Why We Have to Fight

[weaponeer]

That is quite the article. I like the use of the term Islamic Fundamentalism instead of just Islam. I myself want to go into the armed forces, but my girlfriend and her family keep cutting me down for it. Maybe if I show them this article it will help sway them. They keep saying that it is not our war and that I am "too smart" to go into the army. I say it is hogwash and that it is a war that deffinately affects us, and we need intelligent people to secure peace for us. Kinda got off topic there, but oh well.

Get a new girl. Join up, you will love it. Most Canadians would if they had the first clue about what the military is, what we do, and so on. Fact is they have no idea about us, don't want to know. Scared of the unknown....

[Borg]

That is quite the article. I like the use of the term Islamic Fundamentalism instead of just Islam. I myself want to go into the armed forces, but my girlfriend and her family keep cutting me down for it. Maybe if I show them this article it will help sway them. They keep saying that it is not our war and that I am "too smart" to go into the army. I say it is hogwash and that it is a war that deffinately affects us, and we need intelligent people to secure peace for us. Kinda got off topic there, but oh well.

Get a new girl. Join up, you will love it. Most Canadians would if they had the first clue about what the military is, what we do, and so on. Fact is they have no idea about us, don't want to know. Scared of the unknown....

Weaponeer - Hear! Hear!

Puck - If you are unable to make a decision now because of your girl and her family, I would suggest you do not marry her - you will never be your own man - and you sure will not be a "Team" with your wife.

Military is something everyone should do. Exciting, eye opening, challenging both personally and professionally and certainly you will find the folks there will challenge you physically AND mentally.

Anyone says "you are too smart" has no idea about the type of folks who serve. Dare you to stand up - bark like a real dog - and at least have a real close look at it. More to the military than war my friend - much, much more.

I am back to lurking on this one.

Regards,

Borg

[Canadian Blue]

Because of useful fools like you, Islamic countries don't have to invade. You apologias and fixations of "bigotry" and so on is all CAIR and like-minded organizations need to do it from within.

CAIR is against terrorism, and has often taken a stand against terrorism. What you are suggesting is bigoted to the extreme. It is quite strange that you would be talking about how war was needed to stop Nazi aggression, yet somehow you seem to have a hatred of a minority group within Canada as well which you believe aim's to destroy this nation.

I highly doubt Muslims are coming to this country to overthrow our democracy. People have always made ridiculous asseritions against minorities which have proven to be untrue.

[Remiel]

In a rare moment of agreement, put me in for calling bull on that " too smart for the military " crap as well. There are plenty of reasons why a person might not be well suited to the military. Being too smart, too good and too succesful are not some of them, at least in this country.

Even I have thought about joining the military for a couple of years, to add the experience to my perspective, but I genuinely think I would make a terrible soldier, and I wouldn't want to be putting my comrades in jeopardy in a fire fight because of doing something stupid. I don't think very well on my feet.

[Catchme]

There is maybe one over the top right winger here,but there are easily ten loony-toon left wingers like polynewbie, whos doing what, catchme, remiel, and Saturn, with more popping up all the time. I dunno, it's like someone in a psychiatric hospital wrote this web site's address on a washroom wall or something.

No, actually argus there are many more on the right who hate Canada, and Canadians, much like yourself and who are so full of ill wishes for "others" it is sickening. And who would also not know the truth if it bit them. Who are so lacking in historical knowledge as to appear to be lacking any rational thought abilities whatsoever. Especially when they post nonsense like that above of yours.

[Canadian Blue]

In a rare moment of agreement, put me in for calling bull on that " too smart for the military " crap as well. There are plenty of reasons why a person might not be well suited to the military. Being too smart, too good and too succesful are not some of them, at least in this country.

Even I have thought about joining the military for a couple of years, to add the experience to my perspective, but I genuinely think I would make a terrible soldier, and I wouldn't want to be putting my comrades in jeopardy in a fire fight because of doing something stupid. I don't think very well on my feet.

Nobody really knows how good of a soldier they will be unless they actually join. I think that the people who would make the best soldiers probably never join the military. Some like to think of what they would do in certain situation's, however nobody knows until they have been in one.

[Argus]

But sometimes the solution to problems is. Sometimes the choice is very stark indeed, like when it's kill or be killed, either them or you. Sometimes there isn't time to cogitate. People who can't be decisive lose.

By who, and with that kind of attitude it would simply lead to bigotry back home. I'm not worried about the "Caliphate" coming back to power anytime soon. I'd like to see any Islamic country attempt an invasion of a western country.

They have been doing it for some years now. In another decade or two a number of European Western nations will become majority Muslim. I expect democracy to end in those nations around that point.

