Gwynne Dyer's Point Of View

[Riverwind]

Afghanistan is a sham. We're just killing people over there and the taliban will always win and i'm sure when we foolish westerners get our asses kicked out of there all will be well, and the peaceful, non-terrorist inspiring/harbouring/creating Taliban will resume it's long record of serving the people so well.

1) The Taliban gained power in the first place because they fought the power of the warlords. Our troops are fighting to protect the power of the warlords who were shrewd enough to cut a deal with the US when they came looking for Osama.

2) Trying to change the world is not bad: claiming success when there is none is a problem. Anyone who thinks that Afghanistan is a now a democracy because there was one election is quite mistaken.

[killjoy]

Hey i said you were right. There's no democracy over there. There never will be. It's quite pointless to try and 'teach' a democracy to such barbarians I'm sure. And you're also right about claiming success. Whenever I look at the paper, and read what our politicians or generals are saying, that's really all I hear: "Success. Success. Success."

You're absolutely right. It's all just a dirty deal we have with the warlords and nothing's changed in Afghanistan and the only likely change to come anytime soon is our expedient departure.

I shoulda just listened to you in the first place.

.

[Black Dog]

I have the impression that before the Internet, nobody ever called these self-described analysts on their pronouncements. If an analyst's predictions are wildly wrong, then what's the point of the analysis?

I dunno. But being wrong doesn't seem to stop anybody from making prognostications. Hell, last I checked, Masrk Steyn still has a gig and he's never been right.

I find that Tom Friedman of the New York Times is much more interesting and knowledgable on middle east issues.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!*WIPES TEARS* Thnaks for that. Pure comedy gold, that.

Whatever. We can argue about this on and on and the only thing we're going to do is get farther and farther away from the word 'sham'. They were not a 'sham'. That's just a 'talking point' from some website without any decent reason to call it a 'sham'. It was every bit as legitimate as any of our elections.

Sham and fraud don't mean the same thing. I'd call the Afghan elections a sham because they were mainly symbolic.

[killjoy]

BD;

I can understand that. The problem I have with people's view of the 'democracy' over there is that it's very likely never to look anything like what we would consider a democracy, and yet if you change the names around it will start to look like it. If you change premier to warlord you start to see what i mean. Granted warlords aren't voted in, but then again our central government can't kick out a premier either, and they're not about to give up power. Reminds me of a timely line from "the Man Who Would Be King" where Sean Connery and Micheal Cane are lone British soldiers trying to assemble the different warlords into an alliance:

"Different cultures, different rules, Peachy....musn't be prejudiced."

it's like when people say there's no difference between the Taliban and the government now because they both want to base their laws on Shia laws. Well so? Practically all of the ME base their laws on it and they all have different laws. So yeah, there is a difference now in the sense that one 'law system' allows girls to go to school and children to sing songs and women do not have to be fully covered or even constantly accompanied by a man. Hell they can even drive. Vastly different than under the Taliban who were using the 'same laws'.

These two different interpretations are vastly different in practice, so to casually look and conclude that both are basing their laws on Shia (sp? am I spelling that wrong? no time to check) are therefore the same is nonsense, and typical of a simplistic 'talking point'.

.

[Shady]

killjoy, you're trying to have a logical and reasoned discussion with members of the kook-left. It's too late for them, they're gone. Their hatred consumed any logic and reason years ago. What you have to understand, is that, President Bush or anything remotely related to him or his administration is evil and to be battled. Even if it means rooting against situations that would be beneficial to other people and the rest of the world (ie Iraq and/or Afghanistan). It's over and they're done. You just have to get your gear, and move on, unfortunately.

I applaud your effort though!

[killjoy]

killjoy, you're trying to have a logical and reasoned discussion with members of the kook-left. It's too late for them, they're gone. Their hatred consumed any logic and reason years ago. What you have to understand, is that, President Bush or anything remotely related to him or his administration is evil and to be battled. Even if it means rooting against situations that would be beneficial to other people and the rest of the world (ie Iraq and/or Afghanistan). It's over and they're done. You just have to get your gear, and move on, unfortunately. sad.gif

I applaud your effort though!

