But shouldn't this standard also apply to others besides ondelette - including, in particular, those here who attack ondelette, the person (the "war apologist" the "fascist in liberal clothing" the this, the that, see earlier comments), rather than trying to rebut the arguments of ondelette with which they disagree?

Yes, of course -- it applies to everyone, including me. There is a handful of people with whom ondelette habitually trades insults -- I've asked those people to stop before, I've demanded they do so, and when it became particularly abusive or disruptive, I've deleted their comments. I even deleted one such comment today that I thought would ensure a spiraling insult war. But some of those same people (such as Chris) do sometimes make substantive objections to ondelette's arguments as well -- such as the one to which I responded today -- while ondelette himself is perfectly capable of sharp and even insulting responses. Rarely are these sorts of protracted personality conflicts purely one-sided.

I agree with you: it's ideal if everyone confine themselves to the substance of the discussion and not become personally insulting. You provide an excellent role model in that regard. But people who participate in debates of these sorts tend to be highly opinionated and passionate on these issues and, being human, are prone sometimes to insulting exchanges with those with whom they disagree. I've been actively moderating the comment section much more than I'd like of late to keep that to a minimum. I'm trying to restore the discussion here back to prior levels of civility and substance.

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be sharp and even aggressive exchanges -- I'm not here to enforce a civility code. I just want the discussions here to be worth the time they take to read, and when they degenerate into juvenile insult fests, they aren't.

I don't fully understand all of ondelette's arguments regarding our involvement in Afghanistan, myself, or I too might dispute them - the way rrheard succeeded in doing here (finally getting to the merits of the dispute) without the need to indulge (like too many others) in a leisurely dissection of ondelette's supposed character flaws (which seems to be approaching a comment-thread hobby by some):

I've always respected ondelette's contributions here and still do -- even when, as happens not infrequently, ondelette writes to disagree with what I've written. I've had plenty of substantive exchanges with him in such cases and am glad he returned. But he has become condescending and insulting of late - which is fine, it happens to all of us, including me -- but those who do that shouldn't be surprised - or play the role of victim - when the responses they provoke are similar in kind. When ondelette makes substantive arguments -- as he usually does -- I think what he gets in return are mostly substantive replies, and on those occasions when he doesn't, I've been intervening in various ways to try to keep the discussion on a more constructive track.

Beyond that, there has been zero, nada, zilch argument that convinces that we all will be safer with a US+NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan.

That's not how wars work: "Hey, there's no reason to end the war unless one can prove great things will happen if we do."

The burden is on those who want to keep putting the lives of their fellow citizens at risk and dropping bombs on people. That's only supposed to be done if there is a compelling reason to do so, one that is necessary to the defense of the country. Remember all the stuff about "war is a last resort"? That's what is owed to the people who actually fight the wars, and the people who are killed by them. "Hey, I haven't been convinced yet that there's great benefits if the war ends" isn't an argument to continue waging a war.

That said -- even beyond the arguments posted by sysprog from the Afghan members of Parliament -- as someone above suggested, here's the argument as to why withdrawal will make as safer:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/10/20/terrorism/index.html

But I'm definitely not buying your long explanation on why you piled on with Chris Sinnard today. You did it because you wanted to. Most likely because you and I disagree on Afghanistan.

You've been advocating the war in Afghanistan for quite some time here without any rancor -- at least from me. It's only when you stopped making arguments and began resorting to playground credentialism taunts ("I know more than you do!!!") did my view of your contributions change. If you want to make arguments about Afghanistan, make them. If you're really as knowledgeable as you claim you are -- and if those who disagree are really as benighted and ignorant as you allege -- that will become apparent. There's just no reason to keep announcing your claimed intellectual superiority to everyone.

But there is also a persuasive argument that some people enjoy wallowing in ignorance, and such may be present here. Is it worth acknowledging that fact, or should we ignore it and them? Dunno the answer to that.

The only worthwhile way to demonstrate someone's ignorance is to demonstrate it, not to scream childish names at them ("you're ignorant!") and tell them they haven't read as many books as you have. If they're really ignorant, that will become apparent in the discussion.