Afghanistan

[ScottSA]

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.

I guess this is another one of those urban myths that will hang on along the fringes of leftist thought; that somehow the war in Iraq took resources away from the hunt for al queda. I've never heard anyone explain how this notion works, but perhaps you'll be the first. Are armoured divisions a big help in staring across the border of Pakistan in hopes of catching a glimpse of al queda? Is there something that the US has in Iraq that is imperitive to have in Afghanistan in order to catch al queda operatives in Pakistan?

Thereafter, the next mistake was to commit to a long term stay of troops in the hope of nation building.

Why?

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.

Well, the spring insurgency we were all waiting for turned out to be pretty tame...sort of like the "brutal Afghan winter" we heard so much about some years ago. Are you suggesting we pull out because Pakistan harbours bad guys or that we ought to go into pakistan to pull them out?

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.

[Argus]

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 ,

Only a fool carries an argument on to another unrelated thread. There is nothing about CAIR in this thread. There is him stating his opinion and you attacking him without addressing his opinion.

[Argus]

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.

Fine. Then dispute it. Provide a list of all the peaceful Muslim nations without violence or societal barbarisms.

There's like sixty Muslim nations. Surely you can find quite a few.... right?

[Argus]

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.

Perhaps we simply have more patience. The US has had troops in South Korea for over fifty years now. What's been accomplished? You need only compare the South Korea of 1952 with the SK of today. And then compare the south to the north.

Fifty five years and counting. Was it worth it?

Would you have negotiated with Hitler knowing he was burning Jews in ovens? What would your position have been?

[ScottSA]

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.

Oh gosh no. Getting people to believe me is the furthest thing from my mind, as I'm sure it is with all posters here. We only post because we like the sensation of banging keyboards with our fingertips...God forbid that we actually hope to convince anyone of anything.

I level this comment against the folks who leap out of the wood work and yap away about me rather than whatever point I'm making. Let's see...yup...just like you!

But just for the record, I believe my statements are generally supported unless they fall into the category of generally accepted knowledge, in which case I leave it to the discretion of my opponent to look into the facts before making an ass of himself.

[jdobbin]

?

You want to take another crack at reformatting this?

[jdobbin]

Fine. Then dispute it. Provide a list of all the peaceful Muslim nations without violence or societal barbarisms.

There's like sixty Muslim nations. Surely you can find quite a few.... right?

United Arab Emirates. Malaysia. Turkey. Guinea. The Maldives. Kuwait. Mali. Uzbekistan. Kazakhstan. Turkmenistan. Kyrgyzstan.

These countries are not at war. They don't have a lot of problems with Islamic unrest in the last several years or the events have been isolated and don't reflect the culture as a whole.

[jdobbin]

Perhaps we simply have more patience. The US has had troops in South Korea for over fifty years now. What's been accomplished? You need only compare the South Korea of 1952 with the SK of today. And then compare the south to the north.

Fifty five years and counting. Was it worth it?

Would you have negotiated with Hitler knowing he was burning Jews in ovens? What would your position have been?

South Korea wasn't actively in insurgency for fifty years. They were not even in insurgency for a few weeks.

Korea became a major point along with the Philippines and Japan in keeping in check China and the U.S.S.R. One has to ask why 50,000 soldiers are still needed in Japan. They left the Philippines in 1992 because of Pinatubo and the governments asking them to leave. It helped Bush Sr. reduce costs considerably in the military and place them in more useful areas.

As for your Germany comparison, I don't know what negotiations you are referring to. I never suggested anything like that.

[Argus]

Fine. Then dispute it. Provide a list of all the peaceful Muslim nations without violence or societal barbarisms.

There's like sixty Muslim nations. Surely you can find quite a few.... right?

United Arab Emirates. Malaysia. Turkey. Guinea. The Maldives. Kuwait. Mali. Uzbekistan. Kazakhstan. Turkmenistan. Kyrgyzstan.

These countries are not at war. They don't have a lot of problems with Islamic unrest in the last several years or the events have been isolated and don't reflect the culture as a whole.

Let me put this as politely as I can. You clearly do not understand anything about the world, or the shape of the countries above which you have posted. Furthermore, I have to question how you could put those nations up there without putting in the least amount of research into just what is going on in them.

Perhaps you'd like to do a little basic research and reformat your list.

