[Regina]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Look whos talking. In fact throughout this topic on multiple threads the only person who really injects politics of the federal kind is ridenhack. I have been dealing with the issues at hand and when people like you don't agree you accuse me of political bias.

I'm in fact going against the Liberal party on this one so you haven't got alot to stand on.

As for bringing it, it seems you launched the dodge response and didn't really give me anything intelligent to respond to.

Look in the mirror if you want to talk about a lack of credibility because you are injecting your personal feelings and political bias against me because I happen to have an opinion that you don't share.

Sorry I can't get invested in a discussion based on "they" or "grow up" and "you guys."

[DerbyX]

Regina Regina:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Look whos talking. In fact throughout this topic on multiple threads the only person who really injects politics of the federal kind is ridenhack. I have been dealing with the issues at hand and when people like you don't agree you accuse me of political bias.

I'm in fact going against the Liberal party on this one so you haven't got alot to stand on.

As for bringing it, it seems you launched the dodge response and didn't really give me anything intelligent to respond to.

Look in the mirror if you want to talk about a lack of credibility because you are injecting your personal feelings and political bias against me because I happen to have an opinion that you don't share.

Sorry I can't get invested in a discussion based on "they" or "grow up" and "you guys."

Case in point. I keep up bringing up legitimate points and you keep simply scoffing and waving your hands in a dismissive manner. If you had no interest in debating the points I raised with Eyebrock then you shouldn't have jumped in.

[Jarem]

DerbyX DerbyX:

We can pat ourselves on the back all we want and point to infrastructure built as somehow validating our presence there but so what? The USSR did the same thing and we could have achieved virutally everything we achieved now without resorting to using military force.

Really? If I remember correctly, USSR "intervention" looked much different than NATO mission today.

DerbyX DerbyX:

We have more then enough reports of the corruption rampant throughout the gov't we installed and know we hear about our soldiers being told to ignore the raping of little boys so that we can avoid confrontation and thats just plain wrong.

Well, corruption is problem of many countries without guerilla fighting and NATO mission going on.
And you use that "little boys raped" argument so often, that it's credibility falls down.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Good intentions don't excuse what we did to get there especially in light of other facts and history.

What facts and what parts of history.
You are not politician to speak with understatements and generalised "all-should-know-what-I-mean" opinions.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Who gave us the authority to do anything we have done over there? Simply believing we are right doesn't mean we are.

United Nations Security Council Resolutions S/RES/1386, S/RES/1413, S/RES/1444, S/RES/1510, S/RES/1563, S/RES/1623, S/RES/1659, S/RES/1707, and S/RES/1776.

[-Mario-]

Come on guys.... quit the personnal attacks and flaming

[Regina]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Case in point. I keep up bringing up legitimate points and you keep simply scoffing and waving your hands in a dismissive manner. If you had no interest in debating the points I raised with Eyebrock then you shouldn't have jumped in.

I got involved when you again started calling people "Idiots" and edited your post. It wasn't until then I saw how your feverish generalizations and opinion was being passed on as fact because you said it.
Dismissive? What legitimate point do you have anyway?

[DerbyX]

Jarem Jarem:

1) Really? If I remember correctly, USSR "intervention" looked much different than NATO mission today.


2) Well, corruption is problem of many countries without guerilla fighting and NATO mission going on.
And you use that "little boys raped" argument so often, that it's credibility falls down.


3) What facts and what parts of history.
You are not politician to speak with understatements and generalised "all-should-know-what-I-mean" opinions.

4) United Nations Security Council Resolutions S/RES/1386, S/RES/1413, S/RES/1444, S/RES/1510, S/RES/1563, S/RES/1623, S/RES/1659, S/RES/1707, and S/RES/1776.

1b) Yet you ignore the fact that unlike Canada's sudden post 9/11 love for all things afghanistan, russia/USSR had a history of giving aid to them for 100 years or so and unlike us were responding to request for help. They also had to fight world opinion and a US backed enemy who was essentially doing what the US wanted in giving them a vietnam and who walked away from the the moment the russians pulled out.

2b) The credibility falls down? We find out that members of the security forces we have trained and modernized are raping little boys and that our troops are being told not to intercede and thats an unimportant detail?

3b) Make gooder sense. The same argument can be used against you and its actually complimentary to the argument that we simply don't know enough about the region nor have the understanding of it to interfer like we have.

