|
So, how is Afghanistan doing? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj adagnitio
Sadly this is very wrong. As of last year according to Doctors without borders Afghanistan was the second worst place for humanitarian reasons in the world, with ONLY Congo being worse. The standard of living has gone down considerably. One of the big issues is that it's now ruled by a bunch of territorial little war lords and as so its very hard to get aid in, and their are NO standards throughout the country.
I you think now women can get an education or go to school your dreaming. If you think at this point ANYONE can get an education there, your living in a fools paradise. The situation was only made many times worse by the United States invasion. The U.S. has to bear the burnt of the blame. How could we blame anyone else? They led the assault, it was their idea, end of story.
You say trouble finds America, but that is bull. You are a country that overthrows legitimate governments, installs and supports regimes and economicaly terrorizes the world. What do you expect? do you think the rest of the world is going to always put up with your actions? How many world leaders can you kill or turn on before someone does something. Actually a lot considering how long this took to come. But that is no justification. |
Your statement has American bias written all over it and immediately loses any credibility because you right away hop to the "America is at fault for the problems in Afghanistan now." You remain voiceless of the fact that Afghanistan was a nation at civil war for decades. You fail to mention that there are numerous aid groups that are working in Afghanistan achieving results, why are so many Afghanis returning to Afghanistan, if it is oh so darn harsh. What is the purpose of the United Nations there then, along with the international community. I suppose individuals myself included will see the points that they want to see, I would like to think however that I try to be objective in my viewpoint of such political issues, people need to check their American biases before they launch credible as well as generic statements of attack against America. Regurgitating the usual dietary of America is an econcomic terrorist, they overthrow governments and install puppets, they imperialise nations is an absolute one sided track of history and you know that. Heaven forbid if America has ever done any good in this world of ours and you could admit that. My problem is not you launching critiques of America but that you choose to make it a one way street, void of rational, thoughtful, well laid out and structured arguments that demonstrate your contra-America stance. Its easy to say that things in the world are bad, but what are your ideas to make them right, how would you have dealt with Afghanistan, do you see any positives in that nation today, that is my point. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
What else would you expect Occrider, after all the Taliban was doing a great job for Afghanistan society, prior to their brutal overthrow by a despotic U.S. Government that violated the right to rule of the Talbian, :rolleyes: |
|
|
| biznology |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
What else would you expect Occrider, after all the Taliban was doing a great job for Afghanistan society, prior to their brutal overthrow by a despotic U.S. Government that violated the right to rule of the Talbian, :rolleyes: |
well at least there was a somewhat cohesive society...
...now Afghanistan is fractured by squabbling militants. is this solution better? |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
Unfortunatelly I cannot get s quote in writing for my source as it was one of the doctors who works full time for medicens sans frontieres who spoke at my school.
| quote: | | Your statement has American bias written all over it and immediately loses any credibility because you right away hop to the "America is at fault for the problems in Afghanistan now." |
If you can show me that America's invasion of Afghanistan did not make the situation worse then I might be inclined to believe that it's not Americas fault.
| quote: | | You remain voiceless of the fact that Afghanistan was a nation at civil war for decades. You fail to mention that there are numerous aid groups that are working in Afghanistan achieving results, why are so many Afghanis returning to Afghanistan, if it is oh so darn harsh. What is the purpose of the United Nations there then, along with the international community. |
Again show me how Afghanistan was, prior to the invasion, at anything close to a similar level of civil war. I never said there was no aid getting in, I said it was very hard to. Regardless my point was that the United States made the situation much worse, and therefor how is whether or not the UN is there even relevent?
| quote: | | I suppose individuals myself included will see the points that they want to see, I would like to think however that I try to be objective in my viewpoint of such political issues, people need to check their American biases before they launch credible as well as generic statements of attack against America. |
I am not only seeing the points I want to see. I look at Afghanistan and see the war only served to make the situation worse, not to mention kill many many lives. What else should I see? what other points do I need to see to be objective? If you can tell me then please go right ahead. My view of the American government is well founded and rests firmly in the reality. My statements were vague but that was because I didnt feel it necessary to be so specific in this instance.
| quote: | | Regurgitating the usual dietary of America is an econcomic terrorist, they overthrow governments and install puppets, they imperialise nations is an absolute one sided track of history and you know that. Heaven forbid if America has ever done any good in this world of ours and you could admit that. |
did you ever think maybe the "usual" anti-American diatribe comes from somewhere? and let me tell you its not Micheal Moore sitting in some condo writing about the horrible state of affairs. How is what I said a one sided track of history. It is true that they overthrow governments. You want some examples?
Nicaragua - CIA funds the contra war which kills many people and eventually leads to this disbandment of a legally elected government.
Chile - CIA funds and supplies weapons that lead to a coup where the democractically elected leader Salvador Allende is murdered and then general Augusto Pinochet, unarguably one of the most horrible dictators of our time is instilled in power.
Panama - CIA operative Noreaga is put into power
Cuba - U.S. attempts to invade, fails, and places economic restrictions that lead to humanitarian problems
There are a few examples.
And you say I'm ignoring the good things America has done. I'm not going to deny that their have been some, however for the purpose of this discussion the point I had made was
| quote: | | You say trouble finds America, but that is bull. You are a country that overthrows legitimate governments, installs and supports regimes and economicaly terrorizes the world. What do you expect? do you think the rest of the world is going to always put up with your actions? How many world leaders can you kill or turn on before someone does something. |
I don't see how the good America has done really applies? I was pointing out how its not true that people simply out of nowhere cause trouble with America, which is the reason september 11th happened. It didn't just come out of nowhere like your prior statement implied.
| quote: | | My problem is not you launching critiques of America but that you choose to make it a one way street, void of rational, thoughtful, well laid out and structured arguments that demonstrate your contra-America stance. Its easy to say that things in the world are bad, but what are your ideas to make them right, how would you have dealt with Afghanistan, |
My critique was a one way street because the street my argument was going down was a one way. It is not void of anything. It did clearly lay out how America is in relation to this discussion.