[Argus]

Perhaps we simply have more patience. The US has had troops in South Korea for over fifty years now. What's been accomplished? You need only compare the South Korea of 1952 with the SK of today. And then compare the south to the north.

Fifty five years and counting. Was it worth it?

Would you have negotiated with Hitler knowing he was burning Jews in ovens? What would your position have been?

South Korea wasn't actively in insurgency for fifty years. They were not even in insurgency for a few weeks.

Is that all it boils down to for you? If there is an insurgency we should give up?

Korea became a major point along with the Philippines and Japan in keeping in check

You are missing the point. South Korea in 1952 was a primitive, backward country run by a corrupt elite. Now look at them. Contrast them to the North, which is still a primitive, backward country run by a corrupt elite.

The South Korea of 1952 did not become the South Korea of 2007 quickly nor easily.

[jdobbin]

Let me put this as politely as I can. You clearly do not understand anything about the world, or the shape of the countries above which you have posted. Furthermore, I have to question how you could put those nations up there without putting in the least amount of research into just what is going on in them.

Perhaps you'd like to do a little basic research and reformat your list.

I'm sure you are looking for anything and everything that you can to discredit those nations for being dominated by Muslim people.

I don't see these nations being at war with the west. Some of them are quite prosperous and have quite a lot of secular freedoms that you'd expect elsewhere.

You are obviously an expert in all of these countries. I'm sure you could wow us with your massive knowledge on how they these countries are terrorists threats because of the Muslim religion. Perhaps you will enlighten us on how you would convert them to Christianity ala Anne Coulter and her philosophy.

[jdobbin]

Is that all it boils down to for you? If there is an insurgency we should give up?

You are missing the point. South Korea in 1952 was a primitive, backward country run by a corrupt elite. Now look at them. Contrast them to the North, which is still a primitive, backward country run by a corrupt elite.

The South Korea of 1952 did not become the South Korea of 2007 quickly nor easily.

I think you are missing the point. South Korea was never actively hostile against the United States. It has been an ally since 1945.

Afghanistan was invaded. It was an ally of no one. Unlike Korea, it really wasn't even a country but a conglomeration of tribes at war with each other over hundreds of years. The Karzai government controls very little outside of Kabul and even with a much larger military presence would have a hard time overcoming feudalism on this scale.

Korea and Germany were united countries when occupied following World War 2. They were not fighting internal wars with itself.

Iraq and Afghanistan are still itching to fight one another and we are interfering with that.

[ScottSA]

Let me put this as politely as I can. You clearly do not understand anything about the world, or the shape of the countries above which you have posted. Furthermore, I have to question how you could put those nations up there without putting in the least amount of research into just what is going on in them.

Perhaps you'd like to do a little basic research and reformat your list.

I'm sure you are looking for anything and everything that you can to discredit those nations for being dominated by Muslim people.

I don't see these nations being at war with the west. Some of them are quite prosperous and have quite a lot of secular freedoms that you'd expect elsewhere.

You are obviously an expert in all of these countries. I'm sure you could wow us with your massive knowledge on how they these countries are terrorists threats because of the Muslim religion. Perhaps you will enlighten us on how you would convert them to Christianity ala Anne Coulter and her philosophy.

I'm sure Argus can speak quite adequately for himself, but it doesn't take an "expert" in those countries to know that Islam foments rebellion everywhere it plants its seeds. Why would it not? How could it not?

[jdobbin]

I'm sure Argus can speak quite adequately for himself, but it doesn't take an "expert" in those countries to know that Islam foments rebellion everywhere it plants its seeds. Why would it not? How could it not?

There are many Muslim countries will stable governments, no rebellions and who pose no threat to rest of the world.

I realize that you believe that all Muslims alone or in groups are a threat to you but I'm afraid I just don't see it. I have several Muslim friends. You should try it some time.

[ScottSA]

I'm sure Argus can speak quite adequately for himself, but it doesn't take an "expert" in those countries to know that Islam foments rebellion everywhere it plants its seeds. Why would it not? How could it not?

There are many Muslim countries will stable governments, no rebellions and who pose no threat to rest of the world.

I realize that you believe that all Muslims alone or in groups are a threat to you but I'm afraid I just don't see it. I have several Muslim friends. You should try it some time.

