We Have Lost Afghanistan

[quote]pushharder wrote:
This created a political power vacuum in a country that really never has operated as a country in its history. Rather it has virtually always existed more as collection of warring tribes somewhat protected by its geography.

A few years many, but not all, of the Afghan rebels who had been on the receiving hand of US training and equipment during the Soviet occupation allowed religious extremism to cause them to bite the hand that had fed them; the hand that had helped them expel the Bear.
[/quote]

let me pick it up from here…next a civil war broke out among the rebels. In the midst of this war, the children of Afghan refugees raised in Pakistani Wahabbi madrasses, and armed from Saudi money, built up a formatible force. This group, calling itself the Taliban, invaded Afghanistan and drove most of the warring factions to the northern part of the country, where they became known as The Northern Alliance.

and the rest, as they say, is history.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Because you cannot simply run around ā€œfreeingā€ people whenever religious hysteria compells you to spread ā€œfreedomā€ and/or ā€œdemocracyā€.

That is simply inappropriate behavior.

[/quote]

Who exactly did we free in 1812???[/quote]

Who did you free in Vietnam, or Iraq or Afghanistan?

Who did the crusaders convert and could they hold the holy land?

Its not about whether you achieved the goals you justified the aggression with, it is about the Gestalt of justifying mass murder.

I understand your point well.

I just do not get how you could claim that NONE of the wars our nation fought were either

a. justified

or

b. victorious

even when they were defensive.

You mention Vietman. You bitch because our soldiers killed people in a war. Yet I don’t hear you bitch about what happened when our forces moved out. You do not bitch about the Kymer Rogue or the Vietcong atrocities…only about military action done to try to stop them.

Lenin said, if you want to make an omlete, you’ve got to break a few eggs.

It seems to be ok when Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Mihn, Mao, Bin Laden break eggs…

Should we leave dictators be, do nothing as civilians are slaughtered by them because it’s morally or politically incorrect to intervene?

Perhaps it is really you who are justifying mass murder…

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I understand your point well.

I just do not get how you could claim that NONE of the wars our nation fought were either

a. justified

or

b. victorious

even when they were defensive.

You mention Vietman. You bitch because our soldiers killed people in a war. Yet I don’t hear you bitch about what happened when our forces moved out. You do not bitch about the Kymer Rogue or the Vietcong atrocities…only about military action done to try to stop them.

Lenin said, if you want to make an omlete, you’ve got to break a few eggs.

It seems to be ok when Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Mihn, Mao, Bin Laden break eggs…

Should we leave dictators be, do nothing as civilians are slaughtered by them because it’s morally or politically incorrect to intervene?

Perhaps it is really you who are justifying mass murder…[/quote]

Well it is precisely their ā€œbreaking eggsā€, that makes them bad people.

While I would agree that the use of violence to defend yourself is absolutely justified, the will to ā€œbreak eggsā€ for the sorriest omelettes is the stuff preventable tragedies are made of.

I cannot stress this enough, I find it abominable that people are cavalierly dismissing the death of hundreds of thousands of people in order to achieve their rather vague goals.

Also, since some Americans seem to have an obsession with ā€œmoral absolutesā€, it does not matter if they killed someone, it matters if you kill someone.

At least when it comes to the damnation of your eternal soul or whatever the reasoning is.

[quote]bond james bond wrote:

[quote]Null wrote:

I don’t believe money is the directly motivating factor. On a much more basic level we are trying to determine which philosophical and cultural paradigm will be dominant. Although there are things that I dislike about the States and Western civilization generally, this is the best system we as a species have been able to come up with (as predicated upon survival, freedom, prosperity, etc…) I spent a large portion of my childhood in an Arabic (Lebanese) culture, so I feel that I am not too horribly biased (maybe even informed; disparage the thought!) Regardless, I much prefer my current freedoms to the Jihadist model.
My point with the Native American example was that there needs to be some plan for eliminating competing systems. In the extreme form, you commit yourself to completely wiping out and subjugating the ā€œproblem people.ā€ Given that humans are resilient little bastards this rarely works and pisses off said people. Another strategy is to kill the perpetuators of the offending ideas. This sometimes works if the ā€œinfectionā€ is limited. We could also do nothing. This is the notion behind the Bible’s injunction to ā€œresist not evil.ā€ The idea being that eventually all things (ideas, societies, wars, rutabagas, etc.) pass away, are subsumed, forgotten, replaced, discarded, whatever…this option is generally not palatable for the majority of people as a lot of ā€œevilā€ is perpetrated while patiently waiting. The option that seems to meet with the most success is a combination of eliminating the offending infection while eliminating the underlying causes that cause a people to be prone to that infection. That is murder (literally or through propaganda/dissemination of ā€œthe truthā€) those responsible for spreading the infectious idea; bin Laden. Provide education and opportunities to dissuade and prevent disaffected youths from being swept up in Jihadist rhetoric. This works in much the same way that educational and economic opportunities deter gang affiliation in the States. Work to have our cultural ideals subsumed by the parent culture. We do a good job with this as it concerns ā€œpop culture,ā€ but we tend to turn a blind eye when neglecting the rights of women, children, and minorities meets our economic interests (as with China and Saudi Arabia.) The mistreated and maligned give birth to extremist movements. Any long term solution will be focused on truly spreading the freedoms we enjoy not simply expanding our roster of economic partners.

