Ron Paul's Opinion on Obama

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?

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

en.wikipedia.org...

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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?

en.wikipedia.org...

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

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.

www.mrc.org...

"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.

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

So your basic gist is that North Koreans can't overthrow their government because of military and because they are kept ignorant.

First im going to counter your ignorance argument, thousands of North koreans go to other countries to do their studies.

chosonexchange.org...
www.facebook.com...

This is the North Korean study abroad program

csis.org...

Statistics suggest that less than 1,000 North Korean students study in China.

There are also thousands of North koreans in japan who are FIERCELY LOYAL to Kim Jong despite having been BORN in Japan and lived thier entire lives in Japan

www.youtube.com...

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.

www.judyhan.com...

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.

Second the people in the military are drawn from the population of the people, the footsoldiers that make up the brunt of the army are the sons of the general population. Therefore the represent the will of the people.

WHY DID THE TSAR GET BUTCHERED? WHY DID THE KING OF FRANCE GET BUTCHERED?

because when the peasants came knocking at the palace, guess what happened? The soldiers refused to fire because they had no loyalty to the king.

If a high percentage of the population of North korea truly did despise Kim Jong the same thing should have happened long ago.

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

No, that's "Oh poop, I'm going to get killed if I disagree".

That's like saying a woman wasn't 'raped' because she consented at gunpoint.

You act like these kurds did nothing wrong, the kurds started an insurgency because they wanted to break away from Iraq and join Iran

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.

This is common in EVERY middle eastern country, Sunni's hate Shi'a

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Wait, didn't the USA start killing the southern states because of the states rights vs federal rights debate?

Well, technically it was because of a specific military strike against the South and illegitimate secession.

Didn't the USA mass exterminate Indians and Mexicans?

Yes, and it was horribly wrong.

According to you the USA is illegitimate since they kill people who disagree with them

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 don't seem to know anything about Islam, Islam does not advocate rape.

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.

Again you are advocating the invasion of all muslim countries just because they have different laws for women.

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.

You need to accept the fact that other cultures are different.

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.

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.

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.

And where is your source that muslims torture women by raping them?

You're such a blowhard. I never said Muslims do it, I specifically referred to Saddam's regime.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

Tsarist Russia, North korea .... blah blah blah

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?

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.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

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?

Well, let's see...

Bank bailouts are providing money to failed institutions (honestly, I can go into more detail but that's not the point of the argument)

Withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan means the crumbling of what little order there is in those nations, leaving us to do nothing while the mess we made gets worse. We'd be washing our hands of something we were the entire cause of.

It's not that we can't do it, it's the we would suffer major blow back, lose all respect of the world, provide our enemies with an existential and concrete win against the 'great satan', and leave millions of civilians in the way of further harm that we caused.

We have a responsibility to restablize what we destablized.

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.

How so? Please, show your work.

I have no problem with real change. I've wanted the US to have a proper medical system for years, I think since I was around 11 and realized that my Aunt in Canada didn't have to pay as much for her open heart surgery as my mother had to pay for the various tests and treatments to understand the root causes of my migraines.

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.

But what does that have to do with withdrawing from the Middle East conflicts?

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

Where is your evidence that majority of Afghani's hate the Taliban? 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.

www.infoplease.com...

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.

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

Avoidance much? I am pointing out your ignorance about North Korea, i flawlessly shot down your claims that Kim jong was hated and that the North koreans don't rebel because they are kept ignorant.

Do this entire forum a favor and don't talk about muslims or North korea without doing basic research.

reply to post by Returners


your points for complete withdrawal are valid. But you dont seem to factor in the potential blowback if we merely disengage. The people who pull the strings of the CIA have been meddling in the mid east for decades now, at least. Any sort of unilateral withdrawal from one administration would merely engender the people pulling those strings to prove how destructive their operatives can be.

I strongly suspect that anyone in the office of president would be keenly aware of all the actual repercussions of such actions, and would know that for a withdrawal to be truly worth-while it might need to be a little more thought-out than immediate withdrawal. Thinking things could be this simple, and no acknowledging even the existence of all the myriad repercussions is obviously a luxury of the pundit and the opinionated layman.

Originally posted by Returners
Where is your evidence that majority of Afghani's hate the Taliban?

Well, I was using general consensus, but here's some specific data:
Source

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.

That's their view of al-Qaeda, the group the Taliban are in bed with.

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.

Emphasis mine.

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.

Except that they didn't take down 32 at once. They took down one at a time until they hit 32. That's actually quite easy to do and involves gathering resources from defeated warlords.

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.

Yes, the Taliban were better than the warlords. How does that make them a legitimate government?

And how does this justify the torrent of violence that will occur if we leave?

The USA and Russia both did this many times, with the USA mass massacring women and children in the Native American genocide,

Which I already pointed out was a period in history where America could have been considered illegitimate.