You have Muslim friends? Oh, well then, I stand corrected...you are clearly an expert on Muslim friends. All I did was grow up watching Muslims torch Hindus and Sikhs. Silly me. And of course I've never had a Muslim friend, what with the teeming millions of them around me all the years I grew up beside them. The idea that someone wouldn't be able to distinguish between the particular and the general, the individual and the mass, is something that never actually struck me as worthy of explanation. Do you really not see the difference between Islam and your "Muslim friends?" Do you imagine that all Nazis were growling beasts, or do you think it possible that a few of them might have been...well...nice guys? If that is possible, does it mean that Nazism is a nice philosophy? Are your "Muslim friends" representative of the ideology of Islam? I hardly think so.

You claim these countries exist, but of the countries you cited, only two are Muslim and both of those are awash in oil, while the rest of the world stands by waiting for the revolutionary nightmare when they run out of it. So you just develop your friendships in enlightened bliss while I continue to call Islam a global scourge.

[jdobbin]

You have Muslim friends? Oh, well then, I stand corrected...you are clearly an expert on Muslim friends. All I did was grow up watching Muslims torch Hindus and Sikhs. Silly me. And of course I've never had a Muslim friend, what with the teeming millions of them around me all the years I grew up beside them. The idea that someone wouldn't be able to distinguish between the particular and the general, the individual and the mass, is something that never actually struck me as worthy of explanation. Do you really not see the difference between Islam and your "Muslim friends?" Do you imagine that all Nazis were growling beasts, or do you think it possible that a few of them might have been...well...nice guys? If that is possible, does it mean that Nazism is a nice philosophy? Are your "Muslim friends" representative of the ideology of Islam? I hardly think so.

You claim these countries exist, but of the countries you cited, only two are Muslim and both of those are awash in oil, while the rest of the world stands by waiting for the revolutionary nightmare when they run out of it. So you just develop your friendships in enlightened bliss while I continue to call Islam a global scourge.

What a rant. I love how you link the Nazis and the Muslim religion. Nice touch.

Only two of the countries I mentioned have Muslim majorities? You better run off and so some research.

I can't believe what a bigot you are. But go on and fight the good fight on the Internet.

[ScottSA]

You have Muslim friends? Oh, well then, I stand corrected...you are clearly an expert on Muslim friends. All I did was grow up watching Muslims torch Hindus and Sikhs. Silly me. And of course I've never had a Muslim friend, what with the teeming millions of them around me all the years I grew up beside them. The idea that someone wouldn't be able to distinguish between the particular and the general, the individual and the mass, is something that never actually struck me as worthy of explanation. Do you really not see the difference between Islam and your "Muslim friends?" Do you imagine that all Nazis were growling beasts, or do you think it possible that a few of them might have been...well...nice guys? If that is possible, does it mean that Nazism is a nice philosophy? Are your "Muslim friends" representative of the ideology of Islam? I hardly think so.

You claim these countries exist, but of the countries you cited, only two are Muslim and both of those are awash in oil, while the rest of the world stands by waiting for the revolutionary nightmare when they run out of it. So you just develop your friendships in enlightened bliss while I continue to call Islam a global scourge.

Only two of the countries I mentioned have Muslim majorities? You better run off and so some research.

Having fun dragging the goalposts around the field? A minute ago we were talking about Muslim countries and now all of a sudden we're talking about Muslim "majorities?"

[jdobbin]

Having fun dragging the goalposts around the field? A minute ago we were talking about Muslim countries and now all of a sudden we're talking about Muslim "majorities?"

The countries I listed are all considered Muslim countries. You don't think they are?

[ScottSA]

Having fun dragging the goalposts around the field? A minute ago we were talking about Muslim countries and now all of a sudden we're talking about Muslim "majorities?"

The countries I listed are all considered Muslim countries. You don't think they are?

No. Muslim countries are countries run by Islamic law. Most of the countries you listed are republics of one sort or another. To call the majority of them "Muslim" is like calling Spain a "Catholic" country, or the Netherlands a "Dutch Reformed Church" country. Nonetheless, even in the countries you mentioned, Islam can be found at the bottom of most of the political shenanigans that go on.

[jdobbin]

No. Muslim countries are countries run by Islamic law. Most of the countries you listed are republics of one sort or another. To call the majority of them "Muslim" is like calling Spain a "Catholic" country, or the Netherlands a "Dutch Reformed Church" country. Nonetheless, even in the countries you mentioned, Islam can be found at the bottom of most of the political shenanigans that go on.

