[quote]hedo wrote:
Not a sidestep. But your kind of funny to debate. Are you taking on the persona of others. Just attack the poster if you don’t have a game.
You could answer the question or are you sidestepping?
Pointless at this point isn’t it son?
[/quote]
I don’t understand the question.
-Sep a.k.a son
Hedo,
Don’t tell me you are going to start nit picking about my posting style now? I have exercised a lot of restraint for quite a period of time now, and honestly, I don’t know why I bother when it isn’t even appreciated.
Oh yes, it must be that whoooshing sound article. Perhaps you should find some more appropriate targets for your moralizing? There are plenty!
Anyway, tough guy (telling me how men behave and what would earn a punch in the face earns you the title), if you are going to respond to what people say and discuss issues, I’ll be happy to do the same.
So, to the issues…
The USSR wasn’t testing Canadian boundaries because it was going to attack Canada. It was tweaking the US, which in turn tweaked the USSR.
There was an ongoing game of overflights, sub approaches and other nonsense which showed each other that they had the capability to strike each other.
If you want to try to claim that there was any danger of invasion due to this, it would be pure fantasy.
Regardless, if you really want to maintain this line of thought, do you think the world owes you something? I mean, what would you honestly expect Canada to do because of this?
Some type of worshipful do anything you ask of us lapdog perhaps? Sorry. You didn’t buy that.
Maybe you should cut off Internet access to the other countries so that we can’t comment on the behavior of the US. Perhaps that would be more appropriate?
I think it is sad that people aren’t able to listen to differing opinions without lumping them all into the label of liberal appeasing pacifists who are too stupid to see the nature of terrorism.
Stop trying to fit yourself into that group.
The US did not support or fund the Taliban or Al Qaeda. These groups were barely in existence when the US was involved in resisting the Russians in Afghanistan.
I think some people need to do study this before they put forward these arguments.
Hedo, I think you are wastinjg your time. You understand the subject matter and have drawn the logical conclusions. The people you are debating do not understand the subject matter.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hedo,
Don’t tell me you are going to start nit picking about my posting style now? I have exercised a lot of restraint for quite a period of time now, and honestly, I don’t know why I bother when it isn’t even appreciated.
Oh yes, it must be that whoooshing sound article. Perhaps you should find some more appropriate targets for your moralizing? There are plenty!
Anyway, tough guy (telling me how men behave and what would earn a punch in the face earns you the title), if you are going to respond to what people say and discuss issues, I’ll be happy to do the same.
So, to the issues…
The USSR wasn’t testing Canadian boundaries because it was going to attack Canada. It was tweaking the US, which in turn tweaked the USSR.
There was an ongoing game of overflights, sub approaches and other nonsense which showed each other that they had the capability to strike each other.
If you want to try to claim that there was any danger of invasion due to this, it would be pure fantasy.
Regardless, if you really want to maintain this line of thought, do you think the world owes you something? I mean, what would you honestly expect Canada to do because of this?
Some type of worshipful do anything you ask of us lapdog perhaps? Sorry. You didn’t buy that.
Maybe you should cut off Internet access to the other countries so that we can’t comment on the behavior of the US. Perhaps that would be more appropriate?
I think it is sad that people aren’t able to listen to differing opinions without lumping them all into the label of liberal appeasing pacifists who are too stupid to see the nature of terrorism.
Stop trying to fit yourself into that group.[/quote]
OK Vroom you win happy now. Vroom the pacifist, anti-american canadian will now advise us on how to make war on our enemies.
I’m a quiet tough guy. I don’t need to prove anything to you. You probably know why don’t you? I don’t have anything to prove. I’ve made my bones in a lot of different theatres. So you win Vroom. More out of boredom then anything else but hey that’s saying something.
I listen to differing opinions all the time when they make sense. Sorry if that rules a lot of your posts out. I’ve noticed you trying to be civil but trying ,and being civil, are too different things as you well know. It’s also about perspective. If Rangertab says “war sucks” I take it too heart. If Vroom says “war sucks”, it’s a whole different perspective. It’s two warriors talking vs. a warrior and a pacifist liberal from Canada. You might not getut no big deal.