Vietnam war,

That was a foreign conflict, though it could be argued that the period in history could be viewed as one in which we had an illegitimate government.

Iraq + Afghanistan, Chechenya etc... according to you the USA and Russia are not legitimate governments.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the American government doesn't have a blanket policy of 'kill em all and let god sort them out', so that's more of an issue of problems in the field that policy, so it doesn't question the legitimacy.

I never claimed the Russian state was legitimate or illegitimate and it isn't even what we're talking about. Stop trying to make this thread go off-topic.

And I've already addressed the fact that historical illegitimacy doesn't translate to modern illegitimacy.

Stop repeating yourself.

Wow you must really be a ignorant American.

Nope, I'm quite well read and well informed. I asked for evidence of categorical hatred, I know that there has been religious strife between the two groups.

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...

I asked for evidence of categorical hatred, not evidence that there have been strained relations and all you provide is a wiki link?

All it shows is that an impoverished, unstable region has a lot of religious conflict between two groups vying for more control.

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.

When was the last time we had a race riot? When was the last time we put a law into affect that caused disparity between races.

You seem to not be listening, historical illegitimacy doesn't immediately make the modern government illegitimate.

And throughout that whole time we still had a legal system that allowed for redress of government.

When was the last time a major western nation elected a racial minority as their executive representative? Of course, 2008. Germany, France, Italy, England, Canada, Spain, etc don't have a racial minority as their 'leader' and yet we do.

With all our problems, there is room of redress and growth within our governing documents.

Yeah sure the Native Americans sure had that right,

Historical examples again? I already stated many times over: Historical illegitimacy doesn't lead to modern illegitimacy. I'll repeat after every response to a quote now.

plenty of people could petition Saddam for things in fact Saddam modernized the agriculture of Iraq after Iraqis petitioned

But they couldn't petition him to allow for free elections.

en.wikipedia.org...

A sad point in the bloody history of America in which we had an illegitimate regime.

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 does this count as 'redress of government'? There's no mention of petition, only Saddam's unilateral action.

And again, improving things doesn't legitimize a government.

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

95% of the Southern population? Wow, I didn't know you had magical access to statistical information that was unavailable at the time or to historical scholars.

It was Illegitimate succession because the senators and congressmen (they were most definitely men back then) failed in legal redress and then left like small children who didn't get their way. And then they initiated military action. That last bit definitely makes it illegal secession. Of course, there's also the fact that the southern regime wasn't legitimate...but...

Well, once more you're forcing things off topic.

The topic at hand is how we could possibly justify immediately withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Didn't the USA mass exterminate Indians and Mexicans?

Yes, and it was horribly wrong.

Now you're taking my own words without quoting them?

You are using the argument that Saddam cannot be a legit ruler because he kills his own people

He was killing his own people at the time we invaded.

The USA has done it, therefore by your reasoning it cannot be a legit government.

Yes, and we stopped it decades ago. The people who were in power when we actively killed and oppressed our own people aren't in government anymore.

No but you implied it

No, I didn't. I was specifically pointing things out as something Saddam used.

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

What? Ok, you clearly don't understand logical syllogisms.

I said that rape is unacceptable in any culture as well as saying slavery was unacceptable in any culture. I pointed that out as an example that cultural differences need not be defended at the expense of human rights.

I never specifically pointed to Islam as supporting either slavery or rape.

I did point out that Saddam used 'rape rooms' as a means of enforcement.
I did point out that women were essentially slaves under the Taliban.

Stop turning me into a straw man to further your positions and besmirch my own.

No but you are defending the continuation of the Iraq war, and defending it by basically saying that Iraq should adopt Western culture.

Oh dear sweet Flying Spaghetti Monster in the sky, please touch me with your noodly appendage so I may refrain from a loss of sanity in the face of striking ignorance!

I never stated that Iraq should adopt Western culture, I stated that the USA should remain in Iraq until a form of legitimate stability occurs. They should use whatever means are most effective (ideally non-military) to ensure this.
The same should happen in Afghanistan


I've said that several times by now.

Stop putting words in my mouth. If you think I actually said it, point out where I stated it. You have that advantage of text conversations where you can actually go back and quote specifics for all to see.

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.

It's not 'Muslim culture' to prevent women from being educated. It isn't 'Muslim culture' to ritually oppress them and treat them as slaves. Jordan doesn't do it. Lebanon doesn't do it. Pakistan doesn't do it. Iran doesn't even do it.

And again, different cultures need to be accepted to a point. Cultures do not deserve to be respected if they oppress and specific group.

Protecting the rights of individuals is more important than protecting a culture that opposes them.

Of course, we should use peaceful means to earn those people their rights.

Im not going to bother answering your question since it is irrelevant

Wow, that's a barrel of laughs coming from you. It is actually a relevant question

You are advocating prolonging the Iraq war, and justifying it by using female oppression as an excuse

What? Now you're remixing my arguments. Please show where I stated this, because I sure as hell can't see it.

