Would Slavoj Zizek be restricted?

[Havet]

In this video, Zizek analyzes many of current world affairs - including the current state of the left - with his usual pessimistic/realistic point of view

Gw8LPn4irao

I found it to be very refreshing. But my question is actually: is he considered a "real communist/revolutionary leftist" or do you find him not "pure enough", and thus would reccomend his restriction if he joined here in revleft?

This brings a wider issue, which are not restriction policies, but the definition of what constitutes a revolutionary leftist. Do you think the policies and opinions he expresses reflect the majority of opinions here in revleft?

The video is very long, but definitely worth watching, particularly if you never heard of him, as I never had, just to get one more insight on things.

[ComradeMan]

Well at 29:34 and 31:47 he says what I thought about the Afghanistan issue and withdrawl and for which I was .... err... restricted.:crying:

I think he's right on this- he takes a pragmatic approach coupled with his own ideological point of view. Ideologies are well and good, but pragmatism is necessary too-- otherwise you end up with... dare I say... Pol Pot?

[#FF0000]

No. We love Zizek around here.

[#FF0000]

we don't restrict people because they aren't "pure enough" either so yeah

[ComradeMan]

we don't restrict people because they aren't "pure enough" either so yeah

Really? I think a number of restricted people might not see it that way- albeit not all, obviously.

Anyway- what about Zizek's take on Afghanistan?

[#FF0000]

Really? I think a number of restricted people might not see it that way- albeit not all, obviously.

That's fine but they are wrong. We avoid having a "party line" around here. We just have a couple of things that we simply won't allow in the main sections of the forum.

And I think I agree with him when he says the Taliban will come back to power if we leave. However he doesn't say "This means we gotta stay because occupation is preferable to Taliban rule", which, if I recall correctly, is the stance you took. He says it's something that the United States government can't afford to let happen, which is true.

[ComradeMan]

That's fine but they are wrong. We avoid having a "party line" around here. We just have a couple of things that we simply won't allow in the main sections of the forum.

And I think I agree with him when he says the Taliban will come back to power if we leave. However he doesn't say "This means we gotta stay because occupation is preferable to Taliban rule", which, if I recall correctly, is the stance you took. He says it's something that the United States government can't afford to let happen, which is true.

Which is tantamount to saying the same thing tacitly.

For the record, I didn't say that we "gotta" stay because it's preferable to Taliban rule.

I said that given that the situation has occurred the US & Allies have a duty and responsibility to help rebuild and reconstruct the country they have fucked up and not abandon it to the Taliban. I named leftist Afghani groups such as the RAWA (Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan)- which I believe Khad denounced as reactionary pseudo-leftist lackeys- or words to the effect, and no one would actually propose what was to happen after the immediate withdrawl they demanded. One user actually told me that as leftists we "had to support the Taliban".

I never supported the War- I always made that point clear, but being a realist you have to say that what has happened- has happened- it can't unhappen.

Realistically speaking I think the worst-case scenario will happen and not the best-case.

If you think after going into a country and fucking it up big time then because of a sudden change of heart or whatever abandoning it to its fucked up fate is a leftist solution... well....

[#FF0000]

If you think after going into a country and fucking it up big time then because of a sudden change of heart or whatever abandoning it to its fucked up fate is a leftist solution... well....

I think it's the preferable situation, because America is not going to stay there and be nice and rebuild.

If we lived in Candyland where magic was real, soda pop rained from the heavens and America didn't go around fucking up small countries just because it could, then I suppose it would make sense to say "America should stay because they will rebuild the country."

But it's naive to the highest order to say "AMERICA MUST STAY BECAUSE IT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY". Responsible or not, America's going to do what is in the interests of American business.


Which is tantamount to saying the same thing tacitly.

No, no it's not. One is saying that the U.S. government couldn't afford the embarrassment of failing and the other is saying that the U.S. government has to stay because the U.S. government is going to do good there.

[Red Commissar]

No, I don't think he would. Maybe he'll rile some feathers and the usual sectarian ranting will go on.

Someone like Christopher Hitchens definitely would though.

[#FF0000]

Someone like Christopher Hitchens definitely would though.

Mostly because he's not a leftist whatsoever, so I don't think that's surprising.

[Manic Impressive]

If the taliban were in control wouldn't their system be a kind of feudalism?

Aren't they a reactionary or regressive group? to get to socialism isn't it preferable for a country to be industrialized before socialism can take control?

just asking

[Publius]

One could only hope.

[9]

Ideally, he'd be banned for trolling.

[#FF0000]

If the taliban were in control wouldn't their system be a kind of feudalism?

Aren't they a reactionary or regressive group? to get to socialism isn't it preferable for a country to be industrialized before socialism can take control?

just asking

Imperialism isn't going to lead to socialism.

Further, the reason the Taliban was ever in power in the first place is because of American interference in the region. More imperialism is not going to do anything to "help" the socialist cause there.

By now people have learned that it is never a good idea to support a big, powerful, industrialized country when it decides to fuck up a smaller, weaker one.


Zizek is a counter-revolutionary whose semi-coherent ramblings somehow find favour with significant portions of the left. So I don't think he would be restricted.

How so.

And also try more for substance than rhetoric, please.

[#FF0000]

Can you tell me in your own words please? Because to be honest it looks like you just don't like Zizek because the WSWS doesn't like him.*

*This isn't saying that they might not be right in their opinion or whatever. I'm just saying that from what I've seen you seem like the sort of guy who would take their opinions without any critical thought from anything that says "Socialist"

[Revolution starts with U]

Considering the existence of (non-restricted) Budguy68, I have the feeling restrictions are far more how you say something, and where you say it, rather than what you say.

[Ocean Seal]

Well at 29:34 and 31:47 he says what I thought about the Afghanistan issue and withdrawl and for which I was .... err... restricted.:crying:

I think he's right on this- he takes a pragmatic approach coupled with his own ideological point of view. Ideologies are well and good, but pragmatism is necessary too-- otherwise you end up with... dare I say... Pol Pot?
This is true, and up till now I didn't know you could be restricted for this. Zizek would probably be restricted on these grounds. While I disagree with his position on several imperial wars, and I oppose them in full, I don't think that its grounds for restriction, in my opinion.

[Blackscare]

Which is tantamount to saying the same thing tacitly.

For the record, I didn't say that we "gotta" stay because it's preferable to Taliban rule.

I said that given that the situation has occurred the US & Allies have a duty and responsibility to help rebuild and reconstruct the country they have fucked up and not abandon it to the Taliban. I named leftist Afghani groups such as the RAWA (Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan)- which I believe Khad denounced as reactionary pseudo-leftist lackeys- or words to the effect, and no one would actually propose what was to happen after the immediate withdrawl they demanded. One user actually told me that as leftists we "had to support the Taliban".

I never supported the War- I always made that point clear, but being a realist you have to say that what has happened- has happened- it can't unhappen.

Realistically speaking I think the worst-case scenario will happen and not the best-case.