A person who saw the aftermath of 9/11 has an entirely different perspective about dealing with murdering terrorist scum then you do. I don’t want to understand them, appease them or negotiate with them. I want them dead. Any strategist knows that Iraq was a key point. It’s done. Move on to something else now to complain about.
i’m going to take Zap’s advice. As I have seen before arguing with you is futile. You simply don’t get it and I find the echange in general not very civil.
Have a wonderful evening.
[quote]Sepukku wrote:
hedo wrote:
Not a sidestep. But your kind of funny to debate. Are you taking on the persona of others. Just attack the poster if you don’t have a game.
You could answer the question or are you sidestepping?
Pointless at this point isn’t it son?
I don’t understand the question.
-Sep a.k.a son[/quote]
I didn’t realize you were a kid. I wouldn’t have taken your post so seriously.
Read some of the other forums. Lot’s of good advice on training, nutrition, etc. Seriously.
[quote]Sepukku wrote:
I think it’s sexy how you avoid reading anything that undermines your arguements… You stud, you.
Anyways, I wasn’t against the invasion of afghanistan, but as I said, many times, you should look at the big picture. Supporting and Funding the Taliban and Al Qaeda during the Afghanistan War against the Soviet Union is effectively what put them into power in the first place. Thus, the U.S. Government put themselves in the position they are in now.
[/quote]Support the Taliban and Al Qaeda? When did we do this? We have never supported terrorist. Im pretty sure we didnt ask Osama to send a few people over and just fly some planes into the towers. We are in this because terrorist attacked us. Not because the US supported any kind of terrorism.[quote]
So basically, what you believe, is that in order to prevent the terrorist ideology from taking hold, is to eliminate all potential threats. Which basically means eliminating all Muslims because they’re obviously the only ones who will accept a fundamentalist muslim ideology. Every country in the world “harbours terrorists” or at least potentials. And since we both know a terrorist isn’t born a terrorist, we know that it is a choice that is made. Anybody can make that choice, maybe we should erradicate free will.
[/quote]Yes. anyone can make the choice to become a terrorist. And I have to say that you cant change a persons beliefs in religion. Now im gonna have to quote Pookie on this. “to get rid of terrorism you have to make the idea of being a terrorist unpopular.” Now how you do that I dont know. Now as far as muslims being the only ones who will accept the beliefes. I agree they are not. But the majority of the terrorist are muslim that are Wahabi (Sunni). Muslim religion from what I have seen that is not with the extrem beliefes of the Wahabi can tolerat pretty much all. So it is just some of the muslims that embrace the ideologey.[quote]
Are you a boxer? You are extremely adept at sidestepping.
-Sep[/quote]
Now on this. I think He has brought up some valide points. I dont think he has sidestepped anything.
"CIA covert action worked through Pakistani intelligence services to reach Afghani rebel groups. That operation began after December 1979, when Russian forces mounted a surprise intervention in Afghanistan. Fighting between CIA-funded Afghans and the Russians with their Khalq allies continued through 1988. At that time Moscow, having suffered substantial losses and incurred excessive costs in the country, decided to withdraw. The last Soviet forces left Afghanistan in early 1989, but warfare continued as the rebel forces contested with the Khalq regime for control of Kabul.
The CIA ended its aid in 1992, the Russians sometime later, and the pro-Russian government in Kabul fell. In the final stages of that struggle the Taliban began to emerge as a major force in Afghan politics and it subsequently drove the Northern Alliance from Kabul, confining the remnants of the original rebel alliance to a small enclave in the north-eastern part of the country. The fundamentalist leader Osama bin Laden, though getting his start in the CIA-funded war of the 1970s and 80s, did not become a prominent fugitive in Afghanistan until he returned to the country as the Taliban's guest in 1996."
