http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50300
Don't know this site though.
Maybe talking with the Taliban isn't such a bad idea after all.
Printable View
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50300
Don't know this site though.
Maybe talking with the Taliban isn't such a bad idea after all.
I wouldn't expect any business involving Afghanistan to be clear.
Oh, so he doesn't want to export his madness abroad. Well, I guess that means we should just let the dude chop off hands and stone women in peace, then.
hey a mans house is his castle right. we dont wanna infringe on his privacy rights.
Yeah.. you didn't actually read the article, did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
The claim is that the Afghan Mullahs did not support Bin Laden, ergo attacking Afghanistan was not justified. It doesn't say the country was ever a Liberal egalitarian paradise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
You seem to have no problem with human rights abuses anywhere else, so don't take the moral high ground here please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
The Taliban and Iraq were brought down because it was beneficial to the West. Rwanda, Sudan, North Korea, and Burma are left alone, because there's nothing that will benefit ourselves there.
If Afghanistan is so beneficial to the west, then where is my moustached, veiled wife and why hasn't she made me dinner?
I tell you, at least we got a bunch of hot vietnamese girls from that other war!!!
Edit: sorry double post.
Don't make assumptions about my character, please. First of all America probably gives more money than any other nation to charity.Quote:
You seem to have no problem with human rights abuses anywhere else, so don't take the moral high ground here please.
The Taliban and Iraq were brought down because it was beneficial to the West. Rwanda, Sudan, North Korea, and Burma are left alone, because there's nothing that will benefit ourselves there.
what do you do. i give to charity. its naive to imagine you can help everyone
So....Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
You agree that we can pull all NATO troops out of Afghanistan, and just give a some dollars to charity instead, and the Taliban will stop oppressing sex?
no im not what are you suggesting. that we withdraw nato troop and just let them do what they want.
I have no belief in making war for peace, no, the NATO soldiers don't have the mentality required to create peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
double post, sorry.
So you advocate apathy in the situation. Oh yes it is horrible, but we don't want to make them do anything they do not want. So what form of solution do you see as being feasible if you don't advocate waiting for them to get bored of killing each other.Quote:
I have no belief in making war for peace, no, the NATO soldiers don't have the mentality required to create peace.
Well yeah, they are horrible but it's a horrible place, but if this is true it isn't our problem. If they aren't a threat I have no business in their home.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Why not actually?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
thats not the point of my arguement. im asking horetore what his solution to human rights violations is in Afghanistan since he cares more about them than me.
There are plenty of ways to topple regimes and even introduce human rights without any soldiers at all. Just take a look at Iran, Eastern Europe, the Shah in Iraq, etc etc... Debate and influence is a lot better weapon than people think they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Anyway, when exploring the ways to peace and human rights, a military action like what we are doing now just isn't an option, as it doesn't work. Our soldiers won't behave in Afghanistan like they would if the war was a domestic one, and as such they will never gain legitimacy from the population and is therefore won't bring peace. Event the NATO General in charge of the operation knows and has admitted this(and vainly tries to implement it).
The Shah in Iraq? I would say reading up first is a good start
I do not think that bombing the :daisy: out of a country is going to do much in the way of bringing peace. I thought you'd learned in Vietnam (which is another great example of a total failure even before the start of the war. Remember President Diem and his lovely wife? Remember Thich Qu'ang Duc?).
The Coalition cannot succeed in Afghanistan. It's way too late for that.
They can succeed, it just depends on what goal they got and what they are willing to do, to achieve it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
It can, easily. But we might have made a mistake here if OT story is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Might have made a mistake.Quote:
It can, easily. But we might have made a mistake here if OT story is true.
Like declaring the war in the Middle East a crusade, Bush saying he was inspired by Jesus, refusing to open up ties with Iran during Khatami's government, etc, etc. I think the Coalition has done a great job in giving the Taliban loads of reasons to "reclaim Islamic lands from the infidels".
What is the goal of the coalition in Afghanistan and what does it have to do with the original reason of the war?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
You are usually much more openminded when it comes to islamic rethoric, up to 'whiping of the map' not having a Persian equivalent, even when all it means is to destroy. Taliban is scum, but I don't care enough about the Islamic world to put troops in danger for their safety, if this is true we should get out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
I won't go into what exactly Ahmadinejad meant when he stated the infamous "wiping off the map" quote concerning Israel. Do keep in mind however, that the same Islam that people seem to go totally insane over here in the west explicitly forbids people from harming Christians and Jews. At the same time, the rights of these two religious peoples (as well as Zoroastrians) are protected in the Iranian constitution.
