Larenxis Takes You On: Canadian Military Presence In Afghanistan

[Fire Daemon]

I missed the part where he said that... could you point it out?

these are not just human beings like you and me.

I may have miss read this, if he was claiming that just the Islmist radicals are not human like you or me then I would agree.

 

[PurpleRain]

When someone (terrorist in this case) does something inhumain, shouldn't they loose their rights to have the title 'Human'? This also goes for pedophiles, rapists, etc. I wouldn't classify a man who fights for the Sharia law and brainwashes their children to strap bombs on themselves as humans. Sure these people breath and live, but so did the people on the planes that were launched into the towers, the people night clubbing in Bali, the people on the trains and buses in London and Spain; and none of them were soldiers. This, sadly, is a nessissary war against ignorence. The radical extremists won't simply put down their guns and walk away. If the pope got into a war, it would be the same ordeal.
Sorry, just had to vent the old spleen there.

 

[zari]

When the USA trained and armed the mujahideen that they might fight to keep their country free, was that interfering?

Ye gods, you make this sound like altruism rather than yet another bout of Stave Off the Soviets.
I won't argue the issue of aid money and supplies, but military aid very rarely comes without whiskers attached, and personally I would regard that as interfering.

As to the not selling oil to the West thing, it would be very interesting to see what the US would do if the Middle-Eastern oil supply suddenly dried up for them. Pure speculation of course, but I very much doubt it'd be a case of "Oh well, it's your right not to sell to us".

 

[werepossum]

Ye gods, you make this sound like altruism rather than yet another bout of Stave Off the Soviets.
I won't argue the issue of aid money and supplies, but military aid very rarely comes without whiskers attached, and personally I would regard that as interfering.

As to the not selling oil to the West thing, it would be very interesting to see what the US would do if the Middle-Eastern oil supply suddenly dried up for them. Pure speculation of course, but I very much doubt it'd be a case of "Oh well, it's your right not to sell to us".

I do think that the USA aiding the mujahideen in their fight for freedom was a Good Thing, even though it was certainly enlightened self interest. I admit to being baffled at this liberal notion that doing a Good Thing is only good if you derive no benefit from it. The USA had an interest in not going to war with the Soviet Union, an interest in protecting Pakistan, an interest in limiting Soviet expansion, and an interest in promoting freedom in general. A Good Thing is always a Good Thing; an Evil Thing is always an Evil Thing. Sometimes we must do an Evil Thing because all our choices are worse - for example, I'd steal food before I let my children starve. But situational morality - classifying something as a Good Thing depending upon the circumstances - leads in my opinion to doing Evil Things because they are expedient. Life is gray enough without making it too easy for ourselves.

Everything we choose to do, even inaction, has a known risk, an unknown risk, a known cost, and an unknown cost. If the USA aids the mujahideen, there is a risk that the fighting will spread and turn into a larger conflict, even World War 3 - that's the known risk. Some of the mujahideen were emboldened to fight the West (USA) as well the East (Soviet Union) - that's the unknown risk. (The part we now know; you never really know when ALL the risk has run its course.) The known cost is time, energy, treasure, and lives spent. The unknown cost may be the fighting in Afghanistan now. It can be really difficult to match cause to effect because the world is complex, people lie, and mortal knowledge is limited. In this case, doing nothing also has a known risk, an unknown risk, a known cost, and an unknown cost. The known risk was of course that the Soviet Union would succeed in Afghanistan and then invade Pakistan, again perhaps leading to World War 3. The known cost would be loss of freedom for the Afghan people.

As to military aid coming with strings attached, I sincerely hope and desire that all aid comes with strings attached, and military aid should come with nicely braided steel hawsers. If we provide Afghanistan with weapons and training I want to be sure they don't invade Pakistan with them. I DAMN well don't want them shooting at us or any of our allies with the weapons and training we provided.

As to your supposition about what the USA would do if the Middle East refused to sell us oil, it's really difficult to resolve a hypothetical with any confidence, but I can offer up these points.
1) Iran has refused to sell us oil for almost thirty years and we've not invaded.
2) We refuse to pump much of our own oil for fear of disturbing caribou and potentially killing marine life with an accidental spill. (I should point out that we are the only nation who voluntarily puts so much of its resources off limits to exploitation.) We don't have to have Middle Eastern oil at all, as our reserves are relatively huge and it is at worst about a third of our imported oil (maybe 20% of our consumption.)
3) Until this year, most of our oil came from Canada (#1) and Mexico (#2), not the Middle East. This year Saudi Arabia has overtaken Mexico for the #2 spot again.

If you want to persist in believing the USA is a force for evil, it's a free Internet.

Fire Daemon, let's look at my quote in context.