I don't support and never did support the war on Afghanistan. However that was not the discussion. My biggest issue was how America behaved after the war. If you are going to tear a country appart in the way they did then you have a responcibility to fix it and to stay until the job is done. They let it fall into ruin. They could of revolutionized it, but sadly didnt.
| quote: | | do you see any positives in that nation today, that is my point. |
If by the nation you mean Afghanistan, then the only positive I see is that their is a chance, albeit a slim one, that the international community will move in with more vigor and transform Afghanistan. However that is only a hope. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by biznology
well at least there was a somewhat cohesive society...
...now Afghanistan is fractured by squabbling militants. is this solution better? |
I suppose you would have to ask the people of Afghanistan that latter question of if it is better or worse today. None of us in the Western world would enjoy living under the Taliban, so why any less for the people of that nation. You state that there was somehow a cohesive society, almost disregarding the fact that factionalism has alway been a part of Afghanistan society and that includes the Taliban. In case you didn't realise this, why do you think that for years the Northern Alliance comprised of different ethnicities were fighting the Taliban, so there is some cohesion for you, unless you feel that only those under Taliban control were Afghanis and not Northern Alliance members. More poignantly what cohesive society were you referring to, the one under repressive laws that shot women in soccer stadiums, made all men grow their beards, women must stay at home. The list is too long to post in here about the wonderful cohesion under the Taliban government. Besides I thought it was the purpose of the U.N in peacekeeping purposes to deal directly with those squabbling militants to ensure their loyalty and commitment to a secure and credible Afghanistan, for the people of that nation. |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
| dont I get a responce? |
|
|
| occrider |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3251741.stm
Simply put, there is no comprehensive measure of the state of Afghanistan's well-being that is of any relative worth asides from what the country's own citizens say. Wish they conducted a poll in the country much like the baghdad poll. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj adagnitio
If by the nation you mean Afghanistan, then the only positive I see is that their is a chance, albeit a slim one, that the international community will move in with more vigor and transform Afghanistan. However that is only a hope. |
This is exactly what I was waiting to hear, the (international community), not (America) alone will move in with more vigor, and that is my point. Where is the U.N. in this episode. If they are the great arbitrors of international law and order, stability and security as many opponents of the U.S.A. like to highlight then why aren't they to be criticised any more than the U.S.A. for the problems of Afghanistan. I find it ironic that people claim the U.S.A is imperialist and yet want them to continue their presence in Afghanistan, because they have "forgotten it." Ironic isn't it. This is the one way street I speak of the U.S. is criticised for being in a nation, but yet if they leave they are accused of letting down the population of that particular nation, remarkable stuff. I personally would love to see the U.S withdraw their presence from each and everyone of those nations around the world, irrespective of the reasons, because then it would be up to the international community to finally deal with these issues, instead of repetitive criticism. Also important why not criticise the French in the Congo after all women and children are being raped, captured as sex slaves and killed there as well, despite the presence of the French, why not criticise the situation in the Ivory Coast where the "non-imperialist" French:rolleyes: are looking out for their interest in the Ivory Coast. What you apply to the United States can be applied to a few other nations around this world. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
I personally would love to see the U.S withdraw their presence from each and everyone of those nations around the world, irrespective of the reasons, because then it would be up to the international community to finally deal with these issues, instead of repetitive criticism. |
Except I wouldn't expect those issues to be dealt with ... let's not forget that in the 90s almost half a million Europeans died before anything was done to "deal" with the issue ... and perhaps we should be mindful of who dealt with it. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| Exactly my point Occ, its easy to critc, but when it comes to action well that is another story. |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
This is exactly what I was waiting to hear, the (international community), not (America) alone will move in with more vigor, and that is my point. Where is the U.N. in this episode. If they are the great arbitrors of international law and order, stability and security as many opponents of the U.S.A. like to highlight then why aren't they to be criticised any more than the U.S.A. for the problems of Afghanistan. I find it ironic that people claim the U.S.A is imperialist and yet want them to continue their presence in Afghanistan, because they have "forgotten it." Ironic isn't it. This is the one way street I speak of the U.S. is criticised for being in a nation, but yet if they leave they are accused of letting down the population of that particular nation, remarkable stuff. I personally would love to see the U.S withdraw their presence from each and everyone of those nations around the world, irrespective of the reasons, because then it would be up to the international community to finally deal with these issues, instead of repetitive criticism. Also important why not criticise the French in the Congo after all women and children are being raped, captured as sex slaves and killed there as well, despite the presence of the French, why not criticise the situation in the Ivory Coast where the "non-imperialist" French:rolleyes: are looking out for their interest in the Ivory Coast. What you apply to the United States can be applied to a few other nations around this world. |
The reason the UN isn't being critized in the same way as the U.S. seems painfully obvious to me? they don't have an obligation to in the same way the U.S. does. I still hope they will do something but that is not their obligation in the same way it is the United States.
The United States are critized when they go in somewhere, topple a government and then just leave. Before the U.S. went into Afghanistan in the first place no one was critizing them for standing by. I really don't see any irony. It is not unreasonable to say that once a country moves into another it then bears a responcibility to it.
And I did critize the french when they went into congo, and when they took part of the genocide in Rwanda. Many other people did as well.
And if they do it again I'm sure we all will.
And what of my other points? you accuse me of making an argument with no credibility and then dont respond when I attmept to elaborate on it? |
|
|
|
|
