Argus Posted March 22, 2014 Report Posted March 22, 2014 Again, you are refusing to objectively consider what the attributes of a "civilized" country are/should be. My country still has the death penalty, thousands of gun homicides, millions of privately owned hand guns, and permitted "hate speech". Is it "civilized" by Canadian standards ? At one time, the USA engaged in violent civil war with over 600,000 dead. Oh, and there was that earlier Revolution thing with the monarchy. Got slaves ? Why does Afghanistan have to be pacified and settled so quickly to your standards ? There's no point in bringing in historical comparisons unless you're going to admit the Afghanis are centuries behind the rest of us. Allowing people to speak their minds, however nasty, is a lot more civilized than murdering them as soon as they do, and while the US has been involved in wars it at least never tried to hide a bomb under a girls school because it wanted them all dead for daring to get educated. I don't believe in cultural relativism. I believe the measure of a civilization can be seen in its cohesive nature and how it strives to look after the well-being of every member thereof. When a group decides the well-being of its members, even their lives, is unimportant compared to some mystical or ideological belief which has no relationship with their health, happiness or potential it can hardly be described as civilized. As far as my 'standards' for Afghanistan to be 'pacified' quickly, I have no such interest. I was merely pointing out that they are, for want of a better term, barbarians, and that once the west leaves what little progress their social and technical development has experienced over the past ten years will rapidly disappear. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2014 Report Posted March 22, 2014 There's no point in bringing in historical comparisons unless you're going to admit the Afghanis are centuries behind the rest of us. Allowing people to speak their minds, however nasty, is a lot more civilized than murdering them as soon as they do, and while the US has been involved in wars it at least never tried to hide a bomb under a girls school because it wanted them all dead for daring to get educated. These are not just historical comparisons...some of these things happen today. Americans exploded bombs in schools and churches in response to the Civil Rights movement or to protest taxes. Canada has been "involved with wars" of "choice" as well. Afghanistan is probably a far less significant threat now than the ungoverned areas of Pakistan. So using your definition, is Pakistan a "civilized" nation ? Saudi Arabia ? Iran ? Vatican City ? Was Northern Ireland "uncivilized" during "The Troubles" ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted March 23, 2014 Report Posted March 23, 2014 Get rid of the sexism and religiosity and I'd probably emigrate there. Leave us alone? What you do on your side of the border is your business? Sounds like paradise to me. You make a good point. It's just theat GD religiosity. Quote
Argus Posted March 23, 2014 Report Posted March 23, 2014 These are not just historical comparisons...some of these things happen today. Americans exploded bombs in schools and churches in response to the Civil Rights movement or to protest taxes. Canada has been "involved with wars" of "choice" as well. Afghanistan is probably a far less significant threat now than the ungoverned areas of Pakistan. So using your definition, is Pakistan a "civilized" nation ? Saudi Arabia ? Iran ? Vatican City ? Was Northern Ireland "uncivilized" during "The Troubles" ? There are levels of civility and sophistication. No, I don't regard Pakistan as civilized. Look, there are elementary standards of society which say, for example, that the state gathering a crowd to watch religious leaders hang a teenage girl from a crane because she had sex does NOT constitute anything other than barbarism. Yes, a few people in every society veer from the bounds of civility, but you can't compare the rare instance of fatal bombings in the US in the sixties to the vicious bomb attacks which occur on a daily basis in Pakistan today. When was the last time mobs raced through the streets in the US burning out the homes of religious minorities and hacking them to death? Remember the murderous riots in Afghanistan after some American preacher announced he was going to burn a koran? Hordes of barbarians attacked a UN compound to beat people to death. Similar things have happened in Pakistan on mere rumors of blaspheme. Mob violence is never far below the surface in these places, which patently is a sign of a lack of civilization. None of the violence in Northern Ireland, however long it lasted, approached the levels of mass brutality and violence amongst Muslim insurgent groups. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted March 23, 2014 Report Posted March 23, 2014 IMO Afghanistan is not much different today than it was 12 years ago except for a few exceptions such as Kabul which has always been a tad more progressive than most of the rest of the place. (notwithstanding they guneed down a bunch of people at the Serena yesterda)You do see women there teaching school, perhaps being even bold enough not to cover their hair. Go 50 miles in any direction you like, you'll see nothing of the kind.. Education in those areas was attempted for sure, but it didn't work all that well, unfortunately. The Taliban headed across the border into Pakistan when the going got rough but they'll be back. Sad but true. I think they have to reform themselves in order for it to stick. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 23, 2014 Report Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) None of the violence in Northern Ireland, however long it lasted, approached the levels of mass brutality and violence amongst Muslim insurgent groups. So earning the seal of approval for "Civilized" has to do more with quantity than quality ? Lynchings in the U.S. didn't make it "uncivilized" because it had a secular government and great TV shows ? Still, it had "mob violence" with killings in several cities as recently as the 1990's (Los Angeles). Vancouver had a destructive riot for the religion called "Hockey". Edited March 23, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted March 23, 2014 Report Posted March 23, 2014 So earning the seal of approval for "Civilized" has to do more with quantity than quality ? Lynchings in the U.S. didn't make it "uncivilized" because it had a secular government and great TV shows ? Still, it had "mob violence" with killings in several cities as recently as the 1990's (Los Angeles). Vancouver had a destructive riot for the religion called "Hockey". You can't compare