Taliban at it again

[Flash Walken]

This is what happens when a modernizing country gets hit with massive drought and 2 coups in 10 years, followed by an invasion and 30 years of war.

To believe that if the Afghan people pulled up their boot straps they'd be governed by 21st century humanist, feminist, democrats is completely and utterly absurd.

When Afghanistan was a democracy, as recently as the 1960s, not only were women allowed to vote, but they were also elected as members of government, including being in cabinet positions.

Afghanistan is quite possibly a worse place in many regions as a result of recent foreign intervention.

Western powers sticking their noses in things has made Afghanistan a worse place to live. Leaving afghanys to their own devices may actually improve things.

[drhu22]

Re: Western powers sticking their noses in things has made Afghanistan a worse place to live.

And how many other countries?
In SAmerica, Africa, Asia...

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by drhu22

Re: Western powers sticking their noses in things has made Afghanistan a worse place to live.

And how many other countries?
In SAmerica, Africa, Asia...

Oh yes of course. If it weren't for the evil West all these places would be paradise to live in.

Blaming the west is a cop out. Most of these places had serious problems even before the west stuck their fingers in the pie.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Western powers sticking their noses in things has made Afghanistan a worse place to live. Leaving afghanys to their own devices may actually improve things.

Unless of course the terrorist Taliban take over. We all know where that road leads to.

[zukes]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Like blowing them up? NUKES!!!!!



Communism is a close 2nd in the killing people department which is strange since it's the anti-religion which promotes everyone being equal. The other extreme.

In it's purist form yes, however, the heads of the powerful communist states have never adhered to the true meaning, creating a class system of haves and have nots.

[Itse]

I'd say it's somewhat obvious that Afghanistan would propably be better off without foreign intervention. You could almost say that's what intervention means.

If you're really trying to help someone, you don't give money, training and weapons to various wannabe military/terrorist organizations and warlords which is what countries like Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia and the US have been doing.

Of course it doesn't mean that it's all the wests fault. The reasons for the fighting in Afganistan are for a large part internal (ethnic/language groups and warlords/criminals fighting for power).

However, in Afganistan, like in any other country, there have been and still are other types of forces in action. Democratic movements, civil rights groups, peace movements, real politicians instead of armed thugs.

If instead of local bandits and drug lords (I'm exaggerating, but not much) the US and other western countries had chosen those groups as the ones they want to lift to power, we might have seen very different results.

The US could have pressured their allies to stop funding militias from a position of credibility. Instead they got all other western countries, backwater places with no interests in Afganistan like Finland to take part in arming and training more warlords. As things are, why would for example Pakistan take the US seriously when it comes to not funding or helping armed groups in Afganistan? After all, everyone else is doing it anyway.

If they had funded the democracy and civil rights groups instead of armed thugs, worst case scenario would have be that the warlords would be in power anyway, only with much less weapons and funds than they have now, and the democratic groups would propably be stronger and better known than they are now, with more funding and international contacts.

But no. The US had no contacts amongs these groups and apparently knew almost nothing about them. What does tell you right there? They wanted to work with someone they knew, someone they had worked with before; armed groups. Warlords, terrorists and islamists; the groups they armed to fight against the Soviet Union.

During the whole Afgan war (the current one) everyone has been sending more weapons and money for armed groups into the country. The nation-building has always been a distant second, getting very little funding in comparison.

One reason among many is that the government of Afganistan are not people who give a damn about nation building. They had no history of being interested in anything like that before, and they have not suddenly grown an interest in it, wonder of wonders.

When the west asks "where do you need help", they say "prisons, police, army, fighting terrorists". The "police" means a bunch of armed thugs. The army is another bunch of armed thugs. (Seriously. In many places the local warlord has simply declared himself chief of police and made his men "police".) Fighting terrorists means kicking the asses of their old (and new) enemies. Prisons are filled with their enemies and the female prisons with women who have run from their husbands, rape victims etc. In some places those prisons have been doubling as brothels. It's good business.

The western countries thought they could fight a proxy war in Afganistan to some extent. Instead they have become the proxies, doing the governments dirty work.

The whole western strategy for Afghanistan has essentially been the same the whole time, despite every possible sign that it's not working. The country has been deteriorating by every measurement out there; standard of living, safety, womens rights, infrastructure, democratic rights, freedom of speech, justice system...

It's a disgrace and a joke, a waste of money and lives and a testament to how hard it is for countries to own up their mistakes.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Barnission

Billions of them? There aren't even a billion agnostics/atheists/etc if I recall. People live peacefully with or without religion. Religion is not the problem.

