Afghanistan

[eyeball]

You are aware that Dune was fiction?

Was fiction? It still is, just like the fantasy that Afghanistan can be won, neutralized, conquored or whatever, militarily. I doubt if nukes would even make a difference. They'd probably only get tougher as seems to be their nature.

Afghanistan's a mess, Iraq's a joke and some people can't wait to drag Iran into the fray.

Who needs fiction?

[bush_cheney2004]

That's certainly irrelevant to proving that democracy was "established" in Japan in 1947.

But it was...a version of democracy acceptable to the Allies was imposed on Japan by military force. We can play semantic games going back to the Magna Carta if you wish.

Edited August 1, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[g_bambino]

But it was...a version of democracy acceptable to the Allies was imposed on Japan by military force. We can play semantic games going back to the Magna Carta if you wish.

Ah, see, that's not what you said. Your statement was worded in such a way as to say the Allies toppled a long-standing totalitarian regime and gave the Japanese democracy for the first time ever, which, of course, was not the case. They had democracy, just not the kind that was appealing to Americans. But, yes, I suppose the 1947 constitution of Japan serves as a demonstration of how democracy can be maintained after a military invasion, or, conversely, that military invasion does not neccessarily end in despotism.

Edited August 1, 2008 by g_bambino

[Wilber]

I suppose the 1947 constitution of Japan serves as a demonstration of how democracy can be maintained after a military invasion, or, conversely, that military invasion does not neccessarily end in despotism.

It doesn't necessarily but it most certainly did in Gemany, Italy and Japan after 1945, not to mention most of their victim states.

[myata]

I'd like, again, to highlight the important differences between the events of WWII and Iraq/Afghanistan now.

#1 Unlike states of the Axis that started continental war and totally bankrupted their ideologies in it, Afghanistan and Iraq were functioning reasonably well (by their terms and measures) at the time of invasions. To replace ideology by force, even by a democracy, is not at all the same as to try to introduce it into a society where no ideology exists (due to effects of war).

#2 As has been pointed out, most states of Axis, at least in Europe, already had earlier experiences with democracy, sometimes for decades. It'll be incorrect to say that democracy was introduced or created in those societies. Unlike what's been done in Iraq, etc.

#3 Societies aren't all the same. Some would bend and accept elements of what's being imposed on them quicker and easier than others.

Generally, the idea that somebody can come in and redesign others by force, no matter under which name and for what reason is sheer idealism, not to mention a recepy for costly and painful long term problems. This is the same kind of business as christianization of "savages" in the Middle Ages, colonizations of industrial age, and idelogical conquests of the last century. I've no idea why we need or want to be a part of this hopeless enterprise.

[jbg]

#1 Unlike states of the Axis that started continental war and totally bankrupted their ideologies in it, Afghanistan and Iraq were functioning reasonably well (by their terms and measures) at the time of invasions. To replace ideology by force, even by a democracy, is not at all the same as to try to introduce it into a society where no ideology exists (due to effects of war).

Iraq and Afghanistan were not "reasonably well functioning" in any sense. Iraq was under the control of a brutal, warmongering leader of a minority sect. Afghanistan was a failed state under Taliban rule. Need I say more.

#2 As has been pointed out, most states of Axis, at least in Europe, already had earlier experiences with democracy, sometimes for decades. It'll be incorrect to say that democracy was introduced or created in those societies. Unlike what's been done in Iraq, etc.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan had lengthy stretches of peaceful constitutional monarchies before coups in, respectively, 1958 and 1973.

[Army Guy]

Generally, the idea that somebody can come in and redesign others by force, no matter under which name and for what reason is sheer idealism, not to mention a recepy for costly and painful long term problems. This is the same kind of business as christianization of "savages" in the Middle Ages, colonizations of industrial age, and idelogical conquests of the last century. I've no idea why we need or want to be a part of this hopeless enterprise.

I'am curious to find out just when you decided it was a hopless enterprise, was it when you were driving home with a car load of groceries, to your nice home, with all the things we take for granted everyday. My piont is this... we live in a nation that offers so much, and has so much... that we can't offer it to anyone. Nobody is asking you to give up anything except a small portion of your tax bill, and i do mean a real small portion, thats it ....the actual work is being done by our armed forces, diplomatic corp and RCMP a small price to pay to offer a dream come true....

