We Must Not Fight in Afghanistan/Iraq With Hands Tied Behind Back

[jbg]

This was started as a response in another thread, but I felt as if my response drifted off topic, and merited a new thread.

Do you honestly think the Taliban are monitoring Canadian domestic politics and specifically attacking Candian troops in an attempt to weaken the resolve here at home?

There are a lot of Afghanis who have fled to Canada over the years, and they remain in touch with relatives and friends back home. Without a doubt, Canada's contribution to the efforts there, and how the news of casualties is being received is part of that communication. Also without a doubt, there are some of those Afghanis who sympathise with the Taliban. The message they could well be sending is "You should see the panic and horror the Canadians show every time you kill one of them! Without question, if you can kill some more the government will fall and the opposition will bring their soldiers home! It will be a major blow to the morale of the infidels supporting Karzai!

I think the West has lost a lot with the "stop and go warfare" that has been typical since the end of WW II. During WW II the terms of victory were shockingly simple; unconditional surrender. The only hazing around the edges were allowing a national symbol, Hirohito, to remain a figurehead emporor. Truman stopped Macarthur from crossing the Yalu River into China, thus sealing the indecisive nature of the Korean outcome. In Viet Nam the US refrained from ground attacks on and occupation of North Viet Nam, thus guaranteeing that the best outcome from that war would be a draw (that, by the way, was the reason I opposed the war, and many people who are now conservatives opposed the war). The US restrained Israel in 1967, 1973 and 1982 from wiping out Arab forces.

All of these half-wars were waged in the hope of a negotiated outcome better imagined and conjured up in college lecture halls and mass media editorials than in the real world. These starry-eyed idealists were and are unprepared for the truth that there is an enemy that wants us dead. Do you really think Hamas gives a rats @ss about Jerusalem, or the fate of the "Palestinian refugees"? What did bin Laden hope to obtain for his people with the WTC attacks? In Iraq, bush made similar mistakes. His former Secretary of State, Colon Bowel, promised Syria and Iran that the US was not interested in invading them. What incentive did they have not to unleash a reign of nihilistic terror in Iraq with such a "hands off" promise?

The answer is, these people want us dead. If we fight the Taliban with Marquis of Queensbury rules, i.e. not laying siege to the "tribal zones" of Pakistan and adjacent areas of Afghanistan, Canadian and American caskets will be arriving home for a long time. The bottom line is that you can't fight half a war. The jihadis are giving it their all; we must as well, even if it means going into wartime mode.

The people must know that they may lose some of their children, and some of their standard of living. That is the price of freedom.

[jdobbin]

I think the West has lost a lot with the "stop and go warfare" that has been typical since the end of WW II. During WW II the terms of victory were shockingly simple; unconditional surrender. The only hazing around the edges were allowing a national symbol, Hirohito, to remain a figurehead emporor. Truman stopped Macarthur from crossing the Yalu River into China, thus sealing the indecisive nature of the Korean outcome. In Viet Nam the US refrained from ground attacks on and occupation of North Viet Nam, thus guaranteeing that the best outcome from that war would be a draw (that, by the way, was the reason I opposed the war, and many people who are now conservatives opposed the war). The US restrained Israel in 1967, 1973 and 1982 from wiping out Arab forces.

All of these half-wars were waged in the hope of a negotiated outcome better imagined and conjured up in college lecture halls and mass media editorials than in the real world. These starry-eyed idealists were and are unprepared for the truth that there is an enemy that wants us dead. Do you really think Hamas gives a rats @ss about Jerusalem, or the fate of the "Palestinian refugees"? What did bin Laden hope to obtain for his people with the WTC attacks? In Iraq, bush made similar mistakes. His former Secretary of State, Colon Bowel, promised Syria and Iran that the US was not interested in invading them. What incentive did they have not to unleash a reign of nihilistic terror in Iraq with such a "hands off" promise?

