions that come into play, that are new, but rampant, among Canadian society that fuel such a waning support for Canada and its Forces, that of defeatism and relativism.
Defeatism is most seen with how we view the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan. In general, we view these deaths as a tragedy (which, don't get me wrong, they are) but, a tragedy so bad we must pull out. Life is tough and we must leave is the attitude taken by most. Well, guess what, life is always tough, grow some balls and take it head on. Let me ask you this, which is going to be more tough, sending an army to fight in a foreign country, men and women who volunteer for such a profession, or going to the funeral of a family member because they were blown to shit at work, at the hands of a terrorist?
Life is tough, war is even tougher. But it is for a greater good. Look at World War II. That was 6 some odd years of hell, millions, upon millions of deaths, but for a greater good, no? Hell, most of Canada isn't Jewish, so what did we care right? People in Canada are saying we ought not be in Afghanistan, because its wrong for us to impose our beliefs on others. Well, we did it to Hitler, we imposed our beliefs of freedom, justice and equality on him, are you to say we're worse off because of it?
Which leads me to the next philosophy, relativism, the belief that no one's right or no one is wrong, that everything is subjective. Guess what, thats wrong. There is a right, and there is a wrong. In the previous years, such as those in the early 20th century, there were rights there were wrongs. Hitler was wrong, our ideals were right, so lets make it so.
Now? Well we have hundreds of terrorist sympathizers because they believe everyones right. I've heard people say, we ought not impose our ways of life on those in the Middle East. Really, why is that? You support sexism? You support mass murder? You support dictatorship? The very things you enjoy, such as liberty, justice and freedom, are the very things you are oppresing for other people.
I think the media is f***ing us over more than anything. People tend to combine Iraq and AStan in the same boat. They're not. Afghanistan was a haven for terrorism, proven to be so, and thus ought to be fixed for the liberty of our country and the free world.
I also think that there isn't one solution to the problem. Its complicated, and stems from American foreign policy, muslim extremism among other things.
Did anyone watch the Fifth Estate episode on the Toronto terrorist? That sure opened my eyes.
Well, I disagree. I dont think War has changed so much. Just how war is presented by the media.
Today I was saddened to hear that 6 more Canadians were KIA. But the whole country knew right away.
Go back to the Great War, It might take weeks for news to return home. Go back even farther and people didnt know of casulties until they didnt come home.
Back then, War was a glorified thing for young men to do.
What would happen to Afghanistan say 200 years ago. The country would be slaughtered, women raped, riches plundered. Today, there is no way we would stand for that.
If we are going to support or not support the mission in Afghanistan, one must first take the time to understand what we are doing there? Not just follow media headlines.
floats
Today I was saddened to hear that 6 more Canadians were KIA. But the whole country knew right away.
Go back to the Great War, It might take weeks for news to return home. Go back even farther and people didnt know of casulties until they didnt come home.
Back then, War was a glorified thing for young men to do.
What would happen to Afghanistan say 200 years ago. The country would be slaughtered, women raped, riches plundered. Today, there is no way we would stand for that.
If we are going to support or not support the mission in Afghanistan, one must first take the time to understand what we are doing there? Not just follow media headlines.
floats
-
Glen Quagmire
- Rank 4
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:32 pm
- Location: YYZ
Brilliant post, refreshing to hear some intellectually honest questions. This debate is such a necessity but is constantly drowned out from the rhetoric of politicians and talking heads on television. We need to get away from branding someone anti-soldier just because questions are raised regarding the validity of the mission. It is our duty to those soldiers to question why they are placed in harms way, ignorance is not strength and war is certainly not peace.
War is changing and certainly has changed from the days of the world wars. The latest conflicts have proven that you cannot fight and unconventional enemy with conventional weaponry or more so conventional thinking. Are we harboring such grandiose thoughts as to think that we have mastered war and its intricacies. The media may have changed war a little in a sense that it is no longer acceptable to try and pacify a populace through mass civilian casualties, as was done with South Vietnam, Hiroshima and Dresden to name a few. The media has helped as mentioned above but only perhaps because of their addiction to body counts and flag draped coffins. The media as a whole is letting everyone down by not actively engaging its viewers to ask the truly important questions, questions found in the original post.
Should we be in Afghanistan? Perhaps we should clear up why we are there first. Not necessarily why we went shortly after 9/11 but why we are there now, for what did those six soldiers die for today?
War is changing and certainly has changed from the days of the world wars. The latest conflicts have proven that you cannot fight and unconventional enemy with conventional weaponry or more so conventional thinking. Are we harboring such grandiose thoughts as to think that we have mastered war and its intricacies. The media may have changed war a little in a sense that it is no longer acceptable to try and pacify a populace through mass civilian casualties, as was done with South Vietnam, Hiroshima and Dresden to name a few. The media has helped as mentioned above but only perhaps because of their addiction to body counts and flag draped coffins. The media as a whole is letting everyone down by not actively engaging its viewers to ask the truly important questions, questions found in the original post.
Should we be in Afghanistan? Perhaps we should clear up why we are there first. Not necessarily why we went shortly after 9/11 but why we are there now, for what did those six soldiers die for today?
-
taxiway_matthew
- Rank 4
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:14 pm
Excellent questionGlen Quagmire wrote:Should we be in Afghanistan? Perhaps we should clear up why we are there first. Not necessarily why we went shortly after 9/11 but why we are there now, for what did those six soldiers die for today?
Personally, I think we are there now to help them rebuild. We're building schools, houses, wells, etc. to help the Afghani people. We're not only extracting the Taliban, we're fixing their mess, in a way.
But again, as my cousin says, its kinda hard to build wells when you're getting shot in the back.
How long must we be cleaning up the Taliban mess for? Well, we committed until 2009 and maybe that is when we ought to leave, NATO will be there longer.
War has not changed only the adjectives change.
People still get killed in war
.People start fights and then complain when they get beat .That fact will never change.
War and Sex both involve a lot of fucking .The only question is do you want to be the fuckee or the fucker
People still get killed in war
.People start fights and then complain when they get beat .That fact will never change.
War and Sex both involve a lot of fucking .The only question is do you want to be the fuckee or the fucker
-
Glen Quagmire
- Rank 4
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:32 pm
- Location: YYZ
Thanks for contributing, wonderful insight into why we fight. Since you state, at least as it pertains to you that sex involves a choice between being a "fuckee or the fucker" then I guess that makes you a homosexual, not that there's anything wrong with that.2R wrote:
War and Sex both involve a lot of fucking .The only question is do you want to be the fuckee or the fucker
-
Glen Quagmire
- Rank 4
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:32 pm
- Location: YYZ
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
Thanks for reading, but thank you for the replies (all of them). Replying requires thought, some replies require more thought than others, but they require thought nonetheless.
Not everyone agrees with my analysis of how war has changed through history, and that's fine because it's a personal analysis, and it's not worth much. One can easily argument that war has not changed at all, that it is always about killing, that no matter what the era is, the foundation remains same. And I must say I agree. I guess the title that would have been more appropriate if it would have been: “the way wars are fought and won has changed”. Regardless if you disagree of how I chose to break down the different eras and types of war, I think we can all agree that the newest kind of war, the kind we are fighting in Afghanistan is particular and unique.
Army strength (no matter what that strength is) can no longer defeat an opponent that does not have an army to defeat. This war is much deeper than the conventional battles were, and we have to face the facts. What we are led to believe (by the media or the political party in power) that this war can be won with more weapons, more men and more money, is incorrect propaganda. Past and present history have, and are proving it. This is not how you fight this kind of new war and this is not how you win them. We are not ready to sacrifice as much as they are to fight this new war, and that puts us in a very bad position.
So what are we doing in Afghanistan? We are being told we are rebuilding, and that this rebuilding involves armed conflict. Then we are told that it is better to do preemptive strikes (in other words, attack) to defeat those who are resisting our rebuilding efforts. My question is, were we asked by the local population for our help in rebuilding? Do they want the way of life we are offering them? If we are doing so much good, why is local population support dropping? If another country came to Canada to free us from our injustices, and put their army on our soil to improve our way of life, how would we react?
Suppose we are doing the “right” thing. Suppose we do rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and we establish our Americanized way of life there. Then what? How did that make us safer? How has that protected our empire from what threatens it? Don't you think the terrorist will move to another country? How are we going to prevent another similar regime from taking power a few years down the line? Are we going to force them to have a government that agrees with our way of doing things, one we choose for them (or one we allow them to choose from a list we handpick)? Are we going to police it forever? Do you think a local police (like the one the US is trying to establish in Iraq) will really work once we leave? Don't the local people have to want it first? What about the neighbouring countries? What if they don't agree with what we are trying to do in Afghanistan, are we going to go after them also? There's a lot of people in the middle east, and a lot of them don't want our way of life. Who are we to say they should have it? How are we going to force them to have it?
Remember in every war that was ever fought, both sides believed they were doing the right thing. Both sides believed it strongly enough to give their life for it. But the really dangerous people, and the people who are usually truly wrong, are the people that do it only and solely because it's the “right” thing to do, without question. And that's what makes them dangerous.
Not everyone agrees with my analysis of how war has changed through history, and that's fine because it's a personal analysis, and it's not worth much. One can easily argument that war has not changed at all, that it is always about killing, that no matter what the era is, the foundation remains same. And I must say I agree. I guess the title that would have been more appropriate if it would have been: “the way wars are fought and won has changed”. Regardless if you disagree of how I chose to break down the different eras and types of war, I think we can all agree that the newest kind of war, the kind we are fighting in Afghanistan is particular and unique.
Army strength (no matter what that strength is) can no longer defeat an opponent that does not have an army to defeat. This war is much deeper than the conventional battles were, and we have to face the facts. What we are led to believe (by the media or the political party in power) that this war can be won with more weapons, more men and more money, is incorrect propaganda. Past and present history have, and are proving it. This is not how you fight this kind of new war and this is not how you win them. We are not ready to sacrifice as much as they are to fight this new war, and that puts us in a very bad position.
