Harper Accuses Liberals

[jdobbin]

You continue to repeat this on the most tenuous of source evidence. What monitoring do NATO countries do? How? When? How often? You don't know anything and yet you're blithely repeating your interpretation of a few scraps and pieces of media reports. At least O'Connor was actually told by someone in his department (we can be pretty confident of this) that the Red Cross monitors the prisoners. That he chose to interpret this as meaning the Red Cross would then report back to the military was not "lying". And if we use your stringent standards for dishonesty you ought to fall on your own sword unless you can demonstrate what monitoring NATO countries do.

Here is the British report.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...e/558/55806.htm

Government of the UK and the Government of Afghanistan on the transfer of detainees for the UK armed forces to notify the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, normally within 24 hours, and if not, as soon as possible after, of when a person has been transferred to Afghan authorities has been complied with fully in respect of all the detainees concerned; and if he will make a statement; [109284]

(2) how many individuals arrested and detained in Afghanistan by UK armed forces have been transferred to the authorities of Afghanistan since the date on which the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the UK and the Government of Afghanistan on the transfer of detainees came into effect. [109285]

Des Browne [holding answer 18 December 2006]: The Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the UK and the Government of Afghanistan on the transfer of detainees was signed on 30 September 2006. Since then, three individuals have been held in detention by UK armed forces. One was subsequently transferred to the Afghan authorities and two were released.

Although there have been some minor procedural problems with die timely notification of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, both organisations have been informed about these detentions, and all other detentions which took place before the MoU was signed. We are working with both organisations with a view to ensuring that in future all notifications will occur in a timely manner.

[Argus]

Here is the British report

None of which answers the questions. All it says is the British will report transfers of prisoners to the Red Cross. It says nothing else whatsoever. You assured us repeatedly that NATO countries handled prisoner transfers much better. I think it's about time for you to get up and apologize for lying to the House er, Site.

[jdobbin]

None of which answers the questions. All it says is the British will report transfers of prisoners to the Red Cross. It says nothing else whatsoever. You assured us repeatedly that NATO countries handled prisoner transfers much better. I think it's about time for you to get up and apologize for lying to the House er, Site.

You're reading of it is different from mine.

A continuation of this report:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...aff/44/4412.htm

PARA 4 - ACCESS TO DETAINEES

4.1 Representatives of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, and UK personnel including representatives of the British Embassy, members of the UK AF and others as accepted between the Participants, will have full access to any persons transferred by the UK AF to Afghan authorities whilst such persons are in custody. The International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC) and relevant human rights institutions with the UN system will be allowed to visit such persons.

4.2 UK personnel, including members of the UK AF will have full access to question any persons they transfer to the Afghan authorities whilst such persons are in custody.

The Dutch have a similar arrangement as described here.

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/12/12/Torture/

To begin with, the arrangement doesn't provide Canadian officials with a right of access to our transferred detainees. Compare this with the "Memorandum of Understanding" concluded between The Netherlands and Afghanistan prior to the negotiation of the Canada-Afghanistan arrangement and used (according to former defence minister Bill Graham) as a model for our arrangement. The Dutch memorandum provides their officials with a right of access to any of their transferred detainees.

The Dutch memorandum also provides for a right of access for "relevant human rights institutions within the UN system," a category that includes the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. The Canadian arrangement fails to provide this.

[jbg]

These memos of understanding beg the question. If Afghanistan is at all similar to Pakistan and/or Yemen, detainees transferred "escape". No memo of understanding can make it politically possible for a regime governing wild tribes to hold these people.

[jdobbin]

These memos of understanding beg the question. If Afghanistan is at all similar to Pakistan and/or Yemen, detainees transferred "escape". No memo of understanding can make it politically possible for a regime governing wild tribes to hold these people.

If these "wild tribes" revert to terrorism no matter what the west does, what is the point of being there? The alternative could be to strike and not to hold the land to "democratize" it.

No chance of even dealing with detainees then.

[jbg]

If these "wild tribes" revert to terrorism no matter what the west does, what is the point of being there. The alternative could be to strike and not to hold the land to "democratize" it.

That is gradually becoming my point of view. We tried to do something good and nice for them. May not have worked. Too bad.

[jdobbin]

That is gradually becoming my point of view. We tried to do something good and nice for them. May not have worked. Too bad.

This was my view on Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the cruise missiles were insufficient and a full ground assault and occupation was overkill. I think the preferred response might possibly have been something in between.