[ahem]

Killjoy is center. Killjoy is centered. Occasionally he's centre even.

Killjoy is teflon to his 'allies' and water to his 'enemies'. No stick. Can't hit. And no bullshit.

No offence but I’m not here to make teams. BD's ok, from what I read....especially compared the delirious masses contaminating forums these days.

[zombie voice]"But the newzzpaperz....the newzpaperz tell us....the newspaperz tell us wot to tink...tell us wot to tink newzzzpaper..."[/zombie voice]

(besides BD is an Oiler fan and that counts right now :-))

.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear killjoy,

No offence but I’m not here to make teams

Well done. Garbage like this...

killjoy, you're trying to have a logical and reasoned discussion with members of the kook-left. It's too late for them, they're gone. Their hatred consumed any logic and reason years ago

should have no place here, 'left or right'. I think BD's point (and Dyer's) is that replacing one Islamic fundamentalist regime (that insists on Sharia law) for another is going to be fruitless (for the 'West') no matter how it was done, whether democratically or by simply backing the strongest horse.

[killjoy]

You mean like another Iran. Well I can't argue with that possiblity. Except to say that looking at the activities of the Taliban for the decade previous to 9/11 with the M.O. of escalating violence, looking at it from that vantage, and I do in the most literal sense, then I can't see what's to lose with the risk. You can't say lives because the Cnd soldiers are there because they want to be not because they were called up from National Guard weekend duty, and you can't really say that about the Afghans since there's every likelihood, (since we're talking in terms of likelihood’s), just as many of them could have died.

I hate to point this out, because it's as cold as life, but the civilian casualties have been relatively 'low', so when considering what the alternative 5 years could've been and what the next ten years could be, it's worth the risk imo.

In Rwanda we would've had to kill some people and no one would've ever dreamed of the future that would've been prevented. We'd only know about "all those civilians killed ( 100?) with our actions".

.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear killjoy,

looking at the activities of the Taliban for the decade previous to 9/11 with the M.O. of escalating violence, looking at it from that vantage, and I do in the most literal sense, then I can't see what's to lose with the risk.

I have to agree here. The Taliban was an abomination, both in the world at large and internally.

Hamid Karzai, though an admirable figure, (I first read about him in the book "Soldiers of God: With the Mujahideen in Afghanistan" by Robert Kaplan) was simply another warlord backed by the US (among others). A policy that got you into trouble should almost never be used again to get you out of that trouble.

[Shady]

Well done. Garbage like this...

Just pointing out the truth. Didn't mean to offend.

Now go on calling calling insurgents "freedom fighters" and Hamid Karzai a "warlord". LOL.

[killjoy]

Hamid Karzai, though an admirable figure, (I first read about him in the book "Soldiers of God: With the Mujahideen in Afghanistan" by Robert Kaplan) was simply another warlord backed by the US (among others). A policy that got you into trouble should almost never be used again to get you out of that trouble.

This is a valid point, until you start comparing alternatives. When you take a serious look at any of the alternatives you realize you're going to probably get a 'warlord'. Maybe one that was backed by Pakistan. When you do, no matter who is in there, the press is going to tunnel-view on him and all of a sudden it all comes down to: Karzai. Warlord. USA Puppet.

This just is only barely accurate, and only from the narrow tunnel-view, to the point that it is inaccurate. Like saying all theloniusfleabag is is an Internet forum poster, or a 'Lefty'.. Widen the scope and he suddenly blends right in with Afghan culture like any of them do, so all you're really left with, warlord or not, is: Is he a responsible leader or isn’t he? Well? It doesn’t seem like he's that bad and for a "puppet president" he sure seems to speak his mind. No matter what, nothing changes the fact that the framework is there, so puppet or not the democratic framework is there to change that at any reasonable time, peacefully.

BTW, Warlords also keep the peace. Why not just call him a "peacelord" and sleep well tonight? It's about as accurate.

