its wise to kill a million to arrest a man that had not killed even 25,000 in the last 10 years?
yeah doesn't make a lot of sense does it? when put in that context. it does when its put in the correct context. such as oil is more valuable than people.
It why we should be questioning the US right to even get involved. We can check their track record if there are any doubts as to the motives behind all of these interventions/.
There is a precedent for all of this. About 25 of them. mostly in South America...like when the US took it upon itself to save the people of Nicaragua from communism. Never mind the fact that the Nicaraguan people voted in the Sandanistas in elections that were considered fair, by outside observers. And typical results...the people became poorer, the gov't more repressive, life just generally got shittier.
And in nearly every case of bringing "western democracy" to a country, that happens.
Life just gets shittier for everyone involved. but the country is controlled, and its resources free to be exploited-and that's the bottom line.
Jlew-research the Afghan trap if you think the US motives in Afghanistan were altruistic. The US treated the entire country as a booby trap for the soviets, never mind the cost.
its wise to kill a million to arrest a man that had not killed even 25,000 in the last 10 years?
yeah doesn't make a lot of sense does it? when put in that context. it does when its put in the correct context. such as oil is more valuable than people.
It why we should be questioning the US right to even get involved. We can check their track record if there are any doubts as to the motives behind all of these interventions/.
There is a precedent for all of this. About 25 of them. mostly in South America...like when the US took it upon itself to save the people of Nicaragua from communism. Never mind the fact that the Nicaraguan people voted in the Sandanistas in elections that were considered fair, by outside observers. And typical results...the people became poorer, the gov't more repressive, life just generally got shittier.
And in nearly every case of bringing "western democracy" to a country, that happens.
Life just gets shittier for everyone involved. but the country is controlled, and its resources free to be exploited-and that's the bottom line.
first of all, the US didnt kill one million Iraqis. stop spreading this bullshit garbage propaganda. The US has many motives for doing what it does. you and soul completely ignore the bigger picture and take whatever fits your negative view of the United States and multiply 10x.
Jlew-research the Afghan trap if you think the US motives in Afghanistan were altruistic. The US treated the entire country as a booby trap for the soviets, never mind the cost.
so I guess your going to tell me the CIA set up the whole war in Afghanistan.
its wise to kill a million to arrest a man that had not killed even 25,000 in the last 10 years?
yeah doesn't make a lot of sense does it? when put in that context. it does when its put in the correct context. such as oil is more valuable than people.
It why we should be questioning the US right to even get involved. We can check their track record if there are any doubts as to the motives behind all of these interventions/.
There is a precedent for all of this. About 25 of them. mostly in South America...like when the US took it upon itself to save the people of Nicaragua from communism. Never mind the fact that the Nicaraguan people voted in the Sandanistas in elections that were considered fair, by outside observers. And typical results...the people became poorer, the gov't more repressive, life just generally got shittier.
And in nearly every case of bringing "western democracy" to a country, that happens.
Life just gets shittier for everyone involved. but the country is controlled, and its resources free to be exploited-and that's the bottom line.
first of all, the US didnt kill one million Iraqis. stop spreading this bullshit garbage propaganda. The US has many motives for doing what it does. you and soul completely ignore the bigger picture and take whatever fits your negative view of the United States and multiply 10x.
Jlew-research the Afghan trap if you think the US motives in Afghanistan were altruistic. The US treated the entire country as a booby trap for the soviets, never mind the cost.
so I guess your going to tell me the CIA set up the whole war in Afghanistan.
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
now go ahead and tell us that it wasn’t the fault of the US, cause the Soviets took the bait….
last time I checked we were in Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda and to keep them from plotting attacks against America. I wish we could bring all the troops home but we cant we have to finish the job. There are many grateful people b/c of our presence, just as there are some that don't want us their.If I had lost a loved one due to the war and US forces being present I probably wouldn't want US their either. But at the same time it would depend on if it was in vain or not
I think some of yous need to think about how fucked up the Taliban really is (sharia law) They took away peoples radio's TVs,children couldn't play games anymore , women being beaten half to death. ect...
Funny thing about the afghan trap....the US is in it themselves now. And instead of zbig being a cocky douche about it, we have Bin Laden being a cocky douche about it....remember his statement that he would destroy the US financially by dragging them into a war on his turf???????
last time I checked we were in Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda and to keep them from plotting attacks against America. I wish we could bring all the troops home but we cant we have to finish the job. There are many grateful people b/c of our presence, just as there are some that don't want us their.If I had lost a loved one due to the war and US forces being present I probably wouldn't want US their either. But at the same time it would depend on if it was in vain or not
I think some of yous need to think about how fucked up the Taliban really is (sharia law) They took away peoples radio's TVs,children couldn't play games anymore , women being beaten half to death. ect...
its always a war against someone.
fighting
communism
drugs
terrorism
to liberate
for democracy
its always a war on something
same school different class.
the results are always the same, and never good for the people we "save".