If you think after going into a country and fucking it up big time then because of a sudden change of heart or whatever abandoning it to its fucked up fate is a leftist solution... well....


The difference is that you're taking it from some sort of moralistic point of view, that the US needs to right it's wrong or something. Zizek is simply saying that, politically for the US, they cannot afford to cede Afghanistan.

[Manic Impressive]

Imperialism isn't going to lead to socialism.Like in Venezuela, Cuba, China, Korea........


Further, the reason the Taliban was ever in power in the first place is because of American interference in the region. More imperialism is not going to do anything to "help" the socialist cause there.No one is arguing that it's not the Americans fault and before that the fault of the British that the country is completely fucked, but returning to feudalism is not in the best interests of the people of Afghanistan, in the short term or the long term. Not condoning imperialism the actions of the USA or it's allies but arguing for the Taliban to take control could be seen as condoning the abuse targeted against women, children, LGBT people and secular people.


By now people have learned that it is never a good idea to support a big, powerful, industrialized country when it decides to fuck up a smaller, weaker one. Totally agree

[#FF0000]

Like in Venezuela, Cuba, China, Korea........

Er, how has imperialism lead to socialism in these countries?


No one is arguing that it's not the Americans fault and before that the fault of the British that the country is completely fucked, but returning to feudalism is not in the best interests of the people of Afghanistan, in the short term or the long term. Not condoning imperialism the actions of the USA or it's allies but arguing for the Taliban to take control could be seen as condoning the abuse targeted against women, children, LGBT people and secular people.

Time Magazine not long ago ran an article called "What Happens When We Leave Afghanistan" or something like that, complete with a picture of an Afghan woman who had her nose cut off for fleeing from an abusive marriage. The argument was that if we leave, things like that would continue to happen.

But the article completely ignored the fact that these things have been happening since the U.S. invaded!. The pro-US government isn't going to do anything to stop things like this from happening, as evidenced by the fact that they not long ago legalized rape within marriage.

There's also the fact that WikiLeaks outed a document that pretty much said the CIA was all about drumming up the "feminist" aspect of the war. And that isn't surprising, because "protecting women" has been a line that imperialists have dropped to justify their wars for ages now, and if there was any truth to it whatsoever, then women in the Middle East would be the freest in the world by now.

[#FF0000]

Not really an argument there.

Zizek claims to be a "Marxist" while opposing everything about Marxism. Read the article.

I'm just saying that you seem like a tool who just regurgitates what others say and has no thoughts of your own, which, you sort of proved when you just quoted that article (which I read already and sort of disagree with).

[Manic Impressive]

Er, how has imperialism lead to socialism in these countries?How has imperialism not been a factor in all of these revolutions? Do I really have to give a detailed account for those 4 countries? I'll do a quick one
China 1949 4 years after Japanese imperialism
Cuba was a U.S. client state before revolution
Venezuela has faced multiple interventions from the US
The revolution in Korea was a direct result of Japanese imperialism whether you consider it socialism or not is another matter.


Time Magazine not long ago ran an article called "What Happens When We Leave Afghanistan" or something like that, complete with a picture of an Afghan woman who had her nose cut off for fleeing from an abusive marriage. The argument was that if we leave, things like that would continue to happen.

But the article completely ignored the fact that these things have been happening since the U.S. invaded!. The pro-US government isn't going to do anything to stop things like this from happening, as evidenced by the fact that they not long ago legalized rape within marriage.

There's also the fact that WikiLeaks outed a document that pretty much said the CIA was all about drumming up the "feminist" aspect of the war. And that isn't surprising, because "protecting women" has been a line that imperialists have dropped to justify their wars for ages now, and if there was any truth to it whatsoever, then women in the Middle East would be the freest in the world by now.
Great point, the imperialist forces have strengthened the position of the Taliban fucking it up even worse than it was before and the truth is I don't have the answer to the problem.

[#FF0000]

How has imperialism not been a factor in all of these revolutions? Do I really have to give a detailed account for those 4 countries? I'll do a quick one
China 1949 4 years after Japanese imperialism
Cuba was a U.S. client state before revolution
Venezuela has faced multiple interventions from the US
The revolution in Korea was a direct result of Japanese imperialism whether you consider it socialism or not is another matter.

Yeah but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to support imperialism until someone we like comes along to defeat it.

EDIT: Oh, I just remembered this neat thing written by Trotsky on anti-imperialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm).

A quote.


I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!

[Manic Impressive]

Yeah but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to support imperialism until someone we like comes along to defeat it.

Don't try and pin that on me. I didn't say once that I supported imperialism only that both should be condemned.

Interesting bit from Trotsky I kind of agree with it and was going to say something similar about Afghanistan, It is better for the working class of the west if the Taliban win actually it would be best for us if they pulled out tomorrow I just have reservations about whether it's best for the people of Afghanistan.

p.s. I wonder if that's where the Stalinists get the idea that he was a fascist supporter from

[#FF0000]

Don't try and pin that on me. I didn't say once that I supported imperialism only that both should be condemned.

Haha alright. I just wasn't sure what your point was.


Interesting bit from Trotsky I kind of agree with it and was going to say something similar about Afghanistan, It is better for the working class of the west if the Taliban win actually it would be best for us if they pulled out tomorrow I just have reservations about whether it's best for the people of Afghanistan.

Tyrants at home are generally better than far more powerful tyrants an ocean away, I'd say.

[ComradeMan]

Imperialism isn't going to lead to socialism.

So it's a no-win situation in Afghanistan then. In all likelihood an immediate withdrawl would leave the country in the hands of former imperalist lackeys. A Taliban controlled Afghanistan is not going to lead to socialism either.


Further, the reason the Taliban was ever in power in the first place is because of American interference in the region. More imperialism is not going to do anything to "help" the socialist cause there.

Yes, but then of course the Soviet Unioninvaded in Afghanistan when the communist party was overthrown and of course the USA had been involved in stirring up anti-communist forces too. Soviet "rule" in Afghanistan was hardly an elightenment.

But of course we all know that- but that doesn't provide a plan or solution that is positive for the future of the people of Afghanistan, does it?


By now people have learned that it is never a good idea to support a big, powerful, industrialized country when it decides to fuck up a smaller, weaker one.
Thanks for the platitude but... the future of Afghanistan?


How so. And also try more for substance than rhetoric, please.

I don't understand how you have the audacity to state this when you actually do nothing but spout well known historical facts and bland ideological principles.

You see, this is a no-win situation for a leftist. This is a completely reactionary way between groups of reactionaries- former imperialist lackeys turned on their former imperialist masters. I see no win for socialism in this.

However, I ask people here- to take the current situation and what has happened into account and then say what they would realistically like to see happen in the future and how, of course, that would benefit the people of Afghanistan from a socialist point of view.

What would be your solution for Afghanistan in order to bring peace, prosperity and positive development to the beleaguered people of that country?

:crying:

[#FF0000]

I don't understand how you have the audacity to state this when you actually do nothing but spout well known historical facts and bland ideological principles.

This would mean something coming from anybody but the guy who runs all over this forum arms full of goalposts and strawmen.


What would be your solution for Afghanistan in order to bring peace, prosperity and positive development to the beleaguered people of that country?

I don't think it's helpful for people to be trotting out pie-in-the-sky idealistic fantasies about how to fix Afghanistan quickly. No one around here knows where to even begin and anyone who thinks they do is deluded.

But what the favorable outcome iiiiiss pretty clear I think. It would be better for the U.S. government to leave the region.

[ComradeMan]

Uhhh best we can hope for is that the stronger imperialist power loses. It's a no-win in that no results are going to lead directly to socialism, but, uh, yeah the imperialist power losing is the most desirable result here.

So that's your plan....

The strongest imperialist side "loses" and the "weaker" imperialist side takes over- net result= "imperialism".

:confused:

The result is not the winning or losing, the result is what comes after. Or does it suit the US perhaps to obliterate the country, leave it in the hands of reactionaries, make sure there is no possible hope for socialism in the country and thus the pipelines won't fall into the hands of the red peril...

It seems what you're proposing is exactly that.

[#FF0000]

The strongest imperialist side "loses" and the "weaker" imperialist side takes over- net result= "imperialism".

Yeah I mean I guess your right seeing as how effectively the Taliban is able to project it's power across the world. Why, I'd say it rivals the United States and China with their billion dollar stealth bombers and nuclear submarines.


The result is not the winning or losing, the result is what comes after. Or does it suit the US perhaps to obliterate the country, leave it in the hands of reactionaries, make sure there is no possible hope for socialism in the country and thus the pipelines won't fall into the hands of the red peril...

It seems what you're proposing is exactly that.

To be honest it's better than America staying for however much longer.

I know you think the government has a "responsibility" to the Afghan people after fucking up their country but you are naive beyond belief if you think that means fuck all to anybody running that operation.

[#FF0000]

To be honest I'm kind of at a loss because I can't believe someone is seriously suggesting, looking back at all of history, that a larger and more powerful country fighting a tiny and comparably powerless country could ever possibly lead to anything good.

"NO GUYS SERIOUSLY, THIS TIME WE'LL LIBERATE THE WOMEN AND PUT UP AND INDEPENDENT DEMOCRACY AND NOT EXPLOIT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE FOR SUPER CHEAP LABOR".

[ComradeMan]

Yeah I mean I guess your right seeing as how effectively the Taliban is able to project it's power across the world. Why, I'd say it rivals the United States and China with their billion dollar stealth bombers and nuclear submarines.

Former imperialist lackeys, they would soon be rehabilitated back into the fold just like the fascists and the Nazis after WWII, just making sure of course they do what Washington wants.

But even if they are not lackeys, okay reactionaries, fundamentalists with no respect for any of the values people hold here.


To be honest I'm kind of at a loss because I can't believe someone is seriously suggesting, looking back at all of history, that a larger and more powerful country fighting a tiny and comparably powerless country could ever possibly lead to anything good.

But I am not suggesting that and have never suggested that- but you can't seem to get it through your skull that what has happened has happened- but it's what comes next people are concerned about and that people might be able to change.

Or don't you care about what happens next to those people?


"NO GUYS SERIOUSLY, THIS TIME WE'LL LIBERATE THE WOMEN AND PUT UP AND INDEPENDENT DEMOCRACY AND NOT EXPLOIT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE FOR SUPER CHEAP LABOR".

Who said that? Who was supporting the War? No one.

But you also seem to be deliberately obtuse it not seeing how a completely smashed and reactionary Afghanistan abandoned by the West could actually suit imperialism and capitalism.

Why not force the US to end bombing and start rebuilding schools and roads and hospitals? Why not make capitalism pay? Why not? Because what you are doing is basically saying that the only viable solution, given that the country seems to have been wrecked by these foreign imposed wars is for those same powers to just up and leave and abandon the country to its fate without any moral obligations whatsoever.

You also fail to propose any ideas about the future- this is in my mind what's wrong with the left- good at criticising but useless at times at trying to propose anything workable for the future- when questioned on pragmatics or realpolitik, just spout some ideology or slogan and shout people down.

[#FF0000]

Or don't you care about what happens next to those people?

Having the Taliban back in power will be less destructive to the people of Afghanistan than another day of having the American military there.

Of course it'd be way preferable to have the


Why not force the US to end bombing and start rebuilding schools and roads and hospitals? Why not make capitalism pay? Why not? Because what you are doing is basically saying that the only viable solution, given that the country seems to have been wrecked by these foreign imposed wars is for those same powers to just up and leave and abandon the country to its fate without any moral obligations whatsoever.

Oh okay I will write a sternly worded letter to the Pentagon post-haste and have them clean up their mess without being mean to anybody anymore.

Are you being serious now? How would you propose we force the American government to "fix" Afghanistan? Especially when that is what they claim they're doing!


You also fail to propose any ideas about the future- this is in my mind what's wrong with the left- good at criticising but useless at times at trying to propose anything workable for the future- when questioned on pragmatics or realpolitik, just spout some ideology or slogan and shout people down.

I think you need to look up what pragmatic and what idealistic means because you're getting them confused if you think you're the pragmatic one here. You're seriously suggesting that we tell the American government to give reparations and repair things they've blown up in Afghanistan when they ignored the biggest anti-war protests in that country's history, not to mention massive protests around the world, just to have another war.

Would it be great if America put money into rebuilding schools and hospitals? Sure! Will it happen? Fuck no.

[#FF0000]

What do you think should be done, Comrademan?

[Outinleftfield]

Well at 29:34 and 31:47 he says what I thought about the Afghanistan issue and withdrawl and for which I was .... err... restricted.:crying:

I think he's right on this- he takes a pragmatic approach coupled with his own ideological point of view. Ideologies are well and good, but pragmatism is necessary too-- otherwise you end up with... dare I say... Pol Pot?

The problem is pragmatism can be taken too far. Pragmatism known as empiricism in Britain was used as an argument by some scientists against the theory of the atom when debating Einstein. They claimed it could not be observed or demonstrated and so according to strict empiricist philosophy did not exist.

Just because something is only "theoretical" YET does not mean it should be discounted.

[NecroCommie]

Personally, I find Zizek to be somewhat an idealist. If not that, then at least he fails to explain in his books how his philosophies would translate into the material world. Also, he makes simple matters sound needlesly complicated.

But to restrict? Nooo...

[Manic Impressive]

Having the Taliban back in power will be less destructive to the people of Afghanistan than another day of having the American military there.
The system that the Taliban would enforce would be a type of feudalism, do you agree?

What's better for people capitalism or feudalism?

What happens to the women who have been going to school in US/British occupied areas if the Taliban regained complete control? For that matter what happens to any collaborators when the Taliban regain control? What happens to any leftist groups if there are any left?

I think that comment is a bit silly to be honest

[#FF0000]

Should the occupation continue on the grounds that America is modernizing Afghanistan and girls are going to school, then?

