We're not #1!

[mpjh]

Still, that does not relieve you of your obligation to read the research before engaging in the argument.

[solace19k]

I did read the research and I never said it wasn't valid, but I don't agree with the assumption of removing a foreign presence will do much good right now.

Trust me I want to keep the debate going and on topic, this is a good thing to debate so of course I will read it.

I say assumption because there is no solid proof or control group that this will in fact work with our present situation the way that some think.

the Taliban did not disband when the Soviet Union withdrew from Afgan.
Instead they evolved into something alot worse and not long after they turned on us.

The Taliban used tactics very similar to terrorist tactics against Soviet occupation.
Now they are just full blown terrorists that have complete disregard for anything.
Even the presence of US troops. I am saying that the reason is just a means to meet their ultimate agenda. Which is make money and history.

[mpjh]

You need to see Charlie's war. Your Afghan history is a bit spotty.

[solace19k]

Fair enough, but it doesn't change my point. You don't have to be well versed in one particular situation to know enough to make a valid point. Who writes Charlie's war?
I am actually looking for something else to read at the moment.

[Snorri1234]

My sources are mainly from personal experience man.

I don't think I've ever read any scientific study where personal experience was used as a source.

I don't think scientific studies are the only thing we use when we are faced with any problem in any given situation.

Nope. But personal experience is generally less convincing than scientific studies. Because personal experience isn't subject to actual study in most cases, which means that you can't draw any conclusions from it.

Now, if your personal experience was that whenever you tried to go away from the country you were faced with more attacks than when you were fighting I would consider it. Or if you had conversations with terrorists about whether they would like it if you went away.

But since you don't, I see no reason to take your personal experience into account regarding this issue.

There is not much scientific proof of the existence of God and Christ's miracles either.
Doesn't mean its not true. I really don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but I am merely using it as an example.

There is no scientific proof. And it's a good thing you don't try to turn this into a religious debate, because that would end in (your) tears.

Live your life and base your morales and values and form your opinions on mere "scientific" studies if you like.

Okay.

[solace19k]

My sources are mainly from personal experience man.

I don't think I've ever read any scientific study where personal experience was used as a source.

I don't think scientific studies are the only thing we use when we are faced with any problem in any given situation.

Nope. But personal experience is generally less convincing than scientific studies. Because personal experience isn't subject to actual study in most cases, which means that you can't draw any conclusions from it.

Now, if your personal experience was that whenever you tried to go away from the country you were faced with more attacks than when you were fighting I would consider it. Or if you had conversations with terrorists about whether they would like it if you went away.

But since you don't, I see no reason to take your personal experience into account regarding this issue.

There is not much scientific proof of the existence of God and Christ's miracles either.
Doesn't mean its not true. I really don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but I am merely using it as an example.

There is no scientific proof. And it's a good thing you don't try to turn this into a religious debate, because that would end in (your) tears.

Live your life and base your morales and values and form your opinions on mere "scientific" studies if you like.

Okay.

How do you have any idea of what kind of conversations I have had with any terrorists?
I'm semi-fluent in Arabic and well capable of having talked to many Iraqis on both sides of the fence. I also did a detail in the detainment facility of the man who beheaded a Korean national.

I don't turn this into a religious debate not because I am really concerned with your opinions about it whatsoever Snorri. I don't do it because it is not in good taste to discuss such things and it would become an entirely different debate than the one we are having.

And what kind of statement is you can't make any conclusions based off of personal experience? I realize you said in most cases, but good God man. Nearly everything you learn in life in one way or another based on personal experience.

[joe cool 360]

And what kind of statement is you can't make any conclusions based off of personal experience? I realize you said in most cases, but good God man. Nearly everything you learn in life in one way or another based on personal experience.

I absolutely agree, especially with the tv and internet being so centered in our lives.
Currently, it is almost impossible to enter a situation with absolutely no opinion, because you will form one from what you see and hear on tv, the internet, your family, your friends, your neighbors, your school, your newspaper, the radio, etc.
Sometimes, even simply overhearing a conversation between two people can influence the view you take on a stance.
At one point and time you knew nothing about the subject, but the chances are highly likely you were given an opinion in your childhood and that opinion will be influenced by personal experience.
That opinion you have on life will then act as the lens through which you see the world, which will influence how you view facts and your interpretation of summaries, reviews, etc.
Entire books have been written on this subject so I won't go into great detail, but basically personal experience does play a vital role in how you view the world, and therefore, how you draw conclusions from evidence.