You make it sound like we go village to village and force them into doing or believeing in something they don't want any part of....thats not what we are doing at all, we are offering the majority the hope of peace.... something Canadians take for granted everyday....imgine what it is like to wake up every morning shake your kids awake just to make sure they have survived the night....and live with that fear everyday of your life...

You also make it sound that we have no right to interfer, no right into helping out a people who can't help themselfs, no right in stopping a few bad guys into forcing thier will on the majority....it's thier problem let them sort it out themselfs when they are ready.....

But not all of us can sit around and watch ....Some have seen thier pain, seen thier suffering, and have stood up and decided we are going to help, regardless of what it might cost us... other than a few dollars so far what has it cost you, personally....

Many that can not sit back and watch have paid with thier lives, thier husbands, wifes, sons , daughters, comrads....and yet they continue to Ask what else can i do....Not once have they even whispered this is a useless and hopeless enterprise...

[eyeball]

But not all of us can sit around and watch ....Some have seen thier pain, seen thier suffering, and have stood up and decided we are going to help, regardless of what it might cost us... other than a few dollars so far what has it cost you, personally....

Regardless of what it might cost who?

Put your own money where your mouth is.

[Army Guy]

Regardless of what it might cost who?

Those that have or are doing something to help...

Put your own money where your mouth is.

Actually i do, eyeball, soldiers pay taxes just like you....

[White Doors]

Regardless of what it might cost who?

Put your own money where your mouth is.

That's rich. A person who does not support the war in Afghanistan telling a soldier that has done two tours of duty there to put his money where his mouth is?

That is so disrespectful no matter how you view Afghanistan.

you should apologize eyeball to retain what little credibility you have left on these forums. Despicable.

[eyeball]

Nobody is asking you to give up anything...

That's right, they are simply taking it regardless of how I feel about it.

That's what's really disrespectful. Like I said, put your own money where your mouth is. You want this so-called war, you pay for it.

[Wilber]

That's right, they are simply taking it regardless of how I feel about it.

That's what's really disrespectful. Like I said, put your own money where your mouth is. You want this so-called war, you pay for it.

Does this mean I don't have to pay for anything you want if I don't want it? I never collected EI in my life. I want all my money back.

[eyeball]

EI is easy to opt out of. I did that years ago and I haven't paid a dime into it since.

[Army Guy]

That's right, they are simply taking it regardless of how I feel about it.

That's what's really disrespectful. Like I said, put your own money where your mouth is. You want this so-called war, you pay for it.

Disrespectful, come on, are you telling me that everything our government spends our tax dollars on has to be approved by all tax payers....I've yet to phone the police or fire depts for anything, does that mean i should be able to get those taxes back.....My health care is provided by the military , i pay into EI but can not collect it, do i get a rebate no, no, and no, we all pay taxes for the greater good of the majority it's how our nation works....

But as a nation with soooo much to offer, your saying we can not afford to spend a few dollars on assistance to a nation in need....thats not disrespectful, it's just selfish....I mean your government has not asked you for anything, other than the few dollars of your taxes owed to fund this mission....everything else is being paided for with the blood, sweat,and tears of other Canadians, those that do want to help.....And still you have your thong in a bunch, because some of your tax dollars are going to develope another country, and keeping with tradition, Canadians need something to whine about, and helping and assisting another nation is not in fashion this year.....

[eyeball]

Disrespectful, come on, are you telling me that everything our government spends our tax dollars on has to be approved by all tax payers...

No, just our foreign military engagements. I've made this very clear to you several times in the past.

[madmax]

No, just our foreign military engagements. I've made this very clear to you several times in the past.

That's absurd. You have the right to question our military engagements. You can be a Canadian Citizen and not pay taxes and still question our military engagements. You can be of Voting Age and vote for a party that doesn't support various military engagements. You can be of any age and protest military engagements, freely in this country.

Army Guy is well aware that I do not share his view that we are going to fix up Afghanistan, with the troop participation rate that we have. We could increase it 10* and the results will be the same. THe progress has been slow, stagnat and sometimes more regressive then positive considering how long we have been in the country. A country that has had no problem fighting, and defending its turf, has problems supporting its own government, and quite frankly, we do not trust the Afghan Army.