I didn't realize we were making such broad distinctions. You say all Muslims are a "scourge" so it shouldn't matter to you whether they are republics or whatever.

I was speaking of countries with majority Muslim populations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_countries

I'm afraid I don't agree with your holy war on Muslims. Is that what you think needs to be done? A culling?

[ScottSA]

No. Muslim countries are countries run by Islamic law. Most of the countries you listed are republics of one sort or another. To call the majority of them "Muslim" is like calling Spain a "Catholic" country, or the Netherlands a "Dutch Reformed Church" country. Nonetheless, even in the countries you mentioned, Islam can be found at the bottom of most of the political shenanigans that go on.

I didn't realize we were making such broad distinctions. You say all Muslims are a "scourge" so it shouldn't matter to you whether they are republics or whatever.

I was speaking of countries with majority Muslim populations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_countries

I'm afraid I don't agree with your holy war on Muslims. Is that what you think needs to be done? A culling?

No, I think a focussing of your mind and a good beating of swords strawmen into plowshares brooms is in order. Holy war on Muslims? Are you still beating your mother?

[jdobbin]

No, I think a focussing of your mind and a good beating of swords strawmen into plowshares brooms is in order. Holy war on Muslims? Are you still beating your mother?

Just trying to get an answer from you. What is your solution to the problem you identify? You say Muslims are a scourge. So what is to be done about it?

[ScottSA]

No, I think a focussing of your mind and a good beating of swords strawmen into plowshares brooms is in order. Holy war on Muslims? Are you still beating your mother?

Just trying to get an answer from you. What is your solution to the problem you identify? You say Muslims are a scourge. So what is to be done about it?

The solution? The same solution we used against Nazism and Communism. Stomp out Islamism wherever we can, and hold it off wherever we can't. Make Islamic revolution an extremely unpleasant undertaking. Put Islam under the microscope, and especially when it's in our own countries.

[jdobbin]

The solution? The same solution we used against Nazism and Communism. Stomp out Islamism wherever we can, and hold it off wherever we can't. Make Islamic revolution an extremely unpleasant undertaking. Put Islam under the microscope, and especially when it's in our own countries.

That is a fairly vague description of a solution. I have no idea what you think should actually be done to "stomp out" or make things "extremely unpleasant" for Islamism. I don't even know if that is a person, place or thing. I know that some people believe it is a political movement but Christianity also a political movement. Does it actually mean terrorism though?

We have seen both Iraq and Afghanistan are not being quelled easily. In Iraq, even the most devoted Republicans to the cause are starting to say it is time to leave.

O'Connor the other day was saying that Afghanistan may never be stable.

As I said, I have no problem going after terrorism or those that support terrorists. I think you mean more than that though but I can't seem to pin you down on what that means.

[ScottSA]

The solution? The same solution we used against Nazism and Communism. Stomp out Islamism wherever we can, and hold it off wherever we can't. Make Islamic revolution an extremely unpleasant undertaking. Put Islam under the microscope, and especially when it's in our own countries.

That is a fairly vague description of a solution. I have no idea what you think should actually be done to "stomp out" or make "extremely unpleasant."

We have seen both Iraq and Afghanistan are not being quelled easily. In Iraq, even the most devoted Republicans to the cause are starting to say it is time to leave.

Even O'Connor the other day was saying that Afghanistan may never be stable.

As I said, I have no problem going after terrorism or those that support terrorists. I think you mean more than that though but I can't seem to pin you down on what that means.

Well, it doesn't mean running away because it's "hard" as you seem to suggest. It means to stop trying to play both sides of the field; stop allowing Cair and Cair-can and it's little buddies to cynically employ what amount to Goebbelian propaganda tactics, stop trying to pretend that Islam is a "religion of peace," and put some real muscle behind the war effort, including expanding it if necessary to Syria and almost certainly Iran. And I don't mean "nation build" either...if they want a Marshal Plan in the aftermath on our terms, fine. If they want instead to stew in the rubble without one, that's fine too.

Everyone seems to have forgotten what happened to the so-called "Arab Street" when the US originally showed resolve. It ran away fast. Islam understands strength and mocks weakness, and at the risk of invoking a much overused analogy, that's exactly how Hitler managed to manipulate the powers for so long. This has nothing to do with silly "Holy Wars" or anything else. It has to do with defeating an ideology, a scourge.