jbg Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 I would categorize that as alarmism. The Taliban, though against Western values, have never planned to attack the West. They only wanted power in Afghanistan. You are using the same logic as Bush when he says that if they leave Iraq, the terrorists would come to the US next. The funny thing is that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda and in fact considered them hostile. Well maybe September 11, 2001 was just an exciting day for them. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
kimmy Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 And regards to "pulling out." Didn't people say that the Communists would sweep the world once the US pulled out a Vietnam. Guess what? Communism didn't and in fact, is not as strong today as it was back then. And the real embarrasing thing for the US in that war was that they stayed in the war longer than they should have. It would have prevented needless needless deaths on both sides if they pulled out sooner. And i don't think the Canadians leaving in Feb 2007 would be pulling out because they would be completing the original mandate. I believe the Conservatives pulled a fast one by rushing that two year extension through the house The extension passed with the support of the Liberals, did it not? While I don't think anyone is anticipating a domino-effect of countries turning into Muslim theocracies if we pull out of Aghanistan, there's no doubt that Canada pulling out would be perceived by the Taliban as a tremendous victory for them. It would only serve to embolden them, show them that Canadians don't have the stomach for a fight, and probably rally more recruits under their banner. Show them that if you just set off enough suicide bombs, the cowardly Canadians will run away home. Show them that you can defeat the west because the west is too soft and scared to see it through. You're asking the wrong question. The question is, would we rather fight them there or in the streets of Toronto, Calgary and Montreal. Just ask any Israeli.I would categorize that as alarmism. The Taliban, though against Western values, have never planned to attack the West. They only wanted power in Afghanistan. You are using the same logic as Bush when he says that if they leave Iraq, the terrorists would come to the US next. The funny thing is that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda and in fact considered them hostile. The Taliban may have no intention of attacking the west, however they treated Al Qaeda as honored guests in their country. They awarded Osama the official title "Hero of Islam" or something like that, didn't they? Frankly, I don't think we should give them the country back. Frankly, I don't like what they did with it when they were in charge and I don't think they should have a second chance. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Riverwind Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 Frankly, I don't think we should give them the country back. Frankly, I don't like what they did with it when they were in charge and I don't think they should have a second chance.Would feel the same way if they were democratically elected like Hezbolla or Hamas? Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
kimmy Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 Frankly, I don't think we should give them the country back. Frankly, I don't like what they did with it when they were in charge and I don't think they should have a second chance.Would feel the same way if they were democratically elected like Hezbolla or Hamas? Well... the Taliban not being democratically elected wasn't the reason that brought western forces to Afghanistan, as you'll recall. If some democratically elected government of some banana republic was dedicated to harboring a violent terrorist group dedicated to harming western targets, I don't think I'd be in favor of giving them a free reign to resume their crappy activities either. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
jbg Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 Frankly, I don't think we should give them the country back. Frankly, I don't like what they did with it when they were in charge and I don't think they should have a second chance.Would feel the same way if they were democratically elected like Hezbolla or Hamas? If a people democratically elect Hezbolla or Hamas all excuses for not waging war on them evaporate. They cannot argue that the militaristic dictatorship is imposed. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Electric Monk Posted September 10, 2006 Report Posted September 10, 2006 Does it make sense to try to negotiate without all opposing parties present? Can peace talks break down and fighting resume if all parties cannot reach agreement? Did anyone say "peace at any cost"? Quote
Argus Posted September 10, 2006 Report Posted September 10, 2006 Does it make sense to try to negotiate without all opposing parties present? Can peace talks break down and fighting resume if all parties cannot reach agreement? Did anyone say "peace at any cost"? Okay, I'm the Taliban. Negotiate with me. My demands are these: All who deny Allah must die. All women must go back to the home. Anyone who teaches a woman to read dies, along with the woman. There shall be no music of any kind, nor pictures which show humans or animals. Men must wear long beards and women must wear burkhas. All must live according to the Koran as we see it. As all of these are dictated by Allah, they are non-negotiable. Now what would you like to say to me, infidel? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Canuck E Stan Posted September 10, 2006 Report Posted September 10, 2006 Now what would you like to say to me, infidel? Being a NDP infidel I would say: "Would you like sugar with your tea?" Quote "Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over 30 who is not a conservative has no brains." — Winston Churchill
Argus Posted September 10, 2006 Report Posted September 10, 2006 Now what would you like to say to me, infidel? Being a NDP infidel I would say: "Would you like sugar with your tea?" No, I think you would say "Now first let's talk the importance of gay marriage." Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Rovik Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 With Obama and now Harper and the Conservatives believing that the way to peace in Afghanistan is negotiating with the moderates in the Taliban, it brought back memories of this old thread from 2006. Staunch supporters of Harper back then were totally against it; wonder if they have changed their minds since Harper has changed his tune. Guess Layton was not so crazy after all when he suggested the very same thing back then. Quote
punked Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 They look pretty stuipd reading their posts now. Does Jack get to keep the name "Taliban Jack"? Or do we give it to Harper now? Quote
Canadian Blue Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 They look pretty stuipd reading their posts now. Does Jack get to keep the name "Taliban Jack"? Or do we give it to Harper now? Yes, especially that guy who actually served in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban while you were back here in Canada typing your opinions of world affairs. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
punked Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Yes, especially that guy who actually served in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban while you were back here in Canada typing your opinions of world affairs. Yah while you were fighting Harper was yelling "We will never give up, until there is a stable democracy" and now look who he thinks he should talk to. Glade to see he has lost your vote and you will be moving to the side who saw this two years ago. Quote