Funny thing about the afghan trap....the US is in it themselves now. And instead of zbig being a cocky douche about it, we have Bin Laden being a cocky douche about it....remember his statement that he would destroy the US financially by dragging them into a war on his turf???????
Never good for the people we save? :roll: Okay I guess Europe would be better off under nazi rule? :roll: Dude you really need to think before posting somtimes.
I largely agree but I feel there is also truth in what I said. we can only do so much and go so far, sometimes we fall short.. We went to Afganistan to defeat an enemy and free the Afgans. We went to Iraq to protect our Oil interests and free Iraq from Saddam. and I'll call bullshit on your so called Islamic travels. where have you been? Detroit? that doesnt count. I highly doubt you are some expert on what they want. There are many people in the muslim world who consider us friends. secondly, women or anyone who speaks out against people like Saddam or the Taliban are tortured and killed. they cant help themselves.
I have a friend who's father did alot of business overseas. He was sitting in a restaurant in London when a Kuwaiti came up to him and thanked him simply because he was American. the Kuwaitis love us....as do many Iraqis who were tortured in Iraq and many Afgans who suffered under the Taliban.
you and Commy seem to think America is the root of all evil and we help no one. that simply not true.
and dont bring up Africa. America is the biggest supporter of Africa. you just like to think we arent doing anything because we dont have troops on the ground fighting wars there.
I spent 3 weeks this spring in Morocco, that was after months studying the country and its political situation. While there I did a number of interviews with political figures, professors, human rights advocates, and even the US embassy employees. Morocco is one of the more friendly countries towards the US, and even they have serious problems with the US, its foreign policy, and our imperial practices (their words, not mine). A leading feminist there is fighting hard for rights for Moroccan women, and even she was opposed to US involvement there. We hurt their cause... as long as progress is seen as American meddling and not a change from within their own culture, nothing we do in the name of "helping" will ever succeed. Oh yeah, that woman was not tortured or killed. Though she has been put on trial and convicted. But let's not give any credence to any Islamic country that already shows progress when we've got such great stories about torture to demonize these people.
How's that for bullshit? But Detroit's nice too and all.
You know me better than to think I believe the US is the root of all evil. I'm a pragmatist, not some naive teary-eyed patriot. Our foreign policy towards the Muslim world sucks. We do some good here and there, but only when it's easy. We have to stay the course in Iraq, but we get our military the fuck out of any African situation as fast as we can. Why? Because there's no return on the latter investment. We write checks to send food to Africa, but we're sure as hell not going to make sure it gets to the people rather than the warlords, because it's not worth our money or effort. Iraq is. Not because we're noble or interesting in helping, but because we can profit off the latter.
As to our multiple goals in Iraq and Afghanistan... kinda telling that once the one goal is met, the other becomes irrelevant isn't it? Kinda makes you wonder if the humanitarian reason is just a pretext, since it's always abandoned as soon as the economic one is achieved.
last time I checked we were in Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda and to keep them from plotting attacks against America. I wish we could bring all the troops home but we cant we have to finish the job. There are many grateful people b/c of our presence, just as there are some that don't want us their.If I had lost a loved one due to the war and US forces being present I probably wouldn't want US their either. But at the same time it would depend on if it was in vain or not
I think some of yous need to think about how fucked up the Taliban really is (sharia law) They took away peoples radio's TVs,children couldn't play games anymore , women being beaten half to death. ect...
I'm well aware of how fucked up the Taliban is. I was researching and railing against them BEFORE 9/11 happened. But if you think we're over there for purely charitable humanitarian reasons, you're nuts.
Never good for the people we save? :roll: Okay I guess Europe would be better off under nazi rule? :roll: Dude you really need to think before posting somtimes.
Never good for the people we save? :roll: Okay I guess Europe would be better off under nazi rule? :roll: Dude you really need to think before posting somtimes.
actually yea.
i'm sure the 250,000 people burned alive in dresden aren't better off, but i don't want to get into WW2.
This latest era of history, post WW2 is what i'm referring too. never made that clear.
