|
Sedisp posted:
And what percentage of Afghanistan is part of the Taliban that just conquered the country? The army was reported at 70,000 men conquering 38 million definitely feels like a smaller percentage. Unless you're arguing the US is less egalitarian?
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:if the united states did not care about human rights, it would not have spent two decades pouring money into afghanistan’s civil society, promoting the rights of women, and trying to foster a democratic society. obviously much of its work was flawed. obviously concessions were made and there were projects that wound up funneling resources into the hands of kleptocrats and shady dc consultants. but the insinuation that the entire apparatus of the us government—alongside hundreds of ngos and state partners—“never cared” and was cackling menacingly is a child’s conception of international affairs. it is a flattening of the situation to fit into a simplistic, easily digestible narrative. I don't know, I think the idea that America actually has pure intentions when it comes to invading and occupying a country for 20 years is pretty drat childish. And hey get this: powerful people don't have to be literal cartoon villains, cackling menacingly in shadowy rooms about their evil plans, for their selfish actions to result in terrible things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
LostRook posted:And what percentage of Afghanistan is part of the Taliban that just conquered the country? You're arguing that joining a militant fundamentalist army is the same thing as voting for Trump. I don't know what point this false equivalence argument is trying to make could you explain
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
generic one posted:How are you landing on that conclusion? I can use my jump to conclusions mat and assume you’re saying that because they don’t appear to be folks originally from the region, but thought it would be worthwhile letting you explain. They look different than the videos of the people mobbing flights, also they appear to have ammunition and the like. I don't think that fleeing civilians would be permitted to bring that kind of stuff with them on an emergency last flight out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:They look different than the videos of the people mobbing flights, also they appear to have ammunition and the like. I don't think that fleeing civilians would be permitted to bring that kind of stuff with them on an emergency last flight out. I'm pretty sure those are American contractors and troops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 01:27
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I don't know, I think the idea that America actually has pure intentions when it comes to invading and occupying a country for 20 years is pretty drat childish. It's classic imperialism. While imperialists certainly do make sure to enrich themselves off the occupation, they also tend to genuinely regard themselves as a civilizing force bringing the very greatest in civil and moral behavior...though, in practice, this typically amounts to imposing the empire's cultural values on the colony as much as they can without causing riots. They cared about "human rights" to the extent that they regarded Western cultural values to be better for human rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:They look different than the videos of the people mobbing flights, also they appear to have ammunition and the like. I don't think that fleeing civilians would be permitted to bring that kind of stuff with them on an emergency last flight out. … Nail Rat posted:I'm pretty sure those are American contractors and troops. This. Also, there are folks from the embassy, military families, journalists, etc. still on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They cared about "human rights" to the extent that they regarded Western cultural values to be better for human rights. If only we hadn't thought about the positive virtues of oppressing women! (Sarcasm, obv.) We as a country are not perfect, and maybe it would have been nice if countries that abolished slavery long before we did called us out and pressured us to change. The idea that people of equal capability should have equal opportunity is just some capital-w Western idea that is privileged/imperialist to see as non-negotiable is not an idea even worth engaging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 01:36
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:If only we hadn't thought about the positive virtues of oppressing women! (Sarcasm, obv.) Would it have been nice if they invaded us occupied us for twenty years looking the other way as their officers committed the exact same crimes as the organization that ruled us previously and forgot to build a functioning government during this time? It's sort of amazing how well GWB era propaganda has worked. We've successfully convinced ourselves that we were in Afghanistan for human rights reasons and not revenge against the Taliban. Sedisp fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Aug 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 01:42
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:If only we hadn't thought about the positive virtues of oppressing women! (Sarcasm, obv.) I'm not trying to do some bullshit cultural relativism song-and-dance number, I'm trying to explain why the US enforced women's rights and secular education but also didn't give a poo poo about killing a bunch of civilians and torturing people and various other war crimes. It's because the focus was not "human rights" like the rights to life or liberty, the focus was imposing cultural values on their society. And while many of those cultural values did indeed lead to human rights improvements, the conspicuous lack of any reluctance to abuse or murder any individuals who got in the way of imperial objectives makes it difficult to claim human rights as a major objective of the US invasion and occupation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 01:50
|
|
