So maybe we got it all wrong

[Fragony]

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.

[CrossLOPER]

I wouldn't expect any business involving Afghanistan to be clear.

[The Wizard]

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.

[Centurion1]

hey a mans house is his castle right. we dont wanna infringe on his privacy rights.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

Yeah.. you didn't actually read the article, did you?

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

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.

[Major Robert Dump]

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!!!

[Centurion1]

Edit: sorry double post.

[Centurion1]

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.

Don't make assumptions about my character, please. First of all America probably gives more money than any other nation to charity.

what do you do. i give to charity. its naive to imagine you can help everyone

[HoreTore]

Don't make assumptions about my character, please. First of all America does more than any other nation to support human rights give to charities.

what do you do. i give to charity. its naive to imagine you can help everyone

So....

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?

[Centurion1]

no im not what are you suggesting. that we withdraw nato troop and just let them do what they want.

[HoreTore]

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.

[HoreTore]

double post, sorry.

[Centurion1]

I have no belief in making war for peace, no, the NATO soldiers don't have the mentality required to create peace.

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.

[Fragony]

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.

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.

[Fixiwee]

no im not what are you suggesting. that we withdraw nato troop and just let them do what they want.

Why not actually?

[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.

[HoreTore]

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.

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.

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).

[Fragony]

The Shah in Iraq? I would say reading up first is a good start

[Hax]

I do not think that bombing the 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.

[Beskar]

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.

[Fragony]

The Coalition cannot succeed in Afghanistan. It's way too late for that.

It can, easily. But we might have made a mistake here if OT story is true.

[Hax]

It can, easily. But we might have made a mistake here if OT story is true.

Might have made a mistake.


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".

[Fixiwee]

They can succeed, it just depends on what goal they got and what they are willing to do, to achieve it.

What is the goal of the coalition in Afghanistan and what does it have to do with the original reason of the war?

[Fragony]

Might have made a mistake.


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".

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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).

[Fragony]

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.

'That 'infamous statement? It's a daily statement all over the world where Islam settles. Even in Oxford university.

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.

[Hax]

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.

[Fixiwee]

'That 'infamous statement? It's a daily statement all over the world where Islam settles. Even in Oxford university.

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.

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".
That's a big difference for Iran.

[Fragony]

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".
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.