So what are we doing in Afghanistan? We are being told we are rebuilding, and that this rebuilding involves armed conflict. Then we are told that it is better to do preemptive strikes (in other words, attack) to defeat those who are resisting our rebuilding efforts. My question is, were we asked by the local population for our help in rebuilding? Do they want the way of life we are offering them? If we are doing so much good, why is local population support dropping? If another country came to Canada to free us from our injustices, and put their army on our soil to improve our way of life, how would we react?
Suppose we are doing the “right” thing. Suppose we do rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and we establish our Americanized way of life there. Then what? How did that make us safer? How has that protected our empire from what threatens it? Don't you think the terrorist will move to another country? How are we going to prevent another similar regime from taking power a few years down the line? Are we going to force them to have a government that agrees with our way of doing things, one we choose for them (or one we allow them to choose from a list we handpick)? Are we going to police it forever? Do you think a local police (like the one the US is trying to establish in Iraq) will really work once we leave? Don't the local people have to want it first? What about the neighbouring countries? What if they don't agree with what we are trying to do in Afghanistan, are we going to go after them also? There's a lot of people in the middle east, and a lot of them don't want our way of life. Who are we to say they should have it? How are we going to force them to have it?
Remember in every war that was ever fought, both sides believed they were doing the right thing. Both sides believed it strongly enough to give their life for it. But the really dangerous people, and the people who are usually truly wrong, are the people that do it only and solely because it's the “right” thing to do, without question. And that's what makes them dangerous.
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
-
Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
I agree that war changes over time. What I think hasn't changed is a nations resolve to win a war. Technology has taken war away from us and too our enemy. This is good and bad. Good of course because we are safer at home sitting on our couch watching it on tv like it's a movie. Bad however because we don't actually experience the majority of the war so we feel that it's not nessasary we sit here and feel safe but are oblivious to why we are safe.
All those wars that we're mentioned were not lost because of tactics weaponry or technology. All of them were lost because the people lost their resolve for victory.
All those wars that we're mentioned were not lost because of tactics weaponry or technology. All of them were lost because the people lost their resolve for victory.
War hasn't changed - killing might have.
Something annoys a nation or a group large enough to influence a nation so they attack whoever annoyed them. Or, somebody covets what his neighbour has and as the neighbour won't share, they get attacked. Each side tries to kill as many of their neighbours as they can before too many of themselves are killed.
What's changed? Roadside bombs vs. Smart bombs? The people we are trying to kill are in no way considered neighbours?
What hasn't changed is that we think that life is sacred, we prefer life over death and we hate having our young men and women being killed by someone who doesn't like us. Some of us hate that so much that we blame the people who sent the troops 'over there' and tend to make rude noises about why are we killing people who are not our neighbours?
When the leaders of some nations think they are really important, they think the best way to show how important they are is to send their military out in the world to kill other people. Big countries can do this if they are rich enough or spend enough of their income on guns. Smaller countries that want to be bigger do it too. Usually, the people we are trying to kill get annoyed that we don't leave them alone and because they are not rich, one of the reasons why we chose them, invent lots of clever and cheap ways to kill us. They don't spend the money on fancy trucks and snazzy uniforms, they buy old nails and fertilizer and use cheap alarm clocks or cell phones. We hate them for that because they "don't play the game." So we send over even more trucks and more young people with snazzy uniforms and they buy even more old bent nails and we get even madder. Eventually, boxes of old nails kill enough of us and wreck enough of our trucks that we decide that we have had enough of our young people getting killed and we go home. Then the people we are trying to kill, those who are left, go on trying to live their lives; meanwhile we have elaborate remembrance services for all the people that were killed and we say how noble we were to try and fix a country that never wanted to be fixed and what a waste it all was and how much we value life.
I said it before - save the lives of our troops - bring them home now. We can show them how much we support them much better when they are alive and back home rather than at their funerals.
Something annoys a nation or a group large enough to influence a nation so they attack whoever annoyed them. Or, somebody covets what his neighbour has and as the neighbour won't share, they get attacked. Each side tries to kill as many of their neighbours as they can before too many of themselves are killed.
What's changed? Roadside bombs vs. Smart bombs? The people we are trying to kill are in no way considered neighbours?
What hasn't changed is that we think that life is sacred, we prefer life over death and we hate having our young men and women being killed by someone who doesn't like us. Some of us hate that so much that we blame the people who sent the troops 'over there' and tend to make rude noises about why are we killing people who are not our neighbours?
When the leaders of some nations think they are really important, they think the best way to show how important they are is to send their military out in the world to kill other people. Big countries can do this if they are rich enough or spend enough of their income on guns. Smaller countries that want to be bigger do it too. Usually, the people we are trying to kill get annoyed that we don't leave them alone and because they are not rich, one of the reasons why we chose them, invent lots of clever and cheap ways to kill us. They don't spend the money on fancy trucks and snazzy uniforms, they buy old nails and fertilizer and use cheap alarm clocks or cell phones. We hate them for that because they "don't play the game." So we send over even more trucks and more young people with snazzy uniforms and they buy even more old bent nails and we get even madder. Eventually, boxes of old nails kill enough of us and wreck enough of our trucks that we decide that we have had enough of our young people getting killed and we go home. Then the people we are trying to kill, those who are left, go on trying to live their lives; meanwhile we have elaborate remembrance services for all the people that were killed and we say how noble we were to try and fix a country that never wanted to be fixed and what a waste it all was and how much we value life.