Craptacular! posted:If only we hadn't thought about the positive virtues of oppressing women! (Sarcasm, obv.) The US still has slavery - via the prison system so your views on justification may vary - but it's there. The US also had large pressure from the UK and lightly from elsewhere to end it's slavery practices far earlier. This including financial incentives. (Editing in citations - Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves (in the UK and US), the town of Manchester dying & reaching out directly to support abolotion despite the major financial and food issues caused: https://ilovemanchester.com/why-man...ncoln%20Square. but I'm sure a couple banks still supported it) I'm not quite sure your point - if it's "wow it's rich for the US to play the good guys for equality in an occupation" I agree. 1st_Panzer_Div. fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Aug 17, 2021 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
1st_Panzer_Div. posted:The US also had large pressure from the UK and lightly from elsewhere to end it's slavery practices far earlier. This including financial incentives. The large pressure from the UK actually went in the opposite direction. The UK banks were heavily invested in slavery and the UK garment industry was heavily invested in slave-picked cotton, for one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I don't know, I think the idea that America actually has pure intentions when it comes to invading and occupying a country for 20 years is pretty drat childish. You don't have to have pure intentions to say that you cared for genuinely trying to improve the lives of Afghans. I don't see what, if anything, the US had to gain from 20 years of Afghanistan. They spent 2 trillion dollars and 20,000 casualties and got what out of it? What Imperialistic wealth did they manage to get? Yes, the US went into Afghanistan because they felt the Taliban sheltering Bin Laden was unacceptable. Yes, they believed in regime change. But they easily could have rolled in and left in a couple of years, handed keys to the warlords of the Northern Alliance and said 'have at it' and pulled out. Afghanistan has absolutely zero strategic importance to the US. This is why no one gave a poo poo about it once the Russians left. Clearly, the people in charge at the time (Bush admin) cared. Was it bungled at almost every level? Yep. Did it reek of imposing cultural superiority? 100%. Did having organized kill squads and drones that raided or bombed homes in the dead of night to kill insurgents contradict promoting human rights? Yes. Did it turn at some point into a face-saving exercise? Obviously. But none of that means that their intentions were purely diabolical or selfish or that they didn't give a gently caress about trying to promote a better quality of life for Afghans. Put it another way. If the US presence didn't actually and materially improve the lives of many Afghans on the ground, especially those in urban areas, why the gently caress are so many of them desperate to leave with the Taliban taking over again? To the point of hanging onto jet aircraft as they take off? Crosby B. Alfred posted:Somewhat related, There hasn't been a war in the history of mankind that was waged *soley* on moral incentives. MikeC fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Aug 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:05
|
|
|
Somewhat related, Has there even been a war in the last Century (1900s+) where the aggressor did so under morale incentives to simply liberate or protect minorities without being a cover for other motives? The only thing that comes close is Bosnian War but Western Powers weren't aggressors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:06
|
|
|
MikeC posted:You don't have to have pure intentions to say that you cared for genuinely trying to improve the lives of Afghans. I don't see what, if anything, the US had to gain from 20 years of Afghanistan. They spent 2 trillion dollars and 20,000 casualties and got what out of it? What Imperialistic wealth did they manage to get? Sorry to break it to you but the Bush Admin cared about funneling taxpayer money into private corporations. This is all bullshit. quote:Put it another way. If the US presence didn't actually and materially improve the lives of many Afghans on the ground, especially those in urban areas, why the gently caress are so many of them desperate to leave with the Taliban taking over again? To the point of hanging onto jet aircraft as they take off? This is painfully naive. The US both didn't improve the lives of many Afghanis, but also is not as directly awful and brutal as the Taliban will be. We have firmly put the Taliban vastly more in control of the region than it ever was. We not only didn't improve their lives, we have massively hurt the lives of Afghanis in a huge and real way and this is part of it. edit: lol didn't see the avatar, my bad
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:12
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Yeah this isn't going to cost Biden and the Democrats in general a single vote. if the election was held tmr it might tbh because bad things are happening on the news but since the next election is like 12+ months away nobody will remember by then
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:13
|
|
|
Typo posted:but since the next election is like 12+ months away nobody will remember by then
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
yeah we decided we wanted to blow the joint with well over a thousand days left before the next presidential election the ever shortened political average attention span will have no concern for any of this by then
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Agreed. This is bad, but it's the kind of bad that Americans will rapidly forget about, unless the Taliban goes beyond mere brutal theocracy and does instead, like, full blown genocide, or actively/openly supporting bombings in the US. I think only the last one really does anything to move the needle
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Sorry to break it to you but the Bush Admin cared about funneling taxpayer money into private corporations. Lol, are you actually trying to hold the position that life for Afghans didn't improve between 2001-2021 whatsoever? Dunno why the commentators are shedding all the tears for how bad the women will have it again. I mean, it was always bad. Maybe just a different bad? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:16
