Do You Support Nation Building in Afghanistan?

[tekisui]

Do You Support Nation Building in Afghanistan?

[gateley]

1. No, of course not. But I sure wish we could help those people who want it. nt

[timeforpeace]

47. Do we support President Obama and his plans for Afghanistan is a better question.

[demoleft]

119. bbc has been told there will be an increase of US troops there. but...

...there's no official statement about it. just bbc sources.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4103670&mesg_id=4103670

[GreenStormCloud]

2. Is it even possible?

I once supported it, but am having very serious doubts now.

[whoneedstickets]

31. Its is a goal beyond our ability to achieve..

..I frankly think nation building from the outside is impossible. It has to be an internal process and it takes a lot of time and usually suffering (that then becomes overlooked in the creation mythology). I think the best we can do is let the people there figure it out.

[Cant trust em]

3. My initial thought is yes.

I think that a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan could help them turn away from extremism. A little economic development never hurt anyone. We could help them build their institutions, but do it in a way that is cooperative and understands the needs of the people.

Those are my first thoughts, but certainly not convinced of them.

Any comments?

[tekisui]

7. Part of the problem is the provinces don't recognize the central

government. Afghanistan hadn't had a central government until the US created one. The federal government has little influence, respect or trust of the people outside of Kabul. The disastrous elections only worsened that perception.

[Johonny]

23. I think it has to come from the UN not NATO

the place isn't in Europe. To Nation build in Afghanistan we need middle east help. We also need help from China and Russia. It has to be more of a world effort. Without that effort I can't see how it will ever work.

[LooseWilly]

163. The problem I see is that Afghanistan isn't really part of the "Middle East".

It's more "Central Asia". Who's gonna help? Pakistan? Uzbekistan? Mongolia? Who really cares (neighboring nation wise)?... that's right.. Iran and Pakistan. But neither has US interests at heart. So... the question becomes... are re willing to spend cash to build a nation that will probably wind up being ambivalent (at best) toward US interests?.... Is there something about Afghanistan that will justify (think corporate interests... it's always about corporate interests) a US military presence? If not...there's nothing more than vague bloviating ideology holding us there... and so we will leave soon enough... no matter what this board decides.

It's the nature of US geopoltique.

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. They seem to LIKE living in the 12th century over there.

I wouldn't want to do it, but it's their choice. It's not going to be a fucking Democracy no matter what, and if it ever WERE an actual Democracy (see Iran, 1953) the CIA would put an end to that anyway.

This is all about UNOCAL's pipeline, and the Bush Crime Family's opium supply. It's time to stop believing any fairy tales that suggest otherwise, and GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

12. Can you show me the poll that shows Afghanis want us there?

What makes you think it is their decision to have a Western force occupy them?

What makes you think they want anything that resembles our country?

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. as soon as his father, Bruce Reed of the DLC makes up a poll, he'll show it to you

I wondered what name Chad was using on this board these days. Guess he just outed himself.

[northzax]

26. oh that's so cute

you're the one who doesn't think Afghan women deserve better than slavery, and I'm the asshole.

[northzax]

22. a poll?

you want a poll? sure, let's just randomly call 1024 Afghans and ask them. or should we mail them a survey?

[subcomhd]

46. only one I could find was feb.

Afghans take an increasingly sceptical view about the presence and effectiveness of foreign troops on their soil, the poll suggests, and the British rate less well than the Americans.

Sixty-nine per cent of people still support the overthrow of the Taleban by foreign forces in 2001. But only 32% think US forces are doing a good or excellent job now, compared with 68% in 2005.

Forty-seven per cent have a favourable opinion of the United States as a whole – down from 83% in 2005 and 65% in 2007. And only 38% have a favourable view of Britain – a fall from 49% a year ago.

There's an increase in the number of people who think attacks on foreign forces can be justified – 25% say they can and 64% say they can't; in 2007 these figures were 17% and 74%.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/02_february/09/afghanistan.shtml

[Sebastian Doyle]

14. Who are you calling a "fucking racist asshole"?

I see a quote from the DLC's Bruce Reed in your profile. If you're looking for fucking racist assholes, why don't you start with that bunch of neo-confederate swine?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Harry Monroe]

15. "31st century"? Are you from the future or something?

Welcome to DU time traveler.

[northzax]

32. you know, given that you have an avatar

representing a city built under sea level that was destroyed by an easily predictable storm and yet is undergoing a rebuilding effort funded by others at great cost, it's a bit rich that you think people in other countries don't seem to deserve a rebuilding effort of their own. as sure as the Taliban will attempt to destroy progress in Afghanistan, another storm will destroy what we build in New Orleans. you give that up, I'll give Afghanistan up. after all, both are really lost causes, when you think about it. deal?

[tekisui]

39. You see no difference in rebuilding an American city

and building a sovereign nation at the end of a gun?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

77. I Guess I'm Not Convinced...

that that's an accurate portrayal of what we're attempting to do in that country. It's not some concentration camp. We're not forcing them to build infrastructure at gun point.

[Harry Monroe]

70. ???????

Wow!! You deduced ALL THAT just from me trying to humorously correct what was obviously a typo? Sensitive, aren't we?? BTW, now that you think about it, how does trying to rebuild an American city for American citizens even compare with nation building in Afghanistan? I hope you never have to experience the sorrow of your home being destroyed, a place where you have all your hopes, dreams, family and friends. I hope you never have to experience that as well as an unfeeling, uncaring Administration who fucked over our population at every turn. Get back to me if this ever happens to you and then we'll have something to discuss. In the meantime, do me a favor and go fuck yourself!! And if you ever have the chance to visit our fair city, I hope a St. Charles Ave. streetcar rolls over your ass!!

[cynatnite]

132. Can you please point out the people who enjoy living impoverished and uneducated? n/t

[scheming daemons]

5. You can't "build a nation" among a people that are collectively living in the 13th century

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

78. It's My Understanding...

that prior to the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan was considered a very chic place to be. The idea that these people are all willingly living the way they are is a misconception, really. When other options have been open to them, they have been seized to varying degrees (see women beginning to run for elected office, an estimated 5 million more children attending school, etc.)

[northzax]

6. how can you not?

people really want to condemn Afghanistan to another couple of generations of absolute hell and chaos?

[tekisui]

8. Do you honestly believe that a few trillion dollars and

a thousand+ dead troops can fix the problem? Honestly.

[obliviously]

10. No it can't! Get them the hell out now!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

81. Just Curious

What do you think the likely results of such a move would be?

[obliviously]

156. American soldiers not being killed!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

158. That's one. Anything else?

[obliviously]

160. After 8 years that is the only one that concerns me right now!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

161. No Offense, But That's a Little Shortsighted of You

[obliviously]

166. How many years is enough 12..20...50?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

168. Is That Really the Best Way to Measure This War

considering how it was essentially put on hold for 6-7 years by the Bush Administration?

[obliviously]

170. So you are saying it hasn't been on hold the last 8 months?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

171. I Would Say It Has...

however, this is the first time in a very long time that we have had an Administration that's actively seeking to create a meaningful policy on this issue. Whether I'll agree with the outcome, I don't know, but it's nice to know the issue is at least being taken seriously.

