The News Thread

[Dak]

I it seems like the U.S. ought to be responsible for most of them

The same arguments backing this line of thinking also backed the invasion. Shouldn't have invaded and also owe the Afghans nothing.

 

[CiG]

and also owe the Afghans nothing.

Conservatives used to believe in personal responsibility.

 

[Dak]

Conservatives used to believe in personal responsibility.

I do. I have no personal responsibility for the occupation of Afghanistan. Additionally, the Afghan people have a responsibility to themselves and their country.

 

[CiG]

The ones who have already fled the country and can't return should just return and be executed?

 

[Dak]

The ones who have already fled the country and can't return should just return and be executed?

The number of unquestioned assumptions required to ask this question would take volumes to address in full.

People die needlessly, daily, by the thousands if not hundreds of thousands, across the globe, every day. What makes these "refugees" worthy of consideration over anyone else to any random person? What makes any of them my responsibility? What makes any of them the responsibility of citizens of the US, if they are not also citizens of the US?

 

[CiG]

This self-determination rhetoric is so hollow considering the fascistic totalitarian nature of the Taliban, and it's pretty bizarre to see so-called left-wingers itt agreeing with you.

Yes the US had to leave Afghanistan and it should have happened ages ago, but this idea that you can set up a puppet government and have people cooperate with the US for 2 decades, have Afghan nationals combat the Taliban during that time, and have Afghan people be born and raised under completely different socio-political conditions, and then one night the US just moonwalks the fuck out and throws all those people to the wolves not expecting them to want to flee for their lives is pretty ridiculous. Though not unexpected.

People swarmed US military planes and were falling off it to the ground as they were taking off, thousands and thousands of Afghan people are fleeing the country, UK has pledged to take 20k over several years, Australia will likely do something similar, as are countries like Uganda and it's safe to assume European countries will join in. The fact that tangentially involved or completely uninvolved countries are pledging this as you question why the US government has any responsibility to them whatsoever just goes to show how antihumanitarian the more isolationist/libertarian elements of the anti-war crowd are.

But hey they aren't US citizens so fuck them right? The whole "now the Afghan people can determine their own future" rhetoric is just your way of sugar coating not giving a fuck about them.

 

[Einherjar86]

People die needlessly, daily, by the thousands if not hundreds of thousands, across the globe, every day. What makes these "refugees" worthy of consideration over anyone else to any random person? What makes any of them my responsibility? What makes any of them the responsibility of citizens of the US, if they are not also citizens of the US?

What a grimly cynical outlook.

Also, they’re not “refugees.” They’re refugees. You don’t need scare quotes.

 

[Dak]

What a grimly cynical outlook.

Also, they’re not “refugees.” They’re refugees. You don’t need scare quotes.

This self-determination rhetoric is so hollow considering the fascistic totalitarian nature of the Taliban, and it's pretty bizarre to see so-called left-wingers itt agreeing with you.

Yes the US had to leave Afghanistan and it should have happened ages ago, but this idea that you can set up a puppet government and have people cooperate with the US for 2 decades, have Afghan nationals combat the Taliban during that time, and have Afghan people be born and raised under completely different socio-political conditions, and then one night the US just moonwalks the fuck out and throws all those people to the wolves not expecting them to want to flee for their lives is pretty ridiculous. Though not unexpected.

People swarmed US military planes and were falling off it to the ground as they were taking off, thousands and thousands of Afghan people are fleeing the country, UK has pledged to take 20k over several years, Australia will likely do something similar, as are countries like Uganda and it's safe to assume European countries will join in. The fact that tangentially involved or completely uninvolved countries are pledging this as you question why the US government has any responsibility to them whatsoever just goes to show how antihumanitarian the more isolationist/libertarian elements of the anti-war crowd are.

But hey they aren't US citizens so fuck them right? The whole "now the Afghan people can determine their own future" rhetoric is just your way of sugar coating not giving a fuck about them.

First it was concern trolling about responsibility. Now it's "humanitarianism". You guys are just GWB/Obama in a different skinsuit.

You guys are neoliberals/neoconservatives (same difference) because you were trained to be.

