It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Ron Paul's Opinion on Obama
page: 1share:
I wish many Obama supporters who believed change and hope would come into their lives saw this before they voted for him. They failed to realize
(understandably though) that the country wouldn't be much different than Bush running it.
It's an oldie but still relevant to this day in my opinion.
I'm not the biggest fan of Obama nor do I hate the guy like MANY Conservatives do, but really, not much has changed, especially with foreign policy.
It's an oldie but still relevant to this day in my opinion.
I'm not the biggest fan of Obama nor do I hate the guy like MANY Conservatives do, but really, not much has changed, especially with foreign policy.
The "alternative" was voting for McCain and Palin.
There is zero way I was going to even consider that kind of insanity.
But yes, Ron Paul is right. He usually is.
There is zero way I was going to even consider that kind of insanity.
But yes, Ron Paul is right. He usually is.
reply to post by SeventhSeal
Ron Paul has some very nice sounding ideas, the problem is that nearly none of them are practical. It's very easy to criticize, but he never puts forth how he would do the things he'd do.
How would he mobilize an immediate withdrawl from all military bases around the world? Would he just allow North Korea to step into South Korea?
And frankly, I've found some of his ideas downright stupid.
You can have change and hope, the problem is that you can't expect things to change right away.
I want change, I just know that it takes time.
Ron Paul has some very nice sounding ideas, the problem is that nearly none of them are practical. It's very easy to criticize, but he never puts forth how he would do the things he'd do.
How would he mobilize an immediate withdrawl from all military bases around the world? Would he just allow North Korea to step into South Korea?
And frankly, I've found some of his ideas downright stupid.
You can have change and hope, the problem is that you can't expect things to change right away.
I want change, I just know that it takes time.
Originally posted by pirhanna
The "alternative" was voting for McCain and Palin.
There is zero way I was going to even consider that kind of insanity.
But yes, Ron Paul is right. He usually is.
Sadly, Palin might run for president and in my opinion, that's the most dangerous thing that could happen to this nation.
I didn't vote for Obama or McCain. Bush wrecked this country and has soiled our image to the rest of the world. We need to fix it and increasing the amount of soldiers in Afghanistan like Obama is doing isn't going to solve anything.
Originally posted by SeventhSeal
I didn't vote for Obama or McCain. Bush wrecked this country and has soiled our image to the rest of the world. We need to fix it and increasing the amount of soldiers in Afghanistan like Obama is doing isn't going to solve anything.
I'm sorry, but how are we going to handle the conflict that is actually legitimate without increasing troop levels? The Taliban could have a resurgence if we don't change something about our strategy in Afghanistan, and most of those troops are being brought over from Iraq, so it's not like we're pulling them from our rectum.
We need a solution to that conflict, unfortunately it will be covered in blood.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SeventhSeal
Ron Paul has some very nice sounding ideas, the problem is that nearly none of them are practical. It's very easy to criticize, but he never puts forth how he would do the things he'd do.
How would he mobilize an immediate withdrawl from all military bases around the world? Would he just allow North Korea to step into South Korea?
And frankly, I've found some of his ideas downright stupid.
You can have change and hope, the problem is that you can't expect things to change right away.
I want change, I just know that it takes time.
He answered this already. Its not our damn problem. Pull our troops out immediately.
Let the idiots in Afghanistan and Iraq make their own government.
Let the Korean people decide whether they wanna reunify through peaceful means or through war.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Originally posted by SeventhSeal
I didn't vote for Obama or McCain. Bush wrecked this country and has soiled our image to the rest of the world. We need to fix it and increasing the amount of soldiers in Afghanistan like Obama is doing isn't going to solve anything.
I'm sorry, but how are we going to handle the conflict that is actually legitimate without increasing troop levels? The Taliban could have a resurgence if we don't change something about our strategy in Afghanistan, and most of those troops are being brought over from Iraq, so it's not like we're pulling them from our rectum.
We need a solution to that conflict, unfortunately it will be covered in blood.
The Taliban are not our problem.
The Taliban are the LEGITIMATE government of Afghanistan before the USA took them out of power and installed their fake democracy.
Bunch of muzzies want to live under Sharia law? then let them
Originally posted by pirhanna
The "alternative" was voting for McCain and Palin.
There is zero way I was going to even consider that kind of insanity.
But yes, Ron Paul is right. He usually is.
Too bad the vast majority of voters will never consider voting for a third party candidate. I wrote in Ron Paul's name on the ballot in '08.
reply to post by Returners
Yes, because we could really do that overnight
Pulling out troops from combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would destabilize things, turning Afghanistan into a narco state worse than Columbia of days past (or turning it back over to the Taliban) and placing Iraq into a state of civil war.
Both of which would be our fault.
We broke the situation, we caused the vast majority of the problems they have today. We now have a responsibility to those nations to create stability after destabilizing it.
And frankly, I hate to see such bigotry. "The idiots" in Afghanistan and Iraq? You mean the ones we've been systematically victimizing since the 80s?
We'd be the heartless idiots if we pulled out now. Bush may have made a massive mistake, but we're supposed to be adults voting in this country, and adults are responsible for their mistakes.
And the other fact is that we have no idea what sort of states would emerge from the ashes in Iraq and we don't know how the conflict in Afghanistan would end. The majority of experts would agree that it would have nothing to do with the people though.
Haven't you heard of the concept of 'blowback'?
Yes, because I really think that North Koreans have a voice...and that Seoul wouldn't be bombarded immediately.
A war between North and South would be inevitable without a foreign power bolstering the South, as the North is insanely belligerent and unstable.
reply to post by Returners
Until they finance terrorist groups that target civilians in our nation and its allies.
I'm sorry, but how is a government that rules by force and terror legitimate? How is a government that gives no voice to half of its adult population legitimate? How is a government that outlaws even the practice of all but one religion legitimate? How is a government that doesn't derive its power from the people legitimate?
Wow, further bigotry from you, not surprised though. The problem is that the majority of the people of Afghanistan don't want to live under the Taliban, they were forced to. The Taliban had the military resources necessary to impose its extremist will on the people.
Originally posted by Returners
He answered this already. Its not our damn problem. Pull our troops out immediately.
Yes, because we could really do that overnight
Pulling out troops from combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would destabilize things, turning Afghanistan into a narco state worse than Columbia of days past (or turning it back over to the Taliban) and placing Iraq into a state of civil war.
Both of which would be our fault.
Let the idiots in Afghanistan and Iraq make their own government.
We broke the situation, we caused the vast majority of the problems they have today. We now have a responsibility to those nations to create stability after destabilizing it.
And frankly, I hate to see such bigotry. "The idiots" in Afghanistan and Iraq? You mean the ones we've been systematically victimizing since the 80s?
We'd be the heartless idiots if we pulled out now. Bush may have made a massive mistake, but we're supposed to be adults voting in this country, and adults are responsible for their mistakes.
And the other fact is that we have no idea what sort of states would emerge from the ashes in Iraq and we don't know how the conflict in Afghanistan would end. The majority of experts would agree that it would have nothing to do with the people though.
Haven't you heard of the concept of 'blowback'?
Let the Korean people decide whether they wanna reunify through peaceful means or through war.
Yes, because I really think that North Koreans have a voice...and that Seoul wouldn't be bombarded immediately.
A war between North and South would be inevitable without a foreign power bolstering the South, as the North is insanely belligerent and unstable.
reply to post by Returners
Originally posted by Returners
The Taliban are not our problem.
Until they finance terrorist groups that target civilians in our nation and its allies.
The Taliban are the LEGITIMATE government of Afghanistan before the USA took them out of power and installed their fake democracy.
I'm sorry, but how is a government that rules by force and terror legitimate? How is a government that gives no voice to half of its adult population legitimate? How is a government that outlaws even the practice of all but one religion legitimate? How is a government that doesn't derive its power from the people legitimate?
