Iraq: Ten years later

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Saturday, March 23, 2013 00:10
VIEWED: 10954
PAGE 9 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

BYTEMITE

Friday, March 22, 2013 4:11 PM

CTS: I got pretty pissed off at HKCav when he compared my being annoyed at french cartoonists for not being culturally sensitive and trolling the middle east to me being okay with people threatening other people with murder and rape.

I have no tolerance for our politicians for acting this way, but I'm not really sure this is a constructive line of argument.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, March 22, 2013 4:12 PM

Quote:
Afghanistan is the mother of all busts. It is a nation that could easily have a booming economy and be a powerhouse for its region if it could get its act together.

A booming economy based on selling poppy plants for heroin, nice. To get its act together they'd first have to learn to use toilet paper, then to stop throwing acid in little girls' faces.

NIKI2

Friday, March 22, 2013 4:32 PM

Wow, THANK YOU Penguin! You're a real asset here; in my opinion, you have a much better grasp of what we're discussing than most people here. How I wish our government/military would pay more attention to the people who study up on the culture/history of places we stick our noses. I'll leave it at that, or I'd start a real rant.

Did your father/you/your family actually live in the region at all? I'm not sure you're right about Afghanistan. It has always been a poor country; rich as hell in minerals and stuff, but agriculturally weak because of the terrain of so much of the country, and doesn't agricultural weakness still mean a lot? Less than it did in previous times, I realize, but without a national infrastructure and lacking a strong agriculture and decent industry, doesn't that make them too dependent on other nations? I know education is still a problem (it actually only started taking off under the Shah, from what I saw), and their view of America when we lived there hampered their own growth in that way; Afghans brought here to be educated fought against returning, which is how my family ended up over there (dad worked for Pan Am, which gave them the original DC-3s to set up Ariana, then had to send engineers over there because of the above problem).

I know the location puts them in a position to be powerful--they were in their own small way even then, playing the USSR against the US and everyone else against everyone else who wanted a foothold there. But more as to why you think they would have any potential for power in the region would be very interesting to hear.

I know education has taken leaps forward, but do you know, does the mentality still remain anything like the same: When we were there, "insh'allah" pervaded (along with bakshish!), and maintenance on the planes was something difficult to achieve).

I'd love to hear anything and everything you learned about today's Afghanistan, especially if you spent any time there; given I was there during the reign of the last Shah (1958-61), I know much has changed...but changing enough in 50 or so years seems like a lot, when it comes to national mentality.

I have no right to correct you, given your knowledge is more extensive about the current state of affairs, but "Afghani" when we were there referred to the currency, "Afghan" referred to the people. Has that changed? It always grates on me when I hear news people mispronounce anything having to do with Afghanistan, so it's a personal bugaboo.

Please, anything you have to offer would be eaten up eagerly from this corner...in fact I'd relish an entire thread begun on what you know of Afghanistan NOW. I'm always hungry for information.

I admit I beamed with pride (tho' I have no right to) at the sentence about Afghan soldiers. That feeling was so strong when I was there, and they've overcome SO much through occupation after occupation, and those I knew of just the people (never knew soldiers) made me so proud of them as individuals, I know I'm prejudiced. If you knew/know any Afghans, I'd give anything to read whatever you cared to share about the impressions you got of the people themselves, too.

Thank you; that was a gem.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 22, 2013 4:47 PM

CANT LET THIS GO BY....

Quote:
All the people who ranted and railed against W swallowed their rage when Obama took power. Sometimes, they might even express unhappiness with our Nobel Peace Prize laureate. But it is ALWAYS followed by some excuse for him.

Do you suppose for one nanosecond that you're talking to someone who voted for Obama?

STORYMARK

Friday, March 22, 2013 6:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

A booming economy based on selling poppy plants for heroin...,

What, you didn't hear about the massive mineral and precious metal deposits??

