# Calling of a Generation



## Tolstoyevsky (11 Sep 2006)

In today's address, President Bush called the War on Terror, "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century". He also said that preventing Islamists from creating a global empire is the "calling of a generation". Right on!


----------



## Meridian (11 Sep 2006)

He also unfortunately based the entire effort on the war in Iraq, and essentially marginalized Afghanistan.

His biggest argument (well to me) about staying in Iraq was that if Coalition forces (ie the US) leave, then it will just be one more country that can breed terrorism, and they will have the additional resources (re: oil) to fund extremism.


----------



## Tolstoyevsky (11 Sep 2006)

Meridian said:
			
		

> He also unfortunately based the entire effort on the war in Iraq, and essentially marginalized Afghanistan.
> 
> His biggest argument (well to me) about staying in Iraq was that if Coalition forces (ie the US) leave, then it will just be one more country that can breed terrorism, and they will have the additional resources (re: oil) to fund extremism.



Iraq is more problematic, I think...


----------



## Meridian (11 Sep 2006)

Its problematic because his exit strategy is ineffective because of the civil/sectarian issues that country is facing.


----------



## onecat (12 Sep 2006)

Iraq is porblematic, because it never should of happened in the first place.  Afghanistan is and where the terrorist are.


----------



## Tolstoyevsky (12 Sep 2006)

radiohead said:
			
		

> Iraq is porblematic, because it never should of happened in the first place.  Afghanistan is and where the terrorist are.



There are no terrorists in Iraq? Really? I guess Al-Zarqawi was nothing but a tourist who decided to stay for a while and enjoy the beautiful scenery of the banks of the Euphrates...


----------



## cplcaldwell (12 Sep 2006)

Interesting, but al Zarqawi started out in his native Jordan, went to Afstan, sojourned briefly in Europe and went to Iraq after the US invasion. 

WADR, I think it is logical to think of Zarqawi as a creation of the Iraq invasion not a rationale for it.

Before Afstan he was a rapist and a drunk, in Afstan he was a 'reporter', in Europe he was bagman for AQ, it was in Iraq he got around to some serious murdering.


----------



## Tolstoyevsky (12 Sep 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> I think it is logical to think of Zarqawi as a creation of the Iraq invasion not a rationale for it.



Hmmm, following your logic, we should be fighting the US not the Talibs and AQ, since the US is creating terrorists...Very nice. Moreover, we should put up with what Islamist fascists are doing around the world, seeing as fighting them creates more terrorists. Great passive-defeatist attitude man...


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Sep 2006)

radiohead said:
			
		

> Iraq is porblematic, because it never should of happened in the first place.  Afghanistan is and where the terrorist are.



My fellow EME brother, I don't know where you are getting your Int from, or who/what you have been listening to, but there is plenty of terrs (extreme islamics bent on the destruction of the west) here in Iraq, both foreign and domestic. I see and hear what they are doing all day and night long. Here in Baghdad alone its one seriously dangerous place, whether you are a Coalition soldier, or a local just trying to make ends meet.

This war is in every region on the globe shy of both poles. Yes even in Canada too, the fight is on to prevent a signifigant event. Saying the bad guys are only in the Ghan is plain foolishness. 

Its not getting better either.

Meanwhile 70 and a wakie til my leave in Greece.


Arte et Marte,

Wes


----------



## Meridian (12 Sep 2006)

Well, in some respects WE (Canada) as a nation are creating terrorists by being in Afghanistan as well.  Heck, if you follow the logic long enough, we would be an influence on terrorist propagation just by being a part of western culture, even if we disbanded our military as a whole and trended all of our policies towards isolationism.

The thing is, western culture isn't the only cause. It's just a catalyst.  Something to blame it all on. If you look at Iraq,  a lot of the violence there is intra-Islam.  The country was literally held together by Saddam's authoritarian regime.  Without it, you now have all the warlords fighting with each other.  When you conflux extreme poverty with years of fighting and war, with Religion (Christianity isn't a rose garden either, when you consider history), with jealousy and perceived (or actual) arrogance of "better-off' foreign nations... you get the middle-east.

There are so many competing interests in that world that I am surprised our local chapter of the Anarchists haven't all moved out there. Matter of fact, haven't heard from em in a while.


----------



## rmacqueen (12 Sep 2006)

I am going to interject for a moment.  Afghanistan under the Taliban was used as a training ground for terrorist groups including AQ.  There is little doubt (conspiracy nuts and Jack Layton aside) that the continuation of Taliban rule was a direct threat to world peace.  This was brought to worldwide attention by 9/11 but the reality is that the UN had already demanded the Taliban turn over Bin Laden 2 years before the WTC.

Iraq, on the otherhand, did not become a terrorist problem until after the US invasion.  All the evidence indicates that Saddam had little use for terrorists and certainly didn't like Bin Laden.  Iraq had a very sectarian culture and, while repressive, it did not engage in Islamic fundamentalism.  A lot of this had to do with the very nature of the repression and control that he held over his country as that sort of extremism could have become a threat to his continued rule.

The reality is that the invasion of Iraq in the name of the war on terror created a situation where terror could thrive.  And that is what has created the problem.  The US cannot leave because of the insurgency yet the insurgency exists because they are there.  They are in a very large trap that is going to be very difficult to extricate themselves from without the situation destabilizing further and creating an even greater risk.


----------



## paracowboy (12 Sep 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> I am going to interject for a moment.  Afghanistan under the Taliban was used as a training ground for terrorist groups including AQ.  There is little doubt (conspiracy nuts and Jack Layton aside) that the continuation of Taliban rule was a direct threat to world peace.  This was brought to worldwide attention by 9/11 but the reality is that the UN had already demanded the Taliban turn over Bin Laden 2 years before the WTC.
> 
> Iraq, on the otherhand, did not become a terrorist problem until after the US invasion.  All the evidence indicates that Saddam had little use for terrorists and certainly didn't like Bin Laden.  Iraq had a very sectarian culture and, while repressive, it did not engage in Islamic fundamentalism.  A lot of this had to do with the very nature of the repression and control that he held over his country as that sort of extremism could have become a threat to his continued rule.
> 
> The reality is that the invasion of Iraq in the name of the war on terror created a situation where terror could thrive.  And that is what has created the problem.  The US cannot leave because of the insurgency yet the insurgency exists because they are there.  They are in a very large trap that is going to be very difficult to extricate themselves from without the situation destabilizing further and creating an even greater risk.


exactly. The only really good point is that it's keeping most of the various Islamic looney-tunes busy 'over there' as opposed to them coming 'over here'.


----------



## Old Guy (12 Sep 2006)

macqueen -- there's no doubt that the fighting in Iraq has drawn terrorists from all over the Middle East, but the belief that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists and Al Queda prior to the war is a flat falsehood.  Not only was Saddam doing things like paying death money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, he provided safe haven and medical treatment for several well known terrorists.  In addition, as the hundreds of thousands of documents gathered during the war are slowly (too slowly!) being translated, the link between Saddam and terror organizations becomes clearer.  Check out this site: http://www.iraqdocs.blogspot.com/  Most of the translated docs refer to WMD issues, but keep scrolling, there's terrorist related stuff in there.

What's more -- all it took to find this was a simple web search.  

Saddam was not involved in the attacks of 9/11 and his overall contribution to terrorists was not as all-encompassing as that which existed in Afghanistan, but he was a supporter and, given Iraq's physical position in the ME and the money which would have been available to him, his ability to cause trouble would have been huge.


paracowboy -- exactly.  The measure of an army's effectiveness should hinge, at least partly, on whether it fights wars in somebody else's backyard or close to home.  I vote for distant wars.


Jim


----------



## Tolstoyevsky (12 Sep 2006)

Old Guy said:
			
		

> macqueen -- there's no doubt that the fighting in Iraq has drawn terrorists from all over the Middle East, but the belief that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists and Al Queda prior to the war is a flat falsehood.  Not only was Saddam doing things like paying death money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, he provided safe haven and medical treatment for several well known terrorists.  In addition, as the hundreds of thousands of documents gathered during the war are slowly (too slowly!) being translated, the link between Saddam and terror organizations becomes clearer.  Check out this site: http://www.iraqdocs.blogspot.com/  Most of the translated docs refer to WMD issues, but keep scrolling, there's terrorist related stuff in there.
> 
> What's more -- all it took to find this was a simple web search.
> 
> ...



You have made some excellent points Jim! In fact, that was the reason why the IDF was destroying Palestinian houses...they were built by the families of suicide bombers with Saddam's blood money (10,000 USD if I'm not mistaken). 

As for Saddam Hussein, just like Ahmadinejad, he was determined to destroy Israel. Although the international community couldn't prove that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, in the past he tried to create a supergun - project Babylon - (designed by McGill prof., G. Bull) with which SH planned to destroy Israeli cities.

Really strange is the fact that the Americans couldn't find any chemical weapons, although SH used plenty of those against his own people. There are suspicions that he managed to move all his chemical and biological weapons to Syria before the start of the second gulf war (third if one counts the Iran-Iraq War).


----------



## paracowboy (12 Sep 2006)

there are also suspicions that he had them destroyed, but refused to admit to it out of fear of his neighbours and/or insurrectionists in Iraq. There are further speculations that his generals had them destroyed without telling him.

We have entire reams of threads on Iraq. I suggest folks go read 'em before carrying on with the Iraq discussion.


----------



## Old Guy (12 Sep 2006)

You're right.  We've beat that subject to death.  I've read other posts my macqueen and he seemed to be a reasonable sort.  His remarks seemed out of character.  

Okay . . . let's see.  Dubya's speech?  I didn't watch.  His speeches usually frustrate me because of his poor delivery.  So I read them the next day.  Looks good to me.  He made all the right points and said the right things.  His friends will think the thing wasn't quite good enough and his enemies still hate him.  He can't lose.


jim


----------



## Tolstoyevsky (12 Sep 2006)

Yeah, there are a lot of Bush-haters, especially in Canada. In the words of Triumph the Insult Dog - "More bush-haters per square inch in Canada than at a love party organized by Elton John"


----------



## rmacqueen (12 Sep 2006)

Old Guy said:
			
		

> Check out this site: http://www.iraqdocs.blogspot.com/  Most of the translated docs refer to WMD issues, but keep scrolling, there's terrorist related stuff in there.
> 
> What's more -- all it took to find this was a simple web search.


Unfortunately, until I see things from a verifiable source I tend to be very leery of what is reported on blogs.  A quick search will also show you numerous documents on how Afghanistan was invaded because of an oil pipeline and the WTC was brought down by demolitions and they all look legitimate.  On top of that, if these are legitimate, I am surprised that Bush, given his current poll standings and upcoming election, isn't talking them up.


----------



## Old Guy (12 Sep 2006)

The papers are being released by the agency created to coordinate CIA/FBI/NSA/whoever.  I forget the proper acronym.  Individual documents have been vetted by several sources, all of which are available on the web.  Naturally, I can't make the translation myself so . . . 

Your point is well taken, though.  I'm leery of everything I read, whether it's on the web or in the MSM.  It just happened that I've been following the stories of these documents for some time and am reasonably familiar with the stuff that's been showing up.  Most of it's nothing but bureaucratic crap -- that's one reason it's taking so long to dig through it.  That and a lamentable lack of translators.  That's Bush's fault, of course, according to the Left.  Never mind that in order to have decent numbers we'd have to have started training people twenty years ago.

I don't know why Dubya isn't pushing some of this stuff.  But, then, I don't know why he's not doing any number of things I'd like to see done.  I do know he's not worried about his poll numbers.  Why should he be?  Two years and he's outta there.


jim


----------



## GAP (12 Sep 2006)

Need a translation? try

http://babelfish.altavista.com/


----------



## rmacqueen (12 Sep 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Need a translation? try
> 
> http://babelfish.altavista.com/



Documents are scans in pdf so won't work but thanks.  If you see any links with the documents and translations I would be interested in reading them.


----------



## GAP (12 Sep 2006)

open office converts pdf I believe..

http://www.openoffice.org/index.html


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Sep 2006)

Meridian said:
			
		

> Well, in some respects WE (Canada) as a nation are creating terrorists by being in Afghanistan as well.  Heck, if you follow the logic long enough, we would be an influence on terrorist propagation just by being a part of western culture, even if we disbanded our military as a whole and trended all of our policies towards isolationism.
> 
> The thing is, western culture isn't the only cause. It's just a catalyst.  Something to blame it all on. If you look at Iraq,  a lot of the violence there is intra-Islam.  The country was literally held together by Saddam's authoritarian regime.  Without it, you now have all the warlords fighting with each other.  When you conflux extreme poverty with years of fighting and war, with Religion (Christianity isn't a rose garden either, when you consider history), with jealousy and perceived (or actual) arrogance of "better-off' foreign nations... you get the middle-east.
> 
> There are so many competing interests in that world that I am surprised our local chapter of the Anarchists haven't all moved out there. Matter of fact, haven't heard from em in a while.



Canada and the west was a target long before Canada's involvment in the Ghan. Warlords? Iraq is not Somalia.

Its Sunni vs Shia. Along with any tin-pot terr who want to take a shot at us.

Wes


----------



## rmacqueen (13 Sep 2006)

Wesley 'Over There' (formerly Down Under) said:
			
		

> Canada and the west was a target long before Canada's involvment in the Ghan. Warlords? Iraq is not Somalia.
> 
> Its Sunni vs Shia. Along with any tin-pot terr who want to take a shot at us.
> 
> Wes


Unfortunately, Iraq has become a rallying point for a large number of wing nuts and the coalition is in a no win situation.  The US cannot pull out because the country would descend into anarchy but as long as they stay it will be difficult for the situation to stabilize.  It is a difficult position to be in and I, personally, would not want to be the one to figure it out.  The politicizing of Iraq also doesn't help.

Hindsight being 20/20, it is too bad that the US rushed ahead like they did instead of ensuring the Afghanistan situation was stable first.  Iraq could have been contained for a few more years and we wouldn't be seeing what has basically become a 2 front war.  I could be mistaken but I have not heard any justification for going into Iraq when they did (if anyone has a reason please let me know)


----------



## Remius (13 Sep 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Hindsight being 20/20, it is too bad that the US rushed ahead like they did instead of ensuring the Afghanistan situation was stable first.  Iraq could have been contained for a few more years and we wouldn't be seeing what has basically become a 2 front war.  I could be mistaken but I have not heard any justification for going into Iraq when they did (if anyone has a reason please let me know)



Who knows now what the reason is/was.  We've all heard that it was WMD's, terrosrists, possible future threat, oil, revenge etc etc. 

The problem is that it is so muddled now.  History might tell in when people can be a little more objective.  

For now the situation exists as it is and has to be dealt with one way or another.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Sep 2006)

Regardless of all the what ifs, speculation, hindsights, and all the reasons, the if nots, and becauses. We must deal with the facts. We are here, lets prosecute this war the best we can, get our jobs done safely and get the helll out of here.

There will be US/western involvement here for decades to come. Look how long Canada was in Germany!

Wes


----------



## Meridian (13 Sep 2006)

Wesley 'Over There' (formerly Down Under) said:
			
		

> Canada and the west was a target long before Canada's involvment in the Ghan. Warlords? Iraq is not Somalia.
> 
> Its Sunni vs Shia. Along with any tin-pot terr who want to take a shot at us.
> 
> Wes



Wes, I argued that we are creating more terrorists by being there; I did not say we were never previously a target. In fact, I alluded to the idea that western culture in and of itself is a cause.  Not the entire reason, but a cause.  In my estimation, anyway.

As far as the warlord analogy....  From what I've read and heard (not just from mainstream media), there are many little "warlords" around Iraq (and Afghanistan), I'm not the first to use the term in this context.  Essentiallly what I mean is sectarian leaders who are keen to gain as much power as they can over as large a territory as they can in order to perpetuate their beliefs, through the use of violence and armed men.


----------



## Tolstoyevsky (13 Sep 2006)

"Calling of a Generation" was not supposed to be a debate about the American intervention in Iraq, but about president Bush defining the War on Terror (the CBC calls it "the so-called War on Terror") as a struggle for the survival of liberal democracy. Some people agree with him, others do not. What's your position?


----------



## George Wallace (13 Sep 2006)

Meridian said:
			
		

> In fact, I alluded to the idea that western culture in and of itself is a cause.  Not the entire reason, but a cause.  In my estimation, anyway.



Well....The only way that I am able to agree with you that the "West is a cause" is to acknowledge that the West exists.  Just our existance is the cause of this problem.  Without our existance, there would be no reason for these fundamentalists to hate us.   :


----------



## Meridian (13 Sep 2006)

Actually George,  if we were also islamic fundamentalists over here in the West, we wouldn't be such a problem....

My point is that our western culture does not agree with islamic fundamentalist culture.  It goes both ways, really. Each culture says the other is wrong. 

But yes, moving back on topic...  this is really what Bush is referring to;  the fact that Western "Democractic" culture and "Freedom" can not be sustained in an environment that includes islamic fundamentalism radicallized to the extreme.   Which I agree with.  If the West were to become extreme isolationists, and the Middle-East were to do the same, I think we could all hunker down and enjoy our own parts of the world, but the likelyhood of that is well,  nil.


----------



## cplcaldwell (13 Sep 2006)

> "Calling of a Generation" was not supposed to be a debate about the American intervention in Iraq, but about president Bush defining the War on Terror (the CBC calls it "the so-called War on Terror") as a struggle for the survival of liberal democracy. Some people agree with him, other do not. What's your position?



I disagree with him. In regard to Iraq or Afstan we are dealing with nasty people who could and have and will (try and sometimes succeed at) killing us, our loved ones and our kids. 

I do not believe these same people can 'bring down' Western Democracy. They can cause a lot of pain and death, they can materially affect the standards of our living, but they do not now nor have they in the case of Mullah Omar's Afghanistan or SH's Iraq been able to bring us down. _Iran in the future, Saddam if he had been left alone, possibly, but moot._

We can talk all we want about Iraq, I think that Canada was right not to go in. I don't think Australia was wrong. Nations are independant actors, and they all stand for their own thing.

* Having said that, is it a war worth fighting. Yes.*


----------



## George Wallace (13 Sep 2006)

Meridian said:
			
		

> Actually George,  if we were also islamic fundamentalists over here in the West, we wouldn't be such a problem....
> 
> My point is that our western culture does not agree with islamic fundamentalist culture.  It goes both ways, really. Each culture says the other is wrong.



 ???   Isn't that what I said?  If we did not exist, they would not hate us.  The mere fact that our Western Civilization exists, is enough for them to 'hate' us and call for our annihilation.  Our mere existence is 'Cause' for them to hate.


----------



## Tolstoyevsky (13 Sep 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> I disagree with him. In regard to Iraq or Afstan we are dealing with nasty people who could and have and will (try and sometimes succeed at) killing us, our loved ones and our kids.
> 
> I do not believe these same people can 'bring down' Western Democracy. They can cause a lot of pain and death, they can materially affect the standards of our living, but they do not now nor have they in the case of Mullah Omar's Afghanistan or SH's Iraq been able to bring us down. _Iran in the future, Saddam if he had been left alone, possibly, but moot._
> 
> ...



You're making some very good points, but, personally, I'm worried. I'm worried by the political pressures of a Muslim minority in Ontario trying to make the Sharia a parallel provincial law. Fortunately for all of us, they were unsuccessful. There is also the issue of present, non-integrated (partly because of the policies of multiculturalism) immigrant minorities with explosive natality. In 20 years, the majority population in both Holland and Belgium is gonna be Muslim.


----------



## rmacqueen (13 Sep 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> I disagree with him. In regard to Iraq or Afstan we are dealing with nasty people who could and have and will (try and sometimes succeed at) killing us, our loved ones and our kids.
> 
> I do not believe these same people can 'bring down' Western Democracy. They can cause a lot of pain and death, they can materially affect the standards of our living, but they do not now nor have they in the case of Mullah Omar's Afghanistan or SH's Iraq been able to bring us down. _Iran in the future, Saddam if he had been left alone, possibly, but moot._


One could argue that the act of 9/11 and our reaction to it is bringing our culture down on it's own.  The increased security and it's resultant paranoia is slowly eroding our very way of life and giving ammunition to the radicals.  On various radio shows on Monday I heard over and over again how people were more afraid because of 9/11 but the reality is that the terrorists got lucky in the destruction they managed to do.  This was not the first attack by extremists on US soil but people act like it was.

The challenge we face has more to do with keeping our values and beliefs in the face of those who wish to destroy them.  We cannot let fear rule us because that is their goal and, unfortunately, they seem to be succeeding in it.  Just look at how often you hear about Islam and how to keep Muslims happy so they don't become radicals.  It is like, prior to 9/11, there were not any Muslims living happy peaceful lives in this country.  And when the President of the US attempts to ignore and over ride the constitution we are heading into some very scary territory.

Holding onto our values is what I believe is the true calling of a generation.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Sep 2006)

Tolstoyevsky said:
			
		

> You're making some very good points, but, personally, I'm worried. I'm worried by the political pressures of a Muslim minority in Ontario trying to make the Sharia a parallel provincial law. Fortunately for all of us, they were unsuccessful.



Maybe the do-gooders and the snivel libertarians with politicall power of our own society are our own worst enemies letting these radical minorities try to disassemble the laws that have stood here since confederation.

You the citizens of Canada have the choice to vote in much more normal minded people into power. Act now before its too late.

Wes


----------



## cplcaldwell (13 Sep 2006)

> You're making some very good points, but, personally, I'm worried. I'm worried by the political pressures of a Muslim minority in Ontario trying to make the Sharia a parallel provincial law. Fortunately for all of us, they were unsuccessful. There is also the issue of present, non-integrated (partly because of the policies of multiculturalism) immigrant minorities with explosive nationality. In 20 years, the majority population in both Holland and Belgium is gonna be Muslim.



I note your worries. I think they are valid.

Really all I can offer to that is a 'glass half full argument'. As to Muslims, I say, let their kids spend a few years in our mediocre education system and wandering around Eaton Centre or West Edmonton Mall and I wonder how radical they'll be. I'm leaving myself open there because it is quite clear that theory ain't getting validation in the UK, at least of late.

Multiculturalism _is_ a bugaboo. It is too often being used as license in this country. We are a country and a nation of nations but _we are a country_ thus, due allegiance. 

One of the big problems (IMHO) with Islam is that it does not seem to differentiate between the spiritual _or_ theological allegiance and the temporal allegiance. I am a fairly sanguine guy but I often feel like saying to people with this philosophy "render unto Caesar what is Caesars and shut the frig up".

Could it change? Clearly we'd need the kind of scenario I picture above (which has worked so far...mostly) and/or a reformation in Islam (google "Ijtihad" or try  this link).

*PS* One of the things that worries me is what RMacQueen noted _"One could argue that the act of 9/11 and our reaction to it is bringing our culture down on it's own.  The increased security and it's resultant paranoia is slowly eroding our very way of life and giving ammunition to the radicals."_ *To wit,* we have nothing to fear but fear itself, and man, are we ever terrified!


----------



## Tolstoyevsky (13 Sep 2006)

There are some excellent books on immigration and multiculturalism, particularly "Who Gets In: What's Wrong with Canada's Immigration Program and How to Fix It" by Daniel Stoffman and "Selling Illusions, the Myth of Multiculturalism in Canada" by Neil Bissoondath.


----------

