Friday, September 08, 2006
World War III
RP left a comment to my last post that touched a nerve, so here we go.
RP first argues that the Taliban are winning the war in Southern Afghanistan. While the CBC paints that picture pretty nicely, I disagree. Schools have been built, women now have rights, and they have a semi-democratic government, and most importantly they have hope. The war might not yet be won, but it's not being lost.
There is one aspect of the war that the Taliban is winning by miles, and thats the war of wills. The Taliban will not just go away, they've made that very clear. But everytime they kill one of our guys, Jack Layton is the first to call for withdrawl. I agree with RP that we need to win the hearts and minds of Afghani's, but how can we do that if they constantly see us questioning our beliefs?
On the same day as NATO calls for more troops, Jack Layton was calling for complete withdrawl. What kind of message does that send to the Afghani's we're trying to help, or the Taliban who wants do end our way of life? When Bin Laden says the West has a vulnerability that he intends to exploit, this is exactly what he's talking about.
The debate about Afghanistan seems to have changed since 9/11 as well. We seem to forget that we didn't go into Afghanistan under any pretense of helping free the people from a terrorist regime, that was Iraq. We went to Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban, not just unseat them from power. It's about making the world safer for us. These people want to end our way of life, and they've proven they have the will and the means to attack us. Once the Taliban has been exterminated, then Afghani's will have a chance to really build something out of their country.
The rage of the 3,000 dead seems to have passed, and we've become complacent. When our soldiers die, rather than seeking vengence, and fighting with renewed vigor, Candians talk about cutting-and-running. Thank God for the leadership of Stephen Harper. I shiver when I think about what it might take for Canadians to wake up and realize that this is, as George W. Bush put it, "the great ideological struggle of the twenty-first century".
What Bush means by that, is that this war isn't about force and might. There is no question that if the West decided to, we could scorch every inch of the ground in Afghanistan, and leave nothing behind. However, that would be inconsistant with our values.
The importance of this war shouldn't be lost on anybody either. Just as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor got the United States into World War 2, the attacks of 9/11 got the West involved in the Arab-Israeli war that has been going on since the beginning of time. Imagine what Europe, and the world, would be like now if the US had not responded with absolute resolve back then? Back then the West had the guts to stand up to facism, and it took two nuclear bombs to prove that we were up to the fight.
This war is entirely about wills. Does the West have the guts to actually fight for what's right - or will we let the attacks continue, with little or no reprecussions? If we run from this fight, what happens when Iran gets a nuke? Would they have any reason not to nuke Israel? They would wield that threat over the entire region, there is no doubt about that. The entire middle-east would basically be under the control of the Mullah's in Iran. Considering their love for the West, it would only be a matter of time until they used that threat against us.
The common denominator with every fight in the middle-east, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, soon to be in Iran and Syria: these people are very certain that we don't have the will to stop ANYTHING. They think our societies are weak, and we can't muster up the guts to actually put a stop to anything. And right now they're right.
World War 2 was the same way. The world tried to contain Hitler, ignore him hoping he'd go away, and appease him. If Hitler would have been dealt with early, the whole damn war could have been prevented. We are repeating exactly the same mistakes today. People like Mohammed Ahmadinejad, Sayed Hassan Nesrallah, Bashar Assad, Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and countless others openly call for the destruction of Israel and America. Not only is this allowed, people in the west defend their "right" to say it, even though these people would NEVER give their citizens the same right to speak out.
The true winner of a war can only truly be judged many years down the road. What really counts, is which side your on right now. When George W. Bush says "your either with us, or against us", he's bang-on the money. If you don't support the war and what it stands for, you are by proxy defending the attrocities that psychotics like Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad have - and would like to - perpatrate across the globe.
RP asks "In the meantime, do we just keep throwing our soldiers into the fire and hope for a miracle?". We are only "throwing our soldiers into the fire" if we send them over there and don't back them up. I do believe we should continue giving NATO, and our soldiers every resource they require to get the job done. I wouldn't call that "throwing our soldiers into the fire". Fuck the Taliban, God Bless Canada. Go get 'em boys!
Now, I'm off to my first day of classes.
RP first argues that the Taliban are winning the war in Southern Afghanistan. While the CBC paints that picture pretty nicely, I disagree. Schools have been built, women now have rights, and they have a semi-democratic government, and most importantly they have hope. The war might not yet be won, but it's not being lost.
There is one aspect of the war that the Taliban is winning by miles, and thats the war of wills. The Taliban will not just go away, they've made that very clear. But everytime they kill one of our guys, Jack Layton is the first to call for withdrawl. I agree with RP that we need to win the hearts and minds of Afghani's, but how can we do that if they constantly see us questioning our beliefs?