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

SIGNYM

Friday, March 22, 2013 7:48 PM

PENGUIN11

Quote:
My father was in the military for 24 years, and fought in every conflict along the way. He was a psychological operations guy so he had to study up on the cultures and political history of the Middle East. That combined with my general interest in politics, especially my aspirations to become a diplomat, is why I know so much about the Middle East.

I also am a huge history nerd and the Middle East has an extremely interesting history dating back to the Abbassid Caliphs.

I think that the United States will always have a role in Middle Eastern affairs, however I think it is time we pull out our military because there really isn't much else we can do at this point. After we nail Al Queda's new #1 we will have no reason to have anyone there, and even then we don't need our army in Afghanistan to accomplish that. I think our international gaze needs to shift to Latin America before we lose control (influence wise) over the Panama canal- however, that once again will not involve our military.

If Iraq is to improve it will be because the Shia and Sunni populations are able to compromise with one another, something that will likely only happen at the cost of the Kurds (historically the Shia and Sunnis unite when slaughtering the Kurds).

Afghanistan is the mother of all busts. It is a nation that could easily have a booming economy and be a powerhouse for its region if it could get its act together. Afghani soldiers/militants have always been regarded as some of the bravest in the world, and that stands true to this day, however the conflict between the Pashtun and Tajec tribes is going to tear apart the nation, with the Pashtun's being the likely winner.

Ah, someone with a view of the military viewpoint.

It seems to me that your father was in all kinds of places... Latin America? The Middle East? Bosnia? Yemen and North Africa? In any case, the assumption is that we have to be there for various reasons. The past 24 years has been pretty much since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. So I guess my question is: Why are we fighting where we're fighting? I can hardly find a compelling reason for any of it, so I want to know exactly what you think "our" interests are/were, .

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

I don't have a problem with compromise. Compromise on issues like should we spend more money on health care or education.

There can be NO compromise on issues like rape and murder. That you guys don't see this point is WHY we have wholesale state sponsored rape and murder.

On the face of it you make a good point. Yes, there should be no compromise on those issues and stated in such terms it's very hard to disagree.

However, I guess the question is what response is an appropriate response to violence and aggression by others towards your country? And yes, I get that the US has itself been the victim of aggression in response to its own military aggression. But take that to one side, do you really believe that no country, no group would ever commit an act of aggression again even if the US changed its policies. Do you think that tyanny, torture, injustice would cease to exist? I personally don't, and I think that each nation has to make decisions about how they protect themselves from aggressors, and what response is appropriate if an act of aggression takes place.

I consider myself to lean heavily on the side of pacifism, but even I can see that there may be times when force may have to be used and lives lost as a result ie murder - war time murder albeit. Yes, the most obvious is if an army lands on your soil and you take up arms to protect yourself and your family, but those wars rarely take place in such an obvious way anymore, not for quite some time and not against powerful western nations like the US. Conflict is much more likely to be played out in another arena, covertly, or through acts of terrorism, but the consequences are real and do pose a threat to citizens.

So how do you deal with such issues, and that is where I see the big gulf between the left and the right. The Left/libertarian take an apologist's view of the world. If the US would only look at its military policies and how it treats other nations, there would be no issues. And I am sorry, I call bullshit on that one. That view is both Americocentric (we cause all the problems in the world, aren't we important) and both naive and dangerous. And then there is the Right, up until Bush made a hash of everything, wanting to march on in under the stars and stripes and show these recalitrant Arabs, Muslims, whoever, just who is all powerful in the name of FREEDOM and LIBERTY for all. Another mindblowingly naive view of the world

And then the reality of being in politics and power and knowing that both those views are not workable, but having to please an electorate who you are rightly beholden to, who either wants instant withdrawal, or blow the fuckers up please.

So how would you have responded to 9/11 and other acts of terrorism if you were in charge. I know I would have preferred covert action, a la Israel style. Make sure that every person involved at any level was captured and imprisoned. And if they died in the process, hmmm, so be it. Harsh for a pacifist who doesn't believe in capital punishment, but if it had to be something, it would have been better that the pointlessness of the Iraq war and loss of life.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9