|
|
The US's total disdain for and active hostility towards other cultural, social, political, religious traditions, despite its lip-service toward multiculturalism domestically, is a major problem.
Some examples of this hostility would be appreciated (and undoubtedly will be amusing).
The US bends over backward more than any other nation to appease the cultural, social, political, and religious traditions of other countries, no matter how stupid or fucked up they are. It's one of the main criticisms of our foreign policy! Particularly during the Cold War.
|
On October 16 2012 06:36 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 05:22 coverpunch wrote:There is large agreement that the best way to stop terrorism is to have a prosperous, stable, strong government that encourages democratic and free market values. Here's your problem. Undoubtedly, having stable and strong governments is desirable. But there is a limitation to how much of American ways of doing things one can shoehorn onto another culture, even assuming that they are the "best" things. You must keep in mind the context. We must think - to what extent are we imposing such liberal ideas for their good, and to what extent for our good? Might that be some of the source of the hostility toward us? Sensitivity to cultural context is a strategic imperative regardless of one's philosophical position on value judgments, whether pluralist relativist universalist what have you. The US's total disdain for and active hostility towards other cultural, social, political, religious traditions, despite its lip-service toward multiculturalism domestically, is a major problem.
OK. I don't necessarily agree entirely that the US has "total disdain", but no doubt the US has a poor track record of successes in nation-building.
But has Obama made this better or worse or no different? Could Romney do better?
|
On October 16 2012 06:42 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 06:36 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 05:22 coverpunch wrote:There is large agreement that the best way to stop terrorism is to have a prosperous, stable, strong government that encourages democratic and free market values. Here's your problem. Undoubtedly, having stable and strong governments is desirable. But there is a limitation to how much of American ways of doing things one can shoehorn onto another culture, even assuming that they are the "best" things. You must keep in mind the context. We must think - to what extent are we imposing such liberal ideas for their good, and to what extent for our good? Might that be some of the source of the hostility toward us? Sensitivity to cultural context is a strategic imperative regardless of one's philosophical position on value judgments, whether pluralist relativist universalist what have you. The US's total disdain for and active hostility towards other cultural, social, political, religious traditions, despite its lip-service toward multiculturalism domestically, is a major problem. OK. I don't necessarily agree entirely that the US has "total disdain", but no doubt the US has a poor track record of successes in nation-building. But has Obama made this better or worse or no different? Could Romney do better?
Well the Obama administration managed to get global support on invading Iran if they do obtain nuclear arms. This is unheard of in the past 10 years of US foreign policy. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact globally the US has managed to put such a bad light on itself most people just haev a general almost nationalistic hatred for US citizens and make stereotpyical assumptions like "fat" "lazy" "stupid" "war mongering".
Obama and Biden have finally managed to get global support for something that is in the US interest, definitely a step forward.
|
On October 16 2012 06:25 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On October 16 2012 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 16 2012 05:50 Jormundr wrote:On October 16 2012 05:40 DoubleReed wrote:On October 16 2012 05:39 Jormundr wrote:On October 16 2012 05:22 coverpunch wrote:On October 16 2012 04:30 Jormundr wrote:On October 16 2012 00:45 DarK[A] wrote:On October 15 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
If you don't think Ryan came off as incompetent regarding foreign policy when he was speaking nonsense about never using timelines because "they help our enemies" when they are an accepted fact of modern troop withdrawal in handover situations, being unable to present a single thing he and Romney would have done to stabilize the Middle East/Iran beyond "not what you guys did," not realizing virtually all our international allies including Afghans are on board with the withdrawal timetable, thinking it's bad to pull troops out of the most dangerous area in the world because it will put our troops in danger (this logic mandates total immediate withdrawal in reality), and not realizing that Iran is suffering under crippling sanctions, then you are in a strange place.
These weren't misrepresentations, these were things Ryan actually said live on national television during the debate.
Domestically everything is going to be pretty subjective because there are huge numbers of studies skewing things both ways (though I'd point out Ryan came off as a huge idiot for bashing the stimulus while requesting stimulus funds), but foreign policy? I'd have loved to see Huntsman in the chair instead, then we might have seen a competent discussion of foreign policy.
Edit: I mean, if you compare Ryan's thoughts on foreign policy to the foreign policy debate between Huntsman and Gingrich in the primaries, it's honestly depressing how little he knows and understands. These Afghans on board with our withdrawal are the same ones turning rifles on foreign allies, right? Regardless of whether you think timelines help our enemies or not, do you think the Afghan forces are ready to completely take over security on their own? Ryan's point during that diatribe was to secure our gains. That is, NOT letting those thousands of military deaths be for absolutely nothing.