On the same day as NATO calls for more troops, Jack Layton was calling for complete withdrawl. What kind of message does that send to the Afghani's we're trying to help, or the Taliban who wants do end our way of life? When Bin Laden says the West has a vulnerability that he intends to exploit, this is exactly what he's talking about.
The debate about Afghanistan seems to have changed since 9/11 as well. We seem to forget that we didn't go into Afghanistan under any pretense of helping free the people from a terrorist regime, that was Iraq. We went to Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban, not just unseat them from power. It's about making the world safer for us. These people want to end our way of life, and they've proven they have the will and the means to attack us. Once the Taliban has been exterminated, then Afghani's will have a chance to really build something out of their country.
The rage of the 3,000 dead seems to have passed, and we've become complacent. When our soldiers die, rather than seeking vengence, and fighting with renewed vigor, Candians talk about cutting-and-running. Thank God for the leadership of Stephen Harper. I shiver when I think about what it might take for Canadians to wake up and realize that this is, as George W. Bush put it, "the great ideological struggle of the twenty-first century".
What Bush means by that, is that this war isn't about force and might. There is no question that if the West decided to, we could scorch every inch of the ground in Afghanistan, and leave nothing behind. However, that would be inconsistant with our values.
The importance of this war shouldn't be lost on anybody either. Just as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor got the United States into World War 2, the attacks of 9/11 got the West involved in the Arab-Israeli war that has been going on since the beginning of time. Imagine what Europe, and the world, would be like now if the US had not responded with absolute resolve back then? Back then the West had the guts to stand up to facism, and it took two nuclear bombs to prove that we were up to the fight.
This war is entirely about wills. Does the West have the guts to actually fight for what's right - or will we let the attacks continue, with little or no reprecussions? If we run from this fight, what happens when Iran gets a nuke? Would they have any reason not to nuke Israel? They would wield that threat over the entire region, there is no doubt about that. The entire middle-east would basically be under the control of the Mullah's in Iran. Considering their love for the West, it would only be a matter of time until they used that threat against us.
The common denominator with every fight in the middle-east, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, soon to be in Iran and Syria: these people are very certain that we don't have the will to stop ANYTHING. They think our societies are weak, and we can't muster up the guts to actually put a stop to anything. And right now they're right.
World War 2 was the same way. The world tried to contain Hitler, ignore him hoping he'd go away, and appease him. If Hitler would have been dealt with early, the whole damn war could have been prevented. We are repeating exactly the same mistakes today. People like Mohammed Ahmadinejad, Sayed Hassan Nesrallah, Bashar Assad, Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and countless others openly call for the destruction of Israel and America. Not only is this allowed, people in the west defend their "right" to say it, even though these people would NEVER give their citizens the same right to speak out.
The true winner of a war can only truly be judged many years down the road. What really counts, is which side your on right now. When George W. Bush says "your either with us, or against us", he's bang-on the money. If you don't support the war and what it stands for, you are by proxy defending the attrocities that psychotics like Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad have - and would like to - perpatrate across the globe.
RP asks "In the meantime, do we just keep throwing our soldiers into the fire and hope for a miracle?". We are only "throwing our soldiers into the fire" if we send them over there and don't back them up. I do believe we should continue giving NATO, and our soldiers every resource they require to get the job done. I wouldn't call that "throwing our soldiers into the fire". Fuck the Taliban, God Bless Canada. Go get 'em boys!
Now, I'm off to my first day of classes.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
A huge fault in your argument is claiming that the Taliban can be exterminated, as if it's a forest we can chop down. We've proven to ourselves that it's not that sample. The Taliban is the product of hatred for the West, which for obvious reasons has now become more widespread than before 2001.
You claim that if Hitler was dealt with earlier, we could have avoided a lot; I don't disagree with that. But how can you claim we're making the same mistakes today?! We're fighting pre-emptive wars, how can we be any earlier??
You're also wrong in saying that you're either with us or against us. That illogical reasoning works well in the mega churches of the Southern US, but Canadians generally allow each other to criticize the government, since we're not scared of being called unpatriotic. As you said, we could scorch every inch of Afghanistan. Would you hold your mouth in fear of being a traitor? Absolutely not, because this is Canada, we are free to point out where our own government has made mistakes. George Bush says "you're either with us or against us" so that Bill O'Reilly can stuff the American flag in anyone's face who criticizes the government.
Like you said, time will tell.
You claim that if Hitler was dealt with earlier, we could have avoided a lot; I don't disagree with that. But how can you claim we're making the same mistakes today?! We're fighting pre-emptive wars, how can we be any earlier??