Edit: Which is fine for what it is. Just own it and actually know the arguments. There's an intellectual history going back decades before them but you guys are just like "but muh refugees"!!

 

[Slammed]

Whenever I see a post by CIG I always read it in a GWB voic....awe fuck that's probably racist.
Whenever I see a post by CIG I always read it in an Oba...fuck that's probably racist too.
I'm going to have to stop reading CIG's posts now!

 

[CiG]

First it was concern trolling about responsibility. Now it's "humanitarianism". You guys are just GWB/Obama in a different skinsuit.

You guys are neoliberals/neoconservatives (same difference) because you were trained to be.

Edit: Which is fine for what it is. Just own it and actually know the arguments. There's an intellectual history going back decades before them but you guys are just like "but muh refugees"!!

"People die all over the planet so fuck the refugees"

Yeah it's us that needs to come clean about what we really are.

I'm not a neoconservative. If I were one I'd just call myself one. I have consistently opposed the war in Afghanistan since it was started and attended multiple protests against our prime minister John Howard who pledged us to the US war efforts there back when I was a teenager. Furthermore you can support the withdrawal while also criticizing how it was carried out without being a neocon, and you can describe what will happen to the Afghan people by the Taliban as "fucked up" without that meaning you oppose the withdrawal.

The US owes the Afghan people for what it has done there and is directly responsible for the current refugee crisis in the first place. But hey, "fuck the refugees" is a pretty standard far-right position, so again I'm not surprised.

 

[Dak]

Believing other people are in need of forceful rescue from other forms of social hierarchy than your own is precisely the sort of narcissistic fundamentalist evangelical bent of neoliberal/neoconservative thinking that you are illequipped to recognize because it is the dominant view in the west. Whether it takes the form of sending missionaries, dropping bombs, sending troops, or other expenditure/outreaches, is relatively irrelevant. What also becomes irrelevant is the material and social costs, not only to your own people, but to those poor people you mean to "help".

 

[CiG]

How is it "forceful rescue" when they're leaving and asking to be rescued by other nations?

Can't believe you just spat up that autistic nonsense.

 

[Dak]

How is it "forceful rescue" when they're leaving and asking to be rescued by other nations?

Can't believe you just spat up that autistic nonsense.

The US forced their way into Afghanistan to begin with, after propping up the mujahedeen earlier. Stop treating everything as isolated and/or connected as is convenient. The guys jumping on C17s should have used the weapons the US provided them, like the Taliban did.

You know why I find the evangelical bent hilarious? You complaining about the concept applied here, particularly as an Aussie, brings extra mirth. When I was a kid growing up in an evangelical church, the church sponsored missionaries to Australia, when there was a homeless shelter less than a mile away it didn't support. Are you Saved, brother?

Same energy.

 

[CiG]

Stop treating everything as isolated and/or connected as is convenient.

LOL ironic because one of the key justifications for claiming that the US should take in Afghan refugees is that the current refugee crisis was caused by US interventionism. It's YOU that is acting like these are all disconnected issues when you ask why should the US give a fuck about Afghan refugees.

I find your inability to differentiate between supporting interventionism and supporting taking in refugees as a result of interventionism hilarious.

On one hand you say taking in refugees is "forced rescue" even though the refugees themselves want to be rescued, Biden is pledging millions towards relocation efforts and pretty much everybody with a platform is calling for nations to take them in (nobody is being "forced" from what I can see) and on the other hand you spout a bunch of rhetoric about Afghans choosing themselves over colonizers and how they can now have self-determination even though the Taliban poll as extremely unpopular among the Afghan people yet they are now back under their control.

What self-determination? When polled one of the most prioritized concerns for the Afghan people are the women's rights progresses that have happened in the last 2 decades, something that the Taliban are the living contradiction of. Who chose what exactly? You're speaking out of your arse mate.

Only you could spin a web of drivel that leads to the conclusion that taking in refugees is "forced rescue" because the initial occupation of Afghanistan was also "forced rescue." Sure just leave them behind to be butchered by the Taliban, otherwise some dude on a forum will call you a neocon.

 

[Einherjar86]

You guys are neoliberals/neoconservatives (same difference) because you were trained to be.

