It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Returners
And Osama and other like-minded radicals with massive resources helped. You don't really need supplies when you've got an unreasonably wealthy man helping to fight a civil war in an unreasonably impoverished nation.
The Taliban simply had more arms thanks to the Americans, better military techniques thanks to the Americans, and a reputation of 'ousting the infidel' thanks to the Soviets intervening in the first place.
There's also the factor of fear. You're acting as if the Taliban gained all of their intel and resources and recruits from volunteers.
Where's the evidence to show that such a brutal regime received mostly handouts?
The first major military activity of the Taliban was in October-November 1994 when they marched from Maiwand in southern Afghanistan to capture Kandahar City and the surrounding provinces, losing only a few dozen men.[13] Starting with the capture of a border crossing and a huge ammunition dump from warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a few weeks later they freed "a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia" from another group of warlords attempting to extort money.[14] In the next three months this hitherto "unknown force" took control of twelve of Afghanistan's 34 provinces, with Mujahideen warlords often surrendering to them without a fight and the "heavily armed population" giving up their weapons.[15] By September 1996 they had captured Afghanistan's capital, Kabul.
And then he decided to invade Kuwait. In the aftermath of that war he brutally repressed the ethnic Kurdish and Shi'a minorities.
From the exact same source:
Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions, together with the brutality of the conflict that this had engendered, laid the groundwork for postwar rebellions. In the aftermath of the fighting, social and ethnic unrest among Shi'ite Muslims, Kurds, and dissident military units threatened the stability of Saddam's government. Uprisings erupted in the Kurdish north and Shi'a southern and central parts of Iraq, but were ruthlessly repressed.
Oh wait, by your standards that means he was right. I mean, how else could he use violence to oppress them if he wasn't legitimate.
Yes, because they have an understanding about what crowd dynamics does to large groups of people. A small disruption can make an otherwise reasonable crowd into a riot.
Force is when your response to people disagreeing with you is to start killing them
And again, what's your standard for legitimacy?
I'm sorry, but that's something entirely separate. "Rape is wrong" is a statement that I can back up independently of any culture. "Oppression of 50% of the populace is wrong" is again the same thing.
And not all of India bans beef sales....by the way, that's an insanely stereotypical message as not all Indians are Hindus (it has the largest population of Muslims of any country in the world) and not all Hindus view cows as sacred.
On another more important note: How the hell did you just compare the use of rape as torture and the oppression of the female gender to eating animal products?
People may disagree one food, that's one thing, but it's not really a moral issue for Pakistanis to not eat pork, it's a purely religious one. Pork isn't immoral, it's unclean.
People in India are again putting for a religious idea.
Raping women to torture them and preventing half of your populace from receiving education or even the limited freedoms provided by that nation is a moral issue, not a trivial religious one. Anyone can speak on it.
Culture should be protected and preserved, but not at all costs. Human costs are a more than reasonable standard.
The majority of Muslim scholars believe that a woman should not be punished for having been coerced into having sex.[61] According to a Sunni hadith, the punishment for committing rape is death, there is no blame attached to the victim, nor should she be the subject of any legal action.[62][63] However, in some circumstances rape victims have been punished by Muslim governments or groups claiming that the punishment is consistent with Islam. In some cases rape victims have been sentenced to death by stoning on the basis that their being raped constituted adultery, which is punishable by stoning according to hadith.[64] [65] [66] Saudi Arabia commonly punishes the victim in addition to the rapist because she is considered guilty of mixing of genders, which is considered a violation of the practice of Purdah, and does not recognize spousal rape because marriage is viewed as contractual.[67]
I'm sorry, but you're using opinions. That graph is entitled "People worse off under communism" and then goes for popular opinion. Isn't that ironic
"Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has seen an increase in oligarchs and Louis Vuitton outlets. But by many other measures, Russians are worse off."
this unsigned feature in Newsweek contrasted the crime rate under communism, the number of hospitals and the total number of cinemas (among other factors) to those in the country today. Sadly, there are only 1,510 movie theaters today. Under the brutal repression of communism, however, there were 2,337.
