America in Afghanistan?

[Abc]

I have been wondoring, why sould i not the support the American Intervention in Afghanistan? while i have no doubt that America is doing to for its own benifit to futher increase its power in that area, are the results not worth it? i read about the stuff the taliban did, and is not a american puppet better?

[Nolan]

I have been wondoring, why sould i not the support the American Intervention in Afghanistan? while i have no doubt that America is doing to for its own benifit to futher increase its power in that area, are the results not worth it? i read about the stuff the taliban did, and is not a american puppet better?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh:

[mykittyhasaboner]

I have been wondoring, why sould i not the support the American Intervention in Afghanistan? while i have no doubt that America is doing to for its own benifit to futher increase its power in that area, are the results not worth it? i read about the stuff the taliban did, and is not a american puppet better?

The Taliban would have never came into power with out the help of the US, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Basically "an American puppet" has been way worse for the people of Afghanistan, providing nothing more but WAY more fuel for the fire.

What did you think was "worse" about the Taliban as opposed to American occupation?

[mykittyhasaboner]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh:

They are sincerely asking a question. Don't ridicule them. This is the Learning forum.

[Nolan]

They are sincerely asking a question. Don't ridicule them. This is the Learning forum.

I apologize.

[JohnnyC]

What you propose is completely anti-socialist.Even thought you might think that's the best choice for the people of Afghanistan, what you actually support is American imperialism.

[Abc]

well atleast with the american occupation women are allowed to go to school ( and i know america put the taliban in power and turned a blind eye when they had all women removed from schools), during the taliban reign had to be escorted everywere in the company of a man and were flogged if they failed to do so among many other horriable things, i'm just wondoring WHY is it un-socialist?

[mykittyhasaboner]

What you propose is completely anti-socialist.Even thought you might think that's the best choice for the people of Afghanistan, what you actually support is American imperialism.

I think the OP understands that the occupation of Afghanistan is in the name of US imperialism. They are asking if a US client state would prove to be better for the people of Afghanistan as opposed to the Taliban government and "sharia law".



well atleast with the american occupation women are allowed to go to school ( and i know america put the taliban in power and turned a blind eye when they had all women removed from schools), during the taliban reign had to be escorted everywere in the company of a man and were flogged if they failed to do so among many other horriable things,

http://www.inquisitr.com/21045/legal-rape-bought-to-you-by-the-us-backed-afghan-government/



i'm just wondoring WHY is it un-socialist?

It is against the principles and goals of the socialist movement (empowerment of the working classes) to support either the Taliban or the US government because both are based on the rule an exploiting class. The US and what was to become the Taliban fought against the socialist led government of Afghanistan which was backed by the Soviet Union.

[Nolan]

I think the OP understands that the occupation of Afghanistan is in the name of US imperialism. They are asking if a US client state would prove to be better for the people of Afghanistan as opposed to the Taliban government and "sharia law".

It wont be better, the whole cycle will repeat again once the Afghan government doesn't cooperate. Remember how Saddam was once a friend to the west.

[the last donut of the night]

well atleast with the american occupation women are allowed to go to school ( and i know america put the taliban in power and turned a blind eye when they had all women removed from schools), during the taliban reign had to be escorted everywere in the company of a man and were flogged if they failed to do so among many other horriable things, i'm just wondoring WHY is it un-socialist?

Well, for one, the Karzai government -- the one put in power by the American forces -- is composed of the same corrupt elements that make up the Taliban. Karzai has had no problem with laws that allow marital rape and others that oppress women.

[Abc]

yes but is it not better to support the lesser of two evils?
for example
*In October 1996, a woman had the tip of her thumb cut off for wearing nail varnish
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Taliban_public_execution_of_Zarmeena_1999.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/Talibanbeating.jpg
and women could not drive, have any kind of employment,be in public without being covered, or speak in public

[mykittyhasaboner]

yes but is it not better to support the lesser of two evils?
for example
*In October 1996, a woman had the tip of her thumb cut off for wearing nail varnish
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Taliban_public_execution_of_Zarmeena_1999.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/Talibanbeating.jpg
and women could not drive, have any kind of employment,be in public without being covered, or speak in public


There is no "lesser of two evils". Not only is this kind of outlook unmaterialist; it assumes that women are not as oppressed under US rule than under the Taliban government. Mind you that women aren't the only oppressed group in Afghanistan, and nothing has gotten better for the rest either. Besides the fact that thousands of people have died and are still being killed as a result of the US occupation, IIRC the US government isn't doing anything to improve the living conditions of Afghanistan. Did you read the link I posted? Karzai signed a law that essentially legalizes rape and restricts women from leaving their home, seeking employment or education without the permission of their husband. They cant even see a doctor without permission.