[obliviously]

172. The general wants far more troops. my opinion is

shit or get of the pot!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

174. I Can Agree With You On That.

[obliviously]

175. I had a feeling in the long run we were pretty much on the same page!

[northzax]

17. yup

actually. or they can at least try. I didn't want to walk down that dark alley, but we did. and now we're responsible for what we see. maybe you're ok with leaving a generation of women to be chattel, and raped at will, and married off as children because there's no other option, but I'm not. we bought the place, now we have to do our absolute best to make it a better place before we leave. you're not willing to pay a couple of hundred bucks a year to stop gang rape of a country? that's pretty sad, really, isn't it? you obviously think that Afghan women don't deserve better, that children don't deserve a chance at anything better. it's not pleasant, and it's not going to be easy, it may not even be possible, but it's central to our national mythology to give it a serious try. I have no interest in ruling Afghanistan for the sake of ruling Afghanistan. I wish we had no soldiers there. but we do. and we can't leave the people there behind in the 12th century without a damn serious effort to help them. call me old fashioned, but I don't think leaving a generation of women and children to be slaves is what we're all about. I guess I know too many people of Afghan descent to believe 'they' want this, anymore than black slaves 'wanted' to pick cotton in Georgia, or Matthew Shepherd 'wanted' to die on that fence. if we can stop a murder, don't we have an obligation to do so? if we can help one more woman learn to read and choose her husband for herself, don't we have to?

don't we?

[Sebastian Doyle]

27. Chad, that's just idiotic.

"I guess I know too many people of Afghan descent to believe 'they' want this, anymore than black slaves 'wanted' to pick cotton in Georgia, or Matthew Shepherd 'wanted' to die on that fence."

If anybody had asked the black slaves, I'm sure they would have said they would have rather stayed in Africa, and NOT been brought over here in chains by an earlier generation of imperialist corporatist pigs. And Matthew Shepard didn't invade a nation of rednecks with a gay army attempting to "educate" them, he was just trying to live his own life.

Actually a better comparison would be the homophobes who murdered him. After all (to hear them tell the story) they were merely "liberating him" from the oppression of being gay.

[northzax]

29. well since most slaves never SAW Africa

since they were born into slavery, that's probably untrue (notice how comparatively few took the free ticket to Liberia) people, when asked, tend to fear change, even when it is objectively in their best interests.

and just so we're clear, I'm the one willing to put my treasure on the line to stop the homophobes, you're the one who says that it's too expensive and that they probably like it. we all know what Afghanistan will look like six months after the US Army leaves right now. you're fine with that, I'm not. you're fine with women being second class citizens, I'm not. You're fine with homosexuality being a death penalty offense; I'm not. you're fine with honor killings; I'm not. you're fine with rape being a civil offense, usually leading to marriage or death for the victim; I'm not. I'm the one saying we should stop this, you're the one saying 'they like it'

you're the one who wants to condemn Afghan women and children to a living hell because it's convenient for you to think they 'like it' I understand that you are eager to wash our hands of this, but reality doesn't work that way. We went in searching for one crime and found a dozen more. I am not willing to turn a blind eye to that because I have better things to do.

[Sebastian Doyle]

36. You have a vivid imagination Chad. Does your father know about the mushrooms?

First of all, the African slaves were your weak analogy, not mine. But I was limiting the Africa reference to those who were actually born there, and brought to this country against their will.

The Afghan people haven't been taken anywhere against their will, but they have been occupied and bombed to shit over and over again for centuries. Imperialists don't seem to get the fucking message - they don't want to be occupied, they don't want to change.

Does that suck for people that live there? Sure it does. If they think so, let THEM do something about it. If they don't, who the fuck are you to tell them otherwise?

And don't ever accuse me of being "fine" with rape or killing homosexuals again, asshole. Especially since you pulled all that horseshit right out of your own pathetic analogy.

Damn, if this is what all the DLC brats act like, maybe we can shut them down as a dangerous religious cult?

[northzax]

40. I don't need to accuse you of anything

Your words are enough. You know full well that the lives of women, children and particularly gays and lesbians will be even more of a living (actually, for the gays not so living) hell the day after we leave. And yet you want to leave. So obviously, you have other priorities more important to you, right? You know what's going to happen and you don't care. That's on you, hoss, not me.

[Sebastian Doyle]

41. How much UNOCAL stock does your daddy have?

I mean let's get real here. You DLC'ers never give a shit about the poor suffering people in any third world country - unless they happen to have some resources that you want to steal. That's what Afghanistan is REALLY about, and you fucking know it.

Where's the DLC compassion for all the impoverished countries without oil & gas reserves (or land where pipelines to access another country's oil & gas reserves need to be built)

[northzax]

52. you're still talking about the DLC?

and UNOCAL? (which, as a brilliant, insightful, worldly person such as yourself must know, is no longer a company, it is now a fully owned subsidiary of the Chevron Corporation, so owning UNOCAL stock would be worthless. but hey, why let facts get in the way? if you're going to pick a corporate bogeyman, at least pick a company that still exists)

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

84. northzax

You're wasting your time with this guy. Like most people who support an immediate withdrawal, he refuses to walk the idea through and talk about what the likely consequences of such a move would be. I guess it's easier to cling to ideology than to take a realistic approach to this issue?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

83. Whoa Whoa Whoa

The Afghan people HAVEN'T "been take anywhere against their will"? I'd really like to know what you're basing that opinion on. After all, these guys aren't elected. They're where they are today because of their level of brutality.

Consider this, if you're right, why are so many Afghan families risking death by sending their young women to school? Why are so many young women risking attacks, like having acid thrown in their faces, to get an education? Why have villagers, by the hundreds, taking up arms against the Taliban in instances numerous instances this past year?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

82. !?!?!?

Are you honestly arguing that the Taliban accurately represent the vast majority of Afghan people? Because that's what you're implying with your response.

[tekisui]

28. If that is your standard, so you support invading and occupying

Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, the list goes on and on? Or is it just because we are there?

While we're in the neighborhood, lets just stop by and fix Pakistan while we're at it. Hey, and don't we have some problems with Iran? Where else?

[northzax]

30. um, have we invaded any of those lately?

it would be a bad idea to do so, but once we're there, we might as well do our best to fix up the place, right? yes, it's because we are there. we can't avoid it, we see it. it's not a smart plan to walk down a dark alley, right? but once you make that decision, you have an ethical and moral responsibility to stop the rape you stumble onto. OK, at least I do. maybe you don't. we can't solve all the problems in the world, but we have an obligation to do our best t osolve this one.

[tekisui]

35. We are making it worse with each day, each bomb and each

additional troop. We aren't there to help women. You are naive if you think that is what we are doing. That isn't even an official rational given.

You are projecting why YOU think we should be there. Not why we are there, and not what we are doing.

[northzax]

53. we are?

or are we making it better for many Afghans every day simply by not being the Taliban? are we making a difference every time a girl goes to school? We are there (publicly, at least) to fight the Taliban. and since the Taliban are the primary aggressors against women, one is the same as the other. no?

for the record, we are not sending any additional 'troop' to Afghanistan, we're sending foot soldiers, not cavalry. just a technical point.

I don't care (and it's not really relevant to this discussion and the question asked in the OP) what the 'actual reasons' for the US having Soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan. I'm talking about the practical benefits of keeping them there and the reality of the impact of them leaving. You talk about projecting? that's projecting reality on the ground.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

86. Are We?

For starters, even though it was not the initial reason for our invasion, the betterment of women's position in Afghan society could be an end result. If U.S. efforts gain momentum, this is likely to be the case.

Secondly, are we making matters worse with each day, each bomb, etc.? I'd say this is something you have to take on an incident by incident level and not something you can judge in an overarching way.

[BuyingThyme]

37. China.

[tekisui]

38. Cowboy up!

We are going to whip this world into order! Freedom Rocks World Tour! USA! Fuck Yeah!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

87. That's a Mischaracterization on Your Part

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

85. Generally? No.

However, we've already invaded, we've already propped up a regime, and we've already helped build schools, pay teachers, etc. What happens when we walk away from that? We clearly have some sort of an obligation to the Afghan people who have stuck their necks out to teach, to send their daughters to school, etc. On top of which, simply withdrawing and *hoping* Afghanistan doesn't revert back into a playground for international terrorists is a pretty stupid policy, especially at this point.