You're also wrong in saying that you're either with us or against us. That illogical reasoning works well in the mega churches of the Southern US, but Canadians generally allow each other to criticize the government, since we're not scared of being called unpatriotic. As you said, we could scorch every inch of Afghanistan. Would you hold your mouth in fear of being a traitor? Absolutely not, because this is Canada, we are free to point out where our own government has made mistakes. George Bush says "you're either with us or against us" so that Bill O'Reilly can stuff the American flag in anyone's face who criticizes the government.
Like you said, time will tell.
I don't want to wade in too deep here, but RP, the problem isn't how to "win the hearts and minds" of the Afghanis, it's how to win YOUR heart and mind. Like Nate says, the issue here is actually our own security (not Afghanistan's), and if it comes down to it Nato could destroy each and every country that ever thought about supporting terrorism to achieve that goal. One more attack on American soil will be all the motivation they need to do just that.
Pointless debate about whether or not we should be involved is only emboldening the terrorist mind and others who are not yet terrorists but think the West is depraved and weak. It will lead to one attack after another, each one striking closer to home.
And lastly, blaming our endlessly tolerant society for the actions of terrorists is just about as depraved as you can get. Even America, with it's "melting pot" society is more tolerant to others than any of those failed states that it's trying to give a hand up to, and that has helped nothing. Islamic Fascism is not interested in tolerance, and you'd have to have your head stuck in the sand to deny that.
Pointless debate about whether or not we should be involved is only emboldening the terrorist mind and others who are not yet terrorists but think the West is depraved and weak. It will lead to one attack after another, each one striking closer to home.
And lastly, blaming our endlessly tolerant society for the actions of terrorists is just about as depraved as you can get. Even America, with it's "melting pot" society is more tolerant to others than any of those failed states that it's trying to give a hand up to, and that has helped nothing. Islamic Fascism is not interested in tolerance, and you'd have to have your head stuck in the sand to deny that.
What scares me about the NDP right now is that they seem to be on the wrong side. Making Israel out to be the agressor when there are 100 million muslims surrounding it, making threats on it's existance almost daily, is an indication to me that they're not on Israel's side, and are not interested in Israel's right to exist.
I know that NDP is anti-America, and anti-Capitalism, but just because the Islamofascists are too doesn't make them good allies. They hate the NDP just as much as they hate America/Israel/Western Values.
I know that NDP is anti-America, and anti-Capitalism, but just because the Islamofascists are too doesn't make them good allies. They hate the NDP just as much as they hate America/Israel/Western Values.
Can you both diclose the point when you think middle-eastern wars will end? Is it when we find the Taliban factory and hit the stop button? Or maybe when we've bombed them into a loving relationship with us?
In your assignment, please use the terms "cut and run" and "with us or against us" at least once.
Also, make at least one comparison to the Nazis, who successfully invaded many countries fully intending to take over the world, just like the Taliban (?!).
In your assignment, please use the terms "cut and run" and "with us or against us" at least once.
Also, make at least one comparison to the Nazis, who successfully invaded many countries fully intending to take over the world, just like the Taliban (?!).
To paraphrase your favourite politician, George W. Bush, this struggle is between ideas, and it will be over when one side gives up. It looks like one side is losing right now. Care to guess which one?
This is even more interesting, what will people in the middle east look like after they've "given up," the residents of Oceania?
I'm not talking about the people of the middle east, my friend. There's a fair share of people in the west that don't think we should be fighting this war, or even worse, don't think we should win.
When you consider the most important geopolitical issues of the day, RP, who do you claim as the villain? I'm thinking environment,
When you consider the most important geopolitical issues of the day, RP, who do you claim as the villain? I'm thinking environment,
I was pointing to your claim that the war will be won when the people in the middle east have "given up," which seems incredibly naive, don't you think?
Unless you agree that the people in the middle east will never give up, and the war *can* only end when we in the West give up, because that I would agree with.
What I meant was that the West is in danger of giving up, and when that happens, the war will be won by a group of enemies that has no interest in our liberal way of life. That's bad.
rp, the Taliban is not a "product of hatred for the West, which for obvious reasons has now become more widespread than before 2001."
The Taliban is the product of a violent, perverted version of Islam. These extremists don't hate just America, they hate Canada, India, France, Britian, Russia, and everybody else in between.
I have two things to ask you. Would you rather live in a democratic British-law based society, or one ruled by a dictator(s), based on Sharia law? Furthermore, do you think that your way of life is worth fighting for?
Post a Comment
The Taliban is the product of a violent, perverted version of Islam. These extremists don't hate just America, they hate Canada, India, France, Britian, Russia, and everybody else in between.
I have two things to ask you. Would you rather live in a democratic British-law based society, or one ruled by a dictator(s), based on Sharia law? Furthermore, do you think that your way of life is worth fighting for?
Links to this post:
<< Home
