A Debate by Any Other Name...

Occasionally I but heads with people online whose ideas are diametrically opposed to mine. No one debates me as fanatically as tbuce (blog Free Your Machine) and the latest, on Freethinkers Oasis, was no exception. The post was a simple question, Why Are We in Afghanistan? Below is my response and the ensuing debate between tbruce and yours truly. I will leave it up to you to form your own opinion.


rmacqueen
http://rmacqueen.blog.ca
09/24/06 @ 09:49

You claim to be a free thinker so I will take the time to post this and see. Unfortunately, too many claim to be free thinkers while closing there minds to anything other than their narrow points of view.

Why are we in Afghanistan? Here are a number of reasons.

Massacres in Yakaolang

Detention and killing of political personalities

Flagrant abuse of the right to life and dignity

Continuing atrocities against civilians

Women in Afghanistan: The violations continue

Afghan workers killed in ambush

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TERRORIST ATROCITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 - AN UPDATED ACCOUNT

Terrorism: Near Eastern Groups and State Sponsors, 2001

It is interesting to note that many people feel that we should pull out of Afghanistan and put our troops into Darfur. Since the Sudanese government has already declared that it will not allow it, we would then be forced to invade Sudan in the same manner that many are condemning for Afghanistan. We would, no doubt take casualties and, once again, we would hear cries about our troops not being "peacekeepers".

However, Canadian peacekeeping is a myth. The Liberal government to justify cutbacks in the Canadian Armed Forces put out the idea of Canada as a peacekeeping nation. While telling everyone that we had become a peacekeeping army, and therefore did not need a lot of heavy (expensive) equipment, the Canadian military involvement was relatively low. Often it was only one or two people involved in a peacekeeping mission and our largest commitment was in Cypress where there hadn't been any shots fired in decades.

Then in the 90's things changed. Suddenly factional fighting became an issue. Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, these kinds of conflicts started to garner attention. Unfortunately, traditional peacekeeping proved wholly inadequate to deal with it. Bosnia proved this as 27 Canadian peacekeepers were killed (without much media coverage) while the conflict showed no signs of abating. Quite the contrary, the UN was used by all sides as shields for their own advancement. It was not until the UN sanctioned NATO (much like they did in Afghanistan) to use force did the conflict grind to a halt. Under UN peacekeeping rules soldiers are only allowed to use their weapons when directly threatened, hence, they were forced to stand idly by while rapes, torture and murder took place. They were not allowed to intervene. (The Bosnian conflict also had one of the highest levels of PTSD than any other modern conflict due to the atrocities witnessed while soldiers felt completely helpless to do anything)

Now we are in Afghanistan for the same reasons. Canadian soldiers are there as part of the UN sanctioned NATO force taking the battle to the bad guys. They are there to stop people who believe that killing women and children to further their cause is not only justifiable but their right. They are there to drive these people out so that they can begin to rebuild without having the Taliban come back and destroy what has been built and taking retribution on the innocents who accept the help. And they are there to bring peace and security to the people of Afghanistan, not just for today but for tomorrow.

That is why we are in Afghanistan.

tbrucemilne
http://www.freeyourmachine.org
09/24/06 @ 20:03

ROFL! Thought maybe you'd found a new target for your repetitive regurgitation of rationalizations for our unjustified attack on Afghanistan, eh?

Canadian soldiers are there as part of the UN sanctioned NATO force taking the battle to the bad guys.

Nope. Once again you've trotted out the Big Lie that the UN sanctioned the use of force in Afghanistan.

Never happened. The UN did not once, ever, in any way, issue a resolution authorizing the use of force against the Taliban hillbillies, a bunch of dirt-poor wingnuts who could not have masterminded a 7/11 robbery, never mind 9/11.

...aaaaand, here it comes once again...'b-b-but there were BIG TERRORIST TRAINING CAMPS in Afghanistan, I've seen the satellite photos myself!'

Uh huh. Been there, done that. The Taliban wanted those Al Quaida assholes out as much as anyone, they were bringing down too much grief on their heads. Unfortunately, Al Quaida being very well funded and equipped by our ally Saudi Arabia, the Taliban could do little about it.

Hold off on questioning other people's 'free thinking' when all you ever do is repeat the same tired agitprop over and over and over and over and... :P

Sorry, Canuck, if this is too 'edgy' for your blog, but I've gone through this argument with RMacQueen before, with exactly the same rationlazations as you are seeing here.

It's old, RM, no one believes it anymore, certainly not a majority of Canadians (the ones you told me 'had no right to even comment on the military because they're a bunch of pussies', or words to that effect).

Oh wait, I have it right here. Betcha wish you'd thought first before you coughed this one up:

The reality is that the Politicians and the majority of the Canadian public have lost any right to have a say in what the Armed Force do. Perhaps in a few years when they have shown that they actually care for more than a microsecond because it is in the news, then the soldiers might respect their opinion again. Until such time, Canadians will remain a pathetic bunch of hypocrites undeserving of the sacrifices our soldier are will to make in their name.

RMacQueen in all his Glory, folks! I'd link to it, but it's on my blog, and apparently that's called 'pimping' ;)

The 'mission' is illegal, and by all sane accounts, an utter failure, as we prop up the drug lords in order to fight some bogeymen that the US doesn't even care about anymore. The best way we can honour our soldiers is to bring them home from this idiotic misadventure.


rmacqueen
http://rmacqueen.blog.ca
09/25/06 @ 00:30

Boy tbruce, you do brown bag, trotting out what people have said in the past in an attempt to belittle them.

The argument can go back and forth over the legality of the invasion of Afghanistan. Ultimately, the initial UN response could be deemed ambiguous. Legal experts have been arguing for 5 years with no resolution. It all depends on your point of view. It is interesting to note that the UN has never condemned the use of force in Afghanistan either.

However, Canada is now part of the UN sanctioned International Stabilization Assistance Force (ISAF). If you want, I can find you the resolution.

I do have to thank you though for proving my point. Ignoring the facts about terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and making up your own fantasy about the Taliban not wanting Al Qaeda is not freethinking; it is revisionist history. Your mind is closed and you attempt to advance your argument by sarcasm and attack. That is not freethinking, that is bigotry!

As for the above quote from me, I do regret having written that. I should have proof read it first.


tbrucemilne
http://www.freeyourmachine.org
09/25/06 @ 14:24

I do have to thank you though for proving my point. Ignoring the facts about terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and making up your own fantasy about the Taliban not wanting Al Qaeda is not freethinking; it is revisionist history.

You know, I saw this coming, but I thought I'd let you trot it out as per the script you run with. 'Revisionist History' is one of the favs of the 'let's try to justify something but not let the facts get in the way' crowd. It's pretty much the adult equivalent of covering your ears and shouting 'la la la la la la!'.

Your mind is closed and you attempt to advance your argument by sarcasm and attack. That is not freethinking, that is bigotry!

Er, no, I provided a rather cheeky but factually accurate (as you've now admitted, finally...the UN never once authorized the use of force...huzzah! there is hope for you yet!) rebuttal to your (old) argument.

But feel free to call me any name you wish, the more shrill and aggressive you people get, the better.

One thing to keep in mind. You may think your views are somehow 'mainstream' and everyone else is just 'wacko' or 'burying their heads in the sand' (what, do you write down and memorize the propaganda?).

Nothing could be further from the truth. Your militaristic view is shared by...well, not very many people, and if you want to look at it in global terms, you're kickin' it with about 1/10th of 1% of the population.

If you'd been paying attention over the last few days, in fact, you might have noticed that a lot of your precious military daddy-figures are even questioning the logic of this war. Karzai himself said there was 'no millitary solution' to the Taliban and Al-Quaeda in his country.

Buuuuut, keep hangin' on by your nails and trotting out the NeoCon Propaganda, one of us will always be there to take it apart, piece by piece


rmacqueen
http://rmacqueen.blog.ca
09/25/06 @ 18:43

Why am I not surprised that you get your "facts" from the sound bites the NDP put out? The so-called Karzai comment was taken out of context (much like you enjoy doing to my comment on the hypocrisy of Canadians, but here, let people read it for themselves Canada's Afghan Quagmire Especially interesting are the links I provided which tbruce refuses to read). My god man, you even cut and pasted it right off the NDP website into your blog.

If you had actually researched (as you say you always do) you would have discovered that Karzai was referring to the need to deal with the radical Islamist schools in Pakistan. In that same speech he also said "“Terrorism,has only enemies and knows no boundaries. The only course is to kill it. You cannot train a snake to bite someone else.”(Karzai Says Pakistan Holds Key to Ending Afghan Violence)

I realize that your mind is closed and I only post this so other people might see a counter and make up their own minds. Your twisting of words to fit your own cause (see above UN comment and compare it to what I really said), your disregard for established facts and your reversion to name-calling shows the weakness of your arguments (btw, if you read above you will notice that I did not call you any names. Try dictionary.com to look up meanings of words, I find it is very helpful)

In forwarding ones viewpoint in debate, one should not have to resort to using lies, misquotes and sophistry. That sort of behaviour belies the soundness of your argument. Which reminds me, would you please provide a link to the statistics you quote showing how my opinion is not mainstream? I would be very interested in reading the methodology used in coming to this conclusion.


tbrucemilne
http://www.freeyourmachine.org
09/25/06 @ 20:01

(btw, if you read above you will notice that I did not call you any names.

Bigot? Liar?

Try dictionary.com to look up meanings of words, I find it is very helpful)

Evidently not in this case! You might want to double-check your use of 'sophistry'.

Oh, and as to your viewpoint being in the tiniest of majorities...just look around you. Europe: fed up, and not playing Bush's game with Iran; even the British are waaaaaay against this War, and want its architect, Blair, turfed out. South America: overwhelmingly against this War on Terror. All of Asia, most of Africa, etc.

And as for Canada, well, try Google. It took me about three seconds to find this.

A recent Globe-CTV poll shows: "A robust majority of Canadians say they would opt against sending troops to Afghanistan and would like to see parliamentarians have a vote on the issue." The poll also found 62 per cent of Canadians said no to sending troops to Afghanistan, and barely 48 per cent supported further Canadian participation in the war against terrorism.

...and that was 8 months ago. Imagine what it's like now with all the body bags that have come back since then.

Anyhow, you take the last word, make it a doozy, cuz I's done with ya here.


rmacqueen
http://rmacqueen.blog.ca
09/25/06 @ 23:33

you're kickin' it with about 1/10th of 1% of the population.

Hmmm, your "research" did not exactly come up with the number you purported to know all about previously. You wouldn’t be making things up now would you? What about the statistics for the rest of the “global population”?

While I am on that subject, sophistry - 1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation. 2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument. Yep, according to dictionary.com, I used it right.

You may also want to re-read what I originally wrote. At no time did I call you a bigot and, if you take the time to look up the actual meaning of bigotry, you would see that. Since the actual sentence was

That is not freethinking, that is bigotry!

and you have taken offence to it then I would have to question why?