The great debate "debate".

[Wilber]

Hitler was no threat to anyone other than his immediate neighborhood (Just like Islamacists). The only reason Hitler gets so much media play in North America is because most North Americans have European ancestry

Tell that to the Czechs, Poles, Danes, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, Greeks. None of them declared war on Germany. What was Munich all about? Why did Britain and France declare war on Germany? What the heck, Poland only lost 10% of its population. No threat in his immediate neighborhood indeed.

Declaring war does not make them a threat - it is simply irrational to think that the Germans could have launched even a token attack against North America. Uboats cannot be used to invade - they were intended to prevent supplies from getting to Europe. The idea that Germans were building anything is BC is simply laughable.

Never heard the one about BC but U Boats sank scores of ships in the St. Lawrence. In fact it was the one part of the Battle of the Atlantic the Germans won decisively. Because of the salt and fresh water mixing they were next to impossible to find with sonar. They were also a big threat to shipping up and down the eastern seaboard from South America to Canada.

[Argus]

I don't really disagree with the mission in afganistan, but i do agree we need to discuss it. First of all its our taxes and the country's philosophy that is linked to this war, its not only a military matters.

What, again? Fine. But here's the rule. You're not allowed to say anything that was already said in the first two debates about Afghanistan. If you do, you get handed a rifle and shipped over there to discuss it with the Taliban in person.

That should provide us with plenty of reinforcements, not that they'd be much good. Still, cannon fodder still has its place.

[Wilber]

The longer you dither and debate we the soldiers pay. get off your asses.

"Get of your asses". Exactly what does that mean?

I'm not sure what your objection is. You clearly object, and feel quite strongly about it. The mission is happening...it's on...and we're currently comitted until 2009.

You are obliged to perform the mission that your civilian leadership tells you to perform. Perhaps you need to stick to that instead of using your position to put forward partisan BS. The fact that a debate is happening should be of no consequence to you. Just "grab your balls and squezze", as you say, and don't let it fret you.

Because we all know soldiers are mindless drones, not Canadian citizens entitled to participate in whatever debate they damn well please.

True, they have to follow orders.. to an extent.. certainly not any unlawful orders. But his opinion carries just as much weight as any civie.

They're not mindless drones, but nor are they insightful political commentators.

Most troops are spouting propaganda, truth be known, and this is certainly the case here.

Yes, they are ignorant and you are smart. You keep telling us. You would never spout propaganda.

[B. Max]

Oh please. Germany and Spain both declared war on the US a couple of days or so after the attack on pearl harbor. The germans were secretly building a road down the west coast of BC for their planned invasion. They had U-boats off the east coast of North America.

Declaring war does not make them a threat - it is simply irrational to think that the Germans could have launched even a token attack against North America. Uboats cannot be used to invade - they were intended to prevent supplies from getting to Europe. The idea that Germans were building anything is BC is simply laughable.

Declaring war did make them a threat and a threat they were. As it turns out they were never able to launch an invasion because we went and kicked their ass. Given time they would have. If the enemy is sinking your supply ships you are past the point of a threat. According to a documentry I watched they were attempting to build such a road, and people I've talked to when i was up in that area also confirmed that they were.

[Wilber]

I don't really disagree with the mission in afganistan, but i do agree we need to discuss it. First of all its our taxes and the country's philosophy that is linked to this war, its not only a military matters.

What, again? Fine. But here's the rule. You're not allowed to say anything that was already said in the first two debates about Afghanistan. If you do, you get handed a rifle and shipped over there to discuss it with the Taliban in person.

That should provide us with plenty of reinforcements, not that they'd be much good. Still, cannon fodder still has its place.

Can't do that, only volunteers go to Afghanistan.

[Riverwind]

Most troops are spouting propaganda, truth be known, and this is certainly the case here.

Why should your opinion be considered truth and not just more propoganda? I agree that soldiers, like every other person who expresses an opinion on the topic, do not necessarily have all of the answers. However, I think people should take the opinion of people whose lives are on the line a lot more seriously than the opinions of someone living out of harms way here.

[Riverwind]

Declaring war did make them a threat and a threat they were.

