24 replies to this topic

[Cossack]

I am currently reading a book called "A thousand splendid suns" by Khaled Hosseini, the renound Afghani author of "The Kite Runner" which is now being turned into a motion picture.

The book is a story about a series of people (mainly two women) who lived in Afghanistan from the early monarchy, to the republic, to the soviet occupation, to the short reign of the Mujahideen, to the Taliban and finally to the NATO led occupation.

Not that I take the views expressed in this book as gospel, but it has really opened my eyes.

First of all, i would like to say I am generally an anti-american leftist and am proud of it, but I feel I have been somewhat brainwashed by the leftist dogma of "anti-war" without really looking at it from my own perspective.

You know what I have realized? The middle east and other less forntunate areas of the world need foreign intervention. Iraq should have been attacked minute Saddam Huseein invaded Iran without provocation, and Afghanistn should have been attacked the moment the Taliban took over.

The Taliban were outright insane, with there strict enforcement of Shari'a law, they oppressed and took away the basic human rights of millions of innocent people....public stoning, torture, shootings, severe beatings and decapitations for the most idiotic reasons imaginable. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on hundreds of thousands of Iranians who were simply defending their country against an unprovoked attack, not to mention the numerous accounts of torture within his regime.

I am no way defending the USA. They supported these bloodthirsty savages in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan until it suited their own interests to go against them.

What I am saying is that war for the right reasons is not bad. The Taliban needed to be taken out, Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out. It is our responsibility as civilised nations to ensure that human rights are guaranteed to every single person on this planet. It is our responsibility to fight fight the forces of oppression and tyranny wherever they may be.

However, not a single country on this planet has lived up these responsibilities. Where were we when the Taliban took over and enforced their Shari'a law? Where were we when Saddam gassed millions of innocent people? And where are we now when genocide is occuring in Darfur?

Why did we have to wait until it suited our greedy needs to liberate the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Why did we support these forces of tyranny for decades, knowing that we were doing the wrong thing. Western nations are immesley selfish. It does not matter whether we are doing the right thing or the wrong thing, as long as it is in our benfit.

How about we start acting like good humanists and do what is right whether it benifits us or not. How about we base our wars or morals and not money.

I think this pretty well sums up my opinion: "With great power comes great responsibilty". We western nations are the most powerful on the world, we are the ones who can actually change things. How about we stop doing only what is good for ourselves and do waht is good for mankind.

I support military intervention in situations like Iraq and Afghanistan! We just went about doing in the absolute worst way possible!

The world needs a superpower that is truly on the "good" side. The USSR wasn't it, the USA is DEFFINATELY not it, and I have little hope for China....maybe we are doomed to a destiny of irresponsible governance of this planet.....

[Soul]

That has made quite a bit of sense.

[narboza22]

Why did the west support those people? Simply, at the time, communism was the greater evil. What you are saying sounds good when you say all of that out of context, but you have to look at the bigger picture. The world is not an ideological paradise where countries have the ability to see the future and therefore always chose the best course of action for the long term good of humanity.

[Cossack]

How can you even think of justifyng Amerca's support for these tyrants because "communism was the greater evil".

Under the soviet occupation women and the lower class actually had accessible health care and education. How can you possibly think that the shit the Taliban put Afghanistan through was a lesser evel than communism. The americans knew this in the 1980's as well as I do now.

The american support of the Mujahideen in afghanistan is a perfect example of irresponsible intervention.

[CodeCat]

An enemy of an enemy is quite possibly your enemy, as well. There is no 'lesser of two evils' if both sides are evil.

[narboza22]

How can you even think of justifyng Amerca's support for these tyrants because "communism was the greater evil".

Under the soviet occupation women and the lower class actually had accessible health care and education. How can you possibly think that the shit the Taliban put Afghanistan through was a lesser evel than communism. The americans knew this in the 1980's as well as I do now.

The american support of the Mujahideen in afghanistan is a perfect example of irresponsible intervention.

You have a very interesting perspective on life if you think that being under Soviet rule was a good thing. But that's beside the point. From the Western perspective, communism was the enemy, and US policy was to fight it whenever possible. Again, you're missing the bigger picture. It was not just fighting communism in Afghanistan, it was fighting communism all over the world.

[Ash]

I don't think he's professing that being under Soviet rule was a good thing. Just that it was better than being under Taliban rule.