[jonnyblitz]

42. if you think they want us bombing the crap out of them you are

truly fucked in the head.

[northzax]

55. you're right

they'd probably prefer the Taliban to be doing the oppressing. because that's the realistic option for most of Afghanistan (which doesn't like the Taliban any more than they like us)

but let's think about what you are convinced the average Afghan prefers: the status quo, or teaching women to read as a capital offense. so obviously that's a well educated response to the presence of the US. I recall reading this poll of Afghan women during the Taliban era about what kind of freedoms they wanted (oh wait, no I didn't, because women weren't allowed to speak to anyone but family) you think they want THAT again?

who's fucked in the head then?

[tekisui]

58. Do you understand that not all those labeled 'Taliban'

are oppressive acid throwing head choppers? The West has a bad habit of labeling distinct and unique groups of people under one heading. We have been and are making deals with the moderate 'Taliban', as is the Afghan government. Sen. Kerry has said we need to realize the Taliban may not be the enemy. There are radical factions of the Taliban, and they can be dealt with.

YOU are being racist by lumping all tribal leaders in one heading of Taliban. Many of the local populations want their faction of Taliban there because they provide needed services and protection.

[northzax]

63. ok, first off, there are no moderate 'Taliban"

are there more moderate Pushtun tribal leaders? sure. but they aren't the Taliban, who by definition are a group dedicated to establishing a state based on a particularly antiquated and harsh interpretation of Sunni Islam. Surely, not all Pashtun are Taliban, but the group is the dominant influence in both the Southern Provinces of Afghanistan and the Waziristan area of Pakistan. As for Senator Kerry, you are misguided in his statements (check out this statement from February for instance) it is important to note that we are not at war with the Afghan people (at least we shouldn't be) we are at war with a fundamentalist religious movement inside Afghanistan.

[tekisui]

66. Check out this statement from yesterday:

"The key in Afghanistan is we have got to figure out what is achievable, measured against the legitimate interests of the United States, primary among which is al Qaeda," Kerry said.

"In Afghanistan itself we have to resolve the question of whether the Taliban are per se a threat to us."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6768970&mesg_id=6768970

[northzax]

72. a threat per se? not really.

no. that's a pretty obvious statement. Somewhat surprisingly, I am not all that concerned about a tribe of barely literate goat herders being much of a direct threat to the United States.

What is a threat to the US, and to the world as a whole, is a failed state, intertwined and directly adjacent to a patchwork nuclear power. nothing good comes out of a failed state, especially one that won't be left alone by neighbors to fall into the abyss of hell by themselves. Someone is going to have direct influence in Afghanistan. Would you prefer the ISI out of Islamabad? Maybe Putin's nice friendly chaps from Moscow? Tehran? Afghanistan is bordered by five states, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Iran and Turkmenistan. What do those five states have in common? only one is nominally a democracy (Pakistan) although it is only kept secular by the military. One is openly fundamentalist and hostile to the West (Iran, for very good internal reasons, perhaps) three are run by strongmen (the other three 'Stans) with those as neighbors and local powers, Afghanistan doesn't have a realistic chance in hell of joining the 19th Century, let alone the 21st. someone's going to run the place, and I think the US is a lot closer to having the interests of the average Afghan and the world as a whole in mind than, say, Mullah Omar. Failed states cause chaos, not just internally, but in the surrounding states as well, none of which are all that stable to begin with. (much of which, frankly, is our fault as well from mistakes gone by)

that's the threat, the indirect one from the ensuing chaos.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

91. Frankly

I don't consider Kerry to be a very intelligent person, and this article only reaffirms my belief. Is there any one of us who truly believes that if we unilaterally withdrew, the Taliban wouldn't continue to welcome al-Qaeda with open arms?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

89. I Think You Need to Look Up the Definition of "Racist"

...because you don't seem to know what the word means...

With that said, yes, there are moderate elements within the Taliban, who may be coaxed away from the more radical elements (this has already happened in some cases, btw). However, if we don't have a presence in that country, how in God's name do you hope to achieve that? I mean, let's be realistic here.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

88. Obviously No One Wants Bombs Dropped on Them

However, no one wants suicide bombers blowing up grandma when she's away at market either. Or throwing acid in their niece's face because she dared to attend school. Or shooting their brother in the head because he taught in a school.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

80. Depends on How They're Utilized.

[Selatius]

43. The problem is the locals are shooting at us now. They want foreign troops off their land.

When you lose the support of the local population, you are on the path to defeat. You can't defeat a population that does not accept you. We tried. We already had our Viet Nam.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

92. Sigh

Look, "the locals" have been shooting at us since day one. I'm not sure where you got this idea that some radical change has occured in Afghanistan, but it's a misconception on your part.

Also, I don't think there's anyone in the military or in the Obama Administration who would disagree with your point that when you lose the support of the local population, you're on the path to defeat. The question then becomes, how do you win that support?

[anonymous171]

146. As has been pointed out up thread, they obviously LIKED it that way

Afghanistan has always been a warzone. That's the way they roll over there.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

150. No One "Likes" Living in a War Zone

[sam sarrha]

11. GET OUT NOW.... !!! RUN, RUN FAST..!!

[gleaner]

13. I chose no ...

No nation has the right to impose its values by force on another culture. If you look at the misery colonialism has produced throughout history, the efficacy of "nation building" is put into a very clear and derogatory focus.

What is it that we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan if it isn't colonialism? Haven't solved any of the world's problems there, just created more misery and a vacuum filled with hatred of us that future terrorists will be only too eager to fill. This is not the answer. We need to book, provide some financial reparation and learn to restrain our forays overseas to diplomacy and conflict resolution by peaceful means.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

93. I Guess I Don't Consider Things Like...

running water, or schools to be "imposing our values" on the Afghan people. It'd be one thing if they sincerely didn't want these things, if they liked drinking from the local crap hole, for instance. But that's not the case and we all know it.

Secondly, colonies are used to extract wealth and send it back to the motherland. What wealth have we extracted from Iraq or Afghanistan? I mean, the answer is pretty clearly "none", therefore this isn't colonialism.

[gleaner]

120. Helping another country by ...

providing food, water, help with rebuilding infrastructure or aiding them with education at their request was not what I was talking about. That would fall under reparations which means to give back what you have destroyed.

You fail to mention the occupation of Afghanistan by armed troops from the US, battles in civilian areas and the use of bombs and other munitions to further a US mission which the Afghans wish would end. The Russians occupied Afghanistan for about a decade in an attempt to make it a "client state," (read colony) without any result except the near destruction of the country and the culture. The U.S. is following the same road. We are killing them, they are killing us and our government is sacrificing our military for nothing.

I would suggest that you return to where you got the quick and fallacious definition of what a colony is and read further. Colonies didn't always provide wealth. Sometimes they simply provided land, occupied people to do the work of running the colony with none of the rewards, and they were wholly governed by the country that occupied them with the native peoples having no say so at all in making their own laws or forming their own government. It is easy to take one small part of a definition and flip it up as if it were the whole picture, but it doesn't provide the whole picture and it makes the person who does it look as if they hadn't bothered to find out what they were talking about.

If you want to debate with me, at least be knowledgeable. Otherwise, what's the point? You're not teaching me anything and it is really not very impressive.

You seem to be new here or you would have realized that we place a high premium on fact checking and research to validate statements. Your opinion is your own and you are entitled to it, but you will be best served if you present it as your opinion and not as fact that we have to absorb as if it were holy writ. Oh by the way, welcome to DU.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

123. Okie Dokie

We didn't destroy their national education system, their water purification systems, etc. We couldn't have done it even if we wanted to. They virtually didn't have them for us to destroy.