Fast attack, neutralize the threat, no detainees.

[ScottSA]

"If it doesn't kill you, it'll make you stronger".

That's particularly true in the case of war. Anything less than destroying Nazism entirely would have left a philosophy in place in the center of civilization that most people agree is not an agreeable philosophy. Anything less that the destruction of Wahabbism will leave a radical Wahabbist philosophy in place throughout Asia, excluding, one hopes, China. Our mistake is not in invading either Afghanistan of Iraq, but in not being ruthless enough in the bargain. We are not yet ready to fight the war that needs to be fought against a spreading radicalization of Islam.

We are fighting an analogous winter war of 1939, not yet accepting the fact of war, and hoping that we can placate the implacable forces arrayed against us if we adopt a kinder gentler way of fighting. Half the west's population doesn't even recognize that we're fighting a war, and a good many of the remainder don't realize who the enemy is. We're still in the unreality of the dawn of war, when peace efforts are so frantic and so bewilderingly inconsequent as to be laughable after the fact. We have an enemy who simply and dispassionately claims it wants to kill us or enslave us under a 6th century law, but we don't believe they really mean it. In fact, we're so willing to disbelieve it that almost half of North America is willing to believe that 911 wasn't even done by the enemy!

Japan and Germany were so thoroughly thrashed, economically, militarly and morally, that the allies merely had to occupy the country. The civilian population simply didn't have the stomach to continue resistance. But it took 5 years of total war to bring things to that state. 'Total war' is more than a phrase; it's a strategic term denoting the entire effort of a nation, as well as the use of every means of force to the fullest extent. The Germans bombed London because they wanted to win the war. The allies razed Hamburg and Dresden because they wanted to win the war, and bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they wanted to spare a million US servicemen their lives. They didn't angst over what we now euphemistically refer to as "collateral" casualties; it was almost an irrelevancy to them. The sole aim was to win, and everything was directed to that single aim.

But we're not there yet, although we will be. We used what amounts to military acupunture to invade Iraq, employing the surgical standoff capabilities of US forces to hit only military targets. The invasion was brilliantly executed, but it destroyed only the Iraqi military and left the populationm largely intact. This is viewed as a good thing, and within the context of the 1939 winter war or peacetime ethos, it IS a good thing. The side effects, however are not so good. The invasion was a continuation of a policy developed in the early 1960s and beloved of academic armchair warriors: "limited war". It has rarely succeeded and has failed spectacularly a number of times, most notably in Vietnam, but it is a kinder gentler way of fighting than the uncouth barbarism of WW II, so it's popular to generations bred during opulent peacetime. Contrast limited war to the strategies of post Normandy total war, when even a tactical advance was prefaced by a flattening of every living thing in the way for miles; and only incidently because the technology for pinpoint attack was lacking. In total war it's ok to hit a fly with a daisycutter, because it works. In limited war a flyswatter works for the fly, but does nothing to dissuade the adjacent flies and maggots.

I'm afraid it will take a major attack; perhaps a biological or nuclear attack on the US mainland; before enough people wake up to the fact that civilization IS in fact in a war. But watch what happens to the niceties of war then.

[jdobbin]

"If it doesn't kill you, it'll make you stronger".

That's particularly true in the case of war. Anything less than destroying Nazism entirely would have left a philosophy in place in the center of civilization that most people agree is not an agreeable philosophy. Anything less that the destruction of Wahabbism will leave a radical Wahabbist philosophy in place throughout Asia, excluding, one hopes, China. Our mistake is not in invading either Afghanistan of Iraq, but in not being ruthless enough in the bargain. We are not yet ready to fight the war that needs to be fought against a spreading radicalization of Islam.

We are fighting an analogous winter war of 1939, not yet accepting the fact of war, and hoping that we can placate the implacable forces arrayed against us if we adopt a kinder gentler way of fighting. Half the west's population doesn't even recognize that we're fighting a war, and a good many of the remainder don't realize who the enemy is. We're still in the unreality of the dawn of war, when peace efforts are so frantic and so bewilderingly inconsequent as to be laughable after the fact. We have an enemy who simply and dispassionately claims it wants to kill us or enslave us under a 6th century law, but we don't believe they really mean it. In fact, we're so willing to disbelieve it that almost half of North America is willing to believe that 911 wasn't even done by the enemy!