Would China care if Canada declared war on it? Would the US even care? Unlikely. Declaring war only means something if the declarer has the military strength to back up the declaration.

As it turns out they were never able to launch an invasion because we went and kicked their ass.

The German Reich would have collapsed under its own weight within a few years. All the Americans did was hasten the process and eliminated the need for messy compromises that would have likely led to another war in a generation. In the end it was a good thing that the Americans got involved in the war but it is silly to suggest they needed to do so because they had something to fear from the Germans.

the enemy is sinking your supply ships you are past the point of a threat.

Sure, the Germans interfered with American trading relationships with Europe. That is a type of threat but it does not mean that the country itself was ever threatened.

According to a documentry I watched they were attempting to build such a road, and people I've talked to when i was up in that area also confirmed that they were.

According to a documentary I watched 9/11 staged by the US gov't and there are people living in New York confirmed that this is the case....

[Argus]

Do you really want to let Islamist cults establish a large, opressive pan-Islamist state bent on the destruction of Judeo-Christian culture and western democracies?

What does that have to do with the Taliban? The Taliban were and are small-time peasants, illiterate and ignorant thugs.

Yes, as is the president of Iran, and the entire ruling body of clerics there, as are the members of Al Quaeda, as are all those Muslims in the West who want Sharia law.

The supporters of Fundamentalist Islam are all, more or less, ignorant, barely literate peasants.

Then again, so were the supporters of the German Socialist Workers Party.

Most Communist supporters throughout the world were barely literate cretins, too, though in the West the movement did attract a certain flighty, pseudo intellectual dillitante, as well.

Didn't make them any less dangerous.

I agree that, in a conventional military sense, the fundamentalists will never beat us. Not until, at any rate, they outbreed us in many western european nations and become the majority there. Which, unfortunately, looks to be likely over the coming decades.

The fight against the Taliban is partially humanitarian in nature, but generally, it's one of the fronts against the fundamentalists. It was the main base of operations for the wackos, their version of a success story,a place where muslim wackos from around the world could come and get military and religious training, then go back home to start their own terror cells.

The military fight against the wackos is not to prevent them overrunning our borders in the conventional sense, but to keep the casualties down. A few dozen here, a few score there, is little more than a nusance. But unchecked, given no restrictions on their money and resources, what kind of attacks would we see? We know that fairly well because we've seen their efforts in those directions: chemical, biological and nuclear attacks in our major cities. Will you still sneeringly dismiss the notion of any danger from these "peasants" when a biological plague kills a million people in western europe? When a poisoned water supply fells thousands in New York? When a dirty bomb goes off in London or some Muslim nutjobs blow up a reactor or two at Pickering?

The muslim nutjobs have to be harried wherever they settle, not because we can crush them all, but to keep them off guard, and make life too difficult for them to easily launch major attacks like that.

And hopefully, while we're engaged in killing them off in this particular front, the Afghan government can slowly spread its influence and take control of more of the country, eventually, hopefully, being able to stave off these people itself.

If we succeed, however we plan to measure that, whoever eventually ends up running Afghanistan will be different from the Taliban by a matter of degrees. They'll be corrupt. They'll be backward. And they'll be brutal. And we won't care because they'll be ours.

But perhaps they won't be quite as corrupt, or backward and not nearly as brutal, at least with common people. So that, at least, would be quite a benefit to the Afghan people.

[Argus]

They're not mindless drones, but nor are they insightful political commentators.

Most troops are spouting propaganda, truth be known, and this is certainly the case here.

And you aren't? The advantage he has is of actually being there and seeing things first hand.

You? You read internet web site articles written by teenagers and twentysomethings who can't find a job.

[uOttawaMan]

They're not mindless drones, but nor are they insightful political commentators.

Most troops are spouting propaganda, truth be known, and this is certainly the case here.

And you aren't? The advantage he has is of actually being there and seeing things first hand.

You? You read internet web site articles written by teenagers and twentysomethings who can't find a job.

Or by those without the intestinal fortitude to back up their words with actions.

[gerryhatrick]

The longer you dither and debate we the soldiers pay. get off your asses.

"Get of your asses". Exactly what does that mean?

