Afghanistan shouldn't be free!

[Ranger2]

After 9/11, the United States was in shock. We had just been attacked, without provocation. Our capitalist, democratic republic, the most prosperous in history, had been attacked by fascist, autocratic nutjobs who wanted to see the world burn.
So, America, NATO, ISAF, and other allies headed off to Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, disband Al-Qaida, and spread freedom to the outreaches of the Middle East.

We shouldn't have done that.

Make no mistake, I am a firm believer in capitalism, a free market, and democracy. I wouldn't change the US government if I had the opportunity, (although something like the Prime Minister's Questions would be a good idea). Democratic Republics are the freeist, best types of civilizations in the world, and where they exist, there is prosperity and happiness.

But democracy is not good for Afghanistan. The area has been under war and oppression for too long.
Let's take a look at Afghani history.

In the mid 1970s, Afghanistan was relatively stable. They were ruled by a king, who was fair and reasonable. It wasn't the freeist or most prosperous state in the world, but it the citizens had certain rights, there was stability, and Afghanistan was modernizing.
Then, the USSR invaded and established a communist government. Fail.
The USA, in a short-sighted maneuver, aided the muhajadeen, including Osama Bin Laden, who fought against the Soviets. This led to the Taliban taking power. Fail.
Now, the USA is fighting those it has once helped, and there is a democracy in Afghanistan. And it's corrupt and failing.

And it also shows how Osama and his gang are the most ungrateful bastards alive

It's been proven that extremes don't work in Afghanistan. Revolutionary, leftist, communist regimes don't work anywhere, much less Afghanistan. The Taliban's far-right approach fails too, because Afghanistan sure wasn't stable under them.
Democracy isn't an extreme. We're the most moderate form of government, but it just doesn't fit in Afghanistan. The people there have never had a true democracy. They've never known peace, if they were born in 1973+, and they aren't civilized enough to appreciate and work for the benefits that democracy offers.

So, NG, I offer another solution: Put a king on the throne in Afghanistan. Communism and Islamo-fascism don't work. Sadly, democracy doesn't work either in Afghanistan. The only alternative is to put a constitutional monarchy. Mix moderate Islamic law with a monarchy, and give the people basic rights. Allow some free speech, and mostly freedom of religion.

The problem is that we have been trying to recreate Afghanistan in our image. I love the system we have in the USA. It works for us. But the people of Afghanistan are willing to give up freedom for stability-that's why they support the terrorists.

So oust Karzai and appoint a king to the throne of Afghanistan. And maybe, just maybe, there will be less corruption, less anti-Western sentiment, and stability.

[F4LL0UT]

When I read your topic's title I was pretty sure you were nuts but after reading your post I find that I have to sort of agree with you. I'm sticking pretty much to what my professor of modern history told me. Neither the cultural nor the geographical conditions in Afghanistan seem to be compatible with the western ideas of a democracy und thus a democracy after pulling out any western forces is pretty much guaranteed to fail. Maybe the biggest problem: the huge mountainous terrain is the anarchist's dreamland and impossible to control by a typical democracy. I think no civilization in the world has yet had the right idea of what to do with Afghanistan. I find your idea of re-establishing a monarchy sort of ridiculous but yeah, it might actually even be a better solution than the mighty Jenga Tower of democracy that we're currently building there.

[Prome]

i can judge you by looking to your signature

some big text wall featuring flaming a user goes here

[BezFriend]

Well, looking back at history, this is also the reason why Britain didn't give the United States a democracy - because they perceive and generalize people too much - and not in a positive way.

[Spackled]

At 10/11/10 08:36 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 10/11/10 01:43 PM, Prometheus13 wrote: i can judge you by looking to your signature

And what's wrong with his signature? I'd say it's one of the better signatures I've seen on the forums.

I think Prometheus is one of those anti-Israel nuts.

[orangebomb]

At 10/11/10 10:44 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 10/11/10 10:33 PM, Spackled wrote: I think Prometheus is one of those anti-Israel nuts.

most likely. God, how I hate anti-semites.