If you cannot train an army in SEVEN YEARS to defend its government, you will be unlikely to ever be able to accomplish such a mission. It is folley. A new direction must be found.

But to suggest that military excursions require 100% approval of the tax payer is pure nonsense.

[Army Guy]

No, just our foreign military engagements. I've made this very clear to you several times in the past.

And if we where over in Afgan planting our nations flag on top of thier highest peak, and beating our chest ,yelling to all those below i claim this country in the name of Canada ....i'd say you had a piont,..... but since we are not, but rather over assisting another nation in thier hour of need....you don't have a piont, other than the fact you don't like spending money on afganistan.

[myata]

I'am curious to find out just when you decided it was a hopless enterprise, was it when you were driving home with a car load of groceries, to your nice home, with all the things we take for granted everyday.

Yeigh, yeigh it always starts on that good generous education enlightenment note. Always. Bombs, tanks etc come next. Why could't goodness generousity and enlightenment do without brute force?

Canadians take for granted everyday....imgine what it is like to wake up every morning shake your kids awake just to make sure they have survived the night....and live with that fear everyday of your life...

Was it really the case before the invasion? If so, I'd like to see some proof, rather than blood raising propaganda. Whatever Taleban were/are known guilty of, mass killing and / or dying of population isn't seem to be what they're accused of.

Try to understand this: everybody does not have to be just like us. After we waken up from some of the worst nightmares humans leaved through in the entire history. There are and will be people who live differently; behave differently; dress differently; have different understanding of norm of living and morality; all this is not still the reason to barge into their lands and change them so that they'll be just like us.

You also make it sound that we have no right to interfer, no right into helping out a people who can't help themselfs, no right in stopping a few bad guys into forcing thier will on the majority....it's thier problem let them sort it out themselfs when they are ready.....

There, you're making it sound like "interfere" and "help" are the same thing. They aren't. Help is mutual, interference is one sided. I.e in the eyes of the beholder. G.W.Bush can call somebody "evil axis" one day, and voila, they need "help". Next day they poke out a nuke from their pocket, and they aren't in the need of help (i.e. "liberation" help) anymore. That's the permanent problem with your argument. You can't go about invading and interfering based on your understanding of what's good for them (and surely, what's good for them should be good for us too, that goes without saying?).

But not all of us can sit around and watch ....Some have seen thier pain, seen thier suffering, and have stood up and decided we are going to help, regardless of what it might cost us... other than a few dollars so far what has it cost you, personally....

I wouldn't be so sure which one is better (not that I necessarily partake in one): indifference; or well intended but misguded "help". If "help" involves military power. That should instantly set the alarm bells. To think of it: how many of the worst dictators did what they did, consciously and intentionally because of want to do pure evil (as opposed to the ultimate good of their people)?

[jbg]

But as a nation with soooo much to offer, your saying we can not afford to spend a few dollars on assistance to a nation in need....thats not disrespectful, it's just selfish

Regardless of what it might cost who?

Put your own money where your mouth is.

Right on the money. This is one of the few times I am going to wind up agreeing with you.

Army Guy, I have full respect for your profession and mean no disrespect for the military by this post.

I agree with Eyeball's original post to the extent that Afghanistan and so many other "counries in need" would "need" a lot less if they weren't hopelessly dangerous and unproductive places in which to conduct business. People in almost all failed states spend uber energy and time devising ways to kill each other and outsiders. That is fine by me (except as it applies to outsiders); I have no interest in funding the carnage though.

Edited August 6, 2008 by jbg

[madmax]

Eyeball, the original version of your post was right on the money. This is one of the few times I am going to wind up agreeing with you.

Army Guy, I have full respect for your profession and mean no disrespect for the military by this post.

I agree with Eyeball's original post to the extent that Afghanistan and so many other "counries in need" would "need" a lot less if they weren't hopelessly dangerous and unproductive places in which to conduct business. People in almost all failed states spend uber energy and time devising ways to kill each other and outsiders. That is fine by me (except as it applies to outsiders); I have no interest in funding the carnage though.

Holy SHIT your a LEFT WING YANK!

