Afghanistan

[guyser]

He is entitled to his opinion, and he expresses it fairly well. You are entitled to disagree with his opinion and to state why he is wrong - assuming you have the intelligence to articulate that beyond "you're a poo-poo head".

Barring intelligence, you and jrobbin can simply call him names. It's cheap and easy and hey, it probably won't get you banned until you do it too much.

You are absolutely correct, he does and has an opinion. One that I disagree with and have a problem with. When one constantly smears Muslims, one gets called on it.Same goes for gays.

When one starts a thread on bashing Muslims vis a vis CAIR-CAN , twisting the facts of the article , and then finds that not only the posters here but most major editorialists agreed with CAIR-CAN, that is nothing but being dishonest. He disappered quickly on that thread. Perhaps a mis-read . But I doubt that, for I know all too well his intelligence.

And you want to lecture me on name calling?

[Argus]

He is entitled to his opinion, and he expresses it fairly well. You are entitled to disagree with his opinion and to state why he is wrong - assuming you have the intelligence to articulate that beyond "you're a poo-poo head".

Barring intelligence, you and jrobbin can simply call him names. It's cheap and easy and hey, it probably won't get you banned until you do it too much.

You are absolutely correct, he does and has an opinion. One that I disagree with and have a problem with. When one constantly smears Muslims, one gets called on it.Same goes for gays.

If someone is saying something untrue about Muslims, you have the opportunity to point out the factual errors. If someone gives an opinion, you may disagree with it. You have not disagree with his facts, nor pointed out logical errors with his opinions. So far you appear incapable of anything beyond "you're a poo-poo head!"

[guyser]

You have not disagree with his facts, nor pointed out logical errors with his opinions.

Actually I did.

He opined that CAIR-CAN was dragging down our security , with no facts I might add, and I rebutted it, as did pretty much everyone else. There was another thread and IIRC the premise, as proposed by your esteemed buddy, was that "vieled threats" were being issued when in fact none were. That also forced some name calling towards me.

So far you appear incapable of anything beyond "you're a poo-poo head!"

Again, you are lecturing me about name calling. Funny, that is not my MO.

Anyhow, shall we get back on track?

[guyser]

You have not disagree with his facts,

FYI, there were none to begin with.

Gander ...goose....but then again, I bet the same rules dont apply in your world.

[Moxie]

You have not disagree with his facts,

FYI, there were none to begin with.

Gander ...goose....but then again, I bet the same rules dont apply in your world.

I can't see us beating the Taliban using traditional methods, these terrorists are animals. When one is willing to use their children as bombs, how can we fight them using the traditional methods? The "So called experts" believe we have to treat the Aghanistan government/people as if we were part of their culture ergo using bribes, pandering to the tribal system of elder power and we can forget even a modicum of gender equality in Afghanistan. It seems so hopeless for our troops.

[madmax]

I can't see us beating the Taliban using traditional methods, these terrorists are animals. When one is willing to use their children as bombs, how can we fight them using the traditional methods? The "So called experts" believe we have to treat the Aghanistan government/people as if we were part of their culture ergo using bribes, pandering to the tribal system of elder power and we can forget even a modicum of gender equality in Afghanistan. It seems so hopeless for our troops.

Welcome to the forum.

It is comments like yours that worry me with regards to the mission. I haven't heard of the Afghans usings kids since the USSR days. I do believe that this young boy was co opted to become a suicide bomber.

I don't know how one can participate in Afghanistan and ignore their cultural ways. Using bribes, tribal systems, and elders are the means to get things done. Gender equality has taken a back seat after the 60's and 70s. The society is not ready to bring women ot the forefront after nearly 30 years of conflict, and barbaric occupation, barbaric rule of warlords, and oppressive rule of the Taliban. Only the women of Afghanistan can do this, and this is a task that will take decades. It is a huge task, that is undermined by every commenter who claims they are free of their burkas, when in reality, the women are not treated as anything other than a possession. New laws are invoked that support child brides, and women will be beaten and killed by their husbands behind closed doors.

I believe that the combat mission intent could be derived to have two goals. By time to stabilize the rest of the country. Locate and Target higher Al Qaida Leaders.

