Afghanistan

[Argus]

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.

Once again, you seem woefully confused about the difference between insulting YOU, and insulting your poor excuse for arguments. And you have again failed to provide me with a list of the Muslim nations free from organized barbarism, brutality and violence. If I have been unfair to the Muslim world I want someone, one of its defenders, to point out the error of my ways. So go ahead. Let's see the list.

[jdobbin]

Once again, you seem woefully confused about the difference between insulting YOU, and insulting your poor excuse for arguments. And you have again failed to provide me with a list of the Muslim nations free from organized barbarism, brutality and violence. If I have been unfair to the Muslim world I want someone, one of its defenders, to point out the error of my ways. So go ahead. Let's see the list.

I said you were boorish. I doubt many people would dispute that.

I gave a list. You dismissed it. I doubt anything short of Muslim=bad would satisfy you.

[ScottSA]

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.

Yes of course. You seem to have missed the entire argument over the fact that fascism was not confined to Germany, and indeed had roots throughout Europe and even in Britain and America. But hey, that doesn't fit your nonsensical stance that Islamism can't be defeated. And come to that, where did you ever get the notion that I can't define Islamism? Read the thread before leaping into it and making an ass of yourself.

[Peter F]

Yes of course. You seem to have missed the entire argument over the fact that fascism was not confined to Germany, and indeed had roots throughout Europe and even in Britain and America. But hey, that doesn't fit your nonsensical stance that Islamism can't be defeated.

Fascism certainly was not confined to Germany, as you say, and indeed had roots throughout Europe and Britain and America. Guess what? It still does. Fascism is not dead - as you would have us believe - despite WWII.

Fascism as a ideology of the Nazi Germany was destroyed, certainly, but it was the German fascist government and its capacity to wage war that was destroyed - not the ideology, as you falsly claim.

And come to that, where did you ever get the notion that I can't define Islamism? Read the thread before leaping into it and making an ass of yourself.

I decided to eat some humble pie and do as ScottSA suggest so's I wouldn't make an ass of myself.

...But Lo! ScottSA really cannot define Islamism...as a matter of fact he never tried.

Post #564 Apr 16 2007 page 38

Is Indonesia a lost cause because there is a beheading or three a week? Should the government go into exile and leave the country to the tender minstrations of Islam?

Post #575 Apr 17 2007 page 39

Underlying problems have a habit of going away when they have their weapons taken away from them or when the cost of being an underlying problem is higher than the benefits of not being an underlying problem. This is something the left never seems to get. This and the perpetual misidentification of the problems...

Post #579 Apr 17 2007 page 39

What's your solution? Run away? Bomb them till they glow?

Post #862 Jun 26 2007 page 58

Once we take a few hundred casualties in TO from some of these folks whose diversity you're eager to celebrate, you'll find that a lot of people share jbg's "hatred" of a barbaric 6th century religion.

Post #867 Jun 26 2007 page 58

What rubbed off is a better grasp of the reality of Islam than what is available to you. And yes, that reality happens to be negative.

Post #890 Jun 26 2007 page 60

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

Post #913 Jun 28 2007 page 61

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?

Post #915 Jun 28 2007 page 61

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.

Post #919 Jun 28 2007 page 62

Nonetheless, even in the countries you mentioned, Islam can be found at the bottom of most of the political shenanigans that go on.

Post #921 Jun 28 2007 page 62

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?

Post #923 Jun 29 2007 page 62

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.

Post #925 Jun 29 2007 page 62

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.

Post #927 Jun 29 2007 page 62

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.

Post #931 Jun 29 2007 page 63

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

Post #937 Jun 29 2007 page 63

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.

Post #939 Jun 29 2007 page 63

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.

Peter F Today, 07:38 PM Post #950

Wich brings us up to date.

With only the possible exception of post 921 (in orange above), all his other posts define the threat as Islam itself - the ideology of it. Wich is to say; The religion itself.

So, again, ScottSA has claimed things to be true when they are not, and denied things that are backed up by his posts.

I repeat: 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.