I said it before - save the lives of our troops - bring them home now. We can show them how much we support them much better when they are alive and back home rather than at their funerals.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Sure, but in the rest of the world, life is pretty cheap, and that's one of our major problems - our fundamental misunderstanding (and ignorance) of other cultures, whom in turn misunderstand and in fact are outright revolted by us "infidels"we think that life is sacred
Try really hard to understand that our success (and their failure) is an implicit insult and attack upon their beliefs. Try really, really hard.
-
Glen Quagmire
- Rank 4
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:32 pm
- Location: YYZ
I disagree; your opinion is worth a lot and is certainly more important than ten second soundbites and polarizing talking heads spewing out rhetorical nonsense. It's fundamental to our "freedom" that we be able to exchange these opinions and further elevate the discourse, ask the uncomfortable questions, ultimately to raise peoples level of consciousness. The forums, when used properly allow people to participate in the debate, to connect to issues and share ideas. Traditional media outlets do not allow for this link and the masses are left with a feeling of disconnect, sadly interest in the issues is often lost.corporate joe wrote:Not everyone agrees with my analysis of how war has changed through history, and that's fine because it's a personal analysis, and it's not worth much.
This is an important point. In previous wars the enemy was clearly defined, they wore uniforms, had tanks and planes, ships, an advancing/retreating front, troop levels and had clearly defined aims and goals. Now the enemy has no face, he is a civilian one day, an insurgent the next and just as quickly blends back into a sea of humanity. The enemy now doesn’t care about rules of war or collateral damage. Surely the soldiers don’t even know who in the crowd might be an enemy or which car on this or that road is a driving bomb.corporate joe wrote:Army strength (no matter what that strength is) can no longer defeat an opponent that does not have an army to defeat.
Ah yes it was so hard to predict that the “surge” in Iraq would fail.corporate joe wrote:What we are led to believe (by the media or the political party in power) that this war can be won with more weapons, more men and more money, is incorrect propaganda.
It doesn’t make us safer, matter of fact it has undoubtedly made us more of a target of terrorism. That being said our safety shouldn’t be the determining reason for military action. Had we intervened swiftly in Rwanda 13 years ago or more recently Darfur maybe a million or more people would be alive today and we wouldn't be any safer for it. But I know that wasn’t what you were getting at. You brought that up because it is one of the reasons we are given as to why we are in Afghanistan, using fear to placate the citizenry.corporate joe wrote:Suppose we are doing the “right” thing. Suppose we do rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and we establish our Americanized way of life there. Then what? How did that make us safer?
Not really, we think a Canadian life is sacred, or a Western life but certainly not an Afghani life or an Iraqi life. If we truly valued life we would be outraged that a few hundred thousand civilians have died for what? Our false sense of security, empirical ambitions, nation building or worse yet greed? We probably don’t value western life that much either considering some 4,000 soldiers have been killed in Iraq, hundreds more in Afghanistan, what have they died for? If we cannot come up with a valid reason, backed up by evidence and data as to why we are there then the soldiers need to come home, or head to a less hostile part of the globe where they can truly save lives without losing their own.We think life is sacred
The people who should speak to if Afghanistan is worth it or not are the people doing the fighting on our behalf over there, or their families. Do they see results? Do they think their comrades are dying for a worthwhile cause? Do they believe the Afghans lives are better?
I am tired of armchair quaterbacks on TV every five minutes speaking from a plush office somewhere with a fancy title describing what we are doing wrong and how we should get out when not one of them is ever asked....
"Have you been there??"
"Whats it like on the ground where you were?"
"How many friends have you lost?."
BTW, How many of us on here have been there?
I'd like to see a post from one of those fine folks.
I am tired of armchair quaterbacks on TV every five minutes speaking from a plush office somewhere with a fancy title describing what we are doing wrong and how we should get out when not one of them is ever asked....
"Have you been there??"
"Whats it like on the ground where you were?"
"How many friends have you lost?."
BTW, How many of us on here have been there?
I'd like to see a post from one of those fine folks.
Listen to the pilot with the most grey hair....
Hello guys,
Well I am one who is here, almost three years.
Comparisons with wars in the past is not fair and accurate.
There had always been two types of wars. The first one was to defeat the ennemy, take their land and enslave them. WW 1 and 2 were that type. So was the Falklands war.
The other type was war over ideology, like the crusades, Vietnam, and now Iraq and Afghanistan.
These cannot be won, unfortunately.
What constitutes a win in Afghanistan? The best that we can hope for, is the establishment of a strong puppet with western support, who will eliminate all dissent from the country. If that is a success, it will look like Iran with the Shaw, or Cuba with Batista, etc...