I am not certain that this mission has proven successful to date. I think that Martin was both ignorant and naive when signing on to this mission. I do believe that Harper is dealing with the situation as best as he can, and is realizing that the troops cannot be used for political rah rah purposes. I certainly hope so, as he is starting to give way to the realities the mission faces.

The troops seem affected by what is happening here, although that doesn't mean they are immune to criticise some of the problems they face while in Afghanistan.

I don't believe Afghanistan is hopeless. I don't believe that Canadian troops in Afghanistan are American Patsies.

But I do believe that they can gain the support of the Canadian Public, by exiting the combat mission, and leaving the intelligence and targeting to the likes of JTF2 and other special forces of the NATO countries.

It is difficult to assess the stability of Afghanistan since the Talibans overthrow in 2001. However, as it is 2007, I have could reason to believe that we are nowhere near where we should have been by this time.

These are just my opinions and another way to continue the discussion here. As many in this forum are aware, I have not been keen on the counter insurgency mission from the get go.

[jdobbin]

Isn't that a personal attack? I would have thought that someone as self-righteous as you are about personal attacks would refrain from making them.

Of course, you're only upset by personal attacks made by conservatives, not against them, so I suppose this doesn't count.

Scott doesn't deny that he hates Muslims. He just can't understand why anyone else wouldn't hate their religion. I've said repeatedly that if he or anyone wants to decry terrorism or zealotry, I have no problem with that but don't go about spouting hate at the religion and pretending it is anything but bigotry.

[jdobbin]

You would.

There is an enormous difference between people who do not like the often violent and brutal cultural baggage associated with ALL Muslim countries and ALL Muslim societies, and those who don't like Jews simply because they don't like Jews.

There's that wide paint brush slathering around again.

[ScottSA]

You have not disagree with his facts, nor pointed out logical errors with his opinions.

Actually I did.

He opined that CAIR-CAN was dragging down our security , with no facts I might add, and I rebutted it, as did pretty much everyone else. There was another thread and IIRC the premise, as proposed by your esteemed buddy, was that "vieled threats" were being issued when in fact none were. That also forced some name calling towards me.

So far you appear incapable of anything beyond "you're a poo-poo head!"

Again, you are lecturing me about name calling. Funny, that is not my MO.

Anyhow, shall we get back on track?

You rebutt nothing actually. You simply follow me around like a diapered brat attempting to shout me down with squeaky and ineffective insults. I don't mind accusations of racism and bigotry...that particular bullying tactic wore thin a long time before you tried it, and I treat it as rather a badge of honor, because it tends to highlight the intellectual bancruptcy of the folks who use it. In other words, since you may not understand that, it shows that the folks who use the tactic have no better argument. You see, you're the type of fellow who used to barge into opposition political meetings dressed in spiffy brown shirts and start hitting people over the head with sticks in the 1930s. You don't want to hear things, so instead of learning whether they are true or not, you retreat to your streetcorner preconceptions and try to threaten people into your way of thinking. You wouldn't dare do it if you were face to face with me, and it sure as hell won't work here.

It's interesting...Ian Kershaw wrote of Hitler that he was well read...in fact he read voraciously. But he didn't read to learn; he read to re-enforce what he instinctively believed in the first place, and he read only those things that agreed with his preconceptions. I find that these days there are a lot of people who read, or debate, or enter the internet world, with that same attitude. You are a case in point.

[FascistLibertarian]

If we lose it will be because of public oppinion here and the MSM, not because of our troops and the situation on the ground.

[jdobbin]

If we lose it will be because of public oppinion here and the MSM, not because of our troops and the situation on the ground.

If Harper cannot communicate how the mission is going, tell us the benchmarks of success will be measured, people will decide for themselves.

The right wing is saying any talk, any at all gives comfort to the enemy and makes it impossible to defeat that enemy. The right never considers the possibility that the victory may be forever elusive.

[bush_cheney2004]

The right wing is saying any talk, any at all gives comfort to the enemy and makes it impossible to defeat that enemy. The right never considers the possibility that the victory may be forever elusive.

Which begs the question of efficacy for prior "left wing" communications from the Grits and even Taliban Jack. Why did it take General Hillier to finally admit that Canadian Forces actually engage and KILL the enemy?