[ScottSA]

Fascism certainly was not confined to Germany, as you say, and indeed had roots throughout Europe and Britain and America. Guess what? It still does. Fascism is not dead - as you would have us believe - despite WWII.

Fascism as a ideology of the Nazi Germany was destroyed, certainly, but it was the German fascist government and its capacity to wage war that was destroyed - not the ideology, as you falsly claim.

Well, I'll await your argument that fascism is as intact and full of vigour as it was before WW II. Such life as it has is slithering along the bottom of hard to find ponds, with virtually no chance of ever influencing anything. So you can claim that it survived intact, but you're going to look pretty dumb trying.

[Peter F]

Such life as it has is slithering along the bottom of hard to find ponds, with virtually no chance of ever influencing anything. So you can claim that it survived intact, but you're going to look pretty dumb trying.

The only dumb thing here is your claim that the Allies killed fascism. They didn't. They defeated the Axis powers and nothing more. The reason fascism is currently slithering along the bottom of hard to find ponds is because the fascists themselves brutally murdered millions of gypsy's, jews, poles, russians and whoever else they found to be unproductive and/or undesireable. Thats what killed fascism - a botched suicide.

[ScottSA]

Such life as it has is slithering along the bottom of hard to find ponds, with virtually no chance of ever influencing anything. So you can claim that it survived intact, but you're going to look pretty dumb trying.

The only dumb thing here is your claim that the Allies killed fascism. They didn't. They defeated the Axis powers and nothing more. The reason fascism is currently slithering along the bottom of hard to find ponds is because the fascists themselves brutally murdered millions of gypsy's, jews, poles, russians and whoever else they found to be unproductive and/or undesireable. Thats what killed fascism - a botched suicide.

Good grief, you're completely deluded. You think if Hitler and Mussolini had not been stopped by WW II, followed by worldwide sanction against such fascist regimes as were left, that fascism would have disappeared simply because of Hitler's actions? That's ridiculous.

[jbg]

Such life as it has is slithering along the bottom of hard to find ponds, with virtually no chance of ever influencing anything. So you can claim that it survived intact, but you're going to look pretty dumb trying.

The only dumb thing here is your claim that the Allies killed fascism. They didn't. They defeated the Axis powers and nothing more. The reason fascism is currently slithering along the bottom of hard to find ponds is because the fascists themselves brutally murdered millions of gypsy's, jews, poles, russians and whoever else they found to be unproductive and/or undesireable. Thats what killed fascism - a botched suicide.

I don't understand your incoherent maunderings.

[Argus]

Once again, you seem woefully confused about the difference between insulting YOU, and insulting your poor excuse for arguments. And you have again failed to provide me with a list of the Muslim nations free from organized barbarism, brutality and violence. If I have been unfair to the Muslim world I want someone, one of its defenders, to point out the error of my ways. So go ahead. Let's see the list.

I said you were boorish. I doubt many people would dispute that.

And you are a blind Liberal party zealot. I doubt anyone would dispute that.

I gave a list. You dismissed it. I doubt anything short of Muslim=bad would satisfy you.

I asked for a list of peaceful nations free of barbarism and brutality, did I not? And you give me Turkey!? And then you become self-righteous that I mock your list? Turkey? Which has had a violent insurgency for decades and which is slowly losing ground from its secularism, sliding back into Islamism?

Turkmenistan? FYI, ruled by a brutal dictator with no religious freedom where homosexual acts are punishable by long prison terms, and which, has the second worse rating for freedom of the press after North Korea.

Kyrgyzstan is a poverty stricken land ruled by another dictator where its primitive people still engage in bride kidnapping, forced marriage and slavery.

Uzbekistan is a Stalinist nightmare of a country with no human rights of any kind.

There are Sharia courts in Malaysia, and Islamist political parties continue to gain ground. This in a nation whose very constitution says that in order to be a Malay you must be Muslim - despite the fact many Malaysians are not Muslims. All Malaysians must have an identity card, and this identity card lists their religion.

I could go on, but why bother? You clearly are incapable of presenting a list of Muslim nations which are at all culturally sophisticated or politically enlightened where barbarism - by our standards - is not common place.

[jdobbin]

And you are a blind Liberal party zealot. I doubt anyone would dispute that.

