If you dont think we should be in Afghanistan, maybe you should be worried about this

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The reason that the mid east has been so screwed up and no foreign power has been able to stablize the area (in resent times) is because no one sticks around to help them out. If we remain there for the long haul it will become a better place and attidudes will change. They are changing now.

The west use to treat women the same but we changed. Its only a matter of time and commitment.

I guess if you dont believe that we should change these crazy governments than is your belief that we should just let them fester there and only worry about ourselves?

Yes, because bringing democracy is so easy to another nation, just like waving a magic wand. Do you know how many nations have sucessfully been converted to a democracy with the use of force?

Part of the reason a lot of the countries in Africa are in dire straights is exactly that line of thinking. Trying to force a new government down the throats of the people hasn't worked in so many cases. People have to WANT democracy in order to affect change, and sadly, sometimes you have to let nature take its course so to speak. You in fact end up causing more trouble by going into the region than if you hadn't gone in the first place.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Yes, because bringing democracy is so easy to another nation, just like waving a magic wand. Do you know how many nations have sucessfully been converted to a democracy with the use of force?

Part of the reason a lot of the countries in Africa are in dire straights is exactly that line of thinking. Trying to force a new government down the throats of the people hasn't worked in so many cases. People have to WANT democracy in order to affect change, and sadly, sometimes you have to let nature take its course so to speak. You in fact end up causing more trouble by going into the region than if you hadn't gone in the first place.

If that Iraqi people don't like democracy, why did they vote? Or was that another US forced propaganda effort?

[CaramonLS]

Azure if you want to discuss a topic, ask a real question please. No drive bys.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Azure if you want to discuss a topic, ask a real question please. No drive bys.

I couldn't help it.

Sorry.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Yes, because bringing democracy is so easy to another nation, just like waving a magic wand. Do you know how many nations have sucessfully been converted to a democracy with the use of force?

Part of the reason a lot of the countries in Africa are in dire straights is exactly that line of thinking. Trying to force a new government down the throats of the people hasn't worked in so many cases. People have to WANT democracy in order to affect change, and sadly, sometimes you have to let nature take its course so to speak. You in fact end up causing more trouble by going into the region than if you hadn't gone in the first place.

Look, I don't need a history lesson. You are right in somecases. But you have to admit that most of these failed attempts to change governments in the past have not been to instill "Democracy". Imperialism in Africa was not there to instill "Democracy" they were there to strip the continent of goods and materials and get the heck out.

And just because the locals dont have the ability to organize and win a revolution doesnt mean that they dont want democracy. It is a very very few that are bringing about the disturbance in these places. And sadly thats all it takes.

There have been many examples of Democracy's that have worked if we just stuck in there.
Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong just to name a few.

Living in a shell and letting nature take its course can be just as dangerous as trying to intervene.

Personally I could care less if we just said to heck with the rest of the world because it proably wouldnt affect me. It would most likely affect my children or grandchildren. All I am saying is do we just ignore these radical regiem like history shows usually happens or do we tackle it now?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Personally I could care less if we just said to heck with the rest of the world because it proably wouldnt affect me. It would most likely affect my children or grandchildren. All I am saying is do we just ignore these radical regiem like history shows usually happens or do we tackle it now?

Well, clearly it's not an either/or proposition. Bush's choices with Iraq were never "invade or do nothing." Same thing with Afghanistan, though an argument could be made that his hands were much more substantially tied in that case. Interestingly, Afghanistan isn't part of PNAC's plan for US global policy--which is why (as so many people in this thread have pointed out) the US has devoted so many more resources to Iraq than to their efforts in Afghanistan--people like Paul Wolfowitz saw Afghanistan as a distraction, and a much less winnable situation in the long term. History will tell if he and his ilk are correct.

But I don't think "pulling out" of either Afghanistan or Iraq is a very realistic prospect at this point. There needs to be an exit strategy that allows for greater stability in the region, not less. I think this can be done, but it will probably take years, not months. And if we get antsy every time an article about Islamic radicals in our midst is posted on the internet, it's going to be a long few years indeed.