I'm not sure what your objection is. You clearly object, and feel quite strongly about it. The mission is happening...it's on...and we're currently comitted until 2009.

You are obliged to perform the mission that your civilian leadership tells you to perform. Perhaps you need to stick to that instead of using your position to put forward partisan BS. The fact that a debate is happening should be of no consequence to you. Just "grab your balls and squezze", as you say, and don't let it fret you.

Because we all know soldiers are mindless drones, not Canadian citizens entitled to participate in whatever debate they damn well please.

True, they have to follow orders.. to an extent.. certainly not any unlawful orders. But his opinion carries just as much weight as any civie.

They're not mindless drones, but nor are they insightful political commentators.

Most troops are spouting propaganda, truth be known, and this is certainly the case here.

Yes, they are ignorant and you are smart. You keep telling us. You would never spout propaganda.

Engage in personal attacks if it makes you feel better. You are irrelavent in this, I wait to hear from the poster. His post leaves much to be explained. If he's not engaging in propaganda, it will be apparent by an honest explanation of what his words are supposed to mean.

[Black Dog]

Yes, as is the president of Iran, and the entire ruling body of clerics there, as are the members of Al Quaeda, as are all those Muslims in the West who want Sharia law.

The supporters of Fundamentalist Islam are all, more or less, ignorant, barely literate peasants.

Then again, so were the supporters of the German Socialist Workers Party.

Most Communist supporters throughout the world were barely literate cretins, too, though in the West the movement did attract a certain flighty, pseudo intellectual dillitante, as well.

Didn't make them any less dangerous.

What made them dangerous was their high degree of organization and industrialization. Two things the Islamofascistnijazombies lack.

I agree that, in a conventional military sense, the fundamentalists will never beat us. Not until, at any rate, they outbreed us in many western european nations and become the majority there. Which, unfortunately, looks to be likely over the coming decades.

The fight against the Taliban is partially humanitarian in nature, but generally, it's one of the fronts against the fundamentalists. It was the main base of operations for the wackos, their version of a success story,a place where muslim wackos from around the world could come and get military and religious training, then go back home to start their own terror cells.

Thank God we took out that one and then built a new one for them in Iraq.

he military fight against the wackos is not to prevent them overrunning our borders in the conventional sense, but to keep the casualties down. A few dozen here, a few score there, is little more than a nusance. But unchecked, given no restrictions on their money and resources, what kind of attacks would we see? We know that fairly well because we've seen their efforts in those directions: chemical, biological and nuclear attacks in our major cities. Will you still sneeringly dismiss the notion of any danger from these "peasants" when a biological plague kills a million people in western europe? When a poisoned water supply fells thousands in New York? When a dirty bomb goes off in London or some Muslim nutjobs blow up a reactor or two at Pickering?

Ah, see there's your trouble: "unchecked, given no restrictions on their money and resources". Unchecked and given no restrictions on money and resources, anyone can do anything. But they ain't unchecked and they are limited.

The muslim nutjobs have to be harried wherever they settle, not because we can crush them all, but to keep them off guard, and make life too difficult for them to easily launch major attacks like that.

Uh huh. Notwithstanding the obvious flaws (like where they'd get nuclear material, or the unreliability of chem/bio weapons), we're talking about a fracvtion of a fraction that want to pull stunts like that. The Taliban had no interest in terrorizing anyone outside Afghanistan. Iran's fundies are more interested in boosting their nation's fortunes in the region and resisting the tide of modernity. Frankly, the whole scenario is so perposterous, I wouldn't buy it from a B Grade Hollywood thriller.

And hopefully, while we're engaged in killing them off in this particular front, the Afghan government can slowly spread its influence and take control of more of the country, eventually, hopefully, being able to stave off these people itself.

Of course, the more time we spend over there making the world safe for our backwards fundamentalists, the more of them wil want to come over here. It's a cycle.

[Wilber]

Engage in personal attacks if it makes you feel better. You are irrelavent in this, I wait to hear from the poster. His post leaves much to be explained. If he's not engaging in propaganda, it will be apparent by an honest explanation of what his words are supposed to mean.