[Noinu]

Should the occupation continue on the grounds that America is modernizing Afghanistan and girls are going to school, then?

Are you saying it's not a good thing that girls are going to school?

[#FF0000]

Are you saying it's not a good thing that girls are going to school?

Yes that is exactly what I'm saying.

[Noinu]

And you don't think there's any sort of alternative except the two? (As in not the two only alternatives discussed on this thread Taliban VS the US).

And yes, you did seem to catch on the disagreement, it seriously sounded like you'd be completely against educating women.

[#FF0000]

Oh yeah I'm not here saying I support the Taliban.

I'm just saying the U.S. needs to get out, and that if people think one is any better for the Afghan people than the other, then they're, well, just wrong.

[Noinu]

Oh yeah I'm not here saying I support the Taliban.

I'm just saying the U.S. needs to get out, and that if people think one is any better for the Afghan people than the other, then they're, well, just wrong.

But basically, all your posts thus far have mostly stated that the Taliban is better than the US. (Thus saying that one is better for them than the other, making yourself wrong).


And one thing I still can't comprehend, is that when someone says 'the shouldn't just leave', everbody immediately assumes that this person is really saying 'I want to them to stay and fight there'. When in fact, no one has spoken of fighting in any direction.
(Don't worry, I'm not attacking you, it was just a general question for everyone here).

[Manic Impressive]

Oh yeah I'm not here saying I support the Taliban.

I'm just saying the U.S. needs to get out, and that if people think one is any better for the Afghan people than the other, then they're, well, just wrong.

Having the Taliban back in power will be less destructive to the people of Afghanistan than another day of having the American military there.

yeah bit of a contradiction here

There is no justification for war but the modernization of a feudal system is a positive which can come from it. It's mass murder and oppression either way but perhaps the tyranny that comes with a secular society, greater rights for oppressed groups and modernization of the means of production is better than a highly patriarchal society which pours acid on womens faces for going to school and much worse.

[Manic Impressive]

Just have a think about what is actually better for the proletariat and peasantry of Afghanistan. Not what is best for the ruling class and which system is more likely to produce a successful socialist revolution if one were to occur.

If the Polish feudal lord no longer has a Russian feudal lord over him, the Polish peasant has not a less feudal lord over him – indeed, a free, in place of an enslaved, lord. The political change has changed nothing in the peasant's social position.

[ComradeMan]

Just have a think about what is actually better for the proletariat and peasantry of Afghanistan. Not what is best for the ruling class and which system is more likely to produce a successful socialist revolution if one were to occur.


You're quite right- good quote too. ;)

An immediate withdrawl isn't going to happen anyway- it's logistically impossible.

The best we could hope for is a concrete withdrawl programme that leaves behind it lasting infrastructures for the benefit of the people- perhaps with a humanitarian and international peace-keeping force could substitute the war troops- but the troops themselves should be aimed at peacekeeping not attacking.

The prospects are rather grim however. I think the US & Allies will pull out and leave a devastated country behind that will fall into the hands of the Taliban and be worse than it was before because of the aggravated circumstances and the destruction of what meagre infrastructures were left by the previous occupations and wars.

There are no easy answers with this one as the major forces on all sides are pretty damn reactionary to be honest.

[#FF0000]

Just have a think about what is actually better for the proletariat and peasantry of Afghanistan. Not what is best for the ruling class and which system is more likely to produce a successful socialist revolution if one were to occur.

So I am confused. You think that a continued occupation is good for the folks in Afghanistan?


And one thing I still can't comprehend, is that when someone says 'the shouldn't just leave', everbody immediately assumes that this person is really saying 'I want to them to stay and fight there'. When in fact, no one has spoken of fighting in any direction.

But staying means occupying, which is violence either way. If the military stays, it will fight and occupy and do what it can to support another corrupt/weak pro-US government.

[Noinu]

But staying means occupying, which is violence either way. If the military stays, it will fight and occupy and do what it can to support another corrupt/weak pro-US government.

How on Earth would it mean occupying? Are you saying all voluntary workers are occupiers?

Oh and nobody said the MILITARY has to stay.

[#FF0000]

Oh I see. Humanitarian workers, then, I guess.

Humanitarian workers who will get shot and blown up.

[Noinu]

Oh I see. Humanitarian workers, then, I guess.

Humanitarian workers who will get shot and blown up.

So basically letting some alright people go there and try and help is a bad thing 'cause they're gonna get killed anyway? What kind of an attitude is that?
Seriously?
You're basically suggesting that the place is so crap that no one should try and give a shit about them, 'cause 'oh well people are gonna die there anyway, get blown up and stuff'.

[#FF0000]

I'm saying that it is hella unlikely that the folks resisting in Afghanistan are going to accept humanitarian aid.

Especially since, you know, they're going to be helping the unpopular, corrupt, and weak Karzai government.

[Noinu]

I'm saying that it is hella unlikely that the folks resisting in Afghanistan are going to accept humanitarian aid.

Especially since, you know, they're going to be helping the unpopular, corrupt, and weak Karzai government.

So your answer would be to just let them rot, eh?

[#FF0000]

Uhhhh the Military isn't wanted there so we should leave. I'm sure the occupation is legitimizing the Taliban in a lot of people's eyes over there anyway.

[Noinu]

Uhhhh the Military isn't wanted there so we should leave. Our occupation is just legitimizing the Taliban anyway.

No one's talking about the bloody military.

You have said that no humanitarian aid would be accepted, and the people support the wrong kind of governments and they basically don't deserve any help as a result. Even if they wanted it? You refuse to even consider the possibility.
All your posts basically lead up the same result; they're beyon any sort of help, Taliban's gonna take power and Karzai and why should anyone care. What kind of an attitude is that? Or better yet, what kind of a leftist attitude is it, to just look at something and think, oh well, nothing good's gonna happen there.

[#FF0000]

Guys i'm not saying that we shouldn't probably rebuild infrastructure and do nice things. I think that it is exceedingly naive to believe that the government would do that, though.

[Noinu]

Guys i'm not saying that we shouldn't probably rebuild infrastructure and do nice things. I think that it is exceedingly naive to believe that the government would do that, though.

Have you noticed how often you change your views in your posts? Seriously weird.

But now you're basically stating what ComradeMan's been trying to get through; what kind of a person screws things up and refuses to give help when it's actually needed, and maybe even wanted except no one wants to ask them.

[#FF0000]

Have you noticed how often you change your views in your posts? Seriously weird.

I've been saying that since the beginning of the thread.

But yeah sure no send them money and supplies. But you realize that once the military leaves, the Taliban is most likely going to be the recipient of that money.

[Noinu]

I've been saying that since the beginning of the thread.

Go read back, you haven't.


But yeah sure no send them money and supplies. But you realize that once the military leave, the Taliban is most likely going to be the recipient of that money.

I have never in my life said that sending money is the answer; sending money is never the answer.
But how about sending a doctor? Or a teacher? Or maybe just someone who likes building houses? No body says occupation is a good thing, no body. They should be in control of their own country. But that seriously doesn't exclude outside help (not interference, HELP).

