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
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JBG wrote:
It depends on the situation, but in general, I am quite open in saying that the Brits created a historic catastrophe by pulling their bases entirely from the former colonies. Perhaps their bankrup financial condition left them little choice but to cut and run, but they (and other powers) left in their wake an array of failed states. Back when mobility was limited to horses, i.e. when the Christians beat the Muslims back from Vienna and Tourres, leaving that chunk of the world unpoliced was bad mainly for the likes of Marco Polo. Now, Jihad is global and unrelenting in scope, and isolationism is just unacceptable.

What the terrorists ("irhabists") wage is not jihad (holy or sanctioned conflict) but hirabah (unholy or unsanctioned conflict). We buy into their warped version of reality when we unknowingly use their terms. They are not mujahideen (holy warriors), they are mufsidoon (evil doers).

I don't believe it's possible or practical to become strictly isolationist... but I also don't believe it's possible or practical to continue interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations as the UN appears determined to do.

It wasn't only the Brits, JBG. Many other European nations had colonies but I generally agree with your observation. That being said, most of those colonies were abandoned many generations ago. How long should we continue punishing the descendants of those who made those choices? Shouldn't the citizens of those former colonies, most of whom weren't born when those colonies were abandoned, take responsibility for their own lives at some point?

Why should we feel responsible for their stupid choices? If they want to depopulate themselves in tribal wars, that's not our fault... and it's not our problem!! If they're starving because of their stupidity, why do we keep removing the impetus for them to change?

-Mac
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:

What the terrorists ("irhabists") wage is not jihad (holy or sanctioned conflict) but hirabah (unholy or unsanctioned conflict). We buy into their warped version of reality when we unknowingly use their terms. They are not mujahideen (holy warriors), they are mufsidoon (evil doers).

When you debate with me, whether in a Courtroom, on a Board or in person, I do not become hung up on definitiional terms, such as "jihad" v. ""hirabah", since it defers getting into the heart of the argument. I'm not being critical, but it reminds me of the fight over the shape of the bargaining table preceding the Paris Peace talks that led to the US's surrender in Viet Nam.

Mac wrote:
I don't believe it's possible or practical to become strictly isolationist... but I also don't believe it's possible or practical to continue interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations as the UN appears determined to do.
The UN is useless and should, indeed must be abolished. I'll do a thread on that another time.
Mac wrote:

It wasn't only the Brits, JBG. Many other European nations had colonies but I generally agree with your observation. That being said, most of those colonies were abandoned many generations ago. How long should we continue punishing the descendants of those who made those choices? Shouldn't the citizens of those former colonies, most of whom weren't born when those colonies were abandoned, take responsibility for their own lives at some point?

Why should we feel responsible for their stupid choices? If they want to depopulate themselves in tribal wars, that's not our fault... and it's not our problem!! If they're starving because of their stupidity, why do we keep removing the impetus for them to change?
I don't believe, at all, in punishing the former subjects. If the governments of the former subjects refuse to ensure the safety of the world from activities originating from their countries, that leaves little choice, in my opinion, but to intervene. When Iraq, for example, was using its coffers to fund suicide bombing in Israel by paying familiies of bombers up to $50,000, it would be improper for the civilized world to be isolationist while Iraq was very much interfering in Israel's affairs by killing people there.

Similiarly, and here is the elephant in the room, where Saudi Arabia, flush with oil money since 1974 is spending the wealth on spreading a radical, warped version of Islam through its funding of madreassas, that is very much both an interference in every other countries' internal affairs, including the US, where some of these schools are located. Indicrectly, by sewing the seekds of war, the interference is much greater.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JBG wrote:
When you debate with me, whether in a Courtroom, on a Board or in person, I do not become hung up on definitiional terms, such as "jihad" v. ""hirabah", since it defers getting into the heart of the argument. I'm not being critical, but it reminds me of the fight over the shape of the bargaining table preceding the Paris Peace talks that led to the US's surrender in Viet Nam.

I'm not hung up on defining terms or spelling... but if I suddenly start calling apples something else... oranges, for instance... please tell me.

JBG wrote:
I don't believe, at all, in punishing the former subjects. If the governments of the former subjects refuse to ensure the safety of the world from activities originating from their countries, that leaves little choice, in my opinion, but to intervene. When Iraq, for example, was using its coffers to fund suicide bombing in Israel by paying familiies of bombers up to $50,000, it would be improper for the civilized world to be isolationist while Iraq was very much interfering in Israel's affairs by killing people there.

If we continue blaming the current governments of the former occupying powers for the failures of the local governments (past and present), are we not punishing the descendants of those in the past who made the decision to return those colonies to local control? Would the world have been better off if those colonies were retained as such despite local pressure for autonomy?

Iraq is an interesting example. The League of Nations mandated the British to take control of the area which is now called Iraq in 1921. The British returned local control in 1932 but retained some military presence first at request of King Faisal who died in 1933, then at request of his son, King Ghazi.

During WWII, in 1941 the Brits reoccupied Iraq again because Nazi sympathies of the military government which followed the death of King Ghazi in 1939. Local control was returned in 1947 when the Brit restored the Hashemite monarchy... which was soon overthrown by a military coup.

Basically, from the time when the League of Nations gave the mandate to do so, the Brits were trying to bring democratic monarchy similar to their own model. As soon as they pulled back their military forces, the Iraqi military would overthrow the government and establish a miilitary junta. This despite the obvious advantage of having the second largest reserves of oil on the planet.

In other words, military intervention hasn't worked in the past. Planting democracy hasn't worked. What makes you believe they'll work now?

