Why is it the right preaches personal responsibility and taking care of your own matters, yet the rest of the world is seen as incapable of solving their affairs without American military intervention and aid?
Results 21 to 40 of 99
No, no, no. You have again misunderstood my point again.
The OP was saying that initially the Nazis did take a stand against imperialism. They were openly anti-semitic and all that. Therefore, before the expansion of Nazi Germany leftists could have applauded their anti-imperialist stance but shouldn't have due to their politics. What he was trying to outline was a correlation between the two groups and if you support one reactionary group as they fight imperialism why shouldn't you just credit the Nazis for their fight against imperialism back then? I was only trying to establish that you didn't pick up on that.
On your second point, the Taliban do have set command structures hence why the US are always after their 'leaders'. At the beginning of the war one hilariously evaded them on a motorbike.
Why is it the right preaches personal responsibility and taking care of your own matters, yet the rest of the world is seen as incapable of solving their affairs without American military intervention and aid?
Most moderate Afghans do support the current Afghan government: the ones who aren't are mostly Taliban or the drug lords.
Using the same logic why do you think we should completely ignore other countries when you think that everyone should be denied economic freedoms and you want what is basically ideological imperialism: you want to export leftism around the world.
2+2=4
has i mentionned earlier i dont support neither side, but there was SOME improvements for certains groups of peoples in afghanistan once the american took control, women for instance.
these improvements dosnt excuse the whole incursion but cant be ignored.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Pointing out the fundamental contradictions in your ideology does not demonstrate what I believe. A better approach would be asking me what I propose as an alternative. Since you've not done so, it is now your duty to demonstrate how I advocate "ideological imperialism" and that I wish to "deny economic freedom".
1. You wish to export the leftist ideologies everywhere.
2. You wish to deny people the right to make money.
2+2=4
If that is true, why did the Government feel the need to engage in such blatant vote rigging last week?
Well, you've still not demonstrated how I myself believe these things, so I'll make it easy on you so you don't have to think anymore today.
1. If we were to break it down like that, then any human interaction that is not enthusiastically agreeing with one another would be "ideological imperialism". Yes, I do wish for my ideals to propagate, but I don't advocate doing so by forcing them upon others. Defending them and the interests of those advocating them, yes. Defending them against those that would attempt to sabotage, subvert, and destroy them? Sure. Forcing them upon others with the barrel of a gun and stomping out any opposition that may arise? That would be the history of american capitalism you're thinking of, not me.
2. You simplify economic freedom into money. It isn't economic freedom that I wish to demolish, it's the lack of it. The ones denying economic opportunities are the capitalist who manipulate the law and the state to line their pockets while keeping most money and thus resources out of the hands of others. They control the distribution of resources in ways that are favorable to them and not the majority of humanity. We, and by we I mean the majority of people on this planet, are not given equal footing for our ideas about how the resources that exist on this planet should be managed because the enforcement of property rights allows a minority to lay claim to these resources. Now, I ask you, if big business denied people equal opportunity by greasing the hands of government, forcing indigenous people from their lands, violently crushing any socialist or populist movements that arose (whether or not these movements owned a significant amount of capital on their own or not), and waging war on other countries so they can expand markets, on what moral ground do these private property rights stand and on what grounds should we accept that it is I and not they who wish to deny anyone economic freedom?
As a side note, this is why the OI forum is so useless. Any discussion ultimately degrades and/or often starts as an ill informed attack on leftist ideals, so we're left with the entire thread getting bogged down by lengthy explanations that no one thinks to utilize the next time they ask another generic question in an attempt to discredit the left as one big movement and not a huge collection of people with differing and varying views.
It's unfortunate but:
I'll be statisfied with that too. Afghanistan is a new democracy and a very unstable one and it won't be a picture-perfect election.
You are unrestricted and therefore are a leftist therefore my educated guess is you believe in these things.
Then the US war in Afghanistan can be argued as self-defense as Al-Qaeda attacked the US first and the Taliban refused to hand the terrorists over. Also you don't support humanitiaian imperialism against a state which is mediaeval Muslim entity that oppresses everyone horribly?
2+2=4
well then start a thread in the CC to close the OI and ban us all from the forum, leaving revleft to pure leftist like you.
come on, you can do it
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
On the subject of nazis, I think a pretty good reason to be against them is that they are fascists. That, and they killed several million people.
That they were imperialists is just icing on the cake.