And again you're basically back in your old stance 'Nothing we can do, nothing to think of doing 'cause the Taliban will always get power and let's not discuss this further 'cause it's hopeless anyway'.

[#FF0000]

And again you're basically back in your old stance 'Nothing we can do, nothing to think of doing 'cause the Taliban will always get power and let's not discuss this further 'cause it's hopeless anyway'.

Hey if they'll accept doctors and civil engineers and shit then yeah send them over.

[Noinu]

Hey if they'll accept doctors and civil engineers and shit then yeah send them over.

Why the hell did it take you that bloody long to think that?

[#FF0000]

I seriously thought everyone was seriously suggesting we leave the military there.

I must be tired or something.

[ComradeMan]

Hey if they'll accept doctors and civil engineers and shit then yeah send them over.


That has been like, kind of, sort of my point all along.... and I ended up in the gulag... :crying:

[Noinu]

I seriously thought everyone was seriously suggesting we leave the military there.

I must be tired or something.

You must have been tired for quite some time. Hopefully you finally woke up.

[Robert]

You must have been tired for quite some time. Hopefully you finally woke up.

Hopefully you won't be a condescending little shit-ass your whole life.

Twerp.

[#FF0000]

Hopefully you won't be a condescending little shit-ass your whole life.

Twerp.


g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-god damn

[Noinu]

Hopefully you won't be a condescending little shit-ass your whole life.

Twerp.

Lol.

[ComradeMan]

Hopefully you won't be a condescending little shit-ass your whole life.

Twerp.


Where did that come from??? :crying:

Hey.... cool it--- let's keep this on topic!!!

[Havet]

Hey.... cool it--- let's keep this on topic!!!

Too late

[RGacky3]

I like his ideas, In my opinion he using Marxism in the way it should be used, I agree with most of what he's saying.

I think however, he's read too much philosophy, thats just a criticism of his talking style though, the content is solid.

What I disagree with is the Idea that Capitalism can continue regenerating, I don't think it can. Also the idea that Capitalism neccesarily leads to democracy, there is'nt a connection.

I also think he's leaving out a major dynamic, which is the whole idea of control, THATS what systems are about, who controls what. He talks about systems as though they are just different ways of doing something, this is why democracy is the most important aspect of socialism.

I also love his analysis of Afghanistan, how it used to be the most liberal muslim country, its a GREAT point.

But his idea of staying in Afghanistan is ludacris, the US is not gonna do any good staying there, he attacks the left for being moralistic, but he's failing to see the power dynamics in the US, if they stay there, they are not going to do good, even if they could, they arn't gonna re-build it, the lesser of 2 evils is getting out.

He also attacks reformism, which is stupid in my opinion, because the other alternative is dreaming, and dreaming does'nt pay the bills, I say reformism with a view to revolution.

I also don't agree with his analysis of right wing populism, I think he's understating the general left, hes ignoring HUGE revolutions in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Europe, worldwide the new nationalism is far outnumbered by new socialists.

[Havet]

Also the idea that Capitalism neccesarily leads to democracy, there is'nt a connection.

He doesn't believe that; he defends the opposite (http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/002434.php).

[Reznov]

By now people have learned that it is never a good idea to support a big, powerful, industrialized country when it decides to fuck up a smaller, weaker one.





And thats why were there bringing Democracy to them, silly ;)

[Revolution starts with U]

... what's a "shit-ass" anyway? Isn't that a little redundant? :confused:

[#FF0000]

But his idea of staying in Afghanistan is ludacris, the US is not gonna do any good staying there, he attacks the left for being moralistic, but he's failing to see the power dynamics in the US, if they stay there, they are not going to do good, even if they could, they arn't gonna re-build it, the lesser of 2 evils is getting out.

I'm not seeing where he said the US should stay in Afghanistan. Was that in another talk he gave?

[Noinu]

I'm not seeing where he said the US should stay in Afghanistan. Was that in another talk he gave?

At around 29:00 he starts talking about how, if the US withdrew now, the Taliban would take over immediately and that would be a fiasco which the US could not afford.

[#FF0000]

At around 29:00 he starts talking about how, if the US withdrew now, the Taliban would take over immediately and that would be a fiasco which the US could not afford.

Yes I heard that. I don't interpret that as him saying "the U.S. army should stay in Afghanistan".

[Noinu]

Yes I heard that. I don't interpret that as him saying "the U.S. army should stay in Afghanistan".

And how would you interpret it?

[#FF0000]

Stating that if the U.S. left, the Taliban would come back.

And if that happened it would be a huge embarrassment that the U.S. government can't afford.

[Noinu]

Stating that if the U.S. left, the Taliban would come back.

And if that happened it would be a huge embarrassment that the U.S. government can't afford.

So for you the words 'fiasco' and 'embarrassment' are synonyms?

[Blackscare]

Why the hell did it take you that bloody long to think that?


Better question: why the hell have you or comrademan failed to give an actionable plan that would allow all the mean people with guns to leave and all the nice folks with hammers and pencil sharpeners come train the savages... erm, natives, how to be properly human? Because, you know, we all know that no progress can be made anywhere without the US government coming to the rescue.


And, as TBMIRLH (Jesus!), said, much/all of this fairytale bloodless aid would be used directly or indirectly to support the Karzai government, which itself is extremely unpopular and is simply prolonging the rebuilding by it's continued presence.


Obviously, I'd much prefer some socialist insurgency to take power than the Taliban, but that ain't happening and all the US occupation (and let's not kid ourselves here, Americans are rightfully hated in that country, aid workers wouldn't have a chance there without protection and thus occupation) is doing is cutting the various heads off the Hydra, only to see more emerge.


You seem to be ganging up on TBwhatever because what he's saying doesn't sound nice, and it's clear you'd prefer some vague alternate reality where peacefully and forcefully (contradiction, there) modernizing Afghanistan is the priority. Please, tell me how this is possible. I'd like to know.

[Blackscare]

So for you the words 'fiasco' and 'embarrassment' are synonyms?


Oh please, sheesh, what a petty little semantic post.

[#FF0000]

So for you the words 'fiasco' and 'embarrassment' are synonyms?

I'm just saying. Zizek just stated two facts and never said anything about whether or not the army should stay.

[Noinu]

Better question: why the hell have you or comrademan failed to give an actionable plan that would allow all the mean people with guns to leave and all the nice folks with hammers and pencil sharpeners come train the savages... erm, natives, how to be properly human? Because, you know, we all know that no progress can be made anywhere without the US government coming to the rescue.

Actually, what I'm trying to point out here, is that we have a choice of trying to find alternatives, and not just giving up 'cause of some bloody shit some idiot stirred up.
I have no once said that I have a working plan, nor am I even trying to suggest that one can be found, I just don't think it's a good idea to just look at a place with a war going on and say 'oh well, they're screwed anyways'.
Which is basically what's been said here; the US staying = bad, the Taliban rising = bad, something else happening = impossible.