4b) All, the much vaunted argument "The UN says we can". The same people who use that argument dismiss the UN at every other turn when it goes against them and quite often the same people using that argument dismiss the UN completely as any real authority.

Welcome to the forum.

[DerbyX]

Regina Regina:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Case in point. I keep up bringing up legitimate points and you keep simply scoffing and waving your hands in a dismissive manner. If you had no interest in debating the points I raised with Eyebrock then you shouldn't have jumped in.

I got involved when you again started calling people "Idiots" and edited your post. It wasn't until then I saw how your feverish generalizations and opinion was being passed on as fact because you said it.
Dismissive? What legitimate point do you have anyway?

My exchange with Eyebrock was old by the time you responded and If you are going to whine about me calling people idiots then you shouldn't say crap like "Did you get hit with the stupid stick" which is the same thing, or don't you consider that flaming?

[Regina]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Regina Regina:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Case in point. I keep up bringing up legitimate points and you keep simply scoffing and waving your hands in a dismissive manner. If you had no interest in debating the points I raised with Eyebrock then you shouldn't have jumped in.

I got involved when you again started calling people "Idiots" and edited your post. It wasn't until then I saw how your feverish generalizations and opinion was being passed on as fact because you said it.
Dismissive? What legitimate point do you have anyway?

My exchange with Eyebrock was old by the time you responded and If you are going to whine about me calling people idiots then you shouldn't say crap like "Did you get hit with the stupid stick" which is the same thing, or don't you consider that flaming?

It's not the same at all and you haven't stopped that practice either. "If you are going to whine" Hmmmm.......where did I do that?

So what is your point?

[DerbyX]

Regina Regina:

It's not the same at all and you haven't stopped that practice either.

So what is your point?

Its not the same eh?

"Did you get whacked by the stupid stick or something"? isn't flaming or insulting in the least bit?

Well obviously you haven't got the necessary grasp of the human language to debate with me. (sarcasm).

If you honestly think your response to me was anything but insulting then clearly we have a failure to communicate.

I made my points. I have been clear in the debate what stance I am taking and why I am taking it. Scape and I disagree but we are at least having a civil debate and I had a short one with Eyebrock till you busted in.

So far anybody debating anything but a pro-war response or even hinting that Canada is doing the wrong thing are being attacked by nothing but ad hominem arguments that seek to attack the debator rather then the argument which is what you did.

You inferred that because I don't support the war or have a different opinion that obviously I don't know what I'm talking about and as proof you mentioned the fact that you are friends with 2 soldiers who served over there.

Is my argument stronger or weaker when I tell you that my brother in law served a tour over there also? Does it have any impact at all? Should it?

Now we have spent so much debating everything but the issues at hand that I haven't actually got any time to continue our (non)debate of the issues.

(

[Jarem]

DerbyX DerbyX:

1b) Yet you ignore the fact that unlike Canada's sudden post 9/11 love for all things afghanistan, russia/USSR had a history of giving aid to them for 100 years or so and unlike us were responding to request for help. They also had to fight world opinion and a US backed enemy who was essentially doing what the US wanted in giving them a vietnam and who walked away from the the moment the russians pulled out.

Well yeah, but those were classical power-struggles between great powers: Imperial Great Britain and Tsarist Russia in XIX century, and US and USSR in XX. NATO stabilisation and developement mission is something slightly different.
Besides, I see possible NATO mission failure in Afghanistan as a threat to my country.

DerbyX DerbyX:

2b) The credibility falls down? We find out that members of the security forces we have trained and modernized are raping little boys and that our troops are being told not to intercede and thats an unimportant detail?

I do not deny, or try to minimize, that this particular act was utterly wrong.
However, in my opinion it was probably isolated incident, and you use it constantly, as if only thing that ANA troops are doing, is raping young boys.

DerbyX DerbyX:

3b) Make gooder sense. The same argument can be used against you and its actually complimentary to the argument that we simply don't know enough about the region nor have the understanding of it to interfer like we have.

Well, if I will start to escape direct questions, you are welcomed to point it to me.

DerbyX DerbyX:

4b) All, the much vaunted argument "The UN says we can". The same people who use that argument dismiss the UN at every other turn when it goes against them and quite often the same people using that argument dismiss the UN completely as any real authority.