Just because someone is anti-Israel doesn't nessacarily mean he/she is an anti-semite. There are some Jews who despise Israel for various reasons.

[Bryan]

At 10/11/10 08:36 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 10/11/10 01:43 PM, Prometheus13 wrote: i can judge you by looking to your signature

And what's wrong with his signature? I'd say it's one of the better signatures I've seen on the forums.

His signature was shamelessly stolen from Idiot-finder. Without giving any credit.

[chairmankem]

At 10/11/10 11:28 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Not likely. That's like a Christian who hates the vatican or a Muslim who hates mecca.

Well, that's not a very good argument considering that not all Christians are Catholic or consider the Holy See to be their primary religious authority, yet Mecca is the center of worship for all Muslims.

There are orthodox sects who are opposed to a Jewish state, you know.

[F4LL0UT]

At 10/11/10 11:28 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Not likely. That's like a Christian who hates the vatican or a Muslim who hates mecca.

Not all christians are catholics and not even all catholics really accept the vatican. Me, I absolutely do not respect the current Pope (and also didn't agree with everything the previous one stood for) because I don't think that he truly represents all the christian values that I believe in. Does that mean that I'm not a catholic? But well, as I already said in the other thread: You're making the mistake of assuming that all followers of a religion have to be conservatives who perfectly follow what their clerical authorities are telling tem.

Btw: Judaism and zionism are not the same thing. Is that so fucking hard to get? Also: As far as I remember Israel was supposed to be established after the appearance of the Messiah who as far as I'm informed hasn't shown up yet, so according to the truly faithful Jews there should be no Israel yet. I'm happy that there's at least some Jews who actually are aware of that and who despise the ways of Israel (which pretty much cover with the ideology of Nazi Germany). I'm also wondering: So is Steven Spielberg, according to you, not a Jew or even an anti-semite for making Munich?

[Warforger]

At 10/11/10 12:20 PM, Ranger2 wrote: After 9/11, the United States was in shock. We had just been attacked, without provocation. Our capitalist, democratic republic, the most prosperous in history, had been attacked by fascist, autocratic nutjobs who wanted to see the world burn.

And that Saddam had nukes...

Also I don't recall anyone calling Al-Queda fascists...

At 10/11/10 12:20 PM, Ranger2 wrote: So, America, NATO, ISAF, and other allies headed off to Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, disband Al-Qaida, and spread freedom to the outreaches of the Middle East.

Not necessarily, before the Afghanistan war the US was good friends with the Taliban, an American oil company was even negotiating with the Taliban to build a pipeline through Western Afghanistan for example.

At 10/11/10 12:20 PM, Ranger2 wrote: We shouldn't have done that.

Make no mistake, I am a firm believer in capitalism, a free market, and democracy. I wouldn't change the US government if I had the opportunity, (although something like the Prime Minister's Questions would be a good idea). Democratic Republics are the freeist, best types of civilizations in the world, and where they exist, there is prosperity and happiness.

Like in Niger.....

At 10/11/10 12:20 PM, Ranger2 wrote: But democracy is not good for Afghanistan. The area has been under war and oppression for too long.

No, a totalitarian government is best used when your trying to stabilize a nation, a democracy tends to split people apart and during a period of instability it just collapses as the various factions get a say, nothing is passed that makes anyone happy, then they revolt again to establish a totalitarian regime.

At 10/11/10 12:20 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Let's take a look at Afghani history.

In the mid 1970s, Afghanistan was relatively stable. They were ruled by a king, who was fair and reasonable. It wasn't the freeist or most prosperous state in the world, but it the citizens had certain rights, there was stability, and Afghanistan was modernizing.

No. I'd like to say right now, at least go look at the wikipedia articles on this stuff before saying stuff like that.

Afghanistan was a democratic republic, it had a President during the 70's

At 10/11/10 12:20 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Then, the USSR invaded and established a communist government. Fail.