.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Shady,

Upon re-reading the book, I stand corrected. From the book, pg.195

More recently, I came to know Hamid Karzai, a thirty year old Kandahar native for Mojadidi's Afghan national Liberation Front. Hamid was the son of Abdulahad Karzai, the khan (headman) of the Popalzai tribe, the branch of the Abdalis that produced Ahmad Shah Durrani....Hamid was one of six sons, but the only one who had not gone into exile in Europe or North America and who aspired to succeed his father as head of the Popalzai.

A qualifier in the back of the book, about the religious parties and 'warlords', tribes, etc....(listed under the 'moderates', and not the 'fundamentalists')

Jabha-i-Nijat-Milli (Afghan National Liberation Front). Like NIFA, a royalist party with a base of support in Kandahar. Despite the brave personal record of the party's leader, Sibghatullah Mojadidi, it had few troops in the field and consequently got the least aid from the Pakistanis and the Americans. Mojadidi was a compromise figure selected to lead the mujahideen government-in-exile in March 1989.

[Riverwind]

When you do, no matter who is in there, the press is going to tunnel-view on him and all of a sudden it all comes down to: Karzai. Warlord. USA Puppet.

I never considered Karzai a warlord himself - he is probably the closest thing to a democrat that you can find in Afghanistan. The problem are the regional chieftans who simply ignore the central gov't. In many cases, these Chieftans are deeply involved in the drug trade and are not that interested in stopping. At some levels Afghanistan is like Columbia with Muslim fanatics added into the mix.

It is possible that a decade or two of stability imposed by foreign troops will change the culture in Afghanstan and will eventually lead to a real democracy that is not subject to the whims of well armed drug lords. Unfortunately, this change is not going to happen overnight and my concern is the Afghanistan war boosters are setting expectations too high.

[Charles Anthony]

The problem are the regional chieftans who simply ignore the central gov't. In many cases, these Chieftans are deeply involved in the drug trade and are not that interested in stopping.

Could "muslims against muslims" accurately categorize this war?

Maybe these rivalries are transported when people emigrate from Afghanistan.

Maybe they carry on their business in deceptive ways outside of Afghanistan.

Maybe they have business partners who are not muslim outside of Afghanistan.

Why are our armed forces in Afghanistan again?

Of course, when I suggested that the vandalism on the Toronto mosque MIGHT be an inside job (between muslims), it still sounds wacko, right?

[Black Dog]

I can understand that. The problem I have with people's view of the 'democracy' over there is that it's very likely never to look anything like what we would consider a democracy, and yet if you change the names around it will start to look like it. If you change premier to warlord you start to see what i mean. Granted warlords aren't voted in, but then again our central government can't kick out a premier either, and they're not about to give up power. Reminds me of a timely line from "the Man Who Would Be King" where Sean Connery and Micheal Cane are lone British soldiers trying to assemble the different warlords into an alliance:

"Different cultures, different rules, Peachy....musn't be prejudiced."

kj, I'm not sure I buy that "their democracy won't lok like our democracy" idea. There are certain things that make a democracy a democracy; something lacking those essentials is ipso facto not a democracy. A big one is strong, stable social institutions. Afghanistan doesn't have that yet (has it ever?) Nor am I confident that Afghanistan, divided as it is, can develop the kind of central government required.

As for you, Shady, maybe you should learn to develop some argments that can cut the mustard instead of launching personal attacks.

[Rue]

Democracy isn't something you import and impose. Christian missionaries tried that. It may force some people into a way of belief but the majority of people resist and go right back to their roots.

For democracy to be genuine, it has to come about naturally. In countries like Afghanistan and Iraq where the majority of people do not engage in critical thought but merely repeat what they are told, they are at least 100 years away from the kind of thinking process that needs to evolve for democracy to come about.

The notion you can import democracy is like finding a native group in the Amazon

and giving them coke and telling them they must drink it and enjoy it.

