Afghanistan

[jdobbin]

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.

I think having troops on the ground to build Iraq and Afghanistan is a poor use of money and manpower. Both countries are itching to fight one another and the U.S., Canada and others are in the way. They are targets of opportunity. Moreover, even our top leaders are saying these countries may never be stable because of interference from outside such as Pakistan and Iran.

I would have much preferred in and out of Afghanistan after destroying al Qaeda and those that supported them. My preference would have been to withdraw to our base in the Gulf and focus on a rapid deployment force to deal with threats.

In my view, support to help re-build or develop a country that was previously a threat would have been contingent on cessation of hostilities and an end to support of terrorist organizations. I think that policy worked with Libya.

As for defeating an ideology, I think that will only come from within. Any attempt to destroy it from the outside usually ends in failure. Nazi Germany might have been defeated but it was isolated to one country and it didn't involve religion.

The focus has to be on actual threats. Canada is among a number of nations who are too spread out. The Afghans are going to have to step and fight for their own country. At the moment, they leave the heavy lifting to NATO. It is frustrating to Canadian troops who can't rely on the Afghan police for anything.

[ScottSA]

As for defeating an ideology, I think that will only come from within. Any attempt to destroy it from the outside usually ends in failure. Nazi Germany might have been defeated but it was isolated to one country and it didn't involve religion.

That's not true, actually. The 'one country' bit anyway. Fascism was not only quite popular in Europe prior to and during the war (Spain, Italy, Balkans, parts of northern Europe), but it was popular even in England and the US within a significant and generally influential segment of society. It didn't reform itself from within, it got the shit kicked out of it from without, and its tail stepped on quite soundly in those places where it existed outside the influence of its national power bases.

And Islam may be a religion, but it is an ideology as well. And it can be, if not entirely stamped out, at least neutered to the point that Jihad becomes seen as a losing proposition.

[jdobbin]

That's not true, actually. The 'one country' bit anyway. Fascism was not only quite popular in Europe prior to and during the war (Spain, Italy, Balkans, parts of northern Europe), but it was popular even in England and the US within a significant and generally influential segment of society. It didn't reform itself from within, it got the shit kicked out of it from without, and its tail stepped on quite soundly in those places where it existed outside the influence of its national power bases.

And Islam may be a religion, but it is an ideology as well. And it can be, if not entirely stamped out, at least neutered to the point that Jihad becomes seen as a losing proposition.

Only Italy and Germany were a threat outside their border. I am of the opinion that Italian fascism was in part many types of movements from nationalism, anti-socialism, authoritarianism and militarism in one package. Like many Italian coalitions, it fell apart like a house of cards when under pressure.

German Nazism was exclusive to Germany. While it also had elements of what we see in Italian fascism, it was more heavy on the militarism. Given that the German people also bought into the Aryan nation idea, the country posed a threat to almost every one. I think there are few people who disagree it was the right thing to do to defeat Germany and crush Nazism.

I think that Canada can only respond to threats in quick fashion. Any attempt to stay in one place makes us a target and some of these countries offload their security almost entirely on us. I do believe that Afghanistan needs help. However, when the ANP walks away from fights or is so corrupt that they are the enemy of the people, we are getting in so deep that it hard to see where the bottom is.

[ScottSA]

That's not true, actually. The 'one country' bit anyway. Fascism was not only quite popular in Europe prior to and during the war (Spain, Italy, Balkans, parts of northern Europe), but it was popular even in England and the US within a significant and generally influential segment of society. It didn't reform itself from within, it got the shit kicked out of it from without, and its tail stepped on quite soundly in those places where it existed outside the influence of its national power bases.

And Islam may be a religion, but it is an ideology as well. And it can be, if not entirely stamped out, at least neutered to the point that Jihad becomes seen as a losing proposition.

Only Italy and Germany were a threat outside their border. I am of the opinion that Italian fascism was in part many types of movements from nationalism, anti-socialism, authoritarianism and militarism in one package. Like many Italian coalitions, it fell apart like a house of cards when under pressure.

German Nazism was exclusive to Germany. While it also had elements of what we see in Italian fascism, it was more heavy on the militarism. Given that the German people also bought into the Aryan nation idea, the country posed a threat to almost every one. I think there are few people who disagree it was the right thing to do to defeat Germany and crush Nazism.

I think that Canada can only respond to threats in quick fashion. Any attempt to stay in one place makes us a target and some of these countries offload their security almost entirely on us. I do believe that Afghanistan needs help. However, when the ANP walks away from fights or is so corrupt that they are the enemy of the people, we are getting in so deep that it hard to see where the bottom is.