Bunch of muzzies want to live under Sharia law? then let them
Wow, further bigotry from you, not surprised though. The problem is that the majority of the people of Afghanistan don't want to live under the Taliban, they were forced to. The Taliban had the military resources necessary to impose its extremist will on the people.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Returners
Originally posted by Returners
He answered this already. Its not our damn problem. Pull our troops out immediately.
Yes, because we could really do that overnight
Pulling out troops from combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would destabilize things, turning Afghanistan into a narco state worse than Columbia of days past (or turning it back over to the Taliban) and placing Iraq into a state of civil war.
Both of which would be our fault.
Why are we fighting in these countries now?
The people we are fighting in Iraq are angry that we went into their country, bombed the hell out of it and killed their beloved leader. The former government that we overthrew is fighting to take it back.
The people we are fighting in Afghanistan are angry because we did the same thing, we killed their beloved leaders and now their former government is fighting to take it back.
So why don't all these saddam lovers and the Taliban lovers go vote instead of fighting?
BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT THE ELECTIONS ARE RIGGED BY THE USA in order to get one of their candidates LEGITIMACY and thus the social contract needed to rule a country.
Clearly the only way to install any form of government in any of these countries is to let them install it themselves. These people are fighting instead of voting because they don't trust the USA.
We broke the situation, we caused the vast majority of the problems they have today. We now have a responsibility to those nations to create stability after destabilizing it.
And frankly, I hate to see such bigotry. "The idiots" in Afghanistan and Iraq? You mean the ones we've been systematically victimizing since the 80s?
We'd be the heartless idiots if we pulled out now. Bush may have made a massive mistake, but we're supposed to be adults voting in this country, and adults are responsible for their mistakes.
And the other fact is that we have no idea what sort of states would emerge from the ashes in Iraq and we don't know how the conflict in Afghanistan would end. The majority of experts would agree that it would have nothing to do with the people though.
Haven't you heard of the concept of 'blowback'?
Again read up on Osama Bin Laden's speech explaining WHY AL QUAEDA WILL NEVER ATTACK SWEDEN and WHY THEY CHOOSE TO ATTACK THE USA
Let the Korean people decide whether they wanna reunify through peaceful means or through war.
Yes, because I really think that North Koreans have a voice...and that Seoul wouldn't be bombarded immediately.
A war between North and South would be inevitable without a foreign power bolstering the South, as the North is insanely belligerent and unstable.
Look people have the right to make their own government, If people don't like their government or the direction their country is going it is THEIR RIGHT to take up arms and overthrow the government. If the North Koreans really did hate Kim Jong so much they would have offed him long ago just like the French guillotined Louis XVI, just like the Russians butchered the Tsar, just like the chinese expelled Chang Kai Shek.
Korea is ONE COUNTRY so let the Korean people choose who they would rather want Kim Jong or the president of south korea. Whichever leader that wins is the leader that has the support of the people.
[
Until they finance terrorist groups that target civilians in our nation and its allies.
Again look at why the Twin towers were targetted. Heres a copy of Bin Ladens speech
They attacked US because WE ATTACKED THEM FIRST
www.worldpress.org...
I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.
I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.
In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.
The Taliban are the LEGITIMATE government of Afghanistan before the USA took them out of power and installed their fake democracy.
I'm sorry, but how is a government that rules by force and terror legitimate? How is a government that gives no voice to half of its adult population legitimate? How is a government that outlaws even the practice of all but one religion legitimate? How is a government that doesn't derive its power from the people legitimate?
Wow, further bigotry from you, not surprised though. The problem is that the majority of the people of Afghanistan don't want to live under the Taliban, they were forced to. The Taliban had the military resources necessary to impose its extremist will on the people.
Wrong if these people don't want to live under the Taliban, then why are they hiding the Taliban from the USA? Why do Afghanistan women and children keep these mujidhadeen well fed. Why do these Afghanistan people refuse to tell the CIA where these people are hiding despite how much money we try to bribe them with?
Why can't we fight the Taliban? Because they hide behind civilians. Why don't the civilians rat them out?
This is the same thing that happened in Vietnam 95% of the population hated the USA, so no matter how many vietcong we killed more just kept coming. Because every year the population gave birth to many kids who picked up guns to fight the imperialists, every year vietnamese farmers would find wounded vietcong fighter and give them shelter and nurse their wounds back to health, every year these people who go to vietcong head quarters and tell them where our bases are and where our patrols are and where are our supply routes.
If these people did not want to live under the Taliban then there would BE NO INSURGENCY
edit on 5-10-2010 by Returners because: (no reason given)
i have to say, in response to madnessinmysoul, that it was the US invasions that exploded iraq into civil war, and it was the US invasions that TURNED
afghanistan into a narco state. Further, it is the US constantly trying to manipulate outcomes in other countries that have made the situation as bad
as it is today. From overthrowing mossadegh and installing the shah, to arming and training OBL and the mujahideen, to arming iraq and iran and
instigating war between them. And of course the travesty in vietnam.
It is our belief that we can manipulate situations and societies in other countries, that often winds up in devastation and chaos, and then comes back and bites us on the A$$. Yes, we left vietnam, and there was a period of cleansing....which, not to minimize it, wasnt nearly as horrific as the things WE did to that country....and they managed to pull themselves together ON THEIR OWN, establish a government, and have a workable economy and foreign policy now. Im sure that us being in iraq and causing 1.2 million casualties and 4 million refugees is only considered a fair trade for stability by people like....saddam. I would imagine that the people there....the ones who havent left and arent dead....are not extremely grateful for this form of "stability" and "democracy" that we have brought them. Nor, i would presume, are the afghani's terribly greatful for the "stability" and "democracy" we are bringing them in the form of bombing wedding parties, assassinating random folks, and torturing civilians. Oh, lets not forget how we happily include them in our target practice for kicks now too.
It is our belief that we can manipulate situations and societies in other countries, that often winds up in devastation and chaos, and then comes back and bites us on the A$$. Yes, we left vietnam, and there was a period of cleansing....which, not to minimize it, wasnt nearly as horrific as the things WE did to that country....and they managed to pull themselves together ON THEIR OWN, establish a government, and have a workable economy and foreign policy now. Im sure that us being in iraq and causing 1.2 million casualties and 4 million refugees is only considered a fair trade for stability by people like....saddam. I would imagine that the people there....the ones who havent left and arent dead....are not extremely grateful for this form of "stability" and "democracy" that we have brought them. Nor, i would presume, are the afghani's terribly greatful for the "stability" and "democracy" we are bringing them in the form of bombing wedding parties, assassinating random folks, and torturing civilians. Oh, lets not forget how we happily include them in our target practice for kicks now too.
We aided Afghanistan to fight off the Soviets. We invade Afghanistan and they use the same weapons we aided them with against our soldiers. Many years
later, we're training them to use more and new weapons.
My question is: Do we not learn from history?
Stop aiding these countries with weapons. Like someone else said, the Taliban are not our problem.
Reagan said it best when he realized you can't rationalize with the Middle East when it comes to warfare. There is no convincing anyone. They will fight to the death.
Leave Afghanistan and leave Iraq. If we want to help a nation that's in trouble, we should know where to begin:
But of course, the US will never benefit from involving themselves with North Korea. There is no oil and no profit to be made. Israel finds them not to be a threat.
It's all about the Middle East and Israel's influence over us.
Meanwhile, millions will continue to suffer and die at the hands of Kim Jong Il.
My question is: Do we not learn from history?
Stop aiding these countries with weapons. Like someone else said, the Taliban are not our problem.
Reagan said it best when he realized you can't rationalize with the Middle East when it comes to warfare. There is no convincing anyone. They will fight to the death.
Leave Afghanistan and leave Iraq. If we want to help a nation that's in trouble, we should know where to begin:
But of course, the US will never benefit from involving themselves with North Korea. There is no oil and no profit to be made. Israel finds them not to be a threat.
It's all about the Middle East and Israel's influence over us.
Meanwhile, millions will continue to suffer and die at the hands of Kim Jong Il.
reply to post by Returners
...Saddam wasn't a 'beloved' leader. Some may have loved him, but I'm guessing the majority were more indifferent.
