A lot has to go right in Afstan for violent Islamism to have no incubators there. But to cede the field whilst the radicals are still campaigning for a foothold seems a little premature.

Sad as I am that six more Canadians have died, I am sadder that Layton cannot understand why this commitment and, likely, others is going to form a part of the West's forward defence against terrorism and the Islamic cult of the medieval which sustains it.

Keeping schools, real schools not madrassas, open is the only real hope of victory in the long run. And doing that means keeping the Taliban at bay.

At huge cost.

Damian and Darcey fall in line, too. I don't know about Darcey calling Jack a Marxist sock puppet as many a good Marxist fought the dark wall of facism. What I do not understand is why helping free another society so that it will not in turn attack us again is not good socialist policy.

>> many a good Marxist fought the dark wall of facism

Sort of a "crips and bloods" sort of thing, between mostly indistinguishable (and in many cases, interchangable) gangs of thugs, except for the veneer of intellectuality on the commie side and the lack of emphasis on race-based exterminations. Perhaps this overly opinionated for you, so I shall stick to more historically verifiable claims. Hitler almost certain got into power because Stalin ordered marxists in Germany not to participate in that election [1], just swinging the results in Hitler's favor (because that was supposed to be the last stage of capitalism before historical inevitability ushered in communism). Afterwards, the non-aggression treaty had many a good marxist sitting on their hands saying this Hitler guy is none of our business, let him be, etc., helping the outcome of the last mid-century unpleasantness worse than it could of been. And hey, come to think of it, there's certainly clear parallels to today's situation and a certain Canadian Marxist sock puppet.

[1] source: rise & fall of the third reich

Not opinionated but certainly partial, though the bit you state was as true as anything on the internet. Look up Stalingrad wherever you find your information and the Spanish Civil War while you are at it. Lefties were fighting facists when moderates worldwide were trying to either make a deal of find a way to turn back time. That last bit is sadly where we are today as much as anything.

BTW: It takes a bit of self-loathing of one's own intellect to label the entire world you do not agree with "left" - most who wish for nothing to be done are good old centrists. Apparently 40% of Tory supporters do not even support the war in Afghanistan.

Ah, but I don't label everyone who disagrees with me "left", nor did I use it in the previous post, nor imply it, nor do I equate being left with being Marxist. I'm not sure if Jack is really deep down a marxist or a taliban supporter, but I'm fairly sure he's a jackass, and so it's amusing enough to say it.

Communists were fighting fascists, while the rest of the world slept, I admit. I also acknowledge (as should all) that many people fought with or as communists because that's where the fight was (e.g. Greece). However, taking Spain as an example, I'd say the Spanish would of ended up much worse of if the communists had won; not totally mere conjecture, as we know of many places where the communists did win and how it ended up.

You'll have to give me a specific reference to Stalingrad, if you mean something outside of Siege of-. I'm not sure if it's fair to lump people fighting for there homes (or being marched by Stalin into killing fields) as "marxist" or "communist".

Hey! I was just hoping you would agree with me on the whole leftist thing which is great. <p>When you look up Stalingrad like Kursk and all the other great heroic battles that the Soviets won and thereby provided us a world without Nazism you'll see the "people fighting for homes" doesn't really apply.

Ah, thanking the Soviets for that would be like cheering the arsonist as a hero after he caught his own arm on fire and called 911.

If it were not for the Soviets, we'd be typing in German, there'd be no Jewish state, no free Europe and maybe 9/11 would have happened in the early 70s. They may have been a murderous lot themselves but they were the pals we needed at the time and the sacrifice of the people was heroic.

The sacrifice of their people was brought upon themselves, as per earlier points. If the Germany didn't attack Russia -- and that's how the Soviets got involved -- the war would have continued as a stalemate until 1945, considering that the Allies had almost total air superiority, and battles would have shifted south to Italy and the Mediterranean. Then we would have flattened the bastards with nukes, which the US could have churned out one a month after August 1945 and Eastern Europe wouldn't have been enslaved for have a century by the Soviets.

Sorry, you are missing the point. We wouldn't have gotten to the same 1945. The US alone could not free Europe if Africa and the UK had been lost, given the level of support for the US and the Pacific war. Yes, the Soviets would have likely had a war with the Nazis at some later point, perhaps also nuclear, but so much else would have been lost. <p>Ugly as he was, Uncle Joe gave us the world we have. Seeing anything else is a variant of "Hitler was socialist" monochomism. With respect.

To enrich this tangent, here is the tale of just one heroic Soviet soldier. Of course he was not a pawn.

more monday when i get back from windsor. you've lost the thread trying to redeem a monster responsible for the extermination of millions; nothing will.

You have ditched reality for an ideal. That leads you to prefer fascism to the monsters that saved democracy.

PS: how's the sailing?

Awful. I'm never going back to Windsor. That's three regattas in a row I've gone to where the race committee work is absolutely mickey mouse, and if I'm going to do 800K of towing and spend a couple of hundred bucks, I want the RC to know the difference between a beat and a reach, and the difference between a fair race and a crap shoot.

Again, how is this not a leftist cause?

You must be thinking of some other left.

If Harper (or Bushitler) is for something or a certain course of action or change in events appears to benefit them or their positions, I can tell you the "left's" [1] position will be hostility or at best indifference. I'm also fairly certain the Harper or Chimpy McHalliburton aren't wrong 100% of the time [2].

[1] i.e. Jack Layton, Linda McQuaig, Avi Lewis, anyone professional on Rabble.ca, etc.. For non-rhetorical purposes, I actually realize that there are nice decent well-intentioned people on the left.
[2] with the latter, let's say before 2006 anyway.

I am very proud of your threat/dispute dissipating footnotes.