No, I don't think they will be ready to enforce our policies on their land in the next 5 years, the next 10 years, or even the next 25 years. I don't give a shit. We invaded a sovereign nation, shot a bunch of terrorists/extremists (as well as a bunch of civilians) and we are now somehow confused as to why there are still more and more people fighting against us. PROTIP: When you invade someone's country and kill a bunch of people there will always be people who want to kill you in return. I'm not making an argument for whether or not we can 'better' the country in 25 or 50 years. I'm not making an argument over whether or not the afghan government will have Taliban influences in it when we leave (I actually assume these influences never left). I'm saying that we never had any logical reason to go in and fight a guerrilla war alongside a frail and corrupt government against an enemy that bears no flag. The point is that our service men and women haven't been tasked with doing anything of a significant enough value to the United States or Afghanistan to justify the death toll. We are responsible for (by the lowest casualty count) 6 Afghan civilian deaths for every single person who died on 9/11. Explain to me what throwing away the lives of our soldiers is going to accomplish for us as a nation. Explain to me what this war on foreign soil is about, because I apparently don't understand the modern definition of defense and how it is so deeply intertwined with nation-building. Let me take a swing at this. What you're missing is what 9/11 represented to US foreign policy. The attack was planned from the dark and neglected corners of the world, so that these obscure conflicts that you would say America should not care are precisely the areas where terrorism has fomented most actively. There is large agreement that the best way to stop terrorism is to have a prosperous, stable, strong government that encourages democratic and free market values. Hence the active nation-building started by Bush and continued and expanded by Obama. You seem unaware that it was last Friday that the Obama administration announced it was expanding the War on Terror to Mali (hunting down the terrorists who attacked the embassy in Benghazi). The US isn't committing ground forces, but we will be arming and funding a militia of mixed African countries to occupy the country. Not that Romney would do anything very different, at least he isn't saying so. What I'm trying to say is that the people who are really lost on foreign policy right now are liberal isolationists who think America should disengage from the world and only expand our influence if people want it. You don't have a leg to stand on in this election. Obama isn't that at all, he's been arguably more interventionist than Bush, it's just that people stopped bitching and moaning about it because he's a Democrat and they've been so traditionally reluctant that we broadly assume that if he says someone needs to be harshly interrogated or killed by a drone or invaded, then he probably means it. I fully understand that terrorism thrives in an uneducated populace guided by powerful religious and political leaders. It also thrives off of nationalism and blind hatred, two things we were GUARANTEED to inspire when we occupied the country. There was no benefit in committing to a large scale occupation of the country. I would be fine with bombing them over and over for 10 years. I would be fine with surgical strikes to take out perceived Al Qaeda cells and training camps. What I'm not in favor of is making our troops sit on the ground for 10 years with a target on their head to bolster an imagined 'freedom' for the people of a country 7000 miles away. I'm fully aware that neither candidate is anti war, and that no career politician would ever say "yeah we're just going to withdraw the troops immediately" because that would be political suicide. ...are you for real? Why yes, I would definitely prefer if we spent the last 10 years just using air strikes on afghan soil instead of wasting the lives of our troops and any afghani civilians near our troops! It turns out that when you spend I don't know, say about $600 billion per year on 'defense' you often come up with methods of waging war which are more efficient (from a patriotic loss of life standpoint) than marching your troops in and setting up bases. Well, gee, I would prefer not bombing them for ten years over and over! What about that option?? Here are my views: 1. Our current position: Occupy Afghanistan. Doesn't help us economically, doesn't help us militarily, helps us politically (nationalism woo). Doesn't help the afghanis(as they will go right back to what they know). Helps Al Qaeda as our occupation is basically a giant fuckin' recruitment poster for them. 2. The median position I just proposed. Bomb them and use land deployment only for a key surgical strikes that cannot be made from the air(it makes sense from a military standpoint, assuming that there is value [I don't] in bombing these mountain tribes). 3. The position I assume you are referring to, which is not going to war in a country 7000 miles away. I agree. Unfortunately there's a vocal portion of our population which thinks that we should police the world. I argue that if we are to do so, we must minimize the death toll of american citizens. So you would literally just take out the leaders, and then let whatever take control during the power vacuum? That's not exactly a long term solution. That's not even a month-term solution. If we're going to go in at all, then at the very least we can help support the local afghan people and set things up so that they can actually get on their feet. What makes you say that the afghanis will go right back to what they know? That seems like a random assertion. I'm not sure why people have this very static view of the world.
I'm talking about taking out the leaders and infrastructure of Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization of ~4000 people worldwide who claimed to be responsible for the attack on the world trade centers. I couldn't have given a shit less about the Taliban. Yeah they were a violent, shitty, totalitarian government regime. We've put those in place before in other countries. Still not our problem. Unfortunately there's this common misconception that Taliban = Al Qaeda because we are currently fighting both. The difference is that Al Qaeda arguably picked a fight with us (9/11), whereas we picked a fight with the Taliban (invading their country). So yes, I would have been absolutely ecstatic if we had left the Taliban to their violent little regime (which was already threatened by internal revolution).
As for why the people will revert back to their old ways, it's because we haven't significantly decreased the military strength of the Taliban. As others have pointed out time and time again, it is exceedingly difficult to enforce a knew way of thinking on an entire country. It is impossible in the space of 10 years (barring good ole' genocide). Hell I'd argue that in Afghanistan it is impossible within the confines of 10 years after peace is achieved.
|
On October 16 2012 06:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:Particularly during the Cold War.
Lol what?