You totally misunderstood what I meant. The Northern Alliance (yes, the same guys that assisted the United States) were actively supported by Iran before the actual invasion in 2001. Also, the influence of Iran within the Middle East should clearly not be underestimated (you know this, I think) and if the Coalition had been willing(!) to improve their relationship with Iran, I think that would have been a major asset in keeping both Iraq and Afghanistan stable.Quote:
Taliban is scum, but I don't care enough about the Islamic world to put troops in danger for their safety, if this is true we should get out.
Of course, we all know it's too late for that, unless the Iranian government is toppled, which doesn't seem likely.
EDIT: Just to clear some stuff up, I'm not trying to defend Ahmadinejad here, and I'm not saying that Israel has nothing to fear from him, quite the contrary. However, I think Ahmadinejad is far more intelligent that we perceive him to be (and way more intelligent than Assad and Netanyahu combined). What I personally perceive the thing to what Ahmadinejad was referring to was the dissolution of the state of Israel (which I don't exactly agree with either).
'That 'infamous statement? It's a daily statement all over the world where Islam settles. Even in Oxford university.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
DEATH TO THE JEWS
It's pretty obvious, you can see it with your eyes, you can hear it with your ears, so what the hell is wrong with you people.
Our inherent "wrongness", I think, lies in the fact that we don't use the traditional Double Standard© when it comes to matters such as these. On one hand, you outright condemn Islam and are willing to quote as many texts as you can find about it, but when I raise the matter of Ahlul Kitab, suddenly our mental health is questioned. How interesting.
The biggest amount of jews living in any islamic country is Iran. So maybe what you meant to say is "Death to israel" and not "death to the jews".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That's a big difference for Iran.
It isn't for the jews in Iran I worry about, european jews are no longer feeling safe, with good reason. And the tefties protect it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixiwee
Yeah maybe Fragony does not especially like Muslims, i have never seen him run around posting Death to Islam.
Horetore, Iran still has humans rights problems, Many eastern European nations still suffer from severe corruption and other problems, after Yugoslavia fough tto sepaerate from single authority (which they deserved) there was genocide. And the shah in iraq....... i'm not sure what you mean.
And Hax, Vietnam was a very winnable war but the american population had no backbone among other issues (a drafted military when it should have been volunteer). I dislike comparisons of Iraq and Afganistan to Vietnam as they are completely different conflicts.
Yeah, true. The North Vietnam, the VPA, was a solid front, a coherent conventional army. Of course, the Viet Cong were mostly guerillas in the Southern Vietnam, but that is an another story. Still, even with all as it was, even if US did manage to destroy the VPA, the war would be far from won, due to the insane numbers of partisans remaining. And I find it stunning that US could not make significant progress against the conventional VPA. I guess the terrain really was that bad...Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Wait, volunteer military? Haha, good joke. After almost exactly 60,000 American dead, I doubt very many wanted to join... Logically, the US population is so large that it should have found enough willing recruits, but why then did they institute the draft? Because they needed more men who did not sign up I suppose. Which means the sentiment really was that opposed to war. And the lack of backbone is as much of a problem as a lousy military. Look at the Russian Empire in WWI. Internal strife is more dangerous than enemy munitions. Many wars are won by words, not weapons, and the DRV won that war.
Actually, the Thet Offensive pretty much finished off the Viet Cong, if you read Into the Storm by Tom Clancy and Gen. Fred Franks, you'll see that the major problem was the desire to institue a DMZ and political division between North and South, as in Korea. Essentially, the American Police Action failed because it was not preceeded by an actual war in which any attempt was actually made to defeat the NVA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
The Cage by Tom Abrahams is a more personal analysis by a British Officer of the problems he faced in the American Army.
Yeah, I know that, but the fact that US was not able to make significant headway before is what surprised me. I would not say 'pretty much finished', but yes, it was supposed to be the turning point for US if not for the propaganda victory of the shocking offensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
This was because Vietnam was a Police Action, not a War, in trying to maintain the DMZ the US denied itself the opertunity to actually hurt the NVA and instead used Agent Orange throughout the South, hence a loss of hearts and minds.
The Soul of the US Army died in Vietnam, and I still don't think they have it back.