That's a theory I would quite readily subscribe to.


And yes, America was fighting communism worldwide. Why? It wasn't communism that endangered America. It was the possibility the USSR might throw nukes its way. That was nothing to do with political ideology, just pure morbid fear.

[Sigmar]

Yes, i do have to agree with you there. western nations are really all thats left to liberate the east from communism and corrupted governments.

Edited by Sigmar, 16 November 2007 - 03:28 PM.

[narboza22]

And yes, America was fighting communism worldwide. Why? It wasn't communism that endangered America. It was the possibility the USSR might throw nukes its way. That was nothing to do with political ideology, just pure morbid fear.

That makes absolutely no sense. How would hindering Soviet expansion ease tensions between the USSR and US and make a nuclear exchange less likely? The US fought communism because of the Truman Doctrine. That was a policy based purely on political and economic reasons.

[Hostile]

I moved this to the article section because, well it deserves it. So much information here it's hard to know where to start. So I'll start at the beginning.

First of all, i would like to say I am generally an anti-american leftist and am proud of it, but I feel I have been somewhat brainwashed by the leftist dogma of "anti-war" without really looking at it from my own perspective.

I'm not sure why you are anti-american, unless you mean anti-US government policy. Than I might understand. I'm not really anti-any nation. I'm anti-some idealogies. I believe all nations common folk are good people by nature.

You know what I have realized? The middle east and other less forntunate areas of the world need foreign intervention. Iraq should have been attacked minute Saddam Huseein invaded Iran without provocation, and Afghanistn should have been attacked the moment the Taliban took over.

Some around the world agree with you. But give Europe a call and you'll get an answering machine, because they are on holidays and can't be bothered at the moment.

The Taliban were outright insane, with there strict enforcement of Shari'a law, they oppressed and took away the basic human rights of millions of innocent people....public stoning, torture, shootings, severe beatings and decapitations for the most idiotic reasons imaginable. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on hundreds of thousands of Iranians who were simply defending their country against an unprovoked attack, not to mention the numerous accounts of torture within his regime.

My goodness how we can come from two ends of the spectrum and totally see eye to eye on some things.

What I am saying is that war for the right reasons is not bad. The Taliban needed to be taken out, Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out. It is our responsibility as civilised nations to ensure that human rights are guaranteed to every single person on this planet. It is our responsibility to fight fight the forces of oppression and tyranny wherever they may be.

The common sense overflows like a Roman wine cup. Read this passage thrice. It nails it right on the head.

However, not a single country on this planet has lived up these responsibilities. Where were we when the Taliban took over and enforced their Shari'a law? Where were we when Saddam gassed millions of innocent people? And where are we now when genocide is occuring in Darfur?

Why did we have to wait until it suited our greedy needs to liberate the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Why did we support these forces of tyranny for decades, knowing that we were doing the wrong thing. Western nations are immesley selfish. It does not matter whether we are doing the right thing or the wrong thing, as long as it is in our benfit.

This man is on a roll. Read the bold part and ask one US politian to answer it. Why the hell do we support dictators? It's hypocritical.

I support military intervention in situations like Iraq and Afghanistan! We just went about doing in the absolute worst way possible!

Bingo, on the money once again.

The world needs a superpower that is truly on the "good" side. The USSR wasn't it, the USA is DEFFINATELY not it, and I have little hope for China....maybe we are doomed to a destiny of irresponsible governance of this planet.....

Bad news is, the USA is about as close as you're gonna get. Not that the rest of the world doesn't care. They either choose to lay dorment hoping tyranny doesn't come thier way, or they "squeek" they're protests hoping to appease the US when they are actually scared shitless if the US wasn't there to protect them.

Or they are Russia and China, and who's gonna fuck with them? Not even the US.

How can you even think of justifyng Amerca's support for these tyrants because "communism was the greater evil".

Under the soviet occupation women and the lower class actually had accessible health care and education. How can you possibly think that the shit the Taliban put Afghanistan through was a lesser evel than communism. The americans knew this in the 1980's as well as I do now.

The american support of the Mujahideen in afghanistan is a perfect example of irresponsible intervention

I'll attempt to answer...I lived in the cold war era. It's wasn't communism we were actually fighting. It was an empire building Soviet Union that scared the world. Why exactly did Russia invade Afghanistan?
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/11512
http://www.marxist.c...afghan1980.html
http://www.globalsec...cs-invasion.htm

IMO I believe the US screwed up because they thought once you defeat the facists version of Soviet communism that everything would be sunny days. Boy were we wrong...