On October 16 2012 06:42 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 06:36 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 05:22 coverpunch wrote:There is large agreement that the best way to stop terrorism is to have a prosperous, stable, strong government that encourages democratic and free market values. Here's your problem. Undoubtedly, having stable and strong governments is desirable. But there is a limitation to how much of American ways of doing things one can shoehorn onto another culture, even assuming that they are the "best" things. You must keep in mind the context. We must think - to what extent are we imposing such liberal ideas for their good, and to what extent for our good? Might that be some of the source of the hostility toward us? Sensitivity to cultural context is a strategic imperative regardless of one's philosophical position on value judgments, whether pluralist relativist universalist what have you. The US's total disdain for and active hostility towards other cultural, social, political, religious traditions, despite its lip-service toward multiculturalism domestically, is a major problem. OK. I don't necessarily agree entirely that the US has "total disdain", but no doubt the US has a poor track record of successes in nation-building. But has Obama made this better or worse or no different? Could Romney do better?
Yeah, so maybe "total disdain" is an overstatement.
Reps? Dems? Idk man it's all neoliberals to me
|
Lol what?
How many dictatorships did we support because they were anti-Communist? How many times did we nod our heads to bad men saying "Our country needs a strong ruler, the people aren't ready to make decisions for themselves, it isn't in our culture" because the strong ruler was against Moscow?
How many times have George Bush and Barack Obama both bent over backwards to say "this isn't a war against Islam," "Islam mustn't be insulted," etc?
Well the Obama administration managed to get global support on invading Iran if they do obtain nuclear arms. This is unheard of in the past 10 years of US foreign policy. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraq: 50 countries
Afghanistan: 100+ countries
So... try again?
In fact globally the US has managed to put such a bad light on itself most people just haev a general almost nationalistic hatred for US citizens and make stereotpyical assumptions like "fat" "lazy" "stupid" "war mongering".
In fact this fanatical hatred of the US has existed since the US has existed, there's nothing Americans can do about it. It's a big part of the reason why we don't listen to "the rest of the world" (meaning, elites in Europe and Canada and Australia, who seem to think they're the rest of the world), we know it won't matter. We don't give a shit what a bunch of people who have always hated us and always will think. They were saying the same things in 1830 (Tocqueville commented on it) about America that they were in 2003 and are today. It's not going to change.
Obama and Biden have finally managed to get global support for something that is in the US interest, definitely a step forward.
Obama policy towards Iran from 2009 - present has absolutely zero differences from Bush policy towards Iran from 2005-2009. Europe leads on negotiations with Iran and on drafting, submitting, and getting votes for sanctions at the UN. US sits in the background and does cloak-and-dagger shit with Israel and Iranian rebels (Stuxnet, assassinating scientists and military officers connected to the nuke program).
So... try again?
|
On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:How many dictatorships did we support because they were anti-Communist? How many times did we nod our heads to bad men saying "Our country needs a strong ruler, the people aren't ready to make decisions for themselves, it isn't in our culture" because the strong ruler was against Moscow? How many times have George Bush and Barack Obama both bent over backwards to say "this isn't a war against Islam," "Islam mustn't be insulted," etc?
Supporting dictatorships because of anti-communism is basically exactly what I'm talking about...
As for the latter, I think it may be a question of the lady protesting too much.
On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:
In fact this fanatical hatred of the US has existed since the US has existed, there's nothing Americans can do about it. It's a big part of the reason why we don't listen to "the rest of the world"
Nothing just "exists" all by itself
A lesson I've learned in life: when everybody thinks you're an asshole, sometimes it's because you're actually just acting like an asshole
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +In fact globally the US has managed to put such a bad light on itself most people just haev a general almost nationalistic hatred for US citizens and make stereotpyical assumptions like "fat" "lazy" "stupid" "war mongering". In fact this fanatical hatred of the US has existed since the US has existed, there's nothing Americans can do about it. It's a big part of the reason why we don't listen to "the rest of the world" (meaning, elites in Europe and Canada and Australia, who seem to think they're the rest of the world), we know it won't matter. We don't give a shit what a bunch of people who have always hated us and always will think. They were saying the same things in 1830 (Tocqueville commented on it) about America that they were in 2003 and are today. It's not going to change.
![[image loading]](http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/mar07/SK_Hill_poster2.jpg)
At least Russia liked us more towards the end of Bush's presidency.
|
On October 16 2012 06:45 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 06:25 DoubleReed wrote:On October 16 2012 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On October 16 2012 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 16 2012 05:50 Jormundr wrote:On October 16 2012 05:40 DoubleReed wrote:On October 16 2012 05:39 Jormundr wrote:On October 16 2012 05:22 coverpunch wrote:On October 16 2012 04:30 Jormundr wrote:On October 16 2012 00:45 DarK[A] wrote:
[quote]
These Afghans on board with our withdrawal are the same ones turning rifles on foreign allies, right? Regardless of whether you think timelines help our enemies or not, do you think the Afghan forces are ready to completely take over security on their own? Ryan's point during that diatribe was to secure our gains. That is, NOT letting those thousands of military deaths be for absolutely nothing.