My reasoning for prolonging the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we have yet to pick up the pieces and fix what we've broken. We need to have both nations arrive at a point of stability before we can withdraw

Still waiting on your evidence

Of rape rooms? You actually need me to provide evidence of something that is so overwhelmingly known? And how are you 'still waiting on evidence' when you never asked for it?

Still waiting on it implies you disagreed with the point that Saddam used rape as a torture method at some point, up till now you haven't disagreed with the point.

Well, is an Amnesty International report good enough for you?

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.

Did I say that was a good thing? Ever? We're not talking about justification for wars, we're talking about justification for prolonging the conflict now that it's already happened.

This is the problem with people who support Ron Paul, they're too concerned with what has already happened and not concerned with moving forward unless it's in irresponsibly broad actions that could make things worse.

How can you justify leaving Iraq and Afghanistan now when all that would result is further destabilization of both the nations and the region.

Now to a massive portion of my text you quoted without even addressing it, which isn't surprising.

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...

Oh holy monkeys, you just ignored what I said again. I just said: Turn the elections over to the UN.
The USA can stay there to provide general security and humanitarian services while that happens.

You said you want people to stop dying, people will stop dying the minute the USA pulls out and the Taliban retake the country.

And then women will be systematically oppressed by a brutal and illegal regime. People won't stop dying, we'll just stop killing them. It's not the Taliban will simply say "OK, the USA is out, now let's all hold hands and sing"
Reprisal killings, the actual conflict that will lead to the Taliban retaking control, and quite a few other consequences will follow.

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?

Avoidance much? I am pointing out your ignorance about North Korea, i flawlessly shot down your claims that Kim jong was hated and that the North koreans don't rebel because they are kept ignorant.


I'm not going to keep discussing it because you're being a small child and ignoring the fact that it is entirely off topic to discuss it. I'm not ceding anything, you didn't prove your point and there are massive holes in your arguments. If you want to discuss it further, we can do it in another thread. This is not the thread for it as it is entirely off topic and you are ignoring the issues at hand:

How can we justify leaving Iraq and Afghanistan?

Do this entire forum a favor and don't talk about muslims or North korea without doing basic research.

Do this entire forum a favor and don't talk until you understand basic reasoning, intellectual honesty, and what the concept of 'off topic' means.

I'm thoroughly more qualified to talk about Islam and Muslims than you are, I actually have friends that are Muslim and I've read through the Qu'ran. I can more or less understand spoken Arabic if spoken slowly thanks to my Maltese origins (Maltese is often considered a dialect of Arabic) and can actually understand the Qu'ran in its original language when read out to me.

Don't speak of ignorance when you yourself are being ignorant.

And don't speak of not talking when you are the one that must remain silent.



Now address the issue at hand or leave:
How can you justify leaving Iraq and Afghanistan to further internal strife and conflict by dropping the ball on problems we started?

reply to post by SeventhSeal


I'm perplexed about this (yet, again, another comparison of Obama to George Bush) complaining about the economy.

Me and my friends lived pretty dang good during the Bush years. With Obama, we made some adjustments to this socialism thing, and we're still doing pretty good.

That's because Capitalists know how to adapt. Socialists know how to stand in line.

Wait? Was someone expecting an apology for having living good? Gee, another disappointment for socialists.

Ron Paul is usually right, but the alternative to Obama of McCain/Palin would have been a nightmare for America.

The very scary version of 2012 election is that Sarah Palin WILL run for President. Being that the election is generally only about name brand recognition rather than policies, and being that people will generally just vote for whatever party they usually do regardless of who's running or their policies, she would probably win based solely on name recognition.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


This is in reply to most of your posts.

Your ideals and your heart are definitely in the right place. Take responsibility for actions, good or bad, and leave no mistakes un fixed.

The problem with this is...the only country in the world that CAN NOT fix these mistakes is the USA. The unfortunate truth of the matter is, the trust has been broken. To the people of those countries, any "fixes" the US may have (or try) will automatically be suspect. You can't fix the "hearts" after the way they were broken.

In that regard, the best thing the US could do IS pullout. But don't drop and run. Admit, publiclly and globaly, that the mistake was made and that it can't be fixed. Ask the rest of the world to help right the situation and have the coalition FOOT THE BILL (this includes all the countries that "helped" in these operations).

It would help stabalize the situation and help rebuild relationships capable of preventing this from happening again.

reply to post by babybunnies

Originally posted by babybunnies
Ron Paul is usually right

With regard to that statement, I'd like to see you over here

reply to post by peck420


I agree that it could be useful to possibly pull our military out slowly, but I think there are plenty of ways to regain trust. Help rebuild and improve infrastructure, turn everything into a humanitarian mission. Publicly apologize. But there isn't any way to get out of there without it crumbling. There aren't any other major military presences in the other two countries now except for PMCs.