Now, you're simplifying the issue to a ridiculous degree. There are some people that are fighting to retain the cultural domination that they had under Saddam (the Sunni militias) there are some that are fighting to prevent that (the Shia militias), there are some that are attempting to install theocracy (the religious hardliners from both Sunni and Shia), and there are some fighting for personal power. Among them there are probably a lot of the front line fighters that are resentful for US action, but they aren't really resentful for the overthrow of government, more how it was handled. If we had done things in a planned and responsible manner, we probably would have won most people over.
Since when are the Taliban beloved? The simple fact that female education exists and is considered a brilliant thing in Afghanistan is proof enough that they weren't. The fact that radio stations playing music are thriving is proof that they weren't.
And again, the Taliban were in no way a legitimate government.
Because they don't believe in democratic principles? Because the Taliban believes in rule by force and so did Saddam.
Just because they believe it doesn't make it so.
True, but that doesn't mean we should leave the country. We can let them form a government that would conform with UN standards on human rights and allow them whatever system they want. As long as it is legitimate, unlike both previous regimes.
And to state this again, I never supported the engagement in Iraq, I believe proper application of soft power would have fixed that.
As for Afghanistan, that was the good one. That one we couldn't allow to continue and wouldn't be the problem it is now if we hadn't diverted resources to Iraq.
Um...Bin Laden is a person I never choose to read, and his justification is still horrid. You can't justify a terrorist attack on a foreign nation. You cannot justify any attack on a civilian population (even if you're the USA). You can't justify
Except that in those instances the people had enough individual autonomy to overthrow the government. The French had the support of the wealthy non-nobles. The Russians had the advantage of a severely weakened state and a populace that had just been in a war they wanted out of, and the Chinese had arms.
And in all cases they had freedom of information.
The North Koreans don't have access to the outside world. They don't have access to books that the government doesn't want them to read. They are taught ridiculous things, like that Kim Jong Il is a demigod and that his father is eternally vigilant over the country. There is no intellectual class to put forth the idea of revolt to the majority, there is no way for the majority to receive this information, and there is no way for them to organize.
It is the single most repressive nation on Earth, how are people supposed to organize when they're starved both intellectually and bodily?
A government isn't legitimate simply because its people have yet to revolt.
Korea isn't one country. Countries do not exist independent of internationally recognized borders. A nation defined by its ethnic population is improperly defined, as history has shown us repeatedly.
I'm sorry, but none of this is an excuse to kill 3000 civilians in cold blood. If they had targeted military installations only, they would have an argument.
Bin Laden and those who would willingly and knowingly kill innocent civilians are not using moral arguments and have no basis for their actions beyond extremist rhetoric.
If he wanted to make a statement, attack only governing and military buildings, not ones full of civilians and don't use planes full of civilians as weapons.
Huh, it seems you didn't address this issue.
Not all the people in Afghanistan feed these people by choice. Some of it do it out of fear and some of it do it due to outright intimidation. Others may do it due to their personal belief, but they still wouldn't make up a plurality of the populace.
Because they have guns to shoot them with. Because the Taliban know these civilians and can intimidate them.
And again, the vast majority of the Afghan population aren't hiding the Taliban.
Apples and wrenches. Two entirely different situations. I've explained before that Vietnam was a situation where we had prevented the legitimate formation of governance in the first place and then propped up a far more brutal regime than the one we were fighting.
No, that would be if 100% of the people didn't want to live under the Taliban. There will still be people who wish to.
Then there are those that don't know any better and are subject to blatant misinformation from the religious extremists that do not want western ideals in their nation and love theocratic rule.
There are those in the Taliban that benefited from their rule and are unwilling to give up either their ideology or power for a new system to come into place.
And by your logic the Oklahoma city bombings and the Unibomber are proof that the US needs to stop occupying itself and let us form a new government out of anarchy.
reply to post by pexx421
So? That means we aren't going to fix it?
Again, so? We still need to fix the problems we caused before we leave. Leaving isn't going to be a better outcome.
Yeah, we did such a horrible job with manipulating France, German, Italy, and Japan, didn't we?
The problem is the level of commitment and methodology. If we just run in like cowboys and shoot the place up, we're not going to be able to fix things easily, but we still have a responsibility to fix our mistakes.
Yes, but Vietnam was a vastly different animal. We went in to defend a government that was more tyrannical than the one we were fighting against, we used weapons that are now considered to be illegal. We also were forced out of that one, we didn't just up and leave because we felt like it. That was a legitimate military defeat that was a vastly different story.
Yes, but we could go with option C: Try to fix things up and pay for the mistakes we made properly instead of forcing even more chaos upon the nation. We didn't have that option in Vietnam. Here we have a military victory followed by an insurgency, more comparable to the situation in France during WW2.
Well, nobody there was too found of Saddam. And I'm quite sure they'd prefer us to stay rather than to just drop them now that we've already made things horrible.
Again, this is no justification for leaving. They were happy as hell to be able to do simple things like educate their daughters and listen to music, weren't they? We just need to clean up our military actions, better train our soldiers, and have more military discipline. We need to make things right, not just leave them to get worse.
If we leave now it could hit the reset button on Afghanistan at best. At worst there would be an all out war between the narco lords and the Taliban, which would be a lot more brutal than what we have right now. Either situation would be our fault, as we started the mess.
If you go over to a friend's house and make a mess, you stay there and clean it up, or at least help. Leaving without doing so is the worst possible option. We need to just make our cleanup better instead of abandoning it.
reply to post by SeventhSeal
I think not, but the problem in Afghanistan in the 80s is that we dropped them the second they fought off the Soviets. If we had turned the military aid we provided them into humanitarian aid to build a stable country, the nation wouldn't have fallen to the state it was in.
Again, it is. It's a nation that openly and proudly supports those who would participate in terrorist attacks against ourselves and our allies. That is what we call 'a problem'. They may not be our biggest problem, but we don't want them to return to the same power base that they had or an even bigger and more firm place with them being able to claim they've fought us off.
You mean the Iran-Contra guy? You mean the guy that didn't have any idea what the word 'blowback' meant? Say what you will of his handling of certain foreign policy, the man wasn't exactly the best when it came to Mid East policy.
Again, we broke it. We have to fix it. We can't just leave it and not say anything more. Any blood spilled would still be on our hands. I'm not justifying how we handled things in the first place, but we now have certain responsibilities because of our mistakes.
A brutal dictatorship that doesn't accept help and openly represses its own people?
And now the Israel arguments come in. We've tried to have talks with North Korea, they have an unstable and possibly psychotic leadership that prevents talks from happening. We've tried open multilateral talks, one on one talks, trilateral talks, etc. They always randomly pull out or use military action as a threat. You can't argue with the irrational.
They have vast natural mineral resources. We still aren't going to invade. It would be as dumb as entering two Middle Eastern nations in one Presidential term without an exit strategy.
No, it really isn't. Every administration has tried to talk to Korea on some level these past 20 some odd years.
We have no position to attack them from and they may have primitive nuclear weapons. They have an insanely devoted military that is one of the largest in the world with a starving populace. We have no way to send in aid because of Kim Jong Il.
A military invasion of it would be a disaster, especially since China might intercede.
Even our best case scenario would be turning it into a costly proxy war between North and South.
Originally posted by Returners
Why are we fighting in these countries now?
The people we are fighting in Iraq are angry that we went into their country, bombed the hell out of it and killed their beloved leader. The former government that we overthrew is fighting to take it back.
...Saddam wasn't a 'beloved' leader. Some may have loved him, but I'm guessing the majority were more indifferent.
Now, you're simplifying the issue to a ridiculous degree. There are some people that are fighting to retain the cultural domination that they had under Saddam (the Sunni militias) there are some that are fighting to prevent that (the Shia militias), there are some that are attempting to install theocracy (the religious hardliners from both Sunni and Shia), and there are some fighting for personal power. Among them there are probably a lot of the front line fighters that are resentful for US action, but they aren't really resentful for the overthrow of government, more how it was handled. If we had done things in a planned and responsible manner, we probably would have won most people over.
