BF2S Forums Thank you WP ...

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Oh. So when it suits your argument, it's agreeable. It's only when it's a sovereign country we were once at war with...no, that's not it. It's only when it's a Middle Eastern country...no, that's not it. It's only when it's convenient to your argument that the US military being in a foreign country at that country's request is "occupation".

Bottomline: If either the Iraqi or Afghan government asked the US and other Coalition forces to leave, they would. "Full stop" to use your vernacular. That's not at all "occupation" or "imperialism" by any definition.

I'm afraid your bottomline doesn't hold with popular sentiment on the ground and it's how we're perceived by them that matters - that's what made the Islamic Republic of Iran possible. The current governments dependence on the occupying force does not make it free will. You can invade any nation on earth and engage in patronising and degrading statecraft, ensuring through military force that the newly installed rulers - friendly to the occupiers of course - will disregard the sovereign will of the people through weakness and realities on the ground. That is not 'spreading freedom'.

And for your information FEOS - this holds for any fucking nation on earth. The UK, Poland, all of the rest. They're all culpable. It goes for Russia in Chechnya, China in Tibet, Spain in the Basque Country, the UK in Ireland, Israel in Palestine, Russia in the caucasus... If you want to make stupid allegations then that's fair enough.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Well...aren't we the ethnocentric elitist? "Tribal warlord-centric barbarians". I bet you'd make a TON of friends over there. The warlords control the rural areas. The government controls the urban areas...where most of the population is.

Do I want to make friends over there? The warlords control where all the drug money that feeds the Taliban is grown - and some food when they get around to it....

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

As is Petraeus. What's your point?

Do the Taliban not represent a portion of Afghan society? Where do they fit in to the 'New Afghanistan'? You speak of asking the Afghans what they want - where do the Taliban fit with that?

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

How so? You imply that they will be moving to the cities from the "mud huts" of the FATA. That there's no way they would stay there if they weren't insane. Yet they are...specifically because the Pakistani government has no control over those areas. When they go to the areas where the government does hold sway, they get captured or killed.

So...reinforcing my point. And doing the opposite for yours.

Those captures if I recall correctly occurred at a time when significant political pressure was being exerted on Pakistan - with talk of 'Is Pakistan a friend or an enemy?'. Hey presto they produce two fine catches..... and almost nothing since. The captures indicate the leadership had fled well beyond FATA as early as 2002. Finding these people would be like finding a needle in a haystack in dense, dirty and friendly Pakistan.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Because doing what you describe led to the safe haven that allowed 9/11 to be planned, trained, and executed.

Maybe that?

That was intelligence services budget cuts, incompetence and laziness. All you guys really need is a secret service that is as good as Mossad. Mossad takes care of business and it is only in very extreme circumstances that Israel engage in foolish ventures like occupation - e.g. Lebanon in the 80s - which ultimately and inevitably turned out to be a huge and costly mistake from which they were forced to withdraw. Why do you believe Afghans and Iraqis would like the US/UK/etc. occupation any better than they would like Israeli occupation?

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

"Literal terms"? Is that the best you've got?

They knew full well the consequences of saying no. So they rogered up to a fight. How is that not--in fact--asking for what they got?

There was no guarantee the US would do anything. They sat tight and said 'fuck off USA'. They didn't say 'please commence bombing raids, we welcome them with open arms'. Do you think they are actually clinically insane or something?

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I fully realize that our support of Israel is not popular in the ME. Yet we've got good relations with all but two countries in the region. Hmmm...wonder how that happened if our relationship with Israel is the driver of all ill will in the world?

And again, the Muj were pissed (and rightly so) not because of anything involving Israel, but because we pulled the rug out from under them after the Soviets left. That had ZERO to do with our support of Israel.

Correction: Good relations with the governments of all but two countries. Many of these governments as you well know are despotic sheikhdoms, dictatorships and 'quasi' democracies. They do not represent the will of the people. Honest question: what kind of government do you think the people of Saudi Arabia would elect? Pro-American? Anti-American?

CP wrote:

When the mujahideen got the USSR out of their country they started fighting with each other. What were the US going to do: ask them to play nice? Take the place of the USSR as 'regional administrator'? You may believe that democracy is right for everywhere in the world right now but the fact of the matter is that civil wars are part and parcel of state building. You would have been putting a sticky plaster on a festering wound of tension, just like in Iraq - although the drive to oust the US seemed to unite the various factions at the marches last week.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The impact they have on the lives of the people they kill and maim for one.