These governments will become corrupt and a revolution will follow.
Iran is a good example. After the revolution, a stong government with national support was elected. Of course they now hate those that were associated with the previous corrupt dictator, the beloved Shaw...
We had in Iraq a stong leader, who even had a favorable stand with the west. Now the country is officially an Islamic Republic. It will never support western cultures. That country is lost for a long time.
Other Islamic Republics, where Sharia is the law, include Indonesia, Pakistan. Iran, and the Gulf States. Slowly Catholic Africa is going that way.
The military situation in Afghanistan is very confused.
First we have the Coallition Forces. (CF), who are chasing Talibans in the south and east.
Then NATO has the ISAF International Security Assistance Force.
This forces comprises Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)
Canadian Contingent is one of them.
The purpose of their presence is manyfold. First they are responsible for security in their province, along with Afghan Army(ANA), and Afghan Police (ANP). In addition, they coordinate the security of international staff, with the UN and ANSO.
Second, they act with the Canadian Government to invest in reconstruction projects within the province. Specifically, they act as managers for various projects funded by Ottawa.
Because they are mandated by NATO, they sometimes carry out secret and covert activities on behalf of the coalition, because the US has a strong influence over NATO.
A lot of these covert ops are provoking retaliation, and this is were the soldiers get killed.
The situation is more complex because some countries simply refuse to take part in the special ops, so as to not put soldiers in harm's way.
Canada does not, and was assigned, along with the Brits, the most volatile province.
The Germans always refused to go to the south, and are doing a great job of reconstruction in the North.
At the political level, there are a lot of disparity of goals, between the government, the US troops, NATO, the UN, and locals governors.
There is also a lot of underground operations and spying going on. The contry is politically split in two. The next elections will be very interesting in this respect.
This war can only be lost, not won...
Well I am one who is here, almost three years.
Comparisons with wars in the past is not fair and accurate.
There had always been two types of wars. The first one was to defeat the ennemy, take their land and enslave them. WW 1 and 2 were that type. So was the Falklands war.
The other type was war over ideology, like the crusades, Vietnam, and now Iraq and Afghanistan.
These cannot be won, unfortunately.
What constitutes a win in Afghanistan? The best that we can hope for, is the establishment of a strong puppet with western support, who will eliminate all dissent from the country. If that is a success, it will look like Iran with the Shaw, or Cuba with Batista, etc...
These governments will become corrupt and a revolution will follow.
Iran is a good example. After the revolution, a stong government with national support was elected. Of course they now hate those that were associated with the previous corrupt dictator, the beloved Shaw...
We had in Iraq a stong leader, who even had a favorable stand with the west. Now the country is officially an Islamic Republic. It will never support western cultures. That country is lost for a long time.
Other Islamic Republics, where Sharia is the law, include Indonesia, Pakistan. Iran, and the Gulf States. Slowly Catholic Africa is going that way.
The military situation in Afghanistan is very confused.
First we have the Coallition Forces. (CF), who are chasing Talibans in the south and east.
Then NATO has the ISAF International Security Assistance Force.
This forces comprises Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)
Canadian Contingent is one of them.
The purpose of their presence is manyfold. First they are responsible for security in their province, along with Afghan Army(ANA), and Afghan Police (ANP). In addition, they coordinate the security of international staff, with the UN and ANSO.
Second, they act with the Canadian Government to invest in reconstruction projects within the province. Specifically, they act as managers for various projects funded by Ottawa.
Because they are mandated by NATO, they sometimes carry out secret and covert activities on behalf of the coalition, because the US has a strong influence over NATO.
A lot of these covert ops are provoking retaliation, and this is were the soldiers get killed.
The situation is more complex because some countries simply refuse to take part in the special ops, so as to not put soldiers in harm's way.
Canada does not, and was assigned, along with the Brits, the most volatile province.
The Germans always refused to go to the south, and are doing a great job of reconstruction in the North.
At the political level, there are a lot of disparity of goals, between the government, the US troops, NATO, the UN, and locals governors.
There is also a lot of underground operations and spying going on. The contry is politically split in two. The next elections will be very interesting in this respect.
This war can only be lost, not won...
Success in life is when the cognac that you drink is older than the women you drink it with.
-
Glen Quagmire
- Rank 4
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:32 pm
- Location: YYZ
Thanks for sharing, nice to hear from someone who is seeing all this mess live.
It's somewhat of a sad statement that the "Fergie....talented?" post has more views in a fraction of the time that this post has been out and double the replies. A serious debate about someone who's hit song I leave you with. Just magical.
"My Humps"
What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside your trunk?
I'ma get, get, get, get, you drunk,
Get you love drunk off my hump.
My hump, my hump, my hump, my hump, my hump,
My hump, my hump, my hump, my lovely little lumps (Check it out)
I drive these brothers crazy,
I do it on the daily,
They treat me really nicely,
They buy me all these ices.
Dolce & Gabbana,
Fendi and NaDonna
Karan, they be sharin'
All their money got me wearin' fly
Brother I ain't askin,
They say they love my ass ‘n,
Seven Jeans, True Religion's,
I say no, but they keep givin'
So I keep on takin'
And no I ain't taken
We can keep on datin'
I keep on demonstrating.