Afghanistan: Lessons from the Last War
“The Taliban are one of the mujahideen (“holy warriors” or “freedom fighters”) groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen.”
"The most well-known and feared mujahideen were the various loosely-aligned opposition groups that fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989, and then fought against each other in the following civil war. These mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States (under the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China.[1] Reagan referred to these mujahideen as “freedom fighters … defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability.” [2] In Western popular culture, the mujahideen were portrayed favourably in the popular actions films The Living Daylights and Rambo III. After the Soviets withdrew, the mujahideen broke into two loosely-aligned opposing factions, the Northern Alliance and the Taliban, which then engaged in civil war for control of Afghanistan.
A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent mujahideen organizer and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the American, Pakistani, and Saudi governments. In 1988, bin Laden broke away from the MAK."
I dont disagree with you that sunni’s embrace it more than the other muslim groups. But the only people who are going to embrace a fundamentalist Muslim belief, will, by default, be Muslim. I’m just trying to understand how one would go about erradicating a terrorist threat that can be embraced by any muslim, at any time.
I agree with pookie that it should be made undesireable to hold such beliefs, and properly educated muslims who actually know something about Islam, find it completely repulsive and try to make it so for the rest of the Muslim world.
I stand with vroom in that this cannot be won by force alone.
-Sep
[quote]Goku_SS4 wrote:
Sepukku wrote:
I think it’s sexy how you avoid reading anything that undermines your arguements… You stud, you.
Anyways, I wasn’t against the invasion of afghanistan, but as I said, many times, you should look at the big picture. Supporting and Funding the Taliban and Al Qaeda during the Afghanistan War against the Soviet Union is effectively what put them into power in the first place. Thus, the U.S. Government put themselves in the position they are in now.
Support the Taliban and Al Qaeda? When did we do this? We have never supported terrorist. Im pretty sure we didnt ask Osama to send a few people over and just fly some planes into the towers. We are in this because terrorist attacked us. Not because the US supported any kind of terrorism.
So basically, what you believe, is that in order to prevent the terrorist ideology from taking hold, is to eliminate all potential threats. Which basically means eliminating all Muslims because they’re obviously the only ones who will accept a fundamentalist muslim ideology. Every country in the world “harbours terrorists” or at least potentials. And since we both know a terrorist isn’t born a terrorist, we know that it is a choice that is made. Anybody can make that choice, maybe we should erradicate free will.
Yes. anyone can make the choice to become a terrorist. And I have to say that you cant change a persons beliefs in religion. Now im gonna have to quote Pookie on this. “to get rid of terrorism you have to make the idea of being a terrorist unpopular.” Now how you do that I dont know. Now as far as muslims being the only ones who will accept the beliefes. I agree they are not. But the majority of the terrorist are muslim that are Wahabi (Sunni). Muslim religion from what I have seen that is not with the extrem beliefes of the Wahabi can tolerat pretty much all. So it is just some of the muslims that embrace the ideologey.
Are you a boxer? You are extremely adept at sidestepping.
-Sep
Now on this. I think He has brought up some valide points. I dont think he has sidestepped anything.[/quote]
G,
Here was the question. Did you see his answer? I didn’t? It was even condensed.
All I heard was more banter about the evil USA. You can’t change a person’s belief, make it unpopular to be a terrorist, etc? Wow. A list of things that don’t work. Not exactly a game plan to fight terrorism. I never said kill all muslims. I do advocate killing all terrorists as soon as we can id them, if they are muslim is not really our concern.
“My question, what would you do differently that would be better. The question is really one of strategy not of outcome. Many would say do it better or differently but have no idea how”.
Hedo,
Where the hell do you get this crap? I’m by no means a pacifist (neither am I anti-american). I’ve never once argued that force shouldn’t be used against terrorists.
You obviously don’t pay any attention to what I say, you don’t even know my stance on the isusue we are discussing, I’m sure. Hell, I haven’t even been very active in this thread at all.
