Harper Accuses Liberals

[jbg]

Not really, the German's were treated harshly after World War 1. If you fail to recognize that World War 1 and the Treaty of Versailles had a negative effect on Germany, then it's pretty clear that you have a distorted view of history.

It could be. But France also made the fateful decision to allow Germany to violate the Treaty of Versailles and re-arm.

[ScottSA]

I have quite a few Muslim friends. I think some would be shocked to hear they are considered the enemy.

With respect, this is a non-issue. Reducing the universal to the particular and then extrapolating to the universal again doesn't work. I'm sure lots of British folks had German friends too. Oh well.

As far as total war goes, I think it would stir up a hornet's nest worse than what they've got now.

Ummm...yeah. That goes without saying. Precisely the reason the appeasement folks didn't want war, because war stirs up hornets nests. War also addresses the issue in the most immediate terms, and following a major attack on the US mainland the desire for that address will be overwhelming.

Lets remember what my argumnent is here. I'm not all for immediately tossing thermonukes at every head that sticks up in the middle east, or suggesting that we should. What I'm saying is that if, and I tend to think the question is when, some faction of Jihadists manage to take a massive number of lives, we WILL begin to take this seriously. Total war never comes from a standing start...it is always led up to...death by death and battle by battle. We've been at this for the better part of a decade now, and people are starting to get tired of it.

[jdobbin]

With respect, this is a non-issue. Reducing the universal to the particular and then extrapolating to the universal again doesn't work. I'm sure lots of British folks had German friends too. Oh well.

Ummm...yeah. That goes without saying. Precisely the reason the appeasement folks didn't want war, because war stirs up hornets nests. War also addresses the issue in the most immediate terms, and following a major attack on the US mainland the desire for that address will be overwhelming.

Lets remember what my argumnent is here. I'm not all for immediately tossing thermonukes at every head that sticks up in the middle east, or suggesting that we should. What I'm saying is that if, and I tend to think the question is when, some faction of Jihadists manage to take a massive number of lives, we WILL begin to take this seriously. Total war never comes from a standing start...it is always led up to...death by death and battle by battle. We've been at this for the better part of a decade now, and people are starting to get tired of it.

Britain actually had a royal family with German roots. Were their loyalties questioned?

As for some faction causing trouble, it is just that...a faction. Better to deal with that in and out as far as I'm concerned. I wonder if we would still be in Afghanistan if the decision was to deal with al Qaeda, strike military targets, bring back Osama and neutralize the threat. If the Afghans let the al Qaeda back, strike again.

This nation building thing doesn't really work in tribal areas very well.

[Canadian Blue]

Ummm...yeah. That goes without saying. Precisely the reason the appeasement folks didn't want war, because war stirs up hornets nests. War also addresses the issue in the most immediate terms, and following a major attack on the US mainland the desire for that address will be overwhelming.

After the attack on September 11th many American's bought into the notion that Iraq had the capability to nuke the United States. As we all found out, that was false, and around 3200 American's have died because of it. Why would the American's want to sacrifice possibly hundreds of thousands of lives as you are proposing, simply for vengeance of the deaths of a few thousand.

BTW: Following World War 2 the world still had plenty of problem's due to the war. If you think that war solves all of the worlds problem's, you are obviously out to lunch.

Lets remember what my argumnent is here. I'm not all for immediately tossing thermonukes at every head that sticks up in the middle east, or suggesting that we should. What I'm saying is that if, and I tend to think the question is when, some faction of Jihadists manage to take a massive number of lives, we WILL begin to take this seriously. Total war never comes from a standing start...it is always led up to...death by death and battle by battle. We've been at this for the better part of a decade now, and people are starting to get tired of it.

Except that your solution would see a war that would go on for nearly half a century before it gets resolved. If you honestly believe that the "jihadists" will meet us out on the field then you're not familiar with the way wars are fought today. Any occupation of the middle east would only bring about a massive Guerilla war. It would be Vietnam, and once again anti-American sentiment would be on the increase throughout the world.

[Michael Bluth]

Britain actually had a royal family with German roots. Were their loyalties questioned?

They definitely were in World War One.

This lead to the Royal Family exchanging all their German titles and house names for English-sounding versions.