No. The USSR did NOT establish a Communist government, there was a Communist revolution in 1978 which established the Communist party of Afghanistan in power, in 1979 the Mujahadeen started their long war against this government, then the Soviets went south to support them.

At 10/11/10 12:20 PM, Ranger2 wrote: The USA, in a short-sighted maneuver, aided the muhajadeen, including Osama Bin Laden, who fought against the Soviets. This led to the Taliban taking power. Fail.
Now, the USA is fighting those it has once helped, and there is a democracy in Afghanistan. And it's corrupt and failing.

And it also shows how Osama and his gang are the most ungrateful bastards alive

No. Again you show how little you know. Osama is actually mad at us because of this:

In Kenya there was a terrorist attack that was from Sudan, the guy who planned it out was Bin Laden, as he has strong ties in Sudan, this led the US to put Sudan in its list of countries harboring Terrorists and launched Cruise missile strikes at targets in Sudan (supposidly a chemical weapons plant, but really a pharmacuetical company, so the US just damaged the Sudanese people) and at Bin laden's camps in Afghanistan, as you can tell this didn't kill him and AFTER these attacks he wrote his Jihad against America.

So he hates us because we act like the world police....

At 10/11/10 12:20 PM, Ranger2 wrote: So, NG, I offer another solution: Put a king on the throne in Afghanistan. Communism and Islamo-fascism don't work. Sadly, democracy doesn't work either in Afghanistan. The only alternative is to put a constitutional monarchy. Mix moderate Islamic law with a monarchy, and give the people basic rights. Allow some free speech, and mostly freedom of religion.

Related to my other paragraph...

At 10/11/10 12:20 PM, Ranger2 wrote: The problem is that we have been trying to recreate Afghanistan in our image. I love the system we have in the USA. It works for us. But the people of Afghanistan are willing to give up freedom for stability-that's why they support the terrorists.

No, the Taliban bully the people into support if they didn't already, the people support whoever wins because thats the smart thing to do, who cares if your mom has to wear a veil just be glad your not getting shot at in a civil war.

[camobch0]

Russia totally pwned Afghanistan.. right?

[orangebomb]

At 10/12/10 01:48 AM, chairmankem wrote:

At 10/11/10 11:28 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Not likely. That's like a Christian who hates the vatican or a Muslim who hates mecca.

Well, that's not a very good argument considering that not all Christians are Catholic or consider the Holy See to be their primary religious authority, yet Mecca is the center of worship for all Muslims.

There are orthodox sects who are opposed to a Jewish state, you know.

That's exactly what I have been saying in my previous post, RWG.

As for Afghanistan, it has been known as the graveyard of empires for a long time, because everyone who tried to conquer or control Afghanistan has more or less failed because of the terrain the mentality of the people who live there for so long, they know the proverbial in and outs of the country, which would include terrorists.

[Warforger]

At 10/12/10 11:36 PM, orangebomb wrote: As for Afghanistan, it has been known as the graveyard of empires for a long time

Besides the Mongols, the Islamic Caliphates etc........

[sinfulwolf]

First, ISAF is not an entirely seperate entity from NATO, nor is the US entirely seperate from NATO, as the original post makes it seem. The US is a member of NATO and went into Afghanistan as part of NATO. ISAF is a group made up mostly by members of NATO. These groups are all interconnected and not totally seperate as the OP makes it seem.

And the Mujahadeen who fought the Soviets did not all turn around and become Taliban. Indeed the Taliban rose to power after the Russians retreated, then went to war against the Northern Alliance who were made up mostly of Mejahadeen fighters from the fight against Russia.

[kiwipuff]

I will admit that I didn't read this entire OP.

But this makes me justified, and I believe if we can help citizens that otherwise have no voice, I'm all for helping. Though that is far from what I think the US is doing in Afghanistan...

[chairmankem]

At 10/13/10 02:25 AM, kiwipuff wrote: I will admit that I didn't read this entire OP.