[jbg]

Holy SHIT your a LEFT WING YANK!

Told yah.

Also, I found the Eyeball post I was referencing and edited mine to reflect that. I truly am a rather hard left-winger, probably to Judy Rebick's left.

[AngusThermopyle]

Yeigh, yeigh it always starts on that good generous education enlightenment note. Always. Bombs, tanks etc come next. Why could't goodness generousity and enlightenment do without brute force?

Because when dealing with brutes, force is necessary. Once again you provide proof that you have no idea at all of what you are talking about.

Tell me, how can your generosity, goodness and enlightenment happen when a specific group don't want it to happen and are not averse to the concept of killing anyone who does not go along with them? How can you educate, provide healing and rebuilding when you will be taken hostage or killed outright? Do you think you could "dialogue" with them and they'd suddenly see the error of their ways and apologize, promise to be good boys now you've explained to them how naughty they are?

In the existent circumstances the only way to provide what you say we should is with the backing of guns and the will to use them. This may not sit well with you but I guarantee that life under the Taliban would sit even less well with you. A good portion of our time in Somalia was spent rescuing NGO's from Somali militia. They believed that good deeds and kind words would be enough as well. That is until they were staring down the muzzle of an AK47 with the knowledge that death was a mere few pounds trigger pull away from them. More than a few of them had a sudden epiphany at that point, you could say rather radical changes of attitude.

So go on, tell us how you would accomplish anything at all with a gang of thugs hell bent on killing you. I'm really curious to know how you would do that. There's probably a whole shit load of people who would love to know how to do that as well, go on, share the knowledge and by doing so save countless lives.

[myata]

Well, nobody really appointed you (us) to set freedom and happiness around the world. It goes like this: I see injustice; I despise injustice; I barge in without any clue as to why injustice is going on; and what can be done about it; I screw up things more, so more injustice is done; and the cycle closes.

Democracy, rights, etc did not come as a revelation; the path from medieval life with no rights, to current concept of some rights, took several centuries; it'll take time and goodwill to shorten the way for others; mind you that even after that people may end up with different understanding of rights and wrongs than ours; but most certainly imposing morality, culture, way of life on others by force and violence is counter productive and is an offence to the whole glorious idea of freedom.

Now does it mean, indifference? Not necessarily. I think that on the international stage, instead of miriad of illusory "rights" that many don't understand, and some don't even agree with (such as freedom of press; electoral democracy; some forms of gender equality, etc), we may do a lot better talking of very few basic and really fundamental Rights; such as Right to life; and Right to personal freedom. The Rights that virtually any society that works in a normal stable fashion, understands and upholds. China upholds Righs to life and freedom; people aren't being arbitrarily thrown in jail or killed; but it doesn't support pluralistic electoral democracy with unlimited freedom of press. Once this fundamental, truly universal understanding of what is right, is achieved, it'll be lot easier to deal with thugs who'd go around ignoring them. Not to reeducate and enlighten in pluralistic democracy and such; only to ensure restoration and observance of fundamental Rights. From that point of view, there's no need to invade, fight counter insurgency, prop friendlies, pump billions to keep friendlies happy and well oiled. Nothing of that is necessary. The only thing that should be made clear, directly to the leaders of thugs is this: ignoring fundamental Rights will hurt. Directly and personally. And the hurt will last every single minute until fundamental Rights are restored. Following which moment, everybody is free to develop in their own way and fashion (and times). Help, information, exchange can be provided. Interference, imposition of foreign values, a thing of the past. Could it be a worthy model to try some day, for a change?

[madmax]

Told yah.

Also, I found the Eyeball post I was referencing and edited mine to reflect that. I truly am a rather hard left-winger, probably to Judy Rebick's left.

Oh yes another American against the war in Afghanistan. But I doubt you are to the left of your fellow citizen.

Rebick was a Trotskyist activist in the 1970s active with the Revolutionary Marxist Group and its successor, the Revolutionary Workers League.

I don't think I will read quotes from you suggesting US foreign policy is soaked in blood. Regardless, I do recognise your comments to Army Guy as being respectful.

[madmax]

Because when dealing with brutes, force is necessary. Once again you provide proof that you have no idea at all of what you are talking about.

When are you signing up? Talk is cheap.