No, I don't think they will be ready to enforce our policies on their land in the next 5 years, the next 10 years, or even the next 25 years. I don't give a shit. We invaded a sovereign nation, shot a bunch of terrorists/extremists (as well as a bunch of civilians) and we are now somehow confused as to why there are still more and more people fighting against us. PROTIP: When you invade someone's country and kill a bunch of people there will always be people who want to kill you in return. I'm not making an argument for whether or not we can 'better' the country in 25 or 50 years. I'm not making an argument over whether or not the afghan government will have Taliban influences in it when we leave (I actually assume these influences never left). I'm saying that we never had any logical reason to go in and fight a guerrilla war alongside a frail and corrupt government against an enemy that bears no flag. The point is that our service men and women haven't been tasked with doing anything of a significant enough value to the United States or Afghanistan to justify the death toll. We are responsible for (by the lowest casualty count) 6 Afghan civilian deaths for every single person who died on 9/11. Explain to me what throwing away the lives of our soldiers is going to accomplish for us as a nation. Explain to me what this war on foreign soil is about, because I apparently don't understand the modern definition of defense and how it is so deeply intertwined with nation-building. Let me take a swing at this. What you're missing is what 9/11 represented to US foreign policy. The attack was planned from the dark and neglected corners of the world, so that these obscure conflicts that you would say America should not care are precisely the areas where terrorism has fomented most actively. There is large agreement that the best way to stop terrorism is to have a prosperous, stable, strong government that encourages democratic and free market values. Hence the active nation-building started by Bush and continued and expanded by Obama. You seem unaware that it was last Friday that the Obama administration announced it was expanding the War on Terror to Mali (hunting down the terrorists who attacked the embassy in Benghazi). The US isn't committing ground forces, but we will be arming and funding a militia of mixed African countries to occupy the country. Not that Romney would do anything very different, at least he isn't saying so. What I'm trying to say is that the people who are really lost on foreign policy right now are liberal isolationists who think America should disengage from the world and only expand our influence if people want it. You don't have a leg to stand on in this election. Obama isn't that at all, he's been arguably more interventionist than Bush, it's just that people stopped bitching and moaning about it because he's a Democrat and they've been so traditionally reluctant that we broadly assume that if he says someone needs to be harshly interrogated or killed by a drone or invaded, then he probably means it. I fully understand that terrorism thrives in an uneducated populace guided by powerful religious and political leaders. It also thrives off of nationalism and blind hatred, two things we were GUARANTEED to inspire when we occupied the country. There was no benefit in committing to a large scale occupation of the country. I would be fine with bombing them over and over for 10 years. I would be fine with surgical strikes to take out perceived Al Qaeda cells and training camps. What I'm not in favor of is making our troops sit on the ground for 10 years with a target on their head to bolster an imagined 'freedom' for the people of a country 7000 miles away. I'm fully aware that neither candidate is anti war, and that no career politician would ever say "yeah we're just going to withdraw the troops immediately" because that would be political suicide. ...are you for real? Why yes, I would definitely prefer if we spent the last 10 years just using air strikes on afghan soil instead of wasting the lives of our troops and any afghani civilians near our troops! It turns out that when you spend I don't know, say about $600 billion per year on 'defense' you often come up with methods of waging war which are more efficient (from a patriotic loss of life standpoint) than marching your troops in and setting up bases. Well, gee, I would prefer not bombing them for ten years over and over! What about that option?? Here are my views: 1. Our current position: Occupy Afghanistan. Doesn't help us economically, doesn't help us militarily, helps us politically (nationalism woo). Doesn't help the afghanis(as they will go right back to what they know). Helps Al Qaeda as our occupation is basically a giant fuckin' recruitment poster for them. 2. The median position I just proposed. Bomb them and use land deployment only for a key surgical strikes that cannot be made from the air(it makes sense from a military standpoint, assuming that there is value [I don't] in bombing these mountain tribes). 3. The position I assume you are referring to, which is not going to war in a country 7000 miles away. I agree. Unfortunately there's a vocal portion of our population which thinks that we should police the world. I argue that if we are to do so, we must minimize the death toll of american citizens. So you would literally just take out the leaders, and then let whatever take control during the power vacuum? That's not exactly a long term solution. That's not even a month-term solution. If we're going to go in at all, then at the very least we can help support the local afghan people and set things up so that they can actually get on their feet. What makes you say that the afghanis will go right back to what they know? That seems like a random assertion. I'm not sure why people have this very static view of the world. I'm talking about taking out the leaders and infrastructure of Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization of ~4000 people worldwide who claimed to be responsible for the attack on the world trade centers. I couldn't have given a shit less about the Taliban. Yeah they were a violent, shitty, totalitarian government regime. We've put those in place before in other countries. Still not our problem. Unfortunately there's this common misconception that Taliban = Al Qaeda because we are currently fighting both. The difference is that Al Qaeda arguably picked a fight with us (9/11), whereas we picked a fight with the Taliban (invading their country). So yes, I would have been absolutely ecstatic if we had left the Taliban to their violent little regime (which was already threatened by internal revolution). As for why the people will revert back to their old ways, it's because we haven't significantly decreased the military strength of the Taliban. As others have pointed out time and time again, it is exceedingly difficult to enforce a knew way of thinking on an entire country. It is impossible in the space of 10 years (barring good ole' genocide). Hell I'd argue that in Afghanistan it is impossible within the confines of 10 years after peace is achieved.
