04 May 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWe're talking about your line of reasoning, not mine.
Not at all. According to your line of thinking, it would have been none of my business; I could have happily washed my hands of the affair and let them all sort it out, trusting in the innate goodness of human nature.
I've discussed the Munich matter in another thread. In case you've missed the obvious distinction, what happens inside Afghanistan or Czechoslovakia is an internal matter concerning the members of that civil society in my view. Efforts by others to interfere in those societies should be opposed. Thus, the military alliance between France and the USSR which was supposed to guarantee Czechoslovakia's borders fits easily into my philosophy (and the restraint of German power was also in the immediate self-interest of those countries).
In your view, apparently anything that happens, anywhere is everybody's business. If someone or some country feels that somebody or some other country is "oppressing" someone, than they are morally required to do something about it. Thus, by your logic, Hitler was morally justified in trying to end the "oppression" of the Sudetenland Germans by detaching the Sudetenland from the Czechs.
04 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI didn't say it was an easy question ...
The Americans pulled the carpet from under RAWA as soon as they'd toppled the Taliban, having cited their perspectives and aspirations in the lead up to that invasion.
Well, here's somebody (a Canadian) cudgelling their conscience about it:
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/04/17/plight-of-afghan-women-prompts-fresh-debate.html
04 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSays who?
We're talking about your line of reasoning, not mine.
I haven't made any statements about when intervention is called for or not, I've merely asked questions. Here's another one: pulling out of Afghanistan is likely to lead to increased oppression (that's oppression, not 'oppression'😉 of Afghan women, including murder; how precisely to counterbalance that against lives saved because bombing is stopped? Is it a moral question anymore?
04 May 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't think it's an easy question either.
I didn't say it was an easy question ...
But the status of women has taken a distinct turn for the worse in Iraq too, partly due to the transformations unleashed by Western intervention.
'Women' may be on your agenda and mine, but it appears to be a lip-service thing when it comes to Western governments and their military adventures.
04 May 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI guess you're back to your old trick of selective quotation while ignoring the points I raise in response to your statements. Your debating "style" is truly infantile.
Says who?
I haven't made any statements about when intervention is called for or not, I've merely asked questions. Here's another one: pulling out of Afghanistan is likely to lead to increased oppression (that's oppression, not 'oppression'😉 of Afghan women, including murder; how precisely to counterbalance that against lives saved because bombing is stopped? Is it a moral question anymore?
I'm sure Afghan women will be murdered whether we keep killing other Afghans or not. I'm sure many more Afghans will be killed in major military operations using the full firepower of the US then will be killed because of extremist religious interpretations of Sharia law (and many of those will be killed anyway). I see no need to measure these things "precisely"; it is enough to know that the statements given above are unquestionably true.
No amount of force applied by outsiders will cause the Afghans to reform their system. That will happen as a natural progression of their society. External occupation can only delay such reform: the Soviet occupation (which included an increase in women's rights) created the backlash which led to the emergence of the Taliban.
I look forward to your selective quotation of this post.
04 May 09
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't want to line up with apologists for intervention, but I'm not sure that statement stands up to historical analysis. For instance, the situation of women is much more progressive in those Central Asian republics which were long part of the Soviet Union, in which case, it could be argued that external occupation can work, if it lasts long enough for the conquerors' attitudes to be inculcated through altered education systems and assimilated by the wider population. On the other hand, I wouldn't be too surprised if there was ultimately a backlash in those countries, too.
No amount of force applied by outsiders will cause the Afghans to reform their system. That will happen as a natural progression of their society. External occupation can only delay such reform: the Soviet occupation (which included an increase in women's rights) created the backlash which led to the emergence of the Taliban.
I certainly think any present-day military involvement by Western powers in the Muslim world is likely to be counterproductive, and in the long term will probably strengthen rather than weaken extremist movements. But I'm not sure this adds up to a proof that external intervention is always and everywhere likely to be counterproductive. The postwar Occupation of Japan, for instance, successfully implanted liberal democracy in a country with no tradition of it. Japan's experience is often cited as culturally specific, but, if Western countries had recently taken military action to depose the Burmese junta, I wonder if the outcome would have been more positive there than in Afghanistan or Iraq.
04 May 09
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedMy idiocy was noted, you say?
Anyway, the question is bunk because it's a tautology: any example of a people who do not rise up and overthrow a government proves they did not want it badly enough, and any example of a country whose people did rise up proves they did want it enough.
Oh, and I haven't said I never support a people acting by force to change a government. To the contrary, in fact.
04 May 09
Originally posted by no1marauderBrilliant...your funniest Fraudulent statement to date!!!!