With that said, this is not the 1980s and we are not the Soviet Union. The Taliban are not backed by most of the Western world the way the mujahideen were in the 1980s, nor are we conducting our war in the same way the Soviet Union conducted theirs (eradicating entire villages, planting bombs on children's toys, etc.) Other than the fact that we're an outside force and they were an outside force, where is the room for comparison?

Thirdly, the idea behind colonization is always to provide wealth for the motherland. That's why the British were in India, it's why the Belgians were in the Congo, heck, it's why the original 13 colonies were founded. Where are these instances when all that was desired was land? I'm curious to know.

Fourth, it's interesting that you're talking down to me about my level of knowledge on this topic. I would think someone who honestly believes we destroyed Afghanistan's expansive water treatment facilities would be a little more humble.

Fifth, thanks, glad to be here.

[gleaner]

169. The Return .....

So you came back, but I don't see the research I asked you to do. Also, there is nothing in my post about water purification plants. I don't know where you got that from, unless the post ghost made it appear and then disappear in a ghostly fashion.

I did find a very good link on the Belgian Congo that you should read. It deals with the reason it was colonialist, basically to satisfy the urges of a mad king to rule over something. One time only good deal, I'll give it to you and you can read it for yourself. http://www.peace.ca/afcolonialismcongo.htm

As for the rest, I'm not in a really good place to debate anyone. I had a death in the family and I can barely concentrate. Maybe we could do it another time. If you need a really good argument now, I would only disappoint you. There are plenty of other people on DU who could give you instant gratification and maybe even enrage you in the process. Just look around until you find someone who seems combative and go for it.

One last thing, though. The first colonists who came to this country came to avoid religious persecution. They fled England to save their lives and they all very nearly perished their first winter in their new home. They did prosper later, but that was not their primary reason for coming here. Survival was. That is history you should have gotten in school. Their settlements were considered colonies of England who basically let them exist as long as they stayed in far away exile. The revolution came about as a result of laws that England passed to regulate the colonies here. Most of it was about taxation.

Now go in peace and search for the other cars on the information highway.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

173. Alright Then

Let me first say that I'm sorry for your loss and don't blame you one bit for not being in the mood to pursue this discussion further at this time.

With regard to water purification, schools, etc., I was responding to your claim that we destroyed Afghanistan's infrastructure. Largely, that's untrue. There was very little for us to destroy, even if we had wanted.

With regard to the purpose of colonization - specifically, the idea that colonies are created to provide wealth for the motherland - I would direct you back to your own source regarding the Congo. "Belgium extracted rubber, ivory, diamonds, and uranium from the Congo and gave back nothing: no schools, no hospitals, no infrastructure except that which facilitated the export of resources". Colonies exist to make money, when colonies become money pits, the motherland gets testy, as Britain did with us in the aftermath of the 7 Years War.

[gleaner]

176. You Read!

Good. Thanks for your condolences, I appreciate them. Just a couple more things before I try to sleep which hasn't been happening for me. (Sleep, I mean.)

Refer back to paragraph one of my original post which you responded to. I didn't say that the U.S destroyed the Afghan infrastructure. I said it had been destroyed. Most likely by the Russians or perhaps the Taliban itself which objects to secular goals and the equality of women. Before it was pounded all to Hell Afghanistan was a place where women could have professions and work. The Taliban put a stop to that. By the time the U.S. got there the country had already been badly damaged, but our military mission didn't help with that. We brought destruction too.

Then read the paragraph where I say that the U.S. has continued the war. I say nothing about infrastructure, or water purification or anything that you're reading into the post. The best debaters respond only to what is presented in the post they are responding to. Add the other facts you are aware of in your reply, but don't attribute them to the post you're responding to if they are not in there. It makes you look like you're not paying attention.

And yes. Wealth was taken from the Congo. I gave you the whole piece and I don't dispute it. But the handover by the king to Belgium began with his own desire for power which he expressed by stealing land and torturing the people who lived on it. I'm sure he liked wealth, but he liked power more. That's the fallacy behind the argument that the only reason for colonization is wealth. Sometimes it is a desire for power, sometimes a desire to propagate the culture of the oppressors and sometimes it is the feeling that a religion must be spread everywhere in order for everything to be as the god of the conquerer wants it. Sometimes it is for resources. But you can't make a blanket statement based on some incidents and say it is true for all incidents. Well you can, but it leaves you vulnerable for having all of your arguments discredited.

OK? You have a lot of spirit and I would have enjoyed a lively discussion with you, but I just can't right now. It is just too hard to think. Enjoy your discussions and keep researching your facts. We'll discuss another time when I am a more worthy opponent.;)

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. I know it is not popular, but

we should have done that after the ruskies left, both the US and NATO... we didn't

We should have done that after we kicked the Taliban out... in fact that one was a somewhat stated mission.

Of course to get from the theory of we should have done it, to doing it... well there is the it is as popular as a bed of porcupines... and the window, if it is still open, is rapidly closing.

For a clue as to why, go rent Wilson's War.

[bigwillq]

20. No (nt)

[Libertas1776]

21. No,

Since we can't even afford to build our on nation. We have our priorities really screwed up.

[Maru Kitteh]

24. Yes and no. Basically I fear it's just hopeless.

I think the best thing we could do would be to build about 5,000 modernly equipped schools, stock the shelves with science-based textbooks on the basics, stay the hell away from politics, hand them the keys and take our bow.

How does that sound?

[blondeatlast]

51. It sounds like a great idea to me.

:thumbsup:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

94. Great Until

the Taliban burn down the schools and execute the teachers.

[Maru Kitteh]

162. If we are able to behave as a recurrent infection w/our military, we cand do the same with

more constructive efforts - for less money and greater benefit.

[slipslidingaway]

25. No knr nt

[defendandprotect]

33. We had no business being there -- we should get out --

Some day, perhaps, we will be called to make amends -- sounds reasonable to me!!!

Don't know how much we've destroyed there -- Iraq is clearer . . . especially with

1.5 Muslims dead there!!!

[Mudoria]

34. No. I don't support nation building anywhere.

I wish we would go back to our foreign policy pre-WWI. Let everyone else solve their own problems. No peacekeeping, no UN and no foreign aid.

[harun]

54. It would be pretty sweet if we got back in to building up OUR nation.

[TexasObserver]

44. No

[BeHereNow]

45. Fuckity-fuck NO.

Our nation is falling apart.
I say we fix our own back yard before we go telling
others what to do.

But then this is not about nation building, is it?
It's about pipelines and corporate hegemony.

BHN

[yurbud]

48. If anyone thinks we are there to do nation-building, they need to read a lot more history

[eridani]

49. Not possible to make central Asian tribal people into Americans at gunpoint

We need to focus on nation-building at home before we go down the tubes.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

95. Who's Trying to Make Them "Americans"?

[eridani]

164. If they'd become Americans, they'd stop minding the American military in their country n/t

[Xicano]

50. Hell No!!! Nobody has a right to go into somebody else's house and tell them how to live

Especially whey their own house is filthy and rundown.

[northzax]

57. of course you do

under certain circumstances (which for me represent the prevention of violence against society's weak)

you're telling me you find out that your next door neighbor is raping his 12 year old stepdaughter and you say "hey, not my house, can't get involved" as you said "Nobody has a right to go into somebody else's house and tell them how to live" please to explain the dichotomy.

[tekisui]

59. You over-simplify your war metaphors.

And, still, you justification for this war is in your own mind. If you think we are there for the women and children, you are lying to yourself, or to us.

I need a new map, because I didn't realize Afghanistan is our neighbor. I also need a new history book, I didn't realize we went into that neighbor's house to save women being raped.

[northzax]

75. except now we are there

should we have gotten involved? that's a whole different issue. but we are.

and it's a small planet, you know? everyone's a neighbor.

