Layton and talks with the enemy

[Fortunata]

I remember a conversation with a young Muslim woman who staunchly defended many Islamic beliefs which I consider blatantly misogynist. I was shocked by the things I heard, but I learned a valuable lesson about ethnocentrism and the arrogance of believing that everyone out there, given a chance, would think and behave like we do.

Not to trail too far off my earlier point though - I still think it's amazingly hypocritical to bring democracy somewhere, yet only respect the wishes of the people if it's what we would like to see of them. After all democracy is a philosophy in which the fundamental tenet is the will of the people, no?

I do agree with your point. My point is valid as well. How do you chose something that you do not know exists?

[gc1765]

I wasn't aware that this had been demonstrated. Could you cite the evidence for it?

A quick search came up with this: link . I'm sure there's probably many more polls if you want to do a search.

Eighty-three percent of Afghans express a favorable opinion of the United States overall, similar to the 87 percent who call the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban a good thing. That compares to favorable ratings of a mere 8 percent for the Taliban, and 5 percent for bin Laden. People who are unhappy with their local living conditions are twice as likely to have an unfavorable opinion of the United States.

Support for the United States is less than full-throated. Far fewer, 24 percent, regard it "very" favorably. And while 68 percent rate the work of the United States in Afghanistan positively, that's well below the ratings given to Karzai, the United Nations or the present Afghan government (83 percent, 82 percent and 80 percent positive, respectively).

Still, an 83 percent favorable rating for the United States, and a 68 percent positive work performance rating, are remarkable -- in sharp contrast to negative views of the United States in many other Muslim nations. (Another contrast is Karzai's job rating -- 83 percent positive -- compared with President Bush's in the United States, where 39 percent of Americans approved in the last ABC News/Washington Post poll.)

Given the Afghan public's security concerns -- and distaste for the Taliban -- there is little demand for prompt U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Just 8 percent say the United States should leave now, and another 6 percent say it should withdraw within the next year. The most common answer by far: Sixty-five percent say U.S. forces should leave Afghanistan "only after security is restored."

[BC_chick]

I do agree with your point. My point is valid as well. How do you chose something that you do not know exists?

Of course, I don't disagree, nor do the two opinions negate each other necessarily.

As for Afghanistan's future - I get a feeling the closest we are going to get to democracy out there will be a theocracy like Iran where elected officials legislate under Islamic Sharia law.

It's a sad scenario given the lack of choice on the ballots in Iranian elections, but the realistic picture is not always a pretty one. Afghanistan was one of the most religiously repressed countries in the Muslim world. Expecting them to just throw away their beliefs within a couple of decades is self-deceiving at worst, naive at best.

Edited May 4, 2008 by BC_chick

[Wild Bill]

I remember a conversation with a young Muslim woman who staunchly defended many Islamic beliefs which I consider blatantly misogynist. I was shocked by the things I heard, but I learned a valuable lesson about ethnocentrism and the arrogance of believing that everyone out there, given a chance, would think and behave like we do.

Not to trail too far off my earlier point though - I still think it's amazingly hypocritical to bring democracy somewhere, yet only respect the wishes of the people if it's what we would like to see of them. After all democracy is a philosophy in which the fundamental tenet is the will of the people, no?

Which specific people? If you had another Muslim woman who found the first's beliefs oppressive, should she be denied those freedoms?

Do you define "will of the people" as "winner take all"? In other words, if the second woman did not want to be veiled, wanted an education and perhaps even a driver's licence she should either shut up and don the burkha or accept being stoned to death?

[Topaz]

I think Karzai is right to want to talk peace but if the other doesn't want to then what can you do? I did see a video about 2 months ago that the Taliban leader said they wouldn't talk peace just wanted everyone to leave especialy the US. They must want peace like the rest of the country. The longer we stay there the longer the country will depend on us just like in Iraq. If you remember, the president there is/was trying peace talks there too.

[BC_chick]

Which specific people? If you had another Muslim woman who found the first's beliefs oppressive, should she be denied those freedoms?