The people we are fighting in Afghanistan are angry because we did the same thing, we killed their beloved leaders and now their former government is fighting to take it back.
Since when are the Taliban beloved? The simple fact that female education exists and is considered a brilliant thing in Afghanistan is proof enough that they weren't. The fact that radio stations playing music are thriving is proof that they weren't.
And again, the Taliban were in no way a legitimate government.
So why don't all these saddam lovers and the Taliban lovers go vote instead of fighting?
Because they don't believe in democratic principles? Because the Taliban believes in rule by force and so did Saddam.
BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT THE ELECTIONS ARE RIGGED BY THE USA in order to get one of their candidates LEGITIMACY and thus the social contract needed to rule a country.
Just because they believe it doesn't make it so.
Clearly the only way to install any form of government in any of these countries is to let them install it themselves. These people are fighting instead of voting because they don't trust the USA.
True, but that doesn't mean we should leave the country. We can let them form a government that would conform with UN standards on human rights and allow them whatever system they want. As long as it is legitimate, unlike both previous regimes.
And to state this again, I never supported the engagement in Iraq, I believe proper application of soft power would have fixed that.
As for Afghanistan, that was the good one. That one we couldn't allow to continue and wouldn't be the problem it is now if we hadn't diverted resources to Iraq.
Again read up on Osama Bin Laden's speech explaining WHY AL QUAEDA WILL NEVER ATTACK SWEDEN and WHY THEY CHOOSE TO ATTACK THE USA
Um...Bin Laden is a person I never choose to read, and his justification is still horrid. You can't justify a terrorist attack on a foreign nation. You cannot justify any attack on a civilian population (even if you're the USA). You can't justify
Look people have the right to make their own government, If people don't like their government or the direction their country is going it is THEIR RIGHT to take up arms and overthrow the government. If the North Koreans really did hate Kim Jong so much they would have offed him long ago just like the French guillotined Louis XVI, just like the Russians butchered the Tsar, just like the chinese expelled Chang Kai Shek.
Except that in those instances the people had enough individual autonomy to overthrow the government. The French had the support of the wealthy non-nobles. The Russians had the advantage of a severely weakened state and a populace that had just been in a war they wanted out of, and the Chinese had arms.
And in all cases they had freedom of information.
The North Koreans don't have access to the outside world. They don't have access to books that the government doesn't want them to read. They are taught ridiculous things, like that Kim Jong Il is a demigod and that his father is eternally vigilant over the country. There is no intellectual class to put forth the idea of revolt to the majority, there is no way for the majority to receive this information, and there is no way for them to organize.
It is the single most repressive nation on Earth, how are people supposed to organize when they're starved both intellectually and bodily?
A government isn't legitimate simply because its people have yet to revolt.
Korea is ONE COUNTRY so let the Korean people choose who they would rather want Kim Jong or the president of south korea. Whichever leader that wins is the leader that has the support of the people.
Korea isn't one country. Countries do not exist independent of internationally recognized borders. A nation defined by its ethnic population is improperly defined, as history has shown us repeatedly.
]
Again look at why the Twin towers were targetted. Heres a copy of Bin Ladens speech
They attacked US because WE ATTACKED THEM FIRST
www.worldpress.org...
I'm sorry, but none of this is an excuse to kill 3000 civilians in cold blood. If they had targeted military installations only, they would have an argument.
Bin Laden and those who would willingly and knowingly kill innocent civilians are not using moral arguments and have no basis for their actions beyond extremist rhetoric.
If he wanted to make a statement, attack only governing and military buildings, not ones full of civilians and don't use planes full of civilians as weapons.
The Taliban are the LEGITIMATE government of Afghanistan before the USA took them out of power and installed their fake democracy.
I'm sorry, but how is a government that rules by force and terror legitimate? How is a government that gives no voice to half of its adult population legitimate? How is a government that outlaws even the practice of all but one religion legitimate? How is a government that doesn't derive its power from the people legitimate?
Huh, it seems you didn't address this issue.
Wrong if these people don't want to live under the Taliban, then why are they hiding the Taliban from the USA? Why do Afghanistan women and children keep these mujidhadeen well fed. Why do these Afghanistan people refuse to tell the CIA where these people are hiding despite how much money we try to bribe them with?
Not all the people in Afghanistan feed these people by choice. Some of it do it out of fear and some of it do it due to outright intimidation. Others may do it due to their personal belief, but they still wouldn't make up a plurality of the populace.
Why can't we fight the Taliban? Because they hide behind civilians. Why don't the civilians rat them out?
Because they have guns to shoot them with. Because the Taliban know these civilians and can intimidate them.
And again, the vast majority of the Afghan population aren't hiding the Taliban.
This is the same thing that happened in Vietnam 95% of the population hated the USA, so no matter how many vietcong we killed more just kept coming. Because every year the population gave birth to many kids who picked up guns to fight the imperialists, every year vietnamese farmers would find wounded vietcong fighter and give them shelter and nurse their wounds back to health, every year these people who go to vietcong head quarters and tell them where our bases are and where our patrols are and where are our supply routes.
Apples and wrenches. Two entirely different situations. I've explained before that Vietnam was a situation where we had prevented the legitimate formation of governance in the first place and then propped up a far more brutal regime than the one we were fighting.
If these people did not want to live under the Taliban then there would BE NO INSURGENCY
No, that would be if 100% of the people didn't want to live under the Taliban. There will still be people who wish to.
Then there are those that don't know any better and are subject to blatant misinformation from the religious extremists that do not want western ideals in their nation and love theocratic rule.
There are those in the Taliban that benefited from their rule and are unwilling to give up either their ideology or power for a new system to come into place.
And by your logic the Oklahoma city bombings and the Unibomber are proof that the US needs to stop occupying itself and let us form a new government out of anarchy.
reply to post by pexx421
Originally posted by pexx421
i have to say, in response to madnessinmysoul, that it was the US invasions that exploded iraq into civil war, and it was the US invasions that TURNED afghanistan into a narco state.
So? That means we aren't going to fix it?
Further, it is the US constantly trying to manipulate outcomes in other countries that have made the situation as bad as it is today. From overthrowing mossadegh and installing the shah, to arming and training OBL and the mujahideen, to arming iraq and iran and instigating war between them. And of course the travesty in vietnam.
Again, so? We still need to fix the problems we caused before we leave. Leaving isn't going to be a better outcome.
It is our belief that we can manipulate situations and societies in other countries, that often winds up in devastation and chaos, and then comes back and bites us on the (hidden expletive deleted by madnessinmysoul)
Yeah, we did such a horrible job with manipulating France, German, Italy, and Japan, didn't we?
The problem is the level of commitment and methodology. If we just run in like cowboys and shoot the place up, we're not going to be able to fix things easily, but we still have a responsibility to fix our mistakes.
Yes, we left vietnam, and there was a period of cleansing....which, not to minimize it, wasnt nearly as horrific as the things WE did to that country....and they managed to pull themselves together ON THEIR OWN, establish a government, and have a workable economy and foreign policy now.
Yes, but Vietnam was a vastly different animal. We went in to defend a government that was more tyrannical than the one we were fighting against, we used weapons that are now considered to be illegal. We also were forced out of that one, we didn't just up and leave because we felt like it. That was a legitimate military defeat that was a vastly different story.
Im sure that us being in iraq and causing 1.2 million casualties and 4 million refugees is only considered a fair trade for stability by people like....saddam.
Yes, but we could go with option C: Try to fix things up and pay for the mistakes we made properly instead of forcing even more chaos upon the nation. We didn't have that option in Vietnam. Here we have a military victory followed by an insurgency, more comparable to the situation in France during WW2.
I would imagine that the people there....the ones who havent left and arent dead....are not extremely grateful for this form of "stability" and "democracy" that we have brought them.