[tekisui]

97. Enlist, bud.

You are obvious very pro-war, at least this one. What are you doing to help this cause you think we are so right it undertaking?

You don't seem to care about the wasted American lives, the trillions of dollars or this broken country. You flail about trying to justify this continued occupation. It is clear you will defend this bloody quagmire to the end. You should put your money where your mouth is. You, btw, are minority(Thank God).

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

99. Getting Personal, Are We?

And here I thought we were merely here to discuss the merits of the Afghan War.

[tekisui]

101. Who are you?

I am discussing merits of war. That poster is so gung-ho I really don't see the point in continuing. You seem to be the same. When are you shipping out?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

103. And Again

You're making it personal. Let's focus on the topic, shall we? Because it seems like you're desperate seeking to change the subject.

[tekisui]

105. It's boring.

I get it, you like war because________(enter bullshit excuse here).

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

106. That's a Distortion and You Know It

It isn't that I "like war" and it isn't that I think we should invade each and every country that oppresses its citizens. Seriously, can we discuss this without you putting words in my mouth?

[tekisui]

107. Not interested.

Ignore.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

109. ????

Look, I thought you wanted to discuss this topic. Why run away the minute someone challenges you on it?

[donheld]

56. We need to focus on nation building alright

but let's build it right here at home! Why build there and keep neglecting our own country.

[KharmaTrain]

60. How Do You Build A Nation That Was Artificial To Start With...

There is no "Afghan" nation...those lines were drawn by the British and contribute to the strife in the region as they drew the line right through the Pashtun homeland. It's a conglomeration of tribes that at best co-exist but tend to have conflicting interests that have led to near constant warfare in the region. In this country's haste to kill "terrorists" we now have ourselves in the middle of this warfare that has zero interest to our national security.

Decades of war and being used as a pawn in Cold War and then regional politics have decimated what infrastructure exists and I do support assisting the various groups in rebuilding their areas...but I'm definitely not in favor of trying to run the country or playing the private police force for war lords.

[tekisui]

61. Exactly.

The various tribal alliances don't even recognize or respect the central government that we created. I don't think it is possible for us to force them to accept it, either. Especially when they just witnessed such a fraudulent election.

And, now, we are fighting groups that we fund through our ally-Pakistan. The Pakistan Taliban are fighting the US in Afghanistan. The same Pakistan Taliban that gets support from the ISI and Pakistani government that we give 1.5Billion a year.

It is really messed up that we are paying for both sides of this war.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

100. Many Nations We Once Loosely Knit Territories

...that alone does not mean the situation is hopeless.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

98. Ask Bismarck

[Lone_Star_Dem]

62. Anyone here ever talked to someone that's served/serving in Afghanistan?

If not, you should if it's possible. It's one of the best ways to clear up any confusions as to how the American soldiers are viewed there.

[tekisui]

64. My brother-in-law served there

twice. He told me what they were trying to do was impossible. They wee supposed to be winning the hearts and minds, but were never trusted. The villagers wouldn't help the soldiers, and then the soldiers would get blown up. He felt it was hopeless. One day, the village was dead, no one was out. Moments after realizing that, his humvey was hit with an IED. The locals knew enough to stay away because an attack was coming, but were unwilling to share that info.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

69. I've heard similar accounts.

It's the lack of popular support for American objectives that makes the situation impossible.

I can understand people in this country wanting to help the Afghan people, I feel the same way. I just don't see how it's possible for the US to influence sustainable change in their country at this time. Afghans don't like their country being occupied by foreign US troops. However, some were willing to accept it at first in the hopes that it would help their situation. Yet their situation never improved. The Afghan people are now disillusioned and tired of the added danger American troops create in their daily lives. Which leaves any government the US helps establish in Afghanistan undermined with legitimacy issues due to our involvement.

What good are American troops occupying a country where their presence is viewed more as a hindrance than a help?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

102. What I Would Ask You is This...

didn't we hear hundreds, if not thousands, of similar testimonials in Iraq?

[tekisui]

110. Yeah, what's your point?

You are not seriously pointing to Iraq as a success are you? :wow:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

112. In Terms of...

changing strategy midstream in an effort to win over local leaders and dramatically decrease the number of attacks? I don't see why one wouldn't. There are important lessons that can be learned from what transpired there. Not all of them will transfer to Afghanistan, however, the progress in Iraq can't be ignored altogether.

[tekisui]

115. You are mistaking the correlation with causation.

It wasn't what we did in Iraq that lowered(slightly) the violence, temporarily. It is what we didn't do. We showed them that we weren't intending to stay there forever. And, that is the best thing we can do, now, in Afghanistan.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

116. Strongly Disagree

The Iraqis heard promises from day one that we weren't intending on staying, so I'm not sure why you believe that repeating those lines in 2007 resulted in some miraculous changes. Would you mind explaining?

It seems pretty clear that what turned things around was our outreach to tribal leaders, our willingness to talk directly to insurgent leaders, and a change in the way we patrolled populated urban areas (from ducking back inside an enclosed base every night to living side by side with the populace). Oh yeah, and both al-Qaeda and al-Sadr's goons deciding to pursue the path of absolute bloodbath, thus turning the vast majority of Iraqis against them.

[baldguy]

65. Other- It's up to US/NATO to help the *Afghanis* build their country.

It's not our responsibility to do it for them That never works.

[tekisui]

67. What if they are not interested in that project?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

104. What Project?

Running water? Schools? I think we need to be specific here.

[closeupready]

68. Fuck no. We have thousands of people in line waiting for charity health care in Los Angeles,

and yet presume to suggest that Afghanistan wants a society like that, where people can literally starve to death next to those with vast fortunes?

[Swamp Rat]

71. No, and whoever does should drop everything they are doing and enlist in the military.

You nation-builders out there need to 'put your money where your big, fat mouth is'.

You pay for nation building with with your own private savings and your own flesh and blood.

Me, I will work on fixing my home and our levees, while urging our elected officials to GET THE FUCK OUT OF AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ NOW!!!

[northzax]

74. are you equally opposed to using the military

and public funds for things like emergency relief internationally? I don't remember your posts after the Christmas Tsunamis talking about that, maybe I missed them?

[Swamp Rat]

76. Red Herring... Just get your ass on the next flight to Afghanistan.

Put up or shut up.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

108. By This Same Logic

You ought to be out there each day with a cement mixer, fixing those levees yourself.

[Swamp Rat]

118. HA! Logic? Don't tell me about fucking cement mixers.

Because I am anti-hurricane? Where do I sign up as an enlisted cement mixer to receive my levee building machine. :rofl:

By the way, I spent my lifetime helping protect my city, including sandbagging and removing debris, repairing levees, my own destroyed home as well as my neighbors.

How many hurricanes have you survived?

How many levees have you helped build or repair?

How many cities, and homes did you clean and rebuild after hurricane Katrina? .... Gustav... Hugo... Mitch....Ike...Ivan...Andrew...Camille...Betsy.... ad infinitum.

Have you endured this?... more than once?... more than twice?:

















Well, I have.

Now back to the point.

If you support a war, YOU GO FIGHT!!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

121. Really Now

You work for the Army Corps of Engineers? Interesting. A bit unlikely, but hey, it IS the internet.

Your point was that if one thinks something is a good idea, politically, they must be actively involved in pursuing it or else they're what, a coward? My point is simply this. One needn't be directly involved in pursuing a goal for their opinions/criticisms/whathaveyou to be relevant. In fact, from my experiences on this board, if anything, these "YOU go fight!" posts are a deflection made by poeple who don't know this topic very well and can't handle delving into any of the issues involved in much depth whatsoever. One needn't directly repair levees for their opinion regarding the repair of levees to be relevant. One needn't go to Mars for their opinions regarding space exploration to be relevant. One needn't be an executioner for their opinions on the death penalty to be relevant. And on and on and on and on.