Do you define "will of the people" as "winner take all"? In other words, if the second woman did not want to be veiled, wanted an education and perhaps even a driver's licence she should either shut up and don the burkha or accept being stoned to death?

If you follow the thread, you would see that in a poll 81% of Afghanis favour Sharia law. I know it's difficult for us to fathom such a view, but let's face it - that's an overwhelming majority. We can stick out heads in the sand and pretend this will of the people doesn't exist, or we can alter our vision where it's more compromising and respectful of what the Afghanis want to see in their country.

[Kitchener]

A quick search came up with this: link . I'm sure there's probably many more polls if you want to do a search.

So your evidence for saying "a vast majority" is a poll citing a 65% figure from 2005?

[gc1765]

So your evidence for saying "a vast majority" is a poll citing a 65% figure from 2005?

65% compared to the 8% who want an immediate withdrawl. That is almost ten times as many people, so yes I'd call that a "vast majority".

If you don't like the date of the poll, try doing a search as I suggested. I doubt it will change much.

[Kitchener]

We can stick out heads in the sand and pretend this will of the people doesn't exist, or we can alter our vision where it's more compromising and respectful of what the Afghanis want to see in their country.

No. This does not exhaust the possibilities.

Another option would be simply to accept the inevitability of Afghans sorting out their disagreements and finding an equilibrium that reflects (or gradually, autonomously, changes) the large proportion who want (or say they want) Islamic rule.

I certainly need not be "respectful" of such an unfortunate, unproductive preference (as I see it). I just think it's naive ideology to pretend that it doesn't exist.

[gc1765]

Anyways, enough about semantics...do you at least agree that a "majority" want us to stay? And if so, should we respect the wishes of that majority?

[Kitchener]

65% compared to the 8% who want an immediate withdrawl. That is almost ten times as many people, so yes I'd call that a "vast majority".

Is that the new math?

Sorry, no. You don't get to reinvent English in order to make 65% "a vast majority".

If you don't like the date of the poll, try doing a search as I suggested. I doubt it will change much.

Or here's an idea: you could give actual evidence supporting the actual claims you actually made. I'll believe it when I see it; but it ain't my job to try and find evidence for claims you make without backing them up.

[gc1765]

Anyways, enough about semantics...do you at least agree that a "majority" want us to stay? And if so, should we respect the wishes of that majority?

[Kitchener]

Anyways, enough about semantics...do you at least agree that a "majority" want us to stay?

No. This is unclear, to my knowledge.

For example.

And if so, should we respect the wishes of that majority?

I don't think it follows in the least that we should. Perhaps a majority would like us to build each person a new house; yet this would hardly mean that we should. It's a question of desirable results that solid evidence indicates we can achieve for reasonable costs in a feasible time frame. What a majority of Afghans want is but one ingredient in a very, very large range of factors.

[Michael Bluth]

65% compared to the 8% who want an immediate withdrawl. That is almost ten times as many people, so yes I'd call that a "vast majority".

If you don't like the date of the poll, try doing a search as I suggested. I doubt it will change much.

If the person you are debating with won't concede that 65% of the people supporting any one choice in an opinion poll is not a "vast majority" than you are wasting your time in trying to have an honest debate.

[gc1765]

The link you provided didn't have the actual poll (a bit ironic for someone who criticized me for not providing source), but after a bit of searching I found the actual poll, which can be found here in case anyone is interested.

First, let us be clear about what the survey did not find. It did not find that a majority of Afghans want foreign troops to stay and fight. It did find that a majority of those polled approved of the "presence of foreign countries" in Afghanistan.

But that term "presence" included everything foreigners are doing in the country, from aid to business to soldiering.

After reading the rest of the poll, it seems most Afghans don't even know that foreign countries are providing reconstruction assistance:

link

Only 2% of Afghans know that the U.S. is providing reconstruction assistance, and yet the U.S. is still viewed very highly by afghans (64% think they are helping).

On the question of foreign troops, the poll concluded that Afghans are split down the middle – with 52 per cent calling for a full withdrawal within five years versus 43 per cent who want NATO to stay until the Taliban are crushed.