Well, nobody there was too found of Saddam. And I'm quite sure they'd prefer us to stay rather than to just drop them now that we've already made things horrible.
Nor, i would presume, are the afghani's terribly greatful for the "stability" and "democracy" we are bringing them in the form of bombing wedding parties, assassinating random folks, and torturing civilians. Oh, lets not forget how we happily include them in our target practice for kicks now too.
Again, this is no justification for leaving. They were happy as hell to be able to do simple things like educate their daughters and listen to music, weren't they? We just need to clean up our military actions, better train our soldiers, and have more military discipline. We need to make things right, not just leave them to get worse.
If we leave now it could hit the reset button on Afghanistan at best. At worst there would be an all out war between the narco lords and the Taliban, which would be a lot more brutal than what we have right now. Either situation would be our fault, as we started the mess.
If you go over to a friend's house and make a mess, you stay there and clean it up, or at least help. Leaving without doing so is the worst possible option. We need to just make our cleanup better instead of abandoning it.
reply to post by SeventhSeal
Originally posted by SeventhSeal
We aided Afghanistan to fight off the Soviets. We invade Afghanistan and they use the same weapons we aided them with against our soldiers. Many years later, we're training them to use more and new weapons.
My question is: Do we not learn from history?
I think not, but the problem in Afghanistan in the 80s is that we dropped them the second they fought off the Soviets. If we had turned the military aid we provided them into humanitarian aid to build a stable country, the nation wouldn't have fallen to the state it was in.
Stop aiding these countries with weapons. Like someone else said, the Taliban are not our problem.
Again, it is. It's a nation that openly and proudly supports those who would participate in terrorist attacks against ourselves and our allies. That is what we call 'a problem'. They may not be our biggest problem, but we don't want them to return to the same power base that they had or an even bigger and more firm place with them being able to claim they've fought us off.
Reagan said it best when he realized you can't rationalize with the Middle East when it comes to warfare. There is no convincing anyone. They will fight to the death.
You mean the Iran-Contra guy? You mean the guy that didn't have any idea what the word 'blowback' meant? Say what you will of his handling of certain foreign policy, the man wasn't exactly the best when it came to Mid East policy.
Leave Afghanistan and leave Iraq. If we want to help a nation that's in trouble, we should know where to begin:
Again, we broke it. We have to fix it. We can't just leave it and not say anything more. Any blood spilled would still be on our hands. I'm not justifying how we handled things in the first place, but we now have certain responsibilities because of our mistakes.
A brutal dictatorship that doesn't accept help and openly represses its own people?
But of course, the US will never benefit from involving themselves with North Korea. There is no oil and no profit to be made. Israel finds them not to be a threat.
And now the Israel arguments come in. We've tried to have talks with North Korea, they have an unstable and possibly psychotic leadership that prevents talks from happening. We've tried open multilateral talks, one on one talks, trilateral talks, etc. They always randomly pull out or use military action as a threat. You can't argue with the irrational.
They have vast natural mineral resources. We still aren't going to invade. It would be as dumb as entering two Middle Eastern nations in one Presidential term without an exit strategy.
It's all about the Middle East and Israel's influence over us.
No, it really isn't. Every administration has tried to talk to Korea on some level these past 20 some odd years.
Meanwhile, millions will continue to suffer and die at the hands of Kim Jong Il.
We have no position to attack them from and they may have primitive nuclear weapons. They have an insanely devoted military that is one of the largest in the world with a starving populace. We have no way to send in aid because of Kim Jong Il.
A military invasion of it would be a disaster, especially since China might intercede.
Even our best case scenario would be turning it into a costly proxy war between North and South.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Ron Paul has some very nice sounding ideas, the problem is that nearly none of them are practical. It's very easy to criticize, but he never puts forth how he would do the things he'd do.
I agree with your posts in this thread completely. It's easy for Ron Paul to stand up and SAY what he would do, but how much did he do to become president? He didn't do what it would take and ended up quitting and walking away. His ideas sound great, but voicing his opinions and putting them into practice are 1000 miles apart (just as is the case with Obama).
Obama's ideas sounded good too, and we see how much trouble he's having implementing them! If Paul had won the presidency, we'd still be in the shape we're in because ONE MAN cannot wave a magic wand and change Washington DC and how this country is run in a short time.
Too many people who criticize Obama for his "Hope and Change" rhetoric are willing to embrace Paul and his rhetoric! They don't see it as the same thing because they think Ron Paul's words would have been enacted. They're fooling themselves. The president isn't a King who makes the rules. They have to work within a VERY constricted structure and S-L-O-W-L-Y make the changes that are needed. ANY man, even Ron Paul, would be facing the same crap Obama is facing.
Ron Paul is a coward. He had the opportunity to change the country for the better and he walked away from it. Obama's REAL LIFE actions simply cannot compete with the dreamworld Ron Paul TALKS about. It's all talk. And it's the easy way out.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Returners
Im not even going to bother to answer all of your claim since they all revolve around the argument that the government is illegitimate and everybody wants democracy and Freedom.
Who are you to say what government is illegitimate? Who are you to say that every human being on the planet wants democracy?
How would you feel if during the Cold War the Soviet Union invaded the USA and claimed that the USA government was illegitimate because it was bought out by EVIL CAPITALISTS. And that every human being deserved economic equality?
In the eyes of the Muslim world the USA government is illegitimate because they commit acts against Allah and the Koran.
And you claim that the revolutions in Tsarist Russia and KMT China happened because of openness? and the reason why people don't overthrow the Taliban or Kim Jong is because they exercise totalitarian controls?
You must really be an ignorant American, Tsarist Russia and KMT China in the past were MANY TIMES more totalitarian and oppressive than modern day North Korea. And they managed to overthrow their leaders by their own will.
Originally posted by Returners
Im not even going to bother to answer all of your claim since they all revolve around the argument that the government is illegitimate and everybody wants democracy and Freedom.
I never said that everyone wants democracy and freedom, I merely stated that the Taliban regime wasn't legitimate and Saddam's wasn't either, though I guess and argument could be made that it teetered between the two.
I simply stated that we have to fix the messes we made and not force people into a bloody civil war to create their government. We shouldn't be taking a primarily military role, but we should still be doing a lot to fix things.
Who are you to say what government is illegitimate?
I'm a rationally thinking being, that should mean that I'm someone to say something about any issue that I can discuss rationally.
Who are you to say what government is legitimate? You've provided no standard for legitimacy, I've provided a clear one: you don't have to use force to maintain rule.
Who are you to say that every human being on the planet wants democracy?
When and where did I say that? I'm simply saying that you can't repress 1/2 of your population because they have different reproductive organs, you cannot have 'rape rooms' set up to punish women, you cannot prevent women from gaining education, you cannot punish those who get out of line with violence.
I'm quite sure that everyone wants security and safety and the majority of the say in how their life goes. They may not care for choosing their rulers, but they do care about living their lives.
You seem to be considering a world where anyone who ever doesn't like their government is immediately capable of armed revolt.
You know what, armed revolts haven't exactly brought about good things historically. There's been only one good example and it wasn't a conflict against a brutally repressive regime, it was a conflict that sprung up over a legal conflict regarding taxation.
How would you feel if during the Cold War the Soviet Union invaded the USA and claimed that the USA government was illegitimate because it was bought out by EVIL CAPITALISTS. And that every human being deserved economic equality?
They would have been wrong. Aside from the fact that such an invasion is farce, as such action would have caused catastrophic nuclear annihilation, there weren't any instances of violent repression like there were in Afghanistan and Iraq.
You're trying to bring up a lot of false examples.
In the eyes of the Muslim world the USA government is illegitimate because they commit acts against Allah and the Koran.
To a small minority. There's no evidence that the majority of people in the Islamic world views the US government as illegitimate. They may view some of their actions as such, but only the hard liners would actually say that the US government is actually an illegitimate entity that doesn't represent the interests of the people on some level.
And you claim that the revolutions in Tsarist Russia and KMT China happened because of openness? and the reason why people don't overthrow the Taliban or Kim Jong is because they exercise totalitarian controls?