I asked for a list of peaceful nations free of barbarism and brutality, did I not? And you give me Turkey!? And then you become self-righteous that I mock your list? Turkey? Which has had a violent insurgency for decades and which is slowly losing ground from its secularism, sliding back into Islamism?

Turkmenistan? FYI, ruled by a brutal dictator with no religious freedom where homosexual acts are punishable by long prison terms, and which, has the second worse rating for freedom of the press after North Korea.

Kyrgyzstan is a poverty stricken land ruled by another dictator where its primitive people still engage in bride kidnapping, forced marriage and slavery.

Uzbekistan is a Stalinist nightmare of a country with no human rights of any kind.

There are Sharia courts in Malaysia, and Islamist political parties continue to gain ground. This in a nation whose very constitution says that in order to be a Malay you must be Muslim - despite the fact many Malaysians are not Muslims. All Malaysians must have an identity card, and this identity card lists their religion.

I could go on, but why bother? You clearly are incapable of presenting a list of Muslim nations which are at all culturally sophisticated or politically enlightened where barbarism - by our standards - is not common place.

What the Liberal party has to do with this particular discussion and you being a frothy mouth boor is beyond me. Raw fury seems to be your hallmark.

Islamist parties continue to gain ground in Malyasia? The main political party won 92% of the vote last election, more than the previous prime minister who was considered quite popular. While the government is more controlling than you might like, the economy continues to sizzle along there, crime is very low and the country poses no threat to the world in terms of religious zealots.

Turkey continues to be a secular society trying to integrate with Europe. It has been Democratic since 1923. Turkey has been an ally of the west for a very long time and while they might have problems with ethnic separatism and religious extremism, it doesn't define them. There is no sliding back to Islam except in the dark and frightened corners of your mind. The state ideology of Kemalism easily dominates Islam.

You didn't even bother to talk about the United Arab Emirates. Qatar is where Canada keeps its permanent base in the Gulf. I'd say there are an ally. Bahrain is a financial center and an ally as well. None of these countries appear to have strife in them or export terrorism.

As for the former Russian republics, the things you criticize about them isn't related to Islam. In fact, it is similar to what we see in Russia which is Orthodox Christian. The only difference is that Russia has threatened to point nukes at us.

[Argus]

And you are a blind Liberal party zealot. I doubt anyone would dispute that.

I asked for a list of peaceful nations free of barbarism and brutality, did I not? And you give me Turkey!? And then you become self-righteous that I mock your list? Turkey? Which has had a violent insurgency for decades and which is slowly losing ground from its secularism, sliding back into Islamism?

Turkmenistan? FYI, ruled by a brutal dictator with no religious freedom where homosexual acts are punishable by long prison terms, and which, has the second worse rating for freedom of the press after North Korea.

Kyrgyzstan is a poverty stricken land ruled by another dictator where its primitive people still engage in bride kidnapping, forced marriage and slavery.

Uzbekistan is a Stalinist nightmare of a country with no human rights of any kind.

There are Sharia courts in Malaysia, and Islamist political parties continue to gain ground. This in a nation whose very constitution says that in order to be a Malay you must be Muslim - despite the fact many Malaysians are not Muslims. All Malaysians must have an identity card, and this identity card lists their religion.

I could go on, but why bother? You clearly are incapable of presenting a list of Muslim nations which are at all culturally sophisticated or politically enlightened where barbarism - by our standards - is not common place.

What the Liberal party has to do with this particular discussion and you being a frothy mouth boor is beyond me. Raw fury seem to be your hallmark.

The Liberal party is why you're here. You wait eagerly for every bit of bad news that comes out of Afghanistan and then rush to post it here. Like the harbinger of death, you rush to spread the joyous news that yes, the Liberal Party is right in demanding we leave! Oh if only those evil Conservatives would listen to the wise Liberal voices calling for us to run away!

One day after the Liberals come to power and extend our mission you'll be on here trumpeting how much good we're doing in Afghanistan and deriding anyone who criticizes the mission as unpatriotic. You are THAT blind a partisan. You are incapable of independent thought of any kind.