For heaven's sake did we not learn what happens from our own country and how we treat our own native peoples that you can not simply invade and impose?

Spin it any way you want but the current leader of Afghanistan is a U.S. puppet on a string no different then so many other puppets installed by the ruling empire of the day.

Afghanistan can not and will not become democractic because our soldiers shake hands with civilians in between hunting and killing Taliban. That is absurd.

The reality is this - Afghanis are dirt poor. They pay off their debts by growing poppies and selling those poppies to then buy off their debts.

The only real economy in Afghanistan is poppies.

The way we now keep control in Afghanistan is to prop a council of poppy growing war lords who have a direct vested financial interest in flooding our society with heroin.

This is as insane as when the Americans proppped up General Somoza and then raised money to supply his troops in their war against General Noriega by allowing them to trade cocaine for money to buy weapons.

This is sheer insanity. The DEA fights a ridiculous battle against heroin on its streets while the White House funds the very poppy Lords flooding the streets with heroin.

People are rotting in the streets of Vancouver from heroin while our troops protect the drug lords making this shit.

Sorry if I have a problem simply seeing the world in black and white and the current regime in Afghanistan being a democracy. Its not. It has never been and it won't be in our lifetimes.

I will say it again. We are masking the pretense of hunting down and killing Taliban as an exercise in democracy or anti-terrorism. That sounds better for domestic consumption rather then saying we are an invading army acting as a proxy police force propping up a non democractic corupt regime that happens to be on our side at the moment because its enemy is our enemy.

We have no business being a mercenary army in Afghanistan. Let's do away with the self righteous pretense and admit that what we really want to do is hunt down and kill Taliban or anyone else we deem terrorists and we want to do so without

regard to other nations' sovereignty. Call a spade a spade. Get over it. Get over the Liberal guilt and get on with the hunting and killing and let's top playing with this do gooder notion that our soldiers we democratic missionaries. They are not. They are trained killers and if they do their job right they must hunt and kill.

[killjoy]

Democracy isn't something you import and impose. Christian missionaries tried that. It may force some people into a way of belief but the majority of people resist and go right back to their roots.

The missionaries did not 'try that'. They were not there to 'impose' democracy. If by 'tried that' you mean that they turned the entire South/Central Americas into Catholics, then yeah....they 'tried that', and did it too. or did you think those countries were Catholic 'by accident'? :-)

For democracy to be genuine, it has to come about naturally. In countries like Afghanistan and Iraq where the majority of people do not engage in critical thought but merely repeat what they are told, they are at least 100 years away from the kind of thinking process that needs to evolve for democracy to come about.

Hmmm. Like Japan? Germany? India? Yes they do engage in critical thought. Some can speak 4 languages. How many do you speak? Did you know they get the Pakistan Times in the most remote regions of Afghanistan? Iraqi's now are savages who dont engage in critical thought? I dare say 100 years ago or so Iraq was more advanced culturally, nationally and in terms of critical thought than we were.

Spin it any way you want but the current leader of Afghanistan is a U.S. puppet on a string no different then so many other puppets installed by the ruling empire of the day.

I'm sorry Rue but considering how many things you've gotten plainly wrong in the first half of your post I'd say you're the one spinning. Kazrai was voted in. Thousands voted and he's not a puppet. Who are the other puppets? Chavez?

The reality is this - Afghanis are dirt poor. They pay off their debts by growing poppies and selling those poppies to then buy off their debts.

The only real economy in Afghanistan is poppies.

Again: India is dirt poor, overpopulated and rife with religious tensions. Theyare stilla success story in terms of a democracy. No one will lend them (Afghanistan) money to start proper industry. That's how the World bank works. It's not because of poverty or poppies it's because of instability.

Sorry if I have a problem simply seeing the world in black and white and the current regime in Afghanistan being a democracy. Its not. It has never been and it won't be in our lifetimes.