Oh, but that's right...I don't care about people getting killed. Yet supposedly you do. But only money is worth fighting for, apparently.

As I said before, the impact of those attacks on the markets pales in comparison to other, non-terrorist attack-related economic drops. Perspective.

I find it odd that you can't see how terror attacks cause significant economic loss. Especially as you probably live within a few hundred miles of New York City.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The Afghans aren't screaming for us to leave, and I know of no such thing. I suppose any country that is friendly to the US is "over a barrel" and is being coerced incessantly by the evil imperialistic occupation forces, right?

Why don't you give those nations some fucking credit? Your attitude in your posts is revealing an unfortunate elitist ethnocentricity that I wouldn't have predicted in you.

Basically, you've described the Afghan people as a bunch of barbarians who can't/won't think for themselves or do what they feel is in the best interest of their people...utter nonsense, Cam. Utter nonsense.

My comment referred to the predominantly Muslim region encompassing Morocco to Pakistan. I will concede that Afghanistan is a different kettle of fish from Iraq. Do you think the Iraqi government however, whose people clearly want the US gone, could afford to say 'go home'? How is that not 'over a barrel'? It may not be coercion but it has the same effect.

I'll give those nations credit when they rule themselves with absolutely zero direct external intervention in their civil and political affairs, in the same manner as I will not give credit to any African nation that has developed a dependency on international aid.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

As you overlook the entirely free elections in both countries...which will be firing up again soon. The "occupiers" have no control over either the candidates or the outcome. That is up to the people--THE PEOPLE.

Your cynicism prevents you from seeing reality. And to use the argument that perception is reality (which is basically what you are doing) is to ignore facts. It's like saying that what Al Jazeera broadcasts is the complete, unaltered, unvarnished truth. Perception is NOT reality...reality is.

'Entirely free elections'? There is no such thing as entirely free elections anywhere. Have you ever seen a poor man elected in a western nation? No - because money and interest groups skew 'representative' democracy. In Ireland, in USA, in the UK. Is it a simple coincidence that CIA main man, and let's face it - he is, Hamid Karzai, was elected president of Afghanistan? Are you trying to suggest that the coalition did not push in any way, shape or form for his election as head of state? The one thing about our 'free and fair' elections in Ireland, the US, etc. is that campaign funding from parties external to the nation are not permitted (although oddly, as part of my Jerusalem Post subscription, I got an appeal from Rudi Giuliani for funding). The Iraqi government is finally representing the will of the people now in having attained a firm and clear date for the coalition to leave, something that took them many many moons of negotiations (with the coalition looking for watery withdrawal conditions, immunity from prosecution, full control of troops and other such violations of sovereignty). So yes the Iraqi government is representing the people.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And you don't think that referring to (and thinking of) the people of Afghanistan as "barbarians" doesn't cloud your judgment just a tad? Particularly when you imply (or outright state) that they are incapable of making their own decisions or electing their own leaders? THAT is patronizing.

On the political evolution scale they are on a quite obvious par with the likes of modern Africa or the Chinese warring states way back when. There is nothing patronising in that - it's fact.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The Taliban movement is representative of a portion of Afghan society. Much like the KKK is representative of a portion of US society. The portion is extremely small, but it is there.

The KKK doesn't quite hold as much sway in the US as the Taliban do in Afghanistan. They don't hold so much sway that Bush or Obama will be 'providing leaders immunity for the purpose of negotiations'....

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Plenty of others have been rolled up in Pakistan since...those were just two big fish.

And how many slip through the net? Who knows. Who is even counting.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And to say that the power vacuum that allowed the Taliban to come to power didn't contribute even more so than those other factors is to be intentionally blind to the facts.

Not your power vacuum to fill - it was the Afghans.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Oh, there was a guarantee alright. As I said, the terms were unambiguous. By saying "fuck off USA" they essentially said "please commence bombing raids, we welcome them with open arms". To imply otherwise is either ignoring reality or being intentionally pedantic/obtuse. Take your pick.

So you're telling me they wanted to be bombed?

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

When you're talking about relations between countries, the only thing that counts is the relationship between the governments of those countries. Popular support drives the government in most representative countries (Saudi obviously not being one of those). Until I see upheavals of the populations of those countries because of the governments' relations with the US...your argument, while interesting, is irrelevant.

