Layton and talks with the enemy

[Dutchman9]

Welcome to the boards. Glad to have more reasonable people come here...

Thanks.

[capricorn]

What the heck does this absurd generalization have to do with the thread?

Look for similar and predictable posts from Dutchman, reminiscent of one poster named USHITC. So far, most of his/her posts contain a form of Bush/US bashing.

Edited May 5, 2008 by capricorn

[Dutchman9]

You are wrong on 2 counts.

1) I am not the poster you are inferring. I've NEVER posted here before.

2) US doesn't necessarily = Bush. Bush-Bashing means one realizes that Neo-Con insanity is NOT what America should be about.

Only right-wing IDIOTS believe the only possible manifestation of US government is Republicanism/Neo-Conservatism. Ever hear of Bernie Sanders ?

Maybe we bash Bush and the Neo-Cons because we see them as keeping that country from fulfilling it's true potential ? Maybe we believe that the US could truly be BETTER under Obama, Kucinich, or Paul.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Dutchman9

[WarBicycle]

... Maybe we bash Bush and the Neo-Cons because we see them as keeping that country from fulfilling it's true potential ? Maybe we believe that the US could truly be BETTER under Obama, Kucinich, or Paul.

The Three Stooges.

[bush_cheney2004]

...2) US doesn't necessarily = Bush. Bush-Bashing means one realizes that Neo-Con insanity is NOT what America should be about.

...Maybe we bash Bush and the Neo-Cons because we see them as keeping that country from fulfilling it's true potential ? Maybe we believe that the US could truly be BETTER under Obama, Kucinich, or Paul.

Of course the US doesn't equal Bush, but the US doesn't owe your expectations anything either. The US realized its potential (and then some) a long, long time ago.

[gc1765]

If the person trying desperately to avoid thinking seriously -- and succeeding -- won't concede that a 2005 poll showing 65% supporting an option that makes no reference to Canada fails to support the claim that a "vast majority" of Afghans today want Canadian troops to remain in Afghanistan... it's completely unsurprising.

Too bad the person I am debating with is ignoring the poll from late 2007 which says that 60% of Afghans have a favourable opinion of Canadian troops, compared to 19% who have an unfavourable opinion.

[WarBicycle]

And a large percentage of the 19% are members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

[Kitchener]

Too bad the person I am debating with is ignoring the poll from late 2007 which says that 60% of Afghans have a favourable opinion of Canadian troops, compared to 19% who have an unfavourable opinion.

Which person?

Which poll?

How do you square this with the Environics result that very few Afghans even knew Canadian troops were there, until told? (At which point, the pollsters said, they expressed a high regard for Canadian troops)?

I was not talking about you, in what you quoted from me. But you certainly do not seem to be thinking very seriously about poll data -- and what it means, and what it doesn't mean.

[eyeball]

What if the majority of Afghans WANT democracy, but the minority with the machine guns won't let them have it. And what if Canadians with machine guns might, just maybe, prevent the afghans with machine guns from oppressing the rest of Afghanistan. Shouldn't we at least TRY to help those Afghans?

What if we openly sit down with the Taliban and ask them these same questions? What I think really doesn't matter because its not my country.

[eyeball]

Maybe Afghanis are forgetting the corruption (and oppression) under the Taliban (who imposed Sharia Law). Taliban officials lived in luxury, took from less well to do to fund their lifestyle, enjoyed depravities that were forbidden (and punished non-Talibans who might have done the same).

These sorts of depravities and inequalities are what led to the development of social justice and democracy in our society and many others around the globe. There is every reason the pressure for reform will be stoked by the same sense of injustice in Afghanistan it just has to take its own sweet time. In the meanwhile, too many chefs will spoil the broth.

[jbg]

Are disucssions with enemy giving them credence or the right course to a negotiated peace?

Talks with the enemy create, at best, muddled incoherence and at worst a tragic result such as Carter's bogus 1994 agreement with NK.

[Dutchman9]

What the heck does this absurd generalization have to do with the thread?

Maybe your oblivious dismissal of Neo-Con foreign policy manifestations perpetually penalizes you with the ignorance you deserve to be saddled with.

[Dutchman9]

The Three Stooges.

You prefer mass death and poverty under the neo-con/neo-lib, 2-party US political monopoly ?

[Dutchman9]

Of course the US doesn't equal Bush, but the US doesn't owe your expectations anything either. The US realized its potential (and then some) a long, long time ago.

Recently, it has not. Under insane Neo-Cons such as ideological idiots Bush & Cheney, it has suffered greatly (except for CEOs and military leaders, of course).

Millions of more Americans in poverty, extremely high violent crime rates, the highest incarceration rate on earth, and an exponentially growing debt, foreign CIA torture prisons, decreasing civil liberties.... among other things (high infant mortality, plumetting life expectancy, plumetting education standards/performance, growing bankruptcies due to private health care expenditures and predatory lending practices, millions of Americans going hungry, etc.)

But it doesn't matter, because the military is active & aggressive, and CEOs are enjoying record incomes and wealth !

Right-wing wackos are oblivious to and ignorant of such manifestations of Neo-Con insanity.

[Dutchman9]

With the insane Neo-Con foreign policy, of 'killing all the bad guys', all they do is exponentially increase the number of family catastrophies and orphans. This recruits more angry and radicalized persons, and makes the prospect of peace impossible.

The only solution is a progressively pacifist one, not a blindly rampaging, polarizing, exacerbative Neo-Con one.

[Dutchman9]

Too bad the person I am debating with is ignoring the poll from late 2007 which says that 60% of Afghans have a favourable opinion of Canadian troops, compared to 19% who have an unfavourable opinion.