Japan and Germany were so thoroughly thrashed, economically, militarly and morally, that the allies merely had to occupy the country. The civilian population simply didn't have the stomach to continue resistance. But it took 5 years of total war to bring things to that state. 'Total war' is more than a phrase; it's a strategic term denoting the entire effort of a nation, as well as the use of every means of force to the fullest extent. The Germans bombed London because they wanted to win the war. The allies razed Hamburg and Dresden because they wanted to win the war, and bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they wanted to spare a million US servicemen their lives. They didn't angst over what we now euphemistically refer to as "collateral" casualties; it was almost an irrelevancy to them. The sole aim was to win, and everything was directed to that single aim.

But we're not there yet, although we will be. We used what amounts to military acupunture to invade Iraq, employing the surgical standoff capabilities of US forces to hit only military targets. The invasion was brilliantly executed, but it destroyed only the Iraqi military and left the populationm largely intact. This is viewed as a good thing, and within the context of the 1939 winter war or peacetime ethos, it IS a good thing. The side effects, however are not so good. The invasion was a continuation of a policy developed in the early 1960s and beloved of academic armchair warriors: "limited war". It has rarely succeeded and has failed spectacularly a number of times, most notably in Vietnam, but it is a kinder gentler way of fighting than the uncouth barbarism of WW II, so it's popular to generations bred during opulent peacetime. Contrast limited war to the strategies of post Normandy total war, when even a tactical advance was prefaced by a flattening of every living thing in the way for miles; and only incidently because the technology for pinpoint attack was lacking. In total war it's ok to hit a fly with a daisycutter, because it works. In limited war a flyswatter works for the fly, but does nothing to dissuade the adjacent flies and maggots.

I'm afraid it will take a major attack; perhaps a biological or nuclear attack on the US mainland; before enough people wake up to the fact that civilization IS in fact in a war. But watch what happens to the niceties of war then.

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.

[ScottSA]

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.

You are overstating the case, although I admit I left it open for that. Total war is not a Hobbesian war of all against all, it is war against a well defined enemy, and supporters of that enemy.

Yes, there needs to be a willingness to use nuclear attack. And there needs to be a focussing of the western mind and a willingness for sacrifice.

But don't kid yourself; that willingness will show up in full force following a nuclear or biological attack on the US, with US casualties numbering in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. Not only is such an attack possible, but it's probable. There's nothing like a good punch to the head to bring reality into focus for the recipient.

I don't think total war necessarly entertains the thought of intentional genocide; rather I think genocide becomes irrelevant once the aim becomes clarified into winning at all costs. Our enemy has taken full advantage of what we consider to be humanitarianism, and what it considers to be weakness. In a sense we have spoiled the enemy, who has never really felt, except peripherally in North Africa, the touch of total war against its people. At least for several centuries.

I just finished reading "Making Freinds with Hitler", a biography of Lord Londonderry, a follower of the policy of appeasement and the model for the movie "The Remains of the Day". It brought back to me the degree to which civilized man can delude himself towards the ends of peace. Peace is a natural inclination, I think, of most reasonable people. But sometimes that inclination becomes entrenched in a 'peace at all costs' mentality, and I think the US is adrift in that hope at the moment...since it can't change the enemy it looks instead, as Londonderry did to Versailles and the National government, to itself for the blame. And with that hope comes self-delusion and unrealistic expectations. It takes a lot of heartache and bloodshed to harden a national mind to total war, and we're just not there yet. But we will be, and when we are we'll all wonder why we weren't there in the first place.

[jdobbin]

You are overstating the case, although I admit I left it open for that. Total war is not a Hobbesian war of all against all, it is war against a well defined enemy, and supporters of that enemy.

Yes, there needs to be a willingness to use nuclear attack. And there needs to be a focussing of the western mind and a willingness for sacrifice.

But don't kid yourself; that willingness will show up in full force following a nuclear or biological attack on the US, with US casualties numbering in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. Not only is such an attack possible, but it's probable. There's nothing like a good punch to the head to bring reality into focus for the recipient.

I'm not sure what well defined enemy you are talking about. Are you saying war to the point of genocide against an entire religion, nation? Who do you have in mind for a target?

The problem with Bush is that he didn't have a well defined enemy. Was it Afghanistan or Iraq who were responsible for the attacks? Was it elements in one or the other or many countries. And what was America prepared to do to eliminate the threat: Total and utter genocide of an entire people?

