eyeball Posted January 31, 2008 Report Posted January 31, 2008 This is what you call debate? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
eyeball Posted January 31, 2008 Report Posted January 31, 2008 (edited) My ineffable ability not to use ridiculous architecture critics as sources for opinions on geopolitics. I see, so you'd rather stick with the opinions of experts like Bush, Blair, Mushareff and Harper etc? Edited January 31, 2008 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Army Guy Posted February 1, 2008 Report Posted February 1, 2008 Horsehit, nor should we be fooled into believing that the west is accomplishing anything in Afganistan. Thats not what the Afgan people are saying, nor is it what many of the other groups in afgan saying. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Oleg Bach Posted February 1, 2008 Report Posted February 1, 2008 Thats not what the Afgan people are saying, nor is it what many of the other groups in afgan saying. The doinks in Afghanistan are no different than the croonies that suck up to colonialist...in order to sell out their heritage in order to drive a Mercedes.....the average Afghan looks at the "troops" as invaders and felonswho are duped into believing that this boondogle is some sort of humanitarian mission - frankly it's about money and dope - every third party envolvement in this region for the last 250 years has been about the dope and the money - so - It's tiresome to hear the same old rhetoricals about "helping" these people - we do not even help our own in poverty - so how in God's name are we as a nation to believe the mission is sincere? It's not! Logic dictates that this mission serves only a few elite on both sides - as with most war - it's a scam - hate to brake it to you Army Guy - but the men on the ground are always the last to know - THE TRUTH> Quote
myata Posted February 1, 2008 Report Posted February 1, 2008 Thats not what the Afgan people are saying, nor is it what many of the other groups in afgan saying. Which Afghan people are you talking about? Government propped by our forces, that wouldn't probably stand a few months on its own? Explain this: if Afghan people, in great majority, do support this government, why there's not a single province in the country, that can be governed entirely by the supported government, 6 years on?? If Afghan people do not support this government in great majority, they should be able to figure out what they want all by themselves. Without us dictating what their choice should be (remember the incident with Hamaz, also democratically elected, but not "suitable", in our framework of reference?), or in which form it is expressed. Our only concerns should be 1) our security, ie. whatever government comes to power must be assured that it'll pay for any aggressive moves; and 2) humanitarian assistance, if such is requested. Outside of the two, you'll be hard pressed to explain how reengineering foreign societies is different from colonializm, and what we as citizens of this country are getting from it (unlike Mr Harper who can bathe in the sunlight of his great heroes, Bush and Blair and like). Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Army Guy Posted February 1, 2008 Report Posted February 1, 2008 Which Afghan people are you talking about? Your every day average afganis....from across afgan. Here i will post it again , it was only a couple pages back... Afganis people poll Government propped by our forces, that wouldn't probably stand a few months on its own? What is your piont, that they can't stand on thier own to feet after 6 years...is that what we use as the standard here in Canada, we kick people off assistance after 6 years..."get you loser, we've funded you for to long" why are you so hung up on a time frame.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
myata Posted February 1, 2008 Report Posted February 1, 2008 Here i will post it again , it was only a couple pages back... These polls are quite meaningless, of course, good only to feed to the concerned public back home. Let's do a "would you like $1 mln tomorrow" poll here. I guarantee 95% yes, but does it mean that some hearty alien race (or maybe, some generous neighbours??) will have to come in and hand everybody a pack of crusty bucks? Afghanis will have the kind of life they're used to, and ready to live, no matter with or without our "assistance". What we are doing there is trying to build them a kind of life we think is good for them. Sure if that's that some think is a worthy undertaking, they're welcome to try (or keep trying). The rest should be allowed to opt out though. What is your piont, that they can't stand on thier own to feet after 6 years...is that what we use as the standard here in Canada, we kick people off assistance after 6 years..."get you loser, we've funded you for to long" why are you so hung up on a time frame.... Of course, we're (self) appointed universal guardians of other's happiness and well being. If necessary we'll stay forever, only to bring them up to civility and decent way of life. Only, our benevolent sight is oh so selective. Sometimes we go in and blast a country up only to make them all happy. Then, won't notice anything wrong with what our friendly dictators are doing (as long as they're friendly and learned to say the magic word). Seriously. In 6 (or is it more now?) years we've given the faction in power a huge headstart over everybody else. If they can't and won't stay in power on their own now, it means only one thing - that they do not have support, mandate, from the people, to govern. No matter democracies, elections, and polls. And if they don't have that support, the last thing we should be doing is to interfere in their internal struggles. In the long run, it won't be any help, will only screw them up more. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Army Guy Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 myata: The poll is meaniless because why exactly....because you did not give it, because it answered some of your questions...because it says they are more interested in peace and want us there.... Why is the poll meaniless.... What we are doing there is trying to build them a kind of life we think is good for them Ya, your right, i guess wells, dams, electricity schools, hospitals and roads are all over rated....But come to think of it, they've had them before...so how are we trying to force them into what we think is good for them....oh right giving them a chance to elect thier own leader...giving them a chance to live in peace... Once again i'll try and explain this, all of our efforts are being directed by the Afganis government.... So you've done this nation building before, and this is your professional opinion. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
myata Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 No, you don't seem to understand, when a poll asks "Do you like A or B" in Canada, it means that we, Canada will make A, or B happen. Not somebody from another planet. I can make all kinds of exorbitant wishes, include peace love and million dollars to everybody on Earth, if somebody else will have to deliver the goodies. That's why the polls are meaningless. Wishing for Canada to deliver good life in Afghanistan will make (some) Afghanis sit up and wait for the good life to be handed. And getting angry if what's being delivered is not up to the expectations. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
GostHacked Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 The mission is already a failure in Afghanistan. The taliban was removed, and they had a law system based on Sharia Law .... and after we have liberated them, they still chose to have a law system bases on Sharia Law .... is this a win for the west in making it more secure???? I just do not see how. Quote
Army Guy Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 A good read: CDS speaks. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
M.Dancer Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 The mission is already a failure in Afghanistan.The taliban was removed, and they had a law system based on Sharia Law .... and after we have liberated them, they still chose to have a law system bases on Sharia Law .... is this a win for the west in making it more secure???? I just do not see how. Sharia law isn't and wasn't the problem so it is irrelevant whether they use it or not. The problem was the Taleban's use of Al qaeda and vice versa Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Army Guy Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 GostHacked: The mission is already a failure in Afghanistan. By whom's standards, yours.... The taliban was removed, and they had a law system based on Sharia Law .... and after we have liberated them, they still chose to have a law system bases on Sharia Law .... is this a win for the west in making it more secure???? I just do not see how Is this why it's a failure because they have a law system based on religous background....Or because it does not look like or mirror our democracy, But does'nt our law system reflect our religion somewhat.... Does having a democracy with a law system based on religious values of sharia law make it any less secure.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
eyeball Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 Sharia law isn't and wasn't the problem so it is irrelevant whether they use it or not.The problem was the Taleban's use of Al qaeda and vice versa Sooner or later you'll be saying this is irrelevant too. Just like you did when it came to America's use of the Taleban and vice versa. Have you ever considered the possibility that what you think you know is completely irrelevant? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
M.Dancer Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 Sooner or later you'll be saying this is irrelevant too. Just like you did when it came to America's use of the Taleban and vice versa.Have you ever considered the possibility that what you think you know is completely irrelevant? In your own words backed up with a credible source, please enlighten all of us how in your alternate reality how America used the Taleban. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Oleg Bach Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 Thats not what the Afgan people are saying, nor is it what many of the other groups in afgan saying. The people who are "saying" in Afghanistan that the alied efforts are wonderful, are a lot like the Nazi colaborators in occupied Paris 60 years ago - one the forces are gone these people who suck up to the invaders will have to make a run for it - may as well import those Afghans to Toronto as immigrants - cos' god knows they will not have the protective luxury once the troops are gone - You all seen to forget - Iraq and Afghanistan are nations that have been invaded - by America and their cronnies that we are one of. WAR is if you are attacked and you need to defend...It is two clear sides in conflict - this is cheezy colonialism at it's best - an as far as the globalist mentality - well - it's Facisim internationally spreading and Harper and the rest of you are no different than the Herbels and the Gerbals and Gorings - YOU are Nazis - do I have to explain everything to you poor people? Quote
