Ahahahaha

4/9/2010 9:06:59 PM

4/9/2010 9:20:10 PM

Ahahahahaha

4/9/2010 9:41:50 PM

ibtl

4/9/2010 9:47:22 PM

Well I could have argued that this is confirmation that afghanistan will fall to muslim extremists again in a short time, democracy is wasted on this group of people, and all our work and bloodshed will have been in vain. But everyone already knows that, and "Ahahaha" was shorter.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 10:04 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 10:04:23 PM

I mean, if Iraq fell and our work was in vain, ok you could laugh I guess based on the rationale that we never should've gone in in the first place, especially preemptively.

But we kind of went into Afghanistan in retaliation for an attack on our own soil, and the organization responsible was kind of headquartered in Afghanistan/Pakistan. What would you suggest we have done after 9/11? Never even gone into Afghanistan?

4/9/2010 10:10:06 PM

Nope, Afghanistan was a sovereign nation. It was our mistake to let a couple dozen men kill people on our soil, but that wasn't the taliban's fault. It was just a convenient excuse to get rid of a government that offended our western sensibilities. We executed their leaders and now we're stuck dealing with their fucked up populace.

4/9/2010 10:14:17 PM

So like I asked, what would you have suggested we do after 9/11?

4/9/2010 10:16:16 PM

Tighten border security. Close foreign military bases, stop giving shitloads of money to foreign governments in fruitless attempts to influence global power that only serve to enrage large portions of the world population. Deal with internal problems while waiting for the citizens of shitty countries to beat their leaders to death with sandals.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 10:21 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 10:19:55 PM

So you're saying we should do what, turn into North Korea?

4/9/2010 10:21:58 PM

Are the muslims trying to kill North Koreans?

4/9/2010 10:27:51 PM

No what I'm talking about is that your solution is isolationism. We're a sovereign nation too, and we have the right to defend ourselves.

4/9/2010 10:32:08 PM

Well, aside from that, I don't think caving to their demands is an appropriate response.

4/9/2010 11:36:06 PM

come on people

give the man a break

he was high at the time

4/9/2010 11:45:17 PM

We should assassinate and replace him. That's what we do.

4/10/2010 6:10:01 AM

Quote :

"Deal with internal problems while waiting for the citizens of shitty countries to beat their leaders to death with sandals."

our internal problems aren't special in any way. They're run-of-the-mill governance. It's not like there's going to be a single set of policies that will placate the masses for all time.

It's senseless to say shut ourselves out and deal with internal problems, when he need to handle both things simultaneously, and when some internal problems are also external problems (like what to do about jobs, for instance).

4/10/2010 1:41:27 PM

Quote :

"democracy is wasted on this group of people"

Quote :

"It was just a convenient excuse to get rid of a government that offended our western sensibilities."

This should tell you everything you need to know about smc. He thinks freedom and democracy are mere Western trivialities, certainly not worth fighting over, especially on behalf of primitive brown people half way across the globe.

He probably fashions himself a liberal, but ideologically, he has more in common with Pat Buchanan.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 4:20 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2010 4:14:10 PM

On one hand, I see what you're saying.

On the other, I have to say that democracy is sometimes just culturally incompatible. Not everybody has to be a democracy.

4/10/2010 4:37:21 PM

Which cultures would you say are incompatible with democracy? Certainly things like tribalism and religion can make democracy difficult, but I think it's totally backwards to say that people living in places where those things are prevalent don't deserve legitimate governance. Indeed, democracy tends to have a dulling effect on those divisive issues, and as such should always be the goal.

As for freedoms, I think it's ridiculous to call those "Western sensibilities". Is the right of women to participate in civil society (hell, society in general) a "Western sensibility"? One imagines civil rights protesters in the 60s holding signs saying, "We demand our Western sensibilities!"