[quote]orion wrote:
Also, since some Americans seem to have an obsession with ā€œmoral absolutesā€, it does not matter if they killed someone, it matters if you kill someone.

At least when it comes to the damnation of your eternal soul or whatever the reasoning is.
[/quote]

Would you say killing a homicidal maniac or genocidal dictator is morally wrong?

On one hand you claim (at least I think it was you) we do not care about the brown man, yet, on the other, waging a war to save the yellow men from impending genocide is wrong?

Add the total number of people killed by the Communists in China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and North Korea and tell me how the idea of stopping Communist aggression in Vietnam was wrong.

How would you have stopped the Communists had you been the leader of the free world?

Or would you have let them control everything?

[quote]Nancy Boy wrote:

. . .

[/quote]

Interesting take on things. Problem is: you can build schools and infrastructure, try to change minds and attitudes.

The other side uses massive amounts of violence to kill and blow it all up.

For example: see Lebanon and Iraq.

One way to win in Afghanistan is by prompting up a dictator so violent and brutal he could in no way be a friend to the US.

Abdul Rashid Dostum comes to mind.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Nancy Boy wrote:

. . .

[/quote]

Interesting take on things. Problem is: you can build schools and infrastructure, try to change minds and attitudes.

The other side uses massive amounts of violence to kill and blow it all up.

For example: see Lebanon and Iraq.[/quote]

I have lived in Lebanon and Iraq. The adoption of Western (perhaps Industrial would be more appropriate) values (yes, I realize ā€œWestern valuesā€ are influenced by the Middle East before someone decides to give me their little, pedantic history lesson) is ongoing and inevitable. The evolution of our species seems to include a move towards a World culture. I don’t believe that the current Western paradigm will be the final story in our cultural evolution, but, as I stated before, it is currently the best system we have devised. The past two hundred years (particularly the last half century) have seen a large portion of the World coming together to support their mutual interests (with some obvious and noteable exceptions in Asia and Africa.)

[quote]orion wrote:
While I would agree that the use of violence to defend yourself is absolutely justified…[/quote]

  1. If it is morally permissible to use violence to defend myself, may I ask for and recieve the aid of others? Or, am I morally obligated to go it alone, as a singular person, to defeat an enemy force?

  2. What if the majority of my fellow citizens refuse to stand with me? Am I morally obligated to follow the consensus? Some sort of democratic awareness, that restrains me from striking out at the regime? Nah, that would be collectivism, right? You’re talking about the right of the individual, of course?

  3. What if, with the majority of my fellow citizens having accepted the yoke of the tyrant , I seek and accept the might of another power to oppose and overthrow the regime? Am I morally wrong?

  4. Is it limited to fisticuffs against the regime’s armed soldiers, armor, artillery, and air power, in order to eliminate non-combatant casualties (something unacceptable to you)?

Considering all those questions, do you really believe I have the right to use even violence to protect/liberate myself from a brutal regime? How can I have that right, if I’m obligated to follow the lead of a cowed majority? If I don’t have to follow their lead, as you might say, what good does the right do me if I’m obligated to only stand with some tiny minority of my countrymen, brave enough to stand with me, in a clearly hopeless effort?

Surely, I could look outwards for alliances, no? Or, do you believe my right to use violence ends when I have to recruit non-nationals to aid me? Why? Perhaps your solution for my limited numbers would be anti-regime guerrilla tactics. But then I’m stuck fighting from and blending back into the populace, increasing non-combatant casualties (something unacceptable to you).


