Indefensible Nation

[kaaskop]

War only serves the 99.9999% of politicians, dictators and people that think they're god, and thats got something to gain from it.

As far as i know, war has never been good to the people of any nation.

 

[Alan]

I don't agree. Of course any war is winnable - the point is how far do you go and how much do you spend. If the US sent in 20 million soldiers and had outposts next to every village and on top of every mountain - they'd win - but the moment they pulled out - it would revert to anarchy.

Hardly considering the pitiful amount of troops on the ground at the moment they wouldn't need a million. This after all is an insurgency not a full scale civil war. Areas of Afghanistan are safer than parts of S.A

You see to win such a war, the locals must be behind you - in Afghanistan they're not. They have their old ways of doing things - tribal - and a war can't socially engineer that OUT, yes you could kill 90% of the population but then the other 10% would hate you for that. In reasonable terms that war is costly and unnecessary. It is better to contain and cut off funding, if you do that the problems wither away - and the same will happen in the ME, once the oil runs out - the jihadists won't have the $ to buy guns, ammo and explosives. They'll revert to their nomadic, shepherd ways of life.

They managed to cure Germany of their militancy. There are plenty of countries who people have written off as too backward. but look at the Afghanistan of the 60s and 70s. In any case nobody thinks Afghanistan is going to blossom into a modern democracy in a few years. What is required is a stable secure state.

 

[PeterCH]

They managed to cure Germany of their militancy. There are plenty of countries who people have written off as too backward. but look at the Afghanistan of the 60s and 70s. In any case nobody thinks Afghanistan is going to blossom into a modern democracy in a few years. What is required is a stable secure state.

That's the neocon mistake. Germany and Afganistan are different. Their cultures are different. Germany has had democracy before and they have a history of pluralism - and they're in Europe - they've been soaked with liberal French views.

Aghanistan is a rural, tribal country where isolated communities live in very harsh conditions. The two are very unlike. Father is the head of the family, people group in clans and tribes and strong religious and cultural bonds link the people in very old traditions. In addition the education level is poor and resources are inadequate.

The more likely reason why the US thinks Afghanistan can become a democracy so quickly, is because of way democracy was embraced in Eastern Europe after 1989. Of course EE had prior history of democracy - going back to the 1700s - while the same can't be said for Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Alan]

and Korea? But as I said the aim should be a secure, stable state. That's what the people want. Once that's established you can work from there. In the past Afghanistan was in a reasonable state. Sure rural areas were in a backward state but I don't see any reason why the country can't return to the levels of 40 years ago.

I don't see how abandoning them now and allowing the Taliban to walk back in solves anything. Throw away all that expense in life and treasure just to end up where they started. A victory for Islamic extremism indeed

Afghanistan's untold story: Stability, tourists, miniskirts

 

[PeterCH]

and Korea? But as I said the aim should be a secure, stable state. That's what the people want. Once that's established you can work from there. In the past Afghanistan was in a reasonable state. Sure rural areas were in a backward state but I don't see any reason why the country can't return to the levels of 40 years ago.

That was a very small minority.

I don't see how abandoning them now and allowing the Taliban to walk back in solves anything. Throw away all that expense in life and treasure just to end up where they started. A victory for Islamic extremism indeed

Well if that's what they want. Ideally the country should be partitioned along ethnic lines - the Taliban are Pashtun, the others are not. The area is very ethnically diverse.

Victory for Islamic extremism? I don't think so. It's victory for whatever the majority chooses - and they choose Taliban at this point in time. Hence I think the country should maybe be partitioned so that individual states are ethnically uniform and can unite under a central government.

Korea? Well look at NK.... in SK they chose differently - and the presence of foreign troops influenced them somewhat too. Mind you the foreigners did refer to these people as 'gooks' the Koreans aren't that warm and fuzzy about westerners (and rightfully so). The south chose to go capitalist for the obvious material benefits.

Societies need to should I say 'mature'. They have to want democracy of their own. In places where democracy succeeded a high degree of civilisation and high literacy preceded it - or quite outright full blown democracy before the Soviets had their ways. This sort of thing takes time and bombs and granades do not help.
What is happening in Afghanistan is the idea that the west can kill of the Taliban and all will be well. Well it won't be because the locals are different and they don't like all this foreign presence - blood is thicker than water - as they say.

 

[Alan]

That was a very small minority.

You gotta start somewhere.

Well if that's what they want. Ideally the country should be partitioned along ethnic lines - the Taliban are Pashtun, the others are not. The area is very ethnically diverse.


Victory for Islamic extremism? I don't think so. It's victory for whatever the majority chooses - and they choose Taliban at this point in time. Hence I think the country should maybe be partitioned so that individual states are ethnically uniform and can unite under a central government.

Korea? Well look at NK.... in SK they chose differently - and the presence of foreign troops influenced them somewhat too. Mind you the foreigners did refer to these people as 'gooks' the Koreans aren't that warm and fuzzy about westerners (and rightfully so). The south chose to go capitalist for the obvious material benefits.

Societies need to should I say 'mature'. They have to want democracy of their own. In places where democracy succeeded a high degree of civilisation and high literacy preceded it - or quite outright full blown democracy before the Soviets had their ways. This sort of thing takes time and bombs and granades do not help.
What is happening in Afghanistan is the idea that the west can kill of the Taliban and all will be well. Well it won't be because the locals are different and they don't like all this foreign presence - blood is thicker than water - as they say.

You think the majority of people "chose" whoever is in power . The Afghans never chose Taliban rule it was enforced upon them, N.K had Stalinist communism forced upon them. Black South Africans never chose Apartheid. In those cases a minority enforced their will on the populace. Ask the Iranians if the majority chose glowing Ahemi :erm:

 

[PeterCH]

You gotta start somewhere.