[Canadian Blue]

Yes, there needs to be a willingness to use nuclear attack. And there needs to be a focussing of the western mind and a willingness for sacrifice.

Sacrifice, of who, people who we don't even know. Were not really sacrificing much if it's the civilian's of Iran that are going to suffer.

But don't kid yourself; that willingness will show up in full force following a nuclear or biological attack on the US, with US casualties numbering in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. Not only is such an attack possible, but it's probable. There's nothing like a good punch to the head to bring reality into focus for the recipient.

I believe your basing that off of the TV show 24, while entertaining, it isn't reflective on reality.

Iraq was supposed to be extremely dangerous as well, now look at the mess the USA is in.

I don't think total war necessarly entertains the thought of intentional genocide; rather I think genocide becomes irrelevant once the aim becomes clarified into winning at all costs. Our enemy has taken full advantage of what we consider to be humanitarianism, and what it considers to be weakness. In a sense we have spoiled the enemy, who has never really felt, except peripherally in North Africa, the touch of total war against its people. At least for several centuries.

Winning at all costs, against who exactly? As well why do people want to see a massive world war? Do they even know what that implies?

But then again, I guess as long as poor kids down in the US have no other option's beyond the US military it shouldn't be much of an issue about where to get the manpower.

I just finished reading "Making Freinds with Hitler", a biography of Lord Londonderry, a follower of the policy of appeasement and the model for the movie "The Remains of the Day". It brought back to me the degree to which civilized man can delude himself towards the ends of peace. Peace is a natural inclination, I think, of most reasonable people. But sometimes that inclination becomes entrenched in a 'peace at all costs' mentality, and I think the US is adrift in that hope at the moment...since it can't change the enemy it looks instead, as Londonderry did to Versailles and the National government, to itself for the blame. And with that hope comes self-delusion and unrealistic expectations. It takes a lot of heartache and bloodshed to harden a national mind to total war, and we're just not there yet. But we will be, and when we are we'll all wonder why we weren't there in the first place.

War begets war, World War 1 brought about World War 2, World War 2 then brought about the Cold War. I'm content with allowing the UN some leeway to handle conflicts, and as far as I'm concerned the people who are constantly beating the war drum are the same people who have rarely been affected by it.

[ScottSA]

I'm not sure what well defined enemy you are talking about. Are you saying war to the point of genocide against an entire religion, nation? Who do you have in mind for a target?

The problem with Bush is that he didn't have a well defined enemy. Was it Afghanistan or Iraq who were responsible for the attacks? Was it elements in one or the other or many countries. And what was America prepared to do to eliminate the threat: Total and utter genocide of an entire people?

You're attempting to make a strawman here, so either you didn't read my post or you didn't understand it. Develop your argument to address mine and not some gross overstatement, and we can take it up again.

[Canadian Blue]

Jdobbin, their's no point to debating ScottSA, if you ever beat him at an argument he simply whines and whimpers. He did the same thing in the Global Warming thread, when facts were given, he simply whimpered about how the other member's weren't open minded.

[ScottSA]

War begets war, World War 1 brought about World War 2, World War 2 then brought about the Cold War. I'm content with allowing the UN some leeway to handle conflicts, and as far as I'm concerned the people who are constantly beating the war drum are the same people who have rarely been affected by it.

I can only marvel at the ahistorical stupidity of this blatantly ignorant and blase' tripe. Is there an icon for laughter around here somewhere?

[jdobbin]

You're attempting to make a strawman here, so either you didn't read my post or you didn't understand it. Develop your argument to address mine and not some gross overstatement, and we can take it up again.

I don't think it is a strawman. You seemed to have a pretty good idea of who war needed to be waged on. I'm curious to know.

[ScottSA]

Jdobbin, their's no point to debating ScottSA, if you ever beat him at an argument he simply whines and whimpers. He did the same thing in the Global Warming thread, when facts were given, he simply whimpered about how the other member's weren't open minded.

Not at all. jdobbin is arguing just fine...it's just that he got careless in his last post. You're a blithering idiot with at best a bare academic grounding and vigorously flapping lips. It's you I don't have the time of day for.

[Canadian Blue]

I can only marvel at the ahistorical stupidity of this blatantly ignorant and blase' tripe. Is there an icon for laughter around here somewhere?