You have a very interesting perspective on life if you think that being under Soviet rule was a good thing. ~Narboza

Do you even know? I'm sure the both are of you are too young to remember. I was in Russia is 1990 after the fall of communism. Thier shelves were bare, we were not even allowed to cash in more than $25 worth of US currency to rubles. Because of it's buying power. We were not allowed to buy electronics over there because it was so dirt cheap because of government set prices. It was a freaking economical mess.

And yes, America was fighting communism worldwide. Why? It wasn't communism that endangered America. It was the possibility the USSR might throw nukes its way. That was nothing to do with political ideology, just pure morbid fear. ~Paradox

I could not agree more with this statement. This is 100% true IMO.

That makes absolutely no sense. How would hindering Soviet expansion ease tensions between the USSR and US and make a nuclear exchange less likely? The US fought communism because of the Truman Doctrine. That was a policy based purely on political and economic reasons.

We weren't trully fighting communism. People know by nature that communism is stupid and counter productive (if you have a brain at least). We were fighting Soviets aire of influnce. Do you really think the US cares about if a nation is communist or not? We tolerate china as well as Venezuela.

In summary: the US is as hypocritical as any other nation out there. The difference is we actually step up to the plate and take care of business, sometimes unilaterally. Something I don't see other nations doing. Especially Europe. They need to get off thier asses and back up thier doctrines with force.

The era of backing dictators because it suits our cause is over. Enough of this BS hypocrisy crap. Either you're for democracy or at least human rights or you are not. This "enemy of my enemy is a friend crap needs to stop"

Saudi Arabia, that means you! Cutting off people heads and shit just because they're gay. Idiots and not worth allowing them to live like kings in a world where the common folk are hungry.

[narboza22]

You have a very interesting perspective on life if you think that being under Soviet rule was a good thing. ~Narboza

Do you even know? I'm sure the both are of you are too young to remember. I was in Russia is 1990 after the fall of communism. Thier shelves were bare, we were not even allowed to cash in more than $25 worth of US currency to rubles. Because of it's buying power. We were not allowed to buy electronics over there because it was so dirt cheap because of government set prices. It was a freaking economical mess.

I was basing my statement on what my dad told me, who did business in Moscow while it was still the Soviet capital. From what he described, life would be hard pressed to get crappier than how it was in the USSR.


edited to fix quote

Edited by narboza22, 17 November 2007 - 04:21 AM.

[duke_Qa]

interesting thread. really shows off that there is not really any left or right in politics. also shows that politics is all about power and resources, not to make life as good as possible for as many as possible, but for yourselves.

the world works by a wheel of war it would seem. first someone takes control over a country, makes alot of money on squeezing its population. then someone gets tired and redistribute those wealths among the new owners. king of the hill for as long as humanity exists.

we should fight the anti-democratic nations around the world, but we cannot allow our own democracies to die on the road there. Democracy is a fragile thing, a candle on a ship in the middle of an ocean. and there will always be storms. to allow the storms to put it out would be sad, to burn the ship to keep the fire alive would be worse.

[Sigmar]

Yes, it would be a sad day if the democracy we know today, might become a thing of the past if war consumes a democratic country. but its up to the people of that nation that make democracy strong and alive, and that is the US, or any other country were to free a nation under a communist party, a military dictatorship or a corrupted monarchy, it would be up to the poor souls of that nation to help the invasion of any sort if they were to be liberated.

[Ash]

Spence made an interesting point to me on MSN about this.

All that'll happen is that the USA will keep stomping around with its idea of "Freedom" (because these people freely chose to be invaded by the US, and have US ideologies freely forced upon them) until, eventually, the US realises that it, itself, has become the very thing it sought to destroy.

[narboza22]

I think South Koreans, Haitians, Kuwaitis, and people in Kosovo would disagree with you.

[Ash]

And by the looks of things the Iraqis and Afghans would agree...

I grant you the regimes they lived under were horrible, but all this wonderful freedom they were promised just sort of hasn't materialised.

[Elerium]

Because they're still in a warzone..

It takes time to clear these things..

[Hostile]

And by the looks of things the Iraqis and Afghans would agree...