How about just trying for some discussion on something that wouldn't mean them getting screwed because of a war the US started.



And, as TBMIRLH (Jesus!), said, much/all of this fairytale bloodless aid would be used directly or indirectly to support the Karzai government, which itself is extremely unpopular and is simply prolonging the rebuilding by it's continued presence.

And why would it be used to support Karzai? Can you give a good explanation of that.



Obviously, I'd much prefer some socialist insurgency to take power than the Taliban, but that ain't happening and all the US occupation (and let's not kid ourselves here, Americans are rightfully hated in that country, aid workers wouldn't have a chance there without protection and thus occupation) is doing is cutting the various heads off the Hydra, only to see more emerge.

Why can't people just finally get out of that pessimistic hole they're in?? Seriously?? Why on Earth would it be impossible for something better to exist than the US occupation, or the Taliban?

The workers needing protection, seriously, something like that would be needed in any country where workers are going against the government (which has the military). But how is it, that a revolution is possible in other places, but not there?



You seem to be ganging up on TBwhatever because what he's saying doesn't sound nice, and it's clear you'd prefer some vague alternate reality where peacefully and forcefully (contradiction, there) modernizing Afghanistan is the priority. Please, tell me how this is possible. I'd like to know.

Well I guess you seem to have noticed it quite wrong, I am not ganging up on anybody, and the 'petty semantic comment' actually was quite important. I only want to make sure that there are absolutely no misunderstandings and explaining your own definition of a word (such as fiasco, since I know enough people who would see fiasco having a much stronger meaning that just embarrasment) is quite crucial for making sure that there are none of those nasty little misunderstandings.

I have never said I want any sort of forceful anything. I also haven't said that modernising Afghanistan is my priority, but the place is completely devastated after a war that refuses to end. I think we ought to at least give them the option of asking for help. If they don't want it, fine, their choice. But saying it's dumb to even consider helping them 'cause it'll just end up badly, is really quite arrogant. None of can choose for them, they should be free to choose for themselves.
I don't think occupation is good, not from the US or anybody else for that matter.

I'm not going to lie and say I have 'some great fast track plan to save them', I am only saying that making out as if there were only two alternatives; occupation or turning backs to them; is a bit odd. Why not give them the option of choosing?
How about you give me a good explanation of why it's not possible for Aghanistan to find itself in a peaceful situation again one day?

[Noinu]

I'm just saying. Zizek just stated two facts and never said anything about whether or not the army should stay.

I'll give you that, he has stated two facts and that's it. The reason I don't really see eye to eye with your interpretation of it, is how people here have been wording their reasons for feeling that the US should leave; 'staying there would be a fiasco and the US could not afford it'.
With Zizek saying the opposite, 'Leaving would be a fiasco and the US could not afford it'; I went on to interpret that he wouldn't want them to leave.

As you might have noticed with the discussion moving forward, none of us actually suggested the military occupation stay in place.

[Blackscare]

I have no once said that I have a working plan, nor am I even trying to suggest that one can be found, I just don't think it's a good idea to just look at a place with a war going on and say 'oh well, they're screwed anyways'.
Which is basically what's been said here; the US staying = bad, the Taliban rising = bad, something else happening = impossible.Ok, so you're actually proposing something even more vague than I thought. Somehow you want to force the US government to behave, or not? Are you suggesting that if the US government leaves, there's no hope of some "third way" to emerge? Then you're not really suggesting any real third way anyway, are you? Your whole argument depends on the US staying, in some fashion.



How about just trying for some discussion on something that wouldn't mean them getting screwed because of a war the US started.
Well if that's your goal, then state it. We were talking about what practical options there are regarding the US government has at this point. If you want to contract a fleet of unicorns to fly in and start the building process, then by all means do so, but it doesn't much effect this discussion, does it? You're trying to change the discussion here because you know what you're arguing for has no real practical basis in this discussion or reality. Anyways, what are your ideas? I would love to hear them, really, since you're chastising others for not having the innovative answers that you yourself can't seem to muster.


And why would it be used to support Karzai? Can you give a good explanation of that.In much the same way that the majority of Red Cross aid in a lot of places goes straight to warlords, etc, because providing these materials is normally a condition of operating in the area. Also, if this money/aid was coming from the US itself, I see no reason why it wouldn't go to support it's client government in the country.




Why can't people just finally get out of that pessimistic hole they're in?? Seriously?? Why on Earth would it be impossible for something better to exist than the US occupation, or the Taliban? Instead of continually whining about this, be the shining power of example that you are and say something along these lines please.


The workers needing protection, seriously, something like that would be needed in any country where workers are going against the government (which has the military).AND HOW WOULD THAT NOT AMOUNT TO AN AGGRESSIVE PHYSICAL PRESENCE ON THE GROUND. YOU ARE NOT WANTED SOMEWHERE, YET YOU REMAIN. THIS EQUALS AGGRESSION. SHIT.


But how is it, that a revolution is possible in other places, but not there?
Oh, I see, so you just want us to spout empty platitudes about how much better a socialist revolution would be. Well fine. It would indeed be better. I'm not sure anyone doubted that. Please enlighten me how we could cause that to happen from the outside, anyway. I suppose the savages are too dumb to do it themselves, like every other revolution, right?



I only want to make sure that there are absolutely no misunderstandingsA good tactic along these lines is to make clear what it is you advocate, not just voicing opposition to other's comments.




I have never said I want any sort of forceful anything. I also haven't said that modernising Afghanistan is my priority, but the place is completely devastated after a war that refuses to end.Or an occupying force that refuses to get out.



I think we ought to at least give them the option of asking for help.Oh, how progressive of you! Letting them have the privilage of begging Uncle Sam for help! As if anyone in this fucking thread said that solicited aid should be refused in the first place! :rolleyes:


If they don't want it, fine, their choice. But saying it's dumb to even consider helping them 'cause it'll just end up badly, is really quite arrogant.Probably why no one said that, then.


None of can choose for them, they should be free to choose for themselves.And to be free to choose, they need US-imposed "democracy"? See I keep asking these things because you're making it extremely vague what it is you're actually advocating here.



I don't think occupation is good, not from the US or anybody else for that matter.

I'm not going to lie and say I have 'some great fast track plan to save them', I am only saying that making out as if there were only two alternatives; occupation or turning backs to them; is a bit odd. Why not give them the option of choosing? In what way do you propose to give them the option to "choose"? I think the population detesting our puppet government and lining up to support resistance groups is a pretty striking vote "nay" on continued US presence.

Please, suggest something reasonable within the framework of the US government and the situation in Afghanistan. I don't need a stellar, complete plan here, just some sort of proposal that leads me to believe you're not totally talking out of your ass.

The problem here is, you're lambasting other people for having any concrete position beyond your own vague idealism.


How about you give me a good explanation of why it's not possible for Aghanistan to find itself in a peaceful situation again one day?
How about you show me where I said that?