eyeball Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 (edited) The US used the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union Morris. The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). source You know all this already so what the hell is your shtick really all about anyway? It seems that about two and a half years ago you hit some tipping point and you've never been the same since. If its because you lost someone to this war I'm truly sorry to hear that. Other people have gone through the same thing like that poor guy who lost his son on 9/11 and asked the air-force to paint his son's name on a bomb that was dropped in the opening moments of the US invasion of Iraq. His tipping point came when Bush admitted Iraq was...irrelevant to 9/11. His story can be found here. Why We Fight Edited February 4, 2008 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
GostHacked Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 GostHacked:By whom's standards, yours.... Is this why it's a failure because they have a law system based on religous background....Or because it does not look like or mirror our democracy, But does'nt our law system reflect our religion somewhat.... Does having a democracy with a law system based on religious values of sharia law make it any less secure.... I doubt it is a democracy at all. The Taleban was oppressive and Sharia Law can be seen as the major factor in why the Taleban was so oppressive. The war on terror was to free these people from the Taleban and oppression. Hard to see how victory was achieved when Sharia Law is still in place and governs how they rule. Religion should be taken out of laws, I do not beleive Religion can be rational enough to make the rule of law effective. On top of this, it seems like the Canadian Gov wont hand over detainees due to the fear they are going to be tortured. How is this a win for us ? For them? How does that eventually make us here in the west more secure?? Quote
Oleg Bach Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 The US used the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union Morris.source You know all this already so what the hell is your shtick really all about anyway? It seems that about two and a half years ago you hit some tipping point and you've never been the same since. If its because you lost someone to this war I'm truly sorry to hear that. Other people have gone through the same thing like that poor guy who lost his son on 9/11 and asked the air-force to paint his son's name on a bomb that was dropped in the opening moments of the US invasion of Iraq. His tipping point came when Bush admitted Iraq was...irrelevant to 9/11. His story can be found here. Why We Fight 911 911 911 - damn I am sick of this hysterical rhetoric! Face it guys - Facism is back strong and Canada and America are now Facist states - and have been for quite some time - so you may as well forget about this debate to no avail and go with the flow - Facist can do what they want - in fact - I am considering becoming a card carrying member if it is offered up...so what's going on all over the world can not be stopped - you may as well join them - cos' you can't beat them - besides -- Facism is neccesary at this point in time. Quote
White Doors Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 The US used the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union Morris.source You know all this already so what the hell is your shtick really all about anyway? It seems that about two and a half years ago you hit some tipping point and you've never been the same since. If its because you lost someone to this war I'm truly sorry to hear that. Other people have gone through the same thing like that poor guy who lost his son on 9/11 and asked the air-force to paint his son's name on a bomb that was dropped in the opening moments of the US invasion of Iraq. His tipping point came when Bush admitted Iraq was...irrelevant to 9/11. His story can be found here. Why We Fight The Mujahadeen and the Taliban aren;t one in the same. example: Harmid Karzai (the president) was a Mujahadeen, but he definitely is NOT a member of the Taliban, nor was he ever. The more appropriate generalization is that the Mujahadeen became the Northern Alliance. You must look beyond the cover of a book to actually say you read the book. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