But this makes me justified, and I believe if we can help citizens that otherwise have no voice, I'm all for helping. Though that is far from what I think the US is doing in Afghanistan...

To be completely fair it's not our place to enforce our own standards of morality. If we do so, we might as well just label the country a protectorate or puppet state rather than pretend we care about Afghans' sovereignty.

[bcdemon]

At 10/11/10 12:20 PM, Ranger2 wrote: So oust Karzai and appoint a king to the throne of Afghanistan. And maybe, just maybe, there will be less corruption, less anti-Western sentiment, and stability.

You think the powers that be (US gov) care if there is anti-western sentiment? Karzai is the ONLY guy that did anything in Afghanistan that the US liked, he opened up Afghanistan for pipeline work. Unocol tried it when the Taliban were in power and failed. They even had the Taliban over for dinner, shmoozing them with all the luxuries of a US oil tycoon. But for some reason the Taliban said no, that's when the USA stopped being friendly with them. But Karzai, (rumored to be buds with GW back in the Carlisle Group) his first job as President in Afghanistan was to sign on to the Central Asia Pipeline.
Besides, now that the Taliban is gone, opium production in Afghanistan is at an all time high, so the USA has their hands full with the war on drugs aswell.

[Warforger]

At 10/17/10 10:17 AM, bcdemon wrote: Besides, now that the Taliban is gone, opium production in Afghanistan is at an all time high, so the USA has their hands full with the war on drugs aswell.

You think they're against the Opium production? Its one of the few reasons the locals have for supporting the US over the Taliban, who cares if there is a massive heroine epidemic in Central Asia and Russia.

[bcdemon]

At 10/17/10 12:01 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 10/17/10 10:17 AM, bcdemon wrote: Besides, now that the Taliban is gone, opium production in Afghanistan is at an all time high, so the USA has their hands full with the war on drugs aswell.

You think they're against the Opium production? Its one of the few reasons the locals have for supporting the US over the Taliban, who cares if there is a massive heroine epidemic in Central Asia and Russia.

They were against it when they were in power, all but eliminating it. Now I'm sure they use it to their benefit. And don't kid yourself, a load of that premium Afghan Opium is making its way to a neighborhood near YOU!

[Warforger]

At 10/18/10 09:05 AM, bcdemon wrote:
They were against it when they were in power, all but eliminating it. Now I'm sure they use it to their benefit.

I was talking about the US protecting the Opium production, not the Taliban.

At 10/18/10 09:05 AM, bcdemon wrote: And don't kid yourself, a load of that premium Afghan Opium is making its way to a neighborhood near YOU!

Of course, but Central Asia and Russia are hit the hardest because those are more accessible then the other side of the world.

[Tancrisism]

Yeah, because that worked so well with the Shah in Iran.

Oh wait.

[Chris-V2]

I like how nothing pre 9/11 in American-Afghani relations qualifies as relevant political fodder.

Are you aware of the anti-Soviet invasion America was fuelling within the Middle East? Saddam Hussein for example was installed by the CIA. The resistances of these countries where promised alot by the US in which it failed to deliver and, certainly in their eyes, once the soviet threat was no longer imminent America began to show indifference and contempt to a very war torn part of the Middle East.

But let's hear from someone who was actualy involved.

"Allah knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed - when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

- Osama bin Laden, 2004

I'm not saying I completely agree, I'm just saying there has been a failing to understand the Arabic perspective.

[Ranger2]

At 10/19/10 06:45 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Are you aware of the anti-Soviet invasion America was fuelling within the Middle East? Saddam Hussein for example was installed by the CIA. The resistances of these countries where promised alot by the US in which it failed to deliver and, certainly in their eyes, once the soviet threat was no longer imminent America began to show indifference and contempt to a very war torn part of the Middle East.

I'm very well aware of how we helped them. But wouldn't the Taliban have been angry if we had tried to show our influence in the Afghani government then in the 80s?
Seems to me we gave them what they wanted, left, like we were supposed to, and they got mad at us for supporting another country nowhere near them.