The answer is, these people want us dead. If we fight the Taliban with Marquis of Queensbury rules, i.e. not laying siege to the "tribal zones" of Pakistan and adjacent areas of Afghanistan, Canadian and American caskets will be arriving home for a long time. The bottom line is that you can't fight half a war. The jihadis are giving it their all; we must as well, even if it means going into wartime mode.

The people must know that they may lose some of their children, and some of their standard of living. That is the price of freedom.

I take it from your meaning that the U.S. should have invaded China during the Korean War.

[jbg]

I take it from your meaning that the U.S. should have invade China during the Korean War.

In all likelihood, yes.

[B. Max]

I take it from your meaning that the U.S. should have invade China during the Korean War.

In all likelihood, yes.

When you have guys like Jack Taliban ready to hoist the white flag and negotiate the terms of surrender with people that either want us dead or converted you have to wonder what he would negotiate. How many buildings they can blow up or crash planes into before we retaliate.

[jdobbin]

In all likelihood, yes.

Occupying China and bringing a new government there would have been some task. Sounds like a Roman Empire.

[jdobbin]

When you have guys like Jack Taliban ready to hoist the white flag and negotiate the terms of surrender with people that either want us dead or converted you have to wonder what he would negotiate. How many buildings they can blow up or crash planes into before we retaliate.

Saddam Hussein planned, financed and executed September 11?

[jbg]

When you have guys like Jack Taliban ready to hoist the white flag and negotiate the terms of surrender with people that either want us dead or converted you have to wonder what he would negotiate. How many buildings they can blow up or crash planes into before we retaliate.

Saddam Hussein planned, financed and executed September 11?

Accepting the Muslims' compartmentalization of their world is a big mistake. Let them redistribute the pain to those that deserve it. They speak Arabic, not us. Saddam could easily have punished those bringing the threat of war home to him.

[jdobbin]

Accepting the Muslims' compartmentalization of their world is a big mistake. Let them redistribute the pain to those that deserve it. They speak Arabic, not us. Saddam could easily have punished those bringing the threat of war home to him.

So Iraq was invaded because they speak Arabic?

[Riverwind]

When you have guys like Jack Taliban ready to hoist the white flag and negotiate the terms of surrender with people that either want us dead or converted you have to wonder what he would negotiate. How many buildings they can blow up or crash planes into before we retaliate.

I noticed that many posters on this forum seem to think that Muslims all want us dead. Such a view is so absurd and unsupported by any facts that I find it difficult to to believe that a rational person would truly believe it. People who insist on holding such beliefs are, IMO, more dangerous to our society than any terrorist. I would go even further -> people spouting such beliefs are ideological cousins to the people in Germany who vilified the Jews before WW2. I find it sad that 60 years later we have not learned that promoting irrational hatred people who are different will only lead to bloodshed, tragedy and more hatred.

[B. Max]

When you have guys like Jack Taliban ready to hoist the white flag and negotiate the terms of surrender with people that either want us dead or converted you have to wonder what he would negotiate. How many buildings they can blow up or crash planes into before we retaliate.

Saddam Hussein planned, financed and executed September 11?

Did he. I didn't know that.

[jdobbin]

Did he. I didn't know that.

An increasing number of Americans believe he is the man responsible for September 11.

[B. Max]

When you have guys like Jack Taliban ready to hoist the white flag and negotiate the terms of surrender with people that either want us dead or converted you have to wonder what he would negotiate. How many buildings they can blow up or crash planes into before we retaliate.

I noticed that many posters on this forum seem to think that Muslims all want us dead. Such a view is so absurd and unsupported by any facts that I find it difficult to to believe that a rational person would truely believe it. People who insist on holding such beliefs are, IMO, more dangerous to our socity than any terrorist.

Where did someone say all. Not that it matters, Jack taliban wants to negotiate with the type that do.

[Riverwind]

Where did someone say all. Not that it matters, Jack taliban wants to negotiate with the type that do.

I don't think the Taliban really cares about what happens outside of their country. Preaching hatred of foreigners in order to build political support is something humans from all places and all times do - the Taliban is no different in that regard. So I don't think it is reasonable to say that the Taliban 'wants us dead'. That said, I don't see the point of 'negotiating' with the Taliban because there is nothing to negotiate.

