Do We Still Need to Occupy Afgahnistan?

[PoliticalNightmare]

...or is it just the bourgeoise media trying to convince us there is still a point of pumping billions of pounds into an unwinnable war so that a bunch of capitalists can make some profit?

What I mean is are people on RevLeft for the immediate withdraw of all troops in Afgahnistan? Or do they believe that whilst we should eventually pull out and we should never have invaded Iraq or Afgahnistan in the first place, in the long term we need to stay there for security reasons (both for Afgahnistan's sake and our own sake).

[Tablo]

We don't. I support immediate withdraw from Afghanistan. We should have never been there to begin with.

[Slavoj Zizzle]

:laugh: I think you got the wrong forum buddy. No one here was for the invasion and occupation in the first place, and we certainly are not for staying for "security reasons".

I personally think the more American troops die and the more money we spend the weaker America becomes, which is the best thing for the world. Also it reveals the democrats and Obama are no different than the republicans on major issues which hopefully lead to actual leftism in the United States. However that's only a semi-serious view, as anyone who opposes imperialism and respects sovereignty like myself is for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the troops.

[PoliticalNightmare]

:laugh: I think you got the wrong forum buddy. No one here was for the invasion and occupation in the first place

No ... I know that (see the original post)

, and we certainly are not for staying for "security reasons".

Ok, but how are Afgahnistan to keep the peace after the mess we have created over there?

I personally think the more American troops die and the more money we spend the weaker America becomes, which is the best thing for the world. Also it reveals the democrats and Obama are no different than the republicans on major issues which hopefully lead to actual leftism in the United States. But it may instead weaken the nation's view on leftism. However that's only a semi-serious view, as anyone who opposes imperialism and respects sovereignty like myself is for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the troops.

Believe me, I am totally opposed to the war, what I am really trying to determing from this thread (and perhaps I should have phrased myself more clearly) is the leftist point of view, opposing the argument created by the right-wing that we need to continue the occupation of afgahnistan.

[Slavoj Zizzle]

Believe me, I am totally opposed to the war, what I am really trying to determing from this thread (and perhaps I should have phrased myself more clearly) is the leftist point of view, opposing the argument created by the right-wing that we need to continue the occupation of afgahnistan.

Well morally we have no right to invade, occupy and murder the populace of a sovereign country. In reality, the Afghanistan occupation has caused over a million civilian deaths and has completely destroyed the economy, so I'd say we're the security threat. We have no interest in "maintaining security", we simply want to exploit the people and resources of Afghanistan as much as possible.This should be obvious to anyone who has ever opened a history book. This is all moot anyway since republicans are fundamentally wrong about reality and can't really be reasoned with.

As for Obama's failure weakening leftism, you may e right, but it's our job as a revolutionary vanguard to make sure that doesn't happen :thumbup1:

[Delenda Carthago]

In case you havent heard,the US army found oil worth of 1 trillion under Afganistan.If you think they are going to give a fuck about some people telling "i support the withdraw",I think you dont know shit on politics.

[PoliticalNightmare]

In case you havent heard,the US army found oil worth of 1 trillion under Afganistan.If you think they are going to give a fuck about some people telling "i support the withdraw",I think you dont know shit on politics.

Yeah, I know mate, again I want to know the counter-argument for maintaining security in Afgahnistan.

Does no one else think that after the mess, we (the west) have made in Iraq and Afgahnistan, that it is not our duty to clean it up rather than just washing our hands clean of the whole situation and allowing all the innocent civilians who did not ask for this war to just die in the mayhem we have created?

[Delenda Carthago]

Yeah, I know mate, again I want to know the counter-argument for maintaining security in Afgahnistan.

Does no one else think that after the mess, we (the west) have made in Iraq and Afgahnistan, that it is not our duty to clean it up rather than just washing our hands clean of the whole situation and allowing all the innocent civilians who did not ask for this war to just die in the mayhem we have created?

Ok.But you realise that you dont bring anything new to the table,right?Volontaristic loudmouths like us dont really make a difference in the world."bad usa,blahblahblah,freedom to Afganistan blahblahblah".We have to analyse better the system and hit it where it hurts,not making wishes "all we are saying is give peace a chance" n shit.Right comrade?

[PoliticalNightmare]

Ok.But you realise that you dont bring anything new to the table,right?Volontaristic loudmouths like us dont really make a difference in the world."bad usa,blahblahblah,freedom to Afganistan blahblahblah". But by that analogy, we might as well all give up every single socialist stance because no-one is likely to agree with us.