Edit: Which is fine for what it is. Just own it and actually know the arguments. There's an intellectual history going back decades before them but you guys are just like "but muh refugees"!!

Ugh, it was so nice and quiet while you were gone.

First it was concern trolling about responsibility. Now it's "humanitarianism".

I'm not sure I understand the difference.

The same arguments backing this line of thinking also backed the invasion. Shouldn't have invaded and also owe the Afghans nothing.

I'm neither a neolib nor neocon because I object to the former argument. Our reasons for invasion were misguided, disproportionate, and in some cases outright untruths. We shouldn't have invaded.

But we did invade, and therefore we owe the Afghans something. The reason here is fairly simply: we contributed to a volatile situation and we have a certain degree of ethical obligation to ameliorate it.

It's quite telling that so many Americans (and this would appear to include you) can only imagine geopolitical action as a form of violent--or at least military--occupation. I think Viet Thahn Nguyen said it best: "It's really typical of the American mindset that so many Americans are saying we can't do anything more in Afghanistan, no more troops or bombs! As if more war is the only solution. They literally don't have a thing to say about evacuating Afghans & bearing moral responsibility."

 

[Dak]

Ugh, it was so nice and quiet while you were gone.

Well it will be quiet again soon enough. Had a few days lull in things combined with everyone losing their minds over Afghanistan.

I'm not sure I understand the difference.

There's no responsibility to provide humanitarian aid, it's a purely voluntary cause as can be afforded. One could argue that people or a country have a responsibility to clean up the mess they caused. I would argue that France and the US have a responsibility in Libya for that absolutely evil affair. Not so in Afghanistan.

I'm neither a neolib nor neocon because I object to the former argument. Our reasons for invasion were misguided, disproportionate, and in some cases outright untruths. We shouldn't have invaded.

But we did invade, and therefore we owe the Afghans something. The reason here is fairly simply: we contributed to a volatile situation and we have a certain degree of ethical obligation to ameliorate it.

LOL ironic because one of the key justifications for claiming that the US should take in Afghan refugees is that the current refugee crisis was caused by US interventionism. It's YOU that is acting like these are all disconnected issues when you ask why should the US give a fuck about Afghan refugees.

I find your inability to differentiate between supporting interventionism and supporting taking in refugees as a result of interventionism hilarious.

On one hand you say taking in refugees is "forced rescue" even though the refugees themselves want to be rescued, Biden is pledging millions towards relocation efforts and pretty much everybody with a platform is calling for nations to take them in (nobody is being "forced" from what I can see) and on the other hand you spout a bunch of rhetoric about Afghans choosing themselves over colonizers and how

This is where both of you are making the same tired non-arguments. Explain to me how you come to the conclusion that the US now owes something. Hasn't it given enough?

Cost to the US of the attempted "liberation" of Afghanistan:
1. Over 2 trillion dollars (and counting, since it was all borrowed w/interest)
2. Over 6,000 US soldiers and contractors dead
3. 20 years of deployments with that toll on US forces

Afghanistan contribution to their own "liberation":
1. Throw down their rifles and switch sides to the Taliban

The Iraqi army showed far more resilience against ISIS, with less support and training. The simple fact is that a small fraction of the Afghan population wanted or wants what the US had on offer, other than its money. The Taliban were already in uncontested power in 2001 (and were even supported with millions of dollars by the Bush administration at first!) and now the situation, after 20 years of wasted blood and treasure, has returned to the previous mean. And yet somehow the US is now responsible?

It's quite telling that so many Americans (and this would appear to include you) can only imagine geopolitical action as a form of violent--or at least military--occupation. I think Viet Thahn Nguyen said it best: "It's really typical of the American mindset that so many Americans are saying we can't do anything more in Afghanistan, no more troops or bombs! As if more war is the only solution. They literally don't have a thing to say about evacuating Afghans & bearing moral responsibility."

I've been consistently against governmental interference in other countries for well over a decade now. As far as this Nguyen guy goes, I won't be lectured about white man's burden in the 21st century by some academic.

they can now have self-determination even though the Taliban poll as extremely unpopular among the Afghan people yet they are now back under their control.