I grant you the regimes they lived under were horrible, but all this wonderful freedom they were promised just sort of hasn't materialised.

I think this is an unfair generalization. Most people in Iraq are not angry at the US and want them to leave or else. Honestly if that was true there would be large gatherings and protests like in Pakistan. There is alot of death and hardship. But it's not easy to fix things in Iraq.

They are building power plants and sorting things out. There is even a city that was written off as an Al Qaeda headquarters and with some US support, the locals cleaned it up on thier own. No more terrorists.


http://www.topix.com/iq/baghdad
http://www.blackanth...aeda10275.shtml
Some former Al Qaeda are rebeling agsint them...
http://www.timesonli...icle2121006.ece

In afghanistan there are Taliban not insurgents, and we all know what the taliban are.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21816221/ Taliban kills a student for teaching others english.

See Iraqis and Afghans would not agree with you. Some Iraq insurgents might. But alot of those insurgents are sunnis fighting the shiite majority goverment.

This is an important and heart wrenching view of the Iraqis fighting AL Qaeda and what Al Qaeda is doing to the Iraqi people. Please read at least most of it.
http://www.michaelyo...nd-children.htm

Let's make sure we keep a realistic view of what's going on there and enough with the American flag burning without proper research party.

[Sigmar]

I agree with the others. reformation takes time. look back that the US was not perfect. it had certin human rights issues that took years to resolve.

You just need to have patience. it will take a while for iraq to be a fully developed democracy.

[MSpencer]

For the most part, we all live in democracies. That's quite a privilege, it means we can sit here, and in the abstract, claim that we can fix the universe. It's really a wonderful thing.

There are, unfortunately, dictatorships all over the world. Democracies, while being ultimately a more enlightened form of rule, are in no sense of the word perfect. Imposing your democracy on another is no different than imposing your autocracy on another. It is the sovereign right of the people within a country to self-determine their own form of government. Yes, it is true that dictatorships do not often allow their people to choose who will run the government, but intervening with military force is not the answer.
Democracies are fragile things. Hyperinterventionist democracies do not exist for a reason. At a certain point, you forfeit your democracy as your decisions become less mainstream, especially with regards to war. Nobody wants war, especially in third world countries, in order to bring others freedom which they may or may not want, or which may or may not be misconstrued as an occupation. Indeed, most interventionist wars, if not all that I can recall, ended in an occupation.

Yes, you can go ahead and start interventionist wars, but ultimately, millions of people will die and democracy will be extinguished. Wars are dangerous, destructive, and expensive. Entire economies would collapse under the weight of continued military operations (Such as the United States after their bout in Iraq). Thousands of unintended targets, such as Iraqi civilians, would perish. It doesn't matter if it's the United States, France, Germany, Russia, China, or Egypt performing these military operations; financial burden is self-evident and friendly fire and problems with target acquisition are just the unfortunate side of war. So that others may live in freedom, you would sacrifice thousands of soldiers, perhaps millions of civilians (I've heard an estimate of 1 million in Iraq. I know you don't mean Iraq, but that's just demonstrative of what happens when a premiere western military gets engaged in asymmetrical warfare to preserve a provisional government), and you would place on the pedestal of the previous regime a fundamentally fledgling and unstable democracy which could fall at the first insistence of the undemocratic opposition. There's a reason why no democratic government which has replaced a totalitarian government has lasted for long without tremendous assistance; democracies require the full investment of the people for a very long period of time; authoritarian governments tend to form spontaneously when stability is low. And would anyone in the intervening country support an interventionist war to remove some dictator in a third world country? No. If a government drags a country into a war, it needs a damn good reason otherwise it threatens its own stability. Intervention in the problems of other countries is the quickest way to destabilize your own country economically, diplomatically, and internally.

Have your wars, just don't get me involved. Somehow I think any anti-war argument these days is destined to lose. There is quite a bit of suffering in the world; the solution is not to play world police and try to fix everything. There is a multinational and multilateral burden to police the world; that responsibility never lies with one country, otherwise democracies and the best intentions can quickly turn into cruel dictatorships with the most evil of plans. A return to the idea of NATO as a force of good to stabilize other countries wouldn't be a bad idea, just tough for people to swallow. I'm not necessarily against the idea of policing the world and removing dictatorships, but intervening at the drop of a hat and perhaps alone is certainly not the answer; that's how you create another Iraq.