Ok, fair enough. So what do you propose that we do? Should we withdraw troops immediately, as 14% of Afghans want us to do? Should we withdraw after one year, as 11% of Afghans want? Should we remain 2 or more years, as 12% of Afghans want? Should we stay for 3-5 years, as 15% of Afghans want? Or should our troops stay for as long as it takes to defeat the Taliban, as 43% of Afghans want? Tell me, what should we do?

In short, the vast majority of Afghans don't want us to keep fighting in their country until, as Harper puts it, the job is done.

I didn't want to get into a debate about semantics, but this is too funny that I couldn't resist. Notice how your source uses the term "vast majority" to describe the 52% who think we should leave before the job is done.

I don't think it follows in the least that we should. Perhaps a majority would like us to build each person a new house; yet this would hardly mean that we should.

If Afghans were making unreasonable demans, for example asking for a million dollars each, then I would agree with you. However, I don't think that wanting a stable and secure country is unreasonable to ask from us, do you?

Some other highlights of the poll:

Opinion of Canadian troops in Kandahar: Very positive 26%, somewhat positive 34%, somewhat negative 14%, very negative 5%, don't know 21%.

http://research.environics.net/imagelibrary/10182007/12.gif

http://research.environics.net/imagelibrary/10182007/1.gif

http://research.environics.net/imagelibrary/10182007/8.gif

http://research.environics.net/imagelibrary/10182007/21.gif

Edited May 5, 2008 by gc1765

[nothinarian]

Which specific people? If you had another Muslim woman who found the first's beliefs oppressive, should she be denied those freedoms?

Do you define "will of the people" as "winner take all"? In other words, if the second woman did not want to be veiled, wanted an education and perhaps even a driver's licence she should either shut up and don the burkha or accept being stoned to death?

There is a poll in the paper edition of the story I linked to that says 60% of Afghani's believe the Karzai regime we are supporting and defending is more corrupt than the Taliban, the mujhedeen, or the Communists. 81% believe sharia law would be an effective deterrent to corruption.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

Doesn`t look good as Afghan warlords are gearing up for return to 1989 (see story in link) and 81percent feel sharia law would be effective deterrent to corruption

[Kitchener]

The link you provided didn't have the actual poll (a bit ironic for someone who criticized me for not providing source), but after a bit of searching I found the actual poll, which can be found here in case anyone is interested.

After reading the rest of the poll, it seems most Afghans don't even know that foreign countries are providing reconstruction assistance:

link

So, you agree that this casts serious doubt on the claim that Afghans in general are strongly attached to our presence in their country.

Ok, fair enough. So what do you propose that we do? Should we withdraw troops immediately, as 14% of Afghans want us to do? Should we withdraw after one year, as 11% of Afghans want? Should we remain 2 or more years, as 12% of Afghans want? Should we stay for 3-5 years, as 15% of Afghans want? Or should our troops stay for as long as it takes to defeat the Taliban, as 43% of Afghans want? Tell me, what should we do?

The fact that 2% knew that Canada in particular was even there at all makes these finely limned poll numbers about what they want "us" to do rather suspect. In any case, I have no certainty to offer. My inclinations are to problem-solve: buy the best tools for the best people, and send those people to Afghanistan to Set Things Right. But it's been clear all along that this prospect is chimerical; and now it's too obvious to even have much sympathy for other people still in the grip of that vision. Painful as the option is, I don't see any remotely plausible alternative to withdrawing troops on the shortest timescale consistent with relocating/protecting the Afghans who have endangered themselves by working with us. We can concentrate on identifying the least corrupt NGOs having the most credibility and safety in Afghanistan, and support them with resources at arm's length.

Our current occupation cannot be thought likely to solve the problems that most need solving -- tribalism and rampant domestic corruption. It endangers our troops; embroils us in old disputes not of our concern, cast in a shiny but misleading guise of Taliban v Good Guys; and takes us down that dangerous and discredited path of using our military to fix the Islamic world.

I didn't want to get into a debate about semantics, but this is too funny that I couldn't resist. Notice how your source uses the term "vast majority" to describe the 52% who think we should leave before the job is done.

