Opinions on Afghanistan [Archive]

Havet

22nd March 2010, 16:11

Let's not blame the Oil industry or its evident links to Blair (http://news.google.com/news?q=tony%20blair%20oil), or Xe Services (http://news.google.com/news?q=Xe%20Services), or any of the other well known capitalist entities poised to profit with increased military presence in the middle east - a system of capital involved in our military processes described by Eisenhower as the Military Industrial Complex.

Nope, its just the state. :laugh:

Well, it is just the State. Did the companies pay the bribes prior to the occupation of Iraq, or after? According to your source, it was after.

I'm not legitimizing the bribes. I'm just saying that your sources contradict your arguments.

Dean

22nd March 2010, 19:09

Well, it is just the State. Did the companies pay the bribes prior to the occupation of Iraq, or after? According to your source, it was after.

I'm not legitimizing the bribes. I'm just saying that your sources contradict your arguments.

My "source" was google news, which naturally - and this is a real shock, I know - lists more recent articles at the top.

You're right, though. Capitalism is so moral a system of economic organization, that I can't possibly imagine them bribing a government to misappropriate funds for any kind of benefit to their end. That would be rational self-interest, which capitalists never engage in.

Havet

22nd March 2010, 19:15

My "source" was google news, which naturally - and this is a real shock, I know - lists more recent articles at the top.

From your article:

Kyu-Sun Choi, head of the South Korean UI Energy Corporation, was convicted in 2003 of acting as a middle-man for firms which wanted to bribe government officials to award them lucrative contracts to run a national lottery. He was fined £260,000 as well as being sent to prison.

You're right, though. Capitalism is so moral a system of economic organization, that I can't possibly imagine them bribing a government to misappropriate funds for any kind of benefit to their end. That would be rational self-interest, which capitalists never engage in.

You're missing the point. You insinuated it was businesses who payed governments to invade Iraq, when IN FACT, businesses only bribed government to get something in return AFTER government invaded Iraq.

Capisce?

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 21:00

My "source" was google news, which naturally - and this is a real shock, I know - lists more recent articles at the top.

You're right, though. Capitalism is so moral a system of economic organization, that I can't possibly imagine them bribing a government to misappropriate funds for any kind of benefit to their end. That would be rational self-interest, which capitalists never engage in.

Its not a failing on the part of the government to accept the bribes? Nonono, they are the victims, right?

Dean

22nd March 2010, 23:19

Its not a failing on the part of the government to accept the bribes? Nonono, they are the victims, right?
Its a definitive characteristic of government in the context of a capitalist system that it will more accurately represent the interests of those who can offer more bribery and more valuable cronyism. It is, in fact, a fundamental characteristic of any security firm which is not defined by systemic characteristics which make it responsible to all people it may affect.

As I've said before (and I'm sure you dismissed it because it doesn't fit into your narrow, immaterial attitude about economy) it is no more a failing of government than it is of the individual capitalist firms. One cannot expect otherwise from profiteering entities. But, the fundamental nature of these systems, that is for-profit of a narrow population (that is the owners of stock and upper management) can clearly be seen as faulty. This narrow representation of interests as an economic organization has a name, and it is capitalism.

Richard Nixon

23rd March 2010, 02:57

Keep in mind this is about Afghanistan not Iraq. There are plenty of liberal bourgeouise who hate the war in Iraq and think it's for oil but still support war in Afghanistan.

As for me, I do support it but recognize it's more than just kill a bunch of terrorists-it will be national reconstruction on a scale not seen since the occupation of Germany and Japan after World War II.

Drace

23rd March 2010, 03:45

Keep in mind this is about Afghanistan not Iraq. There are plenty of liberal bourgeouise who hate the war in Iraq and think it's for oil but still support war in Afghanistan.

That's god dam ridiculous. So apparently the US only has imperialist ambitions in Iraq but really wants to help the Afghan people?

It would understandable if they believe that Afghanistan is the major hideout of the terrorists and the war effort should be focused there, but when you acknowledge the US war in Iraq is for oil, then I don't see what makes you think they have any better intentions in Afghanistan.

Dean

23rd March 2010, 04:19

You're missing the point. You insinuated it was businesses who payed governments to invade Iraq, when IN FACT, businesses only bribed government to get something in return AFTER government invaded Iraq.

Capisce?

What does it even matter to you? You disown all for-profit economic entities (capital) and yet continue to defend capitalist systems, for some reason (i.e. you actually do, in fact support capitalism).

In any case, I didn't anywhere say that businesses payed the gov't to invade Afghanistan/Iraq. but it was clearly in their interests, and even if the bribes only happen after the invasion, it is a clear incentive for the gov't to invade. It's like saying "vampire's will pay for blood, sure, but they would never ask you to kill or wound someone for it!".

It's just a meaningless distinction, an attempt to apply some idealist moral system to something that is really quite mundane and lacking in moral direction.

Richard Nixon

23rd March 2010, 04:23

That's god dam ridiculous. So apparently the US only has imperialist ambitions in Iraq but really wants to help the Afghan people?

It would understandable if they believe that Afghanistan is the major hideout of the terrorists and the war effort should be focused there, but when you acknowledge the US war in Iraq is for oil, then I don't see what makes you think they have any better intentions in Afghanistan.

I personally do not think so I was just explaining other peoples' thinking.

Havet

23rd March 2010, 10:01

What does it even matter to you? You disown all for-profit economic entities (capital) and yet continue to defend capitalist systems, for some reason (i.e. you actually do, in fact support capitalism).

I'm defending logic and reason, not capitalism. It's not my fault you can't argue properly.

In any case, I didn't anywhere say that businesses payed the gov't to invade Afghanistan/Iraq. but it was clearly in their interests, and even if the bribes only happen after the invasion, it is a clear incentive for the gov't to invade. It's like saying "vampire's will pay for blood, sure, but they would never ask you to kill or wound someone for it!".

You have absolutely no proof of this

RGacky3

23rd March 2010, 13:54

Its not a failing on the part of the government to accept the bribes? Nonono, they are the victims, right?

Its not failing or succeding is it, its the way of the market, is'nt that what you want?

You have absolutely no proof of this

They were planning the invasion of Iraq before 9-11, maybe the state did'nt get payout yet, but if you don't think there was any corporate pressure behind this your naive.

Dean

23rd March 2010, 14:29

I'm defending logic and reason, not capitalism. It's not my fault you can't argue properly.
:laugh::laugh::laugh: Kettleblack, this is the most succinct statement you've made thus far.

You have absolutely no proof of this

What? So if I bring you a steak and then sell it to you, are you going to argue with me whether or not it was in your interests for me to bring it around?

Do you realize how incredibly asinine every one off your posts sound nowadays?