So, when you apparently suggest I win, does that imply you now think Canada wasn’t going to be invaded, or are you just unwilling to have a civil discussion about that era?
Sure, I like to add a little barb at the end of my posts, but you should check yours… full of vitriol, while at the same time you criticise me.
There is a word for that.
Hedo,
We’ve never tried these things in any real capcity, we don’t know what will and won’t work.
Obviously, you have your opinion. Where you got it from, who knows.
I know you may not believe it, but the actions taken in the Middle East directly affect the opinions of the populace of the region.
Some actions may be wiser than others.
In any fucking case, taking wiser actions in the Middle East does not mean that force can’t be used also. Stop reading pacifism where it isn’t.
Yes Vroom you win. Your infallible logic and grasp of both sides of an issue has won the day once again.
We are all very lucky your here and of course very thankful for the Canadian military all these years.
Keep up the whiny comments at the end of all your posts we all look forward to what you’ll come up with next.
Toast your victory!!!
[quote]vroom wrote:
Wow. A list of things that don’t work. Not exactly a game plan to fight terrorism.
Hedo,
We’ve never tried these things in any real capcity, we don’t know what will and won’t work.
Obviously, you have your opinion. Where you got it from, who knows.
I know you may not believe it, but the actions taken in the Middle East directly affect the opinions of the populace of the region.
Some actions may be wiser than others.
In any fucking case, taking wiser actions in the Middle East does not mean that force can’t be used also. Stop reading pacifism where it isn’t.[/quote]
Almost but getting closer.
Who advocates force alone? Changing thinking, particularly in the middle east, is not the same as changing it in Canada or the US. Force is a part of everyday life throughout the world.
To think that changing the direction of a movement without the use or fear of force is unworkable.
Regardless the enemy has determined the lethality of the battle at this point. It will be brutal for them because they chose that path.
[quote] Yes Vroom you win. Your infallible logic and grasp of both sides of an issue has won the day once again.
We are all very lucky your here and of course very thankful for the Canadian military all these years.
Keep up the whiny comments at the end of all your posts we all look forward to what you’ll come up with next.
Toast your victory!!![/quote]
Hedo,
Were you saying something about whiny comments?
I don’t see how you can complain about my posts and then write crap like that…
Anyhow, it is clear that the only thing you seem willing to understand is force, which has immediate and visible actions, but things you can’t see and that take longer to have an effect, you discount.
Something that doesn’t seem to be reflected in your comments concerning force is the recruitment of new terrorists from currently peaceful citizens.
What I mean is that there is a process taking place in the Middle East that is converting children, teens, adults or whatever into fanatic ideologists that are willing to die for their beliefs.
[Imagine if they were fighting and dying for freedom, something most of us consider appropriate over here]
It is pretty obvious, to most observers, that force is not getting rid of this process. So, to be clear, I’m not saying we shouldn’t use force, but that we use force where it is warranted and we use other means as well.
I don’t see how that makes me pacifistic, anti-american, disconnected from reality, or any other hated filled characterization you wish to throw my way.
You are welcome to focus on the virtues and effectiveness of force from your point of view, but perhaps some day you will grant that there are other important points of view also?
[quote]Sepukku wrote:
…
I stand with vroom in that this cannot be won by force alone.
-Sep[/quote]
That is why we are not using force alone.
Why do you think we are building schools, treatment plants, etc as well as trying to start a democratic government?
If we wanted to use force alone we would just bomb until the terrorists quit. That has never been the plan.
[quote]That is why we are not using force alone.
Why do you think we are building schools, treatment plants, etc as well as trying to start a democratic government?
If we wanted to use force alone we would just bomb until the terrorists quit. That has never been the plan.[/quote]
Zap,
This is a far cry from effectively using tools other than force.
The biggest problem is probably the constitution that has been proposed by the Iraqi people. It does very little to establish the ideals of a democracy as we would see it.
Also, building the school isn’t as important as what is taught in it. All we are doing is putting some things in place and blindly hoping that things happen to go our way when they are used.