How would you have done that without invading Afghanistan? We tried hitting them with bombs in the 90's and it (clearly) didn't do enough. Are you suggesting that we bomb them a lot more than that? If so than at what point are you de facto at war with the Taliban anyways?
|
United States43731 Posts
On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:
In fact this fanatical hatred of the US has existed since the US has existed, there's nothing Americans can do about it.
Total nonsense. The US is populated predominantly by people who chose to go to the US since it existed from the rest of the world. What you're saying is not only ridiculous but also patently untrue.
|
On October 16 2012 06:45 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 06:25 DoubleReed wrote:On October 16 2012 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On October 16 2012 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 16 2012 05:50 Jormundr wrote:On October 16 2012 05:40 DoubleReed wrote:On October 16 2012 05:39 Jormundr wrote:On October 16 2012 05:22 coverpunch wrote:On October 16 2012 04:30 Jormundr wrote:On October 16 2012 00:45 DarK[A] wrote:
[quote]
These Afghans on board with our withdrawal are the same ones turning rifles on foreign allies, right? Regardless of whether you think timelines help our enemies or not, do you think the Afghan forces are ready to completely take over security on their own? Ryan's point during that diatribe was to secure our gains. That is, NOT letting those thousands of military deaths be for absolutely nothing.
No, I don't think they will be ready to enforce our policies on their land in the next 5 years, the next 10 years, or even the next 25 years. I don't give a shit. We invaded a sovereign nation, shot a bunch of terrorists/extremists (as well as a bunch of civilians) and we are now somehow confused as to why there are still more and more people fighting against us. PROTIP: When you invade someone's country and kill a bunch of people there will always be people who want to kill you in return. I'm not making an argument for whether or not we can 'better' the country in 25 or 50 years. I'm not making an argument over whether or not the afghan government will have Taliban influences in it when we leave (I actually assume these influences never left). I'm saying that we never had any logical reason to go in and fight a guerrilla war alongside a frail and corrupt government against an enemy that bears no flag. The point is that our service men and women haven't been tasked with doing anything of a significant enough value to the United States or Afghanistan to justify the death toll. We are responsible for (by the lowest casualty count) 6 Afghan civilian deaths for every single person who died on 9/11. Explain to me what throwing away the lives of our soldiers is going to accomplish for us as a nation. Explain to me what this war on foreign soil is about, because I apparently don't understand the modern definition of defense and how it is so deeply intertwined with nation-building. Let me take a swing at this. What you're missing is what 9/11 represented to US foreign policy. The attack was planned from the dark and neglected corners of the world, so that these obscure conflicts that you would say America should not care are precisely the areas where terrorism has fomented most actively. There is large agreement that the best way to stop terrorism is to have a prosperous, stable, strong government that encourages democratic and free market values. Hence the active nation-building started by Bush and continued and expanded by Obama. You seem unaware that it was last Friday that the Obama administration announced it was expanding the War on Terror to Mali (hunting down the terrorists who attacked the embassy in Benghazi). The US isn't committing ground forces, but we will be arming and funding a militia of mixed African countries to occupy the country. Not that Romney would do anything very different, at least he isn't saying so. What I'm trying to say is that the people who are really lost on foreign policy right now are liberal isolationists who think America should disengage from the world and only expand our influence if people want it. You don't have a leg to stand on in this election. Obama isn't that at all, he's been arguably more interventionist than Bush, it's just that people stopped bitching and moaning about it because he's a Democrat and they've been so traditionally reluctant that we broadly assume that if he says someone needs to be harshly interrogated or killed by a drone or invaded, then he probably means it. I fully understand that terrorism thrives in an uneducated populace guided by powerful religious and political leaders. It also thrives off of nationalism and blind hatred, two things we were GUARANTEED to inspire when we occupied the country. There was no benefit in committing to a large scale occupation of the country. I would be fine with bombing them over and over for 10 years. I would be fine with surgical strikes to take out perceived Al Qaeda cells and training camps. What I'm not in favor of is making our troops sit on the ground for 10 years with a target on their head to bolster an imagined 'freedom' for the people of a country 7000 miles away. I'm fully aware that neither candidate is anti war, and that no career politician would ever say "yeah we're just going to withdraw the troops immediately" because that would be political suicide. ...are you for real? Why yes, I would definitely prefer if we spent the last 10 years just using air strikes on afghan soil instead of wasting the lives of our troops and any afghani civilians near our troops! It turns out that when you spend I don't know, say about $600 billion per year on 'defense' you often come up with methods of waging war which are more efficient (from a patriotic loss of life standpoint) than marching your troops in and setting up bases. Well, gee, I would prefer not bombing them for ten years over and over! What about that option?? Here are my views: 1. Our current position: Occupy Afghanistan. Doesn't help us economically, doesn't help us militarily, helps us politically (nationalism woo). Doesn't help the afghanis(as they will go right back to what they know). Helps Al Qaeda as our occupation is basically a giant fuckin' recruitment poster for them. 2. The median position I just proposed. Bomb them and use land deployment only for a key surgical strikes that cannot be made from the air(it makes sense from a military standpoint, assuming that there is value [I don't] in bombing these mountain tribes). 