LeftSideDown

23rd March 2010, 17:26

Hopefully my posts aren't "asinine" :rolleyes:

Havet

23rd March 2010, 19:07

They were planning the invasion of Iraq before 9-11, maybe the state did'nt get payout yet, but if you don't think there was any corporate pressure behind this your naive.

I'd like to see proof of corporate pressure before I make any judgements

What? So if I bring you a steak and then sell it to you, are you going to argue with me whether or not it was in your interests for me to bring it around?

Yes, it is in my interest. It doesn't imply I bribed you to bring it to me.

Dean

23rd March 2010, 20:47

Yes, it is in my interest. It doesn't imply I bribed you to bring it to me.

And I never said that! So much for your "superior debating skills," Mr. Defender of logic & reason. Apparently, in your defense of "logic & reason," you cannot bring yourself to respond to direct criticism of your views on security firms and the state - instead claiming "you haven't studied the issue" and citing others' opinions, as if we are to think that you fully support the opinions of other people.

Hopefully my posts aren't "asinine" :rolleyes:
Sadly, your's are worse than hayenmill's. But you should debate with him - you seem to think competition by its nature drives wages down, and he thinks that they are driven up by competition.

But I'm sure the result will be a change in your opinions, since you will take any frail argument to make competition appear to be a more beneficial system.

Our resident AnCaps and their deliciously idealist theories... how I envy your simplistic views of the world.

gorillafuck

23rd March 2010, 21:12

As for me, I do support it but recognize it's more than just kill a bunch of terrorists-it will be national reconstruction on a scale not seen since the occupation of Germany and Japan after World War II.
It is more than kill a bunch of terrorists, it's blow up the homes, shoot, and blow off the limbs of innocents because the USA was attacked by an international organization led by a man being housed in Afghanistan who was trained during Mujaheddin times, when the United States was sponsoring mass terrorism in Afghanistan. Given past US involvement in that country (as well as region in general), I think it's incredibly naive to believe the US gives two shits about "democracy" in Afghanistan, they just want a US friendly regime that's willing to have it's strings pulled.

Bud Struggle

23rd March 2010, 21:24

It is more than kill a bunch of terrorists, it's blow up the homes, shoot, and blow off the limbs of innocents because the USA was attacked by an international organization led by a man being housed in Afghanistan who was trained during Mujaheddin times, when the United States was sponsoring mass terrorism in Afghanistan.

Really. Who cares?

Let's just get these bastards up and functioning and begone from that hell hole.

The Taliban was no picnic. We, for the wrong reasons, did something good. They are better off now--now let's get out.

gorillafuck

23rd March 2010, 21:36

The Taliban was no picnic. We, for the wrong reasons, did something good. They are better off now--now let's get out.
I have my doubts that they are better off having bombs dropped on them, losing homes, and being shot at by NATO troops.

Bud Struggle

23rd March 2010, 21:42

I have my doubts that they are better off having bombs dropped on them, losing homes, and being shot at by NATO troops.

And your would want to be some sort of Talabanista bowing down to Mecca 5 times a day and beating the crap out of your wife or daughter is she dared learn how to read?

It sucked then--it's a tad better now.

gorillafuck

23rd March 2010, 22:19

And your would want to be some sort of Talabanista bowing down to Mecca 5 times a day and beating the crap out of your wife or daughter is she dared learn how to read?
Talabanista? Are they hispanic now?

The current government in Afghanistan legalized rape, so I hardly think that womens rights is a reason to support the occupation. And I'd rather have neither. But I'm going to oppose bombing, shooting, displacing, and starving innocents and the main perpetrator of these crimes is the US and NATO troops.

Dean

23rd March 2010, 23:01

And your would want to be some sort of Talabanista bowing down to Mecca 5 times a day and beating the crap out of your wife or daughter is she dared learn how to read?

It sucked then--it's a tad better now.

Actually, not really. The US forces come through and burn their opium crops - when the Taliban took over an area, I'm pretty sure they just ban the crop (this is what I remember from a docu on the issue I saw awhile ago).

Besides, such vast loss of life that radicalizes more Taliban really is no good - it has made more peaceful areas become real hot spots, and women are increasingly targeted nowadays. And the civilian casualties really are no joke. I don't see how these are advances, especially for women.

Drace

24th March 2010, 01:04

Comrade Anarchist

24th March 2010, 01:28

It is pure U.S. imperialism with state capitalist undercurrents. As the war is ramped up we will see either the blind support for "our defense" and the accepting of a draft, or kids will be sick of being used to strengthen state capitalists and rise up.

Scary Monster

24th March 2010, 02:23

And your would want to be some sort of Talabanista bowing down to Mecca 5 times a day and beating the crap out of your wife or daughter is she dared learn how to read?

It sucked then--it's a tad better now.

Haha wow- quite naive. You really think the US presence will lead to good?! Dude, the communist governments that supported women's suffrage, modernization in the 70s (especially under Dauod) and 80s was overthrown by the Mujahideen, thanks only in part to the US' huge flow of funding and arms, to the Muj' (who are also the reason the Soviets sent in support to the Afghan Government) and the US looking the other way in regards to the Muj's opium trading. During the 70s, before the US' meddling in Afghanistan, the government was moving toward "de-feudalising" Afghan society.

And in the present, we all know the US deliberately destabilizes and causes factionalism within Afghanistan, which makes it easier to occupy and install their puppet government, a government that just effin legalized rape!

Dean

24th March 2010, 02:32

What I'm wondering is how the Iraqi and Afghan opinion on this subject isn't as radical as I thought. I'm trying to find the polls of Iraqi and Afghan people on the US occupation.

Edit: Here it is.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/09bbciraqipoll.pdf

Sounds like the political differences of a population separated by distinct systems of economic, social and military force - the same things you will see if you go to rural and urban areas in Iran or Pakistan.

You will never find a foreign military occupation that has failed in appealing to the entire population. Rather, every successful invasion has cultivated support in the local population, typically by creating and enforcing boundaries which determine what kinds of material support or antagonism the occupier will offer.

Drace

24th March 2010, 02:38

Sounds like the political differences of a population separated by distinct systems of economic, social and military force - the same things you will see if you go to rural and urban areas in Iran or Pakistan.Right, it seems this is one very well divided up between the Sunni and the Shia, with the Sunni having the more radical of the opinions.

You will never find a foreign military occupation that has failed in appealing to the entire population. Rather, every successful invasion has cultivated support in the local population, typically by creating and enforcing boundaries which determine what kinds of material support or antagonism the occupier will offer.

Perhaps. I have even heard of the claim that some Russians looked at the German army as the liberators.