[Argus]

Because of useful fools like you, Islamic countries don't have to invade. You apologias and fixations of "bigotry" and so on is all CAIR and like-minded organizations need to do it from within.

CAIR is against terrorism, and has often taken a stand against terrorism.

Yes, and the Soviet Union was against human rights violations and had a constitution which required respect for human rights.

Now in the real world....

What you are suggesting is bigoted to the extreme.

What you have said is stupid in the extreme. You clearly know nothing about the history of CAIR and its dubious claims to be opposed to terrorism and extremism.

I highly doubt Muslims are coming to this country to overthrow our democracy. People have always made ridiculous asseritions against minorities which have proven to be untrue.

Proven? What has been proven? By whom? You're talking out of your ass about something you clearly have never bothered to think through. You know a poll taken in the UK showed a good 40% of Muslims there wanted Sharia law brought in. Those are millions of people who say you can stick your silly democracy because they want God's harsh rule in place. And their numbers are growing every year. In Canada and in the West. Do many Muslims oppose this? Sure, but you know, the opposition within the Muslim world always seems, to me, to be a lackadaisical and casual affair, for the most part, while the other extreme is full of fire and anger and dedication to their purpose.

[Canadian Blue]

Yes, and the Soviet Union was against human rights violations and had a constitution which required respect for human rights.

Now in the real world....

and...

What you have said is stupid in the extreme. You clearly know nothing about the history of CAIR and its dubious claims to be opposed to terrorism and extremism.

So it's not opposed to terrorism, or do you not know what you are talking about.

Proven? What has been proven? By whom? You're talking out of your ass about something you clearly have never bothered to think through. You know a poll taken in the UK showed a good 40% of Muslims there wanted Sharia law brought in.

I don't know how accurate that poll is, or even if that indicates Muslims in England want to turn the country into an Islamic state. I haven't seen Muslims lobbying hard in Canada to turn us into an Islamic state.

Muslims only make up 3.1% of England, and I highly doubt that 3.1% is going to overthrow England yet.

They have been doing it for some years now. In another decade or two a number of European Western nations will become majority Muslim. I expect democracy to end in those nations around that point.

Muslims still make up only single digits in terms of the make up of most European countries.

[ScottSA]

Muslims still make up only single digits in terms of the make up of most European countries.

And in the ones where the 10% threshold has been broken, there is never ending trouble. Given the birthrates and planned immigration quotas, it's estimated that within 15 years the first European countries will have majority Muslim populations. Clearly assimilation is not happening, and pro-Muslim "human rights" groups are swaying the political landscape to a great degree. You obviously haven't looked into this, and no doubt will continue to cry "racism" and "bigotry" like a useful fool until the situations start to explode across Europe. The only country in Europe which seems to be honestly addressing this problem is Denmark, where they actually allow debate about the massively changing demographics, and no one tries to hide behind and promote the moronic smokescreen of hollering "bigotry" at people who object.

[Canadian Blue]

And in the ones where the 10% threshold has been broken, there is never ending trouble. Given the birthrates and planned immigration quotas, it's estimated that within 15 years the first European countries will have majority Muslim populations. Clearly assimilation is not happening, and pro-Muslim "human rights" groups are swaying the political landscape to a great degree. You obviously haven't looked into this, and no doubt will continue to cry "racism" and "bigotry" like a useful fool until the situations start to explode across Europe. The only country in Europe which seems to be honestly addressing this problem is Denmark, where they actually allow debate about the massively changing demographics, and no one tries to hide behind and promote the moronic smokescreen of hollering "bigotry" at people who object.

Once again enlighten us on where you get the 10% threshold from?

From the statistics that I'm looking at the only country in Western Europe that has hit 10% is France. The closest one after that is the Netherlands with 5.40%. As far as I know those were the most recent statistics.

As for Denmark, they now have created some problems for themselves.

http://www.euro-islam.info/spip/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=24

In Denmark, after September 11th, 2001, attacks on Muslims increased substantially (Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, United Nations, 2002). The social climate for Muslims has declined substantially over the last few years, according to Muslims in Dialogue, an NGO. Incidents of harassment have increased substantially (IHF, 2005). Reports have shown that many Danish Muslims have had difficulties gaining access to public places such as restaurants and clubs, and women wearing headscarves have been denied transportation on public buses (ECRI Report on Denmark, 2000).

Somalis in particular have had difficulties in Denmark, being both Muslims and asylum seekers. Media and politicians have contributed to a widespread view that Somalis are not able to integrate into Danish society, and this has had a negative effect on the self-perceptions of the community. High unemployment and low hopes have led high numbers of students to drop out (ECRI Report on Denmark, 2000).

You obviously haven't looked into this, and no doubt will continue to cry "racism" and "bigotry" like a useful fool until the situations start to explode across Europe.