Yes, you speak the truth, they spout propaganda. Is it a personal attack? You bet ya, I have no respect for your condescending attitude. These people think enough of you and your country to put their lives on the line unconditionally and you write them off as a bunch of ignorant bumpkins who's opinions are nothing but propaganda, because you just don't understand what they stand for and never will.

[gerryhatrick]

Engage in personal attacks if it makes you feel better. You are irrelavent in this, I wait to hear from the poster. His post leaves much to be explained. If he's not engaging in propaganda, it will be apparent by an honest explanation of what his words are supposed to mean.

Yes, you speak the truth, they spout propaganda. Is it a personal attack? You bet ya, I have no respect for your condescending attitude. These people think enough of you and your country to put their lives on the line unconditionally and you write them off as a bunch of ignorant bumpkins who's opinions are nothing but propaganda, because you just don't understand what they stand for and never will.

Just because they've put their lives on the line they don't get a free pass.

A soldier in Afghanistan holds no special knowledge that allows him to chastise the rest of us over holding a debate. How about that "condescending attitude", no problem there?

And in no way did I write soldiers off as "ignorant bumpkins".

You, sir, are a liar.

[Wilber]

And in no way did I write soldiers off as "ignorant bumpkins".

You, sir, are a liar.

You are obliged to perform the mission that your civilian leadership tells you to perform. Perhaps you need to stick to that instead of using your position to put forward partisan BS. The fact that a debate is happening should be of no consequence to you. Just "grab your balls and squezze", as you say, and don't let it fret you.

They're not mindless drones, but nor are they insightful political commentators.

But you are.

A soldier in Afghanistan holds no special knowledge that allows him to chastise the rest of us over holding a debate. How about that "condescending attitude", no problem there?

Exept that he is there and you are not, therefore you are obviously better informed.

[gerryhatrick]

And in no way did I write soldiers off as "ignorant bumpkins".

You, sir, are a liar.

You are obliged to perform the mission that your civilian leadership tells you to perform. Perhaps you need to stick to that instead of using your position to put forward partisan BS. The fact that a debate is happening should be of no consequence to you. Just "grab your balls and squezze", as you say, and don't let it fret you.

They're not mindless drones, but nor are they insightful political commentators.

But you are.

I'm insightful enough to see partisan propaganda when I see it.

[Wilber]

I'm insightful enough to see partisan propaganda when I see it.

Like I said, you are smart and they aren't.

They are just in a foreign country living under what we would consider fairly primitive conditions with people trying to kill them on a daily basis. All they want is for us to listen to them and give our support. What's your problem?

[jbg]

*snip*

My first reaction when i heard that there is now a new movement to debate our mission here, was to scream WTF are Canadians thinking. Debate what, what is it about this mission that has not been explained over and over. but after a couple of days of thinking, interupted by a few long conversations with the Taliban (over tea and biscuts, sorry our NDP friends did not show up.) Anyways i've come to these conclusions that

Some Canadians just don't get it, or refuse to get it.

*snip*

The longer you dither and debate we the soldiers pay. get off your asses.

MSM should not be confused with true Canadians. Most of them, in an earlier day, would have joined Louis Riel swinging from a rope.

[gerryhatrick]

I'm insightful enough to see partisan propaganda when I see it.

Like I said, you are smart and they aren't.

Whatever. When you are able to get past a poster and answer a post let me know.

[Charles Anthony]

They are just in a foreign country living under what we would consider fairly primitive conditions with people trying to kill them on a daily basis.

The first thing that came to my mind was that your "they" referred to the Afghans.

[Wilber]

The first thing that came to my mind was that your "they" referred to the Afghans.

I'm not surprised.

Whatever. When you are able to get past a poster and answer a post let me know.

What I am taking exeption to is Gerry's writing off the opinions of those who are on scene as mere partisan propoganda and maintaining that only he is well informed and inteligent enough to have an opinion. It is he that is having trouble getting past the poster.

The people who are there are telling him something he doesn't want to hear, therefore it is propaganda.

[Argus]

There is a very real threat that some of these Muslim whackos will set off a nuclear device in a western city in the next, say, 20 years.