Um...not openness, but the possibility of intellectual exploration. Lenin had to learn about communism from somewhere, didn't he?
You must really be an ignorant American, Tsarist Russia and KMT China in the past were MANY TIMES more totalitarian and oppressive than modern day North Korea. And they managed to overthrow their leaders by their own will.
What? I'm sorry, but I'd actually like to see your measure of oppressiveness. PKR is two lies and a truth, it's Korean but it's no People's Republic. North Korea doesn't allow the exploration of ideas. Lenin had access to communist literature, so did Mao. Nobody in North Korea has access to information that the state doesn't allow. It has complete control over education.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Originally posted by Returners
I never said that everyone wants democracy and freedom, I merely stated that the Taliban regime wasn't legitimate and Saddam's wasn't either, though I guess and argument could be made that it teetered between the two.
I simply stated that we have to fix the messes we made and not force people into a bloody civil war to create their government. We shouldn't be taking a primarily military role, but we should still be doing a lot to fix things.
Wheres your evidence? If the Taliban was not legitimate how the hell did it end up the winner of a mass civil war? Do you even understand the resources needed for a civil war not to mention the resources needed in order to win one? Clearly the Taliban had a LOT of Afghanis sending their sons to fight for the Taliban, giving them information about the enemies location, and giving them supplies.
And you realize that Saddam gained his position by winning a bloodless coup right?
en.wikipedia.org...
Saddam participated in a bloodless coup led by Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr that overthrew Abdul Rahman Arif. Al-Bakr was named president and Saddam was named his deputy, and deputy chairman of the Baathist Revolutionary Command Council.
Saddam was widely popular amongst the Iraqi people for his modernization programs
Saddam built a reputation as a progressive, effective politician.[25] At this time, Saddam moved up the ranks in the new government by aiding attempts to strengthen and unify the Ba'ath party and taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following.
I'm a rationally thinking being, that should mean that I'm someone to say something about any issue that I can discuss rationally.
Who are you to say what government is legitimate? You've provided no standard for legitimacy, I've provided a clear one: you don't have to use force to maintain rule.
Whats your definition of force? Every country has standing riot police to "control" the people
When and where did I say that? I'm simply saying that you can't repress 1/2 of your population because they have different reproductive organs, you cannot have 'rape rooms' set up to punish women, you cannot prevent women from gaining education, you cannot punish those who get out of line with violence.
I'm quite sure that everyone wants security and safety and the majority of the say in how their life goes. They may not care for choosing their rulers, but they do care about living their lives.
Again different cultures, different people. The people in India will say you can't have a society that condones eating cows because they are holy. The people in Pakistan will say you can;t have a society that condones eating pork etc...
You seem to be considering a world where anyone who ever doesn't like their government is immediately capable of armed revolt.
You know what, armed revolts haven't exactly brought about good things historically. There's been only one good example and it wasn't a conflict against a brutally repressive regime, it was a conflict that sprung up over a legal conflict regarding taxation.
Again you are using OPINIONS instead of facts
They would have been wrong. Aside from the fact that such an invasion is farce, as such action would have caused catastrophic nuclear annihilation, there weren't any instances of violent repression like there were in Afghanistan and Iraq.
You're trying to bring up a lot of false examples.
Its a hypothetical, why is some country invading your country, overthrowing your current government and installing a government similar to theirs instead of yours not okay, but its okay to use military force to invade undemocratic countries to make them democracies?
To a small minority. There's no evidence that the majority of people in the Islamic world views the US government as illegitimate. They may view some of their actions as such, but only the hard liners would actually say that the US government is actually an illegitimate entity that doesn't represent the interests of the people on some level.
No majority of them view Americans as brainwashed idiots with a government controlled by big oil thus why they claim that the USA government is illegitimate. Just as the Americans claim that Muslims are brainwashed idiots because of their religion
Um...not openness, but the possibility of intellectual exploration. Lenin had to learn about communism from somewhere, didn't he?
The book was banned in Russia, speaking of democracy or communism in Tsarist Russia ended up in an IMMEDIATE DEATH SENTENCE. Marx's ideas were spread through word of mouth. If the North koreans truly hated Kim Jong and wanted a democracy there should be no reason why what happened in Russia and China won't happen in North korea.
Alexander II (1818-1881) attempted some genuine reforms, notably by freeing the serfs in 1861, relaxing Press censorship and making education more liberal. But when educated Russians took all this as their cue to demand democracy, Alexander took fright. He reimposed repression, threw liberals out of the universities and had thousands of suspected revolutionaries sent into exile in Siberia.
What? I'm sorry, but I'd actually like to see your measure of oppressiveness. PKR is two lies and a truth, it's Korean but it's no People's Republic. North Korea doesn't allow the exploration of ideas. Lenin had access to communist literature, so did Mao. Nobody in North Korea has access to information that the state doesn't allow. It has complete control over education.
Tsarist Russia and KMT China were just as totalitarian communist literature was banned in Russia.
Communist literature was banned in Tsarist Russia
Tsarist Russia also had secret police
www.bbc.co.uk...
In Tsarist Russia, the police had a vital role in keeping watch for enemies of the Tsar, and arresting them as required. Particularly important here was the Okhrana, the secret police. Agents of the Okhrana worked undercover, infiltrating organisations and groups which might present a danger to the Tsar.
All books and newspapers in Russia were censored so that people would not be influenced by liberal or socialist ideas. Any material which was thought to be dangerous was banned. Any person trying to circulate banned books or newspapers ran the risk of being detected by the Okhrana.
Tsarist Russia was every bit as totalitarian as present day North korea, even more so because many under Tsarist russia were denied education while in North Korea the literacy rate is 99%
edit on 6-10-2010 by Returners because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-10-2010 by Returners because: (no reason
given)
edit on 6-10-2010 by Returners because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-10-2010 by Returners because: (no reason
given)
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Obama's ideas sounded good too
such as?
What were his ideas that sounded good out of curiosity?
Originally posted by Returners
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SeventhSeal
Ron Paul has some very nice sounding ideas, the problem is that nearly none of them are practical. It's very easy to criticize, but he never puts forth how he would do the things he'd do.
How would he mobilize an immediate withdrawl from all military bases around the world? Would he just allow North Korea to step into South Korea?
And frankly, I've found some of his ideas downright stupid.
You can have change and hope, the problem is that you can't expect things to change right away.
I want change, I just know that it takes time.
He answered this already. Its not our damn problem. Pull our troops out immediately.
Let the idiots in Afghanistan and Iraq make their own government.
Let the Korean people decide whether they wanna reunify through peaceful means or through war.
I agree that we shouldnt be solving other people's problems.
But i DO think these are our problems. We just dont admit it much, so we claim we are spreading democracy or freeing the women, or whatever. But many of these problems we call 'terrorism' are problems WE helped create. the US armed, trained, and funded these guys, and god knows the amount of CIA black-ops stuff continuing to arm and fund anti-american groups (good for the weapons industry, dontchaknow). To merely pull out would ABSOLUTELY engender a backlash that would ABSOLUTELY pull this nation into an even messier, destructive conflict.
To think that the US can merely disengage from the world's military conflicts is niave, at best. Playing right into the hands of the cowboys itchin to set off some nukes is more likely.
reply to post by Returners
I'm sorry, but how does winning a military conflict determine legitimacy.
And Osama and other like-minded radicals with massive resources helped. You don't really need supplies when you've got an unreasonably wealthy man helping to fight a civil war in an unreasonably impoverished nation.
The Taliban simply had more arms thanks to the Americans, better military techniques thanks to the Americans, and a reputation of 'ousting the infidel' thanks to the Soviets intervening in the first place.
There's also the factor of fear. You're acting as if the Taliban gained all of their intel and resources and recruits from volunteers.
Where's the evidence to show that such a brutal regime received mostly handouts?
Dear science, not another one. Please just learn to use the external quoting function like so:
And then he decided to invade Kuwait. In the aftermath of that war he brutally repressed the ethnic Kurdish and Shi'a minorities.