Obviously, I have, didn't you notice the links I provided.

[scribblet]

There is maybe one over the top right winger here,but there are easily ten loony-toon left wingers like polynewbie, whos doing what, catchme, remiel, and Saturn, with more popping up all the time. I dunno, it's like someone in a psychiatric hospital wrote this web site's address on a washroom wall or something.

No, actually argus there are many more on the right who hate Canada, and Canadians, much like yourself and who are so full of ill wishes for "others" it is sickening. And who would also not know the truth if it bit them. Who are so lacking in historical knowledge as to appear to be lacking any rational thought abilities whatsoever. Especially when they post nonsense like that above of yours.

Argus is right and this response is asolute rot, spurious and malicious nonsense.

[scribblet]

There is maybe one over the top right winger here,but there are easily ten loony-toon left wingers like polynewbie, whos doing what, catchme, remiel, and Saturn, with more popping up all the time. I dunno, it's like someone in a psychiatric hospital wrote this web site's address on a washroom wall or something.

No, actually argus there are many more on the right who hate Canada, and Canadians, much like yourself and who are so full of ill wishes for "others" it is sickening. And who would also not know the truth if it bit them. Who are so lacking in historical knowledge as to appear to be lacking any rational thought abilities whatsoever. Especially when they post nonsense like that above of yours.

No actually, Argus is right and this response is absolute rot, spurious and malicious nonsense. This site is attracting some loonies, probably because a couple of others have closed down.

Argus and others do not 'hate Canada' or wish anyone ill will, that type of response is sickening.

[Canadian Blue]

No actually, Argus is right and this response is absolute rot, spurious and malicious nonsense. This site is attracting some loonies, probably because a couple of others have closed down.

This obviously isn't considered rot...

They have been doing it for some years now. In another decade or two a number of European Western nations will become majority Muslim. I expect democracy to end in those nations around that point.

Even though only one nation in western Europe has 10% or more Muslims, the closest one had 5.4%.

More like the left wingers hate our society so much they prefer and sympathize with brutal thugocracies.

Once again, this is ad hominem.

Another towering intellectual of the Left.

Whatever happened to left wingers who had a grasp on politics and reality and could put a case here with a degree of intelligence and dignity? I can think of maybe 2 out of about ten regularly posting left wingers here who don't come across as shrill emotional fools wrapped in delusion and ignorance.

This is more deserving of the "rot" tag than what many left wingers on here post.

Argus and others do not 'hate Canada' or wish anyone ill will, that type of response is sickening.

This is more due to a bias than anything. Argus was the one who made the argument that the left hates Canada and our society. It was a post begging a reaction.

[scribblet]

This is more due to a bias than anything. Argus was the one who made the argument that the left hates Canada and our society. It was a post begging a reaction.

Guess I didn't see that, however I agree with his comments about some over the top posters MLW seems to be attracting lately. As I said, at least two other forums have closed, and they were not up to the standards of this one.

www.post-gazette.com/pg/05192/536250.stm -

and Europe's Muslims -- now representing between 5 percent and 10 percent of the ...

This one is dated 2003: http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fello...nar20030301.htm

More are on the way. Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent.

cheers

[Canadian Blue]

Even with a high birth rate, most Muslims in Europe will not be the majority. The article you provided is a very interesting one indeed. However it also pointed to social problems faced by Muslims which could give an explaination as to why some second generation Muslims are attracted to extremism. It's the same with any area which has a high rate of poverty and unemployment. It is also not just a Muslim problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5349696.stm

Guess I didn't see that, however I agree with his comments about some over the top posters MLW seems to be attracting lately. As I said, at least two other forums have closed, and they were not up to the standards of this one.

He himself is an over the top poster, as are some on the right, and some on the left.

More are on the way. Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent.

I'd also argue that it is dependant on how Muslims have integrated into society. I myself have never seen the Muslims as a threat in any city that I've been too; I highly doubt we have to worry about Muslims taking over any city in Canada, or any country in Europe for that matter.

[AndrewL]

Posted by ScottSA

Well, you can keep saying that if it makes you feel better, but it simply is not true. You're talking about Chapter VII, which has sweet piss all to do with Nurenberg. It is based upon the sovereignty of nations; an ideal which originated from Westphalia, long before even the League of Nations was a glimmer in France and Britain's eye. Here's what Chapter VII actually says, as opposed to what you wish it said:

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Are we clear so far?

No. Im talking about Article 1.

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

This has everything to do with what Nuremberg considered crimes against the peace, or wars of aggression.

UN resolution 3314 defined aggression to be:

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Everything the US has done in Iraq since '91 and including the 2003 invasion has resulted in the opposite of everything the UN charter aims to promote.