It is a problem Rue. It's not that you think in black and white but that you think in simplistic inaccuracies. Things don't get summed up in a sentence. There are many factors, hundreds in fact and although it would be convienent they just don't end up with: 1 + 1 = USA sucks. --- everyone knows my position on the subject but no where do I imply that it's as simple as, say, "Lets all just roll in there and fix everything", or "the democracy in Afghansistan is a shining example of democracies". Those two statements are as simplistic, inaccurate and wrong as yours are, IMO.

I mean you just say stuff like "Democracies have to come about naturally...you can't force them" and it has a nice ring to it and we're all willing to nod along, but when you consider a "pesky little detail" like Germany or Japan, either you have to re-evaluate, or, more likely, you end up 'spinning' some reason why those details "don't count". At any rate it seems to roll off your proposition like water off a ducks back. You decide it's not worth consideration and that's precisely what's simplistic about it.

I'd bet Gwynne Dyer would say it's simplistic to call Karzai a puppet or to suggest Afghanistan could never be a democracy or that the only thing they can sell is heroin, or that the only way democracies come about is when people sit back and wait for them. (BTW - the poppies do have a valid mediacal value too, [morphine and derrivatives]in terms of selling it legitimatly).

.

[Riverwind]

I mean you just say stuff like "Democracies have to come about naturally...you can't force them" and it has a nice ring to it and we're all willing to nod along, but when you consider Germany and Japan either you have to re-evaluate, or, more likely, you end up 'spinning' some reason why the "don't count".

The idea that America brought democracy to Japan and Germany is a myth. Both Germany and Japan were democratic countries for decades _before_ WW2. The trouble started because these democracies were hijacked by military dictators. When WW2 ended, the Allies did not have build democratic institutions from scratch in these countries - they simply restored what was already in place and added a few provisions to prevent another dictator from taking over.

It is simply rediculous to compare post-WW2 Germany and Japan to a country like Afghanistan with no history of democracy.

[killjoy]

First off I didn’t say that the US brought democracy to Japan or Germany did I, River? There goes that knee-jerk reaction to anything 'American' again.

In fact I never said anyone could ‘make’ Afghanistan or any other country become democratic. You, Rue and others are constantly banging that drum because it sounds so good. No the people have to want a democracy. I dont care what the politicians say, anyone participating in the Afghan mission, military or otherwise, Afghan or foreigner all know that we aren't bringing democracy to them we're simply trying to keep it secure so they can build one, and perhaps if we're lucky people will start investing in them too.

"Can't get democracy at the end of a gun" they all love to chant, but they never say that when we're providing security for food shipments. It's really no different (except in scale)....I suppose we're just force-feeding them at gunpoint? "Eat the damn sandwich or I'll blow yer head off"...yeah sure. That's how it's done.

Second, and most important, the idea that Japan and Germany were democracies in anything but name is the REAL MYTH. How can you even say that? You say before the war Germany was a democracy? Then you have the nerve to say the Afghan democracy is a sham? Whatever. Yeah Hitler and his "social democracy". Sure. Nice argument. Any thinner and it'd be invisible.

Oh what about Japan and their emperor? Yeah. Whatever River. Post 1945 Japan was a 'democracy' and the Afghan democracy is a sham, a farce. Pretty weak argument man.

It is simply rediculous to compare post-WW2 Germany and Japan to a country like Afghanistan with no history of democracy.

No where near as ridiculous as writing off Afghanistan as a bunch of barbarians.

I notice you didn't rebuttal India either. No one brought democracy to them either and they were poor and underdeveloped, over populated and religiously diverse as well having to deal with constant infighting between those religious factions.

Lets review your points:

1. America didn’t bring democracy to Germany or Japan. ---never said they did.

2. Germany had a ‘democracy’ before post-1942, but Afghanistan’s’ is a sham. And no we dont have to count Hitler....befoer him was Keiser Wilhelm, look that up and call it a democracy.

3. Japan and the emperor who called the shots (for decades, even centuries before the war) in spite of ‘elected’ government was a ‘democracy’ but Afghanistans' democracy is a sham.

Sorry but your counter point simply sucks big time. You’re really reaching and it shows.

