freecounterpoint: Canadian guts

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Canadian guts

18 comments:

Pepe le Pew said...: Yeah, what's the point in trying to solve this with diplomacy when we can just throw lives at the problem in the hope that we will eventually prevail? Besides, we've done such a great job crushing the taliban so far I can't imagine why we'd consider taking another tack.; 6/11/2008 6:23 PM
Tecumseh said...: Aren't the Canadians French? Tout s'explique.; 6/11/2008 6:31 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: this is beyond the left-right thing: it is a pragmatist vs ideologue issue. armchair wackos of the world, unite.; 6/11/2008 7:37 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: It is not pragmatism vs ideology, it is opting for Vichy over fighting. There simply is no way to diplomatically settle with the Taliban. Any agreement they acceed to would be to hasten the departure of those who can fight them, and then once we've left they roar back. That's it.

Or, to put it in terms even Pepe gets, especially Pepe gets: Diplomacy in the islamic world,as a substitute for the will to victory, achieves nothing but--at best-- to provide "economic opportunity" to Euro and UN Officials. "The Hussein Conspiracy", if you will.
Admittedly, this is very tempting to Planet Pepeteers. After all, the prospect of grasping mucho individual lucre in the global defeat of our civilization, combined with giddy delight at Said defeat, is a Dhimmi's wet dream. And Versaillian wackos of the world can unite in shameless orgy over the hope of such dreams faster than Quisling could suck on Teuton dick.; 6/11/2008 11:39 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: Diplomacy in the islamic world,as a substitute for the will to victory, achieves nothing but--at best-- to provide "economic opportunity" to Euro and UN Officials.

Saddat achieved nothing ?; 6/12/2008 1:19 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Oh, yes, Islam achieves something when it does "diplomacy" with enemies who can actually fight, alright.
Your point was?; 6/12/2008 1:36 AM
Mr roT said...: Exactly, AA, and exactly wrong, Pepe. Sadat lost a shooting war with Israel and went begging for his desert back. It was Israel that was civilized and gave peace a chance (puke lyric).; 6/12/2008 1:40 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: That's the point, JJ. Diplomacy in the longer run served Israel poorly. Egypt and Israel's enemies in general were strengthened by it in the longer run. Islam will embrace diplomacy, when it faces an enemy who can fight, in order to extricate itself from a tight situation and to set up a future moment more conducive to its triumph. This is what Hudna is all about. There is no interest whatsoever in genuine peace until it is with Islam as the victor gathering its spoils, when it is all Dar al-Islam.
The West keeps hoping that a genuine peace, built through understanding and compromise to arrive at true and mutual respect is feasible.
The West is fucked by its own stupidity.; 6/12/2008 2:40 AM
Mr roT said...: Of course. Not just Islam. You have to always negotiate from a position of strength. No one will be generous just for the hell of it.; 6/12/2008 2:57 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Well, the difference is that in the West you can have [although need not have] diplomacy in which the aim is a genuine peace even though there is no total victor, or even a clearcut victor. With Islam and the Infidel such would go directly counter to the teachings, and historical practice, of the creed. Muhammad emphasized that Hudna was encouraged if the enemy was too difficult [ and he himself practiced it], and Hudna is all about diplomacy as a deceit to prepare for more advantageous war.; 6/12/2008 3:07 AM
Tecumseh said...: This is scholarly sound, but too complicated for Pepe to grasp. He only understands two things: (1) that the West should capitulate [against whoever challenges it], and (2) he personally should come ahead in the process. The Chirac Paradigm.; 6/12/2008 5:00 AM
Mr roT said...: That's not fair. Pepe could live in St Trop year 'round if he felt like it. He's in New Orleans like those UN bluehelmets, poking little kids and helping out.

Oh, wait...; 6/12/2008 5:21 AM
Mr roT said...: AA, you're not right anyway. Last time the West tried to get real peace without utterly clobbering someone at Versailles, we got another war in a trice.

God knows what Bush pater was doing forcing Schwartzkopf to let the RGs out. Too much Versailles in his blood too.

I wonder what example you might be thinking about. Us letting Canada exist? That was a mistake.; 6/12/2008 5:23 AM
Pepe le Pew said...: He's in New Orleans like those UN bluehelmets, poking little kids and helping out.

Hey! Kayla just turned 18. Besides, she's doing all the poking.; 6/12/2008 1:44 PM
Mr roT said...: New Orleans love; 6/12/2008 7:05 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: JJ said: "AA, you're not right anyway. Last..."

I call BS JJ, [is the refusal to read infectious?]I said: "Well, the difference is that in the West you can have [although need not have] diplomacy in which the aim is a genuine peace even though there is no total victor, or even a clearcut victor".
And in fact the example you give is such an instance. That it FAILED to achieve what was aimed for may be instructive, but it was the aim. As opposed to Hudna where it is NOT the aim.; 6/12/2008 7:09 PM
Mr roT said...: Call BS in your own house. What you've written is illegible.; 6/13/2008 4:57 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: It is perfectly legible. It is even typed.
What you mean is that you are illiterate.; 6/14/2008 1:44 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)