My love (love), my love, my love, my love (love)
You love my lady lumps (love),
My hump, my hump, my hump (love),
My humps they got you,
She's got me spending.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me and spending time on me.
She's got me spendin'.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me, up on me, on me
What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside that trunk?
I'ma get, get, get, get, you drunk,
Get you love drunk off my hump.
What you gon' do with all that ass?
All that ass inside them jeans?
I'm a make, make, make, make you scream
Make you scream, make you scream.
Cos of my hump (ha), my hump, my hump, my hump (what).
My hump, my hump, my hump (ha), my lovely lady lumps (Check it out)
I met a girl down at the disco.
She said hey, hey, hey yea let's go.
I could be your baby, you can be my honey
Let's spend time not money.
I mix your milk wit my cocoa puff,
Milky, milky cocoa,
Mix your milk with my cocoa puff, milky, milky riiiiiiight.
They say I'm really sexy,
The boys they wanna sex me.
They always standing next to me,
Always dancing next to me,
Tryin' a feel my hump, hump.
Lookin' at my lump, lump.
You can look but you can't touch it,
If you touch it I'ma start some drama,
You don't want no drama,
No, no drama, no, no, no, no drama
So don't pull on my hand boy,
You ain't my man, boy,
I'm just tryn'a dance boy,
And move my hump.
My hump, my hump, my hump, my hump,
My hump, my hump, my hump, my hump, my hump, my hump.
My lovely lady lumps (lumps)
My lovely lady lumps (lumps)
My lovely lady lumps (lumps)
In the back and in the front (lumps)
My lovin' got you,
She's got me spendin'.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me and spending time on me.
She's got me spendin'.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me, up on me, on me.
What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside that trunk?
I'ma get, get, get, get you drunk,
Get you love drunk off my hump.
What you gon' do with all that ass?
All that ass inside them jeans?
I'ma make, make, make, make you scream
Make you scream, make you scream.
What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside that trunk?
I'ma get, get, get, get you drunk,
Get you love drunk off this hump.
What you gon' do wit all that breast?
All that breast inside that shirt?
I'ma make, make, make, make you work
Make you work, work, make you work.
(A-ha, a-ha, a-ha, a-ha) [x4]
She's got me spendin'.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me and spendin' time on me
She's got me spendin'.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me, up on me, on me.
It's somewhat of a sad statement that the "Fergie....talented?" post has more views in a fraction of the time that this post has been out and double the replies. A serious debate about someone who's hit song I leave you with. Just magical.
"My Humps"
What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside your trunk?
I'ma get, get, get, get, you drunk,
Get you love drunk off my hump.
My hump, my hump, my hump, my hump, my hump,
My hump, my hump, my hump, my lovely little lumps (Check it out)
I drive these brothers crazy,
I do it on the daily,
They treat me really nicely,
They buy me all these ices.
Dolce & Gabbana,
Fendi and NaDonna
Karan, they be sharin'
All their money got me wearin' fly
Brother I ain't askin,
They say they love my ass ‘n,
Seven Jeans, True Religion's,
I say no, but they keep givin'
So I keep on takin'
And no I ain't taken
We can keep on datin'
I keep on demonstrating.
My love (love), my love, my love, my love (love)
You love my lady lumps (love),
My hump, my hump, my hump (love),
My humps they got you,
She's got me spending.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me and spending time on me.
She's got me spendin'.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me, up on me, on me
What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside that trunk?
I'ma get, get, get, get, you drunk,
Get you love drunk off my hump.
What you gon' do with all that ass?
All that ass inside them jeans?
I'm a make, make, make, make you scream
Make you scream, make you scream.
Cos of my hump (ha), my hump, my hump, my hump (what).
My hump, my hump, my hump (ha), my lovely lady lumps (Check it out)
I met a girl down at the disco.
She said hey, hey, hey yea let's go.
I could be your baby, you can be my honey
Let's spend time not money.
I mix your milk wit my cocoa puff,
Milky, milky cocoa,
Mix your milk with my cocoa puff, milky, milky riiiiiiight.
They say I'm really sexy,
The boys they wanna sex me.
They always standing next to me,
Always dancing next to me,
Tryin' a feel my hump, hump.
Lookin' at my lump, lump.
You can look but you can't touch it,
If you touch it I'ma start some drama,
You don't want no drama,
No, no drama, no, no, no, no drama
So don't pull on my hand boy,
You ain't my man, boy,
I'm just tryn'a dance boy,
And move my hump.
My hump, my hump, my hump, my hump,
My hump, my hump, my hump, my hump, my hump, my hump.
My lovely lady lumps (lumps)
My lovely lady lumps (lumps)
My lovely lady lumps (lumps)
In the back and in the front (lumps)
My lovin' got you,
She's got me spendin'.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me and spending time on me.
She's got me spendin'.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me, up on me, on me.
What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside that trunk?
I'ma get, get, get, get you drunk,
Get you love drunk off my hump.