Not really, if it wasn't for World War 1 and the Treaty of Versailles, World War 2 probably would never have happened. You can't argue against it simply because you have very simplistic views of the world. It's not tripe, what is baseless tripe is calling for a massive world war, yet believing that war only has positive consequences. I think you have shown your ignorance towards war, and con't really comprehend how futile war actually is. War has rarely solved anything, in fact I can make the case that non-violence has often had much more success than the use of violence. You also mentioned Vietnam, which saw million's die. What was the "positive" effect of engaging in a massive war, which resulted in women and children dying, and war vets coming home with lost limbs and PTSD.

I don't think it is a strawman. You seemed to have a pretty good idea of who war needed to be waged on. I'm curious to know.

I think ScottSA believes we should wage war on everyone that disagrees with the United States, after we bomb everyone back to the stone age they will surely switch to American style democracy and everyone will live happily ever after.

Okay let's see what you proposed.

1. Using a nuclear attack, because as we all know there are no long term consequences with reference to a large scale nuclear attack.

2. Winning at all costs, even if this results in a massive civilian body count

3. Refusal to recognize the consequences of war

Finally, instead of resorting to using some cliche's just answer the question. We all know you aren't that smart, as the following response shows.

I can only marvel at the ahistorical stupidity of this blatantly ignorant and blase' tripe. Is there an icon for laughter around here somewhere?

Your only resort to any kind of argument is this typical response. You couldn't answer who we should be attacking, so you gave the same typical response.

[ScottSA]

You're attempting to make a strawman here, so either you didn't read my post or you didn't understand it. Develop your argument to address mine and not some gross overstatement, and we can take it up again.

I don't think it is a strawman. You seemed to have a pretty good idea of who war needed to be waged on. I'm curious to know.

Well, let me start with a couple clarifications then.

Islam is the larger enemy, in the same sense that fascism was the larger enemy in the last total war. It's a 'grand philosophy' which, if left alone to fester, will keep popping up wherever it can. To parse that out a bit, Wahabbism itself is the enemy, but to attempt to fight Wahabbism to the exclusion of Islam is like fighting Nazism to the exclusion of Germany or Shintoism to the exclusion of Japan. It's a nice thought but unworkable.

Second, Iraq really started out having nothing much to do with Islam; it was in part a last attempt by the US and Britain to revive the moribund circus that the UN has become. It's in vogue now to howl about WMD and oil in retrospect, but an honest recollection of events prior to the war brings 16 UNSC resolutions into focus, along with the fact that a de jure and de facto state of war had existed between the UN and Iraq since the first breaking of the ceasefire resolution in the mid-90s. France, as it did before with the League of Nations, pretty much reduced the UN to the state it is in now: a largely irrelevant talkshop. Not many people see that yet, but it's very unlikely that the UN will do more than continue its drift into irrelevancy at this point. Obviously Iraq is also of strategic interest to the west, and obviously oil, as the lifeblood of the west, played a part too, but neither oil nor the existence of WMD per se were much involved in the trigger mechanism, and to the extent that they were, didn't fall into the legal framework of the case for war.

At this point, due to the interference of both Iran and Syria, Iraq has become a focal point for Islamic factionalism, and while that may be a bad thing for Iraqis, it can only be a good thing for the west. The aim of invading Iraq was never to make the population into happy smiling democrats; it was to depose Saddam...anything after that was icing on the cake. Besides, until the recent cynical Democratic Congressional mess in deadlining the withdrawal, the US and Iraqi government were actually starting to win in the democratization of Iraq. Now it's anyone's guess, although a lesson CAN be drawn from Iraq as regards war-weary populations: Because of and not in spite of the ongoing violence, the bulk of the Iraqi population (even in the Sunni Triangle) is supporting the religious factions less and less. It's not that they are becoming enamoured of the central government or the US occupation, but they are turning away from the alleged "insurgents". Sadr didn't leave because of the surge; he left because one of his countrymen was going to kill him sooner or later.

Third, Afghanistan was a seat of radical Sunni Islam, and it was a powerbase of radical Wahabbism. Now it's not. That's good, but unfortunately the sidelining countries, including Pakistan, continue supporting the Taliban and offering it sanctuary. That's not total war by the Nato allies (who also happen to be a UN force, a fact much forgotten by the pacifist left), that's limited war and it's a recipe for bleeding the west white, like the existence of the USSR and North Vietnam did to the US.

Total war against radical Sunni Islam would be to stamp it out in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, AND, more immediately, in the west, where it is spreading faster than in Asia. We are simply not at that stage yet, and won't be until some enterprising faction succeeds in killing a lot of westerners.