Assuming that the poll is entirely accurate is silly, naive and stupid (many polling companies are corporate right-wing think-tanks, facilitating right-wing gov't policy).

But since you are so gullible as to assume the poll IS entirely accurate, are you willing to address the concerns of the supposed 40% ? Or are they *with the enemy* and to be ignored ?

[Kitchener]

Maybe your oblivious dismissal of Neo-Con foreign policy manifestations perpetually penalizes you with the ignorance you deserve to be saddled with.

Maybe, yep!

But a rather more parsimonious explanation is that I was bemused by the irrelevance of your strange outburst to the balance of the thread.

A: "Should we pursue talks with the Taliban?"

B: "Sure, why not? After all, if we consider the way that --"

C: "BUSH CHENEY ARGLE BARGLE NEO-CON FLYING MONKEYS DEAD CHILDREN IMPERIALIST SMURF!"

B: "Erm..."

C: "IGNORAMUS!"

[White Doors]

Assuming that the poll is entirely accurate is silly, naive and stupid (many polling companies are corporate right-wing think-tanks, facilitating right-wing gov't policy).

But since you are so gullible as to assume the poll IS entirely accurate, are you willing to address the concerns of the supposed 40% ? Or are they *with the enemy* and to be ignored ?

oh boys....

[Dutchman9]

Apparently, there are ruthlessly oblivious supporters of Neo-Conservative foreign policy on this forum. They ignore and dismiss the deleterious manifestations of such polarizing and destructive ideological rampages in foreign lands. Those supporters of Neo-Con foreign policy and subsequent imperialistic nation smashing via Christo-Fascist corporate-militarism, are presumably able bodied potential soldiers simply too scared to go and help create the waves of orphans which inevitably arise from such self-righteous campaigns of coercive attempts at civilization.

If the current approach isn't working (in a history repeats itself Vietnam kinda way), why not look at progressively creative alternative strategies ? According to Bushians, you simply go harder and faster with the approach until it 'works'.

Aggressive, preemptive, dogmatic Neo-Con foreign policy does not work. It is immoral and impractical. It is simply a unilateral and ideological military-corporate directive.

[Dutchman9]

Maybe, yep!

But a rather more parsimonious explanation is that I was bemused by the irrelevance of your strange outburst to the balance of the thread.

A: "Should we pursue talks with the Taliban?"

B: "Sure, why not? After all, if we consider the way that --"

C: "BUSH CHENEY ARGLE BARGLE NEO-CON FLYING MONKEYS DEAD CHILDREN IMPERIALIST SMURF!"

B: "Erm..."

C: "IGNORAMUS!"

That's a rather dynamic scarecrow (misrepresentation).

Maybe you should open your eyes to empirical reality and common sense.

[Keepitsimple]

There is a big difference between the ideological leaders of the Talban and many of their low-level, uneducated followers. Afghanistan's government and Canada's military have always made it a priority to offer amnesty to minor players - of which there are many hundreds, if not thousands. Al Quaeda and the senior Taliban leadership are a different kettle of fish. They are blindly led by ideology and hatred. Any "deals" that are made would simply be "tactical" in nature - made at a time that is beneficial to their cause - a "time out" to regroup so they can eventually evict or destroy the infidels and re-install religious bondage. Here is an article from today's Sun which has some telling quotes from Hamas and a Palestinian Imam. I acknowlege that it switches gears to Israel/Palestine but as we know, it's all connected in the Middle East - a shared hatred of the West and all things Western.

"It does not matter what the Jews do. We will not let them have peace," the imam tells Goldberg. "They can be nice to us or they can kill us, it doesn't matter," the imam explains. "If we have a ceasefire with the Jews, it is only so that we can prepare ourselves for the final battle."

Hamas leader Khaled Mashal said the same thing recently when he commented that any truce with Israel would just be a tactical step. "This is how you run a battle," he explained.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2008/05/...481641-sun.html

[AngusThermopyle]

The only solution is a progressively pacifist one,

Could you provide an example of when such an "only solution" has ever worked in the past? Perhaps refer to Neville for some pointers on the success of such an approach.

Apparently, there are ruthlessly oblivious supporters of Neo-Conservative foreign policy on this forum. They ignore and dismiss the deleterious manifestations of such polarizing and destructive ideological rampages in foreign lands. Those supporters of Neo-Con foreign policy and subsequent imperialistic nation smashing via Christo-Fascist corporate-militarism, are presumably able bodied potential soldiers simply too scared to go and help create the waves of orphans which inevitably arise from such self-righteous campaigns of coercive attempts at civilization.

Now, the above, well it can be summed up as opinion, nothing more. As such it carries the weight of opinion, not fact. As for the style and prose, I hate to tell you this but its rather overblown and long winded. What is truly admirable is the way in which you managed to use all the buzz words available, much to the detriment of the point you were trying to make.

So, more to the point. Does anyone here honestly believe that the Taliban would negotiate in good faith?

Edited May 6, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[M.Dancer]

Those supporters of Neo-Con foreign policy and subsequent imperialistic nation smashing via Christo-Fascist corporate-militarism, are presumably able bodied potential soldiers simply too scared to go and help create the waves of orphans which inevitably arise from such self-righteous campaigns of coercive attempts at civilization.directive.

[jbg]

You prefer mass death and poverty under the neo-con/neo-lib, 2-party US political monopoly ?

Does everything in Canada somehow involve an attack on the US and/or Bush?

[White Doors]

Christo-Fascist corporate-militarism

that's a mouthful! lol