What you gon' do with all that ass?
All that ass inside them jeans?
I'ma make, make, make, make you scream
Make you scream, make you scream.
What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside that trunk?
I'ma get, get, get, get you drunk,
Get you love drunk off this hump.
What you gon' do wit all that breast?
All that breast inside that shirt?
I'ma make, make, make, make you work
Make you work, work, make you work.
(A-ha, a-ha, a-ha, a-ha) [x4]
She's got me spendin'.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me and spendin' time on me
She's got me spendin'.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me, up on me, on me.
At least the opium crop was good this year . A damn shame that the infant mortality is up as well .One in four children die before reaching five .Every opium plantation means less food production and the children suffer through malnutrition.
The children have a high chance of being orphaned not only by war but by their mothers dying in childbirth.The lack of Hospitals and trained medical staff due to the brutal activities of madmen with guns and bombs.
As for winning the initial objectives were easily acheived .The Taliban are no longer in a position of authority to train a mass army to attack western allies.It may be hard to spot the winners .But i can spot the losers very easily in this mess .The losers are the children as many have lost their mothers and never knew their fathers.left homeless with no food with winter approaching.The mission needs to switch to helping the Afghans rebuild their dignity.If we truely are there to help we cannot abandon these people until their are in a position to help themselves.
The children have a high chance of being orphaned not only by war but by their mothers dying in childbirth.The lack of Hospitals and trained medical staff due to the brutal activities of madmen with guns and bombs.
As for winning the initial objectives were easily acheived .The Taliban are no longer in a position of authority to train a mass army to attack western allies.It may be hard to spot the winners .But i can spot the losers very easily in this mess .The losers are the children as many have lost their mothers and never knew their fathers.left homeless with no food with winter approaching.The mission needs to switch to helping the Afghans rebuild their dignity.If we truely are there to help we cannot abandon these people until their are in a position to help themselves.
Yeah, the opium crop...It is one aspect of the war, which has not been won.
From this morning's press round up:
For some abused Afghan women, suicide by fire is the way out
By Stephanie Levitz,
July 8 - According to a recent study by rights group Medica Mondiale, suicide by fire is becoming the desperate last resort for more and more women each year in Afghanistan. (CP)
Bora Gull Heha's eyes widen as she looks at a photograph of herself lying in a Kandahar hospital bed.
A gauze patchwork quilt covers the third-degree burns over 90 per cent of her body and her skin is mottled and scabbed.
Three months ago, she doused herself in lamp oil and set her body aflame; the photograph is the first time she's seen the horrific results.
"I wanted to punish my husband, punish his family," she said through an interpreter. "There was nothing else I could do. But I have just punished myself."
For Heha, 16, death was the only way she believed she could escape her abusive husband and the tirades of her mother-in-law.
According to a recent study by rights group Medica Mondiale, suicide by fire is becoming the desperate last resort for more and more women each year in Afghanistan.
In 2005, Kandahar had 74 cases. In 2006, 77 cases were documented in the first six months of the year. The problem is more severe in Herat, a western province bordering Iran. One hundred cases of self-immolation were recorded last year.
That women choose death by fire is a cruel twist on their lot in life confined to their compounds as wives and mothers. Lacking any other resources, the oil that helps feed their family and lights their home is the only option usually available as an escape.
"To set fire to herself is easier than any other way," said Dr. Sharifa Siddiqui, the head of the Mirwais hospital in Kandahar City.
"To kill herself by a gun, she doesn't know where to shoot, by knife she doesn't have the strength."
Mirwais hospital sees about five cases a month of women who have lit themselves on fire to escape marriage. In the bed across from Heha lies another young girl who, rather than marry a man she didn't love, tried to kill herself instead.
Heha's marriage was arranged by tribal elders in her village of Nowzad, in Helmand province, when she was 14.
Her husband Abdul is nine years her senior; the night they wed, he was stoned on hashish and beat her, she said.
For two years, the abuse continued, even after they had a son. They live in a house with 10 other people, and her mother-in-law harassed her daily.
The night she lit herself on fire, Heha had fought with both her mother-in-law and husband and finally, she said, she'd had enough.
"I had too many problems, I didn't have any options. I saw the lamp and I grabbed it. My husband was there, he saw me light the fire. He didn't try to stop me," she said.
When her mother heard what had happened, she fainted.
Now she sits by her daughter's hospital bed each day, wondering what she had done to deserve this tragedy.
"It brings great shame on their family, when people hear what has happened," said Ruma Tareen, the director of women's affairs for Kandahar province.
Most cases of self-immolation don't survive, said Dr. Ahmed Shah, who is looking after Heha's care.
"It wasn't her time to die," he said.
He said it will be at least five months before she can be released from hospital, but her long-term prognosis is uncertain.
Heha believes she will survive and said she has forgiven her husband and his family for what happened to her, even though he hasn't come to visit since she arrived in Kandahar.
Her mother, Wolus Bibi, said Heha's husband's family was chastised by the village elders for allowing the abuse and the self-immolation.
They were beaten until they were sorry, she told Tareen.