I largely agree but I feel there is also truth in what I said. we can only do so much and go so far, sometimes we fall short.. We went to Afganistan to defeat an enemy and free the Afgans. We went to Iraq to protect our Oil interests and free Iraq from Saddam. and I'll call bullshit on your so called Islamic travels. where have you been? Detroit? that doesnt count. I highly doubt you are some expert on what they want. There are many people in the muslim world who consider us friends. secondly, women or anyone who speaks out against people like Saddam or the Taliban are tortured and killed. they cant help themselves.
I have a friend who's father did alot of business overseas. He was sitting in a restaurant in London when a Kuwaiti came up to him and thanked him simply because he was American. the Kuwaitis love us....as do many Iraqis who were tortured in Iraq and many Afgans who suffered under the Taliban.
you and Commy seem to think America is the root of all evil and we help no one. that simply not true.
and dont bring up Africa. America is the biggest supporter of Africa. you just like to think we arent doing anything because we dont have troops on the ground fighting wars there.
I spent 3 weeks this spring in Morocco, that was after months studying the country and its political situation. While there I did a number of interviews with political figures, professors, human rights advocates, and even the US embassy employees. Morocco is one of the more friendly countries towards the US, and even they have serious problems with the US, its foreign policy, and our imperial practices (their words, not mine). A leading feminist there is fighting hard for rights for Moroccan women, and even she was opposed to US involvement there. We hurt their cause... as long as progress is seen as American meddling and not a change from within their own culture, nothing we do in the name of "helping" will ever succeed. Oh yeah, that woman was not tortured or killed. Though she has been put on trial and convicted. But let's not give any credence to any Islamic country that already shows progress when we've got such great stories about torture to demonize these people.
How's that for bullshit? But Detroit's nice too and all.
LOL. fair enough. but you did paint a very broad brush. there are huge sections of Muslim populations who very much appreciate our involvement. but to be fair, you were in Morocco. a very moderate muslim country. its a long way from Iran or Pakistan. you know very well how the Taliban or Saudis or Iranians deal with women....and how children are forced into Madrasas. its fucked up.
You know me better than to think I believe the US is the root of all evil. I'm a pragmatist, not some naive teary-eyed patriot. Our foreign policy towards the Muslim world sucks. We do some good here and there, but only when it's easy. We have to stay the course in Iraq, but we get our military the fuck out of any African situation as fast as we can. Why? Because there's no return on the latter investment. We write checks to send food to Africa, but we're sure as hell not going to make sure it gets to the people rather than the warlords, because it's not worth our money or effort. Iraq is. Not because we're noble or interesting in helping, but because we can profit off the latter.
ok, so helping the Iraqis rebuild their country is an unintended consequence of our action there to a certain degree. but we are still helping them rebuild their country. it makes sense to do things in our best interest. dont u?
As to our multiple goals in Iraq and Afghanistan... kinda telling that once the one goal is met, the other becomes irrelevant isn't it? Kinda makes you wonder if the humanitarian reason is just a pretext, since it's always abandoned as soon as the economic one is achieved.
the world is a fucked up place, what do you want me to say..I'm not one to say the US is perfect, but I know we are not the great evil. you make it sound as if we completely abandon humanitarian circumstances and I dont think we do.
Never good for the people we save? :roll: Okay I guess Europe would be better off under nazi rule? :roll: Dude you really need to think before posting somtimes.
last time I checked we were in Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda and to keep them from plotting attacks against America. I wish we could bring all the troops home but we cant we have to finish the job. There are many grateful people b/c of our presence, just as there are some that don't want us their.If I had lost a loved one due to the war and US forces being present I probably wouldn't want US their either. But at the same time it would depend on if it was in vain or not
I think some of yous need to think about how fucked up the Taliban really is (sharia law) They took away peoples radio's TVs,children couldn't play games anymore , women being beaten half to death. ect...
I'm well aware of how fucked up the Taliban is. I was researching and railing against them BEFORE 9/11 happened. But if you think we're over there for purely charitable humanitarian reasons, you're nuts.
wouldn't be the first time someone on here called me that but for what it's worth I do believe we are there for legitimate reasons.Preventing further attacks against America ,the rest of the world and if they the Taliban/Al Qaeda get the keys to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal were going to have some big fucking problems. If we are ther for other reasons please do enlighten me on why you believe that.
Never good for the people we save? :roll: Okay I guess Europe would be better off under nazi rule? :roll: Dude you really need to think before posting somtimes.
We didn't save Europe from the Nazis.
Really ? please do tell. I really want to hear this cos If your gonna sit there And tell me they could have done it on ther own I really want to hear this.
wouldn't be the first time someone on here called me that but for what it's worth I do believe we are there for legitimate reasons.Preventing further attacks against America ,the rest of the world and if they the Taliban/Al Qaeda get the keys to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal were going to have some big fucking problems. If we are ther for other reasons please do enlighten me on why you believe that.