But as to your specific question: personally, I don't think a blanket policy for how to deal with "radical regimes" is the answer. In part, I worry that an attitude like yours confuses Islam itself with Islamist governments--or with extremist Islam, which are very different shades of the same religious beliefs. Think of it this way: most North Americans are Christians, in one way or another. Very few of us are Fred Phelps--and wouldn't appreciate being tarred with the same brush.

But it's clearly the case that different circumstances call for different responses. Iran calls for a very different approach than Iraq did, especially given the wisdom that experience gives us--though it remains to be seen what difference that will make in the long run. Experience is only useful if you can learn from it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, clearly it's not an either/or proposition. Bush's choices with Iraq were never "invade or do nothing." Same thing with Afghanistan, though an argument could be made that his hands were much more substantially tied in that case. Interestingly, Afghanistan isn't part of PNAC's plan for US global policy--which is why (as so many people in this thread have pointed out) the US has devoted so many more resources to Iraq than to their efforts in Afghanistan--people like Paul Wolfowitz saw Afghanistan as a distraction, and a much less winnable situation in the long term. History will tell if he and his ilk are correct.

But I don't think "pulling out" of either Afghanistan or Iraq is a very realistic prospect at this point. There needs to be an exit strategy that allows for greater stability in the region, not less. I think this can be done, but it will probably take years, not months. And if we get antsy every time an article about Islamic radicals in our midst is posted on the internet, it's going to be a long few years indeed.

But as to your specific question: personally, I don't think a blanket policy for how to deal with "radical regimes" is the answer. In part, I worry that an attitude like yours confuses Islam itself with Islamist governments--or with extremist Islam, which are very different shades of the same religious beliefs. Think of it this way: most North Americans are Christians, in one way or another. Very few of us are Fred Phelps--and wouldn't appreciate being tarred with the same brush.

But it's clearly the case that different circumstances call for different responses. Iran calls for a very different approach than Iraq did, especially given the wisdom that experience gives us--though it remains to be seen what difference that will make in the long run. Experience is only useful if you can learn from it.

I have to agree with most of what you say. However, our country isnt run by a bunch of Fred Phelps. These Islamic countries (and not all) are run by radicals.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You know what. These radical groups have no purpose what so ever on this planet. They need to be eradicated. Now, you can define eradication how ever you like. They can be asimilated into their culture and the conditions that bring about these radical ideas can be tackled. Or you can drop a bomb on their house, what ever you think is the right way. But the fact remains they are pure evil and should not be allowed to remain on this planet.

You're in over your head. You really don't understand the issue you're discussing and it is very evident from this post. Radicals come in all shapes and sizes. Extemes are reached on both sides. In the west, the extreme is the Evangelicals who believe that the end is near and purity of the country through religion. Its the groups that blow up abortion clinics and assassinate doctors and nurses that perform the procedures. Its the ministers who call for the assassination of foreign leaders because they disagree with American foreign policy. Do all of these "radicals" deserve a bullet in the head too?

You're forgetting that the western version of these "radical groups" are what got your hero, George W. Bush, elected. It was the religiosity of the election, and the appeal to get those religious fanatics out to vote, that got the village idiot elected. So take it easy on fanatics, because without them, your pals are out on the street or working for Fox News.

[Looger]

oh yeah, that's right.

islamic fundamentalism bad, west good.

this article sums it up nicely:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...579174,00.html

For the first year of Taliban rule, US policy towards the regime appears to have been determined principally by Unocal's interests. In 1997 a US diplomat told Rashid "the Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco [the former US oil consortium in Saudi Arabia] pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that." US policy began to change only when feminists and greens started campaigning against both Unocal's plans and the government's covert backing for Kabul.
...
We have argued on these pages about whether terrorism is likely to be deterred or encouraged by the invasion of Afghanistan, or whether the plight of the starving there will be relieved or exacerbated by attempts to destroy the Taliban. But neither of these considerations describes the full scope and purpose of this war. As John Flynn wrote in 1944: "The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells." I believe that the US government is genuine in its attempt to stamp out terrorism by military force in Afghanistan, however misguided that may be. But we would be naïve to believe that this is all it is doing.

but... if the US is the shining light against islamic terror (TM) why did they create the taliban in the first place?

why was the US the leading financial supporter in foreign aid to afghanistan in 2000 and 2001?

open your eyes, our presence in afghanistan is to clean up america's mess, in which we are more than complicit.

only the naive and criminally stupid could possibly believe that stamping out 'islamic terror' is the reason that we're there, i mean, we set the taliban up in their sick little kingdom, period.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Looger

we set the taliban up in their sick little kingdom, period.