[ScottSA]

If we lose it will be because of public oppinion here and the MSM, not because of our troops and the situation on the ground.

If Harper cannot communicate how the mission is going, tell us the benchmarks of success will be measured, people will decide for themselves.

The right wing is saying any talk, any at all gives comfort to the enemy and makes it impossible to defeat that enemy. The right never considers the possibility that the victory may be forever elusive.

Of course the victory is elusive for those people who don't want it. If there is, at some point, a period of relative peace in Afghanistan, you'll move the goalposts so that the win is no longer a win to your mind. I predict that if the Liberals come to power and extend the mission, you'll suddenly discover that we're winning again, and embark on explanations as to why.

[jdobbin]

Of course the victory is elusive for those people who don't want it. If there is, at some point, a period of relative peace in Afghanistan, you'll move the goalposts so that the win is no longer a win to your mind. I predict that if the Liberals come to power and extend the mission, you'll suddenly discover that we're winning again, and embark on explanations as to why.

I've said several times that I think we should leave southern Afghanistan by 2009. I disagreed with the Liberals extending the mission to 2009 because it came with no benchmarks and no indication of relief from our allies. We still have no indication of those things.

Are you one of those people who read the book The Secret and believe that wish fulfillment will make victory possible?

[ScottSA]

Of course the victory is elusive for those people who don't want it. If there is, at some point, a period of relative peace in Afghanistan, you'll move the goalposts so that the win is no longer a win to your mind. I predict that if the Liberals come to power and extend the mission, you'll suddenly discover that we're winning again, and embark on explanations as to why.

I've said several times that I think we should leave southern Afghanistan by 2009. I disagreed with the Liberals extending the mission to 2009 because it came with no benchmarks and no indication of relief from our allies. We still have no indication of those things.

Are you one of those people who read the book The Secret and believe that wish fulfillment will make victory possible?

No. I just not one of those folks who would have claimed WW II was lost after the Battle of the Bulge. Oh, wait, we've already thrashed the Taliban, and you're STILL waiting for imminent defeat.

[bush_cheney2004]

No. I just not one of those folks who would have claimed WW II was lost after the Battle of the Bulge. Oh, wait, we've already thrashed the Taliban, and you're STILL waiting for imminent defeat.

Bingo! Some don't want this NATO adventure to work at all, because it will complete the UN's fall from grace and relevance for such matters. Today, Afghanistan...tomorrow...THE WORLD!

[guyser]

You simply follow me around like a diapered brat attempting to shout me down with squeaky and ineffective insults.

You see, you're the type of fellow who used to barge into opposition political meetings dressed in spiffy brown shirts and start hitting people over the head with sticks in the 1930s.

You wouldn't dare do it if you were face to face with me, and it sure as hell won't work here.

Cut it down for you, as you were, in your own words, bloviating. That word you use...ad hominem I believe?

Still mad about those other forums huh? Sorry, didnt mean for the soft spot to get injured.

I wouldnt dare if I were face to face with you.? Dont know me then. It would be a pleasure Mr Tough Internet Commando Guy.

...bemused giggles on that one.Thanks!

[jdobbin]

No. I just not one of those folks who would have claimed WW II was lost after the Battle of the Bulge. Oh, wait, we've already thrashed the Taliban, and you're STILL waiting for imminent defeat.

You're probably one of the people who think that victory is imminent in Iraq as well.

[ScottSA]

You simply follow me around like a diapered brat attempting to shout me down with squeaky and ineffective insults.

You see, you're the type of fellow who used to barge into opposition political meetings dressed in spiffy brown shirts and start hitting people over the head with sticks in the 1930s.

You wouldn't dare do it if you were face to face with me, and it sure as hell won't work here.

Cut it down for you, as you were, in your own words, bloviating. That word you use...ad hominem I believe?

Still mad about those other forums huh? Sorry, didnt mean for the soft spot to get injured.

I wouldnt dare if I were face to face with you.? Dont know me then. It would be a pleasure Mr Tough Internet Commando Guy.

...bemused giggles on that one.Thanks!

Oh, I don't think you would, little internet pipsqueak guy. Anyway, why do you follow me around making inane juvenile comments? Some kind of repressed homosexual thing?