.

.

.

[Riverwind]

Lets review your point: America didn’t bring democracy to Germany or Japan. ---never said they did.

You impled as much by using Germany and Japan as an example of how 'democracy' can be imposed on the country.

Japan and the emperor who called the shots in spite of ‘elected’ government was a ‘democracy’ but Afghanistan’s’ is a sham.

Canada has an all powerful monarchy as the official head of state. 1920s Japan was no different. The democratically elected gov't had the power to pass laws and see them enforced across the country.

In Afghanistan, the parliment can pass laws but they can only be enforced if the regional warlords agree. This is the reason why I think the democracy in Afghanistan is currently a sham. If it was possible to eliminate these warlords then I think the Afghanistan could become a real democracy. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen any time soon since our troops are more focused on dealing with the Taliban.

You seem to be missing my point: I am not saying that Afghans are incapable of grasping the concept democracy. I am saying the civil society based on the rule of law required to support a society is missing.

[killjoy]

You impled as much by using Germany and Japan as an example of how 'democracy' can be imposed on the country.

Nowhere did I do that. Nowhere. Rue implied. I countered, which does not mean I endorse what Rue implied. In fact I can point out numerious posts on this forum where I've said again and again that we CANT "bring" or "impose" democracy and that the people have to want it. I've never budged on that view once. Read it again. Rue stated more or less that a democracy has to happen on its own, naturally. I said it sometimes needs support against those who attack it.

1920s Japan was no different. The democratically elected gov't had the power to pass laws and see them enforced across the country.

OH COME OFF IT. DID YOU EVEN INVESTIGATE THAT? Real weak River. That is not a valid comparison by a long shot and you (should) bloody well know that. The emperor called the shots the king didnt. Japan had a ruling Emperor, we had a mascot. Japans Emperor could make or break laws. Our mascot monarch couldn’t. Im not even going to bother with that argument anymore River, it's insincere and you know it. Also I believe the Emperor had to approve of the candidates (and bless them?).

In Afghanistan, the parliment can pass laws but they can only be enforced if the regional warlords agree.

How is that different than here? I mean I know the difference but you seem to think it's a lot bigger than it is. Federal laws are passed with the consultation of all the regions/ premiers. If a federal law is passed that Quebec or Alberta doesn’t like they either fight it or ignore it if they can. Maybe Quebec has a warlord and not a premier.

You are also looking at the situation in a static prism. That is to say your argument contends that that this si the way it will always be when in fact they are making changes to the constitution and developing themselves every day.

.

[Riverwind]

OH COME OFF IT. DID YOU EVEN INVESTIGATE THAT? Real weak River. That is not a valid comparison by a long shot and you (should) bloody well know that. The emperor called the shots the king didn't.

I studied Japanese history in university and lived in Japan. So I am pretty sure I know more about Japanese history than you. The emperor has been a figure head for centuries - even in Samurai times. The real power was held by the Shoguns and later - the parliament. The Meiji era in the 1800s was the exception but that period ended with the establishment of a parliamentary system in 1920s. WW2 was not started by the emperor - it was started by nationalists in the military who claimed to be acting on behalf of the emperor.

If a federal law is passed that Quebec or Alberta doesn’t like they either fight it or ignore it if they can. Maybe Quebec has a warlord and not a premier.

A red herring - premiers are elected - warlords aren't. Furthermore, provinces can not do anything about federal laws in federal jurisdiction (e.g. gun control or SSM).

That is to say your argument contends that that this si the way it will always be when in fact they are making changes to the constitution and developing themselves every day.

Sure they are. But we have to realistic about what we can do - the warlords are a problem that must be solved by the Afghans. It is incredibly expensive to keep our troops in Afghanistan and it also means that we cannot participate in other worthy causes (i.e. Sudan).