Canadian Blue Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) Yah while you were fighting Harper was yelling "We will never give up, until there is a stable democracy" and now look who he thinks he should talk to. Glade to see he has lost your vote and you will be moving to the side who saw this two years ago. No, the difference is that I didn't argue we should first pullout of Afghanistan and give the Taliban the position of strength during negotiations. For NATO to pullout, let the Taliban take power, and then negotiate is idiotic at best. What would we have to negotiate about exactly if NATO pulled out, probably nothing. The NDP position back then and now is to be in a position of weakness. As well I won't be going to your side, why would I want to put the country at risk of an attack by gutting the budgets of the Canadian Forces, RCMP, and CSIS. Edited March 10, 2009 by Canadian Blue Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
punked Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) No, the difference is that I didn't argue we should first pullout of Afghanistan and give the Taliban the position of strength during negotiations. For NATO to pullout, let the Taliban take power, and then negotiate is idiotic at best. What would we have to negotiate about exactly if NATO pulled out, probably nothing. The NDP position back then and now is to be in a position of weakness. As well I won't be going to your side, why would I want to put the country at risk of an attack by gutting the budgets of the Canadian Forces, RCMP, and CSIS. You prefer to take 18 billion from Canadians and spend it in Afghanistan right? Seems like that money might be better spent in this country. I love the "putting the country at risk" line who do we have to fear? The peace dividend is half the reason why our government and that of the US did so well in the 90's. Edited March 10, 2009 by punked Quote
bjre Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Yes, especially that guy who actually served in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban while you were back here in Canada typing your opinions of world affairs. I've heard Canadian like peace. If only Canada can save some hundred Canadian soldier's life from the war and from involving in any war in any place of the world and save several hundred tax dollars each year for everyone. Smile to others is better than go to other's home with a gun, especially when you feel need to talk to him again. Quote "The more laws, the less freedom" -- bjre "There are so many laws that nearly everybody breaks some, even when you just stay at home do nothing, the only question left is how thugs can use laws to attack you" -- bjre "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
Canadian Blue Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 You prefer to take 18 billion from Canadians and spend it in Afghanistan right? Seems like that money might be better spent in this country. I love the "putting the country at risk" line who do we have to fear? The peace dividend is half the reason why our government and that of the US did so well in the 90's. So you're not so much in favour of negotiation as you are for a total pullout with no regard for the consequences now? As for the US never being at risk, I hope you're joking. America was constantly targeted in the 90's, ever hear of the Embassy bombings, the WTC explosion, or for that matter the USS Cole incident. But lets say this, I wouldn't want to disband all of modes of defence, that is unless you believe that we should be completely defenceless if an attack or situation were to arise. I'm far more prudent than you and far more observant that the world is still somewhat dangerous. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
Canadian Blue Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I've heard Canadian like peace. If only Canada can save some hundred Canadian soldier's life from the war and from involving in any war in any place of the world and save several hundred tax dollars each year for everyone. Smile to others is better than go to other's home with a gun, especially when you feel need to talk to him again. History doesn't agree with that considering the record of the Canadian Forces in the Medak Pocket, Korea, and Europe in both World Wars. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 ....I love the "putting the country at risk" line who do we have to fear? The peace dividend is half the reason why our government and that of the US did so well in the 90's. What's the other half, because things were not so great for the Canadian government in the 90's...provincial finances suffered mightily. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 With Obama and now Harper and the Conservatives believing that the way to peace in Afghanistan is negotiating with the moderates in the Taliban, it brought back memories of this old thread from 2006.Staunch supporters of Harper back then were totally against it; wonder if they have changed their minds since Harper has changed his tune. Guess Layton was not so crazy after all when he suggested the very same thing back then. "We do not negotiate with terrorists" With the west being the formost coercive economic, miliarial and idealogica terrorist on the planet and us in tow - Maybe it's time for terrorists to negotiate with terrorists. After all we are no better than this culture and we all share the same human values - good ones and horrifically base preditorial ones. We the west have probalby indirectly and directly killed more that the traditional stero-typical terrorist - Maybe it's time to make peace - none can afford the expense and pain of war of any sort - time to evolve or perish. Quote
punked Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 So you're not so much in favour of negotiation as you are for a total pullout with no regard for the consequences now? As for the US never being at risk, I hope you're joking. America was constantly targeted in the 90's, ever hear of the Embassy bombings, the WTC explosion, or for that matter the USS Cole incident. But lets say this, I wouldn't want to disband all of modes of defence, that is unless you believe that we should be completely defenceless if an attack or situation were to arise. I'm far more prudent than you and far more observant that the world is still somewhat dangerous. Last time I checked I live on Canada not the US but I will look at a map again. I am for getting out and not spending money in a country which is not our own. I know you love to spend all of Canada's money in other countries but I think my tax dollars should be spent here. As for being prudent what does your prudency say how much money should we spend per budget on the Military, RCMP, and CISI 1% 2%? What? It is easy to say "WE DON'T SPEND enough" what is enough? What about health care, education, infrastructure? See that is where we differ the NDP knows there isn't a limitless supply of money the Conservatives don't. Sometimes it is guns or butter, I always pick butter. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Last time I checked I live on Canada not the US but I will look at a map again. Coulda fooled me....are you sure? I am for getting out and not spending money in a country which is not our own. I know you love to spend all of Canada's money in other countries but I think my tax dollars should be spent here. But the GG wants $500 million for Haiti. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Coulda fooled me....are you sure?But the GG wants $500 million for Haiti. The GG loves Hati so much she should run for office in Hati. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 The GG loves Hati so much she should run for office in Hati. Maybe she will....with your money. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Coulda fooled me....are you sure?But the GG wants $500 million for Haiti. Well I do live in the US during the summer months although that is neither here nor there. Didn't Harper giver her that money? It could have done wonders at home but I guess because we take all of Haiti's educated it is almost a fair trade. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.