And did the same thing in Iraq with Hussein. Ironic, isn't it?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

And did the same thing in Iraq with Hussein. Ironic, isn't it?

eastasia, not eurasia!

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by evman150

Great post. Lots of content. Maybe you should check out this link.

http://forum.calgaryflames.com/

Actually say something telling me why you disagree rather than blithering like a moron.

I was sayign 'ahhhh' because I didn't see that previously.
Thanks for the insults though.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I was sayign 'ahhhh' because I didn't see that previously.
Thanks for the insults though.

If that is true, then I apologize. But looking back at the post, I do not blame myself for my reaction. I can see how it could be taken your way, but I think most people would agree that it seemed more like a sarcastic "ahhh...dude you are so wrong". Maybe I'm just not used to people agreeing with me in political threads.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You're in over your head. You really don't understand the issue you're discussing and it is very evident from this post. Radicals come in all shapes and sizes. Extemes are reached on both sides. In the west, the extreme is the Evangelicals who believe that the end is near and purity of the country through religion. Its the groups that blow up abortion clinics and assassinate doctors and nurses that perform the procedures. Its the ministers who call for the assassination of foreign leaders because they disagree with American foreign policy. Do all of these "radicals" deserve a bullet in the head too?

You're forgetting that the western version of these "radical groups" are what got your hero, George W. Bush, elected. It was the religiosity of the election, and the appeal to get those religious fanatics out to vote, that got the village idiot elected. So take it easy on fanatics, because without them, your pals are out on the street or working for Fox News.

Your one to tell me I am over my head. Your the complete wingnut on this site.

Never did I say that the motives of any of these governments was to simply stamp out islamic radicals. But since they are there, thats what they need to do. You cant compare a small group of right wing religious zealots in the USA to the fanatic islamic governments in the Mid East.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Your one to tell me I am over my head. Your the complete wingnut on this site.

Uh huh, and you have backed that up so well. And what makes me a "wing nut"? That I agree with the vast majority of the world that George W. Bush is an incompetnant fool and a danger to world peace? Yup, a real wing nut!

Never did I say that the motives of any of these governments was to simply stamp out islamic radicals. But since they are there, thats what they need to do. You cant compare a small group of right wing religious zealots in the USA to the fanatic islamic governments in the Mid East.

Seems like you did to me and to several others in this thread.

And who should decide who these "radicals" are? I certainly hope not you! I wouldn't trust you to pick the color of socks someone should wear in the morning.

You're also going to have to point out these "fanatical Islamic governments" you are refering to? I hope the fellas your hero (Dubya) likes to hold hands with (that would be the Saudis) is at the top of that list?

And why can't you compare a small group of right wing religious zealots in the USA to anyone in the middle east? A zealot is a zealot. Both have made reference to a religious faction being eliminated. Both have openly suggested the assassination of world leaders. Both have encouraged politically bombings of innocents to further their twisted agendas. Why are they not comparable? Because you don't know anything about the middle east or Islam or the people in general? Or is because you just can't believe that anything in the west could be wrong or have an agenda?

You're going to have to explain yourself in some pretty good detail. You've painted yourself into a corner IMO.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Uh huh, and you have backed that up so well. And what makes me a "wing nut"? That I agree with the vast majority of the world that George W. Bush is an incompetnant fool and a danger to world peace? Yup, a real wing nut!





Seems like you did to me and to several others in this thread.

And who should decide who these "radicals" are? I certainly hope not you! I wouldn't trust you to pick the color of socks someone should wear in the morning.