JBG wrote:
Similiarly, and here is the elephant in the room, where Saudi Arabia, flush with oil money since 1974 is spending the wealth on spreading a radical, warped version of Islam through its funding of madreassas, that is very much both an interference in every other countries' internal affairs, including the US, where some of these schools are located. Indicrectly, by sewing the seekds of war, the interference is much greater.

There is no question the Saudis haven't been held to task for their activities. Now... who would you suggest for this task? The UN? The US? What can we do if they simply laugh at our objections?

-Mac
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Basically, from the time when the League of Nations gave the mandate to do so, the Brits were trying to bring democratic monarchy similar to their own model. As soon as they pulled back their military forces, the Iraqi military would overthrow the government and establish a miilitary junta. This despite the obvious advantage of having the second largest reserves of oil on the planet.In other words, military intervention hasn't worked in the past. Planting democracy hasn't worked. What makes you believe they'll work now?
Maybe local control is never a viable option for the safety of the West. Remember, it's not a case of rule by the locals v. rule by the Brits. It's a case of rule by a thug with a local-sounding name vs. benevolent outside control. If the former results in planes crashign into buildings the choice is clear.

And by the way, to address your next point, the Saudi monarchy should similarly suffer the loss of thugocracy.
[/quote]
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So is the "best" response to future terror attacks might be to stomp and walk away? Forget this "occupying forces" nonsense... just give them an abject lesson on the power of modern weaponry and leave them to clean up the mess?


Looking at military intervention options from purely a perspective of national (or Anglospheric, if you prefer) interest, which I believe to be the right approach, I don't think an either/or approach will be successful.

We know from history that democracy can be imposed and that it can prosper, whether that tradition existed previously (Germany) or not (Japan). We also know that democracy will sometimes not take root ("Palestine"), or can revert to some form of totalitarianism (Russia).

I think the above-quoted strategy can be the correct one, at times. However, it must be sufficiently damaging to the offending party that reconciliation is more appealing / possible than retaliation (Falkland Islands?). It is possible that if this strategy had been employed in the Gulf War, "Gulf War II" might not have been necesarry.

Iraq and Afghanistan are still in play, and I think it is simply too early to decide whether Coalition efforts there will be successful. I think that victory is achievable in both cases.
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
We know from history that democracy can be imposed and that it can prosper, whether that tradition existed previously (Germany) or not (Japan). We also know that democracy will sometimes not take root ("Palestine"), or can revert to some form of totalitarianism (Russia).
Germany and Japan are pseudo-democracies. Both have smothering coalitions that rule out any real changes. Basically, both have defaulted back to similar forms of government that prevailed pre-WW I, with a modern veneer. Similarly,Russia is returning to Czarist conditions.

I generally believe that very little changes and history repeats itself. Even the American Revolution wasn't so revolutionary -- after all, the settlers knew, from their experience as Englishmen, that people choose their own governments.
Kriger





Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 16
Reputation: 3.4Reputation: 3.4Reputation: 3.4
votes: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JBG wrote:
Germany and Japan are pseudo-democracies. Both have smothering coalitions that rule out any real changes.


Germany's electoral system may rule out radical shifts in policy, however it is still a functioning democracy. In fact, one could make the case that Germany is more of a functioning democracy than Canada, because here a party can get a majority government with only 37 or 38% of the vote, while simultaneously a party with substantial public support (eg. the Greens nationally, the Reform/Alliance in Atlantic Canada) can get no seats despite significant public support.
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kriger wrote:
JBG wrote:
Germany and Japan are pseudo-democracies. Both have smothering coalitions that rule out any real changes.


Germany's electoral system may rule out radical shifts in policy, however it is still a functioning democracy. In fact, one could make the case that Germany is more of a functioning democracy than Canada, because here a party can get a majority government with only 37 or 38% of the vote, while simultaneously a party with substantial public support (eg. the Greens nationally, the Reform/Alliance in Atlantic Canada) can get no seats despite significant public support.
The problem with rep-by-prop systems like Germany is that the governing party has a stock excuse for ignoring its election promises; they ask the public, in effect "how many elections do you want", knowing full wel that there never will be a majority government.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apparently, fourth place is the new first place in the deranged minds of Paul supporters.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....cores.html

The story does not seem to mention that this great victory is a fourth place finish, in a state where the Thompson and Guilliani did not even campaign.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just watching th SC primary. Wonder if fifth place will become the new first tonight?

Giuliani is going to have to drop out if he gets a last place finish.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Giuliani is going to have to drop out if he gets a last place finish.


My understanding is that he's focused entirely on Florida, which is his 'make or break' - anything less than first will take him out.
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Quote:
Giuliani is going to have to drop out if he gets a last place finish.


My understanding is that he's focused entirely on Florida, which is his 'make or break' - anything less than first will take him out.

Giuliani's pull among Hispanic Republicans, especailly Cubans should do the trick in Florida.

Given that all GOP campaigns except Romney's are short of funds, I think Giuliani was smart to sit out the New Hampshires and Iowas. Those are media fests but very small states.

I think Giuliani will be far more marketable in the rest of the country than most imagine. He's known as the mayor that made NYC safe for Middle America to visit. His restoration of law and order plays well to the "redneck" rural vote. His record (extremely good) should trump his urban manners.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Giuliani's biggest problem in the South and Midwest is going to his issues with gun control. If he can modify his stance strongly and sincerely enough (at the very least, respecting state jurisdiction) he should be okay.

Agreed on record. He's easily got the strongest governing record on spending and law and order of any of the candidates, especially Huckabee.
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 can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Ron Paul @ Google

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB