Thursday, January 31, 2008

The Poor Argument For Afghanistan

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your title is correct, you present a very poor argument.

Of course I stopped listening to that rubbish after the first minute.

Anonymous said...

So my argument is rubbish, but you didn't listen to it.

Anonymous said...

So indoctrination is on a moral par with public executions, honour killings, violent repression? This is beyond absurd.

There are privately funded religious schools in Canada which teach preciously what you describe. You apparently would consider them moral equivalents to the Taliban.

I unfortunately did listen to your rubbish argument, and its three minutes of my life I'm never getting back.

Anonymous said...

We did not go into Afghanistan because of public executions, honour killings, and acts of violence.

As I described the argument and as it's commonly given it was to save the Afghans from a repressive regime that infringed upon their rights. John Manley and the Panel gave this argument, they spoke nothing of going in there for your stated reasons.

Alsoo I would like to add that in the US capital punishment allows for public executions and I would argue are in a way honour killings. In addition the Patriot act and similar laws where they can lock up and torture possible criminals isd violent repression. I wouldn't suggest we go into the US either.
-scott

Anonymous said...

You may not have liked my turn of phrase, but what I described was a repressive regime which dramatically infringed upon peoples' rights.

I, for one, think that Canadians should do everthing within international law to censure an American regime which engages in torture. You obviously don't. You believe they should be able to carry on however they please.

I don't think we should treat the Bush regime like we have the Taliban because bad as it is, it is not a moral equivalent. Not even close. Murderous tyrants don't leave office after two terms.

So get off this relativist tripe. We, the left wing, are a farce if we preach this sort of liberalism which stops at our borders and applies only to our own kind.

You're stuck in Westphalia while the rest of the world (hopefully) is waking up to the fact that the importance of international sovereignty is dwarfed by the importance of human security.

Anonymous said...

"I don't think we should treat the Bush regime like we have the Taliban because bad as it is, it is not a moral equivalent. Not even close. Murderous tyrants don't leave office after two terms."

Seriously? That's your explanation how they aren't morally equivalent? Because the Taliban lasted less then 7 years, that's one less then Bush, so that voids what you just said.

"So get off this relativist tripe. We, the left wing, are a farce if we preach this sort of liberalism which stops at our borders and applies only to our own kind."

You are not a liberal, small l or big l, liberalism is defined by its freedom and tolerance. liberalism always stops at borders because of its fundamental value of not imposing its will on other countries, that's conservatisms job.

"You're stuck in Westphalia while the rest of the world (hopefully) is waking up to the fact that the importance of international sovereignty is dwarfed by the importance of human security."

International sovereignty? That makes no sense. I suggest you meant national sovereignty, and if then, that's exactly what I meant by simplifying the argument. Human security did not trump national sovereignty in this instance. The government of Afghanistan did not directly threaten us, America, or anyone else. It was Al-qaeda. So put pressure on the Taliban to crack down on Al-qaeda, and if needs be go in after al-qaeda. But why take down a government which only at best harboured those people.