Pesky things those facts.

[ScottSA]

Britain actually had a royal family with German roots. Were their loyalties questioned?

They definitely were in World War One.

This lead to the Royal Family exchanging all their German titles and house names for English-sounding versions.

Pesky things those facts.

And in WW II there was a great deal of talk about the abdication of Edward being forced by Baldwin because Edward was sympathetic to the Nazis. Certainly the memoirs of Goring and Ribbentrop mention the fact that they felt a real setback because of it.

[jdobbin]

And in WW II there was a great deal of talk about the abdication of Edward being forced by Baldwin because Edward was sympathetic to the Nazis. Certainly the memoirs of Goring and Ribbentrop mention the fact that they felt a real setback because of it.

Certainly Edward's were questioned since he was socially known to have sympathetic views. My point here is that many British of German descent weren't interred as enemies of the state if they were British subjects. This would apply as well to the Royal family.

A witch hunt against people of a certain nationality or religion is probably not the all out war anyone would seek. Once you start looking for the pure race, its gets fairly dirty after that.

[jdobbin]

Somehow advocating full out war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, North Korea, Venezuela, Libya. Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, India and whatever country that seems to piss people off isn't going to work.

Your unlimited war would require a draft, no exemptions, rationing and the determination to use nuclear bombs to eradicate an entire people to eliminate the threat.

Pick one or two of those countries and the others roll.

Even in dictatorships, in modern times information cannot be totally shut out. It is time that these "people" be scared of the West. It's nice to be loved; nicer to be respected.

Now, Jdobbin, this does not conflict with my evolving views against invade and hold. Pulverizing does not have to involve occupation, unless the people are pounded into subservience, a la Germany and Japan.

I don't know that attacking North Korea in all out war would bring China to heel.

I guess we'll see if the west wants to play this game with Iran over British soldiers. They might have to be prepared to sacrifice them. They may also have to contend with Iran crossing into Iraq to fight.

[jdobbin]

Here is a continuing story of how Canadian troops and diplomats are under threat due to release of prisoners.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/03/26/f...ion-070326.html

Most of the time, we are not even informed about the releases. In this case, Canada has learned because Afghan police are also threatened.

The Afghan police investigator who made the only arrest in connection with the killing last year of Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry in Afghanistan now fears retribution for his police work and is appealing to Canadian authorities for protection.

Capt. Sher Ali Farhad has fled with his family from Kandahar and has sought safe haven in Kabul after receiving death threats and learning on Saturday that the suspect he locked away is now a free man.

Meanwhile, one of the organizations that the Conservatives say are crucial to monitoring prisoners has not received funding since the Liberals were power.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...rnational/Asia/

Canada has not funded the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission for years, despite the government's insistence that it plays a vital role in safeguarding captives transferred by Canada to Afghanistan's notorious prisons.

The detainee issue has already ensnared Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor in its coils -- he was forced to apologize in the House on Monday for misleading MPs on the issue -- and now the question of funding is further complicating the Conservatives' story.

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan said Monday, that "the government of Canada has funded the Independent Human Rights Commission to the amount of $1-million."

Mr. Van Loan did not mention that the $1-million was given five years ago by the previous Liberal government.

[ScottSA]

My point here is that many British of German descent weren't interred as enemies of the state if they were British subjects.

But your point is wrong. Many British, and Americans, and canadians were detained because of German background. Like Japanese. It's an exigency of wartime, with plenty of time later to apologize. Don't kid yourself that it won't happen again. Fat, rich societies can afford to angst over ridiculous things like "gay marriage" and so on, and peacetime societies can afford to angst over "injustice" committed during war. That all goes out the window when the situation changes and societies find themselves fighting for survival.

A witch hunt against people of a certain nationality or religion is probably not the all out war anyone would seek. Once you start looking for the pure race, its gets fairly dirty after that.

Race does not equal nationality, does not equal religion. Having said that, I suspect the future WILL get a little down and dirty.

[ScottSA]

They may also have to contend with Iran crossing into Iraq to fight.

That would be the absolute best thing we could hope for. Unfortunately, Iran won't make any official advance into Iraq until it can at least bluff about having nukes.