[jbg]

I noticed that many posters on this forum seem to think that Muslims all want us dead. Such a view is so absurd and unsupported by any facts that I find it difficult to to believe that a rational person would truly believe it. People who insist on holding such beliefs are, IMO, more dangerous to our society than any terrorist.

Surprisingly, I agree with you 100%. Dhimmitude, with payment of a jizya (sp) by the productive people of the world, would suit them just fine, as long as they're ruling.

[Riverwind]

Surprisingly, I agree with you 100%. Dhimmitude, with payment of a jizya (sp) by the productive people of the world, would suit them just fine, as long as they're ruling.

And do you have any facts to back up this paranoid vision? Random rantings of some Mullah taken out of context do not consititute proof of anything.

[sharkman]

I noticed that many posters on this forum seem to think that Muslims all want us dead. Such a view is so absurd and unsupported by any facts that I find it difficult to to believe that a rational person would truly believe it. People who insist on holding such beliefs are, IMO, more dangerous to our society than any terrorist. I would go even further -> people spouting such beliefs are ideological cousins to the people in Germany who vilified the Jews before WW2. I find it sad that 60 years later we have not learned that promoting irrational hatred people who are different will only lead to bloodshed, tragedy and more hatred.

Apparently you have blinders on, my friend, but first let me tone down the hysterics. Not all, but the majority of Muslims have been pretty much brainwashed to believe that Western Culture is pure evil, and the U.S. is the Great Satan (and Canada is a little satan, sort of, oh, a mini me relationship). They want the Western Culture brought to an end and they believe they are in a jihad to do so. If you haven't picked up on these dangerous facts by now, I don't believe you even have the capacity to do so. Kind of a head in the sand deal.

You speak of irrational hatred towards Jews, but ignore the irrational hatred towards Jews by these very people you defend. How sad.

[B. Max]

Surprisingly, I agree with you 100%. Dhimmitude, with payment of a jizya (sp) by the productive people of the world, would suit them just fine, as long as they're ruling.

And do you have any facts to back up this paranoid vision? Random rantings of some Mullah taken out of context do not consititute proof of anything.

You can't take this out of context, you can only be in denial.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24592

[Riverwind]

Not all, but the majority of Muslims have been pretty much brainwashed to believe that Western Culture is pure evil, and the U.S. is the Great Satan (and Canada is a little satan, sort of, oh, a mini me relationship).

Can't you even see the hypocracy in your statement? You talk of brainwashing and irrational prejudice but you are blind to your own brainwashing and irrational prejudice towards Muslims.

You speak of irrational hatred towards Jews, but ignore the irrational hatred towards Jews by these very people you defend. How sad.

Where have I defended or justified the extremist beliefs of the Muslims? I speak against irrational hatred wherever I see it and on this forum I see irrational hatred directed at Muslims so that I what I speak against.

[Riverwind]

You can't take this out of context, you can only be in denial.http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24592

That link presents a one-sided interpretation of medieval history, jumps to talk about how minority groups are treated poorly within muslim societies today and then makes the assertion without proof or evidence that Muslims want to take over the world. It is proof of nothing.

[sharkman]

Not all, but the majority of Muslims have been pretty much brainwashed to believe that Western Culture is pure evil, and the U.S. is the Great Satan (and Canada is a little satan, sort of, oh, a mini me relationship).

Can't you even see the hypocracy in your statement? You talk of brainwashing and irrational prejudice but you are blind to your own brainwashing and irrational prejudice towards Muslims.

You speak of irrational hatred towards Jews, but ignore the irrational hatred towards Jews by these very people you defend. How sad.

Where have I defended or justified the extremist beliefs of the Muslims? I speak against irrational hatred wherever I see it and on this forum I see irrational hatred directed at Muslims so that I what I speak against.