Islamist parties continue to gain ground in Malyasia? The main political party won 92% of the vote last election,

Now you see, most of us would raise an eyebrow at that and wonder about just how many independent voices there are in Malaysia. But not you, no sirree. You might look at how much the Islamists have infiltrated the coallition which is in power, and their power in state governments.

While the government is more controlling than you might like, the economy continues to sizzle along there, crime is very low and the country poses no threat to the world in terms of religious zealots.

There you are weaseling out again. I did not ask about the economy. I did not ask about threats to us. It certainly has religious zealots. Islam is written into the constitution, and it's supreme court recently came down against a woman who tried to convert to Christianity. I asked about violence ( and there are a number of rebel groups active in Malaysia) and social backwardness and barbarism. Do you know that more than 40 crimes can be punished by caning in Malaysia? I mention identity cards and religious discrimination and you respond with "the economy is sizzling along".

Are you joking???

Turkey continues to be a secular society trying to integrate with Europe. It has been Democratic since 1923. Turkey has been an ally of the west for a very long time and while they might have problems with ethnic separatism and religious extremism, it doesn't define them. There is no sliding back to Islam except in the dark and frightened corners of your mind. The state ideology of Kemalism easily dominates Islam.

The government of Turkey is in the hands of an Islamist party, and support for Islamist government continues to grow. I saw an article on Turkey last week which baldly stated that with the growing sentiment towards Islam among the young and their growth of power the secular parties will never again form a government. The only thing which is holding Turkey back from becoming more and more of an Islamist state is the military, which still venerates Ataturk.

You didn't even bother to talk about the United Arab Emirates. Qatar is where Canada keeps its permanent base in the Gulf. I'd say there are an ally. Bahrain is a financial center and an ally as well. None of these countries appear to have strife in them or export terrorism.

These are all oil sheikdoms awash in oil cash with populations smaller than mid sized cities. Yet look at their societies. They build nothing, maintain nothing. Foreigners do all the work and opponents are bought off. And when locals are educated it is mainly in the Koran.

As for the former Russian republics, the things you criticize about them isn't related to Islam. In fact, it is similar to what we see in Russia which is Orthodox Christian. The only difference is that Russia has threatened to point nukes at us.

All the Muslim supporters do their best to dismiss all the problems of the Muslim world. But of all the Muslim nations out there, there is not one which is a viable, modern society or anything close to it. Muslim nations constantly trail at the end of everyone else in terms of freedom, literacy, enlightenment. And you think this is a coincidence?

We devote far too much attention to the middle east, a mostly stagnant region where almost nothing is created in science of the arts - excluding Israel, per capita patent production is 1/5th that of sub Saharan Africa. The people of the middle east, only 5% of the world's population, are remarkably unproductive, with a high proportion not in the labour force at all. According to a series of UN development reports five times as many books are translated annually into Greek than into Arabic. The Mid east has the lowest level of internet connectivity, well behind sub Saharan Africa. Oil rich principalities may dazzle the world with shiny towers and bling but it's largely a facade. Foreign labourers build the infrastructure. Foreign professionals keep it running. Edward Luttwak, Prospect magazine, May 2007

[jdobbin]

The Liberal party is why you're here. You wait eagerly for every bit of bad news that comes out of Afghanistan and then rush to post it here. Like the harbinger of death, you rush to spread the joyous news that yes, the Liberal Party is right in demanding we leave! Oh if only those evil Conservatives would listen to the wise Liberal voices calling for us to run away!

One day after the Liberals come to power and extend our mission you'll be on here trumpeting how much good we're doing in Afghanistan and deriding anyone who criticizes the mission as unpatriotic. You are THAT blind a partisan. You are incapable of independent thought of any kind.

Now you see, most of us would raise an eyebrow at that and wonder about just how many independent voices there are in Malaysia. But not you, no sirree. You might look at how much the Islamists have infiltrated the coallition which is in power, and their power in state governments.