Other statistics compared: Population, life expectancy at birth, divorces, diseases, agricultural land (in acres), forest land (in acres) and alcohol consumption. All of these, according to Newsweek, were better under some undated time of communism
Hey, you made a pretty decent straw man of me there.
I never condoned the action of using military force to invade undemocratic countries to try to make them democratic
My position is that we unfortunately did that. We do now have a responsibility to do our best to fix what we broke. We have a responsibility to help Afghanistan and Iraq form stable governments that are supported by the populace, whether through direct democracy, representative democracy, constitutional monarchy, oligarchy, etc is there decision, so long as it does well enough to protect the people and ensure their rights and security.
You seem to be constantly deflecting. I pointed out that Ron Paul's ideas are idiotic because leaving Afghanistan and Iraq would be an unconscionable act. You are telling me that equates to me believing that we can invade any country we want and install democracy. I don't believe that one bit. I just think we need to fix our mistakes.
Tsarist Russia, North korea .... blah blah blah
Statistics suggest that less than 1,000 North Korean students study in China.
Koreans are the largest ethnic minority in Japan, and many say they feel greater allegiance to the North than the South.
Thousands of students attend schools partly funded by North Korea, where lessons are taught in Korean and classrooms feature portraits of leader Kim Jong-il.
RFA reports there are 34 students with North Korean nationalities currently studying in the United States (USCIS figure, as of January 2008). 68 have already received US degrees over the last 5 years, during which time 100 students have returned home to North Korea -- "for personal reasons" -- before finishing.
A US State Department official reportedly explained that it is difficult for North Korean students to come directly to study in the US. Most of them are studying abroad in Europe and enter the US with a short-term exchange student status.
Originally posted by Returners
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG
Taliban won the civil war mostly using peaceful means, they simply massed a large army and one by one every warlord surrendered to the Taliban.
This looks like CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED TO ME
You act like these kurds did nothing wrong, the kurds started an insurgency because they wanted to break away from Iraq and join Iran
This is common in EVERY middle eastern country, Sunni's hate Shi'a
The minority Shi'a/Sunni are repressed by every government in the middle east in places that they are majorities. So according to you because there is repression of a tiny minority their government is illegitimate.
A small minority in the USA claims that they are repressed and they want to seceds from the USA. Therefore by your definition that a government that represses their minorities is illegitimate the USA government is illegitimate
Wait, didn't the USA start killing the southern states because of the states rights vs federal rights debate?
Didn't the USA mass exterminate Indians and Mexicans?
According to you the USA is illegitimate since they kill people who disagree with them
You don't seem to know anything about Islam, Islam does not advocate rape.
Again you are advocating the invasion of all muslim countries just because they have different laws for women.
You need to accept the fact that other cultures are different.
You realize that the Europeans rationalized genociding all of North America and Africa under "White mans burden" which was Native American and African culture was backwards and inferior therefore we have the right to keep killing them until they accept our culture.
And where is your source that muslims torture women by raping them?
No you said clearly that communism made things worse. Which is YOUR OPINION. The majority of the people from the former USSR agree that life was better under the Soviet Union and there are FACTS to back it up.
(of madnessinmysoul)
Hey, you made a pretty decent straw man of me there.
I never condoned the action of using military force to invade undemocratic countries to try to make them democratic
My position is that we unfortunately did that. We do now have a responsibility to do our best to fix what we broke. We have a responsibility to help Afghanistan and Iraq form stable governments that are supported by the populace, whether through direct democracy, representative democracy, constitutional monarchy, oligarchy, etc is there decision, so long as it does well enough to protect the people and ensure their rights and security.
You seem to be constantly deflecting. I pointed out that Ron Paul's ideas are idiotic because leaving Afghanistan and Iraq would be an unconscionable act. You are telling me that equates to me believing that we can invade any country we want and install democracy. I don't believe that one bit. I just think we need to fix our mistakes.