[#FF0000]

AND HOW WOULD THAT NOT AMOUNT TO AN AGGRESSIVE PHYSICAL PRESENCE ON THE GROUND. YOU ARE NOT WANTED SOMEWHERE, YET YOU REMAIN. THIS EQUALS AGGRESSION. SHIT.



AND HOW WOULD THAT NOT AMOUNT TO AN AGGRESSIVE PHYSICAL PRESENCE ON THE GROUND. YOU ARE NOT WANTED SOMEWHERE, YET YOU REMAIN. THIS EQUALS AGGRESSION. SHIT.



AND HOW WOULD THAT NOT AMOUNT TO AN AGGRESSIVE PHYSICAL PRESENCE ON THE GROUND. YOU ARE NOT WANTED SOMEWHERE, YET YOU REMAIN. THIS EQUALS AGGRESSION. SHIT.


.

[ComradeMan]

Better question: why the hell have you or comrademan .

I did propose some ideas, a long while ago and when I proposed supporting things like RAWA, certain members just derided them.

Do you know what RAWA is? They are also anti occupation too. But there is also a difference between active warfare and peacekeeping- of course when I suggested UN, international, peacekeeping troops and a slow but determined withdrawl that at least attempted to repair the damage- this was not acceptable.

The problem is that socialists cannot get involved with this issue without compromising principles- but to me, just abandoning a devastated country to a bunch of reactionary lunatics- created by the US anyway, would be immoral from any perspective.

[#FF0000]

The problem is that socialists cannot get involved with this issue without compromising principles- but to me, just abandoning a devastated country to a bunch of reactionary lunatics- created by the US anyway, would be immoral from any perspective.


Maybe it's me, but I think having the U.S. intervene in anyway when they aren't wanted anymore than the Taliban is by many Afghans is just as immoral. I don't know what Afghans should do about the Taliban, but the answer has nothing to do with intervention by foreign governments.

If some revolutionary socialist front came about for some reason, then I'd be all for leftists around the world sending them money and supplies to fight the Taliban, but such doesn't exist.

[Noinu]

Ok, so you're actually proposing something even more vague than I thought. Somehow you want to force the US government to behave, or not? Are you suggesting that if the US government leaves, there's no hope of some "third way" to emerge? Then you're not really suggesting any real third way anyway, are you? Your whole argument depends on the US staying, in some fashion.

I have actually never said that I think the US should stay there. And do you think it would be a bad idea to make them behave? Or are you just saying, that because it's incredibly unlikely, we should not try and hope for it?
My argument doesn't depend on anyone staying. Or anyone leaving for that matter.


Well if that's your goal, then state it. We were talking about what practical options there are regarding the US government has at this point. If you want to contract a fleet of unicorns to fly in and start the building process, then by all means do so, but it doesn't much effect this discussion, does it? You're trying to change the discussion here because you know what you're arguing for has no real practical basis in this discussion or reality. Anyways, what are your ideas? I would love to hear them, really, since you're chastising others for not having the innovative answers that you yourself can't seem to muster.


I haven't talked about the US government. So no, we're not talking about that.

And I have given my opinion. I think we should ask the people of Afghanistan, and not make decisions for them. I know it's incredibly difficult to do this, and I'm not saying it would work, but I seriously don't think we're in any position to make decisions for them.


In much the same way that the majority of Red Cross aid in a lot of places goes straight to warlords, etc, because providing these materials is normally a condition of operating in the area. Also, if this money/aid was coming from the US itself, I see no reason why it wouldn't go to support it's client government in the country.

So it's just better to say it doesn't work, instead of trying to find a solution to fixing the problem? And don't you dare ask how I'd fix it, I don't know, but I think we ought to at least try.



Instead of continually whining about this, be the shining power of example that you are and say something along these lines please.

AND HOW WOULD THAT NOT AMOUNT TO AN AGGRESSIVE PHYSICAL PRESENCE ON THE GROUND. YOU ARE NOT WANTED SOMEWHERE, YET YOU REMAIN. THIS EQUALS AGGRESSION. SHIT.

Why should I do something, you aren't doing either, eh? I have never said I was any sort of shining example. I only think we ought to try and think outside the box rather than closing it altogether. I don't have answers, I think we ought to try and find them. As a group effort. But obviously, no one else is willing to accept the possibility of maybe people being able to create something.

I have never said I think the military should stay. Never. I don't like the military. Why would I support them?


Oh, I see, so you just want us to spout empty platitudes about how much better a socialist revolution would be. Well fine. It would indeed be better. I'm not sure anyone doubted that. Please enlighten me how we could cause that to happen from the outside, anyway. I suppose the savages are too dumb to do it themselves, like every other revolution, right?


No, I would like people to finally start trying to create something, and not just spouting out depressive ideas of how nothing is possible anyways.
And where the hell have I even suggested something as stupid as 'the savages being too dumb to do it'? Seriously?
I think you were the one who said you didn't think the workers could do anything. I would never think something as idiotic as that.


A good tactic along these lines is to make clear what it is you advocate, not just voicing opposition to other's comments.

I have said, you just refuse to read it.


Or an occupying force that refuses to get out.

An occupying force has no place there, so they should cease to be there, or at least cease occupying. Geez, you seriously only read half of what I write.



Oh, how progressive of you! Letting them have the privilage of begging Uncle Sam for help! As if anyone in this fucking thread said that solicited aid should be refused in the first place! :rolleyes:
Probably why no one said that, then.

Everyone just keeps saying there's no alternatives so better just give up. Again; I do not support the US in Afghanistan, I never have, I never will.
And who talked about begging Uncle Sam for help? You keep rolling your eyes but still give enough reason for me to do the same.


And to be free to choose, they need US-imposed "democracy"? See I keep asking these things because you're making it extremely vague what it is you're actually advocating here.

No they don't. Why the hell would they? Do you need democracy to voice your opinion? Do you need the US to choose your opinion? Do you need someone imposing something on you, to want to say what you think?
A. The US has no democracy, same as every other country that claims to be democratic B. Why would I support the US imposing something, when I don't even support them?

I have made quite clear what I think, you on the other hand just dismiss it as impossible and stupid and thus are not willing to see what I have written.


In what way do you propose to give them the option to "choose"? I think the population detesting our puppet government and lining up to support resistance groups is a pretty striking vote "nay" on continued US presence.

That's what one should try and figure out, how to make it possible for them to choose.
And yes, that is, and I think the continued presence of any occupier is bad.


Please, suggest something reasonable within the framework of the US government and the situation in Afghanistan. I don't need a stellar, complete plan here, just some sort of proposal that leads me to believe you're not totally talking out of your ass.

The military? Should leave. The occupation? Should end. Why does it always just have to be about the US? There are other countries on this planet too, many of which have been against the occupation/the war from the beginning.
My proposal? That we finally would start trying to figure out what to do, and not keep saying nothing can be done. One can always try.



The problem here is, you're lambasting other people for having any concrete position beyond your own vague idealism.

The only position they seem to have is that nothing can be done, and the Afghans are doomed either way so let's just stop discussing it.