There was not a very logical mindset. There would have been plenty of volunteers to draw from but the US still thought it was dealing with WW2 and everyone would be willing and honored to serve (which is of course a generalization). Volunteers made up a pretty solid percentage of troops in Vietnam. However, it was mostly draftees i'm sorry to say who whined and ******* their way through the war and committed atrocities they blamed their superiors on. And while i said it had a major impact, and it did the anti-war movement was relatively small. Mst americans disapproved of the anti-war demonstrators but were silenced by the vulgar and very public displays to demonstrators put on. The anti-war movement was made up of alot of cowardly draft dogers in my personal opinion though my opinion is clouded by family ties.Quote:
Yeah, true. The North Vietnam, the VPA, was a solid front, a coherent conventional army. Of course, the Viet Cong were mostly guerillas in the Southern Vietnam, but that is an another story. Still, even with all as it was, even if US did manage to destroy the VPA, the war would be far from won, due to the insane numbers of partisans remaining. And I find it stunning that US could not make significant progress against the conventional VPA. I guess the terrain really was that bad...
Wait, volunteer military? Haha, good joke. After almost exactly 60,000 American dead, I doubt very many wanted to join... Logically, the US population is so large that it should have found enough willing recruits, but why then did they institute the draft? Because they needed more men who did not sign up I suppose. Which means the sentiment really was that opposed to war. And the lack of backbone is as much of a problem as a lousy military. Look at the Russian Empire in WWI. Internal strife is more dangerous than enemy munitions. Many wars are won by words, not weapons, and the DRV won that war.
What the Us truly suffered from was zero clearly defined goals. What was the point? To preserve democracy, sure that's grand but give me something tangible. Therefore, the average American soldier had nothing to fight for, nothing to really hold in his mind as what he wanted, unlike his father in WW2. Not to mention the issues with being unable to invade the north and our inability to fight a guerrilla movement (which i believe we have improved on). America did not tactically or strategically lose Vietnam, they lost because of a vibrant and loud anti war movement back home and poorly defined goals.
And my post was a sarcastic rejection of such a preposterous idea. A barbarous regime like that of the Taliban has no right to sovereignty or legitimacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
No, they're left alone because they have friends in high places (Russia and China, anyone?). Afghanistan lost those after 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
And how exactly do you infer from the fact that I was wrong about the Geneva Conventions (something which I admitted) that I have no problem with human rights abuses or selectively apply moral and politically progressive outrage at savage regimes? Have you ever read any posts of mine about any of the countries you've mentioned? No? Then keep quiet.
Democracies have business in any oppressor's home. They also have business outside the home of anybody being oppressed. An attitude like yours is cowardly and beneficial to evil regimes across the globe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frag
Iran still has human rights violations and eastern europe still has problems? Of course, but that wasn't even close to the point, which was that it's very possible to topple a regime without the use of military force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
whats the point if you can't clean up the place after your done.Quote:
Iran still has human rights violations and eastern europe still has problems? Of course, but that wasn't even close to the point, which was that it's very possible to topple a regime without the use of military force.
About the Vietnam war; there are several issues that immediately come to mind when I see the United States failure to effectively "win" the war. As you stated, there was now real objective set, apart from turning North Vietnam into one big crater. Some other issues are:
- Fighting an unjustified war for a tyrannical government that was far worse than Ho Chi Minh, who I find a lot more agreeable than Nixon or Johnson. The Diem regime was probably one of the worst things that ever happened to Vietnam
- The "ends" justify the means. The Vietnam war was like the dire half-dragon version of that. It was a war based on the near-complete annihilation of a nearly invisible foe to preserve the very limited South Vietnamese version of democracy, which included rape, torture, mass conversion and many other nice western traditions. And now I haven't even mentioned the horrors of the child prostitutes on the streets. The United States governmen't didn't care about the basic human rights of Vietnamese citizens, but what's at least on par with the acceptance of the deaths of thousands of Vietnamese citizens, they actually sent in thousands upon thousands of their own citizens to fight this useless war for a useless cause, a cause that had been corrupted and hollowed out, I think, just about after the Korea War. John Fogerty and Bruce Springsteen have explained this way more eloquently than I ever could, though.
