i'm sure we agree on some points. i agree that sadaam needs to be gone, but at the same time i don't really think it is the u.s.'s place to do it (especially based on the aforementioned inconsistency). i also completely and wholeheartedly DISAGREE that this war will make the people in these countries any less "on fire," just like i think for the most part afganis are not better off since we "defeated" the taliban, which we actually haven't really done. the average person's life didn't change, and the average person's life in iraq is not going to change. i also think the methods we have talked about to "win" this war are morally reprehensible to the utmost degree. so i don't agree that this war is at all "necessary" or "right."
are you guys watching this powell shit live?
- Thread starter xfer
- Start date
Oh, well, I think if the US is a "hyperpower" and the world's policeman, it should use its fucking riches and power to make things better for other countries instead of buying more SUVs. Not just in Iraq, either. To refuse is selfish.
The average Afghan's life did and will change. I might be overly obsessed with the education-of-women thing, but I think it's hugely critical to a nation becoming modern and successful.
What methods of war aren't morally reprehensible? That argument reminds me of people who sorrowfully tut-tut the use of daisy cutters or mustard gas against troops. Is that really so much worse than the meat grinder of war? I don't think it is.
The average Afghan's life did and will change. I might be overly obsessed with the education-of-women thing, but I think it's hugely critical to a nation becoming modern and successful.
What methods of war aren't morally reprehensible? That argument reminds me of people who sorrowfully tut-tut the use of daisy cutters or mustard gas against troops. Is that really so much worse than the meat grinder of war? I don't think it is.
FuSoYa
Lunarian
When you guys say things like "the average afghani's life did not change" or "the average afghani's life did change", how and to what extent do you actually know?
And since the answer is probably "I read it on the internet and not at all" what is the point of even arguing about it?
And since the answer is probably "I read it on the internet and not at all" what is the point of even arguing about it?
XzanderX
shut it
There is no more Taliban and the laws of the nation have changed for the better. This is a fact, and it is almost impossible that this wouldn't have an effect on the populace, so the burden of proof to the contrary falls on whoever makes that argument.
FuSoYa
Lunarian
Stultus
Words to live by
FuSoYa
Lunarian
Stultus
Words to live by
I heard the Afghan refugee number was way overestimated. In addition, it was estimated that due to the international and American aid that poured in because of the war, far fewer Afghans ended up dying from starvation and illness than would have if there had never been a 9/11.
hello, i wasn't going to bring this up, but if you're really going to try to claim that most of my sources are "from the internet" - - my family lives in pakistan and their city was flooded with afghani refugees who all tell tales of what is going on. so my dad hears from my uncle, and then tells me.
yes i read the internet and the news, and i have a vast understanding of the history of that region. that plus the fact that i have personal ties to people who have been directly affected pretty much allows me to have an opinion as legitimate as xfer's, though i wouldn't go so far to say "more legitimate" because i believe most opinions are legitimate even if i personally think they're wrong.
seriously, fuck that shit. i hate the "oh you can't argue cos you don't REALLY know and all you do is read different journals online all day." i probably have MORE of a right to say that to people when they judge the middle east/south asia, because i've lived there, and yet i would never pull that bullshit because i don't believe in it. so a big WHATEVER to that.
yes i read the internet and the news, and i have a vast understanding of the history of that region. that plus the fact that i have personal ties to people who have been directly affected pretty much allows me to have an opinion as legitimate as xfer's, though i wouldn't go so far to say "more legitimate" because i believe most opinions are legitimate even if i personally think they're wrong.
seriously, fuck that shit. i hate the "oh you can't argue cos you don't REALLY know and all you do is read different journals online all day." i probably have MORE of a right to say that to people when they judge the middle east/south asia, because i've lived there, and yet i would never pull that bullshit because i don't believe in it. so a big WHATEVER to that.
estimated by who? see, here's the thing: everything you read is going to be biased in some way. for every article you can cite saying the overthrowing of the taliban was a good thing that improved the condition of most people, i can find one that says the opposite and points out that the u.s. is grossly neglecting the post-war conditions. so, i don't see why this argument is going back and forth at this point.
i have a hard time believing that most people were even affected on a day-to-day basis in afghanistan. they were poor before and they are still poor, and they will remain poor. the fact of the matter is, most westerners see the burqa as a sign of women being oppressed, but taking away the taliban is not going to get rid of things like that, because it's culturally ingrained that "good" women do not reveal themselves in public. these things DO evolve on their own, as they have in, say, pakistan - - and to say that the average woman is "better off"....i mean, the average woman is still wearing a burqa and the average girl is still not going to be sent to school. if the u.s. is eventually successful, would it have been worth it for so many civilians to have died? maybe. but the way we are going now, nothing is going to change in the long run, and a few schools built now won't matter if we continue being lenient with the warlords that are trying to recapture control of the country.