[killjoy]

I studied Japanese history in university and lived in Japan. So I am pretty sure I know more about Japanese history than you. The emperor has been a figure head for centuries - even in Samurai times. The real power was held by the Shoguns and later - the parliament. The Meiji era in the 1800s was the exception but that period ended with the establishment of a parliamentary system in 1920s. WW2 was not started by the emperor - it was started by nationalists in the military who claimed to be acting on behalf of the emperor.

Oh the ol'I-studied-in-university-the-very-topic-we're-arguing' card. If only it were as compelling as it is convenient.

Well I'm sorry to disappoint you but I did know the pedestrian details you posted...they kinda look more 5-miniute-Googlish to me. All you're really doing is further distinguishing the falsity of drawing a comparison to Canada. It's ridiculous. I also can't help but notice that your info only seems to enforce that indeed Japan didn’t have a knack or preposition for democracy before some tyrant or dictator took it over. They barely got it started. The idea you're postulating that Japan was somehow 'naturally democratic' for decades, much more so than the Sham Puppet Show of Afghanistan who were also run by warlords (shoguns?) and it could never happen there is only looking weaker. Thanks.

I also notice you dropped Germany. Wilhem did that for you? Another 5-minute Goggle?

Still don’t want to address India? Nevermind.

So lets review. Japan and Germany didn’t have a ‘natural knack’ and ‘history’ for democracy any more than Afghanistan does. And furthermore,more to the actual point, the democracy they do have today, thanks to support and intervention is far less "shammy" than what you're trying so desperately to contend they had "for decades before tyrants took them over". I'm feeling good about clearing the air. I'm glad we had that sorted out.

Actually. I'm in a bad mood and I'm done with you. There's always Rue or BD and the like. Those people I find more reasoned or at least sincere. You're on the ignore list. I can tell you're someone who never, never admits it when he's wrong or when someone else has a point.

Shoulda studied 'how-not-to-make-weak-arguments-and-hang-on-to-them-forever_101' instead for all the good it's doing you.

.

[Riverwind]

So lets review. Japan and Germany didn’t have a ‘natural knack’ and ‘history’ for democracy any more than Afghanistan does

Germany and Japan set up democratic institutions on their own. We can agree to disagree on how effective they were but you cannot deny the fact that Germans and the Japanese did not need international soliders to protect voters when they had their first elections.

I can tell you're someone who never, never admits it when he's wrong or when someone else has a point.

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. You so-called refutations can be summarized as 'Your wrong and I am right - don't bother me with facts'. You dismiss my facts as something that comes from '5-minute google' searches yet you make _no_ attempt to back up your arguments with facts. Instead, you do the forum equivalent of putting your hands over you ears and repeating the historical inaccuracies that you learned in grade school.

[killjoy]

You dismiss my facts as something that comes from '5-minute google' searches yet you make _no_ attempt to back up your arguments with facts.

That's because we're dealing with basics not things like pointing out why the ME is becoming less relevant in terms of oil by pointing you to a list. Besides that I can use your own. I have brought up very good arguments while yours has been widdled down to concession.

You have not once given any 'facts' that support that Afghanistan could never have a democracy besides the infinitely simplistic rationale that they never had one before. lol. So?

When you really examine that, it's the very definition of stupidity and a lack of ‘critical thinking’ that even an Afghan would have. "They’ll never do it, because they never have before" (?) That really makes sense to you? Do I need a link to point you to? That's not really a "point" at all. It wasn't Dyer's point. (and I know he went to university --- like the rest of us)

What about Pakistan? What about India? What makes them more 'likely' to become a democracy. There was a time they weren't.

You completely ignore the points I made, and even the relevance of your own facts, to my argument. For example the fact that a decent reliable democracy never existed in Japan or Germany until post WWII. I can admit that they, say, made it to the line first in establishing the beginnings of one, sure I'll agree to that, but until everything was destroyed and on the edge of chaos, (not much different than post Soviet Afghanistan), and there was outside help, money and security they couldn't get it done. As proven, in your own words, that they 'fell victim to dictators'.

And no, I'm not saying that it can't be done 'naturally' either. That is of course the preferred method. (but then that point wasnt one of yours either).

.