the 'riots' in Canada to those in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, or other semi-barbarous countries. How many died in the Vancouver riots? None. How many were seriously injured? I think a drunk fell off a lampost and one guy got beat up. With the exception of the Rodney King riots, murderous mass violence in Canada and the US is uknown today. What public violence there is usually involves alcohol fuelled attacks on empty cars and shops. I would say civility has two aspects. One is the degree to which the civilizaton controls its members baser instincts for violence. In that regard, a state like Saudi Arabia is fairly civilized. The second aspect is the degree to which the members of that community are inclined towards violence as a resolution to their wants, needs and anger. By and large, community members in North America shrink from violence, let alone extreme violence. How many Muslim temples were burned down in the US after 9/11? How many Muslims houses were burned out? How many Muslim babies were thrown into the air to be hacked apart by machetes? Compare this to the riots which sweep through Afghanistan, Pakistan and some other states on just about any pretext. These aren't drunks turning over cars, we're talking about, but people armed with axes and iron bars looking to murder people. Remember the riots in the Muslim world about the cartoons of Muhmmed? Dozens killed for cartoons! That sort of mass reaction of violence is unknown in most of the west regardless of whether police are present. I think the present generation in the west learned its behavioural patterns from its parents, who learned them from theirs, which is a progression of civility that places like Pakistan have not experienced. There seems to be no empathy for others there and no acceptance of the right of others to be different, to act differently, to say different things. These are closed communities where everyone is expected and required to believe the same things and act accordingly. When people deviate, even because they're members of different communities, outrage ensues, and violence seems to follow on almost instantly. The violence in Afghanistan is not merely between the Taliban and the government and western soldiers. Violence is endemic among community members, both wthin families, and in the work world. It's not at all uncommon for employers to beat employees, for example, for police to beat people on the street, for men who argue about something to brawl about it. And it's certainly quite common for men to beat their wives and children. And all this is done without even the inspiration of alcohol. Imagine what it'd be like over there if they didn't ban alcohol. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted March 29, 2014 Report Posted March 29, 2014 Army Guy. Read this next time you want to put the blame on the general Canadian population, read this article. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-mackay-wishes-canada-s-afghan-troops-had-been-better-prepared-1.2590133 With Canada's mission in Afghanistan finally in the past, former defence minister Peter MacKay has acknowledged the government could have done more for its soldiers. In a sober interview on CBC Radio's The House, MacKay said a mission as complex as Afghanistan "always causes pause for reflection." MacKay said he wished, in some ways, that Canada had "provided more equipment, helicopters, mine-clearing equipment in the early days." "I don't think the ferocity of the mission perhaps dawned on even military leaders, let alone political leaders of two different governments," he said. "In retrospect, we could have perhaps prepared our soldiers better through both equipment and training." As I said before, the support of the troops is really needed when they return home. In December, he said the suicides were a tragic and needless loss of life, saying "young men and women have lost confidence in our country to support them" and called for a public board of inquiry into the Canadian Forces' handling of mental health issues. It's also something that weighs on MacKay's mind. "I wish we could have, perhaps, been able to reach out into our country's mental health providers to enlist their support that's needed now," MacKay said. Not only did you have leaders that failed you by sending you in unprepared, but they had no idea what the damn mission really was and how hard it would be. Failed on every level. I thought intelligence services would have provided that information to the military in order to make better preparations. Fail fail fail. Quote
eyeball Posted March 29, 2014 Report Posted March 29, 2014 Not only did you have leaders that failed you by sending you in unprepared, but they had no idea what the damn mission really was and how hard it would be. And yet, just about any internet forum junkie with half a brain could have and and often did say it was a fool's mission that was doomed to fail right from the get go. How does one explain that? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
GostHacked Posted March 30, 2014 Report Posted March 30, 2014 And yet, just about any internet forum junkie with half a brain could have and and often did say it was a fool's mission that was doomed to fail right from the get go. How does one explain that? You are correct, We can look back at our own posts on this forum and see that many were against it from the start. But they were treated as unpatriotic and called some wonderful names. It did not take much foresight to understand that the mission was doomed from the start. The only differences are that Al-queda and the Taliban have been moved out of Afghanistan (and reports show that that is not exactly the case either , so another fail).... opium is rampant again, and the law of the land is essentially the same as under the Taliban, with some slight improvements. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 30, 2014 Report Posted March 30, 2014 There is some truth to your post, but "essentially" the same isn't true. The Alliance's stated goals to depose the Taliban and establish a state have been met. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Topaz Posted March 30, 2014 Report Posted March 30, 2014 I have a question that deals with our military and its directly connected to Canada and the USA......does Canada sell military equipment to the US? Why you ask? On Saturday, Canada, shipped by train about 16 tanks, trucks etc and all this was heading towards the Windsor On. border. I was surprised because the USA is the top maker of military equipment. Anyone know? Quote