If the US builds an oil pipeline through Afghanistan, which they've said they want to do, they would cut Iran out of the European oil market, destroying their economy.
It would go through Kandahar province, the most volatile region in all of Afghanistan. suggesting that maybe outside forces are working against that plan.
LOL. fair enough. but you did paint a very broad brush. there are huge sections of Muslim populations who very much appreciate our involvement. but to be fair, you were in Morocco. a very moderate muslim country. its a long way from Iran or Pakistan. you know very well how the Taliban or Saudis or Iranians deal with women....and how children are forced into Madrasas. its fucked up.
ok, so helping the Iraqis rebuild their country is an unintended consequence of our action there to a certain degree. but we are still helping them rebuild their country. it makes sense to do things in our best interest. dont u?
the world is a fucked up place, what do you want me to say..I'm not one to say the US is perfect, but I know we are not the great evil. you make it sound as if we completely abandon humanitarian circumstances and I dont think we do.
I would argue that it is in our best long-term interest to avoid any meddling in the Middle East. Instead of constantly fucking with them for a good angle on their oil and pissing them off so they blow up our buildings all the time, why not let them handle their own affairs? Only get involved in humanitarian causes with the full support and agreement of the UN, or at least NATO, and show that we're as willing to spend money building them schools and hospitals as we are to spend money on bombs to blow up their countryside. Engender some good will. Iraq was a blunder. Taking sides in the Iran-Iraq war was a blunder. Setting up Afghanistan to take on Russia was a blunder. But we keep doing it. Let's show the world we're as devoted to human rights as we claim by putting our money and troops where our mouth is. That means as much involvement in Africa as we do in rich oil-based countries. Make it humanitarian aid, not regime change that is seen as political meddling. Things like that.
I am also not one to say the US is perfect, but nor do I say we are a great evil. I just think we've made a lot of poor decisions when it comes to our dealings with the Islamic world, and we're paying the price for them. Do we keep plowing forward with them just because every now and again we get lucky and one turns out ok? Or do we look at our actions and their affects and try to find a more effective way to conduct our foreign affairs there? We have a lot of great and promising humanitarian tendencies, but they are too often eclipsed by either impatience, condescension, or just plain greed. We can temper that. But to do so we need to take a real look at ourselves and ask if what we're doing is a good idea, not dodge the issue and point at how evil some of them are and use that as a blank check to continue taking disastrous actions that hurt us in the long term.
Never good for the people we save? :roll: Okay I guess Europe would be better off under nazi rule? :roll: Dude you really need to think before posting somtimes.
We didn't save Europe from the Nazis.
we had a huge role in defeating the Nazis
Yes, we played our part. But the US did not save Europe. The allies saved Europe, with the lion's share of the credit going to the Soviet Union obliterating Hitler's armies while we teamed up with the Brits and the French to push him out of France... which succeeded in large part because all his resources were being eaten up by the Russians.
LOL. fair enough. but you did paint a very broad brush. there are huge sections of Muslim populations who very much appreciate our involvement. but to be fair, you were in Morocco. a very moderate muslim country. its a long way from Iran or Pakistan. you know very well how the Taliban or Saudis or Iranians deal with women....and how children are forced into Madrasas. its fucked up.
ok, so helping the Iraqis rebuild their country is an unintended consequence of our action there to a certain degree. but we are still helping them rebuild their country. it makes sense to do things in our best interest. dont u?
the world is a fucked up place, what do you want me to say..I'm not one to say the US is perfect, but I know we are not the great evil. you make it sound as if we completely abandon humanitarian circumstances and I dont think we do.
I would argue that it is in our best long-term interest to avoid any meddling in the Middle East. Instead of constantly fucking with them for a good angle on their oil and pissing them off so they blow up our buildings all the time, why not let them handle their own affairs? Only get involved in humanitarian causes with the full support and agreement of the UN, or at least NATO, and show that we're as willing to spend money building them schools and hospitals as we are to spend money on bombs to blow up their countryside. Engender some good will. Iraq was a blunder. Taking sides in the Iran-Iraq war was a blunder. Setting up Afghanistan to take on Russia was a blunder. But we keep doing it. Let's show the world we're as devoted to human rights as we claim by putting our money and troops where our mouth is. That means as much involvement in Africa as we do in rich oil-based countries. Make it humanitarian aid, not regime change that is seen as political meddling. Things like that.