Afghanistan was never ours to lose. And nobody died for nothing. The oil companies, contractors, and networks made billions of dollars.

everybody dies for nothing

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
While I would agree that the use of violence to defend yourself is absolutely justified…[/quote]

  1. If it is morally permissible to use violence to defend myself, may I ask for and recieve the aid of others? Or, am I morally obligated to go it alone, as a singular person, to defeat an enemy force?

  2. What if the majority of my fellow citizens refuse to stand with me? Am I morally obligated to follow the consensus? Some sort of democratic awareness, that restrains me from striking out at the regime? Nah, that would be collectivism, right? You’re talking about the right of the individual, of course?

  3. What if, with the majority of my fellow citizens having accepted the yoke of the tyrant , I seek and accept the might of another power to oppose and overthrow the regime? Am I morally wrong?

  4. Is it limited to fisticuffs against the regime’s armed soldiers, armor, artillery, and air power, in order to eliminate non-combatant casualties (something unacceptable to you)?

Considering all those questions, do you really believe I have the right to use even violence to protect/liberate myself from a brutal regime? How can I have that right, if I’m obligated to follow the lead of a cowed majority? If I don’t have to follow their lead, as you might say, what good does the right do me if I’m obligated to only stand with some tiny minority of my countrymen, brave enough to stand with me, in a clearly hopeless effort?

Surely, I could look outwards for alliances, no? Or, do you believe my right to use violence ends when I have to recruit non-nationals to aid me? Why? Perhaps your solution for my limited numbers would be anti-regime guerrilla tactics. But then I’m stuck fighting from and blending back into the populace, increasing non-combatant casualties (something unacceptable to you). [/quote]

If you want to take arms against the Taliban, that is your right. How ever, they can of course do the same.

If you want to send the US military that are also paid by others wo only want them to defend the US and not wage one war after trhe other that is definitely not ok.

Also even if you succeeded in proving beyond any doubt that a military intervention could theoretically be justified on ethical grounds you surely realize that it would still be a stupid idea in a democracy that is spinning out of control?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

Hahah. I swear if you had some intelligence and reason to back up your wit I’d really enjoy chewing the fat with ya.
[/quote]
A high school senior who thinks he has intelligence and reason has little to no chance of chewing the fat with me. You might come to me and say, ā€œSir, may I have a word with you,ā€ and we might get somewhere but if you think your advanced age of 17 gives you the intellectual wherewithal to competitively joust with me on political and historical issues then you don’t deserve to flip your tassel next June. Boy.[/quote]

Age doesn’t mean jack shit on the net, gramps. Either you can argue well or you can’t.

Give me an argument - any argument - and I’ll show you both 15 year olds and 75 year olds who support both sides of it. Go ahead, try me.

The people who rely on their age as a crutch are simply resorting to appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. Their error is in failing to realize that idiots get old, too. When a young person with idiotic views grows old, you get an old idiot, nothing less. Age doesn’t necessarily cure stupidity. If PhD’s can be bleeding heart liberals and if 56 year old men can advocate Keynesian economics and win Nobel prizes for it then that should tell you that years of learning and living is no barrier against simple fallacies.

ā€œYou’re inherently wrong because you’re younger than I amā€ is a dumbass argument, especially on an anonymous internet forum where there is no proof that anyone is who they claim to be.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

…Either you can argue well or you can’t.[/quote]

You of all people…can’t.[/quote]

What makes you say that? Are you sure you’re not letting your bias through? You disagree with many of my positions, therefore, you reason, I must be an ineffective debater? Non sequitor there, my friend.

If I were to accuse you of being an ineffective debater, I would predicate that claim not on what you profess to believe but on how you choose to articulate your beliefs. One of the most fundamental distinctions to draw is whether someone argues with reason or emotion. In your posts, I have noticed a sizable dose of the latter.

Personally, I think that arguing with emotion turns one into a woman and causes him quickly to lose the argument.

My take is that all claims in an argument must reduce to logical axioms, thus being mathematically rigorous. If the parties do not agree on terms and definitions prior to commencing the debate, then it will go absolutely nowhere and merely result in creating ill will.

There are only a few ways to debate a person legitimately and I’m familiar with each of them. Really, it’s no different than solving an equation.

There are, however, far more ways to lie and cheat your way through a debate, and those I’m constantly seeing new examples of.

[quote]eremesu wrote:
everybody dies for nothing[/quote]

Dude…that’s some deep shit. Now, my high’s all fucked up.

Afghanistan isn’t yours.

The War on Terror is as meaningless as the War on Drugs.

More people have been killed because of the War on Terror than during ā€˜acts of terror’ in the last decade.