[Warforger]

At 10/20/10 09:05 PM, Ranger2 wrote: I'm very well aware of how we helped them. But wouldn't the Taliban have been angry if we had tried to show our influence in the Afghani government then in the 80s?
Seems to me we gave them what they wanted, left, like we were supposed to, and they got mad at us for supporting another country nowhere near them.

You mean, we left, we let them do what they wanted, but then when they did something bad we bombed them again, as well as bombing other Arab countries, and no one in mainland America was effected by any.

[ChainsawNinjaZX]

I almost agree with fallout, but if you put a king in power there the odds are that it will all fall apart. Giving one person power there would be a bad move, especially at a time like this. Good arguments though.

[bcdemon]

At 10/20/10 09:05 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 10/19/10 06:45 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Are you aware of the anti-Soviet invasion America was fuelling within the Middle East? Saddam Hussein for example was installed by the CIA. The resistances of these countries where promised alot by the US in which it failed to deliver and, certainly in their eyes, once the soviet threat was no longer imminent America began to show indifference and contempt to a very war torn part of the Middle East.

I'm very well aware of how we helped them. But wouldn't the Taliban have been angry if we had tried to show our influence in the Afghani government then in the 80s?
Seems to me we gave them what they wanted, left, like we were supposed to, and they got mad at us for supporting another country nowhere near them.

You didn't give them what they wanted, the USA did what was best for the USA, stop Russia, that's it.
It's not like the USA cared about Afghanistan sovereignty. At that time allowing Russia to conquer and take over a country would have been devastating, so you HAD to stop them.
You don't seem to differentiate between Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. The Taliban didn't get pissed at you (USA) for helping Israel bomb Lebanon, Bin Laden did. The Taliban didn't take down the WTC, Bin Laden did. Bin Laden doesn't belong to any one country anymore, he belongs to Islam, which encompasses many countries. So it doesn't matter which Islamic country the USA throws a bomb at, Bin Laden is going to get pissed off over it.

[BezFriend]

At 10/23/10 08:31 AM, bcdemon wrote:

So it doesn't matter which Islamic country the USA throws a bomb at, Bin Laden is going to get pissed off over it.

Bin Laden is already dead. He can't get pissed off. But his lieutenants sure will.

[bcdemon]

At 10/23/10 08:38 AM, BezFriend wrote:

At 10/23/10 08:31 AM, bcdemon wrote:

So it doesn't matter which Islamic country the USA throws a bomb at, Bin Laden is going to get pissed off over it.

Bin Laden is already dead. He can't get pissed off. But his lieutenants sure will.

Oh is he? You wouldn't happen to have a news link of this would you?

[Chris-V2]

If you care to read up on CIA involvement or American involvement in Afghanistan, you'll find alot of evidence that the government used the local people to fight the Soviets by twisting their religion against them, making impossible promises and arming insurgents.

It's beleived that America was trying to drag Russia into an expensive war that could never be won. Evidence pointing to this would be America's fear of the expansion of Communism, resources within the Middle East, and the military potential of having bases within the Middle East. It was also a subtle form of economic war - driving down another Government's spending power without losing much yourself.

Results of it all? The countries infrastructure was ruined. The Middle East became an extremely turbulent part of the world and America abandoned its operations in the midst of the Civil War that they had at least helped provoke.

Yeah, can't see why them Afghanis could be mad.

[Warforger]

At 10/23/10 08:38 AM, BezFriend wrote:

At 10/23/10 08:31 AM, bcdemon wrote:

So it doesn't matter which Islamic country the USA throws a bomb at, Bin Laden is going to get pissed off over it.

Bin Laden is already dead. He can't get pissed off. But his lieutenants sure will.

You mean that one rumor that he died in a car bombing or something like that? No one knows, he's really good at covering his tracks , getting rid of footprints and going through the vaste wasteland of Afghanistan, he could be dead he could not be, he is paranoid though.