From the exact same source:
Oh wait, by your standards that means he was right. I mean, how else could he use violence to oppress them if he wasn't legitimate.
Yes, because they have an understanding about what crowd dynamics does to large groups of people. A small disruption can make an otherwise reasonable crowd into a riot.
Force is when your response to people disagreeing with you is to start killing them
And again, what's your standard for legitimacy?
I'm sorry, but that's something entirely separate. "Rape is wrong" is a statement that I can back up independently of any culture. "Oppression of 50% of the populace is wrong" is again the same thing.
And not all of India bans beef sales....by the way, that's an insanely stereotypical message as not all Indians are Hindus (it has the largest population of Muslims of any country in the world) and not all Hindus view cows as sacred.
On another more important note: How the hell did you just compare the use of rape as torture and the oppression of the female gender to eating animal products?
People may disagree one food, that's one thing, but it's not really a moral issue for Pakistanis to not eat pork, it's a purely religious one. Pork isn't immoral, it's unclean.
People in India are again putting for a religious idea.
Raping women to torture them and preventing half of your populace from receiving education or even the limited freedoms provided by that nation is a moral issue, not a trivial religious one. Anyone can speak on it.
Culture should be protected and preserved, but not at all costs. Human costs are a more than reasonable standard.
I'm sorry, but you're using opinions. That graph is entitled "People worse off under communism" and then goes for popular opinion. Isn't that ironic
This does little to show an instance of a nation in the last 100-200 years that was made better solely through internal armed revolt.
Hey, you made a pretty decent straw man of me there.
I never condoned the action of using military force to invade undemocratic countries to try to make them democratic
My position is that we unfortunately did that. We do now have a responsibility to do our best to fix what we broke. We have a responsibility to help Afghanistan and Iraq form stable governments that are supported by the populace, whether through direct democracy, representative democracy, constitutional monarchy, oligarchy, etc is there decision, so long as it does well enough to protect the people and ensure their rights and security.
You seem to be constantly deflecting. I pointed out that Ron Paul's ideas are idiotic because leaving Afghanistan and Iraq would be an unconscionable act. You are telling me that equates to me believing that we can invade any country we want and install democracy. I don't believe that one bit. I just think we need to fix our mistakes.
Evidence, provide it for both claims.
Anecdotally, I know quite a few people from the 'Islamic world' now. I have quite a few Turkish, Kurdish, Arab, Persian, and Pakistani friends. Aside from one person who is a significantly ignorant hard liner, most of them view Americans as decent people while viewing specific elected officials as being the cause of problems. They don't hold it against us because they know that nobody is perfect and it's easy to be tricked by a politician.
As for the Americans claiming Muslims are brainwashed idiots...again, I know only a few Christian zealots that think that.
Which of the many books supporting Communist ideals?
Also, a book banning in Tsarist Russia is sort of harder to enforce than a book banning in North Korea, which shares a border with South Korea that's impossible to pass and would be the only place for books to be smuggled in.
Evidence?
Except that the Tsarist regime didn't have the same totalitarian mindset. The North Koreans are fed a literal mythic version of how Kim Jong Il was born, have very little in the way of nutrition (leading to stunted growth), have little in the way of basic education, and one of the biggest military structures in the world backing up their 'dear leader'.
I'm not even saying they want a democracy. I'm simply saying that what happens there is unconscionable and you can't simple say that the fact that they haven't overthrown it is proof that they still want it.
See? Clearly this guy is nowhere near as bad as Kim Jong-Il, he would have had them worked to death in mines or executed on sight.
Oh, and Kim Jong-Il regularly kidnaps foreign nationals for his own various amusements, which is a specific criminal act.
Ok, please provide evidence.
Evidence?
Hey look, you did provide evidence but you again failed to format it.
I'll concede that Tsarist Russia didn't have a total freedom of ideas and that books were banned. However, Lenin learned from literature at one point in their history. North Korea doesn't have that one point in history
That's a self-reported statistic or a clever way to make propaganda more accessible at the most cynical. There hasn't been an objective study of North Korean literacy.
And being literate doesn't mean you're educated.
And one last thing, North Korea has a population of 22 million (give or take a few hundred thousand) and has an active military of 1 million members and an additional 9 million in reserve (source)
1 active military member for every 22 people is an effective tool.
Tsarist Russia came to an issue of manpower, they simply couldn't repress a populace that outnumber their military might.
However, let's end this discussion as it's entirely off topic. What we were discussing was withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan and whether or not its a defensible position.
Let's both stay on topic or discuss this elsewhere.
reply to post by ModernAcademia
Universal healthcare, a sustainable society, environmental protections, veteran's being treated properly, renewable energy, greater commitment to education, repealing the Bush tax cuts, coming to a reasonable end in Iraq and Afghanistan, not starting a war with Iran, opening dialogs with any nation even if they are our enemies.
Originally posted by Returners
Wheres your evidence? If the Taliban was not legitimate how the hell did it end up the winner of a mass civil war?
I'm sorry, but how does winning a military conflict determine legitimacy.
Do you even understand the resources needed for a civil war not to mention the resources needed in order to win one? Clearly the Taliban had a LOT of Afghanis sending their sons to fight for the Taliban, giving them information about the enemies location, and giving them supplies.
And Osama and other like-minded radicals with massive resources helped. You don't really need supplies when you've got an unreasonably wealthy man helping to fight a civil war in an unreasonably impoverished nation.
The Taliban simply had more arms thanks to the Americans, better military techniques thanks to the Americans, and a reputation of 'ousting the infidel' thanks to the Soviets intervening in the first place.
There's also the factor of fear. You're acting as if the Taliban gained all of their intel and resources and recruits from volunteers.
Where's the evidence to show that such a brutal regime received mostly handouts?
And you realize that Saddam gained his position by winning a bloodless coup right?
en.wikipedia.org...
Dear science, not another one. Please just learn to use the external quoting function like so:
Saddam participated in a bloodless coup led by Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr that overthrew Abdul Rahman Arif. Al-Bakr was named president and Saddam was named his deputy, and deputy chairman of the Baathist Revolutionary Command Council.
Saddam was widely popular amongst the Iraqi people for his modernization programs
Saddam built a reputation as a progressive, effective politician.[25] At this time, Saddam moved up the ranks in the new government by aiding attempts to strengthen and unify the Ba'ath party and taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following.
And then he decided to invade Kuwait. In the aftermath of that war he brutally repressed the ethnic Kurdish and Shi'a minorities.
From the exact same source:
Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions, together with the brutality of the conflict that this had engendered, laid the groundwork for postwar rebellions. In the aftermath of the fighting, social and ethnic unrest among Shi'ite Muslims, Kurds, and dissident military units threatened the stability of Saddam's government. Uprisings erupted in the Kurdish north and Shi'a southern and central parts of Iraq, but were ruthlessly repressed.
Oh wait, by your standards that means he was right. I mean, how else could he use violence to oppress them if he wasn't legitimate.
Whats your definition of force? Every country has standing riot police to "control" the people
Yes, because they have an understanding about what crowd dynamics does to large groups of people. A small disruption can make an otherwise reasonable crowd into a riot.
Force is when your response to people disagreeing with you is to start killing them
And again, what's your standard for legitimacy?
Again different cultures, different people. The people in India will say you can't have a society that condones eating cows because they are holy. The people in Pakistan will say you can;t have a society that condones eating pork etc...
I'm sorry, but that's something entirely separate. "Rape is wrong" is a statement that I can back up independently of any culture. "Oppression of 50% of the populace is wrong" is again the same thing.
And not all of India bans beef sales....by the way, that's an insanely stereotypical message as not all Indians are Hindus (it has the largest population of Muslims of any country in the world) and not all Hindus view cows as sacred.
On another more important note: How the hell did you just compare the use of rape as torture and the oppression of the female gender to eating animal products?