There you are weaseling out again. I did not ask about the economy. I did not ask about threats to us. It certainly has religious zealots. Islam is written into the constitution, and it's supreme court recently came down against a woman who tried to convert to Christianity. I asked about violence ( and there are a number of rebel groups active in Malaysia) and social backwardness and barbarism. Do you know that more than 40 crimes can be punished by caning in Malaysia? I mention identity cards and religious discrimination and you respond with "the economy is sizzling along".

Are you joking???

The government of Turkey is in the hands of an Islamist party, and support for Islamist government continues to grow. I saw an article on Turkey last week which baldly stated that with the growing sentiment towards Islam among the young and their growth of power the secular parties will never again form a government. The only thing which is holding Turkey back from becoming more and more of an Islamist state is the military, which still venerates Ataturk.

These are all oil sheikdoms awash in oil cash with populations smaller than mid sized cities. Yet look at their societies. They build nothing, maintain nothing. Foreigners do all the work and opponents are bought off. And when locals are educated it is mainly in the Koran.

All the Muslim supporters do their best to dismiss all the problems of the Muslim world. But of all the Muslim nations out there, there is not one which is a viable, modern society or anything close to it. Muslim nations constantly trail at the end of everyone else in terms of freedom, literacy, enlightenment. And you think this is a coincidence?

I believed the Liberal party was wrong to support the extension of the mission with no benchmarks for its success and with so little support from our allies for the heavy lifting. You, on the other hand, seem to think that it should be a permanent mission with no exit strategy at all. Right wingers like yourself don't want there to be any mention of the war. Casualties should be hidden and progress should spun. For you, it is a holy war, a crusade.

I have no idea what you are rambling on about Malaysia. I thought you would love the caning part in Malaysia. Real teeth in crime fighting! Just what a right winger would love. You are embarrassing yourself again with your drooling criticism. Is this a Muslim policy or a crime policy? I might not agree with aspects of it but I'm not stupid enough to believe that is just because they are a Muslim country. There are identity cards in many countries. Is it exclusive to Malaysia or Muslim countries.

I certainly have less fear about Turkey as you seem to have.

The United Arab Emirates poses not threat to anyone but you seem to be scared of them anyways.

You don't even bother to dispute that the former Russian states are the way they are due more to Communism and statism than being Muslim.

And the quote from Prospect magazine, I don't disagree that many Middle Eastern countries don't offer enough freedoms. It doesn't say anything about being Muslim.

I'm not offering slavish praise for any of the aforementioned countries. I just don't think they should be invaded one after the other based on you fears. They might make you wet yourself but really, take a pill and try to focus on the people and the countries that do sponsor or allow terrorism to thrive.

[Argus]

I believed the Liberal party was wrong to support the extension of the mission with no benchmarks for its success and with so little support from our allies for the heavy lifting. You, on the other hand, seem to think that it should be a permanent mission with no exit strategy at all. Right wingers like yourself don't want there to be any mention of the war. Casualties should be hidden and progress should spun. For you, it is a holy war, a crusade.

I believe we need stability, and some kind of government in place - and I don't really care what kind - which will not participate in, nor allow participation by anyone on its territory, of Islamist violence and attacks on the West. I don't think a few dozen casualties are that much to cry about given the alternative. We lose more people to traffic accidents on a holiday weekend.

One does not have to be afraid of something to note its rising power and the potential for it to threaten ones way of life. Your mentality is "I'll worry when the guy is there inside my front hall swinging a sword to behead me."

Not all of us are so short sighted, and not all of us shrink from actions necessary to confront an enemy BEFORE he becomes a serious threat. Islamism is rising in all Muslim states and your childish need to demonize anyone who gets concerned about that is symbolic of the short-sightedness we've witnessed from your party over the past decades.

[jdobbin]

I believe we need stability, and some kind of government in place - and I don't really care what kind - which will not participate in, nor allow participation by anyone on its territory, of Islamist violence and attacks on the West. I don't think a few dozen casualties are that much to cry about given the alternative. We lose more people to traffic accidents on a holiday weekend.

One does not have to be afraid of something to note its rising power and the potential for it to threaten ones way of life. Your mentality is "I'll worry when the guy is there inside my front hall swinging a sword to behead me."