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 5:09 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2010 4:54:41 PM

Quote :

"I mean, if Iraq fell and our work was in vain, ok you could laugh I guess based on the rationale that we never should've gone in in the first place, especially preemptively. But we kind of went into Afghanistan in retaliation for an attack on our own soil, and the organization responsible was kind of headquartered in Afghanistan/Pakistan. What would you suggest we have done after 9/11? Never even gone into Afghanistan? "

agreed

4/10/2010 5:05:58 PM

Quote :

"I mean, if Iraq fell and our work was in vain, ok you could laugh"

If we fail in Iraq, the result will be a situation that no self-respecting liberal could laugh at.

4/10/2010 5:14:30 PM

Quote :

"I think it's totally backwards to say that people living in places where those things are prevalent don't deserve legitimate governance."

Well sure, but that doesn't mean there is no other possible solution besides democracy.

4/10/2010 5:48:41 PM

It's hard to imagine a legitimate form of government that rules without the consent of its people.

4/10/2010 6:20:25 PM

You're not very imaginative.

4/10/2010 7:38:45 PM

lazarus, stop being all erudite and stuff.

Tell me this: what about a country where a majority of people actually say they do not want a democracy, or they do not want the populace to have certain rights (drinking, extra-marital sex, whatever)?

While I agree that democracy is not the perfect solution but the best we as humans know, some nations actually do not want democracy and/or do not want a lot/some of the freedoms that people enjoy in the West.

So then, is forcing democracy onto people a democratic thing to do?

4/10/2010 7:58:48 PM

If people can take security for granted, and are offered a choice between a free and democratic society or a fascist and totalitarian society, they will always choose the former.

Sure, if you went to North Korea and asked people what they think about their society, they would no doubt recite for you an endearing sonnet about the Dear Leader. Perhaps there's something in the Korean gene pool, or culture, which magically disappeared at or around the 38th parallel, that makes people love brutal dictatorships. But I think you know that's not the case. If people the people of North Korea, or Iraq of Afghanistan for that matter, were given a legitimate chance to reshape their society, you can be sure that the result would be one that is more free and more democratic.

As for the cultural differences you mentioned, I don't think that we are under any obligation to respect cultural norms that treat women like property and persecute people for exhibiting the most basic sovereignty over their own bodies. Our job is to stick up for the oppressed, not the oppressors, which is exactly what we do when we turn a blind eye to such things.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 6:08 PM. Reason : ]

4/11/2010 6:07:40 PM

Karzai feels oppressed, joins taliban to fight against american occupiers.

4/11/2010 6:27:55 PM

You are so witty.

4/11/2010 6:43:26 PM

this thread is for stupid people

4/11/2010 7:57:17 PM

such as karzai the fucking corrupt misogynistic quasi-dictator?

4/11/2010 8:01:01 PM

Afghanistan will not improve as a country until Karzai is out of power.

4/11/2010 8:08:41 PM

My post was in error. It should read: Karzai joins taliban again.

4/11/2010 8:38:56 PM

Quote :

"Our job is to stick up for the oppressed"

that's just like, your opinion, man

4/12/2010 8:11:42 AM

It sure is. If you want to take the position that we shouldn't stick up for the oppressed, go right ahead.

4/12/2010 9:12:01 AM

The US should definitely not stick up for the oppressed, unless we are asked to, and even then we should consider options. Saying "oh, look, this nation looks oppressed, let's go liberate them" is just an excuse for some imperialist bullshit.

4/12/2010 11:05:13 AM

But as a christian nation shouldn't we kill oppressors just like jesus did?

4/13/2010 1:49:31 PM

Quote :

"The US should definitely not stick up for the oppressed, unless we are asked to, and even then we should consider options. Saying "oh, look, this nation looks oppressed, let's go liberate them" is just an excuse for some imperialist bullshit."

It wouldn't be "imperialist bullshit" if liberation or self-defense was the primary aim, at least not if we're using a historically relevant definition of imperialism.