[guyser]

Oh, I don't think you would, little internet pipsqueak guy. Anyway, why do you follow me around making inane juvenile comments? Some kind of repressed homosexual thing?

Please note the absence of any personal attacks, jerkhoodness or other bannable offences in the above

content.

Please note the absence of any personal attacks, jerkhoodness or other bannable offences in the above content

After all it is your sig line isnt it?

pssst...absolutely would.

[madmax]

If we lose it will be because of public oppinion here and the MSM, not because of our troops and the situation on the ground.

Losing because of ....

A) Public Opinion

MSM

C) Troops

D) Situation on the Ground

Correct answers are

A) NO

NO

C) NO

D) YES

I disagree with your assessment FascistLibertarian,

While I do not believe that the media has done a thorough job following the soldiers perspective. The facts are, that any reporting suggesting winning on the ground cannnot declare victory/success unless the facts on the ground support that situation.

[madmax]

You rebutt nothing actually. You simply follow me around like a diapered brat attempting to shout me down with squeaky and ineffective insults.

Don't you have something better to do than follow me around making juvenile and idiotic comments?

You level this comment against many people in these forums.

Particularly anyone who takes issue with any of your unsupported statements.

You want your opinion and your analogies to be considered as truth.

It would appear to me that you do not want a discussion.

You want people to believe you.

[madmax]

Oh, wait, we've already thrashed the Taliban, and you're STILL waiting for imminent defeat.

We participated in the ousting of the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2001. An opportunity was frittered away with the foreign policy George Bush adopted. This is nothing to brag about. It is now 2007 and what could have been a very effective reconstruction effort has turned into the rebirth for an undesired religious and ethnic entity. Karzai should have been able to secure the support of Pashtun tribes with the help of the US, in a similar fashion that the US switched sides to support the Northern Alliance. Karzai could not and didn't achieve a stable Afghanistan because of this oversight and the apathetic nature of US foreign policy towards Afghanistan after the route of the taliban.

The common theme of Iraq and Afghanistan, has been the incompetent planning after dominating the battle field.

When are you going to signup? You have on a number of occasions mentioned your bravery over the internet. There is plenty of opportunity to enlist, ask to go over and engage the enemy to ensure a NATO victory. You make it sound so whip snap, so easy, but you aren't doing the heavy lifting.

[ScottSA]

Oh, wait, we've already thrashed the Taliban, and you're STILL waiting for imminent defeat.

We participated in the ousting of the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2001. An opportunity was frittered away with the foreign policy George Bush adopted. This is nothing to brag about. It is now 2007 and what could have been a very effective reconstruction effort has turned into the rebirth for an undesired religious and ethnic entity. Karzai should have been able to secure the support of Pashtun tribes with the help of the US, in a similar fashion that the US switched sides to support the Northern Alliance. Karzai could not and didn't achieve a stable Afghanistan because of this oversight and the apathetic nature of US foreign policy towards Afghanistan after the route of the taliban.

The common theme of Iraq and Afghanistan, has been the incompetent planning after dominating the battle field.

When are you going to signup? You have on a number of occasions mentioned your bravery over the internet. There is plenty of opportunity to enlist, ask to go over and engage the enemy to ensure a NATO victory. You make it sound so whip snap, so easy, but you aren't doing the heavy lifting.

When I am going to sign up is none of your business and not at all relevant to this conversation.

You don't seem to understand what has been going on in that country. Nothing was "frittered away;" the Canadian mission merely changed from the north to the south; from relative peace to a troubled area, and then began offensive operations. Duh.

[jdobbin]

When I am going to sign up is none of your business and not at all relevant to this conversation.

You don't seem to understand what has been going on in that country. Nothing was "frittered away;" the Canadian mission merely changed from the north to the south; from relative peace to a troubled area, and then began offensive operations. Duh.

I believe the frittering away was the diversion of resources to Iraq before the complete capture of al Qaeda operatives was achieved. Thereafter, the next mistake was to commit to a long term stay of troops in the hope of nation building.

With British and NATO commanders talking about a 30 year commitment, it isn't easy to see how it isn't going to be a prolonged insurgency, especially when Pakistan harbours the people the continue the battle each spring.

The lack of commitment from our allies and the inability of the Afghans themselves to bring order to their country makes Canadians question what we are going to be able to achieve.