The people are fighting because they distrust the USA, the muslims are not stupid they understand the quote
'It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes'
You expect people to put faith in a government that bans the Taliban from running and the elections and vote counting are overseen by USA officials and the only parties that are allowed to run are the ones endorsed by the USA.
Tsarist Russia, North korea .... blah blah blah
Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Change takes no time at all, if you really want something changed. Look how fast bailouts occurred for the banks, and you think we couldn't simply declare an end to the war in Afghanistan order the troops to pack up and leave?
We can do anything that is needed for this country. What I think you are referring to is the paralysis that comes with real change. Nobody knows what will happen, but the benefit of doing it now will be better for the country.
I think the biggest thing that needs to be overcome is there are two sides. Those that want America the way that benefits them most, and those that want what is best for all Americans equally. Balancing those two different types of people will take some work but I am sure we can get through it if we just had the will.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Returners
Before I begin, I'm going to make this reply in the expectation that you and I are going to come upon something to actually argue over that addressed my original point. Ideally this would be how you could justify leaving the two foreign conflicts in question as that was the original point of all of this brouhaha.
We drop Korea because that's not really an issue with regard to what we're talking about.
Originally posted by Returners
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG
Repetition and capitalization aren't necessarily going to make your position better.
Taliban won the civil war mostly using peaceful means, they simply massed a large army and one by one every warlord surrendered to the Taliban.
Last time I checked that's called intimidation. How is that a peaceful mean? Amassing a large army and saying "Surrender or be slaughtered" isn't a peaceful strategy at all.
This looks like CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED TO ME
The Taliban's popularity with the Afghan people surprised the country's other warring factions. Many Afghans, weary of conflict and anarchy, were relieved to see corrupt and often brutal warlords replaced by the devout Taliban, who had some success in eliminating corruption, restoring peace, and allowing commerce to resume.
And brutally oppressing the entire ethnic population is a categorically unjust act. Respond with force to the perpetrators, but leave the civilians out of it. The Kurdish militants made a mistake and the civilians paid for it.
Not specifically. They got along well under Saddam for decades. The problems arose when the stability of his regime came into play and people saw an opportunity.
Can you provide evidence to show that the Sunni hate the Shi'a categorically?
Tiny minority? You mean the Shi'a majority in Iraq being repressed by the Sunni minority? Look at that map.
And yes, unjustifiable repression of a minority of any size would make a government illegitimate. Just like the US didn't really have a truly legitimate government until the second half of the 20th century.
Nope. Your examples are once more irrelevant, hyperbolic, and deceptive.
In the USA we have the legal right to redress government either directly or through electoral power. If I feel oppressed because I'm an atheist for a specific reason (let's say the government imposes a tax on those who don't believe in a deity) I can petition the government through a lawsuit that could go to the Supreme Court and strike down the law that I feel is oppressing me and others like it.
The Ghost Dance War was an armed conflict in the United States which occurred between Native Americans and the United States government from 1890 until 1891. It involved the Wounded Knee Massacre wherein the 7th U.S. Cavalry massacred over 300 men, women and children at Wounded Knee on 29 December 1890. It ended when Sioux leader Kicking Bear surrendered on 15 January 1891.
[.ex]
en.wikipedia.org...
Nevertheless, Saddam focused on fostering loyalty to the Ba'athist government in the rural areas. After nationalizing foreign oil interests, Saddam supervised the modernization of the countryside, mechanizing agriculture on a large scale, and distributing land to peasant farmers.[19] The Ba'athists established farm cooperatives, in which profits were distributed according to the labors of the individual and the unskilled were trained. The government also doubled expenditures for agricultural development in 1974–1975. Moreover, agrarian reform in Iraq improved the living standard of the peasantry and increased production.
Well, technically it was because of a specific military strike against the South and illegitimate secession.
How was it illegitimate? nearly 95% of the population in the South did NOT want to be part of the Untied States just like how in Iraq a couple of sunni's didn't want to be part of Iraq so they resorted to terrorism. Saddam sent some troops and killed them off just like what the North did to the South
Didn't the USA mass exterminate Indians and Mexicans?