There are upheavals. There are terrorist incidents across the length and breadth of the middle east of an alarming frequency by anyones standards. There is nothing free or fair about furnishing the governments of these nations with large amounts of aid and allowing them to develop a dependency on it in return for submissiveness or complicity. It's the equivalent of a dealer getting people hooked on heroine. It's very cunning but it's also underhand. Buying votes, governments, ministers, etc. is not fair on those who are being or seek to be represented. Your answer seems to be 'we're getting away with it for now so let's plough on'.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

They started fighting with each other because of the power vacuum caused when the US pulled out all support. Civil war has been the status quo in Afghanistan for many decades...this insurgency is far less destructive to the people and infrastructure of Afghanistan than either civil war or Taliban rule was.

The Afghans power vacuum to fill.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Get it through your thick ginger-covered skull: I never said they don't cause economic disruption. The amount of disruption--IN RELATIVE TERMS--is minimal. Emotion does not equate to "significant economic loss".

Look FEOS you presumably brown-haired (relevance?) American - I wasn't talking about emotion, I was talking about money. End of.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The Iraqi government has done essentially that. 2011: All US combat troops gone. Pretty unambiguous. If they were over a barrel and the US wanted permanent bases in Iraq...why would we allow them to set a timeline that is only a couple of years away? Think about it for half a second, put your emotion away and be objective.

Yes, the Iraqis have come good in terms of representative democracy. I wonder what will happen after the withdrawal....

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Perhaps the Taliban fit that description...not the general population of Afghanistan. You think that they don't understand politics just because their politics are tribal in nature? Again...very ethnocentric.

First thing they do upon a political vacuum is engage in civil war. No reasoned arguments, no rationalising, no negotiations. Civil war. And is it not somewhat ethnocentric of you to advocate a democratic catch all government for a fractured tribal 'nation' with competing and often diametrically opposed views and jealousies?

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Perhaps they would if they were running an ongoing insurgency that was being fed by people from other countries.

The Taliban are obviously significant enough of a political grouping to warrant an olive branch extension - certainly not so (nor ever was the case) with the KKK. They ran the entire country for many years. They obviously represent some significant portion of the populace. Bit hypocritical talking about 'being fed by people from other countries' too.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That is, in the end, irrelevant to the discussion. The key leaders are not in the populated areas because they fear capture by the Pakis or the US. They have a safe haven in the NWT/FATA. So they stay there. If they weren't there, they wouldn't be getting killed by Hellfires there, would they?

Haven't seen Osama or Ayman hit by any hellfires recently.... after 7 years of hellfires.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm saying they knew they were going to be if they made that decision. So they somehow deemed getting the shit beaten out of them to be worth it. I never claimed their thought processes follow Western norms.

I think, like Saddam, they never expected the US to bite. They miscalculated.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No, that's not my answer at all. It's just convenient for you to think that way.

My answer is that, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, most of those countries have some sort of democratic process to elect their governments. The people, if they don't want their countries consorting with the West, can vote in people who reflect that viewpoint. Thus far, it hasn't been done to an appreciable degree.

Please outline these bastions of democracy. How would Syria vote? How does Lebanon vote? How would Iran vote (if entirely free)? How does Palestine vote? How would Jordan vote? How would Somalia vote? How many candidates did Egypt bar from standing? How much aid does the west shovel into these 'quasi-democratic' nations?

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I know. However if there had not been a power vacuum to fill to begin with, perhaps the Afghan people wouldn't have suffered nearly as much in the interim. It's not like they elected the Taliban or something.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts. Afghans ruling Afghans.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Actually, I'm a blond-haired American (was just referring to your skull covering...chill).

What is your fucking problem. I was under the impression you were an adult.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If all you were talking about was money, you would see that focusing on that disruption and ignoring its relative size in comparison to other, non-attack related economic hits is failing to see the forest for the trees. Economics is not a study of single events. It is a study of trends and statistics...those particular events--which were recovered from rapidly--were basically in the noise. The emotional impact (which clearly you have bought into) is what AQ was looking for.

Ah so because it's small relative to other economic phenomena it's OK. It's clear now...

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But that is irrelevant. Their elected government chose that course. And you've stated by saying "after the withdrawal" that the US will abide by that agreement. Doesn't sound very "imperialistic" or "occupying" to me if we're going to do exactly what the Iraqi government and people want.

Have you got a government and constitution of your preference in place, with associated liberalisation of the Iraqi oil market, following direct military and political intervention in the affairs of Iraq. You bet your ass you have: job done on the imperialism front.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-11-25 06:01:04)

FEOS wrote:

many aspects of Iraqi oil laws that we don't like