Oh, and for the record? I'm in Minnesota, we don't get hurricanes, nor does my area typically get floods. Now tornados, that's another story.

[Swamp Rat]

129. A bit unlikely?

How would you know? Are you a member of the Army Corps of Engineers? Maybe I am and maybe I am not. Maybe I am an engineer, a scientist, a meteorologist. Nevertheless, one does not need to be a member of the Army Corps of Engineers to be involved in levee building, though it is an important part of their field.

Back to the point: if you believe in nation building, then YOU GO DO IT.

Most of the men in my family served in the military (some still do), some of whom fought in wars. Each and every one of them are anti-war. Here is what my father just said regarding your comment and the comments of the other poster in this thread (I solicited his opinion, but did not actually show him the comments here):

"We veterans have been asking this for years... if you support a war for whatever reason, then you should go fight yourself."

He taught me this and I stand by it, which is why I am anti-war to the core and would not go fight unless it was absolutely necessary, and if I agreed it was the only solution.

In other words, I do not suffer keyboard commandos.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

131. A Dose of Reality

There is no one currently in the military who signed up without realizing that they might be asked to serve in Afghanistan. Not a single individual.

There's a tendency on this board to treat members of the military as poor dupes who got suckered into wars they had no idea they'd be fighting, but is that really the case? Every new recruit knows we're at war. They knew before they signed up that there's a decent chance they could be sent to either Iraq or Afghanistan. On top of which, everyone's who's been in the service for a number of years was given the option of getting out or re-upping. They too were fully aware of what the consequences of re-upping might be. I'm not interested in treating our soldiers like little kids, incapable of making their own decisions or too stupid to know what the consequences might be. If you are, that's your business.

Now, if you'd like to return to discussing the merits of this war, I'd be more than happy to discuss them with you.

[Swamp Rat]

137. So you are the arbiter of reality? Nope. I don't think so.

"There is no one currently in the military who signed up without realizing that they might be asked to serve in Afghanistan. Not a single individual." - False. I know this for a fact.

"There's a tendency on this board to treat members of the military as poor dupes..." - False. I have been here far longer than you.

"Every new recruit knows we're at war..." - Straw Man.

"everyone's who's been in the service for a number of years was given the option of getting out or re-upping." - False. The "option" is not always an option. Those who have served in the last 8 years know what I mean, especially members of the National Guard.

"I'm not interested in treating our soldiers like little kids" - What do you treat them as, pawns for political debate? I do not respect those who willingly send them into harms way for no good reason (we have no business being in Afghanistan), or go along with those who do, like spineless lemmings.

No, I am not interested in discussing the "merits of war." I can turn on FOX News, and hear that any time of the day. Maybe you should apply for a job there.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

140. Well, Someone's Gotta Be

1) I've yet to run across any service member who signed up completely oblivious to the fact that we're in the midst of two wars. So if I may ask, where are these multitudes of completely oblivious young people, marching to recruiting stations with glazed over eyes, totally unaware of the fact that we're at war?

2) One needn't spend an enormous amount of time on this board to notice how regularly portrayals are made of our service men and women as "kids" incapable of making adult decisions. One needn't look further than this thread, or your posts, to see it.

3) See 1.

4) The average length of enlistment in the Guard is 6 - 8 years. It's been over eight years since the 9-11 attacks.

5) And again, all of these people volunteered (yes, volunteered) fully aware of the fact that we're at war. With that reiterated, what do you mean we have no business being in Afghanistan?

[Swamp Rat]

151. By the way, welcome to DU, and here is your free lesson for the day:

"I've yet to run across any service member who signed up completely oblivious to the fact that we're in the midst of two wars. So if I may ask, where are these multitudes of completely oblivious young people, marching to recruiting stations with glazed over eyes, totally unaware of the fact that we're at war?" - Straw Man

"One needn't spend an enormous amount of time on this board to notice how regularly portrayals are made of our service men and women as "kids" incapable of making adult decisions. One needn't look further than this thread, or your posts, to see it." - All message boards are the same? No further research on your part or time spent at DU is required? I am being kind when I say this is fallacious reasoning at best.

"The average length of enlistment in the Guard is 6 - 8 years. It's been over eight years since the 9-11 attacks." - Red Herring

"all of these people volunteered (yes, volunteered) fully aware of the fact that we're at war." - 1. Congress did not declare war 2. Bush promised he was not a nation builder 3. We were not attacked by Afghanistan nor Iraq, and many enlisted to get the 911 attackers: Osama Bin Laden and his associates. By the way, where is Osama? I thought Bush was gonna smoke 'em out dead or alive.

Now for the free lesson I offered, but this is all the time I am going to spend on this with you so read up:

Bush went to the United National Security Council to get a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, but he failed, and Congress never declared war against Afghanistan or Iraq. All he got was a "War Powers Resolution" authorization, which does not have the constitutional significance of a formal declaration of war. It only authorizes the use of military force in specified and limited circumstances.............. So, how long did you say we were in Afghanistan and what was/is the objective? Don't try to answer the latter because you cannot.

I do not think we can have a discussion about Afghanistan until you get up to speed.

Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Good night. :hi:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

153. Thanks and All. However.

1) You were specifically arguing that there are people in our military who were oblivious to the fact that we're in the midst of two wars when they signed up. See your comment in post 137 ("I know this for a fact"). Frankly, unless they lived in some far away cabin and their only contact with civilization was on their donkey ride to the recruiting station, I fail to see how that's possible. See 3 for a further explanation.

2) I didn't say "all message boards are the same", now did I? What I said is that even a few weeks on this board makes it blatently obvious that this is an argument and a general attitude that is fairly prevalent here.

3) You were arguing that there are people in our military who signed up without realizing that we were at war. You, specifically, singled out National Guardsmen and women as examples of such people. As the average length of a person's service in the National Guard is 6 - 8 years, I fail to see how that's possible. Eight years ago, Operation Enduring Freedom was already underway. Six years ago, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was entering its seventh month. So, again, I await your explanation as to how anyone who signed up was caught unawares.

[L0oniX]

152. The idea of using the military for anything but destroying shit is ridiculous.

The military is not trained to be emergency relief. As if the failure our military to get Osama hasn't been obvious enough, some people still want to resort to brute force to solve problems instead of using brains. The policy wars are good food for the MIC and those who profit from the blood of others ...the guilty and the innocent. It's fucking stupid and a waste of foolish patriots. Patriotism is for fools.

That worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor . . . This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism–how passionately I hate them!

– Albert Einstein

Never was a patriot yet, but was a fool.

– John Dryden

A patriot is a fool in ev’ry age.

– Alexander Pope.

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

– Samuel Johnson

In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary, patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer, I beg to submit that it is the first.

– Ambrose Bierce

Patriotism is as fierce as a fever, pitiless as the grave, blind as a stone, and irrational as a headless hen.

– Ambrose Bierce

That pernicious sentiment, “Our country, right or wrong.”

– James Russell Lowell

“My country right or wrong” is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, “My mother drunk or sober.”

– G. K. Chesterton

Patriotism which has the quality of intoxication is a danger not only to its native land but to the world, and “My country never wrong” is an even more dangerous maxim than “My country, right or wrong.”

– Bertrand Russell

Patrioism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.

– George Bernard Shaw

Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.

– George Bernard Shaw

You’ll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race.

– George Bernard Shaw

Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy.

– George Bernard Shaw

Patriotism is an ephemeral motive that scarcely ever outlasts the particular threat to society that aroused it.

– Denis Diderot

To me, it seems a dreadful indignity to have a soul controlled by geography.