Now that I'm fired up, I'd like to say this as well:
I have a huge problem with the way the conservative right in America seems to choke up every time a band starts playing bombastic music and flags are raised and soldiers are pointing their phallic objects in the air. To be honest, it doesn't impress me in the least. I think it's an absolutely horrible thing to feel pride in the fact that our tools of death our better than "the enemy's (Germans, Japanese, Vietcong, Afghani's, Muslims) tools of death and that we should feel some sort of weird heroism over the fact that our soldiers are going out to shoot those people under the guise of bringing democracy. It's absolutely horrible. By now, I will probably, among the McCarthyists, I will probably have finally settled myself as another Godless Communist/Liberal/Socialist, but I couldn't really care about that either.
I for one closely align patriotism, nationalism and fascism and as such, the raising of flags and the before-mentioned bombastic music doesn't impress me. Rather, it leaves me with a foul taste in the mouth. For me, it's patronizing and immoral and it comes creepily close to a misplaced feeling of superiority. When will we learn that in the end, we're all humans?
EDIT: I might have come across as a hater of America, which would be totally weird because
1) I don't feel hatred towards people/institutions/nations in the first place.
2) I deeply respect the diversity and general tolerance that is present in some places in the United States...San Francisco, for example.
As such, I am inclined to say that I just have a large problem with the pro-war/life (think about that for a moment) faction in the United States that seems to have quite some power at the moment.
Hax:
As a part of the set that enjoys patriotism and takes some pride in our military, I must say I respect you for the clarity with which you express your opinion. I have no doubt whatsoever as to where you stand. I will note that, even for those of us right-to-life/support your military types, we do not necessarily whitewash everything that has ever been done at the behest of our government. Moreover, I distinctly recall my priest one Sunday giving us a homily to the effect that it was a good thing to support our military, to be encouraged when their efforts made things safer for us, but that to take joy from the deaths of others -- even the enemy -- was sinful. Don't presume that opinions are all monolithic simply because the media gets better "conflict" for their headlines by citing the most inflamtory components of what is expressed.
The Vietnam war was a debacle of the worst sort. We fought it the wrong way, for the wrong reasons, and all too often with the wrong tools. If we'd simply sent in the USMC, the Green Beanies, and the Peace Corps we would probably have done better. All of those organizations actually had a history of making a difference in such "small wars" or in developmentally backward areas. Instead, Westmoreland and MacNamara tried to do things a la WW2. Didn't work well enough. Unfortunately, by the time Abrams was in charge and pursuing his "one war" approach, public support was already on the wane. Net result was a win for Giap. You CAN win almost every battle and still lose the war.
Giap hardly commanded many of the most famous and biggest Vietnamese offensives.
/historical nitpick
Thank you :bow:. It's more refreshing than the usual "why do you hate freedom/America" response, I must say.Quote:
As a part of the set that enjoys patriotism and takes some pride in our military, I must say I respect you for the clarity with which you express your opinion. I have no doubt whatsoever as to where you stand.
The way how I see the military is as a necessary evil; as such, it does not inherently carry some sort of "goodness" with it. The best position for the military to be in would be only to serve in self-defense or used as a peace-keeping force when a people is suffering, and only after diplomatic negotiations. I'm not necessarily non-interventionist, but I'd rather see other ways of intervening in a situation rather than bombing a large part of a country.Quote:
I will note that, even for those of us right-to-life/support your military types, we do not necessarily whitewash everything that has ever been done at the behest of our government. Moreover, I distinctly recall my priest one Sunday giving us a homily to the effect that it was a good thing to support our military, to be encouraged when their efforts made things safer for us, but that to take joy from the deaths of others -- even the enemy -- was sinful.
The military shouldn't be above criticism (I have the feeling that this often seems to be so in America) and its actions should frequently be analyzed, to see if their actions are justified and didn't cause collateral damage (this is to be avoided at all times).
I will always try to avoid condemning of people rather than organisations. I think people should be protected, but organisations should be criticised and analyzed as often as possible. Criticism, in this aspect, is not necessarily destructive, but can also be constructive.Quote:
Don't presume that opinions are all monolithic simply because the media gets better "conflict" for their headlines by citing the most inflamtory components of what is expressed.
I cannot understand that wars can be waged in the name of humanism, while at the same time, we are killing humans left and right. There's something inherently wrong about that. If we should ever go to war, we should go to war with the idea that the people we are fighting are also humans with the same basic feelings (love, hate, fear, sadness, etc) and every opportunity for peace should be accepted as soon as possible.