Richard Nixon

24th March 2010, 03:00

Haha wow- quite naive. You really think the US presence will lead to good?! Dude, the communist governments that supported women's suffrage, modernization in the 70s (especially under Dauod) and 80s was overthrown by the Mujahideen, thanks only in part to the US' huge flow of funding and arms, to the Muj' (who are also the reason the Soviets sent in support to the Afghan Government) and the US looking the other way in regards to the Muj's opium trading. During the 70s, before the US' meddling in Afghanistan, the government was moving toward "de-feudalising" Afghan society.

And in the present, we all know the US deliberately destabilizes and causes factionalism within Afghanistan, which makes it easier to occupy and install their puppet government, a government that just effin legalized rape!

Look Mujhadeen is not the Taliban. It also included the moderate Northern Alliance faction and at any rate the Afghan communists were a Soviet puppet government.

gorillafuck

24th March 2010, 03:17

Look Mujhadeen is not the Taliban. It also included the moderate Northern Alliance faction and at any rate the Afghan communists were a Soviet puppet government.
Haha, the "moderate Northern Alliance".

Scary Monster

24th March 2010, 03:26

Look Mujhadeen is not the Taliban. It also included the moderate Northern Alliance faction and at any rate the Afghan communists were a Soviet puppet government.

My point is that Afghanistan is in very shitty condition thanks to the past meddling and current occupation of the US, and Afghanistan's modernization and progress was thwarted thanks to the US propping up the Mujahideen, causing Afghan's instability and collapse in the 90s. The "soviet puppet government" sure was on its way to making life better for the Afghans, seeing how the PDPA was bringing freedom of religion to the population and introducing women to politics and women's rights. But anyway, BudStruggle here seems to think the US is causing some good and progress in ol' Afghanistan, even though the US puppets just legalized rape and is continuing the same feudalistic social practices.

Dean

24th March 2010, 03:33

Look Mujhadeen is not the Taliban. It also included the moderate Northern Alliance faction and at any rate the Afghan communists were a Soviet puppet government.
Mujaheddin is not the taliban per se, but the Taliban are mujaheddin. For that matter, even the US forces can be seen as mujaheddin by the Afghans. Its a broad term meant to represent a person who struggles, like "jihad" (which, having similar roots, also means "struggle").

Right, it seems this is one very well divided up between the Sunni and the Shia, with the Sunni having the more radical of the opinions.

If by "very well divided" you mean "88%- 11%" respectively, then sure, you could say that. Shi'a Islam is hardly a real political force in Afghanistan and I doubt it is being used by the occupiers, except in an extremely limited fashion.

LeftSideDown

24th March 2010, 08:42

Sadly, your's are worse than hayenmill's. But you should debate with him - you seem to think competition by its nature drives wages down, and he thinks that they are driven up by competition.

But I'm sure the result will be a change in your opinions, since you will take any frail argument to make competition appear to be a more beneficial system.

Our resident AnCaps and their deliciously idealist theories... how I envy your simplistic views of the world.

Well, they are, in a way, driven up by competition between firms competing for a scarce resource (labor) but it offset by competition between workers themselves.

Dean

24th March 2010, 13:09

Well, they are, in a way, driven up by competition between firms competing for a scarce resource (labor) but it offset by competition between workers themselves.

See, you're both wrong.

Competition in the context of a disempowered labor force drives wages down, since they don't have the means of capital to enforce greater demands. Conversely, in the context of an empowered labor force, wages would be driven up. However, an empowered labor force would not be sustainable in a capitalist economy, because competition, in creating winners and losers in the race for efficiency, will disempower weaker entities toward the interests of more powerful ones.

You both consistently miss basic functions of capital, and in this case it is the function of more aggressive, efficient or otherwise empowered firms to seize market shares and other assets from weaker ones.

As we see, and like so many ancap assertions, grandiose claims about what capital will do for this or that entity - labor, technology, progress, the state - are always a farce. Capital always works toward the interests of firms able to grasp and hold tight the means of security, and other more subtle methods of market definition. These organizations can represent anyone, but they never represent their constituency equally, and as such cannot be seen as meaningfully carrying out the interests of the people that they are engaged with.

LeftSideDown

24th March 2010, 15:47

See, you're both wrong.

Competition in the context of a disempowered labor force drives wages down, since they don't have the means of capital to enforce greater demands. Conversely, in the context of an empowered labor force, wages would be driven up. However, an empowered labor force would not be sustainable in a capitalist economy, because competition, in creating winners and losers in the race for efficiency, will disempower weaker entities toward the interests of more powerful ones.

The employer, in your system, is able to wait longer because he has a larger subsistence that he can live off of and he can say "This is the wage I'm offering and I'll just wait for you to crawl to me". This would seem to create a situation that wages would not be reflective of marginal productivity. Because labor, commonly, is seen as more easily exploitable than something like capital, because with capital you're bidding against other people who also who have large means of subsistence, than you would expect certain things to follow from that. Capitalists are forced to buy the capital at the going rate because they are competing with other capitalists who aren't dying in order to get a better price for the capital itself. We would expect to find profits to be much higher in labor-intensive industries than capital-intensive industries. But there is no empirical evidence for this. Labor, is therefore, no more exploited than capital because wages are bid up, just like the "wages" (the price) of capital is bid up by capitalists.

There also certain myths that come from the presumption that laborers are at a bargaining disadvantage, and that labor unions are the only way to "level the playing field". For example, it is commonly said that before labor unions workers worked at subsistence level with no wage increases. However, before there was anything approaching substantial unionism in the United States there was a very substantial upward trend in wages, all through the 19th century and going into the 20th century. By 1900, labor unions accounted for 3% of the workforce. And yet American workers into the 1920's continued to have significantly higher wages than their heavily unionized counterparts in Europe and they got the 8 hour day sooner. There is also the myth that larger companies paid lower wages and exploited workers more because they had a much better bargaining position, but this is not true either: larger companies consistently paid better wages than smaller ones. There is also the myth that workers don't have substantial savings to subsist off of while they bargain with an employer, so they're wages are driven down by this. However, there does not seem to be any difference in the wage rates between workers with substantial savings and those who do not have substantial savings.

Overall, it is estimated that Labor Unions have cost the United States 50 Trillion dollars over the past half century. "These economic losses mean that although unionized workers have 15 percent higher wages than non-unionized workers, overall wages are depressed by an economy that is 30-40 percent smaller than it would otherwise have been. "In other words, unionized workers get a slightly larger piece of a significantly smaller pie," explained Mackinac Center Labor Policy Research Associate Paul Kersey."

Richard Nixon

25th March 2010, 02:49

My point is that Afghanistan is in very shitty condition thanks to the past meddling and current occupation of the US, and Afghanistan's modernization and progress was thwarted thanks to the US propping up the Mujahideen, causing Afghan's instability and collapse in the 90s. The "soviet puppet government" sure was on its way to making life better for the Afghans, seeing how the PDPA was bringing freedom of religion to the population and introducing women to politics and women's rights. But anyway, BudStruggle here seems to think the US is causing some good and progress in ol' Afghanistan, even though the US puppets just legalized rape and is continuing the same feudalistic social practices.