Yes, and it was horribly wrong.
This is the most blatantly idiotic piece of illogical drivel I've seen posted on here in a while (and I frequent Origins and Creationism)
You're taking selected historical examples and then using it to apply an unsupportable blanket statement to the entire scope of policy positions of a nation.
The USA currently disagrees with quite a few nations, I don't see us killing them.
The legitimacy of a state is in the moment, not in its history.
You are using the argument that Saddam cannot be a legit ruler because he kills his own people
The USA has done it, therefore by your reasoning it cannot be a legit government.
Where did I say that Islam advocates rape?
Now you're just blatantly distorting everything I say.
Saddam used rape as a form of torture, as is it is used in many parts of Africa in conflicts right now. It's wrong.
No but you implied it
My post was that different cultures sees things differently
You replied that rape is unacceptable in any culture
Therefore you implied that rape was acceptable in Islam
I try to refrain from this, but you're either blatantly lying or have a skull thicker than the Presidential bunker.
I never advocated the invasion of any nation, merely the use of USA resources to ensure stability in Iraq and Afghanistan by whatever means are most just, effective, and permanent prior to our withdrawing from those nations
I never said the invasion was just. I actually protested the war in Iraq openly, calling it unnecessary.
I never advocate military solutions unless all other forms of action have failed and a situation is truly desperate.
I honestly think the USA and its interests would have been best serve by basically opening up a dialog with Saddam and saying "You're leaving, your people are getting a better country, help us with the transition" without a military conflict.
No but you are defending the continuation of the Iraq war, and defending it by basically saying that Iraq should adopt Western culture.
I've already accepted that fact, but that doesn't mean that all of those differences are justified. The ritual oppression of women isn't justifiable and should be addressed through diplomatic, cross-cultural, and economic means until it is rectified.
Question for you: Have you ever lived in a different culture?
I have. I'm currently living in a foreign nation that has a radically different culture from the one I grew up with in middle America. It's an eye-opening experience.
Then why attack muslim culture for treating their women differently? Clearly you have not accepted that muslims have a different culture that needs to be respected.
Im not going to bother answering your question since it is irrelevant
1: Genociding isn't a word
2: I'm not advocating genocide, please stop implying that I'm advocating any sort of violent position.
3: That's actually an extreme version of the "white man's burden" it was really a horrible thing in any form, but the primary focus of it was to share the superior advancements of the 'white man' to the 'primitive savages'. They didn't even realize that the foreigners had intricate culture in most cases.
4: Systematic oppression isn't cultural, it's political.
You are advocating prolonging the Iraq war, and justifying it by using female oppression as an excuse
You're such a blowhard. I never said Muslims do it, I specifically referred to Saddam's regime.
Still waiting on your evidence
Where the hell did I say anything about communism making things worse? I said the majority of violent revolutions have caused more problems than they solved.
You're pulling things out of your rectum at this point.
My point was that violent revolution doesn't help things, it just makes them worse in many cases. Sure, all things eventually balance out once stability is achieved, but the best sorts of changes are those that don't require violence.
Is the USA invading a third world country, toppling their beloved leader, creating a government that is so unpopular and hated that 93,000 people have died fighting it for 10+ onwards a government that is so unpopular that it would collapse in several months if the USA completely pulls out.
My position is that we unfortunately did that. We do now have a responsibility to do our best to fix what we broke. We have a responsibility to help Afghanistan and Iraq form stable governments that are supported by the populace, whether through direct democracy, representative democracy, constitutional monarchy, oligarchy, etc is there decision, so long as it does well enough to protect the people and ensure their rights and security.
You seem to be constantly deflecting. I pointed out that Ron Paul's ideas are idiotic because leaving Afghanistan and Iraq would be an unconscionable act. You are telling me that equates to me believing that we can invade any country we want and install democracy. I don't believe that one bit. I just think we need to fix our mistakes.
Again you are avoiding the main assertation
The people are fighting because they distrust the USA, the muslims are not stupid they understand the quote
'It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes'
You expect people to put faith in a government that bans the Taliban from running and the elections and vote counting are overseen by USA officials and the only parties that are allowed to run are the ones endorsed by the USA.