How about you show me where I said that?

How about I don't. I seriously have better things to do with my life than talking to you.

[#FF0000]

Who should provide this aid then, Noinu?

[Noinu]

Maybe it's me, but I think having the U.S. intervene in anyway when they aren't wanted anymore than the Taliban is by many Afghans is just as immoral. I don't know what Afghans should do about the Taliban, but the answer has nothing to do with intervention by foreign governments.

If some revolutionary socialist front came about for some reason, then I'd be all for leftists around the world sending them money and supplies to fight the Taliban, but such doesn't exist.

You're quite right, foreign governments should not intervene. They shouldn't have been there in the first place. But seeing as none of us here is the government, nor do I think anyone here supports their own respective governments, why would it be so bad to think that maybe one could find something else to do?

[Noinu]

Who should provide this aid then, Noinu?

People who actually care something about the Afghans, maybe? Why not? There are enough people like that in the world.

[Blackscare]

I have actually never said that I think the US should stay there. And do you think it would be a bad idea to make them behave? Or are you just saying, that because it's incredibly unlikely, we should not try and hope for it?

You can hope for a lot of things, haranging others for not dwelling on the same idle hopes is just stupid, though.


My argument doesn't depend on anyone staying. Or anyone leaving for that matter.

Because you have no argument.



I haven't talked about the US government. So no, we're not talking about that.

No, you're not talking about that. And I don't think anyone really knows what exactly it is you are talking about.


And I have given my opinion. I think we should ask the people of Afghanistan, and not make decisions for them. I know it's incredibly difficult to do this, and I'm not saying it would work, but I seriously don't think we're in any position to make decisions for them.

I think they've made their decision regarding US intervention, given the 9 years of bloody war they've been waging to get us out!





So it's just better to say it doesn't work, instead of trying to find a solution to fixing the problem?

I never said that, no one has said that, all we're saying is the first step is the US military getting the fuck out of Afghanistan, something you seem to be conflating with a multitude of other arguments that you've made up in your head.


And don't you dare ask how I'd fix it, I don't know, but I think we ought to at least try.

Ah yes, I shant dare to ask you this anymore because it's clear you just want to deride everyone else for not opening up some magical "dialogue" about "what to do", as if it's our business in the first place.




Why should I do something, you aren't doing either, eh?

BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE ADVOCATING IT.


I have never said I was any sort of shining example. I only think we ought to try and think outside the box rather than closing it altogether.


And who said this, pray tell? Because if I remember correctly, and I do, Best simply said that he didn't have the answers but thought that continued occupation was not the answer. And you're the one who derped up this thread by then confusing that with a million other things no one has said.



I don't have answers, I think we ought to try and find them. As a group effort.

So you don't like what's being said, can't think of anything yourself, and so want to shift the burden of proving people wrong to... the people you want to prove wrong? What?


But obviously, no one else is willing to accept the possibility of maybe people being able to create something.


No, we just want to know what the fuck you mean by vague statements such as "creating something". Ooooh, that sounds really good! Hey, tea and cookies for everyone on earth sounds great too! Yay!




I have never said I think the military should stay. Never. I don't like the military. Why would I support them?

Well I don't know, you're not taking any sort of actual position so how am I supposed to know what it is you support?


No, I would like people to finally start trying to create something

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN AS OPPOSED TO ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE IS SAYING.


and not just spouting out depressive ideas of how nothing is possible anyways.
And where the hell have I even suggested something as stupid as 'the savages being too dumb to do it'? Seriously?

Well, you seem to be acting as if the only key to Afghan progress is our continued involvement, in one way or another. Or at least foreign intervention. Keep in mind no one here has said that solicited (that means being asked) aid is a bad thing. So I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing against, other than a sober analysis of the material and political facts of Afghanistan today.


I think you were the one who said you didn't think the workers could do anything.

You think? You thought wrong. You're making up a lot of silly shit in this thread.


I would never think something as idiotic as that.

You've said a lot dumber.


I have said, you just refuse to read it.


No, I've read every bit, and I still have not seen you take any sort of actual position other than expressing a vague hope for some kind of happy ending. And then pretending nobody else wants that to happen.



An occupying force has no place there, so they should cease to be there, or at least cease occupying.

Wait, so an outside military force can be in a country where they're not wanted and not occupy it? How so?



Geez, you seriously only read half of what I write.

No, I read every cringe-inducing word, which is why I respond to all of it.



Everyone just keeps saying there's no alternatives so better just give up.

Pretend I'm singing this bit:

Noooooo oooonneeeeee SAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIDD THAAAAAAAAAT


Again; I do not support the US in Afghanistan, I never have, I never will.

So what do you support?


And who talked about begging Uncle Sam for help?

Perhaps you when you said we should give them the "opportunity" to ask for aid.


You keep rolling your eyes but still give enough reason for me to do the same.


Right, except the reasons you're reading are imagined.


No they don't. Why the hell would they? Do you need democracy to voice your opinion? Do you need the US to choose your opinion? Do you need someone imposing something on you, to want to say what you think?
A. The US has no democracy, same as every other country that claims to be democratic B. Why would I support the US imposing something, when I don't even support them?

I guess you failed to read the sentence that directly followed that, huh?


I have made quite clear what I think,
:lol:


you on the other hand just dismiss it as impossible and stupid and thus are not willing to see what I have written.

Nope.


That's what one should try and figure out, how to make it possible for them to choose.
And yes, that is, and I think the continued presence of any occupier is bad.

So your position, basically, is that you want things to end well. Ok, got it.



My proposal? That we finally would start trying to figure out what to do, and not keep saying nothing can be done. One can always try.

Well no shit!


The only position they seem to have is that nothing can be done, and the Afghans are doomed either way so let's just stop discussing it.

Not fucking true.


How about I don't. I seriously have better things to do with my life than talking to you.

What, you plan on obfuscating an argument on some other forum?

[ComradeMan]

WikiLeaks: Afghan MPs and religious scholars “on Iran payroll” (http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/12/03/wikileaks-afghan-mps-and-religious-scholars-on-iran-payroll.html)
December 3, 2010, The Guardian: Iran is financing a range of Afghan religious and political leaders, grooming Afghan religious scholars, training Taliban militants and even seeking to influence MPs, according to cables from the US embassy in Kabul. The dispatches, relating conversations between American and Afghan officials, build up a picture of mounting Iranian involvement in its eastern neighbours.

http://www.rawa.org/index.php

[#FF0000]

Okay, so?

[La Comédie Noire]

SO ANYWAYS- I think Zizek would be restricted, but he'd still be considered a valuable poster who would be unrestricted in a few years. I've always kinda thought no one read Zizek and people just hated him for no reason. Almost everyone I've talked to whose claimed to have read him can't tell me specifically what it is they don't like in his writing.

My opinion? Well after reading Once is tragedy, Twice is Farce I can say there are definitely things I like about him.

There'd also be a lot of threads advocating for Zizek to be unrestricted like "Zizek1949 is a good comrade and thoughtful poster! ect."