I suggest you read up on the interwar period. Hitler got many of his ideas from Italian fascism...Nazism is simply a shortening of the name of the NSDAP...a fascist party largely modelled after the Italian fascismo. But that's not all, of course; the Falange, the Estado Nova, the Iron Guard and a number of other parties across Europe modelled after either the Italians or the German fascists, including the British Union of Fascists of Mosley and even a small fascist party in the US. The Italian fascist party didn't collapse because it wasn't Nazi, it collapsed because it was run by Italians. Don't do the Google U thing man...it'll bite you in the butt every time.

[jdobbin]

I suggest you read up on the interwar period. Hitler got many of his ideas from Italian fascism...Nazism is simply a shortening of the name of the NSDAP...a fascist party largely modelled after the Italian fascismo. But that's not all, of course; the Falange, the Estado Nova, the Iron Guard and a number of other parties across Europe modelled after either the Italians or the German fascists, including the British Union of Fascists of Mosley and even a small fascist party in the US. The Italian fascist party didn't collapse because it wasn't Nazi, it collapsed because it was run by Italians. Don't do the Google U thing man...it'll bite you in the butt every time.

I realize that Hitler got lots of his ideas from Italy. I maintain that it was Germany and Italy who were taken to task for the threat they presented outside their borders.

And I think I did say that Italian fascism collapsed because it was Italian.

In any event, I don't think the occupation of Germany builds the case for a long presence in Afghanistan.

[ScottSA]

I suggest you read up on the interwar period. Hitler got many of his ideas from Italian fascism...Nazism is simply a shortening of the name of the NSDAP...a fascist party largely modelled after the Italian fascismo. But that's not all, of course; the Falange, the Estado Nova, the Iron Guard and a number of other parties across Europe modelled after either the Italians or the German fascists, including the British Union of Fascists of Mosley and even a small fascist party in the US. The Italian fascist party didn't collapse because it wasn't Nazi, it collapsed because it was run by Italians. Don't do the Google U thing man...it'll bite you in the butt every time.

I realize that Hitler got lots of his ideas from Italy. I maintain that it was Germany and Italy who were taken to task for the threat they presented outside their borders.

And I think I did say that Italian fascism collapsed because it was Italian.

In any event, I don't think the occupation of Germany builds the case for a long presence in Afghanistan.

Well, I believe you were arguing that ideologies can't be stomped out from outside, and fascism is proof positive that it can be.

[jdobbin]

Well, I believe you were arguing that ideologies can't be stomped out from outside, and fascism is proof positive that it can be.

I think I made it plain that Germany and Italy were exceptions and not the rule. In fact, Italy seemed to be falling apart and would have if the Germans hadn't jumped in.

[jbg]

Oh, good one. What will it require for you to discard the Gandhiesque dohti and stand up against the barbarians?

Somehow your worldview of being up against the barbarians doesn't resonate with Canadians. I don't think they buy what you're selling.

If it wasn't barbarians that slammed planes into buildings what was it? Barney?

[jdobbin]

If it wasn't barbarians that slammed planes into buildings what was it? Barney?

It was terrorists. I think Canadians will support going after terrorists that pose a threat to Canada. What they see in Afghanistan seems more like an internal matter.

[M.Dancer]

Well, I believe you were arguing that ideologies can't be stomped out from outside, and fascism is proof positive that it can be.

I think I made it plain that Germany and Italy were exceptions and not the rule. In fact, Italy seemed to be falling apart and would have if the Germans hadn't jumped in.

The reason it wqas falling apart was that the people had become disallusioned with fascism through a string of defeats in africa Sicily and in Russia as well as the continous bombardment by air upon her factories ports and railways.

[jdobbin]

The reason it wqas falling apart was that the people had become disallusioned with fascism through a string of defeats in africa Sicily and in Russia as well as the continous bombardment by air upon her factories ports and railways.

I don't disagree. Germany, on the other hand, was a battle all the way to the capital.

As I have said though, if we are comparing Germany to Afghanistan, the same long term occupation strategy doesn't hold. Al Qaeda decamped and are elsewhere now for the most part.

[ScottSA]

The reason it wqas falling apart was that the people had become disallusioned with fascism through a string of defeats in africa Sicily and in Russia as well as the continous bombardment by air upon her factories ports and railways.

I don't disagree. Germany, on the other hand, was a battle all the way to the capital.