Well, it looks like you sur- oh wait, you completely ignored the fact that I entirely called you out on constructing a straw man of me and mis-attributing the horrible position that unprovoked invasion is justified to me.
You know what? I agree. The USA should open up the elections in both nations and allow the UN to oversee them to prevent irregularities.
Oh, and this still says absolutely nothing about the ridiculous position that we should simply withdraw from Afghanistan.
Hey look, your arguments have been improving. You've gone from lying about what I said to to being childish about what I say.
I'm going to ignore the rest. I already said that it's off point. Feel free to open another thread up and I'll discuss it there.
We're supposed to be talking about US policy towards Afghanistan and Iraq.
So tell me, how the hell can you justify withdrawing from that conflict?
And just to be clear, because it seems that you enjoy repetition:
Not supporting immediately withdrawing doesn't mean you supported the initial invasion
Not supporting immediately withdrawing doesn't mean you supported the initial invasion
Not supporting immediately withdrawing doesn't mean you supported the initial invasion
Not supporting immediately withdrawing doesn't mean you supported the initial invasion
Not supporting immediately withdrawing doesn't mean you supported the initial invasion
Got it?
Originally posted by Returners
Where is your evidence that majority of Afghani's hate the Taliban?
Eighty-one percent of Afghans said they think that al-Qaeda is having a negative influence in the world with just 6% saying that it is having a positive influence. An even higher percentage—90%—said they have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 75% saying they have a very unfavorable view. Just 5% said they have a favorable view (2% very favorable). These levels were slightly lower in the country’s war zone, the eastern and south-central part of the country: three in five (60%) in those areas had a very unfavorable view of bin Laden.
The fundamentalist Taliban that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until it was overthrown with the help of US forces in October 2001 received equally poor ratings. Eighty-eight percent said they have an unfavorable view of the Taliban (62% very unfavorable). Only 8% said they have a favorable view. In the war zone, a lesser 47% described their view of the Taliban as “very unfavorable,” but 81% were unfavorable nonetheless.
I have brought up plenty of evidence showing how loved the Taliban were in Afghanistan. Again the Taliban were HEAVILY OUTNUMBERED, The Taliban could probably take down 1 or two warlords, but 32 of them at once would have been impossible.
The Taliban's popularity with the Afghan people surprised the country's other warring factions. Many Afghans, weary of conflict and anarchy, were relieved to see corrupt and often brutal warlords replaced by the devout Taliban, who had some success in eliminating corruption, restoring peace, and allowing commerce to resume.
The USA and Russia both did this many times, with the USA mass massacring women and children in the Native American genocide,
Vietnam war,
Iraq + Afghanistan, Chechenya etc... according to you the USA and Russia are not legitimate governments.
Wow you must really be a ignorant American.
Bombs have been going off in muslim countries every other week for almost 50 years now. How somebody to this day does not realize that Sunni's hate Shi'as is shocking.
en.wikipedia.org...
Again see the USA with all of its race riots, and mass disparities between different races. According to you the USA is not a legitimate government.
Yeah sure the Native Americans sure had that right,
plenty of people could petition Saddam for things in fact Saddam modernized the agriculture of Iraq after Iraqis petitioned
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
Nevertheless, Saddam focused on fostering loyalty to the Ba'athist government in the rural areas. After nationalizing foreign oil interests, Saddam supervised the modernization of the countryside, mechanizing agriculture on a large scale, and distributing land to peasant farmers.[19] The Ba'athists established farm cooperatives, in which profits were distributed according to the labors of the individual and the unskilled were trained. The government also doubled expenditures for agricultural development in 1974–1975. Moreover, agrarian reform in Iraq improved the living standard of the peasantry and increased production.
How was it illegitimate? nearly 95% of the population in the South did NOT want to be part of the Untied States just like how in Iraq a couple of sunni's didn't want to be part of Iraq so they resorted to terrorism. Saddam sent some troops and killed them off just like what the North did to the South
Didn't the USA mass exterminate Indians and Mexicans?
