Originally posted by Bosse de Nage"Giving up on the whole international superpower thing" would be an excellent idea.
It seems to be very complex indeed, with all sorts of ramifications. If you're going to have a foreign policy, you have to attempt to deal with all those branchings off, I guess. Or give up on the whole international superpower thing.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI missed where the the US, USSR and others militarily intervened in South Africa. Republican Spain is in-apposite; I never stated, claimed or suggested that a country needn't adopt policies to counter interstate aggression by other countries.
I'm afraid I can't quote your entire post, it was automatically shortened.
The problem with your philosophy, which, etymologically, is not a philosophy at all but a purely formalistic sort of determinism, is that it can't be applied to problems that don't come neatly delineated with the help of maps. Remove the fiction of national sovereignty and yo ...[text shortened]... e USA -- you helped create the monster, you've got to do something about it.
I do believe in national sovereignty; the creation and maintenance of states is hardly a "fiction". Yes, if we play by BDN rules and say the "ground" doesn't exist, I don't have any "ground" to stand on. But sadly in the real world, unlike BDNWorld, people arrange themselves into civil societies and prefer that others refrain from interfering in the affairs of those societies. Primitive of them, but hey what are you gonna do?
Non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries is an admission in our own limitations. The Howies and BDNs of the world might think that everything can be fixed by sufficient use of force by the Wise Men of the West, but that view is hardly supported by history. The protection of rights in other countries' rationale has been used for many of the military interventions that led to bloodbaths in the last 100 years (Vietnam is an example I already cited). International Law frowns on the interference with other countries' internal affairs for good reasons based on both philosophy and experience. Ad hoc determinations of when you should stick your nose in other people's business made with no real criteria except the arrogant belief that it will "help" them are simply a version of 21st Century "White Man's Burden".
This guiding principle of non-intervention obviously doesn't apply when national survival is at stake. Perhaps a real genocide (though every civil war is now routinely called a "genocide" now by those wishing to interfere on one side or the other for ideological grounds) might offer a sufficient reason for massive intervention. But neither of those remotely apply to what was happening in Afghanistan.
Your history is poor. The Taliban are a local, indigenous movement of the Pashtun people. Moreover, what you are primarily complaining about i.e. the failure of Afghan society to treat woman as equals - long predates the Taliban. I do not accept your thesis that the US "created" the oppression of women in Afghan society and don't see any responsibility for our collective society to "do something about it" - which in this case presumably means killing a lot of Afghans until the "correct" result is achieved (which it won't be by those methods anyway).
Originally posted by shavixmirHe writes "dialogue"....LOL....have you evere dialogued without a head? 🙄
If the bloody world hadn't instigated this never-ending bloody war on the people of Afghanistan, but instead had continued with dialogue, then this wouldn't be a problem at bloody all, would it?
The whole division of that area in "Afghanistan" and "Pakistan" has been a pathetic failure since the Mogol-era (and probably before). Various tribes and langua ...[text shortened]...
That is the future. Do you really think nuclear expansion isn't going to happen?
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirI can't wait 'til holland has sharia law....I'll go ahead and laugh at you now....ROFLMAO!!! Then, you can roll in your own feces....
Internationally speaking, the US is a far more despicable group, considering the faeces they've spread around the globe the last 60 years.
Maybe we should hound US citizens out of existence wherever they exist?
BTW: Think about it...if the Taliban is what you prefer, your kind would be the first group to lose their head.....LOL....you know what I'm talking about, yes?
Originally posted by FMFWho the "eff' is RAWA....? Rhasheem Al-Wasahiri Assam? Isn't he the leader of the Taliban in the Swat region?
The Americans pulled the carpet from under RAWA as soon as they'd toppled the Taliban, having cited their perspectives and aspirations in the lead up to that invasion.
Originally posted by FMFThe U.S. did trounce the Taliban, but the ball-less Pervez Musharrif would not attack from the south, thus placing the Taliban in a vice from which they would not have escaped. Now, Pakistan is reaping what they sowed....and so is the rest of the free world...
Having conspicuoulsy failed to "trounce" the Taliban, the Americans should now insist the Pakistanis do it?
1 edit
Originally posted by dystoniacI thought you were concerned about the fate of women in Islamic societies. Seems, for you, making a 'joke' about Afghan women trumped looking RAWA up.
Who the "eff' is RAWA....? Rhasheem Al-Wasahiri Assam? Isn't he the leader of the Taliban in the Swat region?
Originally posted by dystoniacWhatever you say. Tell that to NATO, the US military, and to all those following the story closely.
The U.S. did trounce the Taliban, but...
The bit after "but" in your post seems to indicate that the U.S. didn't trounce anyone, after all - despite your assertion. Trounced people remain trounced. It is in the nature of trouncing.
Originally posted by FMFThought the Taliban got knocked out of power in Afghanistan and are living in caves. Sounds like a trouncing to me.
Whatever you say. Tell that to NATO, the US military, and to all those following the story closely.
The bit after "but" in your post seems to indicate that the U.S. didn't trounce anyone, after all - despite your assertion. Trounced people remain trounced. It is in the nature of trouncing.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe USSR provided training and funding. The frontline states provided bases. Cuban soldiers supported by Soviet advisers were directly involved in fighting South African government forces in Angola. This all translates into material support for the armed struggle in South Africa. US sanctions exerted economic pressure. Sanctions are a form of intervention.
I missed where the the US, USSR and others militarily intervened in South Africa. Republican Spain is in-apposite; I never stated, claimed or suggested that a country needn't adopt policies to counter interstate aggression by other countries.
I do believe in national sovereignty; the creation and maintenance of states is hardly a "fic ect" result is achieved (which it won't be by those methods anyway).
I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth: I have not suggested that intervention by the 'Wise Men of the West' is the way to go, in fact I've said I disagree with intervention twice. Your continued assertion to the contrary is pretty much a lie.
I disagree with intervention but once you've broken those eggs, you should do something to help clean up the mess.
Yes, the Taliban are a local, indigenous Pashtun movement -- heavily funded by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Pashtuns make up about 40% of the Afghan population. Why did they come to prominence immediately after the Soviets withdrew? Who funded them? How were they able to bounce back against the Northern Alliance in 1997 when they were close to defeat? Sins of omission and commission implicate the USA in this entire history.
Your point about Afghan's women's rights is singularly bogus, since it's common knowledge that Taliban-style misogyny represents a great leap backward, removing rights that Afghan women were already enjoying before the Taliban took control. The same thing is happening in the Swat region in Pakistan, with girls forbidden to attend school where previously they were able to.
How should the USA help clean up the mess? After reading the views expressed by RAWA, I think the USA could help by withdrawing its troops and simultaneously exerting pressure on the Saudis and Pakistan to stop funding the Taliban. Allowing other countries to interfere in the internal affairs of an ethnically divided country makes a mockery of the principle of non interference.
Here's a statement by RAWA for context:
http://www.rawa.org/events/dec10-07_e.htm
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFThe Pakistanis are protecting them from the US! They need to either take them out themselves or let us do it. Currently, they're protecting them from the US as well as skirmishing with them.
Having conspicuoulsy failed to "trounce" the Taliban, the Americans should now insist the Pakistanis do it?