The exact same thing can be said about the current Afghan government. Yeah's it's pretty corrupt and has a lot of reactionary baggage but it's slightly more decent than the insane medieval Taliban.

Scary Monster

25th March 2010, 04:03

The exact same thing can be said about the current Afghan government. Yeah's it's pretty corrupt and has a lot of reactionary baggage but it's slightly more decent than the insane medieval Taliban.

Wut? No, the "exact" same thing cannot be said about the current Afghan goverment. The Afghan government is giving no heed to women's liberation, education, etc, and i say for the third time, they just legalized rape. You didnt seem to read the very next sentence after the one you bolded. Besides, if it werent for the US' involvement in the first place during the 70s and 80s, the medieval Taliban government would not have been able to gain power in the 90s. The Karzai government is no better than the Taliban.

Richard Nixon

29th March 2010, 01:20

Wut? No, the "exact" same thing cannot be said about the current Afghan goverment. The Afghan government is giving no heed to women's liberation, education, etc, and i say for the third time, they just legalized rape. You didnt seem to read the very next sentence after the one you bolded. Besides, if it werent for the US' involvement in the first place during the 70s and 80s, the medieval Taliban government would not have been able to gain power in the 90s. The Karzai government is no better than the Taliban.

There were many factions in the Mujahdeen: the Taliban and more moderate ones. It was only in the civil war afterwards that the Taliban gained control. Also the current government has restored some women's rights and that law legalizing spousal rape, child marriage, and purdah will probably end up being a dead letter or repealed due to Western pressure.

Scary Monster

30th March 2010, 03:24

There were many factions in the Mujahdeen: the Taliban and more moderate ones. It was only in the civil war afterwards that the Taliban gained control.

Yes, but like i said many times, the US destabilized Afghanistan by funding and supplying arms to the Mujahideen and looking the other way with their Opium trade. The Mujahideen would have been annihilated if it werent for the US, because they had NO popular support and would not have lasted long against the Afghan government with a militia that was inferiorly armed. This is the only reason the Taliban had gained so much power. The US did exactly what they wanted after overwhelming the Soviet-backed Afghan government force.

Also the current government has restored some women's rights and that law legalizing spousal rape, child marriage, and purdah will probably end up being a dead letter or repealed due to Western pressure.

What makes you think the US will pressure them to repeal a feudal law their puppet government just put into place? They dont give a shit as long as the government keeps Afghanistan open to western influence.

And Lol wut women's rights?

Here ya go:

pbs.org:

In 2003, a coalition of Afghan and Afghan American women drafted an Afghan Women’s Bill of Rights, demanding mandatory education for girls, equal representation in the loya jirga, criminalization of sexual harassment and domestic violence and the right to marry and divorce according to Islamic law. The bill was later presented to President Hamid Karzai, but despite assurance from leaders that it would be included in the constitution, it was not. Even the loya jirga’s conference began with the chairman proclaiming to women: “God has not given you equal rights because under his decision, two women are counted as equal to one man.” http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/afghanistanunveiled/women.html

Fuck the USA. The US needs to get the hell out of Afghanistan.

Bud Struggle

30th March 2010, 12:33

And Lol wut women's rights?

Here ya go:...

Fuck the USA. The US needs to get the hell out of Afghanistan.

It's the Afghanis that are denying woman's rights not the Americans. Changing a thousand years of behavior isn't something that can be done in a few years. Besides that's the problem with giving people freedom of choice in political matters--sometimes they don't choose the way that you want them to.

Scary Monster

30th March 2010, 19:20

It's the Afghanis that are denying woman's rights not the Americans. Changing a thousand years of behavior isn't something that can be done in a few years. Besides that's the problem with giving people freedom of choice in political matters--sometimes they don't choose the way that you want them to.

Uyyy *facepalm*

Go back and read my previous posts. I just addressed this. :cursing:

The Karzai government was the government put into place by the US. The people did not want that government at all. This is why the US is still there, to give the forced government some kind of authority and legitimacy. Changing a thousand years of behavior cant be done in a few years? Apparently 20th century Afghan history doesnt exist to you. The Afghans got rid of theocracy and medieval practices in government in the freakin '60s. The two successive communist governments, which were supported by the Soviets (not put into power by the Soviets), were modernizing Afghanistan, putting women into government, giving them higher education, freedom of religion, etc. This was until Afghanistan collapsed, and the Taliban gained power, which would not have happened without the US supplying the unpopular opposition to the Afghan government in the 80s. So you cant say the Afghan people were not moving toward "progress".

Seriously, read my other posts. I just went through describing all this. In short, Afghanistan was on its way to progress and democracy on its own, overthrowing the Theocracy on its own without the US. Then when the US started meddling in Afghanistan, it went to shit, with the US enforcing the Afghan western puppet government that has feudalistic, medieval values.

mykittyhasaboner

31st March 2010, 14:39

Seriously Bud you should know this history well. IIRC, you have bragged about visiting the Soviet Union in the 80's--and Scary Monster briefly outlined what was going on during this period.

Perhaps your nothing but an apologist for imperialism, and refuse to accept any other kind of view; but seriously saying "well 'we' [sic] did this and that, and give the people a choice, but they made the wrong one"--in reaction to the legalizing of rape and other forms of discrimination against women in Afghanistan? That's disgusting.

You speak of Afghanistan as it is locked in time and is not susceptible to any kind of substantial social changes. Your wrong.

Bud Struggle

31st March 2010, 21:46

Uyyy *facepalm*

Go back and read my previous posts. I just addressed this. :cursing:

The Karzai government was the government put into place by the US. The people did not want that government at all. This is why the US is still there, to give the forced government some kind of authority and legitimacy. Changing a thousand years of behavior cant be done in a few years? Apparently 20th century Afghan history doesnt exist to you. The Afghans got rid of theocracy and medieval practices in government in the freakin '60s. The two successive communist governments, which were supported by the Soviets (not put into power by the Soviets), were modernizing Afghanistan, putting women into government, giving them higher education, freedom of religion, etc. This was until Afghanistan collapsed, and the Taliban gained power, which would not have happened without the US supplying the unpopular opposition to the Afghan government in the 80s. So you cant say the Afghan people were not moving toward "progress".

Seriously, read my other posts. I just went through describing all this. In short, Afghanistan was on its way to progress and democracy on its own, overthrowing the Theocracy on its own without the US. Then when the US started meddling in Afghanistan, it went to shit, with the US enforcing the Afghan western puppet government that has feudalistic, medieval values.