i have a hard time believing that most people were even affected on a day-to-day basis in afghanistan. they were poor before and they are still poor, and they will remain poor. the fact of the matter is, most westerners see the burqa as a sign of women being oppressed, but taking away the taliban is not going to get rid of things like that, because it's culturally ingrained that "good" women do not reveal themselves in public. these things DO evolve on their own, as they have in, say, pakistan - - and to say that the average woman is "better off"....i mean, the average woman is still wearing a burqa and the average girl is still not going to be sent to school. if the u.s. is eventually successful, would it have been worth it for so many civilians to have died? maybe. but the way we are going now, nothing is going to change in the long run, and a few schools built now won't matter if we continue being lenient with the warlords that are trying to recapture control of the country.
<i> I might be overly obsessed with the education-of-women thing, but I think it's hugely critical to a nation becoming modern and successful. </i>
also, i would just like to point out that i agree with you wholeheartedly on this one. i knew way too many girls in pakistan who couldn't read and would never learn to read. HOWEVER. i don't agree that we are the police of the world and we certainly don't act like it beyond attacking countries when it is in our interest. there is a very high likelihood of the u.s. dropping the ball on this one, and in the end the country will have to evolve on its own. in the 23 years i've been alive, for example, women have made huge strides in pakistan (though, again, not the "average" woman) and the culture is, in a lot of ways, becoming more liberal (though of course in the past two years there has been a huge rise in anti-american feelings). and this despite changing into a military dictatorship, which is totally awful, and obviously iraq is in particular very liberal for women(obviously this is comparatively) but anyway what i'm trying to say is - - these things work in weird ways.
also, i would just like to point out that i agree with you wholeheartedly on this one. i knew way too many girls in pakistan who couldn't read and would never learn to read. HOWEVER. i don't agree that we are the police of the world and we certainly don't act like it beyond attacking countries when it is in our interest. there is a very high likelihood of the u.s. dropping the ball on this one, and in the end the country will have to evolve on its own. in the 23 years i've been alive, for example, women have made huge strides in pakistan (though, again, not the "average" woman) and the culture is, in a lot of ways, becoming more liberal (though of course in the past two years there has been a huge rise in anti-american feelings). and this despite changing into a military dictatorship, which is totally awful, and obviously iraq is in particular very liberal for women(obviously this is comparatively) but anyway what i'm trying to say is - - these things work in weird ways.
FuSoYa
Lunarian
You saying you know the deal with afghanistan and pakistan because your family lives there is like me thinking I should have run for Governor of Massachusetts because my parents live in Meriden, CT.
I would say that personal experience as you describe is, if anything, harmful to an objective assessment. It's why you don't determine the justness of the death penalty by asking weeping parents who've just had their daughter murdered. In addition, a personal experience tends to fill your vision...seeing three homeless people on the street one night might create the perception that "my city has a huge homeless problem", which may be inaccurate if you stepped back and looked at the actual numbers.
Nevertheless, I do believe people are capable of separating their subjective experience from the objective truth if they try. The best way to grasp the closest thing to the truth of a situation is to hit many sources and form a synthesis...lots of news Web sites, from all over the ideological spectrum, weighing each on its credibility; newspapers; magazines; personal accounts; and more.
In terms of sheer numbers, ignoring the pro-US ideologues on one side and the anti-US ideologues on the other, it appears that Afghanistan has more people living in it today than it would have in a non-9-11 world. Starvation and disease are such massive killers compared to bombs and weapons, it's not really fair to weigh the numbers against each other; it's much easier to kill 2 million people by starving them then it is to kill 2 million people by bombing them, so the US campaign would have had to have been incredibly bloody--like Dresden over and over and over and over again--to even stack up.
"Don't be lenient to the warlords"? I (politically) agree. Not just in Afghanistan, but everywhere.
Nevertheless, I do believe people are capable of separating their subjective experience from the objective truth if they try. The best way to grasp the closest thing to the truth of a situation is to hit many sources and form a synthesis...lots of news Web sites, from all over the ideological spectrum, weighing each on its credibility; newspapers; magazines; personal accounts; and more.
In terms of sheer numbers, ignoring the pro-US ideologues on one side and the anti-US ideologues on the other, it appears that Afghanistan has more people living in it today than it would have in a non-9-11 world. Starvation and disease are such massive killers compared to bombs and weapons, it's not really fair to weigh the numbers against each other; it's much easier to kill 2 million people by starving them then it is to kill 2 million people by bombing them, so the US campaign would have had to have been incredibly bloody--like Dresden over and over and over and over again--to even stack up.