I am also not one to say the US is perfect, but nor do I say we are a great evil. I just think we've made a lot of poor decisions when it comes to our dealings with the Islamic world, and we're paying the price for them. Do we keep plowing forward with them just because every now and again we get lucky and one turns out ok? Or do we look at our actions and their affects and try to find a more effective way to conduct our foreign affairs there? We have a lot of great and promising humanitarian tendencies, but they are too often eclipsed by either impatience, condescension, or just plain greed. We can temper that. But to do so we need to take a real look at ourselves and ask if what we're doing is a good idea, not dodge the issue and point at how evil some of them are and use that as a blank check to continue taking disastrous actions that hurt us in the long term.
as for Iraq and Iran...yea, leave them alone. I agree. its been proven to be way too much of a cluster fuck to deal with...i.e sunni/shittes. but look what happen to Afghanistan after we "left them alone"...the taliban rose to power and gave our enemies a home base.
I'm sure you have studied extreme forms of Islam and how damaging it can be. Allah is the only thing they care about. They kill in the name of God. If they got their hands on a nuke, who knows what could happen. I fear Pakistan could eventually fall into an extremist state. they have plenty of enemies, and not just the US.
and you mention humanitarian issues. how are we suppose to support a Taliban regime with humanitarian aid?
Yes, we played our part. But the US did not save Europe. The allies saved Europe, with the lion's share of the credit going to the Soviet Union obliterating Hitler's armies while we teamed up with the Brits and the French to push him out of France... which succeeded in large part because all his resources were being eaten up by the Russians.
we helped save Europe, plain and simple. there have been many times on this board when people want to marginalize our role in the matter, and it basically pisses on the graves of almost half million soldiers.
no one is going to say American defeated the Nazis alone, but we helped.
as for Iraq and Iran...yea, leave them alone. I agree. its been proven to be way too much of a cluster fuck to deal with...i.e sunni/shittes. but look what happen to Afghanistan after we "left them alone"...the taliban rose to power and gave our enemies a home base.
I'm sure you have studied extreme forms of Islam and how damaging it can be. Allah is the only thing they care about. They kill in the name of God. If they got their hands on a nuke, who knows what could happen. I fear Pakistan could eventually fall into an extremist state. they have plenty of enemies, and not just the US.
and you mention humanitarian issues. how are we suppose to support a Taliban regime with humanitarian aid?
I'm not saying we can't ever use military force. But it should be a last resort and only after we get our key allies on board with us. We had the backing of the entire world when we removed the Taliban, even much of the Islamic world was happy to see them gone. It was a pretty black-and-white issue... they were openly abusing human rights and openly supporting terrorism. Iraq was a more grey issue... so much so that we couldn't even get our biggest allies on board with it. In the latter position, we shouldn't be using our military. In the former, it's ok, as long as we're prepared to go the distance and back up the military with serious humanitarian aid, which we DIDN'T do in Afghanistan because we ran off to Iraq and left them hanging.
All in all, it just shows how little we understand the Islamic world. That's why we shouldn't be making judgment calls like that based on fear, paranoia, and nobody's input but our own. We're shouldn't be above seeking outside thoughts to better understand things before we act. Anytime we refuse to do that, we end up fucking up.
As to extreme Islam, sure. So what? I recall a bomb going off in Oklahoma City a while back, set off by good ole boy white Christians. There will always be people out there willing to kill or be killed. But you can't let that fear rule you... see Joe McCarthy's communist hunts, Salem witch hunts, etc. When you let the bogeyman spook you into running all over killing and locking up everyone because you're scared, the consequences are horrific and do nothing to make you any safer from such people.
Yes, we played our part. But the US did not save Europe. The allies saved Europe, with the lion's share of the credit going to the Soviet Union obliterating Hitler's armies while we teamed up with the Brits and the French to push him out of France... which succeeded in large part because all his resources were being eaten up by the Russians.
we helped save Europe, plain and simple. there have been many times on this board when people want to marginalize our role in the matter, and it basically pisses on the graves of almost half million soldiers.
no one is going to say American defeated the Nazis alone, but we helped.
Uh, ptcflefts just DID say that. And I did say we helped. We played our part, and it was a valuable one. But we HELPED save Europe, we didn't SAVE Europe, as that dude I quoted said.
as for Iraq and Iran...yea, leave them alone. I agree. its been proven to be way too much of a cluster fuck to deal with...i.e sunni/shittes. but look what happen to Afghanistan after we "left them alone"...the taliban rose to power and gave our enemies a home base.
I'm sure you have studied extreme forms of Islam and how damaging it can be. Allah is the only thing they care about. They kill in the name of God. If they got their hands on a nuke, who knows what could happen. I fear Pakistan could eventually fall into an extremist state. they have plenty of enemies, and not just the US.
and you mention humanitarian issues. how are we suppose to support a Taliban regime with humanitarian aid?