Yes, and it was horribly wrong.
You are using the argument that Saddam cannot be a legit ruler because he kills his own people
The USA has done it, therefore by your reasoning it cannot be a legit government.
No but you implied it
My post was that different cultures sees things differently
You replied that rape is unacceptable in any culture
Therefore you implied that rape was acceptable in Islam
No but you are defending the continuation of the Iraq war, and defending it by basically saying that Iraq should adopt Western culture.
Then why attack muslim culture for treating their women differently? Clearly you have not accepted that muslims have a different culture that needs to be respected.
Im not going to bother answering your question since it is irrelevant
You are advocating prolonging the Iraq war, and justifying it by using female oppression as an excuse
Still waiting on your evidence
Other methods of physical torture described by former victims include the use of Falaqa(beating on the soles of the feet), extinguishing of cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of finger nails and toenails and piercing of the hands with an electric drill. Some have been sexually abused and others have had objects, including broken bottles, forced into their anus. In addition to physical torture, detainees have been threatened with rape and subjected to mock execution. They have been placed in cells where they could hear the screams of others being tortured and have been deprived of sleep. Some have stayed in solitary confinement for long periods of time. Detainees have also been threatened with bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee. Some of these threats have been carried out.
Is the USA invading a third world country, toppling their beloved leader, creating a government that is so unpopular and hated that 93,000 people have died fighting it for 10+ onwards a government that is so unpopular that it would collapse in several months if the USA completely pulls out.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
My position is that we unfortunately did that. We do now have a responsibility to do our best to fix what we broke. We have a responsibility to help Afghanistan and Iraq form stable governments that are supported by the populace, whether through direct democracy, representative democracy, constitutional monarchy, oligarchy, etc is there decision, so long as it does well enough to protect the people and ensure their rights and security.
You seem to be constantly deflecting. I pointed out that Ron Paul's ideas are idiotic because leaving Afghanistan and Iraq would be an unconscionable act. You are telling me that equates to me believing that we can invade any country we want and install democracy. I don't believe that one bit. I just think we need to fix our mistakes.
Again you are avoiding the main assertation
The people are fighting because they distrust the USA, the muslims are not stupid they understand the quote
'It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes'
You expect people to put faith in a government that bans the Taliban from running and the elections and vote counting are overseen by USA officials and the only parties that are allowed to run are the ones endorsed by the USA.
Well, it looks like you sur- oh wait, you completely ignored the fact that I entirely called you out on constructing a straw man of me and mis-attributing the horrible position that unprovoked invasion is justified to me.
You know what? I agree. The USA should open up the elections in both nations and allow the UN to oversee them to prevent irregularities.
Oh, and this still says absolutely nothing about the ridiculous position that we should simply withdraw from Afghanistan.
Again as long as the USA stays in Afghanistan and messes around with elections the more fighting will continue. The only way fighting will ever stop is when the USA and USA cronies aren't the ones counting the votes, banning political parties etc...
You said you want people to stop dying, people will stop dying the minute the USA pulls out and the Taliban retake the country.
Hey look, your arguments have been improving. You've gone from lying about what I said to to being childish about what I say.
I'm going to ignore the rest. I already said that it's off point. Feel free to open another thread up and I'll discuss it there.
We're supposed to be talking about US policy towards Afghanistan and Iraq.
So tell me, how the hell can you justify withdrawing from that conflict?
And just to be clear, because it seems that you enjoy repetition:
Not supporting immediately withdrawing doesn't mean you supported the initial invasion
Not supporting immediately withdrawing doesn't mean you supported the initial invasion
Not supporting immediately withdrawing doesn't mean you supported the initial invasion
Not supporting immediately withdrawing doesn't mean you supported the initial invasion
Not supporting immediately withdrawing doesn't mean you supported the initial invasion
Got it?
Do this entire forum a favor and don't talk about muslims or North korea without doing basic research.
Originally posted by babybunnies
Ron Paul is usually right