You can't force people to be something. They have to want to be it spontanously and every country and society is different. Democracy in Europe is not the same as in the US and not the same as in Japan. There are distinct differences.

You think the majority of people "chose" whoever is in power .

You think the Taliban would survive without fresh recruits? Do you think they'd survive without local village elder support? Where do you think the Taliban came from - outer space? They don't get born - they come from a Taliban cloning facility in a cave in Afghanistan?

The VC - where do you think they came from?

You see in Afghanistan, North Korea and even Iran - majority of the people are happy with these people. In contrast in Eastern Europe where guys like Lech Walesa emerged - people hated the Communists - there were resistance movements from 1945 going on and most people were very pro-Western. Those SOCIETIES WANTED to be free from totalitarian yoke of the Communist regimes imposed by the Soviet Union. Those people embraced the free market and democracy because largely these people had democratic governments before WW2. That type of plutocracy isn't just something you can impose on people. In North Korea - a collectivist society - they did not have a democratic form of government before the Communists came - they had similar - just like in China where an Emperor ruled and Iran where the Shah ruled and before him the British and the Turks and before that various monarchs.

The Afghans never chose Taliban rule it was enforced upon them, N.K had Stalinist communism forced upon them. Black South Africans never chose Apartheid. In those cases a minority enforced their will on the populace. Ask the Iranians if the majority chose glowing Ahemi :erm:

The Blacks in SA actually formed and supported pro-democratic movements. SA had a liberal government in exile - Sisulu, Tambo et al. These weren't local warlords and chiefs however. There is a difference between the struggle for freedom between the Blacks in SA and the Afghanis in Afghanistan, in that there isn't anyone oppressing them - the Taliban are their own people - well they are ethnically made up of different groupings but they never got together to form a western type government which is what the ANC, PAC and other black movements did. I agree that there is a degree of coercion from the Taliban and they can be brutal but the Afghani people do not come out in support of their new liberal government either - nor the Americans/NATO.

Each case is different. Secondly the Iranians hate the US more than their own people.

We can't just blindly compare these societies. Not every society is ready for western type democracy. Some will never be because of their own ways of life - ie that has to change first. Taliban could have been defeated very quickly if the locals were really all against them - there is no magic Taliban factory producing them by the million - they're a rag-tag bunch - but since they recruit from their own community (and it's not a forceful recruitment) you won't get rid of them until you somehow convince each Afghani civilian that democracy and co-operation with the West is a better way to lead a life - something the Germans, Koreans and Japanese learned. Those societies were receptive to the message - people in Iraq, ME and Afghanistan are not.

Killing them won't make them more receptive. You can't convince people with violence no matter how well intentioned you are.

 

[Fieldy]

You think the majority of people "chose" whoever is in power . The Afghans never chose Taliban rule it was enforced upon them, N.K had Stalinist communism forced upon them. Black South Africans never chose Apartheid. In those cases a minority enforced their will on the populace. Ask the Iranians if the majority chose glowing Ahemi :erm:

As much as a suprise as this may come to you, the people did vote for Ahmadinejad. If you knew a bit more about the country of Iran you would know exactly why this happened. Although I dissapprove of the violence that took place and the brutality that the militia and police displayed against the dissenters, Iran is a an enormous country with 75 million people.

What many are not aware of is that it is also a democracy with 75% +- of the inhabitants being illiterate and fundamentally religious. These are the poor and Ahmadinejad really did make all of these poor peoples lives much better. There were all sorts of schemes that Ahmadinejad setup for these poor people, such as 2 million women wove carpets, and had no insurance and he provided these women with insurance. There are still plenty more examples of how Ahmadinejad helped other poor, but when you are in a democracy and you have a large number of poor, this is exactly the thing that gets you elected. He also spoke out about the corruption in the theocratic establishment of the Imams, which is a really soft spot among the majority of the populace, since in every other establishment the elite of the country are the wealthiest and get the best business deals. etc.

Mousavi is exactly one of these people, and he was involved in the dealings with the Iran Contra Scandal. Look this up, it is common knowledge.

Just look at Obama, Zuma, Chavez and just about every other democracy on earth, all of these are elected based on promises by leaders to uplift the community and promise welfare, jobs, better life, etc.

Mousavi on the other hand ONLY campaigned in Tehran and only in the wealthy suburbs where most of the people were westernized and liberal. And please make note that this is a very small minority of the country! Very small!

There was very little to no fraud or corruption in the elections, and this was accepted by the international monitors whom were there during these elections.

The controversy was entirely created by the Western media companies and it was a failed attempt at a colour revolution which have occurred all over the world for the last 20 years. Thanks to certain internationalist/globalist groups.

from wikipedia

Soros foundation and U.S. influence

Opponents of the colour revolutions often accuse the Soros Foundation and/or the United States government of supporting and even planning the revolutions in order to serve western interests. It is noteworthy that after the Orange Revolution several Central Asian nations took action against the Open Society Institute of George Soros with various means -- Uzbekistan, for example, forced the shutting down of the OSI regional offices, while Tajik state-controlled media have accused OSI-Tajikistan of corruption and nepotism. [6]

Evidence suggesting U.S. government involvement includes the USAID (and UNDP) supported Internet structures called Freenet, which are known to comprise a major part of the Internet structure in at least one of the countries - Kyrgyzstan - in which one of the colour revolutions occurred.

The Guardian claimed that USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, and Freedom House are directly involved; the Washington Post and the New York Times also reported substantial Western involvement in some of these events.[8][9]

Activists from Otpor in Serbia and Pora in Ukraine have said that publications and training they received from the US based Albert Einstein Institution staff have been instrumental in the formation of their strategies.

What people must understand as well, is that America is not "popular" in Iran, and people are unsettled by occupation forces involvement in neighbouring countries.