3. The position I assume you are referring to, which is not going to war in a country 7000 miles away. I agree. Unfortunately there's a vocal portion of our population which thinks that we should police the world. I argue that if we are to do so, we must minimize the death toll of american citizens. So you would literally just take out the leaders, and then let whatever take control during the power vacuum? That's not exactly a long term solution. That's not even a month-term solution. If we're going to go in at all, then at the very least we can help support the local afghan people and set things up so that they can actually get on their feet. What makes you say that the afghanis will go right back to what they know? That seems like a random assertion. I'm not sure why people have this very static view of the world. I'm talking about taking out the leaders and infrastructure of Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization of ~4000 people worldwide who claimed to be responsible for the attack on the world trade centers. I couldn't have given a shit less about the Taliban. Yeah they were a violent, shitty, totalitarian government regime. We've put those in place before in other countries. Still not our problem. Unfortunately there's this common misconception that Taliban = Al Qaeda because we are currently fighting both. The difference is that Al Qaeda arguably picked a fight with us (9/11), whereas we picked a fight with the Taliban (invading their country). So yes, I would have been absolutely ecstatic if we had left the Taliban to their violent little regime (which was already threatened by internal revolution). As for why the people will revert back to their old ways, it's because we haven't significantly decreased the military strength of the Taliban. As others have pointed out time and time again, it is exceedingly difficult to enforce a knew way of thinking on an entire country. It is impossible in the space of 10 years (barring good ole' genocide). Hell I'd argue that in Afghanistan it is impossible within the confines of 10 years after peace is achieved.
Err... why not? Why do you say 10 years is too short a time?
The closest relation might the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. They were kicked out of power in 1979, and dissolved in 1999. Vietnam had completely pulled out its forces by 1990, after the government it had instated had gained enough strength. So it had foreign troops for 11 years, and then for 9 years after that, the Cambodians themselves managed to eventually fight off the Khmer Rouge.
That might not be the case here. Obviously, that's a different situation. But I don't see where you get that 10 years is too short a time.
|
On October 16 2012 07:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:Lol what? How many dictatorships did we support because they were anti-Communist? How many times did we nod our heads to bad men saying "Our country needs a strong ruler, the people aren't ready to make decisions for themselves, it isn't in our culture" because the strong ruler was against Moscow? How many times have George Bush and Barack Obama both bent over backwards to say "this isn't a war against Islam," "Islam mustn't be insulted," etc? Supporting dictatorships because of anti-communism is basically exactly what I'm talking about... As for the latter, I think it may be a question of the lady protesting too much. Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:
In fact this fanatical hatred of the US has existed since the US has existed, there's nothing Americans can do about it. It's a big part of the reason why we don't listen to "the rest of the world" Nothing just "exists" all by itself A lesson I've learned in life: when everybody thinks you're an asshole, sometimes it's because you're actually just acting like an asshole
I agree to some extent..but our freedoms are a big reason why many hate us. Specifically much of the dominantly Muslim parts of the Middle East will mostly always hate us as long as we are free to do all of the things they consider sacrilegious. There is really nothing we can do to change that.
|
On October 16 2012 07:23 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 07:01 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:Lol what? How many dictatorships did we support because they were anti-Communist? How many times did we nod our heads to bad men saying "Our country needs a strong ruler, the people aren't ready to make decisions for themselves, it isn't in our culture" because the strong ruler was against Moscow? How many times have George Bush and Barack Obama both bent over backwards to say "this isn't a war against Islam," "Islam mustn't be insulted," etc? Supporting dictatorships because of anti-communism is basically exactly what I'm talking about... As for the latter, I think it may be a question of the lady protesting too much. On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:
In fact this fanatical hatred of the US has existed since the US has existed, there's nothing Americans can do about it. It's a big part of the reason why we don't listen to "the rest of the world" Nothing just "exists" all by itself A lesson I've learned in life: when everybody thinks you're an asshole, sometimes it's because you're actually just acting like an asshole I agree to some extent..but our freedoms are a big reason why many hate us. Specifically much of the pre-dominantly muslim parts of the Middle East will mostly always hate us as long as we are free to do all of the things they consider sacrilegious. There is really nothing we can do to change that.
I don't buy it. Who has the energy to hate somebody halfway across the world on a matter of principle? I mean really hate, to the point of going out of your way to be violent...
Let's just put it this way:
The reason they hate us is not because of anything that we are doing on OUR side of the ocean...