The defeat of the revolutionary movement was not, as Stalinists always complain, due to its lack of unity. It was defeated because the civil war within its ranks was not worked out with enough force. The crippling effects of the systematic confusion between hostis and enemy are self-evident, whether it be the tragedy of the Soviet Union or the groupuscular comedy.
formerly Species Being
just how is the northern alliance "moderate"???
That might be true if A) we weren't planning to invade well in advance. B) The attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda were unprovoked and not the result of long standing american policy in the region.
Besides the fact that the Taliban's rise to power can be partially attributed to America's fanning of islamic militancy and the support given against the soviets, you seem to be under the impression that things are getting better for afghanis under the puppet regime we've propped up. That is another discussion entirely.
Why are the Taliban better than the American military forces?
They are not. However, they are significantly less powerful. And a less powerful enemy is usually preferable to a more powerful one.
They use moderate amounts of indiscriminate violence against anyone who isn't a hardcore reactionary.
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
- Dom Helder Camara, Brazilian archbishop
"Definition of a conservative: a person who believes that nothing should be done for the first time." - mikelepore
It is not a New Democracy, it is a dictatorship, or to be more exact it is a collection of dictatorships, different dictators controlling their own little Empires.
The Governemnt controls very little of the country and what it does control, it runs poorly and undemocratically with widespread corruption and collaboration with the Warlords. It did manage to run an election last week. But it was marred with widespread cheating and vote rigging. When only the winning candidate can accept an election result, you know something is wrong.
Its not a new democracy, any way, I guranantee you 100%, if a government is elected that is not open to US intrests that government won't last long.
hunannitarian imperialism? DOn't give me that crap, the fact that it was oppressive had nothing to do with the invasion, it would'nt have mattered if it was a democracy.
About hte self defense thing, thats right, it can be argued that way, and technically I think you'd be right.
However, the United States harbours terrorists, as does england, someone maybe should invade the US right.
Infact with that precident Cuba would have the perfect right to invade the US.
Thos "ideologies" are simply self-determination and democracy,
The US "ideology" is subservient to the US.
We don't wish to deny people the right to make money, we want to give freedom to everyone, not just those who can afford it.
I think the drug lords right now are smiling, they are much better off than during the Taliban.
Compare them to the Taliban. That is all I have to say.
A. The US wasn't planning to invade Afghanistan in advance. Perhaps you confused it with Iraq?
B. Osama Bin Laden wouldn't mind killing Americans even if we started kissing his ass.
[QUOTE]As I've said much of the Mujahadeen was far more moderate then the Taliban. Also this is a question like would you prefer to live in Stalin's USSR or Khruschev's USSR? The latter is better then the former.
Besides the fact that the Taliban's rise to power can be partially attributed to America's fanning of islamic militancy and the support given against the soviets, you seem to be under the impression that things are getting better for afghanis under the puppet regime we've propped up. That is another discussion entirely.
It would not support the Taliban either.
If Afghanistan was a democracy I doubt the Taliban would be in power.
I support handing certain terrorists over.
What if they democratically choose capitalism?
Then don't destroy the capitalist system completely, simply regulate it and help starting capitalists.
It's an unfortunate side effect.
2+2=4
Perhaps you should tell your American 'liberators' to liberate the women there who have recently been made subject to a law permitting their husbands to rape them (oh wait, the Americans oversaw that didn't they? Yes, yes they did) ... or perhaps you should tell your American 'liberators' to stop funding Afghan drug cartels in an attempt to undermine Iranian influence over Karzai, not that Iranian state influence anywhere is a good thing either.
War creates markets, markets = awesome for certain Capitalistz industries.
"The class war begins in the desecration of our ancestors: millions of people going to their graves as failures, forever denied the experience of a full human existence, their being was simply cancelled out. The violence of the bourgeoisie's appropriation of the world of work becomes the structure that dominates our existence. As our parents die, we can say truly that their lives were for nothing, that the black earth which is thrown down onto them blacks out our sky."
Anybody who wears sandals while fighting a war has my vote. That's hardcore, dudes.
Any sources? Afghanistan's women are in a far better condition then pre-2001.Perhaps you should tell your American 'liberators' to liberate the women there who have recently been made subject to a law permitting their husbands to rape them (oh wait, the Americans oversaw that didn't they? Yes, yes they did
War creates markets, markets = awesome for certain Capitalistz industries.
2+2=4