I'm not saying we can't ever use military force. But it should be a last resort and only after we get our key allies on board with us. We had the backing of the entire world when we removed the Taliban, even much of the Islamic world was happy to see them gone. It was a pretty black-and-white issue... they were openly abusing human rights and openly supporting terrorism. Iraq was a more grey issue... so much so that we couldn't even get our biggest allies on board with it. In the latter position, we shouldn't be using our military. In the former, it's ok, as long as we're prepared to go the distance and back up the military with serious humanitarian aid, which we DIDN'T do in Afghanistan because we ran off to Iraq and left them hanging.
All in all, it just shows how little we understand the Islamic world. That's why we shouldn't be making judgment calls like that based on fear, paranoia, and nobody's input but our own. We're shouldn't be above seeking outside thoughts to better understand things before we act. Anytime we refuse to do that, we end up fucking up.
I think we largely agree about Iraq and Afghanistan. but going forward, our military involvment is going to be necessary in Afganistan. the Taliban are not going away just yet. I've even gone as far as trying to see what it would be like if we gave them a seat at the table. meaning, be involved at some level since they are very entrenched in the culture. but then I see what they believe in and its just impossible. its just way to hardcore to ever be considered legitimate.
As to extreme Islam, sure. So what? I recall a bomb going off in Oklahoma City a while back, set off by good ole boy white Christians. There will always be people out there willing to kill or be killed. But you can't let that fear rule you... see Joe McCarthy's communist hunts, Salem witch hunts, etc. When you let the bogeyman spook you into running all over killing and locking up everyone because you're scared, the consequences are horrific and do nothing to make you any safer from such people.
GMFAB, one crazy white dude isn't anywhere equal to the threat of extreme Islam
I think we largely agree about Iraq and Afghanistan. but going forward, our military involvment is going to be necessary in Afganistan. the Taliban are not going away just yet. I've even gone as far as trying to see what it would be like if we gave them a seat at the table. meaning, be involved at some level since they are very entrenched in the culture. but then I see what they believe in and its just impossible. its just way to hardcore to ever be considered legitimate.
GMFAB, one crazy white dude isn't anywhere equal to the threat of extreme Islam
I agree we shouldn't be bailing on Afghanistan. We turned that country into a wreck and we ought to to try to deliver on the promises we made going in. I sadly feel the same way about Iraq. And the Taliban should be put into remission. I just hope Obama can mend enough bridges to get some other people to join us on this. I'm just of a mind that the first step in getting them to the table (as you aptly identify as a good idea) is to admit where we've screwed up and acknowledge our fault, and then make a sincere effort not to do it again. That can't be done if we continue to try and say Iraq was a great idea and Saddam was a bad man so we're excused from any blame at the tragic loss of life that has occurred there.
And my point wasn't that one crazy white dude (and I would argue that there are a lot more than one) is equal to the threat of a nuclear capable Islamic terrorist. My point is that if someone wants to do us some damage, they can do it and running around the world scooping up and bombing any Muslim country that blinks wrong is not going to make us safer. No more than Joe McCarthy's commie nonsense kept our country safe. In fact, we got so blind from our paranoia about communism, that we practically CREATED extremist Islam by tearing up their countries to use as tools against the Soviets. If we don't calm the fuck down and start putting some sense into our approach to the Islamic world, things are only going to get worse.
Comments
It why we should be questioning the US right to even get involved. We can check their track record if there are any doubts as to the motives behind all of these interventions/.
There is a precedent for all of this. About 25 of them. mostly in South America...like when the US took it upon itself to save the people of Nicaragua from communism. Never mind the fact that the Nicaraguan people voted in the Sandanistas in elections that were considered fair, by outside observers. And typical results...the people became poorer, the gov't more repressive, life just generally got shittier.
And in nearly every case of bringing "western democracy" to a country, that happens.
Life just gets shittier for everyone involved. but the country is controlled, and its resources free to be exploited-and that's the bottom line.
Jlew-research the Afghan trap if you think the US motives in Afghanistan were altruistic. The US treated the entire country as a booby trap for the soviets, never mind the cost.
first of all, the US didnt kill one million Iraqis. stop spreading this bullshit garbage propaganda. The US has many motives for doing what it does. you and soul completely ignore the bigger picture and take whatever fits your negative view of the United States and multiply 10x.
so I guess your going to tell me the CIA set up the whole war in Afghanistan.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
now go ahead and tell us that it wasn’t the fault of the US, cause the Soviets took the bait….