Well, it's still the best we got. I don't expect the Pope giving orders on that matter...

DerbyX DerbyX:

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks

[Regina]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Regina Regina:

It's not the same at all and you haven't stopped that practice either.

So what is your point?

Its not the same eh?

"Did you get whacked by the stupid stick or something"? isn't flaming or insulting in the least bit?

Well obviously you haven't got the necessary grasp of the human language to debate with me. (sarcasm).

If you honestly think your response to me was anything but insulting then clearly we have a failure to communicate.

I made my points. I have been clear in the debate what stance I am taking and why I am taking it. Scape and I disagree but we are at least having a civil debate and I had a short one with Eyebrock till you busted in.

So far anybody debating anything but a pro-war response or even hinting that Canada is doing the wrong thing are being attacked by nothing but ad hominem arguments that seek to attack the debator rather then the argument which is what you did.

You inferred that because I don't support the war or have a different opinion that obviously I don't know what I'm talking about and as proof you mentioned the fact that you are friends with 2 soldiers who served over there.

Is my argument stronger or weaker when I tell you that my brother in law served a tour over there also? Does it have any impact at all? Should it?

Now we have spent so much debating everything but the issues at hand that I haven't actually got any time to continue our (non)debate of the issues.

(

Wow.....I had no idea that an open forum was there for you to selectively choose who to scold.
Debating has less to do with generalizations and opinion and more to do with facts which you again selectively dismiss or ignore. I also didn't infer anything and again you've lumped me in with more generalizations to make a point.
As I stated earlier, I was at a function where two current serving members of the Canadian Army spoke independently of the military. They presented pictures and personal commentary of the Afghan situation as seen by them in two separate tours and who had engaged the Taliban up close and personal. I do not know them at all and had never met them before that day. I was simply passing on current factual information as seen by someone who was there up until a month or two ago. You see that as pro-war and have spent more time whining about how I said something and ignored the my original post.

You're against the war.......so what who isn't? You can jump up and down and try to politicize your position all you like. The fact is that it's a NATO led mission and we are apart of NATO. Unless you have reason to believe we are not part of NATO and are acting on our own. If not then I guess you're just out there with the rest of us who would prefer the world to act in a civil manner.

[commanderkai]

DerbyX DerbyX:

1b) Yet you ignore the fact that unlike Canada's sudden post 9/11 love for all things afghanistan, russia/USSR had a history of giving aid to them for 100 years or so and unlike us were responding to request for help. They also had to fight world opinion and a US backed enemy who was essentially doing what the US wanted in giving them a vietnam and who walked away from the the moment the russians pulled out.

Yes Russia has had a history of getting involved in Afghanistan. So did the Americans with basically the entire Western hemisphere. Didn't stop the Soviets from fucking around either. History of involvement means nothing. The Romans had a history of screwing around in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East too, you don't see Italy pissing on Germany or Britain whenever they do something Italy doesn't like.

They requested Soviet help, South Vietnam wanted American help...same difference. The Soviets got involved for North Vietnam too, and I'm sure Castro's rebellion had some Soviet help, and probably some of the revolutions around the world at the time. It doesn't matter if the Afghani government wanted help for the mess they made.

The Americans wanted to piss on the Soviet Union in Afghanistan because the Soviets did that to the Americans in Vietnam...what the hell is your point? Hitler probably did the same thing to the French, Americans did the same thing with the Japanese at Pearl Harbour, Arabs did it with Israel a few times, etc etc. Revenge is a common occurrence in history, at least I think so.

$1:

2b) The credibility falls down? We find out that members of the security forces we have trained and modernized are raping little boys and that our troops are being told not to intercede and thats an unimportant detail?

Horrible reasoning...just horrible. Okay let's try this in a more domestic situation. A cop in training beats the hell out of somebody, the trainer knows yet does nothing. Do to this, fighting crime is bad and we should stop.

Yeah, it sucks the soldiers couldn't just shoot the rapist. I'd love for that to happen. Hell I'm sure they can get some cover story too. It doesn't matter. Judging an entire people on a few assholes is wrong, no matter if its priests, teachers, soldiers, or an entire society. Yes I'll admit, some parts of Afghani culture are totally fucked up...but you really think this wouldn't be happening if we weren't there?