You can't see the irrational hatred directed at the West by the Mulsims. You also stated, "People spouting such beliefs are ideological cousins to the people in Germany who vilified the Jews before WW2." You were speaking of the Nazis, and comparing them to the 'hatred' you see on this forum. I said response that you speak of irrational hatred towards Jews, but ignore the irrational hatred towards Jews by the very People(Muslims) you defend.

Further you state above that I am brainwashed and have an irrational prejudice towards Muslims. I have never expressed any dislike toward Muslims, let alone hatred. I am, however mentioning the actions, jihad and prejudice of Muslims who want the West to die. If you think that is prejudice, you are unable to differentiate. Do you really believe that there are no Muslims who want the west to die? Wake up.

Any time someone feels it necessary to play the Nazi card, as you did, maybe you need a time out.

[Riverwind]

I am, however mentioning the actions, jihad and prejudice of Muslims who want the West to die. If you think that is prejudice, you are unable to differentiate. Do you really believe that there are no Muslims who want the west to die? Wake up.

The are numerous posters responding with similar points. I may have mixed statements you said with others. There is a line of thinking that some people subscribe to (not necessarily you) that goes like this:

"All/most Muslims hate us and want to take over our society so we have no choice to but go and bomb/invade their countries to stop them from attacking us."

Stating the fact that some Muslims have expressed irrational hatred towards western society is not a problem in itself. It only becomes a problem when that statement is extended to include all Muslims and then used as an excuse to justify violence against Muslim societies.

[B. Max]

You can't take this out of context, you can only be in denial.http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24592

That link presents a one-sided interpretation of medieval history, jumps to talk about how minority groups are treated poorly within muslim societies today and then makes the assertion without proof or evidence that Muslims want to take over the world. It is proof of nothing.

Other than the fact it is factual history and the fact they have said they are intent on world conquest the only other option is denial.

[sharkman]

I am, however mentioning the actions, jihad and prejudice of Muslims who want the West to die. If you think that is prejudice, you are unable to differentiate. Do you really believe that there are no Muslims who want the west to die? Wake up.

The are numerous posters responding with similar points. I may have mixed statements you said with others. There is a line of thinking that some people subscribe to (not necessarily you) that goes like this:

"All/most Muslims hate us and want to take over our society so we have no choice to but go and bomb/invade their countries to stop them from attacking us."

Stating the fact that some Muslims have expressed irrational hatred towards western society is not a problem in itself. It only becomes a problem when that statement is extended to include all Muslims and then used as an excuse to justify violence against Muslim societies.

Well, I suppose I can't claim I have read every single thread on these topics and wasn't aware that some advocate attacking mulsim countries just because they hate us. I am not of that crowd, I guess hate is on both sides.

[Riverwind]

Other than the fact it is factual history and the fact they have said they are intent on world conquest the only other option is denial.

Christians were as bad - if not worse than Muslims during Medieval times. Christianity has only become a civilized religion in the last 200 years or so as Christian societies became more secular. So references to medievil Islam means nothing.

If you are so convinced that Mulsims want to take over the world then give me one example (other than Isreal) where a Mulsim country has invaded a non-Mulsim country in the last 50 years? I exclude Isreal because Isreal was a majority Muslim country until the British/UN decided carve out a new state.

[B. Max]

Other than the fact it is factual history and the fact they have said they are intent on world conquest the only other option is denial.

Christians were as bad - if not worse than Muslims during Medieval times. Christianity has only become a civilized religion in the last 200 years or so as Christian societies became more secular. So references to medievil Islam means nothing.

If you are so convinced that Mulsims want to take over the world then give me one example (other than Isreal) where a Mulsim country has invaded a non-Mulsim country in the last 50 years? I exclude Isreal because Isreal was a majority Muslim country until the British/UN decided carve out a new state.

Just about every western country has been invaded within the last thirty years by Muslim fifth columnists who have already been causing trouble proportionately to their numbers. Historical Islam has changed very little over time. The only thing that has kept them relatively at bay is the last good ass kicking Christians gave them when their ivasion of Europe was turned around. Unfortunately secular humanism has corrupted western countries and the Christian church.