Pretty much all they've done is dispose the Taliban, kill their supporters or simply anyone else who happens to be in the way, and install a new government practicing the same old shit.

Marxists don't view politics as a matter of who is the "lesser evil", and nor should Anarchists. What matters is what class is in power, and what needs to be done by the working and exploited classes of Afghanistan in order to take power.

[Abc]

k, i think i understand now thanks

[mykittyhasaboner]

k, i think i understand now thanks

So do you oppose the US occupation of Afghanistan or are still undecided?

[Pawn Power]

In regards to the quality of life of women in Afganistan, there is much evidence that they are now worse off under military occupation then they were befre. http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-afghan-women-worse-off-since-taliban-removed-from-power-r-1247077797

edit: fixed link

[Nolan]

In regards to the quality of life of women in Afganistan, there is much evidence that they are now worse off under military occupation then they were befre. http://http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-afghan-women-worse-off-since-taliban-removed-from-power-r-1247077797

Your link is dead.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Your link is dead.

Not really, it just has two "http"s in it. Fixed:

http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-afghan-women-worse-off-since-taliban-removed-from-power-r-1247077797

[mikelepore]

Those who think U.S. presence in Afghanistan is "imperialism" should try to defend their claim. Where is the imperialism? Is the U.S. claiming ownership of their industries? Is the U.S. taking away their industries' products? The fact is, the U.S. is occupying Afghanistan to prevent a return to power of the former government that gave assistance to the group that attacked the U.S. That is not the definition of the word "imperialism." Look it up.

[Red Saxon]

The fact is, the U.S. is occupying Afghanistan to prevent a return to power of the former government that gave assistance to the group that attacked the U.S. So we kill 11,760-31,357 civilians and the "terrorists" killed 3,497 civilians?

Hardly seems fair :P

[redwinter]

This is a very valid question from anyone in the world today, we can see that Islamic fundamentalist reactionary forces have won the support of millions all over the world and there isn't another revolutionary/communist pole that has been established yet at this point. Thus people are forced into a killing dynamic of either supporting US imperialism or siding with Islamic fundamentalists to oppose the US.

Two quotes from Bob Avakian on this one:
"The essence of what exists in the U.S. is not democracy but capitalism-imperialism and political structures to enforce that capitalism-imperialism. What the U.S. spreads around the world is not democracy, but imperialism and political structures to enforce that imperialism."

"What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system. These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you end up strengthening both."

I would also recommend people read this letter from a prisoner to Revolution newspaper and the editors' response, about supporting US imperialism against Islamist reactionaries and why that's NOT a solution for the oppressed people of the world facing Sharia law and obscurantist oppression:

http://revcom.us/a/123/prisoner-letter-response-en.html

[Durruti's Ghost]

Those who think U.S. presence in Afghanistan is "imperialism" should try to defend their claim. Where is the imperialism? Is the U.S. claiming ownership of their industries? Is the U.S. taking away their industries' products? The fact is, the U.S. is occupying Afghanistan to prevent a return to power of the former government that gave assistance to the group that attacked the U.S. That is not the definition of the word "imperialism." Look it up.

Well, there's more than one definition of imperialism. Whose are we using? One could make the case that the occupation of Afghanistan is not technically imperialist in the sense that Lenin meant in Imperialism (though I would not take that position), but the dictionary definition of imperialism ("a system in which a rich and powerful country controls other countries"), which is also the common usage of the term, clearly does include this particular case of occupation.

[Nolan]

Those who think U.S. presence in Afghanistan is "imperialism" should try to defend their claim. Where is the imperialism? Is the U.S. claiming ownership of their industries? Is the U.S. taking away their industries' products? The fact is, the U.S. is occupying Afghanistan to prevent a return to power of the former government that gave assistance to the group that attacked the U.S. That is not the definition of the word "imperialism." Look it up.

It is imperialism - not only against Afghanistan. Afghanistan has resource-rich neighbors. Having a presence there allows the US to more easily invade Iran, Pakistan, China, or any central Asian countries that fail to cooperate. I'm sure the US profits from the drug trade in Afghanistan.