I think some of yous need to think about how fucked up the Taliban really is (sharia law) They took away peoples radio's TVs,children couldn't play games anymore , women being beaten half to death. ect...
fighting
communism
drugs
terrorism
to liberate
for democracy
its always a war on something
same school different class.
the results are always the same, and never good for the people we "save".
yep
I spent 3 weeks this spring in Morocco, that was after months studying the country and its political situation. While there I did a number of interviews with political figures, professors, human rights advocates, and even the US embassy employees. Morocco is one of the more friendly countries towards the US, and even they have serious problems with the US, its foreign policy, and our imperial practices (their words, not mine). A leading feminist there is fighting hard for rights for Moroccan women, and even she was opposed to US involvement there. We hurt their cause... as long as progress is seen as American meddling and not a change from within their own culture, nothing we do in the name of "helping" will ever succeed. Oh yeah, that woman was not tortured or killed. Though she has been put on trial and convicted. But let's not give any credence to any Islamic country that already shows progress when we've got such great stories about torture to demonize these people.
How's that for bullshit? But Detroit's nice too and all.
You know me better than to think I believe the US is the root of all evil. I'm a pragmatist, not some naive teary-eyed patriot. Our foreign policy towards the Muslim world sucks. We do some good here and there, but only when it's easy. We have to stay the course in Iraq, but we get our military the fuck out of any African situation as fast as we can. Why? Because there's no return on the latter investment. We write checks to send food to Africa, but we're sure as hell not going to make sure it gets to the people rather than the warlords, because it's not worth our money or effort. Iraq is. Not because we're noble or interesting in helping, but because we can profit off the latter.
As to our multiple goals in Iraq and Afghanistan... kinda telling that once the one goal is met, the other becomes irrelevant isn't it? Kinda makes you wonder if the humanitarian reason is just a pretext, since it's always abandoned as soon as the economic one is achieved.
I'm well aware of how fucked up the Taliban is. I was researching and railing against them BEFORE 9/11 happened. But if you think we're over there for purely charitable humanitarian reasons, you're nuts.
We didn't save Europe from the Nazis.
i'm sure the 250,000 people burned alive in dresden aren't better off, but i don't want to get into WW2.
This latest era of history, post WW2 is what i'm referring too. never made that clear.
you're right, "never" was the wrong word.
"rarely" is more accurate.
LOL. fair enough. but you did paint a very broad brush. there are huge sections of Muslim populations who very much appreciate our involvement. but to be fair, you were in Morocco. a very moderate muslim country. its a long way from Iran or Pakistan. you know very well how the Taliban or Saudis or Iranians deal with women....and how children are forced into Madrasas. its fucked up.
ok, so helping the Iraqis rebuild their country is an unintended consequence of our action there to a certain degree. but we are still helping them rebuild their country. it makes sense to do things in our best interest. dont u?
the world is a fucked up place, what do you want me to say..I'm not one to say the US is perfect, but I know we are not the great evil. you make it sound as if we completely abandon humanitarian circumstances and I dont think we do.
we had a huge role in defeating the Nazis
wouldn't be the first time someone on here called me that but for what it's worth I do believe we are there for legitimate reasons.Preventing further attacks against America ,the rest of the world and if they the Taliban/Al Qaeda get the keys to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal were going to have some big fucking problems. If we are ther for other reasons please do enlighten me on why you believe that.
If the US builds an oil pipeline through Afghanistan, which they've said they want to do, they would cut Iran out of the European oil market, destroying their economy.
It would go through Kandahar province, the most volatile region in all of Afghanistan. suggesting that maybe outside forces are working against that plan.
I would argue that it is in our best long-term interest to avoid any meddling in the Middle East. Instead of constantly fucking with them for a good angle on their oil and pissing them off so they blow up our buildings all the time, why not let them handle their own affairs? Only get involved in humanitarian causes with the full support and agreement of the UN, or at least NATO, and show that we're as willing to spend money building them schools and hospitals as we are to spend money on bombs to blow up their countryside. Engender some good will. Iraq was a blunder. Taking sides in the Iran-Iraq war was a blunder. Setting up Afghanistan to take on Russia was a blunder. But we keep doing it. Let's show the world we're as devoted to human rights as we claim by putting our money and troops where our mouth is. That means as much involvement in Africa as we do in rich oil-based countries. Make it humanitarian aid, not regime change that is seen as political meddling. Things like that.
I am also not one to say the US is perfect, but nor do I say we are a great evil. I just think we've made a lot of poor decisions when it comes to our dealings with the Islamic world, and we're paying the price for them. Do we keep plowing forward with them just because every now and again we get lucky and one turns out ok? Or do we look at our actions and their affects and try to find a more effective way to conduct our foreign affairs there? We have a lot of great and promising humanitarian tendencies, but they are too often eclipsed by either impatience, condescension, or just plain greed. We can temper that. But to do so we need to take a real look at ourselves and ask if what we're doing is a good idea, not dodge the issue and point at how evil some of them are and use that as a blank check to continue taking disastrous actions that hurt us in the long term.
Yes, we played our part. But the US did not save Europe. The allies saved Europe, with the lion's share of the credit going to the Soviet Union obliterating Hitler's armies while we teamed up with the Brits and the French to push him out of France... which succeeded in large part because all his resources were being eaten up by the Russians.
as for Iraq and Iran...yea, leave them alone. I agree. its been proven to be way too much of a cluster fuck to deal with...i.e sunni/shittes. but look what happen to Afghanistan after we "left them alone"...the taliban rose to power and gave our enemies a home base.
I'm sure you have studied extreme forms of Islam and how damaging it can be. Allah is the only thing they care about. They kill in the name of God. If they got their hands on a nuke, who knows what could happen. I fear Pakistan could eventually fall into an extremist state. they have plenty of enemies, and not just the US.
and you mention humanitarian issues. how are we suppose to support a Taliban regime with humanitarian aid?
we helped save Europe, plain and simple. there have been many times on this board when people want to marginalize our role in the matter, and it basically pisses on the graves of almost half million soldiers.
no one is going to say American defeated the Nazis alone, but we helped.
I'm not saying we can't ever use military force. But it should be a last resort and only after we get our key allies on board with us. We had the backing of the entire world when we removed the Taliban, even much of the Islamic world was happy to see them gone. It was a pretty black-and-white issue... they were openly abusing human rights and openly supporting terrorism. Iraq was a more grey issue... so much so that we couldn't even get our biggest allies on board with it. In the latter position, we shouldn't be using our military. In the former, it's ok, as long as we're prepared to go the distance and back up the military with serious humanitarian aid, which we DIDN'T do in Afghanistan because we ran off to Iraq and left them hanging.
All in all, it just shows how little we understand the Islamic world. That's why we shouldn't be making judgment calls like that based on fear, paranoia, and nobody's input but our own. We're shouldn't be above seeking outside thoughts to better understand things before we act. Anytime we refuse to do that, we end up fucking up.
As to extreme Islam, sure. So what? I recall a bomb going off in Oklahoma City a while back, set off by good ole boy white Christians. There will always be people out there willing to kill or be killed. But you can't let that fear rule you... see Joe McCarthy's communist hunts, Salem witch hunts, etc. When you let the bogeyman spook you into running all over killing and locking up everyone because you're scared, the consequences are horrific and do nothing to make you any safer from such people.
Uh, ptcflefts just DID say that. And I did say we helped. We played our part, and it was a valuable one. But we HELPED save Europe, we didn't SAVE Europe, as that dude I quoted said.
I think we largely agree about Iraq and Afghanistan. but going forward, our military involvment is going to be necessary in Afganistan. the Taliban are not going away just yet. I've even gone as far as trying to see what it would be like if we gave them a seat at the table. meaning, be involved at some level since they are very entrenched in the culture. but then I see what they believe in and its just impossible. its just way to hardcore to ever be considered legitimate.
GMFAB, one crazy white dude isn't anywhere equal to the threat of extreme Islam
I agree we shouldn't be bailing on Afghanistan. We turned that country into a wreck and we ought to to try to deliver on the promises we made going in. I sadly feel the same way about Iraq. And the Taliban should be put into remission. I just hope Obama can mend enough bridges to get some other people to join us on this. I'm just of a mind that the first step in getting them to the table (as you aptly identify as a good idea) is to admit where we've screwed up and acknowledge our fault, and then make a sincere effort not to do it again. That can't be done if we continue to try and say Iraq was a great idea and Saddam was a bad man so we're excused from any blame at the tragic loss of life that has occurred there.
And my point wasn't that one crazy white dude (and I would argue that there are a lot more than one) is equal to the threat of a nuclear capable Islamic terrorist. My point is that if someone wants to do us some damage, they can do it and running around the world scooping up and bombing any Muslim country that blinks wrong is not going to make us safer. No more than Joe McCarthy's commie nonsense kept our country safe. In fact, we got so blind from our paranoia about communism, that we practically CREATED extremist Islam by tearing up their countries to use as tools against the Soviets. If we don't calm the fuck down and start putting some sense into our approach to the Islamic world, things are only going to get worse.