Your naivete is, as usual, amusing.
The people have the ultimate power to install who they please to govern them.
"...The people have the ultimate power to install who they please to govern them..."
I suppose the Chinese should have prevailed with democracy in Tianamen square...or the Jews should have been able to depose Hitler...perhaps the slaves in the US should have been able to install an anti-slavery party!
Well done No1. Utterly hilarious!
04 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm afraid I can't quote your entire post, it was automatically shortened.
I guess you're back to your old trick of selective quotation while ignoring the points I raise in response to your statements. Your debating "style" is truly infantile.
I'm sure Afghan women will be murdered whether we keep killing other Afghans or not. I'm sure many more Afghans will be killed in major military operations using the full f the Taliban.
I look forward to your selective quotation of this post.
The problem with your philosophy, which, etymologically, is not a philosophy at all but a purely formalistic sort of determinism, is that it can't be applied to problems that don't come neatly delineated with the help of maps. Remove the fiction of national sovereignty and your legalistic perspective has no ground to stand on.
The Sudeten German problem -- what if the Czechs had been conducting a genocide against Sudeten Germans? Would German intervention not have been justified in that case? Surely it would have been incumbent on any interested parties to ascertain the truth of the German claims? Had the German claims been grounded in reality (which, being an obvious pretext for aggression, they were not) their intervention, I think, would have been justified (which in fact it was not). Your argument is based on law, not ethics. This is what you call the 'real world', conveniently shrugging off such real issues as the abuse of women by 'patriots' you have praised in another thread. Well, perhaps there is no ethical basis for action in these matters and law is the only thing basis for action (although you're all for flouting law when it suits you, such as in the case of Stalin's annexation of the Baltic states); as it happens, I disagree.
Your 'natural progression of their society' line was one gleefully parrotted by the National Party in South Africa, by the way, as the doctrine of 'separate development'. Given sufficient time, it was argued, the natives would become civilised and everything would be just fantastic. But as you know these sentiments weren't shared and an armed struggle arose. If it hadn't been for the active support given the armed struggle by the frontline states, the Soviet Union, North Korea and other Cold War stakeholders, it wouldn't have got anywhere. And if it hadn't been for the USA finally imposing sanctions on apartheid South Africa, the struggle might still be continuing, with South Africa resembling a sort of Israel. Bearing this in mind, and thinking of how the demise of Republican Spain was hastened by its inability to procure arms while Franco's mob was supplied by Germany and Italy, I submit that your NOMB stance is not as well grounded in reality as you think.
What has this got to do with the Taliban? The Taliban is the responsibility of the USA -- you helped create the monster, you've got to do something about it.
04 May 09
to what extent is the Taliban a creature of the Saudis?
Greg Mortenson, author of Three Cups of Tea, alleges throughout the book that the Saudis were funding radical Wahhabi madrassas in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the very areas where the Taliban now enjoys much success.
I've no idea how true this allegation may be.
but it suggests the problem is a bit more complex than it may appear.
04 May 09
Originally posted by ScriabinIt seems to be very complex indeed, with all sorts of ramifications. If you're going to have a foreign policy, you have to attempt to deal with all those branchings off, I guess. Or give up on the whole international superpower thing.
to what extent is the Taliban a creature of the Saudis?
Greg Mortenson, author of Three Cups of Tea, alleges throughout the book that the Saudis were funding radical Wahhabi madrassas in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the very areas where the Taliban now enjoys much success.
I've no idea how true this allegation may be.
but it suggests the problem is a bit more complex than it may appear.
04 May 09
Originally posted by ScriabinDuring the Afghan-Soviet war the Saudis bankrolled the mujahideen note for note with the Americans. An agreement was struck, that whatever the CIA payed the Afghans through the Pakistanis, the Saudis would match it.
to what extent is the Taliban a creature of the Saudis?
Greg Mortenson, author of Three Cups of Tea, alleges throughout the book that the Saudis were funding radical Wahhabi madrassas in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the very areas where the Taliban now enjoys much success.
I've no idea how true this allegation may be.
but it suggests the problem is a bit more complex than it may appear.
When the war was over i'm unaware of whether the payments continued.
04 May 09
Originally posted by howardgeeForced men to grow beards! The horror!
"Of course, before the occupation of Afghanistan, the Taliban was a minor annoyance at most to Pakistan's leaders. Therefore, a good way to reduce Taliban influence in Pakistan would be to negotiate an end to that occupation."
Wake up No1Defrauder!
The taliban were terrorising all of Afghanistan; subjugating women horribly, forcing men to grow beards, ...[text shortened]... nd even banning music and playing chess.
How would YOU like to have lived under that regime?