What self-determination? When polled one of the most prioritized concerns for the Afghan people are the women's rights progresses that have happened in the last 2 decades, something that the Taliban are the living contradiction of. Who chose what exactly? You're speaking out of your arse mate.

"Extremely unpopular" and yet here we are. Curious. I'm sure those polls were a true random sample.

 

[Einherjar86]

Explain to me how you come to the conclusion that the US now owes something. Hasn't it given enough?

Cost to the US of the attempted "liberation" of Afghanistan:
1. Over 2 trillion dollars (and counting, since it was all borrowed w/interest)
2. Over 6,000 US soldiers and contractors dead
3. 20 years of deployments with that toll on US forces

Over 70k civilians have died between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The U.S. has left behind unexploded ordnance that will continue to kill civilians long after we've left the country. Seems like we should take our trash with us, no?

Inundating the country in war has left it more impoverished, diminished its infrastructure, and ruined the region's ecosystem services.

"Given enough," lol. The U.S. has taken a hell of a lot more than we've "given." Although, technically we did give them the unexploded ordnance. I guess they should be thankful.

The Iraqi army showed far more resilience against ISIS, with less support and training. The simple fact is that a small fraction of the Afghan population wanted or wants what the US had on offer, other than its money. The Taliban were already in uncontested power in 2001 (and were even supported with millions of dollars by the Bush administration at first!) and now the situation, after 20 years of wasted blood and treasure, has returned to the previous mean. And yet somehow the US is now responsible?

If you sink a bunch of time and money in creating a shitty product, and then it explodes and kills the user, you're on the hook. "Caveat emptor" might be a grand capitalist slogan, but it kinda fails in the ethics department.

I've been consistently against governmental interference in other countries for well over a decade now. As far as this Nguyen guy goes, I won't be lectured about white man's burden in the 21st century by some academic.

 

[Dak]

Over 70k civilians have died between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The U.S. has left behind unexploded ordnance that will continue to kill civilians long after we've left the country. Seems like we should take our trash with us, no?

Inundating the country in war has left it more impoverished, diminished its infrastructure, and ruined the region's ecosystem services.

"Given enough," lol. The U.S. has taken a hell of a lot more than we've "given." Although, technically we did give them the unexploded ordnance. I guess they should be thankful.

If you sink a bunch of time and money in creating a shitty product, and then it explodes and kills the user, you're on the hook. "Caveat emptor" might be a grand capitalist slogan, but it kinda fails in the ethics department.

What did the US take from Afghanistan?

You're acting like Afghanistan was France or Germany before WWII. It wasn't. It was a wartorn international backwater. It's been occupied or in a state of civil war for approximately 45 of the past 50 years (or longer/more). I'm not saying the invasion helped matters any. It simply didn't hurt them much either unless you're making the argument that had the Taliban been left in charge in since 2001, the place would be New Singapore. Which would then lead to the question why people need saving from them.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's been occupied or in a state of civil war for approximately 45 of the past 50 years (or longer/more). I'm not saying the invasion helped matters any. It simply didn't hurt them much either unless you're making the argument that had the Taliban been left in charge in since 2001, the place would be New Singapore. Which would then lead to the question why people need saving from them.

I think you're wrong. It did hurt matters, even if that meant preventing stability for an even longer period of time. But that's not all it meant. We added to civilian casualties, we made the landscape more volatile, we depleted the region of resources. These are quantifiable changes.

I don't think U.S. is the only country that bears responsibility; but just because it drained our resources too doesn't mean we're absolved of the havoc we caused/contributed to.

 

[Dak]

I think you're wrong. It did hurt matters, even if that meant preventing stability for an even longer period of time. But that's not all it meant. We added to civilian casualties, we made the landscape more volatile, we depleted the region of resources. These are quantifiable changes.

I don't think U.S. is the only country that bears responsibility; but just because it drained our resources too doesn't mean we're absolved of the havoc we caused/contributed to.

The US made the landscape more "volatile"/killed more civilians than the Taliban? I mean, possibly. Maybe even probably. But that's not the argument for taking refugees. It could easily be an argument against.

I don't know what you're referring to re: taking resources. It isn't Iraq; it wasn't a "war for oil".

Edit: In unrelated news, the current affairs at Current Affairs are absolutely priceless.