Never Forget

[Leader Circle]

. . . .

besides the issue of racist bias in who you want to participate in these threads, or rather who you dont you never answered the question: A question that any self reflecting human being would ask. It would be expected in a university and it would be expected to be debated. Afterall, it was the twin towers that were targeted. Now why do you THINK that was? The question asked by Tsi was extremely pertinent and to the point. However:

You simply dont like it that a "native" asked it. You dont like it when they are smarter than you - do you. SO

What about all the victims of poverty that have died due to US imposed corporations?

Why are they not remembered and listed?

Look at how soldiers are treated as pensioners for a start. Is that respect? At most they might get a tin medal that cost less than $1.00 to make in some swet shop in Taiwan.

Look at how the soldiers were treated in the Vietnam war. They were experimented upon with drugs/steroids etc to 'improve' there combative techniques!!

They were treated like rats and rabbits that are experimented upon for the use of makeup and you talk of respect!!

Your sort can be bought so easily - two a penny - look at your minimum wage for a clue

You people are pathetic! Every chance you get, you scream racism, well, get over it. Not everything that white people say can constitute as racism. That thing "tsi" is not more intelligent, it simply spews a bunch of garbage and ruined a perfectly good thread that was intended to show respect for innocent people who died for no reason. Although your kind of tree-hugging people would rather talk to the terrorists, rather than destroy them, which is what they deserve!

Please enlighten me on the people who died for US (imposed???WTF?) corporations? Can you wow me with a for instance? Directly speaking of course!

It is sad how you lefties feel for the "huddled masses" and the impoverished, yet you are never willing to dole it out yourself, you just want the "big business" to look after it for you and you will still tell of their evils!

YOUR sort can be brainwashed easily - a little free healthcare, some medicinal weed, a gay pride parade and a union wage!

[Wilber]

Yes, the idea of a simple memorial to those dead on 9/11 is a fine sentiment.

Pity the way it's been honored in this thread.

:angry:

Amen

[BubberMiley]

YOUR sort can be brainwashed easily - a little free healthcare, some medicinal weed, a gay pride parade and a union wage!

Your sort can be duped into war so easily by jihadists wanting to start WWIII. I'd lol but it's more sad than funny.

[BubberMiley]

I say give them what they want; in spades.

I say then get your ass to Afghanistan and start fighting. Sitting on your ass in front of your computer supporting western jihad is pretty cowardly.

[cybercoma]

God Bless those who died before their time on September 11th. God Bless the men and women who ran INTO the danger to try to save the lives of others and ended up giving up their own in the process.

The childish bickering in this thread, which was meant to respect those who died on September 11th is sickening.

[Argus]

Well said. I have a similar reason for not wanting Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Lack of foresight is a killer. The Canadian troops would do more for the country by becoming the gov't than believing that they are ready to have 'freedom and democracy' tomorrow.

If you are going to rule with an unpopular gov't, you'd better make make sure it's well armed.

The problem in Afghanistan is not that Karzai is unpopular. It's that they can't get a handle on the warlords, and they can't control the border with Pakistan. The British learned from their error during the middle of the nineteenth century. They tried to use their own troops to prop up a government no one wanted. They controlled Afghanistan thereafter by playing the tribes and warlords off against each other and by bribing and arming the biggest, meanest guy in the country.

That is, arguably, the way to go. It's not particularly democratic, and it doesn't have anything admirable in the way of world-building or advancing the concepts of freedom, but it'd work a hell of a lot better than what we're doing now. Prop up a strong man with money and arms and let him undertake the necessary slaughter of warlords and tribes which oppose him. It's really quite practical, and a hell of a lot cheaper.

The question we need to ask, then, is why the Americans didn't go that route.

[jdobbin]

The problem in Afghanistan is not that Karzai is unpopular. It's that they can't get a handle on the warlords, and they can't control the border with Pakistan. The British learned from their error during the middle of the nineteenth century. They tried to use their own troops to prop up a government no one wanted. They controlled Afghanistan thereafter by playing the tribes and warlords off against each other and by bribing and arming the biggest, meanest guy in the country.

That is, arguably, the way to go. It's not particularly democratic, and it doesn't have anything admirable in the way of world-building or advancing the concepts of freedom, but it'd work a hell of a lot better than what we're doing now. Prop up a strong man with money and arms and let him undertake the necessary slaughter of warlords and tribes which oppose him. It's really quite practical, and a hell of a lot cheaper.