Yeah, I'm sure the woman that was stoned to death in the name of what an imaginary higher power is telling her abusers to do is really agreeing with you on that one.

Originally Posted by Barnission

Actually, yes, you're just missing the point. Simply, religious extremism is a tool. People would be controlling and the manipulating people without religion.

Sure, but that's not the point. I'm of the opinion that religion is a prevenative and outdated belief system hampering the development of social, human and technological advancement in a world proven time and time again it is based in science. Please tell me - what really happened 2,012 years ago?

Originally Posted by Barnission

The thing is, people won't just stop following a religion and then become the way you want them to do be like.

Never said they had to. I said if it gives them faith and compassion, good on them. I'm not going to stand in their way. You can exude those qualities without religion, however.

Originally Posted by Barnission

Most people don't even follow their religions properly, or even seriously. It's just become a normality in society, and for others it's a community thing.

Most people don't follow their religion seriously? Really? I'd wager to say that you're very wrong on that. If you're saying it's just a matter of convenience, then why bother being religious to begin with if you're not committed? If you implied earlier that most people ARE religious and not aethiest / agnostic, then that's hypcrotical of what you're trying to say here - the numbers are working against you here.

By your logic, religion should have died a slow, lonely death long ago if it was a matter of convenience and non-seriousness. There are many people that take religion very seriously - just look at how much influence and power the pope and the Vatican hold - and that's just one religion. Religion is huge, it's engrained, it takes in billions of dollars and you have to really examine your own argument if you believe people don't take it seriously. MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Muslims will disagree with you there right off the bat. Your generalizations are sweeping on an unprecedented level.

[tjinaz]

Funny that the anti religion (Communism) has killed at least as many if not more.

You get the combined total from China, Russian and Cambodia in the 20th Century and it is by far more than all religions combined. Religion is not near the killer that it used to be and even then most western cases it may be classified as a religious war but was more like a land grab from leaders using religion to fire up the populace.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

leaders using religion

Sounds like Religion is still at fault to me!

[MarchHare]

1. Communism is not an "anti-religion", it's a political/economic system. One can be a religious communist.

2. The people who were murdered by communist leaders like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., were killed for political reasons, not because of their religious beliefs.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Nm

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is what happens when a modernizing country gets hit with massive drought and 2 coups in 10 years, followed by an invasion and 30 years of war.

To believe that if the Afghan people pulled up their boot straps they'd be governed by 21st century humanist, feminist, democrats is completely and utterly absurd.

When Afghanistan was a democracy, as recently as the 1960s, not only were women allowed to vote, but they were also elected as members of government, including being in cabinet positions.

Afghanistan is quite possibly a worse place in many regions as a result of recent foreign intervention.

Western powers sticking their noses in things has made Afghanistan a worse place to live. Leaving afghanys to their own devices may actually improve things.

This is a very romanticized view of Afghan history. Afghan was ruled by a series of warlords until a monarchy took over. The monarchy ruled until 1973. There was no democracy in the 1960s. Then the communisits took over. The communist government was Soviet puppet state and anything but a functioning democracy. Yes they did have women in "cabinet positions". No, those party members were not properly elected.

The truth is there has never been much of a centralized government in many parts of Afghanistan due to its location and geography. There's always been an element of instability. It's politcal landscape is also composed of various tribes and warlords that have always had great influence.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Sounds like Religion is still at fault to me!

Then your not listening. The same tools that made religion such a powerful force can be applied completely outside of religion. Hitler used the same repetitive techniques to gain fanatical levels of support for what he was doing as religion uses. Most dictators use techniques like this to maintain and improve their support. It's just that historically it was easier to control or become a religious leader and have the masses at your fingertips while now you need to create the machine from scratch if you want the same influence.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

This is a very romanticized view of Afghan history. Afghan was ruled by a series of warlords until a monarchy took over. The monarchy ruled until 1973. There was no democracy in the 1960s. Then the communisits took over. The communist government was Soviet puppet state and anything but a functioning democracy. Yes they did have women in "cabinet positions". No, those party members were not properly elected.

The truth is there has never been much of a centralized government in many parts of Afghanistan due to its location and geography. There's always been an element of instability. It's politcal landscape is also composed of various tribes and warlords that have always had great influence.

I'm not trying to insinuate that Afghanistan was some kind of South Asian Egypt. My argument is that, like most societies, as they become increasingly exposed to other cultures through education and trade, they become more moderate and (generally) less tribalistic. it shouldn't be a surprise then, that that progress is reversed after the country is reverted back to the stone age for two generations.