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The US both didn't improve the lives of many Afghanis, but also is not as directly awful and brutal as the Taliban will be. Source - I can see the future. Suni Taliban as reported in many cities? It's a lie. Massive popular support? Taliban Social Media Op. You see inherently Taliban are brutal in ideology - anything else is a false flag or recent lies as part of the Talbian Agenda (tm). fake edit: my bad didn't see you were the same dude with slavery hot takes. disregard response.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:19
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Now China's going to be next to stick their nose into Afghanistan and probably deal with the Taliban since they don't care about human rights and want to make inroads, and literal roads for economic development. It will be interesting to see if Afghanistan changes and makes incremental progress come over time naturally as a result or if China's going to be yet another Empire that falls if things go south there. But they'll probably be smarter about things. Chinese investment will legit make lives of Afghanis near their investment project better if the Taliban guarantees safety of Chinese nationals as they've promised
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
Typo posted:if the election was held tmr it might tbh because bad things are happening on the news I don’t think Americans give a gently caress about who’s in charge when a war ends one way or another, and never had. W was an anomaly, his dad served one term with a much more successful and popular war with Iraq. Vietnam didn’t seem to hurt Kennedy, LBJ or Nixon’s re-election chances. Hell even Truman could t ride WW loving II into a second term and was famously down in the polls for most of the year leading up to the election. And honestly, not that you’re doing it, it’s just ghoulish to consider the right move electorally when considering Afghanistan’s fate. It’s he reason we’ve been there for twenty years to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:26
|
|
|
I'm going to start probing people who make pissy little backhanded edits about each others' posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:27
|
|
|
Oh my God Biden's speech, the president of the United States sounds like everyone's lovely ex-boyfriend. "Your loss Afghanistan, you could have had allllll thiiiiiis".
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:27
|
|
|
Remember that the Neocons have an ideology too, and that massively expensive ideological projects are a normal thing for imperial states. In this case, the goal was to prove that libertarian market forces are the best way to secure human rights. That's why they spent so much trying to improve human rights in a way that was ultimately futile. Because W Bush was a true believer in Neocon ideas and he was desperate to prove that all those ideas were correct, and drat the consequences. In Obama's case, he understood that the Bush administration had hosed things to the point they couldn't be recovered, but he lacked the courage to pull out of this disaster. Obama was more afraid of potential news stories about the fall of Kabul than about doing the right thing. So he did the easiest thing instead, the Obama administration did the bare minimum to keep up the status quo. golden bubble fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Aug 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:27
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Agreed. This is bad, but it's the kind of bad that Americans will rapidly forget about, unless the Taliban goes beyond mere brutal theocracy and does instead, like, full blown genocide, or actively/openly supporting bombings in the US. No. The US has been looking for a reason to hate Biden for months, and they've finally found the Hatred that will sustain themselves until the next election. Still, how they're explaining it is hilariously disconnected from reality, like how CRT or tolerating transpeople supposedly caused this. Reality doesn'tatter though, what matters is what they can convince themselves of, and with Hatred all things are possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:28
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:I don’t think Americans give a gently caress about who’s in charge when a war ends one way or another, and never had. W was an anomaly, his dad served one term with a much more successful and popular war with Iraq. Vietnam didn’t seem to hurt Kennedy, LBJ or Nixon’s re-election chances. Hell even Truman could t ride WW loving II into a second term and was famously down in the polls for most of the year leading up to the election. It was a huge issue in 1968, LBJ didn't run because of it. You can even make the argument that the new deal coalition was destroyed at the 1968 convention and in the aftermath, in part because of Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:30
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Lol, are you actually trying to hold the position that life for Afghans didn't improve between 2001-2021 whatsoever? Dunno why the commentators are shedding all the tears for how bad the women will have it again. I mean, it was always bad. Maybe just a different bad? The Taliban has been in control of the lot of the country since 2017. We'll be leaving them with more complete control of the country than they had when we arrived. The US didn't invent the idea of "let girls go to schools" and didn't bestow this wonderful idea upon the poor uneducated Afghani people. 1st_Panzer_Div. posted:Source - I can see the future. Suni Taliban as reported in many cities? It's a lie. Massive popular support? Taliban Social Media Op. You see inherently Taliban are brutal in ideology - anything else is a false flag or recent lies as part of the Talbian Agenda (tm). That the UK was financially invested in slavery even after they abolished it themselves is a hot take? OK sure dude. Feel free to pop over into a history thread and check into that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:31