Woah! I'm not disagreeing with anything you say. You are right about the Afghan Republic--it was a tolerant and liberal government. And it had some clout in the cities but it was in a civil war with the Islamic fundamentalists from the beginning. It's not like the Communists were ever in complete control of the country. That's why the Soviets invaded--because the Communist government was failing and needed help. And that gave the US the opportunity to support the fundamentalists and give the Soviets a good wacking.

Obviously the Afghan people were and are pawns in latest version of the Great Game--and that of course is unfortunate. The US should have payed more attention to Afghanistan afer the Soviets left. The Americans only used Afghanistan to weaken the Soviet Empire and after that cast them adrift.

Anyway--there is no certainty that the Liberal reforms taken by the Afghan government in the 70s would have held at all if the Soviets didn't invade. The US just evened the playingfield for what was happening naturally.

Hopefully the US will achieve some sort of stability over there and set up some sort of reasonable government.

Perhaps your nothing but an apologist for imperialism, and refuse to accept any other kind of view; but seriously saying "well 'we' [sic] did this and that, and give the people a choice, but they made the wrong one"--in reaction to the legalizing of rape and other forms of discrimination against women in Afghanistan? That's disgusting. Don't be silly, I'm no apologist for rape. But there is only so much that the US can do to influence what the Afghan government decides to do. But you are right--the US should do much more than it has done to give rights to women. I don't think the US is trying hard enough in that area.

You speak of Afghanistan as it is locked in time and is not susceptible to any kind of substantial social changes. Your wrong. Not at all--but that fundamentalist Islamic nut is a difficult one to crack.

brigadista

31st March 2010, 22:12

True Conservative

1st April 2010, 01:29

gorillafuck

1st April 2010, 01:55

The US and its allies are justified to be in Afganistan because it is a breeding ground for Islamo fascists. If we engage them there then the chance of them getting here is reduced substantially. We are there for our security.
There are Al-Q'aeda camps in Somalia, Yemen, Eritrea, Kenya, and more.

Richard Nixon

1st April 2010, 03:27

Yes, but like i said many times, the US destabilized Afghanistan by funding and supplying arms to the Mujahideen and looking the other way with their Opium trade. The Mujahideen would have been annihilated if it werent for the US, because they had NO popular support and would not have lasted long against the Afghan government with a militia that was inferiorly armed. This is the only reason the Taliban had gained so much power. The US did exactly what they wanted after overwhelming the Soviet-backed Afghan government force.

Than why did the Afghan government fall even after the Soviet Army intervened? After all a superpower's army>guerrilla movement with some American weapons but no great popular support.

What makes you think the US will pressure them to repeal a feudal law their puppet government just put into place? They dont give a shit as long as the government keeps Afghanistan open to western influence.

And Lol wut women's rights?

Here ya go:

When a few years ago some Afghans tried to executed someone for converting to Christianity in violation of Sharia law, international agitation led to the man being freed.

Martin Blank

1st April 2010, 03:42

The left always uses the crutch of imperialism to explain the American actions abroad. The worst imperialists weren't Americans they were Europeans (French,Brits,Germans). Take your beef up with them.

The US and its allies are justified to be in Afganistan because it is a breeding ground for Islamo fascists. If we engage them there then the chance of them getting here is reduced substantially. We are there for our security.

Hi, True Conservative. Welcome to OI. Hope you enjoy your stay here, because this is as far as it goes.

Oh, and maybe if your cappie buddies hadn't funded, trained and equipped either the Talib'an or that two-bit gun runner from Sa'udi Arabia, Osama bin Laden, there wouldn't have been a need to invade and occupy Afghanistan.

Drace

1st April 2010, 04:33

The Karzai government was the government put into place by the US. The people did not want that government at all.

Wasn't Hamid Karzai elected into presidency twice, in 2004 and his re-election again at 2008?

Richard Nixon

2nd April 2010, 01:10

Wasn't Hamid Karzai elected into presidency twice, in 2004 and his re-election again at 2008?

If they're supported by the US obviously they aren't supported by the people. :rolleyes:

Dean

2nd April 2010, 02:17

If they're supported by the US obviously they aren't supported by the people. :rolleyes:

Wasn't Hamid Karzai elected into presidency twice, in 2004 and his re-election again at 2008?

You people revel in your own ignorance, its really quite disgusting.

Karzai is a pitiful puppet who was put into power due to votes from polling stations that never opened. Massive fraud marked his election, and he's admitted this himself just today - but he contests that it was "the UN and EU" that committed fraud.

See his incredibly weak argument to the contrary here (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/04/20104114296107225.html)

Interview with Galbraith (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/10/20091024192545614775.html)

Dean

2nd April 2010, 02:26

Hi, True Conservative. Welcome to OI. Hope you enjoy your stay here, because this is as far as it goes.

Oh, and maybe if your cappie buddies hadn't funded, trained and equipped either the Talib'an or that two-bit gun runner from Sa'udi Arabia, Osama bin Laden, there wouldn't have been a need to invade and occupy Afghanistan.

TO be fair, there was never a need, because the Taliban both put pressure on Bin Laden (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50300) to keep from executing a terror attack, and desperately tried to hand him over (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm) by "losing" him (aka releasing him from Taliban protection) and telling the CIA as such.

Also, Bush Rejects Taliban offer to surrender Bin Laden (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html)

Scary Monster

2nd April 2010, 05:22

Than why did the Afghan government fall even after the Soviet Army intervened? After all a superpower's army>guerrilla movement with some American weapons but no great popular support.

:lol::lol::lol:Wow man, you really need to read up on this. You make it sound like the mujahideen was just some two-bit ghetto ass militia that was no serious threat. The Mujahideen received training (even being lead by US operatives in combat) and $600 million dollars from the US and UK, in addition to a matching amount coming from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. They also received small arms and Type 59 main battle tanks from China. All this strained the hell out of the Soviet military and its budget.

a few years ago some Afghans tried to executed someone for converting to Christianity in violation of Sharia law, international agitation led to the man being freed.

Lol- it took "international pressure" to free him. He wouldnt have been sentenced in the first place if the US would leave afghanistan the fukk alone ;)

The Afghans really are inclined toward great social progress, as evidenced by the actual Afghan government (before its 1992 collapse), and the article i linked where Afghan, as well as Afghan-American women, just a few years ago tried to push through reforms to give them basic human rights, which the illegitimate, unpopular US puppet government rejected, citing their holy book as the reason. The US is keeping the Afghans from installing their own government that they actually want, which they HAD, before the Mujahideen/Taliban snuffed out that government with the direct support of the US

Scary Monster

2nd April 2010, 05:47

Anyway--there is no certainty that the Liberal reforms taken by the Afghan government in the 70s would have held at all if the Soviets didn't invade. The US just evened the playingfield for what was happening naturally.