As I have said though, if we are comparing Germany to Afghanistan, the same long term occupation strategy doesn't hold. Al Qaeda decamped and are elsewhere now for the most part.

Which is why I suggested expanding the war, to which you replied that external force doesn't work. It does work. It just has to be comprehensive, and it has to come from a society that believes in itself.

[jdobbin]

Which is why I suggested expanding the war, to which you replied that external force doesn't work. It does work. It just has to be comprehensive, and it has to come from a society that believes in itself.

This is the first I have heard you say expand the war. The question is to where and how. What forces are currently available to do that?

[ScottSA]

Which is why I suggested expanding the war, to which you replied that external force doesn't work. It does work. It just has to be comprehensive, and it has to come from a society that believes in itself.

This is the first I have heard you say expand the war. The question is to where and how. What forces are currently available to do that?

You should read the posts you're debating if you want not to be taken as a lightweight. I said: "...put some real muscle behind the war effort, including expanding it if necessary to Syria and almost certainly Iran." But those are only suggestions. Limited war doesn't work against a global phenomenon. Total war does. There's no sense in re-enacting Vietnam and hoping for the fall of Berlin. The forces to do that are easily...easily...available. Rome at its height never had it so good.

[jdobbin]

You should read the posts you're debating if you want not to be taken as a lightweight. I said: "...put some real muscle behind the war effort, including expanding it if necessary to Syria and almost certainly Iran." But those are only suggestions. Limited war doesn't work against a global phenomenon. Total war does. There's no sense in re-enacting Vietnam and hoping for the fall of Berlin. The forces to do that are easily...easily...available. Rome at its height never had it so good.

You can ease off on the remarks. You may have had the exchange with someone else but you didn't have it with me. I don't follow every single post you make and if you follow my responses over the last little bit in this thread, I have been asking you what you actually mean. Where exactly did you post this? In this thread?

If you are going to act like a boor, don't expect people to engage you.

[ScottSA]

You should read the posts you're debating if you want not to be taken as a lightweight. I said: "...put some real muscle behind the war effort, including expanding it if necessary to Syria and almost certainly Iran." But those are only suggestions. Limited war doesn't work against a global phenomenon. Total war does. There's no sense in re-enacting Vietnam and hoping for the fall of Berlin. The forces to do that are easily...easily...available. Rome at its height never had it so good.

You can ease off on the remarks. You may have had the exchange with someone else but you didn't have it with me. I don't follow every single post you make and if you follow my responses over the last little bit in this thread, I have been asking you what you actually mean.

I had the exchange with you. It was in answer to one of your posts, on the last page. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....pic=6191&st=915

[jdobbin]

I had the exchange with you. It was in answer to one of your posts, on the last page. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....pic=6191&st=915

My mistake. I had focused on the part of your post that identified the religion as as scourge.

Long day, I have been up all night trying to write for a deadline. Still, I'd appreciate being pointed to an exchange rather than having you act as you did.

In any event, troops from all involved nations are spread out to cover Iraq and Afghanistan. Moving to Syria or Iran means either expanding the military in the hundreds of thousands or reducing numbers in aforementioned countries and risk having terrorist forces set up camp again.

[ScottSA]

I had the exchange with you. It was in answer to one of your posts, on the last page. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....pic=6191&st=915

My mistake. I had focused on the part of your post that identified the religion as as scourge.

Long day, I have been up all night trying to write for a deadline. Still, I'd appreciate being pointed to an exchange rather than having you act as you did.

Civility on a BB? What a ridiculous concept.

[jdobbin]

Civility on a BB? What a ridiculous concept.

I had been attempting it in this thread whatever disagreement people might have over the policies.

I had added to the above post:

"In any event, troops from all involved nations are spread out to cover Iraq and Afghanistan. Moving to Syria or Iran means either expanding the military in the hundreds of thousands or reducing numbers in aforementioned countries and risk having terrorist forces set up camp again."

Further: I don't know that there is an appetite even from Bush to attack Iran. I don't think he has the political horses nor a plan.

Iraq has presented the U.S. with the deadliest quarter since the Iraq war began.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19497735/

nsurgents launched a deadly coordinated attack on an American combat patrol, the U.S. military said Friday, killing five troops and making this the deadliest quarter for U.S. soldiers in Iraq since the war began.

Assailants detonated a roadside bomb, then fired guns and rocket-propelled grenades at the soldiers. Seven troops were wounded in the attack on Thursday in southern Baghdad and were evacuated to a military hospital; one has since returned to duty, the military said.