SNIP
When I was in college I listened to the Arab and Iranian students - and there are lots in engineering school - as they spoke openly of their hatred for America, how the American dream was dead, how the new rising force in the world was Islam. I read the Islamic newspapers they left behind, those in English. Seldom was there a paper without at least one article or editorial about how Islam would unite and rise up to destroy the West, especially America. I read the Israeli papers as well. They didn't have any calls for overthrowing Islam. They did have obituaries on the Jews and Arabs murdered by terrorists. When you're 18 or 19 and reading stories about this pretty sixteen year-old who was stabbed to death while reading in the library and that 19 year-old student who was shot in the back while walking home from school and the nice Arab family of six who was burned to death in their home because they were suspected of giving information to the Israelis, you start to get the idea that these are not just human beings like you and me.
SNIP

To think I am condemning all or most Muslims as "not just human beings like you and me" you have to assume that all or most Muslims engage in murdering children, beheading tourists, torching houses full of people, and all the other specific examples I've given. I think I've been quite clear on this, but for the record I will state my position on Muslims in general.

I have no problem with Muslims who are peaceful. Of the Muslims I've personally known, my perceptions are that a few were extremely good people, some were just average, normal people, and some were dangerous anti-American fanatics who (in my opinion) should have been thrown out of our country. These last were not like you and me (well, not like me; feel free to set your own level of love or hatred for the USA) but not less than human. None were (to my knowledge) actively evil, and none I considered to be less human than anyone else. The people who carry out actions based on this belief system - who kidnap tourists, behead Jews and Christians, murder women and children - I do consider less than human. With those who honestly forswear this life I have no problem - although of course legal penalties may still apply - but self-serving jailhouse conversions are suspect.

I am willing to assume that most Muslims are good-natured, peaceful people until proved or strongly indicated otherwise. I am NOT willing to assume this of all Muslims; no religion can meet that bar. I am NOT willing to assume that Muslims have the same percentage of radicals and terrorists as other religions, because that has been pr oven false and continues to be so pr oven daily.

I am willing to accept that all Muslims want Islam to be the one world religion in the same way that all Christians want Christianity to be the one world religion, as long as they are not working toward this goal using violence or intimidation. I would be extremely happy if all the world's Muslims converted to be Jews or Christians or Hindus or Buddhists or Wiccans because it would remove power from the radicals bent on exterminating or enslaving other religions, but I have no desire to force conversions on anyone.

If Muslims come to this country, I expect them to be thoroughly vetted because some Muslims are trying to overthrow us and our way of life. And I expect them to put up with this (and with extra precautions and scrutiny from time to time) cheerfully, just as I would expect to be treated in Saudi Arabia if Christians were bombing nightclubs there.

If Muslims come to this country I expect that they understand this is a country founded on Judao-Christian principles and beliefs, and to exercise tolerance accordingly. Neither life nor the Constitution guaranty you will not be offended, and sometimes you need to smile, shake your head, and say "those darned Christians." You do NOT have the right to curtail our religious freedom simply because it offends you.

I believe any right to humanity is forfeited when you willfully commit to evil - kidnapping, murdering, mutilating, or displacing another person, NOT when you state that another country/people/religion is wrong or evil and must be destroyed. This isn't absolute, of course, but it's pretty darn close. To the extent practical I judge a person on his actions; judging his heart is G-d's responsibility and privilege. To the extent necessary I judge a person on what I perceive his beliefs to be - can I trust him with my grandchildren? Is he likely here to do me harm? Is he likely to steal from me? But I try to judge only so far as necessary to decide my own actions. I do judge on associations - if you associate with terrorists I shall assume you are a terrorist or support terrorists - because associating with someone is a choice and a willful action.

I am tolerant of Muslim religious practices to the extent they are not evil within my own belief system. Casting a non-virginal daughter out of your house would be permissible if foolish; killing a non-virginal daughter out of your house would NOT be permissible. Every person must make these determinations according to her own understanding of G-d's law or, if a non-believer, whatever belief system of her own that she chooses to install in G-d's place. Society must also make these determinations. I do believe in Absolute Right and Absolute Wrong, but since opinions on details will always remain, each society must establish its common values.

These are more or less my beliefs as the touch on Islam and Muslims. If they offend - well, life is hard, Beavus.

 

[zari]

I admit to being baffled at this liberal notion that doing a Good Thing is only good if you derive no benefit from it
[snip]
If you want to persist in believing the USA is a force for evil, it's a free Internet.

Firstly, you're putting words in my mouth here. I didn't say that any of these things were not good. The issue was whether they were perceived as interference. If you send troops into a country bordering mine (I'm having trouble picturing this in an Australian context, mind you) who I may or may not have good relations with then you can be damned sure I'll be suspicious of your motives and regard that as interfering in the region, whatever the original purpose and your actual intentions.

Nowhere have I ever said, in this thread or elsewhere on the Internet or in person that I believe the US to be a 'force for evil' or even anything approaching that. I do disagree with a lot of their recent foreign policy however (and a significant amount of not-so-recent policy).

For the time being (*sigh*), .au still prevents a fair bit of uranium mining due to environmental concerns, by the way. However I don't think there are many (if any) nations out there that can get on their high environmental horse. That's another flame topic though

 

[werepossum]

I admit to being baffled at this liberal notion that doing a Good Thing is only good if you derive no benefit from it
[snip]
If you want to persist in believing the USA is a force for evil, it's a free Internet.

Firstly, you're putting words in my mouth here. I didn't say that any of these things were not good. The issue was whether they were perceived as interference. If you send troops into a country bordering mine (I'm having trouble picturing this in an Australian context, mind you) who I may or may not have good relations with then you can be damned sure I'll be suspicious of your motives and regard that as interfering in the region, whatever the original purpose and your actual intentions.

Nowhere have I ever said, in this thread or elsewhere on the Internet or in person that I believe the US to be a 'force for evil' or even anything approaching that. I do disagree with a lot of their recent foreign policy however (and a significant amount of not-so-recent policy).

For the time being (*sigh*), .au still prevents a fair bit of uranium mining due to environmental concerns, by the way. However I don't think there are many (if any) nations out there that can get on their high environmental horse. That's another flame topic though

Glad you don't think we're evil, at least. All foreign policy is going to look different to other countries, as each country has its own agenda and its own outlook. Switzerland for instance felt no threat from Hitler and consequently had no problems remaining neutral. Finland actively assisted the Nazi regime, because Germany was at war with the Soviet Union which had just invaded Finland and was occupying a great deal of it. The Vatican cooperated with the Nazis while simultaneously despising them and working against them. I could go on, but my point is if good countries could have such widely diverging reactions in so extreme an example, is it surprising that countries today take issue with the USA's foreign policy? From the standpoint of most countries, toppling the Taliban (and Hussein) just increases the chances of terrorists striking their own country. From that standpoint it's very easy to say "Look, it's 3,000 people. You're going to lose more than that fighting back and you're going to stir them up against us all - why not just take it and move on?" It's not as easy when it's your 3,000 people and yet a lot of Americans feel the same way, so it's hardly surprising that people in other countries feel this way. (And that's just when foreign policy works out; sometimes even the most hawkish American sits back and says "What the Hell were we thinking?"

Aid (especially military aid, but all aid really) is certainly interfering with a region. My point was that it seems like a lot of Muslims want their aid, but aid to other countries is interfering in the region. And of course the hardcore Islamicists would prefer that displaced Pakistanis starve before accepting American aid.

For what it's worth, the USA has certainly done its share of environmental destruction. There's a place less than two hours' drive from me, Copper Hills, Tennessee, that used to look every bit as much like Mars as that nickel mine in Canada, because of copper mining and especially acid production. Today it looks much better, but the aquatic ecosystems are pretty much still nuked. I could show you other streams among the beautiful old mountains of Tennessee, North Carolina, and Kentucky that still are devastated from acidic mine run-off. The Pigeon River in Tennessee was once so polluted from paper mill run-off that even rat-tailed maggots and blood worms couldn't live in parts of it; you could see the colors running down the river where used dye was dumped straight into the river. There are still spots with dammed reservoirs of a nasty black sludge of mine and/or smelting waste, which when the dams fail sweep down the valley killing everything, and vast "ponds" of pig shit (literally, pure pig shit) that poison and contaminate everything around. We've gotten a lot better in restrictions (e.g. clear-cut logging on hillsides) and remediation, but I'd say our environmental high horse is not likely to be showing saddle marks anytime soon. My point is I think still valid, though; the USA restricts itself more than any other nation in oil production.

 

[werepossum]

It is not naive, it is optimistic. I believe that people are good at the core. I witness 'lost causes' coming around every day and I have a faith in humanity that is constantly being reasserted. I mean look at Hamas. A ceasefire! For reals! Even if it only lasts an hour, I'll still be happy. These human beings in Afghanistan have been manipulated; these twelve-year-old suicide bombers have had misinformation forced upon them. Murder isn't precisely the best way to educate someone, and therefore can not be the sole solution.

Larenxis, Hamas has agreed to lots of ceasefires with Israel, usually when either getting the worst of the latest round of violence, attempting to avoid retribution after some particularly successful act of terrorism, or needing freedom to smuggle in another shipment of rockets and mortar bombs to launch into Israel. Every ceasefire before has ended in an attack on Israel. Maybe this one will take, but that's not where the smart money's laying.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

'Nuff said.

 

[Larenxis]

'Nuff said.

For once I agree.
"Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said the rocket attack came because of "Israeli provocation this morning" and added that Hamas was "committed to the calm." He said Hamas will talk with other factions and make sure they are committed, too."