The question we need to ask, then, is why the Americans didn't go that route.

So you think the present strategy in Afghanistan is unwinnable?

[Argus]

The problem in Afghanistan is not that Karzai is unpopular. It's that they can't get a handle on the warlords, and they can't control the border with Pakistan. The British learned from their error during the middle of the nineteenth century. They tried to use their own troops to prop up a government no one wanted. They controlled Afghanistan thereafter by playing the tribes and warlords off against each other and by bribing and arming the biggest, meanest guy in the country.

That is, arguably, the way to go. It's not particularly democratic, and it doesn't have anything admirable in the way of world-building or advancing the concepts of freedom, but it'd work a hell of a lot better than what we're doing now. Prop up a strong man with money and arms and let him undertake the necessary slaughter of warlords and tribes which oppose him. It's really quite practical, and a hell of a lot cheaper.

The question we need to ask, then, is why the Americans didn't go that route.

So you think the present strategy in Afghanistan is unwinnable?

No, it's just more expensive, more time consuming, and more dangerous. It requires that we (ie, the west) hold on to the will to fight for years on end, when so many of our politicians are so notoriously short sighted and willing to sacrifice anything on the alter of their own political ambitions. It requires a lot of political manoeuvring to get more of the warlods and tribal leaders on side, and diplomatic manoeuvring against enemies like Iran and Pakistan (and in the context of Afghanistan, Pakistan is an enemy in that large numbers of combatants and arms flow form there).

[jdobbin]

No, it's just more expensive, more time consuming, and more dangerous. It requires that we (ie, the west) hold on to the will to fight for years on end, when so many of our politicians are so notoriously short sighted and willing to sacrifice anything on the alter of their own political ambitions. It requires a lot of political manoeuvring to get more of the warlods and tribal leaders on side, and diplomatic manoeuvring against enemies like Iran and Pakistan (and in the context of Afghanistan, Pakistan is an enemy in that large numbers of combatants and arms flow form there).

I think both Hillier and O'Connor have both said in the last month that the Taliban can't be beaten unless Pakistan does something about the sheltering and training of terrorists and Taliban in the border area.

A year ago, I might have been convinced that Afghanistan was well under way with reconstruction but this continual insurgency fueled from Pakistan makes me doubt that even a four or five years would be enough to quell the attacks.

Pakistan is the key to Afghan security and until Canada and the world deals with that fact, the war is one that cann't be won.

[jbg]

Yes, the idea of a simple memorial to those dead on 9/11 is a fine sentiment.

Pity the way it's been honored in this thread.

:angry:

Amen

I would say, as far as the topic of this thread, both "amen" and "je me souviens".

[jbg]

I say give them what they want; in spades.

I say then get your ass to Afghanistan and start fighting. Sitting on your ass in front of your computer supporting western jihad is pretty cowardly.

What would be your vote, to accept dhimitude?

[BubberMiley]

What would be your vote, to accept dhimitude?

No. Actually, cybercoma has flattered me by starting a thread dedicated to my personal opinions on this matter, even though he had no idea what they were. No need for me to cross-post.

[Wilber]

"You love life, we love death". I say give them what they want; in spades.

The gunman in Montreal said the same. Does that mean we have to live in fear of anyone who wears a black trenchcoat?

Wearing black trenchcoats should be a capital offense.

[BubberMiley]

Wearing black trenchcoats should be a capital offense.

Below the knee? We could get advice from the Taliban burka-measurers.

[Wilber]

Wearing black trenchcoats should be a capital offense.

Below the knee? We could get advice from the Taliban burka-measurers.

Good idea.

[cybercoma]

What would be your vote, to accept dhimitude?

No. Actually, cybercoma has flattered me by starting a thread dedicated to my personal opinions on this matter, even though he had no idea what they were. No need for me to cross-post.

What better reason to start a thread than to help understand, no?

[BubberMiley]

What better reason to start a thread than to help understand, no?

Actually reading the posts, rather than projecting opinions I never stated, helps to understand too.

[gerryhatrick]

What better reason to start a thread than to help understand, no?

Actually reading the posts, rather than projecting opinions I never stated, helps to understand too.

Chastising the right for that behaviour is akin to chastising water for being wet.