– George Santayana

The Athenian democracy suffered much from that narrowness of patriotism which is the ruin of all nations.

– H.G. Wells

Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. “Patriotism” is its cult. . . . Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love, love for one’s country which is not part of one’s love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship.

– Erich Fromm

One of the great attractions of patriotism–it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat, Bully and cheat, what’s more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous.

– Aldous Huxley

Many studies have discovered a close link between prejudice and “patriotism” . . . Extreme bigots are almost always super-patriots.

– Gordon Allport

It seems like the less a statesman amounts to, the more he loves the flag.

– Elbert Hubband

Patriotism varies, from a noble devotion to a moral lunacy.

– William Inge

Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts, as a last resource, pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and glad to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.

– Arthur Schopenhauer

Patriotism is the passion of fools and the most foolish of passions.

– Arthur Schopenhauer

Patriotism corrupts history.

– Goethe

Into the cultural and technological system of the modern world, the patriotic spirit fits like dust in the eyes and sand in the bearings. Its net contribution to the outcome is obscuration, distrust, and retardation at every point where it touches the fortunes of modern mankind.

– Thorstein Veblen

The standardization of mass-production carries with it a tendency to standardize a mass-mind, producing a willing conformity, not merely to common ways of living, but to common ways of thinking and common valuations. The worst defect of patriotism is its tendency to foster and impose this common mind, and so to stifle the innumerable germs of liberty.

– J.A. Hobson

2. Patriotism and War:

At the bottom of all patriotism is war: that is why I am no patriot.

– Jules Renard

No other factor in history, not even religion, has produced so many wars as has the clash of national egotisms sanctified by the name of patriotism.

– Preserved Smith

Naturally the common people don’t want war . . . Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders . . . All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism.

– Hermann Goering.

That worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor . . . This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism–how passionately I hate them!

– Albert Einstein

3. Patriotism and Religion:

Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched.

– Guy de Maupassant

God and Country are an unbeatable team; they break all records for oppression and bloodshed.

– Luis Buñuel

To be patriotic, hate all nations but you own; to be religious, all sects but your own; to be moral, all pretenses but your own.

– Lionel Strachey

When a dog barks at the moon, then it is religion; but when he barks at strangers, it is patriotism!

– David Starr Jordan

4. The American Syndrome:

If you have a weak candidate and a weak platform, wrap yourself up in the American flag and talk about the Constitution.

– Matt Quay

How much longer are we going to think it necessary to be “American” before (or in contradistinction to) being cultivated, being enlightened, being humane, & having the same intellectual discipline as other civilized countries? It is really too easy a disguise for our shortcomings to dress them up as a form of patriotism.

– Edith Wharton

The 100 percent American is 99 percent an idiot.

– George Bernard Shaw

Treason is in the air around us everywhere. It goes by the name of patriotism.

– Thomas Corwin

5. Three relatively positive assessments of patriotism:

A patriot is somebody who protects his country from his government. Or better yet: who has the guts to protect his country from its government.

– Piotyr Dirk

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.

– George Washington

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

– Thomas Jefferson

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

154. Disagree

Our military has been used for more than simply destroying for as long as we've officially had a military. See the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

[L0oniX]

155. Even gangsters guard their own neighborhood.

[L0oniX]

147. +9999999999999999

[datasuspect]

73. they need to build a mcdonalds there

[JackRiddler]

79. Yes, and that's why foreign troops should be withdrawn.

[tekisui]

134. Interesting answer, JR.

You have me thinking. It is not that I or any other person against this war are against the people of Afghanistan. Far from it. In fact, we had their interests most at heart. I understand that what they had under the Taliban was horrendous. I don't doubt that they welcome the US 8 long years ago. But, they don't want us there anymore. That should tell us something. They have lived under the Taliban and under the US occupation and are basically telling us they would rather take their chances without us there. What would the ideal nation building scenario be?

Would there be a foreign role at all?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

135. Just Out of Curiousity

Who is telling us that and what methods are they using to communicate those ideas? Also, do you think that the Afghan public's perception would change if notable progress were made in a relatively short period of time?

[Vattel]

143. Why do you say that "they don't want us there anymore?"

The most recent poll that I am familiar with (Feb 2009) indicates that ten months ago the majority of Afghans want us there either permanently, or until security is resotred or for another 1-2 years. Maybe that has changed in the last ten months, but I would need to see some evidence that "they don't want us there anymore."

[L0oniX]

90. Pathetic that some here voted yes. I guess you have an investment in opium.

[ceile]

113. Nice strawman.

:eyes:

[walldude]

96. The Graveyard Of Empires

It's called that for a reason. We will be no different.

I say we get the fuck out of there. And we take anyone who wants to come along and avoid Taliban rule with us.

[ceile]

111. It's either done now or we're back there again in 25 years.

It was a country that was on the right path before the Taliban. I just can't stomach abandoning them now. And, no, I don't agree with US forces being there. But something has to be done for the women, children and decent hard working people who just want their lives prior to the Taliban back.

[timo]

114. awwww c'mon

we at least owe them a leg up of some kind, maybe a new stadium named after dick and bush so they have a place for the national drag the dead goat game they love to play, maybe a some new highways thru the mountains so life isnt so hard for the donkeys to carry the weed and smack from point a to point b, or I know some schools so that more than 10 percent of the country can learn how to read!!

[ceile]

117. I cannot believe some (most) of the responses on this thread.

I'm sorry, but c'mon people! WTF?! We can't possibly leave now- and i'm not talking about the troops. I'm talking about pure presence. We must stay in some form or fashion. The Afghan people were taken over by extremists in the 90's. And call me naive, but if we concentrate more on the "nation building" (ie. women's rights, schools, water, food - everything the Taliban is not providing them) we will prevent Sharia law and more Taliban extremism. Maybe my view isn't popular here, but it isn't just about the troops. These people actually need our help. I know that wasn't the original mission, we were supposed to get bin Laden and get out (yeah, right), but we are there and I'm sorry, but I don't think we should leave what could be a secular Muslim country in the lurch. If they don't hate us now, those we leave behind after our grand promises will, and we'll have another "war" on our hands with the next generation.
Sorry, rant over.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

122. The Greeks, Romans, Brits, and Russians had a helluva good time building Afghanistan.

Didn't turn out well for them either.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

124. Sure.

What are the comparisons between all of these instances? Specifics would be greatly appreciated.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

125. Here's one. They all got they're asses kicked out of a country they tried to take over.

Now, we're there fighting a lost war so the bosses don't have to acknowledge that they lost another war.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

126. Specifics?

Since it's clear we're fighting a very different war from, say, the one the Soviet Union conducted in Afghanistan, perhaps you'd like to expand further on where the room for comparison lies? Because as it stands, your argument is fairly vague and superficial.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

127. A very differnt war.

The Soviets went in to Afghanistan to protect their "vital national interests".

They installed a sympathetic government to further that.

They brought about "change" by liberating women and other "civilizing" efforts.

They fought the resistance to their invasion.

They "stayed the course" until their defeat was total.

Just like the Greeks, Romans, and Brits before them.

Now it's our turn to "stay the course" in another attempt to impose our "civilization" on their culture. We are meeting resistance and using force in a vain attempt to defeat it. We are "staying the course" because our politicians are afraid of acknowledging defeat.

And, of course, we rationalize the killing by exclaiming it's all for a good cause.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

130. Thanks, but...

1) They invaded to prop up a puppet regime (the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan) which the local populace was resisting. We invaded to root out and destroy an international terrorist organization.

2) The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was in power before the Soviet invasion. In all actuality, it was the DRA who invited the Soviet army into the country. If you don't believe me, check the timeline.