$1:

3b) Make gooder sense. The same argument can be used against you and its actually complimentary to the argument that we simply don't know enough about the region nor have the understanding of it to interfer like we have.

He has a point. Sure there is history to the region...there was history about Japan and Germany in WWII...we shouldn't have been involved...Rwanda? Well there should be no peacekeepers...Arab conflict? Arab problem.

You can't use history, or "other facts" as some escape plan to either let people get away with shit, or as an excuse for not getting involved. If you see a rape on the street, or a murder, would you really say..."Oh, I don't know the history of their problems...or the other facts that we don't see, I shouldn't get involved."

$1:

4b) All, the much vaunted argument "The UN says we can". The same people who use that argument dismiss the UN at every other turn when it goes against them and quite often the same people using that argument dismiss the UN completely as any real authority.

Welcome to the forum.

Okay, Afghanistan was harboring a third party involved in attacking US interests/soil. That's enough of a reason. Wars have been started on alot less. Once again, the Barbary pirates is another example in history related to this, in my opinion.

To dumb that down for everybody.

US declares independence. Morocco seizes a US ship, and diplomacy wins the day, signing a trade agreement. Algeria not involved, and Algerian pirates seizes two ships later. Algerians became greedy assfucks in trying to bribe them to make their pirates not attack. US refuses, and builds a navy. Algeria and their neighbor Barbary states declare war, and US kicks their ass, after a while.

Its a stretch, but the US had a justifiable casus belli against the Barbary states for terrorizing US shipping. Even though the Barbary states DID unofficially declare first, the US was much more justified.

[DerbyX]

Well I haven't got time to respond to all so first come first served.

$1:

Well yeah, but those were classical power-struggles between great powers: Imperial Great Britain and Tsarist Russia in XIX century, and US and USSR in XX. NATO stabilisation and developement mission is something slightly different.
Besides, I see possible NATO mission failure in Afghanistan as a threat to my country.

Yet as a neighbouring country with a long history of providing aid to the region and whos involvement was a response from the gov't to help it in a time of crisis they were infinitely more right to intercede then we are.

You also ignore the fact that "Nato" through the US is a guilty party in destabilizing that region for its own interests and are doing the same thing again which wouldn't have anything to do with that big oil pipeline would it?

I see the only failure of NATO is the failure to find an actual solution to the problem and following a path that won't ever lead to victory. We aren't even listening to the people who are trying to do just that. Our arrogance will not allow us to accept anything but a general agreement that our military has defeated all opposition and that as the victorious army we can then magnanomously rebuild their society in our image. We aren't listening the the people teiing us that their pride won't allow this to happen and that for any meaningful victory we will need to include all parties and agree to concesions from all sides.

We are supposed to be helping them but what if the best solution is to begin a withdrawl of troops and include the taliban at the bargaining table in exchange for a ceasefire and an attempt to move forward?

$1:

I do not deny, or try to minimize, that this particular act was utterly wrong. However, in my opinion it was probably isolated incident, and you use it constantly, as if only thing that ANA troops are doing, is raping young boys.

It isn't the only thing and as a newcomer to the forum how can you say I use it constantly when its a new relevation and a very serious one at that? The other side uses the same arguments over and over pointing to various reconstruction efforts as validation of our presence in their arguments. Does the constant use of that argument invalidate it as well?

$1:

Well, it's still the best we got. I don't expect the Pope giving orders on that matter...

Thats the point, it isn't the best we got. I've noticed the same people using the "we are helping them angle" take the opposite tact whenever Bono chides Canada about not sending enough aid the africa or that Paul MaCartney chides us for the seal hunt. Recall the UN charter on Aboriginal rights?

We point to the UN as some sort of backing authority but when that same UN decides that something we did was wrong suddenly we tell them to mind their own buisness. Its no coincedence that the only four countries voting no were the only four countries settled by the British Empire and with a proven track record of some of the worst treatment of native populations yet somehow through all this Canada can still piously point to the UN as validation.

Everybody uses the UN when its convenient or advantageous to them and ignores it when it isn't. That by itself invalidates the UN let alone the argument that it had no authority in Afghanistan to begin with.

Throughout most of these debates I see authority and justification being freely intermized.

The good things we are doing over there is a justification. It doesn't imply or support us having any authority to act. All it does is excuse our invasion and justify our presence to some.