Hope that helps define my argument.

[ScottSA]

I can only marvel at the ahistorical stupidity of this blatantly ignorant and blase' tripe. Is there an icon for laughter around here somewhere?

Not really, if it wasn't for World War 1 and the Treaty of Versailles, World War 2 probably would never have happened. You can't argue against it simply because you have very simplistic views of the world.

I'll reply this once and hope to curb the urge to kick you in the future, speaking of simplistic thinking...

Blaming WW I for WW II is about as loosely historical as saying that if it wasn't for the discovery of fire, napalm would never have been weaponized.

Versailles IS, however, an apology used by the British appeasement faction prior to the war...they were willfully blind to Hitler's aims, well outlined as early as the 20s in mein kamph. Unable to change Hitler, they looked instead to themselves and Versailles for the culprit. But Hitler was quite explicit and public about his cynical use of Versailles (in fact, one could almost paraphrase bin Laden's 'yesteryear Caliphate' speech and Hitler's 'downtrodden Germania' diatribes and they'd be identical, but that's another story). In fact, after germany had become sufficiently strong relative to the empire and france, he dropped mention of it entirely and switched to Leibenstrau for the German volk as justification of expansionism. Versailles was nothing more than a grasp at self flagellating straws for people in the west who desperately wanted peace at any cost. Sort of like the pacifistic insistence on various bugbears like "imperialism, poverty, ignorance" yada yada...to place the blame for Sunni Islam on the west.

Anyway, enough of this. Go yammer at another thread.

[Canadian Blue]

Islam is the larger enemy, in the same sense that fascism was the larger enemy in the last total war. It's a 'grand philosophy' which, if left alone to fester, will keep popping up wherever it can. To parse that out a bit, Wahabbism itself is the enemy, but to attempt to fight Wahabbism to the exclusion of Islam is like fighting Nazism to the exclusion of Germany or Shintoism to the exclusion of Japan. It's a nice thought but unworkable.

The difference being that Islam is the second largest religion in the world which has existed for well over a millennium. We'd be essentially going to war with over 1,000,000,000 people. That doesn't seem like a very smart move on our part, and how exactly could we wage war on that many people?

Second, Iraq really started out having nothing much to do with Islam; it was in part a last attempt by the US and Britain to revive the moribund circus that the UN has become. It's in vogue now to howl about WMD and oil in retrospect, but an honest recollection of events prior to the war brings 16 UNSC resolutions into focus, along with the fact that a de jure and de facto state of war had existed between the UN and Iraq since the first breaking of the ceasefire resolution in the mid-90s. France, as it did before with the League of Nations, pretty much reduced the UN to the state it is in now: a largely irrelevant talkshop. Not many people see that yet, but it's very unlikely that the UN will do more than continue its drift into irrelevancy at this point. Obviously Iraq is also of strategic interest to the west, and obviously oil, as the lifeblood of the west, played a part too, but neither oil nor the existence of WMD per se were much involved in the trigger mechanism, and to the extent that they were, didn't fall into the legal framework of the case for war.

If the United States had listened to the United Nation's they wouldn't be in this mess. Ten's of thousands of Iraqi civilian's would still be alive, as well as thousands of American's. I don't see how democracy will come to Iraq, and we had an incompetent administration telling us things were going to get better even as we still see suicide bombings and ambushes.

Total war against radical Sunni Islam would be to stamp it out in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, AND, more immediately, in the west, where it is spreading faster than in Asia. We are simply not at that stage yet, and won't be until some enterprising faction succeeds in killing a lot of westerners.

I'm just wondering, how do you propose of "stamping" it out in the west?

Wouldn't it be better for us to instead use diplomacy when dealing with nation's instead of bombing them back to the stone ages. The war you are talking about would require million's of troops, and would have a tragic cost in human lives, the environment, the economy, etc.

When dealing with terrorism, many nation's have often found it better to negotiate with the terrorists. This has proven to be more successful, however when using violence in order to achieve peace, peace is rarely the result due to the need for vengeance.

[Canadian Blue]

Blaming WW I for WW II is about as loosely historical as saying that if it wasn't for the discovery of fire, napalm would never have been weaponized.

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.

As much as you like to throw around appeasement, you really don't know what it mean's. In your case you want us to be in a constant state of war. However as I'm sure many would argue, nation's would be better off containing any threat.