Evened the playing field naturally? Hah. As in giving the western imperialists a chance to knock down the Soviet Union, the Afghan people be damned? The important thing is that the Afghans wanted their commie government, seeing how they elected it into power. Even in the midst of the war in 1986, Mohammad Najibullah was elected and put into place a new constitution that the Soviets helped devise.

Hopefully the US will achieve some sort of stability over there and set up some sort of reasonable government

Cmon now, you know damn well the US doesnt give a shit about a "reasonable government", seeing how Karzai wasnt elected at all, and only put into power with the help of the US and UN. The guy admitted this himself.

Don't be silly, I'm no apologist for rape. But there is only so much that the US can do to influence what the Afghan government decides to do. But you are right--the US should do much more than it has done to give rights to women. I don't think the US is trying hard enough in that area.

Im right? I never said the US should do more, i said the US should get the hell out! Looking at the history presented to you in this thread numerous times, the US does not give a shit about human rights and just wants a puppet government that will bend to their will.

but that fundamentalist Islamic nut is a difficult one to crack.

A fundamentalist islamic nut that would not be in power in the first place if the US would get the fuck out.

Richard Nixon

3rd April 2010, 03:33

:lol::lol::lol:Wow man, you really need to read up on this. You make it sound like the mujahideen was just some two-bit ghetto ass militia that was no serious threat. The Mujahideen received training (even being lead by US operatives in combat) and $600 million dollars from the US and UK, in addition to a matching amount coming from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. They also received small arms and Type 59 main battle tanks from China. All this strained the hell out of the Soviet military and its budget.

It was basically the Vietcong with the tables turned-but unlike the Vietcong they did not have a North Vietnamese army crash in to win the day. If the Mujahadeen were truly unpopular than it would have failed! When the Americans supported a conventional government with a large military force with not only weapons and money but troops in South Vietnam they failed!

Lol- it took "international pressure" to free him. He wouldnt have been sentenced in the first place if the US would leave afghanistan the fukk alone ;)

The Afghans really are inclined toward great social progress, as evidenced by the actual Afghan government (before its 1992 collapse), and the article i linked where Afghan, as well as Afghan-American women, just a few years ago tried to push through reforms to give them basic human rights, which the illegitimate, unpopular US puppet government rejected, citing their holy book as the reason. The US is keeping the Afghans from installing their own government that they actually want, which they HAD, before the Mujahideen/Taliban snuffed out that government with the direct support of the USSo you are saying that if the Afghans had a choice today without any coercion they would support a communist government?

Scary Monster

4th April 2010, 18:51

It was basically the Vietcong with the tables turned-but unlike the Vietcong they did not have a North Vietnamese army crash in to win the day. If the Mujahadeen were truly unpopular than it would have failed! When the Americans supported a conventional government with a large military force with not only weapons and money but troops in South Vietnam they failed!

The Mujahideen (which was largely made of foreign Islamic fundamentalists) having a military victory does not mean their rule is justified in any way, or that the Afghans wanted them at all. I dont have extensive military knowledge on why the Muj' beat the Afghan government. But what matters is that the US, UK, Saudi Arabia, China and their allies, dicking around in Afghanistan, overthrew a democratically-elected communist government which the people voted for even as late in the conflict as 1986.

you are saying that if the Afghans had a choice today without any coercion they would support a communist government?

All i know is that they definitely would have a progressive government, not a western puppet that works against the public. The Afghans had sovereignty before the US got involved in the 80s. It is evident by looking at their history that they dont want feudalist, religious beliefs to dictate political/social policies, especially since they overthrew their theocracy in the '60s, and Afghan women's proactive fight for equality which they had gained in the decades before US meddling. Their is absolutely no freakin excuse or justification for the US to be in Afghanistan.

Havet

4th April 2010, 19:02

And I never said that! So much for your "superior debating skills," Mr. Defender of logic & reason. Apparently, in your defense of "logic & reason," you cannot bring yourself to respond to direct criticism of your views on security firms and the state - instead claiming "you haven't studied the issue" and citing others' opinions, as if we are to think that you fully support the opinions of other people.

Oh, really?

In any case, I didn't anywhere say that businesses payed the gov't to invade Afghanistan/Iraq. but it was clearly in their interests, and even if the bribes only happen after the invasion, it is a clear incentive for the gov't to invade. It's like saying "vampire's will pay for blood, sure, but they would never ask you to kill or wound someone for it!".

You're begging the question. Of course you didn't actually claim so. But there's no point in pretending that "clearly in their interests" implies they actually did so without any further evidence. Otherwise you might as well join conspiracy theorists.

Dean

4th April 2010, 19:27

Oh, really?

You're begging the question. Of course you didn't actually claim so. But there's no point in pretending that "clearly in their interests" implies they actually did so without any further evidence. Otherwise you might as well join conspiracy theorists.

This is nonsense. How can you possibly pretend that a capitalist entity with a material interest in the forcible acquisition of oil rights does not share culpability - if only in terms of the characteristics of the capitalist system - when it bribes people like Blair after-the-fact?

But, I never implied nor indicated that capitalist firms bribed the administration in the furtherance of the war. Rather, what I am getting at is that the government has a vested interest in acquiring these new markets for capital, because they can basically sell them off. The exact same thing happened with the rebuilding of Iraq.

Ant that is all that is needed: a basic critique of these extant systemic conditions which exemplify how capital has an interest in these Imperial acts, and therefore, in a capitalist paradigm, these kinds of market-share-selloffs will continue.

The administration doesn't tax, invade and expend money for corporate welfare for no reason. If you engage in even a cursory analysis of the interests behind these acts, it is a pretty clear picture.

But our debate remains the same: you are worried simply about the moral issue of bribery whereas I am concerned with the material character of capitalist institutions.

Havet

4th April 2010, 20:18

This is nonsense. How can you possibly pretend that a capitalist entity with a material interest in the forcible acquisition of oil rights does not share culpability - if only in terms of the characteristics of the capitalist system - when it bribes people like Blair after-the-fact?

Why should it share culpability if there is no available proof of his actions? Or is thought a crime?

Whether a capitalist has an interest in bribing politicians is one question (which he usually does). Whether he actually bribes the politician or not is another question. All i'm asking is the proof that a capitalist actually bribed for the iraq war.

Rather, what I am getting at is that the government has a vested interest in acquiring these new markets for capital, because they can basically sell them off. The exact same thing happened with the rebuilding of Iraq.

Just because it has an interest doesn't mean that's the primary reason for their action.

Ant that is all that is needed: a basic critique of these extant systemic conditions which exemplify how capital has an interest in these Imperial acts, and therefore, in a capitalist paradigm, these kinds of market-share-selloffs will continue.