You're also going to have to point out these "fanatical Islamic governments" you are refering to? I hope the fellas your hero (Dubya) likes to hold hands with (that would be the Saudis) is at the top of that list?

And why can't you compare a small group of right wing religious zealots in the USA to anyone in the middle east? A zealot is a zealot. Both have made reference to a religious faction being eliminated. Both have openly suggested the assassination of world leaders. Both have encouraged politically bombings of innocents to further their twisted agendas. Why are they not comparable? Because you don't know anything about the middle east or Islam or the people in general? Or is because you just can't believe that anything in the west could be wrong or have an agenda?

You're going to have to explain yourself in some pretty good detail. You've painted yourself into a corner IMO.

I have a challenge for you. Find anywhere on this forum where I said I like, support or agree with George Bush and his personal ideas and agenda. From day one before he was even elected I knew the guy was a complete ######. Never have I supported him or have I bought into the ideas as to why he invade Iraq. Doesn't mean I can't support getting rid of a mass murderer who gasses his own people.

You say"seems like you did to me and others" well show me then wise guy.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by evman150

If that is true, then I apologize. But looking back at the post, I do not blame myself for my reaction. I can see how it could be taken your way, but I think most people would agree that it seemed more like a sarcastic "ahhh...dude you are so wrong". Maybe I'm just not used to people agreeing with me in political threads.

you apologize but it's not your fault.

That's kinda neat!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I have a challenge for you. Find anywhere on this forum where I said I like, support or agree with George Bush and his personal ideas and agenda. From day one before he was even elected I knew the guy was a complete ######. Never have I supported him or have I bought into the ideas as to why he invade Iraq. Doesn't mean I can't support getting rid of a mass murderer who gasses his own people.

You say"seems like you did to me and others" well show me then wise guy.

How about you go back and look at your posting history. You have a history of popping up and supporting those that have taken the very pro-Bush stance. You're always right there side by side with White Doors, HOZ and Azure defending the man and his policies. For a guy who doesn't like him, you sure support alot of his ideas. Just go through your post history and you will see the trend.

Now, back to the thread, which I am not going to let you run away from a la White Doors.

And who should decide who these "radicals" are? I certainly hope not you! I wouldn't trust you to pick the color of socks someone should wear in the morning.

You're also going to have to point out these "fanatical Islamic governments" you are refering to? I hope the fellas your hero (Dubya) likes to hold hands with (that would be the Saudis) is at the top of that list?

And why can't you compare a small group of right wing religious zealots in the USA to anyone in the middle east? A zealot is a zealot. Both have made reference to a religious faction being eliminated. Both have openly suggested the assassination of world leaders. Both have encouraged politically bombings of innocents to further their twisted agendas. Why are they not comparable? Because you don't know anything about the middle east or Islam or the people in general? Or is because you just can't believe that anything in the west could be wrong or have an agenda?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Uh huh, and you have backed that up so well. And what makes me a "wing nut"? That I agree with the vast majority of the world that George W. Bush is an incompetnant fool and a danger to world peace? Yup, a real wing nut!

Never confuse siding with the majority and being correct or right ... one does not have a causal relationship to the other.

Heck the majority of the world once thought the planet to be flat, the moon made of cheese, and Churchill to be "an incompetnant fool and a danger to world peace"

Time has a way of sorting these things out.

I think Bush has made plenty of mistakes, but I unlike a strong majority (there's that word again) in the Unites States am not willing to use hindsite to change my opinion on something after the fact.

It's too easy.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Never confuse siding with the majority and being correct or right ... one does not have a causal relationship to the other.

And I don't, as many of my arguments have proven.

Heck the majority of the world once thought the planet to be flat, the moon made of cheese, and Churchill to be "an incompetnant fool and a danger to world peace"

Time has a way of sorting these things out.

I think Bush has made plenty of mistakes, but I unlike a strong majority (there's that word again) in the Unites States am not willing to use hindsite to change my opinion on something after the fact.

It's too easy.

Good point Bingo. That's why its great to have been in the group that said he was the village idiot since day one!