This idea that they hate us because of our freedom is just so much ideology
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 16 2012 07:23 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 07:01 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:Lol what? How many dictatorships did we support because they were anti-Communist? How many times did we nod our heads to bad men saying "Our country needs a strong ruler, the people aren't ready to make decisions for themselves, it isn't in our culture" because the strong ruler was against Moscow? How many times have George Bush and Barack Obama both bent over backwards to say "this isn't a war against Islam," "Islam mustn't be insulted," etc? Supporting dictatorships because of anti-communism is basically exactly what I'm talking about... As for the latter, I think it may be a question of the lady protesting too much. On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:
In fact this fanatical hatred of the US has existed since the US has existed, there's nothing Americans can do about it. It's a big part of the reason why we don't listen to "the rest of the world" Nothing just "exists" all by itself A lesson I've learned in life: when everybody thinks you're an asshole, sometimes it's because you're actually just acting like an asshole I agree to some extent..but our freedoms are a big reason why many hate us. Specifically much of the pre-dominantly muslim parts of the Middle East will mostly always hate us as long as we are free to do all of the things they consider sacrilegious. There is really nothing we can do to change that.
'They hate our freedomz!!1' is one of the most oversimplified explanations of anything I have ever heard of. It exemplifies the ignorance of the typical American on U.S.-Middle East relations. Did you know that Muslims once upon a time were actually incredibly tolerant and would not lift a finger when directly insulted?
|
On October 16 2012 07:23 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 07:01 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:Lol what? How many dictatorships did we support because they were anti-Communist? How many times did we nod our heads to bad men saying "Our country needs a strong ruler, the people aren't ready to make decisions for themselves, it isn't in our culture" because the strong ruler was against Moscow? How many times have George Bush and Barack Obama both bent over backwards to say "this isn't a war against Islam," "Islam mustn't be insulted," etc? Supporting dictatorships because of anti-communism is basically exactly what I'm talking about... As for the latter, I think it may be a question of the lady protesting too much. On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:
In fact this fanatical hatred of the US has existed since the US has existed, there's nothing Americans can do about it. It's a big part of the reason why we don't listen to "the rest of the world" Nothing just "exists" all by itself A lesson I've learned in life: when everybody thinks you're an asshole, sometimes it's because you're actually just acting like an asshole I agree to some extent..but our freedoms are a big reason why many hate us. Specifically much of the dominantly Muslim parts of the Middle East will mostly always hate us as long as we are free to do all of the things they consider sacrilegious. There is really nothing we can do to change that.
This freedom business is ridiculous. There are many countries around the world (infact I would argue most if not all of the western world) that are just as "free" as us, especially in the ways you would expect islamic facist countries to be pissed off about. Women wearing what they want, intermixing of the genders, freedom of speech, etc.
I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia.
|
On October 16 2012 07:26 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 07:23 kmillz wrote:On October 16 2012 07:01 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:Lol what? How many dictatorships did we support because they were anti-Communist? How many times did we nod our heads to bad men saying "Our country needs a strong ruler, the people aren't ready to make decisions for themselves, it isn't in our culture" because the strong ruler was against Moscow? How many times have George Bush and Barack Obama both bent over backwards to say "this isn't a war against Islam," "Islam mustn't be insulted," etc? Supporting dictatorships because of anti-communism is basically exactly what I'm talking about... As for the latter, I think it may be a question of the lady protesting too much. On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:
In fact this fanatical hatred of the US has existed since the US has existed, there's nothing Americans can do about it. It's a big part of the reason why we don't listen to "the rest of the world" Nothing just "exists" all by itself A lesson I've learned in life: when everybody thinks you're an asshole, sometimes it's because you're actually just acting like an asshole I agree to some extent..but our freedoms are a big reason why many hate us. Specifically much of the pre-dominantly muslim parts of the Middle East will mostly always hate us as long as we are free to do all of the things they consider sacrilegious. There is really nothing we can do to change that. 'They hate our freedomz!!1' is one of the most oversimplified explanations of anything I have ever heard of. It exemplifies the ignorance of the typical American on U.S.-Middle East relations. Did you know that Muslims once upon a time were actually incredibly tolerant and would not lift a finger when directly insulted?
Yeah, I just finished watching the Yale Open Course on the Early Middle Ages, and the lecturer was basically saying that the entire reason Islam was so successful was because of how tolerant it was of other religions, similar to how the Romans were
|
On October 16 2012 07:26 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 07:23 kmillz wrote:On October 16 2012 07:01 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:Lol what? How many dictatorships did we support because they were anti-Communist? How many times did we nod our heads to bad men saying "Our country needs a strong ruler, the people aren't ready to make decisions for themselves, it isn't in our culture" because the strong ruler was against Moscow? How many times have George Bush and Barack Obama both bent over backwards to say "this isn't a war against Islam," "Islam mustn't be insulted," etc? Supporting dictatorships because of anti-communism is basically exactly what I'm talking about... As for the latter, I think it may be a question of the lady protesting too much. On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:
In fact this fanatical hatred of the US has existed since the US has existed, there's nothing Americans can do about it. It's a big part of the reason why we don't listen to "the rest of the world" Nothing just "exists" all by itself A lesson I've learned in life: when everybody thinks you're an asshole, sometimes it's because you're actually just acting like an asshole I agree to some extent..but our freedoms are a big reason why many hate us. Specifically much of the pre-dominantly muslim parts of the Middle East will mostly always hate us as long as we are free to do all of the things they consider sacrilegious. There is really nothing we can do to change that. 'They hate our freedomz!!1' is one of the most oversimplified explanations of anything I have ever heard of. It exemplifies the ignorance of the typical American on U.S.-Middle East relations. Did you know that Muslims once upon a time were actually incredibly tolerant and would not lift a finger when directly insulted?