People may disagree one food, that's one thing, but it's not really a moral issue for Pakistanis to not eat pork, it's a purely religious one. Pork isn't immoral, it's unclean.
People in India are again putting for a religious idea.
Raping women to torture them and preventing half of your populace from receiving education or even the limited freedoms provided by that nation is a moral issue, not a trivial religious one. Anyone can speak on it.
Culture should be protected and preserved, but not at all costs. Human costs are a more than reasonable standard.
Again you are using OPINIONS instead of facts
I'm sorry, but you're using opinions. That graph is entitled "People worse off under communism" and then goes for popular opinion. Isn't that ironic
This does little to show an instance of a nation in the last 100-200 years that was made better solely through internal armed revolt.
Its a hypothetical, why is some country invading your country, overthrowing your current government and installing a government similar to theirs instead of yours not okay, but its okay to use military force to invade undemocratic countries to make them democracies?
Hey, you made a pretty decent straw man of me there.
I never condoned the action of using military force to invade undemocratic countries to try to make them democratic
My position is that we unfortunately did that. We do now have a responsibility to do our best to fix what we broke. We have a responsibility to help Afghanistan and Iraq form stable governments that are supported by the populace, whether through direct democracy, representative democracy, constitutional monarchy, oligarchy, etc is there decision, so long as it does well enough to protect the people and ensure their rights and security.
You seem to be constantly deflecting. I pointed out that Ron Paul's ideas are idiotic because leaving Afghanistan and Iraq would be an unconscionable act. You are telling me that equates to me believing that we can invade any country we want and install democracy. I don't believe that one bit. I just think we need to fix our mistakes.
No majority of them view Americans as brainwashed idiots with a government controlled by big oil thus why they claim that the USA government is illegitimate. Just as the Americans claim that Muslims are brainwashed idiots because of their religion
Evidence, provide it for both claims.
Anecdotally, I know quite a few people from the 'Islamic world' now. I have quite a few Turkish, Kurdish, Arab, Persian, and Pakistani friends. Aside from one person who is a significantly ignorant hard liner, most of them view Americans as decent people while viewing specific elected officials as being the cause of problems. They don't hold it against us because they know that nobody is perfect and it's easy to be tricked by a politician.
As for the Americans claiming Muslims are brainwashed idiots...again, I know only a few Christian zealots that think that.
Um...not openness, but the possibility of intellectual exploration. Lenin had to learn about communism from somewhere, didn't he?
The book was banned in Russia,
Which of the many books supporting Communist ideals?
Also, a book banning in Tsarist Russia is sort of harder to enforce than a book banning in North Korea, which shares a border with South Korea that's impossible to pass and would be the only place for books to be smuggled in.
speaking of democracy or communism in Tsarist Russia ended up in an IMMEDIATE DEATH SENTENCE.
Evidence?
Marx's ideas were spread through word of mouth. If the North koreans truly hated Kim Jong and wanted a democracy there should be no reason why what happened in Russia and China won't happen in North korea.
Except that the Tsarist regime didn't have the same totalitarian mindset. The North Koreans are fed a literal mythic version of how Kim Jong Il was born, have very little in the way of nutrition (leading to stunted growth), have little in the way of basic education, and one of the biggest military structures in the world backing up their 'dear leader'.
I'm not even saying they want a democracy. I'm simply saying that what happens there is unconscionable and you can't simple say that the fact that they haven't overthrown it is proof that they still want it.
Alexander II (1818-1881) attempted some genuine reforms, notably by freeing the serfs in 1861, relaxing Press censorship and making education more liberal. But when educated Russians took all this as their cue to demand democracy, Alexander took fright. He reimposed repression, threw liberals out of the universities and had thousands of suspected revolutionaries sent into exile in Siberia.
See? Clearly this guy is nowhere near as bad as Kim Jong-Il, he would have had them worked to death in mines or executed on sight.
Oh, and Kim Jong-Il regularly kidnaps foreign nationals for his own various amusements, which is a specific criminal act.
Tsarist Russia and KMT China were just as totalitarian communist literature was banned in Russia.
Ok, please provide evidence.
Communist literature was banned in Tsarist Russia
Evidence?
Tsarist Russia also had secret police
www.bbc.co.uk...
Hey look, you did provide evidence but you again failed to format it.
I'll concede that Tsarist Russia didn't have a total freedom of ideas and that books were banned. However, Lenin learned from literature at one point in their history. North Korea doesn't have that one point in history
Tsarist Russia was every bit as totalitarian as present day North korea, even more so because many under Tsarist russia were denied education while in North Korea the literacy rate is 99%
That's a self-reported statistic or a clever way to make propaganda more accessible at the most cynical. There hasn't been an objective study of North Korean literacy.
And being literate doesn't mean you're educated.
And one last thing, North Korea has a population of 22 million (give or take a few hundred thousand) and has an active military of 1 million members and an additional 9 million in reserve (source)
1 active military member for every 22 people is an effective tool.
Tsarist Russia came to an issue of manpower, they simply couldn't repress a populace that outnumber their military might.
However, let's end this discussion as it's entirely off topic. What we were discussing was withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan and whether or not its a defensible position.
Let's both stay on topic or discuss this elsewhere.
reply to post by ModernAcademia
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Obama's ideas sounded good too
such as?
What were his ideas that sounded good out of curiosity?
Universal healthcare, a sustainable society, environmental protections, veteran's being treated properly, renewable energy, greater commitment to education, repealing the Bush tax cuts, coming to a reasonable end in Iraq and Afghanistan, not starting a war with Iran, opening dialogs with any nation even if they are our enemies.
new topics
-
US Air Force Secretary Kendall flies in cockpit of plane controlled by AI
Aircraft Projects: 40 seconds ago -
Messages of Hope – Unity through AI
Dreams & Predictions: 33 minutes ago -
Happy Cinco de mayo.
General Chit Chat: 1 hours ago -
The BEAST System of Revelation has been awoken and has assumed control, at least since COVID.
New World Order: 5 hours ago -
The Department of Justice Spies on Congress with Google Assisting.
Political Conspiracies: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
Dugin's interview and the West's complete ignorance of Russia
New World Order: 17 hours ago, 14 flags -
HOUSE VOTES 320-91 TO BAN CHRISTIAN BELIEFS IN AMERICA
Political Issues: 15 hours ago, 9 flags -
The Department of Justice Spies on Congress with Google Assisting.
Political Conspiracies: 11 hours ago, 8 flags -
The BEAST System of Revelation has been awoken and has assumed control, at least since COVID.
New World Order: 5 hours ago, 6 flags -
Happy Cinco de mayo.
General Chit Chat: 1 hours ago, 0 flags -
Messages of Hope – Unity through AI
Dreams & Predictions: 33 minutes ago, 0 flags -
US Air Force Secretary Kendall flies in cockpit of plane controlled by AI
Aircraft Projects: 40 seconds ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
US Air Force Secretary Kendall flies in cockpit of plane controlled by AI
Aircraft Projects • 0 • : Ophiuchus1 -
Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 3
World War Three • 5758 • : firerescue -
Messages of Hope – Unity through AI
Dreams & Predictions • 2 • : WhiteRabbitCanada -
The Dark Pyramid of Alaska and the Why Files take on the subject
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents • 21 • : BeyondKnowledge3 -
Really Unexplained
General Chit Chat • 118 • : chr0naut -
California Must Spend 20 Billion on Power Grid Upgrades If It Wants EVs
Fragile Earth • 37 • : Asher47 -
HOUSE VOTES 320-91 TO BAN CHRISTIAN BELIEFS IN AMERICA
Political Issues • 61 • : GENERAL EYES -
The BEAST System of Revelation has been awoken and has assumed control, at least since COVID.
New World Order • 2 • : chr0naut -
UN Estimates Rebuilding Gaza Will Cost Up To 40 Billion Dollars
Middle East Issues • 144 • : cherokeetroy -
Why I believe we are facing Apocalypse. The 'Unveiling' signifiying that the world is at an End.
Conspiracies in Religions • 73 • : SchrodingersRat