Will you pay attention for a moment?

I do not deny that capitalists have interest in these kind of imperial acts, and some actually do act in order for these imperial acts to occur. But pertaining this particular case, you offer no proof of such occurrence, and only state it as an hypothesis. I can also state hypothesis, but I usually link them with the material world in order to increase their validity.

I mean, a lot of conspiracy theorists believe capitalists payed the US government to start World War 1. But there isn't any actual evidence. And evidence is fundamental.

The administration doesn't tax, invade and expend money for corporate welfare for no reason. If you engage in even a cursory analysis of the interests behind these acts, it is a pretty clear picture.

I don't care of their interests. I want evidence.

But our debate remains the same: you are worried simply about the moral issue of bribery whereas I am concerned with the material character of capitalist institutions.

It seems more like the opposite. You are worried simply by the moral issue of the capitalist's interestss whereas I am concerned with the material evidence available.

Dean

5th April 2010, 01:24

It seems more like the opposite. You are worried simply by the moral issue of the capitalist's interestss whereas I am concerned with the material evidence available.

No, you're worried about something that is immaterial to the capitalist system itself. You yourself above said:

Whether a capitalist has an interest in bribing politicians is one question (which he usually does).

In fact, it would be near impossible to find a meaningful and verifiable case of bribery in the furtherance of a war. When campaign contributions are supplied, they do not earmark them "payable upon invasion of Iraq."

Take the following case:
A Mexican drug smuggler makes a deal with an American distributor to provide him/her with 10 lbs of cocaine, with whatever is adequate compensation. By providing for a meaningful compensation for the drugs, the distributor (but more importantly the system of distribution and sale) is culpable in part for whatever is a necessary act in the furtherance of the smuggling.

What we need to be concerned with are the systemic examples which provide for a meaningful economic incentive. And this is where you ad I differ.

What your examples always boil down to is, "What individual is in the wrong in this or that microcosm of economic activity?".

Contrarily, my examples seek to discover the systemic characteristics which provide for the incentive and vehicle of exploitation.

The fact that you speak in these terms:

Why should it share culpability if there is no available proof of his actions? Or is thought a crime?

Whether a capitalist has an interest in bribing politicians is one question (which he usually does). Whether he actually bribes the politician or not is another question. All i'm asking is the proof that a capitalist actually bribed for the iraq war. (my emphasis - Dean)...underlines this attitude on your part:

The individual capitalist is not the point. I am not concerned with the moral integrity of capitalists (and in fact, I have routinely said this - they act as human beings in the context of a competitive market). Rather, what I am concerned with is the material incentives, systems and organization which provides for this imperial aggression.

And while you may indeed be able to nit-pick and find individuals to blame (and even "material examples of bribery" :laugh:), I am hardly interested in that fact. What I am interested in is the systemic flaws which allow for this kind of manipulation, among other things.

You are a moralist because you concern yourself, especially in this thread, with the moral integrity of individual capitalists. I don't care! In fact, my moral attitudes hardly find expression in our arguments because that is rarely the point.

You and I both have pretty similar morals, by nature of your focus on individual autonomy and equality. But your understanding of the world is hopelessly idealistic because you spend far too much time trying to find a decent theory of economic morality, and practically no time trying to find systemic incentives and relationships which are responsible for the very ills you wish to cure.

You and I differ because I look at systemic flaws, whereas you seek out individual flaws. This is incredibly clear in this thread, for the reasons outlined above.

Remember: the doctor does not discover a cure by (primarily) researching healthy patients. S/He discovers one by relentlessly studying the illness itself.

Skooma Addict

5th April 2010, 01:46

Dean

5th April 2010, 01:53

Do you purposely try to hide bad arguments in all this pointless rhetoric and bolding of text?

Competition means there are multiple firms who can offer a worker a wage closer to the workers DMVP and still profit.

What about monopolistic security firms? Despite hundreds of years of competitive security (feudalism), you think that competitive, representative security - something that has never manifested itself throughout history - something for which there is no clear incentive (why would a security firm which can enact force not use this force to corner a market and demand higher premiums?) - you still believe in this market-security fantasy.

Why would any capitalist firm pass up a more lucrative business model? Why on earth would we expect private security not to become a monopolistic function, when we have consistently seen that security routinely develops into a monopoly?

Skooma Addict

5th April 2010, 02:06

What about monopolistic security firms?

What about them?

Despite hundreds of years of competitive security (feudalism), you think that competitive, representative security - something that has never manifested itself throughout history - something for which there is no clear incentive (why would a security firm which can enact force not use this force to corner a market and demand higher premiums?) - you still believe in this market-security fantasy.

Was that all one sentence? Geez. Do you expect me to know what it is you are saying here? Do you even know what you are saying?

Why would any capitalist firm pass up a more lucrative business model? Why on earth would we expect private security not to become a monopolistic function, when we have consistently seen that security routinely develops into a monopoly?

What is the more lucrative business model? Ravage and pillage? Where are they getting their funding from?

Dean

5th April 2010, 02:47

What about them?

Was that all one sentence? Geez. Do you expect me to know what it is you are saying here? Do you even know what you are saying?

What is the more lucrative business model? Ravage and pillage? Where are they getting their funding from?

The mere fact that no competing security firm has manifested to compete against the government model shows how ludicrous it is to think that an organization possessing force would not want to achieve and exploit a position of monopolistic hegemony.

Feudalism was the expression of your model - competing security. It was marked by constant conflicts, and the same will obviously be true when they compete for market shares.

Havet

5th April 2010, 12:21

In fact, it would be near impossible to find a meaningful and verifiable case of bribery in the furtherance of a war. When campaign contributions are supplied, they do not earmark them "payable upon invasion of Iraq."

Take the following case:
A Mexican drug smuggler makes a deal with an American distributor to provide him/her with 10 lbs of cocaine, with whatever is adequate compensation. By providing for a meaningful compensation for the drugs, the distributor (but more importantly the system of distribution and sale) is culpable in part for whatever is a necessary act in the furtherance of the smuggling.

Why is the "system of distribution and sale" culpable as well? What do you even mean by a sentence of that kind? Do you mean that a small grocery store which also has to deal with distribution is culpable? Why??

What your examples always boil down to is, "What individual is in the wrong in this or that microcosm of economic activity?".

I don't see the point in examining people if there is no proof whatsover that they directly or indirectly participated in a certain economic activity.

Contrarily, my examples seek to discover the systemic characteristics which provide for the incentive and vehicle of exploitation.

How do you define "systemic characteristics"?

The individual capitalist is not the point. I am not concerned with the moral integrity of capitalists (and in fact, I have routinely said this - they act as human beings in the context of a competitive market). Rather, what I am concerned with is the material incentives, systems and organization which provides for this imperial aggression.