[Canadian Blue]

But your point is wrong. Many British, and Americans, and canadians were detained because of German background. Like Japanese. It's an exigency of wartime, with plenty of time later to apologize. Don't kid yourself that it won't happen again. Fat, rich societies can afford to angst over ridiculous things like "gay marriage" and so on, and peacetime societies can afford to angst over "injustice" committed during war. That all goes out the window when the situation changes and societies find themselves fighting for survival.

I agree we should detain all muslim's in the western world. I highly doubt that would cause any problems.

So why exactly are we fighting for "survival". A better question is why do people want to commit terrorism against us, and please don't use the old "they hate us for our freedom" argument.

Race does not equal nationality, does not equal religion. Having said that, I suspect the future WILL get a little down and dirty.

We just have to start interning people for holding religious views, even if the vast majority are moderate and aren't in league with the "jihadists".

QUOTE(jdobbin @ Mar 26 2007, 05:37 AM)

They may also have to contend with Iran crossing into Iraq to fight.

That would be the absolute best thing we could hope for. Unfortunately, Iran won't make any official advance into Iraq until it can at least bluff about having nukes.

Unless you happen to be an coalition soldier on the other side.

[scribblet]

"So why exactly are we fighting for "survival". A better question is why do people want to commit terrorism against us, and please don't use the old "they hate us for our freedom" argument"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=21364

We gather here today to share information and knowledge. Intelligence is not merely cold hard data about numerical strength or armament or disposition of military forces. The most important element of intelligence has to be understanding the mindset and intention of the enemy. The West has been wallowing in a state of ignorance and denial for thirty years as Muslim extremist perpetrated evil against innocent victims in the name of Allah.

-snip-

Under the banner of Islam "la, ilaha illa allah, muhammad rasoulu allah," (None is god except Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) they murdered Jewish children in Israel, massacred Christians in Lebanon, killed Copts in Egypt, Assyrians in Syria, Hindus in India, and expelled almost 900,000 Jews from Muslim lands. We Middle Eastern infidels paid the price then. Now infidels worldwide are paying the price for indifference and shortsightedness.

[jdobbin]

But your point is wrong. Many British, and Americans, and canadians were detained because of German background. Like Japanese. It's an exigency of wartime, with plenty of time later to apologize. Don't kid yourself that it won't happen again. Fat, rich societies can afford to angst over ridiculous things like "gay marriage" and so on, and peacetime societies can afford to angst over "injustice" committed during war. That all goes out the window when the situation changes and societies find themselves fighting for survival.

Race does not equal nationality, does not equal religion. Having said that, I suspect the future WILL get a little down and dirty.

They didn't inter German Canadian citizens in World War 2. Is it because they realized that Germans who were citizens were Canadian?

So you are of the opinion that someone who is Muslim is always Muslim first and never really a Canadian?

[jdobbin]

That would be the absolute best thing we could hope for. Unfortunately, Iran won't make any official advance into Iraq until it can at least bluff about having nukes.

You think Iran invading Iraq is the best thing?

I don't think it is predictable what Iran would do if provoked.

[ScottSA]

That would be the absolute best thing we could hope for. Unfortunately, Iran won't make any official advance into Iraq until it can at least bluff about having nukes.

You think Iran invading Iraq is the best thing?

I don't think it is predictable what Iran would do if provoked.

I think Iran is attempting to become a regional hegemon, and I think it's under the impression that the US and UK are harmless. I think it's wrong. I also think it would be better for all concerned if it found that out now rather than later when it can crouch under what it thinks is a nuclear umbrella.

[Canadian Blue]

How about this, why don't we engage in diplomacy instead of speculating and acting without thinking about it. If Iran invades a foreign country then I'm sure the world will be ready to deal with them. Until that time it's fairly pointless to be calling for a massive invasion that would lead to hundreds of thousands of people getting killed because of people's irrational paranoia.

[jbg]

How about this, why don't we engage in diplomacy instead of speculating and acting without thinking about it. If Iran invades a foreign country then I'm sure the world will be ready to deal with them. Until that time it's fairly pointless to be calling for a massive invasion that would lead to hundreds of thousands of people getting killed because of people's irrational paranoia.

Because even with an invasion the way we more often than not "deal with it" is with toothless UN resolutions.