"Don't be lenient to the warlords"? I (politically) agree. Not just in Afghanistan, but everywhere.
i don't agree that we are the police of the world
Don't agree that we should be, or are? I think we clearly are, like it or not. If not for the Anglosphere, who steps when things get fucked up? France? (good job on Cote d'Ivoire, by the way, dudez)
Don't agree that we should be, or are? I think we clearly are, like it or not. If not for the Anglosphere, who steps when things get fucked up? France? (good job on Cote d'Ivoire, by the way, dudez)
i think you missed this part:
"yes i read the internet and the news, and i have a vast understanding of the history of that region. that plus the fact that i have personal ties to people who have been directly affected pretty much allows me to have an opinion as legitimate as xfer's, though i wouldn't go so far to say "more legitimate" because i believe most opinions are legitimate even if i personally think they're wrong."
i'm not saying i should be in power, which is why your analogy is flawed. i'm only saying that that personal experience, alongside the vast reading i've done on the subject, certainly help me along in forming an opinion. you're the one who opened up that can of worms, not me.
and i'm just saying that we don't exactly have the best record of taking care of the people we attack in the long run, though i guess (arguably) japan would be an example to contradict that statement. but that's a complex example. in any case - - i think you and i agree on a lot of points but differ in our interpretation, which is fine.
"yes i read the internet and the news, and i have a vast understanding of the history of that region. that plus the fact that i have personal ties to people who have been directly affected pretty much allows me to have an opinion as legitimate as xfer's, though i wouldn't go so far to say "more legitimate" because i believe most opinions are legitimate even if i personally think they're wrong."
i'm not saying i should be in power, which is why your analogy is flawed. i'm only saying that that personal experience, alongside the vast reading i've done on the subject, certainly help me along in forming an opinion. you're the one who opened up that can of worms, not me.
and i'm just saying that we don't exactly have the best record of taking care of the people we attack in the long run, though i guess (arguably) japan would be an example to contradict that statement. but that's a complex example. in any case - - i think you and i agree on a lot of points but differ in our interpretation, which is fine.
Well, I agree that Japan and Germany are the king examples--remember the old joke in the early 90s, when the US economy was fucked..."Who won the Cold War?" "Japan and Germany..."--but this is a different world, and old examples like that aren't really applicable. It's true the US hasn't done enough to take care of the countries they've assisted, and I blame two groups: isolationist conservatives and "let them determine their own national destiny" liberals.
My argument that I made earlier (which wasn't addressed) was that it's completely senseless to criticize the US for not doing something (deposing Saddam in 1992, for example) and then use that as a reason why we shouldn't do it now.
My argument that I made earlier (which wasn't addressed) was that it's completely senseless to criticize the US for not doing something (deposing Saddam in 1992, for example) and then use that as a reason why we shouldn't do it now.
oh please, xfer! we don't get pulled into serious issues unless we *have* to. case in point: israel, where we are probably the only force than can step in to start working that shit out. case in point: bosnia. we were dragged in there tooth and nail.
let's see where we HAVE stepped in: afghanistan, because we found out bin laden was out there and the taliban was supporting him. did we achieve our mission of "bringing in bin laden dead or alive?" of course not but everyone has conveniently forgotten that. and iraq. hhmmmmm there's no ulterior motive there, either - - it's all for the good of the people of iraq, just like arghanistan was about women.
i think that it is POSSIBLE certainly for iraq to be better off in the long run without sadaam. this whole thing blows my mind and i can't even imagine where sadaam is coming from and it makes me hate him even more than i already had. however, i just can't condone this kind of action. i think it only reinforces a dangerous precedent established in afghanistan, and i simply can't agree with it.
let's see where we HAVE stepped in: afghanistan, because we found out bin laden was out there and the taliban was supporting him. did we achieve our mission of "bringing in bin laden dead or alive?" of course not but everyone has conveniently forgotten that. and iraq. hhmmmmm there's no ulterior motive there, either - - it's all for the good of the people of iraq, just like arghanistan was about women.
i think that it is POSSIBLE certainly for iraq to be better off in the long run without sadaam. this whole thing blows my mind and i can't even imagine where sadaam is coming from and it makes me hate him even more than i already had. however, i just can't condone this kind of action. i think it only reinforces a dangerous precedent established in afghanistan, and i simply can't agree with it.
oh, i wasn't saying we shouldn't do it now because we didn't do it then. i'm saying that such humanitarian excuses are completely transparent in the face of this fact; ie they are just hiding economic issues.
Similar threads