Anyway, enough of this. Go yammer at another thread.

Sorry, I enjoy correcting extremist ignorance, whether it comes from the left or the right. In your case, extreme right.

[jbg]

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.

[jbg]

Jdobbin, their's no point to debating ScottSA, if you ever beat him at an argument he simply whines and whimpers. He did the same thing in the Global Warming thread, when facts were given, he simply whimpered about how the other member's weren't open minded.

ScottSA happens, IMHO, to be largely right.

I haven't seen enough of him to be sure, but he seems to have a good grip on reality. As far as the US being in a "mess" because of Iraq, daily life proceeds quite nicely here. The army is all volunteer, so by and large the people fighting are those that want to. Those that oppose the war are by and large those that don't love their country.

Viet Nam was different. It was a draftee's war, so people could make at least a colorable argument (not one I'd agree with though) that they or their children should not be forced to fight a war not starting with invasion of the US or a close ally. I emphasize that I don't agree with the argument, but it is legitimate. That being said, I think there should be more declarations of war than there are, and fewer Presidential wars.

[jdobbin]

Well, let me start with a couple clarifications then.

Islam is the larger enemy, in the same sense that fascism was the larger enemy in the last total war. It's a 'grand philosophy' which, if left alone to fester, will keep popping up wherever it can. To parse that out a bit, Wahabbism itself is the enemy, but to attempt to fight Wahabbism to the exclusion of Islam is like fighting Nazism to the exclusion of Germany or Shintoism to the exclusion of Japan. It's a nice thought but unworkable.

Second, Iraq really started out having nothing much to do with Islam; it was in part a last attempt by the US and Britain to revive the moribund circus that the UN has become. It's in vogue now to howl about WMD and oil in retrospect, but an honest recollection of events prior to the war brings 16 UNSC resolutions into focus, along with the fact that a de jure and de facto state of war had existed between the UN and Iraq since the first breaking of the ceasefire resolution in the mid-90s. France, as it did before with the League of Nations, pretty much reduced the UN to the state it is in now: a largely irrelevant talkshop. Not many people see that yet, but it's very unlikely that the UN will do more than continue its drift into irrelevancy at this point. Obviously Iraq is also of strategic interest to the west, and obviously oil, as the lifeblood of the west, played a part too, but neither oil nor the existence of WMD per se were much involved in the trigger mechanism, and to the extent that they were, didn't fall into the legal framework of the case for war.

At this point, due to the interference of both Iran and Syria, Iraq has become a focal point for Islamic factionalism, and while that may be a bad thing for Iraqis, it can only be a good thing for the west. The aim of invading Iraq was never to make the population into happy smiling democrats; it was to depose Saddam...anything after that was icing on the cake. Besides, until the recent cynical Democratic Congressional mess in deadlining the withdrawal, the US and Iraqi government were actually starting to win in the democratization of Iraq. Now it's anyone's guess, although a lesson CAN be drawn from Iraq as regards war-weary populations: Because of and not in spite of the ongoing violence, the bulk of the Iraqi population (even in the Sunni Triangle) is supporting the religious factions less and less. It's not that they are becoming enamoured of the central government or the US occupation, but they are turning away from the alleged "insurgents". Sadr didn't leave because of the surge; he left because one of his countrymen was going to kill him sooner or later.

Third, Afghanistan was a seat of radical Sunni Islam, and it was a powerbase of radical Wahabbism. Now it's not. That's good, but unfortunately the sidelining countries, including Pakistan, continue supporting the Taliban and offering it sanctuary. That's not total war by the Nato allies (who also happen to be a UN force, a fact much forgotten by the pacifist left), that's limited war and it's a recipe for bleeding the west white, like the existence of the USSR and North Vietnam did to the US.

Total war against radical Sunni Islam would be to stamp it out in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, AND, more immediately, in the west, where it is spreading faster than in Asia. We are simply not at that stage yet, and won't be until some enterprising faction succeeds in killing a lot of westerners.

Hope that helps define my argument.

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

I think the timetable on Iraq was one that was pushed with far too much optimism in regards to the outcome. I don't think the defeat of the Iraqi military was in question but I think Peter Jennings was right when he questioned just prior to the war: "Can we win the peace?"

As far as Afghanistan goes, the jury is still out on that one. The new government is made up of people who were responsible for the last atrocities and who are giving themselves a pass from prosecution. I don't think they can be trusted.

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