I thought it was funny, too, but it's just an awkwardly placed negation. It says that a vast majority don't want us there; it means, it's not the case that a vast majority want us there. (The sentences immediately following that one make this clear.)

If Afghans were making unreasonable demans, for example asking for a million dollars each, then I would agree with you. However, I don't think that wanting a stable and secure country is unreasonable to ask from us, do you?

As a demographic they didn't ask us to go there; we went on spec. And I doubt that your projection of stable-nationhood desires onto them is very sound (as opposed, say, to wanting the wars to end). But if you think that a stable and secure country is somehow less extravagant than a million bucks each, I doubt that you're taking very seriously what it means to create such a situation out of a religiously, ethnically, linguistically, socio-economically, culturally divided country having a level of poverty that makes our usual examples of poverty -- e.g., Haiti -- look well-off, having virtually no education system, driven largely by deep tribal commitments, utterly riven with corruption at every level of institution, with no national or cultural tradition of the rule of law and no national history of democracy. And all they're asking for is a stable and secure country? It's time to stop with the soundbites phrases and get serious about what this means.

[White Doors]

I wasn't aware that this had been demonstrated. Could you cite the evidence for it?

Despite some deterioration, most Afghans continue to see the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban as a good thing -- 76 percent, although down from 88 percent last year -- and to support U.S. forces remaining in their country. And 65 percent of Afghans still view the United States favorably overall, down from a peak of 83 percent in 2005 but still remarkable compared with America's image in most other Muslim countries.

This survey, the third in Afghanistan sponsored by ABC News and other media partners, marks the anniversary of the fall of the Taliban six years ago this week. It was conducted via face-to-face interviews with 1,377 Afghans in each of the country's 34 provinces.

there ya go.

[Kitchener]

If the person you are debating with won't concede that 65% of the people supporting any one choice in an opinion poll is not a "vast majority" than you are wasting your time in trying to have an honest debate.

If the person trying desperately to avoid thinking seriously -- and succeeding -- won't concede that a 2005 poll showing 65% supporting an option that makes no reference to Canada fails to support the claim that a "vast majority" of Afghans today want Canadian troops to remain in Afghanistan... it's completely unsurprising.

[White Doors]

Is that the new math?

Sorry, no. You don't get to reinvent English in order to make 65% "a vast majority".

Or here's an idea: you could give actual evidence supporting the actual claims you actually made. I'll believe it when I see it; but it ain't my job to try and find evidence for claims you make without backing them up.

Oh, don't be foolish kitchener.

Afghan's want us to stay, heck, they even want the great satan of the US to stay.

Wether you choose to believe the facts when they fly in the face of your Ideology is another question, but you have clearly been proven wrong.

Edited May 5, 2008 by White Doors

[Kitchener]

there ya go.

Umm... why don't you quote the claim about which I actually inquired?

You might then notice that your paragraph has the teensy little problem of having absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing.

[White Doors]

Umm... why don't you quote the claim about which I actually inquired?

You might then notice that your paragraph has the teensy little problem of having absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing.

don't put your back out twisting logic.

[Dutchman9]

Meanwhile, the right-wing maniac McCain just wants to "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran".

And Harper would march along merrily (faithfully) with WHATEVER mission the rampaging US military machine deems prudent.

Killing millions of innocent civilians (including mothers and children) is okay with Neo-Cons, especially as an act of vengeance and corporate pillaging.

[White Doors]

Meanwhile, the right-wing maniac McCain just wants to "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran".

And Harper would march along merrily (faithfully) with WHATEVER mission the rampaging US military machine deems prudent.

Killing millions of innocent civilians (including mothers and children) is okay with Neo-Cons, especially as an act of vengeance and corporate pillaging.

Welcome to the boards. Glad to have more reasonable people come here...

[Kitchener]

Meanwhile, the right-wing maniac McCain just wants to "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran".

And Harper would march along merrily (faithfully) with WHATEVER mission the rampaging US military machine deems prudent.

Killing millions of innocent civilians (including mothers and children) is okay with Neo-Cons, especially as an act of vengeance and corporate pillaging.

What the heck does this absurd generalization have to do with the thread?