M.Dancer Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 The US used the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union Morris.source You know all this already so what the hell is your shtick really all about anyway? It seems that about two and a half years ago you hit some tipping point and you've never been the same since. Wrong. The Taliban didn't exist until after the Soviets left. And that's a fact. Groups of taliban ("religious students") were loosely organized on a regional basis during the occupation and civil war. Although they represented a potentially huge force, they didn't emerge as a united entity until the taliban of Kandahar made their move in 1994. In late 1994, a group of well-trained taliban were chosen by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. They proved an able force, fighting off rival mujahideen and warlords. The taliban then went on to take the city of Kandahar, beginning a surprising advance that ended with their capture of Kabul in September 1996. If its because you lost your marbles to this war I'm truly sorry to hear that. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
M.Dancer Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 Doesn't matter how many times you post that, it's still incorrect. The Taliban didn't exist. Th This requires a bit of thinking on your part, so I will go slow...... The Mujihadeen called themselves holy warriors..... Religious students are called Talib..... Religious students became muhjihadeen..... The TALIBAN IS A POLITICAL MOVEMENT...... .....that was created after the Soviets left Rise of the TalibanIn reaction to the anarchy and warlordism prevalent in the country, and the lack of Pashtun representation in the Kabul government, a movement arose called the Taliban. Many Taliban had been educated in madrasas in Pakistan and were largely from rural Pashtun backgrounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Af..._of_the_Taliban In this environment of war entered the Taliban, supported by Pakistan, and promising peace and stability. By 1996, the Taliban succeeded in establishing themselves as the rulers of most of Afghanistan. Though harsh and very restrictive, the Taliban rule succeeded in providing peace and security to the Afghans under their control. http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=1517 Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Army Guy Posted February 4, 2008 Report Posted February 4, 2008 I doubt it is a democracy at all. The Taleban was oppressive and Sharia Law can be seen as the major factor in why the Taleban was so oppressive. The war on terror was to free these people from the Taleban and oppression. Hard to see how victory was achieved when Sharia Law is still in place and governs how they rule. You doubt it or you know of it....so your commenting on something because you believe it to be true, but not sure....Yes the taliban were oppressive in thier interputations of Sharia law....but then again look back on our own religions past "nothing oppresive there"....just a bunch of rednecks interputation of the bible.... Our current laws and freedoms are based or atleast tainted on that very religion and is reflected in many of our current laws.... some that seem oppresive towards many muslim countries....But one can not compare the taliban rule to todays current government...and if you do then you truely don't know enough about the taliban and there ways.... Religion should be taken out of laws, I do not beleive Religion can be rational enough to make the rule of law effective. And yet it does and still does have an effect on our laws and our customs... On top of this, it seems like the Canadian Gov wont hand over detainees due to the fear they are going to be tortured. How is this a win for us ? For them? How does that eventually make us here in the west more secure?? NO, it's the average Canadian fears they might be tortured....they finally found what they call a crediable witness that cliams to have been beaten with a hose and electrical cable....thats one out of the thousands we've taken prisoners....how long did it take them to come up with that....it's a good thing our own prison facilites are beyond appraoch....Now explain to me how one case is a mission failure...explain to me how our decision to stop these transfers is a failure.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
eyeball Posted February 5, 2008 Report Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) The TALIBAN IS A POLITICAL MOVEMENT...........that was created after the Soviets left This is from the very same source you provided Morris, why does it agree with me I wonder? From the mid-1990s the Taliban provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national who had fought with them against the Soviets,Your 1st Source Next time you might want to edit the wiki-page BEFORE you post it as a source. Unfortunately you probably won't be able to edit your next source which has also confirmed every other dot I've connected together. The Americans, who saw the opportunity to humiliate the Soviets, enthusiastically encouraged the Islamic dimension of the Afghan nationalist war against foreign occupation, hence the rise of Jihad and the Mujahideen, who were then the darlings of the CIA. Osama bin Laden was a Mujahid who developed a mind of his own, independent of his CIA creators.Your 2nd source ...a mind of his own, independent of his CIA creators... Kind of like Frankenstein or maybe Jason Bourne would be a more accurate analogy. Am I supposed to believe you actually rooted for Treadstone? Edited February 5, 2008 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.