And maybe a million or so people would die - a tragedy but certaintly not the worst in human history and you can bet that after recovering from the shock that the overwhelming majority of people will continue with their lives has they always have. Furthermore, we know that the best way to ensure that such an attack occurs is to become entangled in military conflicts in Islamic countries. 9/11 would have never happened if the world had let Saddam keep Kuwait and the US kept its troops out of Saudi Arabia. You can argue that we had no choice but to become militarily involved in Kuwait - but you can't argue that 9/11 wasn't a direct a consequence of that military involvement - Bin Laden has said so many times in his public statements.

This is nothing but a variant of "You deserved it because you ticked me off". There's no indication that what I did was wrong or immoral or unfair or anything. But I deserved it because you didn't like it.

To say the WTC wouldn't have happened without Kuwait is silliness. Islamic fundamentalism and accompanying terrorism had been rising steadily, and would have continued to rise - in no small part due to the tens of billions put into extremist religious education around the world by Saudi Arabia. Nor was there any great outcry from the Muslim world over us pushing Iraq out of Kuwait.

Besides, we could not and can not afford to let one dictator who is unfriendly to us control a big chunk of the world's oil. There are simply no ifs, ands, or buts about that.

[August1991]

I had ignored this thread because of the poor formatting and silly comments.

----

Furthermore, we know that the best way to ensure that such an attack occurs is to become entangled in military conflicts in Islamic countries. 9/11 would have never happened if the world had let Saddam keep Kuwait and the US kept its troops out of Saudi Arabia. You can argue that we had no choice but to become militarily involved in Kuwait - but you can't argue that 9/11 wasn't a direct a consequence of that military involvement - Bin Laden has said so many times in his public statements.

Riverwind, we no longer live in a world where we can isolate ourselves from others. If it hadn't been Kuwait, it would have been something else. In fact, it didn't even have to be something else. Our mere presence is enough to create conflict.

It is truly the thinking of someone from a different century to believe that isolation from the West is possible. There are going to be Christians travelling to Saudi Arabia, living there and working there. Young Muslims will see Western movies.

It may have been possible 50 years ago to avoid these cultural conflicts but that's no longer the case.

What made them dangerous was their high degree of organization and industrialization. Two things the Islamofascistnijazombies lack.

The Islamowhatevers managed to learn how to fly sophisticated airplanes. It's not beyond reason they'll learn how to set off a nuclear device.

Since they don't fight like Nazis, does that make thema nything less of a threat?

[Riverwind]

This is nothing but a variant of "You deserved it because you ticked me off". There's no indication that what I did was wrong or immoral or unfair or anything. But I deserved it because you didn't like it.

A woman who is raped by a man she picked up at a bar and brought back to her apartment is not to blame for being raped, however, it is perfectly legimate to question her judgement. A man who is shot by his drug dealer is not to blame for being shot but it is perfectly reasonable to say that he would not have been shot if he had not been buying illegal drugs. A kid who bullies another for years until the weaker kid snaps and blows him away is a victim but most people would say he had it coming.

All of those examples illustrate why it is ridiculous to stifle discussion about what the US did to contribute to the 9/11 attack.

Besides, we could not and can not afford to let one dictator who is unfriendly to us control a big chunk of the world's oil. There are simply no ifs, ands, or buts about that.

We lived with that situation for decades with Russia and Iran. Dictators need money and oil is the easiest way for them to get it. You can bet that Saddam or any other dictator with control would sell as much oil on the world market as they possibly could - no ifs ands or buts about that. In terms of oil supply, the only real difference between a Saddam controlled Iraq and the current situation is American oil firms would not be able to get a peice of the action if Saddam was in charge. I don't see why the the rest of the world should care if American oil firms are able to profit from Iraqi oil.

[Riverwind]

The Islamowhatevers managed to learn how to fly sophisticated airplanes. It's not beyond reason they'll learn how to set off a nuclear device.

Bin Laden and co. could have choose any target for those planes: including nuclear plants. The fact that they choose not to demonstrates that these 'crazies' are not as crazy as you would like to believe. It is possible that the invasion of Iraq has spawned a new generation of fanatics that don't have the same restraint. However, that would be just another example of how military entanglements in Islamic countries lead directly to attacks on Western countries. Eliminate the entanglements and we can eliminate the attacks.