The deaths brought to 99 the number of U.S. troops to die in Iraq this month, according to an Associated Press count. The toll for the past three months — 329 — made it the deadliest such period for GIs since the war began in March 2003.

I don't know that a total war is possible or even achievable with an enemy that hides and reappears like a thief in the night.

I believe the best scenario is to have rapid deployment forces who move in and out and destroy threats.

I think NATO needs to support countries with Muslim majorities who are making an effort to modernize such as Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysia. We can't be on the ground in force for largely internal wars or risk being a target ourselves.

In other words, NATO needs to be very picky what battles it rages as a hot war. Canada has basically committed itself to one country for a long term. Even if the government wanted to participate elsewhere, it would take some time to gather a force. At the moment it is not possible. Threats elsewhere could go unchecked.

[Argus]

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.

It wouldn't be very difficult.

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.

You are attempting to weasel your way out of answering by moving the yardsticks. I did not say each and every Muslim nation was a terrorist threat to the West. I invited you to "Provide a list of all the peaceful Muslim nations without violence or societal barbarisms." You have failed to do so. End of argument.

[Argus]

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.

Like Syria? Like Yemen? Yes, they're stable, without large scale rebellions, and don't pose much threat. Is this your idea of a socially advanced Muslim societies?

You clearly are ignorant of the basic realities of the Muslim world, and too intellectually lazy to better educate yourself.

If only you had enough pride to ensure you didn't speak so loudly in such ignorance.

[M.Dancer]

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

Like Syria? Like Yemen? Yes, they're stable, without large scale rebellions, and don't pose much threat. Is this your idea of a socially advanced Muslim societies?

You clearly are ignorant of the basic realities of the Muslim world, and too intellectually lazy to better educate yourself.

If only you had enough pride to ensure you didn't speak so loudly in such ignorance.

There are more than a handful of muslim countries that fit that criteria

Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Morocco, Tunisia, Mali, Mauritania, Indonesia, Turkey, Albania to name but a few......

[jdobbin]

Like Syria? Like Yemen? Yes, they're stable, without large scale rebellions, and don't pose much threat. Is this your idea of a socially advanced Muslim societies?

You clearly are ignorant of the basic realities of the Muslim world, and too intellectually lazy to better educate yourself.

If only you had enough pride to ensure you didn't speak so loudly in such ignorance.

It's too bad that your boorish behaviour gets in the way with your contributions to any discussion. You seem too angry to keep a lid on it.

I certainly never mentioned anything about Yemen or Syria not being a threat or in the same category as other countries with Muslim majorities who operate as republics with elections and oppositions in place.

Hopefully, the new moderator will give you the time out that you richly deserve.

[jdobbin]

You are attempting to weasel your way out of answering by moving the yardsticks. I did not say each and every Muslim nation was a terrorist threat to the West. I invited you to "Provide a list of all the peaceful Muslim nations without violence or societal barbarisms." You have failed to do so. End of argument.

I provided a list of countries. Some are republics, some with democracies, some with no militarist pasts, some highly advanced. Are they devoid of violence? No. But in many cases, they have fewer cases of it than countries with Christian majorities. Are they a threat to the west? Many of the countries I listed are long term allies of the west.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat it. I am totally for confronting terrorism or threats to security for Canada and for the world in general.

I just don't see how a wide-scale attack on the Muslim faith contributes to securing that safety.

[Peter F]

I don't know how many times I have to repeat it. I am totally for confronting terrorism or threats to security for Canada and for the world in general.

I just don't see how a wide-scale attack on the Muslim faith contributes to securing that safety.

I agree. I don't see the utility of it either, nor the feasability, let alone the supposed need.

Despite the visionary rhetoric

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.

, he can't explain what Islamism is - other than it being the religion itself - and therefore, of necessity, stomping out Islamism actually means religious war with the end goal of allowing folks to be Muslims only under state sanction.

Its a fantasy. The same fantasy that allows him use the defeat of Nazi Germany by the Allies as an example of how 'Islamism' can be defeated. He ignores the fact that the Allies directed thier warmaking efforts to destruction of the German industrial and transportation capacities wich allowed Germany to make war effectively, all at great cost in wealth for the nations involved, not to mention 10's of millions slain.

Perhaps there is some sort of 'Islamist' industrial base we could strike? or some sort of 'Islamist' command and control network to be disabled through strategic bombing? By what means and at what cost is ScottSA proposing we 'Stomp Islamism' via methods of armed might?

Its alll pure fantasism.