It is ludicrous to expect everyone in Iraq to deny thousands of years of history and suddenly throw out everything they have been doing for generations and react as we would and do things we would like them to do without some type of coercion.
Doing things other than force implies “doing things”, not just piling up some bricks and mortar as a goodwill gesture, which is doomed to fail if nothing further is done.
Heck, the administration is throwing money at the problem because it simply doesn’t know what else to do at this point.
vroom, perhaps you could lend your expertise in this matter to the administration.
You have shown such incredible anaysis in the culture and history of the middle east and how to instill democracy and eliminate Islamic terrorism I am sure they would jump at the chance to work with you.
Oh wait a minute, all you have done is criticize the efforts of those that know far more about the situation than you do.
Oh well, you are decent at criticizing things you don’t understand. Carry on with that then and leave the heavy lifting to the professionals.
[quote] vroom, perhaps you could lend your expertise in this matter to the administration.
You have shown such incredible anaysis in the culture and history of the middle east and how to instill democracy and eliminate Islamic terrorism I am sure they would jump at the chance to work with you.
Oh wait a minute, all you have done is criticize the efforts of those that know far more about the situation than you do.
Oh well, you are decent at criticizing things you don’t understand. Carry on with that then and leave the heavy lifting to the professionals.[/quote]
Zap, you too? You don’t have the ability to deal with my comments yourself so you have to resort to personal attacks?
So, on the other hand, what you are doing is cheerleading and agreeing with whatever the administration decides to do, since you can’t think for yourself.
Is that better in your view?
God forbid somebody actually tries to think for themself and come up with their own opinion. I see from you exactly where that will lead.
It’s a crying shame, it really is.
Fair enough Zapf,
but I was responding to Hedo, who remains in belief that the solution is to kill every terrorist as soon as they can I.D. them. To which my argument was that wouldn’t work due to the fact that you cannot kill every terrorist in the world for reasons im not going to repeat.
What exactly is the plan anyways? I’m sure you don’t have any more access to the official game plan than I do.
If it really is to promote democracy, why did the “Coalition of the Willing” ignore the democratic institution of the U.N. which was established to ensure that international affairs are handled democractically?
Is it not contradictory that democracy is being institutionalized under an occupation? Granted, the situation is more complex than that, Saddam is a cunt, and it is a good thing that he is no longer in power.
But the world is not White and Black. Do you really think, just because it seems heroic and good to bring democracy to these people, that it will actually work?
Look at the history of the people, the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites in that area have been warring for centuries. And now, just because The West has come “to save the day” you think they’re just going to drop their weapons and hug?
If even plausible, it will take decades, and The Brave Western World is already talking about withdrawing. Not surprising considering the losses. Most people talk about helping others, but how many people would sacrifice their family members, or friends in order to better the lives of others?
American Casualites since the war began:
Roughly 2,000
Iraqi Civilian Body Count:
Reported to be between 26-30,000
Does it really surprise you that most of the world is skeptical of the U.S. government when you look at their history of “Benevolence”? The citations I have already provided are just a few of the recorded and internationally known historical facts.
Yes, in theory, saving the world sounds extremely enticing, however, in reality, it is not as simple as a political cartoon of Uncle Sam and The British Bulldog in the boxing ring with Osama Bin Ladin.
Does the End Justify the Means? The Nazis thought so. They thought they were doing the world a favor. And you can bet they thought God was on their side, just like everyone else.
Sorry for this mega ramble, I don’t expect to earn your agreement or your respect, but so far it has been a fun challenge and an opportunity to learn. Thanks,
-Sep.
[quote]Sorry for this mega ramble, I don’t expect to earn your agreement or your respect, but so far it has been a fun challenge and an opportunity to learn. Thanks,
Sep
[/quote]
Your welcome. I will agree all this is fun and always an opportunity to learn.
I’ll still disagree with your arguments, of which I have given plenty of thought.
Respect…that takes awhile and comes with tim but I remain optomistic.