3) There may be some room for comparison on the issue of women's "liberation" (was anyone really "liberated" under the Soviets?), but I would argue this is only a small part of the complaints made against the Soviet Union and the DRA. Of much greater concern were perceived attacks on their ability to worship as they pleased, choose their own leaders at the tribal level, etc.

4) Right, but how did they do so and who was backing them? Had the mujahideen not received Western backing, thus the ability to blast Russian helicopters out of the sky, they would have continued to be obliterated. Western support was the turning point that made them a formidible force. So where's the comparison to today? This is where specifics are important.

5) Are we really attempting to "civilize" their culture? No one is forcing young women to attend school, for instance. All that we've done is opened the door for those who wish to seize that opportunity.

[tekisui]

128. Alright, big shot.

What do YOU think we should do in Afghanistan? Specifics please. I want details that won't cost another trillion dollars or hundreds to thousands of more lives. Or years. Specifics?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

133. I Thought You Were Ignoring Me?

The way I see it, the United States has a couple of options open to it. It could:

1) pursue the policy recently put forth by McChrystal, which is similar the one credited with greatly reducing the number of attacks in Iraq. That entails sending tens of thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan, securing urban areas, and ensuring that our soldiers live side by side with the Afghan people in these areas, thus gaining their trust and ultimately undermining the Taliban insurgency. If this can be coupled with outreach/direct talks with tribal leaders, in an effort to reach some level of understanding, this plan seems like the most logical step, IMO.

2) altering the structure of the Afghan government to officially include tribal leaders and warlords at some level. This could simply mean a loose federation for Afghanistan or it could mean something like lawmaking powers are split between one body made up of tribal leaders and warlords and one body made up of elected officials. However the Afghan people see fit to construct it.

3) the United States itself making direct contacts and agreements with various tribal leaders and warlords, while leaving the Afghan government to rot. This is my least favored option and should only be considered as an absolute last resort. It could be a meaningful way of rooting out al-Qaeda, but it still leaves the heads of many of ours Afghan allies on the chopping block - which, frankly, is unforgiveable.

These are not the only options available. They're simply the first three that popped into my head. Of course, all options are going to cost some money (wars aren't cheap) and all will cost some lives (wars aren't bloodless, either!). How much and how many is debateable.

[tekisui]

136. Really, before you and I can address your points, or mine

for that matter, is that I do not accept that war is the only solution to this problem. I do not accept that it must be debated within the parameters of war.

My position is that ending the war is the priority. I am not interested in strategies of war to reach political solutions. I am interested in ending the war.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

138. Fair Enough, Now...

If you can see a way of ending the war without emboldening the most radical elements of the Taliban as well as al-Qaeda and every other similar group on the planet, I'm all ears, but I haven't heard of one yet. Until I do, I'm apt to favor a change in military strategies as the quickest, most responsible way to end this thing.

[tekisui]

141. We declare it over.

Al-Qaeda isn't in Afghanistan anymore. They aren't even solvent. They are leaderless and bankrupt. We are not afraid of them, anymore. The Taliban is a mixed bag. We are paying Pakistan over 1.5Billion, that money is not without strings, keep the Pakistan Taliban contained. I am curious to see how the ground offensive in South Waziristan goes. Most of what is left of the Afgan Taliban are fighting us because we are there.

When we leave, they will no longer have us to fight. Not all of them are "the bad Taliban" The lump label neglects the moderate ones who provide services. I know that is hard for a lot to hear, but that is the case.

I also don't see how our military or politicians can offer any support whatsoever to Karzai. They are asking for mistrust and animosity from the Afghanis if they go down that road.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

144. Some Agreement.

Whether al-Qaeda's leadership is in Afghanistan or in Pakistan, it seems certain what if we unilaterally withdraw from Afghanistan, al-Qaeda will once again be free to set up shop there. I mean, honestly, what reason do you have to think they won't? Yes, at the moment, they're hurting financially, but that's only because they're isolated and getting hammered on two fronts. The minute we withdraw, the game changes dramatically. They have free movement, the ability to reestablish camps, etc. On top of which, we'd be handing them the biggest PR victory they could ever hope for by publicly admitting that they've beaten us. If their coffers are hurting at the moment, they wouldn't be for long, once they're hailed far and wide by Islamic radicals as heroes who faced down the mighty USA and won.

I agree that it's important to watch how things unfold in Pakistan. I would argue, however, that Pakistan doesn't stand a chance of winning this fight without our support - particularly, our air power.

Also, I see no reason to believe that the Taliban have somehow become moderated since they were knocked out of Kabul and into the mountains. If they reestablish control, it's going to be a show very similar to the one that played out in the 1990s. We need to find a way to prevent that, and not just for our sake.

I do agree with your concerns about Karzai. The recent election has been a huge debacle that has only added to our already huge list of problems in the country. I would hope to God they'd be wise enough to push for a runoff vote at this point, instead of simply welcoming Karzai's "re-election" with open arms. Though nothing's certain. To me, the lack of a strong leader with broadbased support is of more concern than anything the Taliban has been able to muster. And the key to how we get out of Afghanistan lies somewhere in this conundrum.

[tekisui]

145. The PR victory that al-Qaeda and the Taliban

seek come with each innocent killed by US weapons. We serve as a recruiter's dream as we are right now. There was a recent suicide bombing in Pakistan. The boy was 13 or 14. That boy was 5 when we invade Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, children have grown up under a foreign war and occupation. Really, all they know is war. If we have at all been clear with our intentions not to occupy, they would be more likely to trust us when we leave. It isn't a war on the Afghan people, and I think they are intelligent enough to understand that. But, if they see us as using them and their political system to our benefit through a decades long occupation, we are hopeless.

The best thing we can do is get our troops out of there. We are screwed not matter what. I think we are less screwed with the military leaving.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

148. Also Some Agreement

I agree with what you're saying regarding civilian deathh and the plan proposed by McChrystal is really based around that idea - that we must decrease the number civilians killed or injured in this war.

I would also argue that the flipside to this is that everytime a suicide bomber attacks a crowded market place, that'd a PR victory for the United States and its allies. If that occurs often enough, it might very well turn a large number of people away from the more radical elements of the Taliban and drive a huge wedge between the Taliban we might be able to work with and those who are lost causes (similar to the way al-Qaeda's bloodthirstiness in Iraq eventually splintered the Sunni resistance there).

I also agree that it should be reiterated that we do not intend to remain there indefinitely, though the best way to do that is not while we're in the midst of packing our bags, but instead when we're in talks with tribal leaders and warlords, working to find some common ground to create a lasting peace in that country.

[Jennicut]

139. Hell no. It is too hard to build a nation into what we want it to be.

All countries have origins that are different from how the United States was formed. We need to recognize that and not spend tons of money and lives on coming to that realization.

[anonymous171]

142. Afghanistan is a borderline failed state comrpised of many different nations.

It will never be united by anyone, ESPECIALLY an outside force.

[Monk06]

149. Afghanistan was never a state in the modern sense. It's the tribal homeland

controlled by clan loyalties.

The Pashtun tribes have defeated every western power since
Alexander the Great.

[Swamp Rat]

165. The people who run our government should be smart enough to know and understand this.

Apparently not. :dunce:

[earth mom]

157. Hell to the NO. nt

[TheKentuckian]

159. The only application for US nation building I'm currently accepting is here in the US

And no, I don't care what we broke or should buy right now. Nor am I scared enough to do it, if the threat is that ominous then bombard every square inch for a couple months.

When we are counting every red cent of a health care bill and have our whole country falling down around us, I cannot be convinced that Americans should be asked to suck it up and rub some dirt on it while we build and care for entire nations that wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire.

[mdmc]

167. cut and run! cut and run!

[excess_3]

177. the peaceful choice,,, 7 more years of war and death ,nt