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:I don’t think Americans give a gently caress about who’s in charge when a war ends one way or another, and never had. W was an anomaly, his dad served one term with a much more successful and popular war with Iraq. Vietnam didn’t seem to hurt Kennedy, LBJ or Nixon’s re-election chances. Vietnam was why LBJ chose not to run for his 2nd term actually. Eugene McCarthy the peace candidate almost beat him in NH primaries, he chose not to run again after that granted tho 1968 was when bodybags by the hundreds were coming home a months, very different when there's no bodybags coming home just some bad TV images
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:31
|
|
|
And Vietnam was relatively under-the-radar during Kennedy's term. I believe it was more of a think tank/wonk controversy rather than something in the popular consciousness. Johnson basically kicked everything into high gear by turning the Gulf of Tonkin incident into a casus belli. It was a fantastic way to ruin what would have been an amazing presidential legacy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
LostRook posted:And what percentage of Afghanistan is part of the Taliban that just conquered the country? The Gini coefficient of the United States ranges between 0.4 (Utah) and 0.5 (Washington D.C. and New York State) while in Afghanistan it was calculated at 0.3 according to the IMF. However it remains a very poor and corrupt country which might help explain why the former regime was defeated so quickly and why the Taliban was able to recruit people to their cause.  (IMF Country Report No. 19/382 2019 page 10)  (IMF Country Report No. 19/382 2019 page 42) However if you look at the gender inequality index Afghanistan falls behind. The Gender Inequality Index (GII) (2018) ranked Afghanistan at 143 worldwide with a score of 0.575 (lower is better) while the U.S. was ranked 42 worldwide with a score of 0.182. For reference Switzerland was ranked at 1 with a score of 0.037. "In the 20 years since September 11, 2001, the United States has spent more than $2 trillion on the war in Afghanistan. That’s $300 million dollars per day, every day, for two decades. Or $50,000 for each of Afghanistan's 40 million people." It's a good racket if you want to transfer wealth from NATO & Afghani tax payers to the MIC and corrupt NATO and Afghani officials.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:And Vietnam was relatively under-the-radar during Kennedy's term. I believe it was more of a think tank/wonk controversy rather than something in the popular consciousness. yeah Vietnam wasn't a big deal electorally until 1965 Goldwater did campaign on defending Vietnam in 1964 but nobody gave a poo poo Typo fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Aug 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:36
|
|
|
Some emergency funds for refugee resettlement incoming. https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1427443288827695113 It probably would have been good to do this sooner, but better late than never.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:39
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:In Obama's case, he understood that the Bush administration had hosed things to the point they couldn't be recovered, but he lacked the courage to pull out of this disaster. Obama was more afraid of potential news stories about the fall of Kabul than about doing the right thing. So he did the easiest thing instead, the Obama administration did the bare minimum to keep up the status quo. Obama had the issue that Iraq was in a much shittier situation. Afghanistan you could keep calm for a few years by throwing money around to the various mercenaries, and you could tell the no-wars crowd that something-something 9/11. Iraq was clearly a war of choice and convenience that felt eerily contrived for McCain to pinch Iran, and if not handled carefully we could easily leave it worse than we found it. It's hard to find Afghanistan in worse condition than it was when we went in, since the 90s Taliban had pretty much obliterated are symbols of culture they didn't agree with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
LostRook posted:And what percentage of Afghanistan is part of the Taliban that just conquered the country? I know I'll get made fun of for this, but how does a force that consists of .002% the population take over the entire country? Typo posted:yeah Vietnam wasn't a big deal electorally until 1965 Wasn't Nixon's re-election a year before the U.S. left Vietnam?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
Typo posted:Vietnam was why LBJ chose not to run for his 2nd term actually. I was thinking of 1964, since Vietnam was already a shitshow with less than 50% popular support, but point taken.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:
it was the year of but unlike Afghanistan the ARVN didn't collapse like 2 weeks affter the US withdrew Nixon's thing was "vietnamization" so in 1972 you can sort of convince yourself it was working
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:43
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The US didn't invent the idea of "let girls go to schools" and didn't bestow this wonderful idea upon the poor uneducated Afghani people. But they did make it possible for a significant portion of the population. This isn't an all-or-nothing/black and white proposition the internet always tries to reduce things into. It is not cognitive dissonance to simultaneously hold the idea that the US had ulterior motives for toppling the Taliban *AND* that they genuinely tried to improve things for the population while they were there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
MikeC posted:But they did make it possible for a significant portion of the population. This isn't an all-or-nothing/black and white proposition the internet always tries to reduce things into. The US was given the opportunity to accept a Taliban surrender and didn't. Nor was it very much about toppling the Taliban for most of the war, which is why they came back from hiding in Pakistan. Now the Taliban will end the war more in control of the country than when it started. The war was about enriching the US military complex. And that's what it did. That's what we spend money on. Everything else was lip service to "doing the right thing".
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 02:52
|
|