Not all of us are so short sighted, and not all of us shrink from actions necessary to confront an enemy BEFORE he becomes a serious threat. Islamism is rising in all Muslim states and your childish need to demonize anyone who gets concerned about that is symbolic of the short-sightedness we've witnessed from your party over the past decades.

You obviously have not read anything I have written on the subject. I've said out focus should be rapid deployment in and out and ever on the look-out for threats. It is going to have to be the Afghan government that has to assert authority over itself. Our doing their policing is not going to do it. Even our own forces are saying that when the Canadians comes, the Afghan Police pack up and let our troops do it. Moreover, many people are afraid of the ANP because they are corrupt, brutal and don't do their jobs.

As long as Canada is present, there doesn't seem to be the will to assert authority themselves.

It would be better for Canada to be stationed nearby to hammer as Qaeda or any other threat that rears its head. The nation building basically bogs us down for decades with no guarantee of the stability that you so hope and desire.

[Argus]

It would be better for Canada to be stationed nearby to hammer as Qaeda or any other threat that rears its head. The nation building basically bogs us down for decades with no guarantee of the stability that you so hope and desire.

The problem with that approach is you first have to put in place a government capable of resisting the advance of the barbarians, and the current government does not have that capacity. I say dump it and put a brutal warlord in place, then help him and his man crush the other warlords and get out.

Because a brutal warlord is the only kind that's going to survive in that wretched place.

[jdobbin]

The problem with that approach is you first have to put in place a government capable of resisting the advance of the barbarians, and the current government does not have that capacity. I say dump it and put a brutal warlord in place, then help him and his man crush the other warlords and get out.

Because a brutal warlord is the only kind that's going to survive in that wretched place.

I disagree. Anyone we put into place will be the enemy of people from the start.

We should have destroyed al Qaeda, destroyed Taliban military and economic targets and flown the coop and waited to see what would happen. If they became a threat again, hammer again and again and again.

Instead, we are traffic cops for a narco state.

[cybercoma]

Is now really the time to leave Afghanistan?

The Taliban is using 6-year olds as suicide bombers and using innocent civilians as shields. http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/stor...2109574,00.html

Is it really fair to the Afghani people to let their country fall to this sick, evil group?

[jdobbin]

Is now really the time to leave Afghanistan?

The Taliban is using 6-year olds as suicide bombers and using innocent civilians as shields. http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/stor...2109574,00.html

Is it really fair to the Afghani people to let their country fall to this sick, evil group?

The Taliban could be doing this 2 years from now, 10 years from now, 100 years from now. Will there ever be a good time to leave?

[capricorn]

Each time a Canadian soldier died, support for the mission plummeted. In the beginning, the majority of Canadians said the mission was worthwhile, indeed necessary. So really, it is not the merit of the mission that is called into question. It is whether we are prepared to see more of our young soldiers die or receive injuries in that war. It is also about other NATO countries not stepping up to the plate.

I'm one of those whose opinion of the mission has changed over time. We must withdraw from the south in Feb. 09, that's it. If we can do other work in another part Afghanistan, good. Yet, we must realize this won't mean we will not have casualties. Is any region in that country really safe for our troops? Mark my word, if and when we reassign our troops away from the south and the minute a soldier is killed, Canadians will agitate for a complete withdrawal of our troops.

The debate on our involvement in that country must take place in Parliament and very soon.

HAPPY CANADA DAY

[ScottSA]

The Taliban could be doing this 2 years from now, 10 years from now, 100 years from now.

That's silly and completely ahistorical. It's also defeatist.

[jdobbin]

That's silly and completely ahistorical. It's also defeatist.

So, it impossible in your mind that the 2009 that the Taliban will still be fighting.

[ScottSA]

Each time a Canadian soldier died, support for the mission plummeted. In the beginning, the majority of Canadians said the mission was worthwhile, indeed necessary. So really, it is not the merit of the mission that is called into question. It is whether we are prepared to see more of our young soldiers die or receive injuries in that war. It is also about other NATO countries not stepping up to the plate.