Yes, well the Muslim Brotherhood has been gaining power in many many countries, including Turkey of all places. They are well funded, well coordinated, and have a lot going for them. They are a lot less racist and divisive then a lot of organizations, because they welcome all Muslims.
Look at what is happening in the UK right now:
http://tehrantimes.com/world/102400-10000-protest-anti-muslim-video-at-googles-uk-hq
This trend is very troubling.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 16 2012 07:33 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 07:26 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 07:23 kmillz wrote:On October 16 2012 07:01 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:Lol what? How many dictatorships did we support because they were anti-Communist? How many times did we nod our heads to bad men saying "Our country needs a strong ruler, the people aren't ready to make decisions for themselves, it isn't in our culture" because the strong ruler was against Moscow? How many times have George Bush and Barack Obama both bent over backwards to say "this isn't a war against Islam," "Islam mustn't be insulted," etc? Supporting dictatorships because of anti-communism is basically exactly what I'm talking about... As for the latter, I think it may be a question of the lady protesting too much. On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:
In fact this fanatical hatred of the US has existed since the US has existed, there's nothing Americans can do about it. It's a big part of the reason why we don't listen to "the rest of the world" Nothing just "exists" all by itself A lesson I've learned in life: when everybody thinks you're an asshole, sometimes it's because you're actually just acting like an asshole I agree to some extent..but our freedoms are a big reason why many hate us. Specifically much of the pre-dominantly muslim parts of the Middle East will mostly always hate us as long as we are free to do all of the things they consider sacrilegious. There is really nothing we can do to change that. 'They hate our freedomz!!1' is one of the most oversimplified explanations of anything I have ever heard of. It exemplifies the ignorance of the typical American on U.S.-Middle East relations. Did you know that Muslims once upon a time were actually incredibly tolerant and would not lift a finger when directly insulted? Yes, well the Muslim Brotherhood has been gaining power in many many countries, including Turkey of all places. They are well funded, well coordinated, and have a lot going for them. They are a lot less racist and divisive then a lot of organizations, because they welcome all Muslims. Look at what is happening in the UK right now: http://tehrantimes.com/world/102400-10000-protest-anti-muslim-video-at-googles-uk-hqThis trend is very troubling.
Indeed, it is troubling, but to brush it off simply by saying "They hate our freedomz!!1" is ridiculous. The Muslim Brotherhood was not formed nor has it been gaining power simply because "They hate our freedomz!!1"
|
On October 16 2012 07:38 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 07:33 DoubleReed wrote:On October 16 2012 07:26 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 07:23 kmillz wrote:On October 16 2012 07:01 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:Lol what? How many dictatorships did we support because they were anti-Communist? How many times did we nod our heads to bad men saying "Our country needs a strong ruler, the people aren't ready to make decisions for themselves, it isn't in our culture" because the strong ruler was against Moscow? How many times have George Bush and Barack Obama both bent over backwards to say "this isn't a war against Islam," "Islam mustn't be insulted," etc? Supporting dictatorships because of anti-communism is basically exactly what I'm talking about... As for the latter, I think it may be a question of the lady protesting too much. On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:
In fact this fanatical hatred of the US has existed since the US has existed, there's nothing Americans can do about it. It's a big part of the reason why we don't listen to "the rest of the world" Nothing just "exists" all by itself A lesson I've learned in life: when everybody thinks you're an asshole, sometimes it's because you're actually just acting like an asshole I agree to some extent..but our freedoms are a big reason why many hate us. Specifically much of the pre-dominantly muslim parts of the Middle East will mostly always hate us as long as we are free to do all of the things they consider sacrilegious. There is really nothing we can do to change that. 'They hate our freedomz!!1' is one of the most oversimplified explanations of anything I have ever heard of. It exemplifies the ignorance of the typical American on U.S.-Middle East relations. Did you know that Muslims once upon a time were actually incredibly tolerant and would not lift a finger when directly insulted? Yes, well the Muslim Brotherhood has been gaining power in many many countries, including Turkey of all places. They are well funded, well coordinated, and have a lot going for them. They are a lot less racist and divisive then a lot of organizations, because they welcome all Muslims. Look at what is happening in the UK right now: http://tehrantimes.com/world/102400-10000-protest-anti-muslim-video-at-googles-uk-hqThis trend is very troubling. Indeed, it is troubling, but to brush it off simply by saying "They hate our freedomz!!1" is ridiculous. The Muslim Brotherhood was not formed nor has it been gaining power simply because "They hate our freedomz!!1"
Well in this case they actually do hate our freedoms...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
meh. even if these people are fanatically devoted to hating america, they won't do any terrorist-y things if the economy is doing well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