Tareen documents each case of abuse she hears of, but admitted she is powerless to do much more.
"We can't change what is happening," she said in an interview. "We are here to support the women."
Tareen regularly takes women fleeing abusive relationships into her own home, as there are no shelters for women in Kandahar province akin to those in North America that offer a safe haven and a fresh start for women escaping domestic abuse.
She has been trying for months to have a shelter built, even petitioning the Canadian Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar for the funds to construct a building.
But the PRT was hesitant to simply put forward money for a shelter when there was no plan on how it would operate.
The proposal was pushed forward to the national Afghan government in Kabul, where the Ministry of Women's affairs promised to make a formal proposal to the international community for a network of shelters across the country.
It never materialized.
When Heha leaves the hospital, she said she will return to her husband's home _ better to go back than bring further shame upon her family by running away.
If the abuse continues, she said, she will leave rather than try to kill herself again.
She's asked if that happens, where would she go.
Heha doesn't have an answer.
From this morning's press round up:
For some abused Afghan women, suicide by fire is the way out
By Stephanie Levitz,
July 8 - According to a recent study by rights group Medica Mondiale, suicide by fire is becoming the desperate last resort for more and more women each year in Afghanistan. (CP)
Bora Gull Heha's eyes widen as she looks at a photograph of herself lying in a Kandahar hospital bed.
A gauze patchwork quilt covers the third-degree burns over 90 per cent of her body and her skin is mottled and scabbed.
Three months ago, she doused herself in lamp oil and set her body aflame; the photograph is the first time she's seen the horrific results.
"I wanted to punish my husband, punish his family," she said through an interpreter. "There was nothing else I could do. But I have just punished myself."
For Heha, 16, death was the only way she believed she could escape her abusive husband and the tirades of her mother-in-law.
According to a recent study by rights group Medica Mondiale, suicide by fire is becoming the desperate last resort for more and more women each year in Afghanistan.
In 2005, Kandahar had 74 cases. In 2006, 77 cases were documented in the first six months of the year. The problem is more severe in Herat, a western province bordering Iran. One hundred cases of self-immolation were recorded last year.
That women choose death by fire is a cruel twist on their lot in life confined to their compounds as wives and mothers. Lacking any other resources, the oil that helps feed their family and lights their home is the only option usually available as an escape.
"To set fire to herself is easier than any other way," said Dr. Sharifa Siddiqui, the head of the Mirwais hospital in Kandahar City.
"To kill herself by a gun, she doesn't know where to shoot, by knife she doesn't have the strength."
Mirwais hospital sees about five cases a month of women who have lit themselves on fire to escape marriage. In the bed across from Heha lies another young girl who, rather than marry a man she didn't love, tried to kill herself instead.
Heha's marriage was arranged by tribal elders in her village of Nowzad, in Helmand province, when she was 14.
Her husband Abdul is nine years her senior; the night they wed, he was stoned on hashish and beat her, she said.
For two years, the abuse continued, even after they had a son. They live in a house with 10 other people, and her mother-in-law harassed her daily.
The night she lit herself on fire, Heha had fought with both her mother-in-law and husband and finally, she said, she'd had enough.
"I had too many problems, I didn't have any options. I saw the lamp and I grabbed it. My husband was there, he saw me light the fire. He didn't try to stop me," she said.
When her mother heard what had happened, she fainted.
Now she sits by her daughter's hospital bed each day, wondering what she had done to deserve this tragedy.
"It brings great shame on their family, when people hear what has happened," said Ruma Tareen, the director of women's affairs for Kandahar province.
Most cases of self-immolation don't survive, said Dr. Ahmed Shah, who is looking after Heha's care.
"It wasn't her time to die," he said.
He said it will be at least five months before she can be released from hospital, but her long-term prognosis is uncertain.
Heha believes she will survive and said she has forgiven her husband and his family for what happened to her, even though he hasn't come to visit since she arrived in Kandahar.
Her mother, Wolus Bibi, said Heha's husband's family was chastised by the village elders for allowing the abuse and the self-immolation.
They were beaten until they were sorry, she told Tareen.
Tareen documents each case of abuse she hears of, but admitted she is powerless to do much more.
"We can't change what is happening," she said in an interview. "We are here to support the women."
Tareen regularly takes women fleeing abusive relationships into her own home, as there are no shelters for women in Kandahar province akin to those in North America that offer a safe haven and a fresh start for women escaping domestic abuse.
She has been trying for months to have a shelter built, even petitioning the Canadian Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar for the funds to construct a building.
But the PRT was hesitant to simply put forward money for a shelter when there was no plan on how it would operate.
The proposal was pushed forward to the national Afghan government in Kabul, where the Ministry of Women's affairs promised to make a formal proposal to the international community for a network of shelters across the country.
It never materialized.
When Heha leaves the hospital, she said she will return to her husband's home _ better to go back than bring further shame upon her family by running away.
If the abuse continues, she said, she will leave rather than try to kill herself again.
She's asked if that happens, where would she go.
Heha doesn't have an answer.
Success in life is when the cognac that you drink is older than the women you drink it with.