We have to analyse better the system and hit it where it hurts,not making wishes "all we are saying is give peace a chance" n shit.Right comrade?

Yeah, I'll agree to that. "Comrade" - that's brilliant.

[Delenda Carthago]

its not about giving up or who will hear us.Its about saying what the situation demands from you to say,nothing less.And then,believe me,people will hear you.Nobody cares to hear wishes about world peace.That shit is for the fuckin beaty contests.If you want to stop the war you have to answer to:why and how.

Do you have answers for that?

[Adi Shankara]

...Did we ever need to occupy Afghanistan?

[scarletghoul]

Yeah, I know mate, again I want to know the counter-argument for maintaining security in Afgahnistan.

Does no one else think that after the mess, we (the west) have made in Iraq and Afgahnistan, that it is not our duty to clean it up rather than just washing our hands clean of the whole situation and allowing all the innocent civilians who did not ask for this war to just die in the mayhem we have created?
To answer your question (as all other replies seem to have completely missed the point):

The foreign troops are not there for the general security of Afghanistan. When they talk about 'security', what they mean is securing the puppet government and suppressing the resistance of the Afghan people. In fact, the puppet Karzai government would not last ten minutes without the foreign troops; the Taliban has support through most of the country now and would easily take over. In other words, it is the presence of the foreign troops which keeps the war going. The fastest way to peace would be an immediate withdrawal/surrender.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

...Did we ever need to occupy Afghanistan?

Well... if you look at it from the perspective of those who started the war, Afghanistan was considered one of the hot spots of Al Qaida... however, a few years after invading, they all scattered throughout the middle east and Africa... so considering the approach that was taken to this war... yeah, kinda... though ultimately, their approach was a stupid approach... if they truly wanted to eliminate the threat that caused 9/11, they would have simply sent a squad of assassins in the middle east and africa to slay the leaders... if anything, less people would have died than starting this stupid, now pointless war...

TBH, I don't know what could be done to prevent potential attacks like 9/11 that wouldn't violate the privacy of the people or require the exemption of certain groups. Though, one has to wonder... if we would have kept our fingers out of the middle east from the beginning... ie, the late 1800's/early 1900's, then perhaps things would be different...

[Raúl Duke]

But it may instead weaken the nation's view on leftism.


As for Obama's failure weakening leftism, you may e right, but it's our job as a revolutionary vanguard to make sure that doesn't happen

Obama's failure will not weaken the actual left, it would disillusion the progressives and the liberals and make them easier to convince towards a more radical route. The total disillusionment of bourgeois American electoral politics will create a beneficial political environment for the radical left.

[Adi Shankara]

Obama's failure will not weaken the actual left, it would disillusion the progressives and the liberals and make them easier to convince towards a more radical route.

...let's just pray that doesn't send them to the radical right, though!


it seems like the far-right in the form of teabaggers and White supremacists is more energized than ever, and that's me coming from San Francisco.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah, I know mate, again I want to know the counter-argument for maintaining security in Afgahnistan.

First, what do you mean by security? For what and for who?

The only help the US could give people there would be to use the billions it would have spent bombing the country in the form of reparations and maybe farming equipment. Empires like the US have never (historically or today) cared for the well-being of the people in the countries they are bombing. They (in these examples the US) will claim they are "defending democracy" while putting a dictator in power; they will claim they are fighting fascism, but after WWII, they actually put ex-Nazi middlemen back into power even when the local population was against it; in WWII the US bombed working class urban areas and factories even when they knew the war was over and the NAZI regime was falling apart; in Vietnam they put the French back into power even though the population had fought the Japanese and Vichy French; in the first Gulf War, the US told the population to rise up against Saddam - but when they did, the US army allowed the Republican guard to go out and defend the regime while US forces watched; and so on as Kurt Vonnegut would have said.

The best thing for Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan would be for US troops to be gone - it would also be the best thing for the US/UK troops themselves.


Does no one else think that after the mess, we (the west) have made in Iraq and Afgahnistan, that it is not our duty to clean it up rather than just washing our hands clean of the whole situation and allowing all the innocent civilians who did not ask for this war to just die in the mayhem we have created?I'm sorry, but that's like asking a rapist to stay and help clean up the house after breaking in and then demanding that the rapist draw a nice bath for the person they raped.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

did we ever need to ftw ???