That there is less basic infrastructure in most of the country now than there was 30 years ago is a fundamental reason the country appears to be reverting back to it's tribal communalism roots as the landscape of the country becomes ever more fractured by warring parties.

Flooding a third world country with weapons, cash and increased demand for drug production isn't going to help things tremendously.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Funny that the anti religion (Communism) has killed at least as many if not more.

You get the combined total from China, Russian and Cambodia in the 20th Century and it is by far more than all religions combined. Religion is not near the killer that it used to be and even then most western cases it may be classified as a religious war but was more like a land grab from leaders using religion to fire up the populace.

Both commies and fundies believe in the irrational babble of a dead guy with a beard, there is no real difference

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm not trying to insinuate that Afghanistan was some kind of South Asian Egypt. My argument is that, like most societies, as they become increasingly exposed to other cultures through education and trade, they become more moderate and (generally) less tribalistic. it shouldn't be a surprise then, that that progress is reversed after the country is reverted back to the stone age for two generations.

That there is less basic infrastructure in most of the country now than there was 30 years ago is a fundamental reason the country appears to be reverting back to it's tribal communalism roots as the landscape of the country becomes ever more fractured by warring parties.

Flooding a third world country with weapons, cash and increased demand for drug production isn't going to help things tremendously.

Once again I think you're purposely romanticizing the situation in Afghanistan prior to the 1970s to prove a point. Here's a graph of life expectancy in Afghanistan since 1960. It continually goes up:

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/afgh...tancy-at-birth

At the start of the 1960s it was 30 years old, and has steadily and consistently risen to almost 50 now.

I'm sorry but a proggresive country with a well developed infrastructure does not have a life expectancy of 30 years old. Since the NATO invasion of Afghanistan, they have reached unpresidented rates of education enrolment, women in the work force, life expectancy, etc...

At harsh as it may sound, things are better in Afghanistan now than they have ever been. The idea that Afghanistan was a flourishing and progressive nation prior to Western intervention simply isn't true.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Then your not listening. The same tools that made religion such a powerful force can be applied completely outside of religion. Hitler used the same repetitive techniques to gain fanatical levels of support for what he was doing as religion uses. Most dictators use techniques like this to maintain and improve their support. It's just that historically it was easier to control or become a religious leader and have the masses at your fingertips while now you need to create the machine from scratch if you want the same influence.

They sure can, but when you use the religion as a reason to get the ball rolling, I still say the religion gets the blame!

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by blankall

Once again I think you're purposely romanticizing the situation in Afghanistan prior to the 1970s to prove a point. Here's a graph of life expectancy in Afghanistan since 1960. It continually goes up:

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/afgh...tancy-at-birth

At the start of the 1960s it was 30 years old, and has steadily and consistently risen to almost 50 now.

I'm sorry but a proggresive country with a well developed infrastructure does not have a life expectancy of 30 years old. Since the NATO invasion of Afghanistan, they have reached unpresidented rates of education enrolment, women in the work force, life expectancy, etc...

At harsh as it may sound, things are better in Afghanistan now than they have ever been. The idea that Afghanistan was a flourishing and progressive nation prior to Western intervention simply isn't true.

By our measurement, if the afghans want to live in a profoundly muslim/tribal society where most of them die by 30 who the hell are we to disagree?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

Once again I think you're purposely romanticizing the situation in Afghanistan prior to the 1970s to prove a point. Here's a graph of life expectancy in Afghanistan since 1960. It continually goes up:

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/afgh...tancy-at-birth

At the start of the 1960s it was 30 years old, and has steadily and consistently risen to almost 50 now.

I'm sorry but a proggresive country with a well developed infrastructure does not have a life expectancy of 30 years old. Since the NATO invasion of Afghanistan, they have reached unpresidented rates of education enrolment, women in the work force, life expectancy, etc...

At harsh as it may sound, things are better in Afghanistan now than they have ever been. The idea that Afghanistan was a flourishing and progressive nation prior to Western intervention simply isn't true.

And once again I'm not saying Afghanistan was a flourishing and progressive nation at all, and have qualified my statement several times.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

By our measurement, if the afghans want to live in a profoundly muslim/tribal society where most of them die by 30 who the hell are we to disagree?

That's fair enough. But that's a totally different statement than, Afghanistan was a progressing democracy until outside influences stepped in. Also, I'd disagree to the extent that Afghanistan society wants that. There are religious minorities and moderate muslims who probably don't want that. They may not form a majority, but that illustrates the difference between democracy and mob rule.

The next question is what do you do when that tribal society is harbouring fugitives that are planning major terrorist attacks on Western soil.