Whoa, whoa, you guys are skipping a big step here. Your previous assertion was that violence would largely end if the US withdrew. But we have a very recent precedent for what happens when a large power withdraws from Afghanistan. And the point wasn't so much that the Taliban end up in control, but how they do so. That is, violently. They're inflicting most of the civilian casualties right now, and they inflicted grevious harm on the civilian population in their previous attempt to dominate the 60% of Afghans who are not Pashtoons. And in the first place it is far from clear that said 60% of Afghanis would prefer to be oppressed by the Pashtoon Taliban instead of America. And even farther from clear that it would be an improvement in their living conditions, rights, lives, etc.
I wouldn't make that assertion. A war torn society is still a traumatised one and to expect them to all link arms and sing Kumbaya would indicate a complete ignorance of historical precedence. However, whether it takes 1 year or 10 or 30, the situation cannot improve under occupation.
Exactly. And, as I mentioned, we hardly need to dig very far back into history to find a relevant precedent. The belligerent parties from the previous example have been at it continuously, right up to the present. Which has a lot to do with how American troops came to be there in the first place. That's simply dogma. There's a long list of countries that have gotten their acts together under occupation. Unless by "the situation" you mean "the presence of American troops," that is. I can never tell whether you guys are complaining about the actual fate of Afghans, or simply the exercise of American power as such.
Now you're ignoring historical precedence. In Afghanistan. Besides, I think the American policy is ill equipped to deal with the hearts and minds of the Afghanis.
Weeeelll...actually there is historical precedence for peace under occupation. Germany, Japan, Italy, etc. South Korea, if you will.
Kudos on justifying occupation now. How many people did they need to kill before dissent was silenced?
There are occupations and then there are occupations, Sam. No one would complain about being occupied by the Swedish bikini team, as an extreme case. Well, maybe you would, for their clear lewdness. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How many people 'needed' to be killed? Which example are you referring to?
It wasn't. Those states evolved into representative democracies, and have continued to express dissent the entire time.
So occupation is justified if the end result is a state that the occupier wanted to impose on the occupied?
That was the Nazi basis for killing Jews, homosexuals and gypsies. Congratulations, you're officially a Nazi
That was the best non sequitur I've seen in many a day. I could see it from the mid-deck of the fucking Pequod as it reared its hoary white snout above the waves.
Nope, you just justified the nuclear bombing of Japan as moral. Not to mention the native American genocide, the Aboriginal occupation, the decimation of the Tasmanians and the destruction of the Mayans, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Bagram and the horrors visited upon the Vietnamese, the gulags and the Holocaust. The oldest excuse in the book: the ends justify the means. What does that say about you? The next candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize, surely.
Didn't say anything about justification. I only said that your assertion that progress towards stable, secure, just self-government can never occur under occupation is demonstrably false.
In the sense that warfare is violence. Remove warfare, and violence would certainly reduce by a large factor. Yes. I am currently attempting to gain better insight on the facts regarding this. And it is also clear that the Taliban and Co. who are Afghans, and certainly representative of the population, are fighting foreign troops tooth and nail. Its not very good at the moment. Could it be worse?
I think the parallel between Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is that each was attempted to be done too cheaply. No people want their nation run by foreigners. Tolerating being run by foreigners goes against human nature. But Iraq and Afghanistan had suffered under such rotten local rulers for years that they could have tolerated foreign domination if it clearly improved their lives. In all three countries the USA squandered it's early opportunity to demonstrate that peoples lives will be improved if they allowed the USA to lead. In each country the USA thought it was being clever and saving money by making alliances with sleazy political factions. In all three nations the USA hurt civilians while trying to hit the enemy. The USA did not spend enough money in any of these nations to improve peoples lives and corrupt contractors stole much of the money that was spent. It becomes much more expensive for foreigners to win hearts and minds after they have already lost hearts and minds. I doubt that the USA would be willing to spend what it would take to win Afghanistan. Obama will just spend enough to not lose Afghanistan for eight years and then it becomes some other presidents problem. Iraq still depends on US money to keep it's factions aligned and postpone the civil war. Nobody has won Iraq yet. The Neocons did not get the clients state they were hoping for in Iraq but they also did not get defeated and Obama seems to be unwilling to lose what they started. I have no idea what the Nobel committee wants Obama to do.
Warfare was going on in Afghanistan before 9-11 and it will go on when the US is gone. Any Pashtuns who worked for the USA could be in serious danger when the US is gone. Then again the afghans have a tradition of shifting alliances so maybe the Taliban could forgive their enemies if they shift their allegiance to the Taliban. Then the Pan Pashtun/Taliban alliance could resume it's war with the Tajiks. Perhaps the Taliban faction will splinter and attack each other if the USA withdraws but a reduction in war deaths is not a likely outcome of a US withdrawal. I still want to back off all it's wars against Muslims and it's support for Israel because the USA has already spent to long acting like an enemy of Islam. This is an enemyship that does not serve the true interests of the people of the USA. We can't wait forever for Israel to make peace with Islam so the USA can make peace with Islam because Israel will never be willing to pay the price they must pay for peace. Screw Israel and screw the neocon beliefs that they USA can and should manage the world. The USA is broke. The USA can't afford this nonsense. So I really hope Obama has the USA cut costs and retreat from the world and start minding it's own business and stop acting like the USA is in charge of the world. But Obama won't do this. Obama will continue all the nonsense that was passed to him. He just won't attack Iran. And the Wars will go on with or without the USA.
Don't they? If I were attempting to, say, save the life of my child; I'd do damned near anything with that end in mind. On the otherhand, were I attempting to find a lost pencil; I wouldn't exert much effort. Stop a terrorist from setting off a nuke in Chicago? Damned near anything goes. Catch a speeder? Meh. Like anything else, the concept can be pushed too far. But ultimately, it's a judgement call.
Would you kill people? Throw white phosphorus and burn them to the bone? Drop a nuclear weapon on a city? If the ends justify the means then don't complain about terrorism or pretend you care about the Holocaust Thats an excellent summary. Do you believe that Obama will continue the failed Bush policies in a lite mode for the duration of his presidency? Do you think it will be possible?