And, of course, no one argued that the US should launch full scale wars with every tyrannical regime or nihilistic terrorist group without considering other options. But we should still be doing everything we can to stick up for oppressed people everywhere. Yes, that's my opinion. If you disagree, fine. But don't go portraying yourself as someone who gives a shit about freedom, democracy, or basic human dignity. And certainly don't go calling yourself a liberal.

Quote :

"But as a christian nation shouldn't we kill oppressors just like jesus did?"

You're hilarious. If that was directed at me, I guess you would be surprised to learn that I'm an atheist, and could therefore not give a shit about whatever the Nazarene did, assuming he even existed.

But yes, we should be killing oppressors, if that's what it comes to. Obviously.

[Edited on April 14, 2010 at 9:31 AM. Reason : ]

4/14/2010 9:25:43 AM

Quote :

"But we should still be doing everything we can to stick up for oppressed people everywhere. Yes, that's my opinion. If you disagree, fine."

Who cares about what you think in this case? All that matters is what the US is actually doing, not what someone thinks what they should be doing.

There are so many oppressed people and nations in Africa (and there is also NK)... but for some reason the US only wants to liberate (or threatens) countries in a certain part of the world. Perhaps those countries have something the US/world needs? In which case,

Quote :

"It wouldn't be "imperialist bullshit" if liberation or self-defense was the primary aim"

this condition is nullified, and so yes, it is imperialist bullshit.

4/14/2010 10:28:38 AM

Breaking: Humans often act in ways that are generally perceived to align with their best intersts.

4/14/2010 10:38:49 AM

Hopefully one day we won't need their oil and can then just nuke the entire region.

4/14/2010 10:58:25 AM

Quote :

"Who cares about what you think in this case?"

This is a forum for discussing ideas, if I'm not mistaken.

Quote :

"All that matters is what the US is actually doing, not what someone thinks what they should be doing."

Our military is in Afghanistan to kill Al Qaeda and Taliban, two of the most oppressive and violent organizations on the planet. They're also risking their lives trying to establish some degree of security in the country so that things like democracy, economic development and human rights might have a chance to take root. They're definitely not there to steal oil, so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

4/14/2010 11:04:47 AM

US Military surrenders a base to the Taliban.

"We don't want Americans. We don't want Germans. We want peace."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsyNvgDvvQw

The war is lost.

4/19/2010 10:22:41 PM

if only it were that simple

4/19/2010 10:26:52 PM

If only he got his news from a source other than Al Jazeera.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/world/asia/15outpost.html?src=me

4/20/2010 12:21:30 AM

That says the exact same thing. They say "focus on urban warfare", I say "surrender rural areas where they were losing men daily." Losing men daily makes for bad publicity, and you can't fight a perpetual war with bad publicity.

4/20/2010 7:40:07 AM

What cracks me up about this thread isn't your half-baked analysis of the war, but the fact that you seem to be openly cheering on the Taliban.

4/20/2010 9:14:15 AM

ITT smc wants the American military to fail.

4/20/2010 2:04:18 PM

If it would discourage this sort of decade long, ambiguous objective, fiscally irresponsible and strategically compromising military action in the future...then yes, a defeat would be best for America. But Vietnam proved that even the bloodiest lessons are quickly forgotten.

But don't worry, what I want or don't want is irrelevant. Your children will still get the chance to fight in Afghanistan.

4/20/2010 3:29:51 PM

The objective is clear - destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban. And since there is no more strategically important area in the WOT than the AfPak border, I'm not sure how you justify that claim, either. And if we do pull out before the job is done, the real losers will be the people of Afghanistan, particularly the women and children.

[Edited on April 21, 2010 at 9:16 AM. Reason : ]

4/21/2010 9:16:04 AM

The objective is clear - stop the communist expansion. And since there is no more strategically important area in the Cold War than Indochina, I'm not sure how you justify that claim, either. And if we do pull out before the job is done, the real losers will be the people of Vietnam, particularly the women and children.


Same bullshit, different generation. Our continued presence and actions feed the enemy's recruitment. The Soviets couldn't defeat them, and neither can we.

4/21/2010 9:36:52 AM