I'm one of those whose opinion of the mission has changed over time. We must withdraw from the south in Feb. 09, that's it. If we can do other work in another part Afghanistan, good. Yet, we must realize this won't mean we will not have casualties. Is any region in that country really safe for our troops? Mark my word, if and when we reassign our troops away from the south and the minute a soldier is killed, Canadians will agitate for a complete withdrawal of our troops.

The debate on our involvement in that country must take place in Parliament and very soon.

HAPPY CANADA DAY

I think you're absolutely right as to why support fluctuates. It has nothing to do with the mission, and everything to do with the cost of the mission. But those who are paying the price want to continue the mission, so it's not clear to me why some people want to insert themselves and argue on behalf of those who are paying the cost, and do so in opposition to what those who are paying the price want. And it's a form of NIMBY to want to pull out of the south. If everyone is going to stack up doing "humanitarian" duty in the north, the south will never be pacified and all the work in the north will be for naught. Someone has to do the job in the south, and it speaks volumes for Canada that our soldiers, if not the soft underbelly of some of our citizens, are willing and even eager to do it.

[jdobbin]

I think you're absolutely right as to why support fluctuates. It has nothing to do with the mission, and everything to do with the cost of the mission. But those who are paying the price want to continue the mission, so it's not clear to me why some people want to insert themselves and argue on behalf of those who are paying the cost, and do so in opposition to what those who are paying the price want. And it's a form of NIMBY to want to pull out of the south. If everyone is going to stack up doing "humanitarian" duty in the north, the south will never be pacified and all the work in the north will be for naught. Someone has to do the job in the south, and it speaks volumes for Canada that our soldiers, if not the soft underbelly of some of our citizens, are willing and even eager to do it.

Someone should do the job if they want to stabilize th south. That someone ought to be the Afghan. Right now, Canada can't depend on any aspect of the Afghan military or police to handle the job. The police are particularly undependable and contribute more to the problem than they do to help.

Karzai's government is increasingly facing opposition both politically and militarily.

Afghanistan is now a narco-state and the situation has grown worse not better in the last year.

[ScottSA]

I think you're absolutely right as to why support fluctuates. It has nothing to do with the mission, and everything to do with the cost of the mission. But those who are paying the price want to continue the mission, so it's not clear to me why some people want to insert themselves and argue on behalf of those who are paying the cost, and do so in opposition to what those who are paying the price want. And it's a form of NIMBY to want to pull out of the south. If everyone is going to stack up doing "humanitarian" duty in the north, the south will never be pacified and all the work in the north will be for naught. Someone has to do the job in the south, and it speaks volumes for Canada that our soldiers, if not the soft underbelly of some of our citizens, are willing and even eager to do it.

Someone should do the job if they want to stabilize th south. That someone ought to be the Afghan. Right now, Canada can't depend on any aspect of the Afghan military or police to handle the job. The police are particularly undependable and contribute more to the problem than they do to help.

Karzai's government is increasingly facing opposition both politically and militarily.

Afghanistan is now a narco-state and the situation has grown worse not better in the last year.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to argue through the flourish of rhetoric. You seem to be saying that it ought to be the Afghans, and in the same breathe that the Afghans can't do it yet. So in effect you're setting up a catch 22. I'm sure when the Taliban inclined folks in Afghanistan find that the cost is not equal to the benefit of fighting on, and as the Afghans become increasingly able to handle the fight, they;ll shoulder more of the burden.

[jdobbin]

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to argue through the flourish of rhetoric. You seem to be saying that it ought to be the Afghans, and in the same breathe that the Afghans can't do it yet. So in effect you're setting up a catch 22. I'm sure when the Taliban inclined folks in Afghanistan find that the cost is not equal to the benefit of fighting on, and as the Afghans become increasingly able to handle the fight, they;ll shoulder more of the burden.

I'm saying the Afghans won't do it when the Canadians are present. The Canadian military this week was just saying that the Afghan Police bug off and make Canada do the work. Often, Canada has to clean up a mess of the ANP's own making. The Afghan military faces similar unreliability quotients. Often the just the allies take on jobs themselves rather than contributing at all.

The Catch 22 is of Afghanistan's own making. They want Canadians but as long as they are there, the police and military won't do their jobs.