GostHacked Posted March 30, 2014 Report Posted March 30, 2014 I have a question that deals with our military and its directly connected to Canada and the USA......does Canada sell military equipment to the US? Why you ask? On Saturday, Canada, shipped by train about 16 tanks, trucks etc and all this was heading towards the Windsor On. border. I was surprised because the USA is the top maker of military equipment. Anyone know? Not sure what we sell to the USA. I do know that we buy some of our tanks from Germany. But 16 tanks is a drop in the bucket compared to some of the videos of trains in the US hauling hundreds of military vehicles, including many many tanks. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 30, 2014 Report Posted March 30, 2014 I have a question that deals with our military and its directly connected to Canada and the USA......does Canada sell military equipment to the US? Yes....Canada has several defense contractors that export to the U.S. and other nations. Some companies are American subsidiaries (e.g. Raytheon, General Dynamics). Perhaps what you saw on the train were new or upgraded Stryker armoured personnel carriers with double V-hulls, a change quickly pressed into production because of lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1126_Infantry_Carrier_Vehicle Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted April 4, 2014 Report Posted April 4, 2014 And yet, just about any internet forum junkie with half a brain could have and and often did say it was a fool's mission that was doomed to fail right from the get go. How does one explain that? I think the goal of imposing some kind of sane rule there was logical. I think trying to develop democracy was insane, however, and doomed to fail. As I've said before, what they needed to do was find a strongman and put him in power and let him slaughter anyone who didn't like it. If they'd done that there'd be something like peace now. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted April 4, 2014 Report Posted April 4, 2014 Except that putting bloodthirsty strongmen into power is what leads to... You just refuse to get it don't you? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted April 4, 2014 Report Posted April 4, 2014 Except that putting bloodthirsty strongmen into power is what leads to... You just refuse to get it don't you? I'm not a fan of bloodthirsty strongmen. I'm really not. But it seems to me you have only two choices here; you can either have a strongman who is pro-west, or you can have a vicious group of religious fanatics who are anti-west and who make the place a den of terrorists. Do you see a third option? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted April 4, 2014 Report Posted April 4, 2014 Of course I do, start minding our own damned business. Be vigilant and all that at home of course but I definitely think trying to wheel and deal for resources and trade in regions and countries that are run by despots should end, full stop, at least until we develop the moral and ethical background for doing so. To do that we need to interfere in the influence we're talking about in another thread. I suspect we'd be interfering at the "white collar" end of the influence scale, mucking around at our end will accomplish nothing. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted April 4, 2014 Report Posted April 4, 2014 Of course I do, start minding our own damned business. Technically, that's what we were doing. Who cared what a shithole Afghanistan was? Nobody. Oh, there was some hand wringing about the nasty things the Taliban were doing, but no one was going to go over there and interfere until Osama bin Laden flew those aircraft into the world trade center. At that point you come to realize allowing a terrorist commited to blowing up your people to operate with impunity (and ten thousand followers) is not a good idea, even if he's doing it in someone else's country. So it seems to me we have a valid interest in insuring that people like that aren't free to operate with impunity. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted April 4, 2014 Report Posted April 4, 2014 Technically, that's what we were doing. And Canada was never attacked in the first place. Going into Afghanistan because the US was attacked was not an example of 'minding our own business'. Quote
eyeball Posted April 4, 2014 Report Posted April 4, 2014 Technically, that's what we were doing. People have been backing dictators in the region for decades and even centuries. That's why so much of it including Afghanistan is such a shit hole. It seems to me there are only a small number of us that have any real interest in doing this, and it's an invalid one to be sure given the amount of shit that has to be disturbed to pursue it. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 4, 2014 Report Posted April 4, 2014 at least until we develop the moral and ethical background for doing so. So it would be OK for Canada to continue raping and pillaging with mining companies around the world once a "moral and ethical" framework is established ? How noble...true "social justice" !! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted April 4, 2014 Report Posted April 4, 2014 So it would be OK for Canada to continue raping and pillaging with mining companies around the world once a "moral and ethical" framework is established ? Absolutely not. Why upstanding people and countries put up with us is a real mystery. How noble...true "social justice" !! There's nothing noble, just or social about this behaviour all. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 4, 2014 Report Posted April 4, 2014 Absolutely not. Why upstanding people and countries put up with us is a real mystery. There's nothing noble, just or social about this behaviour all. But you stated that such things should be undertaken once a "moral and ethical background" is developed. This is very convenient...just solicit some Michael Ignatieff types to draft up something nice about human rights, social justice, environmental responsibility, blah, blah, blah, and then it would be fine , right ? Whatever happened to just staying home within Canada's borders ? At least the government and mining companies could still rape and pillage on First Nations' reserves. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted April 4, 2014 Report Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) So it would be OK for Canada to continue raping and pillaging with mining companies around the world once a "moral and ethical" framework is established ? How noble...true "social justice" !! If one has been paying attention, Harper has been selling out our mining resources abroad. It is actually Canada that is getting raped, by our own government. Which really has nothing to do with the thread at hand. Edited April 4, 2014 by GostHacked Quote
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.