And while you may indeed be able to nit-pick and find individuals to blame (and even "material examples of bribery" :laugh:), I am hardly interested in that fact. What I am interested in is the systemic flaws which allow for this kind of manipulation, among other things.

Wrong. We should start looking from individuals as a starting point and then "go up" in the chain of interactions. If you just start looking "from the top" (aka "systemic flaws") you're bound to ignore individual action which is often very important in determining what exactly is causing a certain phenomena.

You are a moralist because you concern yourself, especially in this thread, with the moral integrity of individual capitalists. I don't care! In fact, my moral attitudes [I]hardly find expression in our arguments because that is rarely the point.

Will you please stop the strawmen? I don't care what the morality of a certain capitalist is. What is care with is what he actually does. Since there is no proof, I have no judgements to make. You should do the same.

You and I differ because I look at systemic flaws, whereas you seek out individual flaws. This is incredibly clear in this thread, for the reasons outlined above.

Remember: the doctor does not discover a cure by (primarily) researching healthy patients. S/He discovers one by relentlessly studying the illness itself.

The doctor does not find a cure by researching "systemic flaws", but by studying individual agents of diseases and understanding how they interact with one another by using the scientific method.

Dean

5th April 2010, 14:17

The doctor does not find a cure by researching "systemic flaws", but by studying individual agents of diseases and understanding how they interact with one another by using the scientific method.

:laugh::laugh: This entire post is so preposterous that its impossible to find a meaningful response.

Your thesis is that individuals, not systems are responsible for exploitation which has perpetuated throughout centuries. This is so basically proposterous that I don't know how to respond.

You may as well give up on developing a mutualist milieu, because your "flawed individuals" will always destroy it. :rolleyes:

If the system is not to blame, shifting the organization of the system will change nothing.

You're a theoretical lightweight extraordinaire.

Havet

5th April 2010, 18:14

If the system is not to blame, shifting the organization of the system will change nothing.

You're a theoretical lightweight extraordinaire.

I didn't say the system was not to blame

Obviously if you have different systems, individuals will take advantage of each unique features of those systems and the outcomes will vary.

One most look at which individuals are doing the harm, how they are doing it (ie: what mechanisms of the system, which is composed of individuals and their relations, are they using) and why they are doing it. A thorough analysis starts at the most basic level of entities that act. Then we proceed towards their relations. And then we have a "whole" picture.

Obviously the same analysis cannot be done, for example, in medical research. Imagine trying to study every single cell and their relations which every other cell. Just as it wouldn't make sense to start studying atoms or quarks. In politics/economics, however, the main entity that acts is the individual, whether he's a worker, a consumer, a capitalist, a politician, we can understand how the system works by starting from the individual and then leveling up.

Because if you just try to look at the whole picture "top down", you're bound to make innacurate and hasty generalizations.

Richard Nixon

6th April 2010, 01:29

The Mujahideen (which was largely made of foreign Islamic fundamentalists) having a military victory does not mean their rule is justified in any way, or that the Afghans wanted them at all. I dont have extensive military knowledge on why the Muj' beat the Afghan government. But what matters is that the US, UK, Saudi Arabia, China and their allies, dicking around in Afghanistan, overthrew a democratically-elected communist government which the people voted for even as late in the conflict as 1986.

And in North Korea the ruling party wins 100% of the vote always-that must mean North Korea is governed by a government with unanimous consent. :rolleyes:

Scary Monster

6th April 2010, 01:53

And in North Korea the ruling party wins 100% of the vote always-that must mean North Korea is governed by a government with unanimous consent. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: North Korea is not Afghanistan. :lol: North Korea's personality cult is reinforced with the government's complete control over culture and social institutions. The Afghans put their own government into place and continued supporting it, except for religious conservative Islamics in the countryside, without any kind of aritificial consent such as a personality cult. Besides, no one here recognizes North Korea (which is a single party state) as communist and North Korea does not adhere to any socialist/communist principle whatsoever. Just because they claim to be communist does not make it so. You obviously ran out of arguments for the US occupation of Afghanistan, by bringing an external matter (north korea) into this.

Havet

6th April 2010, 10:44

Dean

6th April 2010, 14:28

How can you possibly pretend that someone who does nothing shares culpability? Ridiculous.
Its not that they share culpability that matters. Its that they are part of a system which perpetuates this exploitation, to which you agree:

Ant that is all that is needed: a basic critique of these extant systemic conditions which exemplify how capital has an interest in these Imperial acts, and therefore, in a capitalist paradigm, these kinds of market-share-selloffs will continue.

Agreed
And subsequently, you endorse that exploitation or you accept that a competitive market system is not a viable solution to exploitation.

You keep bleating that you're not an idealist, and yet you think that examining individual actions to blame them is somehow more reasonable than evaluating all of the outcomes of a system. It's really incredibly obtuse.

Barry Lyndon

6th April 2010, 14:54

The racist bullshit coming from these reactionaries is appalling. Underlining all their arguments in support of the US/NATO occupation of Afghanistan is the supposition that some people have the right to self-determination(namely, themselves), while others(Afghans) simply do not and need to be told like children how to govern themselves, a sentiment that could come straight from the mouths of a 19th-century apologist for slavery and/or colonialism. This pro-imperialist hogwash dominates the entire political spectrum in the United States, where the liberals(especially the liberals) support imperialism on the grounds that "we" have to "help" the poor benighted natives on "humanitarian" grounds, while the right openly has orgasms over cluster bombs.
Scary Monster has repeatedly demonstrated that left to their own devices, the Afghans had a progressive government that DID have womens rights and was attempting to roll back fuedalism, poverty, illiteracy, tribalism, and religious fudamentalism. But his a-historical opponents have no argument, and instead use Fox News talking points to cover up their utter lack of comprehension of history and politics.
Here is my two cents. An article that notes that the Wall Street Journal and Workers Vanguard both agree that Afghanistan was better off under the communists. And this article was written in 2001, its even worse off now:

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1205-07.htm

Havet

6th April 2010, 17:59

Its not that they share culpability that matters. Its that they are part of a system which perpetuates this exploitation, to which you agree:

And subsequently, you endorse that exploitation or you accept that a competitive market system is not a viable solution to exploitation.

I already explained, somewhere in a thread, that the reason we experience exploitation is precisely because we don't have a full competitive market system. I do not endorse exploitation, just as I do not endorse capitalism.

You keep bleating that you're not an idealist, and yet you think that examining individual actions to blame them is somehow more reasonable than evaluating all of the outcomes of a system. It's really incredibly obtuse.

When you bother to explain why it is obtuse then i'll listen. Until then you're just shouting empty sentences to the air.