Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tim K





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 40
Reputation: 28.3Reputation: 28.3Reputation: 28.3
votes: 2

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Taliban should've been stamped out years ago. Instead we were negotiating with them which is something that people here have been crapping on Jack for even suggesting.

How does the West choose it's battles? If the liberty of the people who live under the regimes are a "by-product", then obviously we're only in it for ourselves. Playing the freedom for the natives card seems highly shallow.
AmericanTory





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 23
Reputation: 13.8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tim K wrote:
The Taliban should've been stamped out years ago. Instead we were negotiating with them which is something that people here have been crapping on Jack for even suggesting.

How does the West choose it's battles? If the liberty of the people who live under the regimes are a "by-product", then obviously we're only in it for ourselves. Playing the freedom for the natives card seems highly shallow.


By your lines of argument in several threads, were the Allies right to have gotten involved in WWII? After all, the world ignored the threats of Nazi Germany and Hirohito's Japan until they themselves were threatened. However, by your line of thinking, this was wrong because we're "only in it for ourselves." Newsflash: No person and no nation is selfless. There is always an element of self-interest in all actions.

And if what was done in the past was a mistake, then is it not right to do away with regimes such as the Taliban? Would that not be a correction of a mistake?

And as for the "freedom for the natives card," even if that was not primary impetus for the mission in Afghanistan, it was a result of action taken there, and regardless of the motivation, the question remains, would it have been right to leave things as they were?
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So there is the question; why did the U.S. ever associate with the taliban butchers?

Well as we know there was that little issue with the U.S.S.R. - of course - the U.S. at times has had to deal with certain leaders and regimes which I'm sure they wish they didn't have to.

The fact is - I'm sure that when dealing with these dacoit taliban butchers there was the good-faith hope that these butchers would turn away from their standard program of religious extremism and violence etc., and adopt a moderate approach.

With respect to that binladen creep - it would seem that his association with the U.S. was one of where they were fighting the U.S.S.R. in Afganistan with the west - then later - after they and their conflict were displaced by internal changes in the U.S.S.R. and the threat of the U.S.S.R. was gone - these allied dacoit fighters - turned on the west [only allegedly because the U.S. didn't leave Saudi Arabia].

Important lessons were learned from this!

Of course due to world circumstances and good-faith - during the cold war - the west saw this group more as 'freedom fighters' and - less as 'irregular fighters' - now of course - we pay the price for that. At least the U.S. administration [and now Ottawa] isn't still under any 'false impressions' about the 'real position' of these islamist groups - like the NDP and other socialists and fools.

There is the old story about the scorpion who wanted to cross the river - but - he couldn't swim so - he asked a frog for a lift. The frog replied "How do I know you won't sting me" - the scorpion said - "If I sting you then you will drown and - I will drown with you". The frog agreed to give the scorpion a lift. Halfway across the river - the scorpion stung the frog - when the frog asked why - the scorpion replied - "it's my nature".


Last edited by don muntean on Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tim K





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 40
Reputation: 28.3Reputation: 28.3Reputation: 28.3
votes: 2

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The meeting in Texas was in 1997, the Soviet Union had collapsed nearly a decade earlier. What was at stake was an oil pipeline that a large Texas oil company wanted to build through Afghanistan. Nothing to do with good faith, everything to do with money. I doubt the Texas oil barons cared much about the social state of Afghanistan other than how it would affect their bottom line.

In this thread, I never stated that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. I have implied that we perhaps should've been there earlier. The Taliban was not recognized as a legitimate government by much of the Middle East including Iran which considered it a security threat.

If we had taken steps for the people of Af'stan back then - we could've liberated the country there without using the pretext of Islamic terrorism - which is a pretext that unifies the Arab nations against us. Maybe it would've even distracted OBL too. But hindsight is better than foresight, obviously.

An oppressed people definitely makes things easier to justify. Perhaps we are correcting a mistake. But why dont we have plans for the oppressed regions of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, the rest of the middle east, much of Africa and on and on...? Are they less deserving? Are those regimes too strong? Is it not in our own interests?

This makes me ponder whether military intervention will work in "the global war on terror".

Every bomb dropped in the name of fighting terror seems to embolden who we're fighting - no matter how just it may be our point of view - it also creates a whole new host of enemies. it becomes a perpetual never ending cycle. Can one really defeat a fanatical ideology that seems to covet death, by using bombs?

If I seem all over the map, it's because I'm trying not to be ideological about things. I am pointing out inconsistencies and ambiguities and other such questions that pop into my mind. Trying to sort things out for myself.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What exactly is the problem with a corporation attempting to do business with a foreign government? So they met in texas? whats the problem?

Perhaps there was still a "good faith" attitude at that time - ie. a "diplomacy works" type of attitude - the kind that was rampant under the Clinton Administration. Governors are not normally consulted when foreign dignitaries visit their states, so drawing a parallel to bush is hardly fair(I saw this mentioned earlier)..

The reasoning for GOING to war wasn't human rights - it was weeding out the terrorists responsible for 911... Afghanistan REFUSED to assist by cracking down, or allowing the world to crack down on the training camps they supported in their country. The Human Rights situation is just a damn good reason to STAY.
DM Schwartz





Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 45
Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
An oppressed people definitely make things easier to justify. Perhaps we are correcting a mistake. But why don't we have plans for the oppressed regions of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Middle East, much of Africa and on and on...? Are they less deserving? Are those regimes too strong? Is it not in our own interests?


Tim,

One thing you have to keep in mind that western cultures are for the most part democracies. Although, most of us agree on what is right and what is wrong, we don't always agree on how to help.

Left or right, we can all agree that the Taliban oppressing girls or homosexuals is wrong. Now how to deal with it... there are those that will say we should invade, others will say war is not the answer, we should enforce sanctions, others will say no that will only hurt the very people that we want to help, we should negotiate, others will say how can we negotiate with people who's core beliefs are completely different from our own. (By that I mean equality for all, social justice, etc I don't mean religion)

It seems that for western cultures it takes a catastrophic event such as 9/11 to generate the required consensus to do something.

It's true that we would not have likely gone into Afghanistan without 9/11 because it would have been extremely difficult to generate political will to so.

The same can be said for Iraq, the fact the Saddam killed 100,000+ of his own citizens wouldn't have been enough to get rid of him. WMF was the only way to convince all political stripes that we needed to invade.

Now as for PMSH's speech, I thought he made the case for being in Afghanistan, and he reminded us why we went there in the first place and that real people with real families are there making a difference. (In spite of what the MSM is telling us).

I firmly believe that our country's unique expertise as peacekeeper's and warriors makes the best chance to help the Afghan people.
DM Schwartz





Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 45
Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I said WMF...I meant WMD
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Stephen Harper's 9/11 Speech

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB