Stop waging wars in their homelands. Leave the Middle East. Let the people in the Middle East make their own governance decisions, fight their own wars, and deal with their own problems.
MOAB
- Thread starter Merlin
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Stop waging wars in their homelands. Leave the Middle East. Let the people in the Middle East make their own governance decisions, fight their own wars, and deal with their own problems.
The government of Afghanistan was lead by the Taliban which harbored AlQueda. They attacked us if I recall correctly.
Sounds like abandoning Israel may also be part of your plan.
Even if we pretend that the U.S. hadn't been meddling in the Middle East long before 9/11, the justification for fighting that war disappeared years ago.
Israel is a sovereign nation. They are capable of taking care of themselves.
SteezyEndo
The Immaculate Exception
We attacked us. Like Jrry said leave these people the F alone. I don't see Israel giving us support for anything that happens on our soil.
Really ? Seems everytime the U.S. withdrew troops from Afghanistan the Taliban was right back killing those that held more moderate views. The U.S. helped rebuild several institutions, including allowing females an opportunity for an education. Were we to teach western values favoring human rights and dignity, then immediately walk away when the going got rough ? When any human or religion preaches gender warfare & misogyny with deadly effect, and we come to their rescue, am I to assume that following these teachings we are to leave the most vulnerable to be slaughtered by madmen ?
The Taliban & Queda don't fight by the same rules of engagement the United Nations have adopted as legal, they want an extremest far right Islamic Fundamentalist world, and show little inclination for compromise.
That's the definition of ethnocentrism. We teach western values. They reject it. They choose different values and different governance from those we think are appropriate. That should be their right as citizens of a sovereign nation.
Justifying continuing to wage a war in a country because they refuse to give in to our ideals is beyond nuts.
You're justifying never leaving the country because they refuse to see the world from your point of view. That's their right.
No, you are assuming that an entire nation has adopted Taliban ideals. They are no better than any other dictatorship, forcing a belief system on a moderate populace who can't fight back. When they did, it cost them a head or a stoning.
We waged war on the Taliban. If there was a strong moderate faction, they would have proven capable of taking control of the country. If they can't, it tells you what the majority of the citizenry of the country prefer (the dictatorship). Afghanistan is not an American state. It's a sovereign nation. They should have all the rights that come with it. Leave and let them govern themselves. It's a waste of money and life to continue fighting a war there.
SteezyEndo
The Immaculate Exception
Why is it we do disaster relief for other countries, but when it happens to us its non existant? So I have to pay taxes for another country to get disaster relief?
Honestly I am just tired of the US putting their nose in every damn thing.
We waged war on the Taliban following the Queda attack on us in 2001. Prior to our engagement the Taliban was largely the creation of dispirate factions of the post Soviet-Afghan War. Later, radical elements from Pakistani madrases seized their own opportunities to influence and lead the Taliban. Pretending that the Taliban is strictly a home grown organization with only Afghan self interest is deluded. Today, it's just as easy to find a foreign member of the Taliban/Queda/ISIS axis as there is to find an Afghani. The aim of these people is global domination, by any means necessary, to inflict their definition of Sharia & Sunni Fundamentalism on anyone who stands before them. Keep in mind the only countries to recognize the Taliban as legitimate rulers of Afghanistan were the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
Various countries offer that kind of assistance all the time, but we tend to reject those offers.
All you're doing is justifying denying the people who live in Afghanistan the right to make the sort of self-determinations inherent in the status of a sovereign country. You think that's right because of your ethnocentrism.
How did America become the country it is today? We created our own system of governance, allowed it to evolve, and fought to keep it. Let them govern themselves. I wouldn't want them to be governing us. I am sure they don't want us governing them.
Nope. And I never plan on going over there.
A rather naive opinion imo.
First, you deny 50% of the population a say in the matter because they are women of almost no influence under a radical religious regime. Then the remaining power (arms & cash) is in the hands of a violent & corrupt ruling class.
Comparing the American revolution to 21'st century civil war where Americans were armed with pretty much the same weapons as the enemy is one thing, but a largely unarmed & moderate citizenry going up against machine guns, land mines and antipersonnel rockets is a bit different, isn't it ? Still, the resistance movement against the Taliban in Afghanistan is growing fairly rapidly with our support and training. We don't hear about American deaths on a daily or even weekly basis any longer as the Afghan government, police & troops are learning to take care of themselves. These people want and need our assistance, i'm glad we can give it.
Now, if you want to discuss Iraq, that is 100% different. This is why I don't lump the entire middle-east into a singular problem, each country must be taken on its own merit when it comes to why and how we might assist. I don't buy into American imperialism either, but there are times where international engagement is necessary, especially when dealing with those believing restricting 'human rights' issues from others who can't defend themselves is justified. jmo.
That's the culture. This is exactly what I mean by ethnocentrism. But if this is your chief concern, why not offer them a way out? Give these women the option to emigrate to countries that prioritize gender equality. That allows the women who oppose it to leave and the women who agree with it to stay.
Frankly, it's a tad hypocritical for us to judge countries harshly for the sort of things that America did as a young nation. Maybe if we allowed these nations to grow and evolve, they'd end up evolving like America did.
THEIR violent and corrupt ruling class. You going to advocate denying every single country in the world sovereignty if you don't agree with the methods of their ruling class?
If not, what makes Afghanistan special?
If we have given these people weapons and training, they should be able to hold their country. If they can't, it's because a majority of the people in the country don't want them ruling it. That's their right. And I'm not glad we're giving our assistance if it means empowering people who the majority don't want running their country. Look at how well that worked in Vietnam.
I'm also struggling to understand how both sides of the conflict can't get the same weapons.
Our assistance isn't charity. It costs America lives and money. I do lump the entire Middle East into a singular problem. The singular problem is that we're gaining no strategic advantage and aren't fighting a war against a major threat. There's no reason to be over there other than forcing our ideals on a lot of people who don't want or agree with them.
What I especially don't like is claiming the moral high ground on the "human rights" rationale while picking and choosing where to apply it (when there are so many countries that are just as bad as Afghanistan) and ignoring our own human rights violations (bombing civilians, for example). Tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people are dead because of the war in Afghanistan. How can we claim human rights as the rationale for war when it kills that many people?
Anyways, I'm not going to change your mind. You're not going to change mine. I'll just stop here because I don't think CGI wants us talking about politics on here.
1) Your idea of ethnocentrism is overplayed here. We aren't interested in making Afghanistan American in the sense British imperialism wanted to make all 'conquered' territories British. Freeing a people to vote and choose their own identity is not forcing them to choose to become 'westernized'. We aren't removing & replacing their culture or religion.
The idea of resettling half the population of Afghanistan is absurd when the world won't handle a few million Syrians, ... and we are still fighting over a post WW2 resettled Israeli population in the Middle-East.
During the American Revolution, The Colonies had help in evolving also, the Dutch, French and some Native American tribes helped influence the outcome.
2) Are you serious ? What makes Afghanistan special ? Well, ... have you forgotten about the World Trade Center so soon, or the Pentagon, or Flight 93 ?
Yes, Afghanistan went to war with us on Sept 11, 2001, that's a bit 'special' in my book.
3) You do understand that we are still 'giving' arms to Afghanistan based on who we can trust. We didn't just dump a bunch of arms in the middle of the country for anyone to have at. This isn't an overnight process, war is a serious and terrible business, if you are going to do it, I suggest understanding what you are getting yourself into at its inception.
4) Did you not see the pictures of people who came out to vote for the first time in their lives ? The Taliban told people they would kill them if they voted, yet they poured out to vote in huge numbers. Your assumption that the Taliban is what the majority of Afghans wants is absolutely without merit.
5) Yes, there are lots of 'bad' countries which are deserving of our help, but they didn't all attack us did they ? And yes, war is hell, but if we always choose pacifism or non-engagement/non-interference or neutrality, then you will eventually bend over to be ruled by another. Comparing countries like Vietnam to Afghanistan doesn't meet well with the historical context. If anything, the Vietnam & Iraq Wars have far more common similarities, both of which should never have been fought on the ground by Americans imo.
bluecoconuts
Legend
Afghanistan is not land that can be ruled, by anyone. Not us, not the Taliban, not the Soviet Union, not the UK... Nobody. It's ruled by various tribes in the outer region, and a small, weak, government in some of the major cities. It's a waste of time to be there now, we're trying to rebuild a nation that never existed.
Those people don't want our ideals, they want to do what they do and be left alone. You'll never be able to stop the country from harboring various groups because of the terrain... Again, it's a waste of time and money.
Also ISIS, the Taliban, and Al Qadea don't want to rule the world, they want to rule the middle East, and in the case of ISIS and Al Qadea, set up an Islamic state across traditionally Muslim lands (which includes Spain)... Obviously we can't let them take large chunks of land, and we can't negotiate with them, so the only option is to kill stop their advance and slowly suffocate them until they die. We did that to Al Qadea central, and we're doing it to ISIS. We can never kill an ideology, but we can significantly reduce their risk to us. Getting out of the Middle East is a good way to reduce risk to us, combined with other ways of course.
U.S. refuses aid from other nations because we think it makes us look weak.
Afghanistan didn't attack us, none of the hijackers came from Afghanistan. It just happened to be that Al Qaeda was there, so we went to go and get them. The original mission was nothing about nation building, the original mission was to beat back the Taliban, and the extreme sect that was Al Qaeda that was attached to them. We did that and then got involved in Iraq so we allowed them to return, which is why Afghanistan flared up again. The idea of nation building in Afghanistan came after we were doing it in Iraq and the war on terror shifted into a "install Democracy in the middle east and watch it spread" which has thus-far backfired horribly.
Again these people don't want us there, they don't want us in Iraq, they don't want us in Afghanistan, they don't want us in Syria. They want the wars to end and to go back to farming and whatever else they were doing before we decided to get involved. Mission creep fucked us in the Korean war and it's doing it again in the Middle East. We should have taken our opportunity to bail after we killed Bin Laden.
Those people don't want our ideals, they want to do what they do and be left alone. You'll never be able to stop the country from harboring various groups because of the terrain... Again, it's a waste of time and money.
Also ISIS, the Taliban, and Al Qadea don't want to rule the world, they want to rule the middle East, and in the case of ISIS and Al Qadea, set up an Islamic state across traditionally Muslim lands (which includes Spain)... Obviously we can't let them take large chunks of land, and we can't negotiate with them, so the only option is to kill stop their advance and slowly suffocate them until they die. We did that to Al Qadea central, and we're doing it to ISIS. We can never kill an ideology, but we can significantly reduce their risk to us. Getting out of the Middle East is a good way to reduce risk to us, combined with other ways of course.
U.S. refuses aid from other nations because we think it makes us look weak.
Afghanistan didn't attack us, none of the hijackers came from Afghanistan. It just happened to be that Al Qaeda was there, so we went to go and get them. The original mission was nothing about nation building, the original mission was to beat back the Taliban, and the extreme sect that was Al Qaeda that was attached to them. We did that and then got involved in Iraq so we allowed them to return, which is why Afghanistan flared up again. The idea of nation building in Afghanistan came after we were doing it in Iraq and the war on terror shifted into a "install Democracy in the middle east and watch it spread" which has thus-far backfired horribly.
Again these people don't want us there, they don't want us in Iraq, they don't want us in Afghanistan, they don't want us in Syria. They want the wars to end and to go back to farming and whatever else they were doing before we decided to get involved. Mission creep fucked us in the Korean war and it's doing it again in the Middle East. We should have taken our opportunity to bail after we killed Bin Laden.
Last edited:
I reject your theory that Afghanistan did not attack the U.S.. The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, and they provided safe harbor to Al Queda, ... they are just as accountable. The Saudi hijackers that piloted the planes came from one of only two nations which recognized the Taliban regime. America reacted in defense of our country when going after the Taliban & Al Queda, this was a popular decision at the time following 9-11. The problem was that Bush 2 went completely off the rails by attacking Iraq, which sucked popular support away from the 'war on terror' in Afghanistan. The time, money, material & manpower siphoned away from Afghanistan created two unpopular wars rather than one popular war, that along with the near 10 year hunt for Bin Laden. Had the U.S. withdrawn from Afghanistan earlier, the country would have been overrun and today would once again be a center for Islamic terrorist activity, they would be ISIS with another, albeit larger caliphate outside of Syria/Iraq. Iraq has cost nearly 5000 American lives while the war engaging those who actually attacked us in Afghanistan has cost half that figure. The war in Iraq is approaching $3 Trillion Dollars while Afghanistan is closer to $1 Trillion.
Sure, we could have bailed on Afghanistan after a few months and Bush could have announced another "Mission Accomplished" lie, but Afghanistan might easily be a far worse menace today than at the time of 9-11 had they been given time to 'mature' as a state.
The U.S. is an oligarchy, the only reason we are in the middle-east is because of oil, they have nothing else of use and many reject our western values. The U.S. plays an expensive game of brinkmanship with Russia, vying for everything that isn't tied down, we worry that if it isn't us influencing the world, they would occupy that vacuum. If you don't like the system, throw out the plutocrats and support those that value freedom, liberty & human dignity above quick profit.