The US/UK invasion of Iraq was merely another crime in the ongoing crimes against peace perpetrated by colonialists in the ME for at least a century.

I suppose you can choose to look at it in a vaccum and make your technical case for the legality of war based on the fabrications, coercions, and manipulations of the George Bush White House, im just not interested. Resolution 1441 did not call for war, the UNSC did not authorize war, Saddam was disarmed by '93, and whatever type of pain-in-the ass Saddam was being in early '03 did not justify the invasion. It comes to little more than war profiteering and disaster capitalism. 'Destroy everything and give the rebuilding contracts to your cronies' is pretty much the name of the game.

The actual history of the ME and western attempts to control it are more important, and the behavior of the US in Iraq specifically over the last 30 years has been nothing less than a complete violation of the founding principles of the UN charter. Colonial/Neo-colonial history in general in the ME reads more like a complete opposite attempt at fulfilling the charter of the UN.

Finally, Bush went to the US congress and it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization...inst_Terrorists ) This is not in the realm of "international law, but it heads off your next retreat, which will be that it wasn't legal under national law. It was legal under US law too.

I would never bother. I don't care if it was illegal in the US. For the same reason i don't care if Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was legal in Iraq, or the Nazi invasion of Poland was legal in Germany. It doesn't matter which laws nations make to justify their behavior.

So you see, all this "the war was illegal" nonsense really doesn't wash in the real world.

Oh, but it violated the charter, clearly and unequivocally. I'm sorry you don't see that.

Andrew

[ScottSA]

I suppose you can choose to look at it in a vaccum and make your technical case for the legality of war based on the fabrications, coercions, and manipulations of the George Bush White House, im just not interested. Resolution 1441 did not call for war, the UNSC did not authorize war, Saddam was disarmed by '93, and whatever type of pain-in-the ass Saddam was being in early '03 did not justify the invasion. Andrew

But that's not what I'm doing Andrew. Try to calm down and look at the facts instead of letting your emotions carry you away. Let me help you with a primer in intl law, so you don't fall into this trap again:

Read UNSC 1441. Look at the preamble. Note that the resolution recalls (which means "affirms"):

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

The purpose of all these recollections is to make sure that there is no mistake in the intent of 1441 to INCLUDE previous resolutions in 1441. 1441 went even further and called for "serious consequences", even though it didn't need to do so in order to authorize war. War was authorised and was seen to be authorized by Saddam's violation of the original ceasefire resolution. It's the only authorization needed by Clinton to launch strikes against Iraq. Here's another tidbit: Each of the resolutions mentioned in 1441 specifically recalled all of the previous resolutions, including the ceasefire resolution. If there were anything remotely "illegal" about the invasion, we can bet China, Russia and France, all members of the UNSC would have said so, but they didn't. How come? That's easy...it was so legal that only an outgoing idiot in a figurehead position would think it was somehow illegal.

Let me head off your next objection, which is no doubt to argue that Clinton's cruise missile attack was on a smaller scale than Bush's invasion. I would challenge you to show me where in the body of intl law there are gradations made between acts of war, but I'll save you time by telling you there aren't. Under the eyes of what passes for intl law, an act of war is an act of war is an act of war.

Your argument of appealing to Chapter I (glad you took the time to read it btw) doesn't work BECAUSE of the resolutions. You'll note that Chapt VII is all about exceptions to Chapter 1, which is there only to establish the primacy of sovereignty of nations as the grounding of the Charter.

[Black Dog]

Arg

Drivel. There has been massive violence through the world. Perhaps you simply aren't educated enough to know anything about the history of non-Christian areas and the violence which has transpired there over the eons and centuries.

Re-read my statement, specifically the time frame specified. I was off by about a century, but my point stands.

Whatever happened to left wingers who had a grasp on politics and reality and could put a case here with a degree of intelligence and dignity? I can think of maybe 2 out of about ten regularly posting left wingers here who don't come across as shrill emotional fools wrapped in delusion and ignorance.

I do so love how you rise above the fray...

They have been doing it for some years now. In another decade or two a number of European Western nations will become majority Muslim.

Really? Which ones? That'd require about a 40 per cent increase in the Mulsim population in 20 years: an astounding feat.

from scriblett's source:

Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent.

This is prefaced by a statement estimating Muslims make up between 5-10 per cent of the population. Which means we're looking at between 10-20 per cent in 13 years (again, based on the incredibly unlikely possibility of static birth and immigration rates). Even if you run with that, it would take a minimum of 30 year sfor the Muslim population to reach the majority in Europe.

(Incidentally, what do you people mean when you say Europe? Doe sthat include countries lkike thos eof the former Eastern Bloc with tiny Muslim populations? Or do you just mean France, Germany and those socialist Nordic countries?)