[joe cool 360]

Well, every country has to worry about budgeting. Sure, the really small countries, or the countries with dictators, don't have to worry about as much as developed nations who help their citizens, but budgeting is still a worry in even the smallest of countries.

And the developed nations have as much to worry about as the US, just not with the same numbers.

That's what I'm saying, it is a worry, but not as great as in developed nations.

Yeah, but europe for example has all the same things as the US and has to worry about spending on it too. In fact, since the european countries generally have more advanced social programs like healthcare and welfare they have to divide money over a bigger amount of fields than the US. Governments over here are involved into far more things in society than in the US and China for example.

Well, certainly if you take all of Europe into account, or even just two countries like France and Gemany or Norway and Great Britain.
I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say; the European countries do not have populations near that of the U.S. or India or China. Germany is the most populated European country (as of 2008) and only accounts for 1.22% of the world's population.
On the other hand, the U.S. accounts for about 4 times the percentage of the world population of that of Germany.
India accounts for about 14 times the percent population of Germany.
China accounts for about 16 times the percent population of Germany.
These three countries have the largest populations to spend money on. On the national level, yes all countries are roughly equal in budgeting because all will send some towards the military, some goes to Health Care, some goes to paying employees, and some goes to $380 hammers.
Once that money begins to filter through the nation, however, you can easily see how the more developed, more populous nations have a harder time at getting the money where it needs to go. The State, county, city/municipal/town governments all have as much a role to play in the distribution of funds as the federal government does.
Essentially, bureaucracy is a major pain.

And as I stated before, the only reason I don't think China and India don't surpass us in budgeting difficulties, is because they don't have the established infrastructure that we have to maintain. They are quick on the way to developing it, but still are a ways off. Actually, if I were to base my conclusions only on the observations of the size of the population, the size of the established infrastructure, and the amount of money it has to handle, I would say Japan is closer to us in terms of budgeting difficulties than any other nation. Because they have a very well established infrastructure to maintain, a population only a little less than half of the United States', and possess a GDP ranked right below ours (as of 2007). Their advantage, however is that the population is contained within an area of 146,000 sq mi. while the U.S. has to deal with a relatively spread out population covering 3.8 million sq. mi.

I wouldn't say that. A larger government only means that the money from state-taxes is more spread out, not that there are more fields to spend money on. My entire country could easily fit into one state of yours, but the basic fields in which money is spent are still the same.

At the national level, a bigger country doesn't neccisarly have more fields that require expenditure. You may pay more into each field, and each field is bigger and has more sub-fields, but at the national level there aren't more fields. The government in the form of the senate and president do not give money specifically to build a statue in some random town, they just form basic policies over the whole nation. I don't see a reason why that means more fields at a national level.

I agree with this, but see what I said above as an extension.

[jbrettlip]

I believe there was scientific evidence preseented that Jews were evil and the aryans were superior in every way. And then the stupid US government had to be all Colonial and go and fight WW2...

Boy, do I hate America!!!

[OnlyAmbrose]

Recent research by a professor at the University of Chicago shows that the use of suicide attacks by terrorists is directly linked to the presence of troops from an invader on the homeland of the suicide attacker. It is quite clear from this research, and common sense, that the suicide terrorist attacks will stop once we leave Iraq and the other Muslim countries we have invaded.

For the record, that's exactly what Ron Paul said in every GOP debate he was ever in. Go figure.

In any case, obviously suicide attacks on us will cease once we peace out of the Middle East (of course, Lord knows when that will be). Nonetheless, the idea that suicide bombings will stop completely is a different story.

Every since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire the Middle East has had a history of internal conflict and violence. While it is true that this is in no small part due to Western powers (Britain and France, the U.S. wasn't "the enemy" until fairly recently), internal dissent in Syria (for instance) is not directly caused by the West. I choose Syria because in the nation's early history there were a ridiculous amount of coups. The violence and civil war surrounding this internal unrest was not the result of Western intervention, it was the result of clashing ethnic and religious groups.

I think the mistake a lot of people on both sides of the debate make is lumping people in the Middle East into one category. One of the really surprising things I learned when I started studying for my major (Middle Eastern Studies) was the huge variety of peoples in such a small region. I think one of the many reasons that nation-states never existed in the Mid East prior to the British and French takeover was that there were so many ethnic and tribal groups that forming a cohesive state was impossible.

Once the 20th century rolled along, however, all these diverse tribes, religions/sects, and peoples were smunched into artificially drawn borders and expected to act like nations. This happened in some countries (such as Egypt) but was more difficult in others and resulted in either instability (Syria and Lebanon) or ethnic cleansing and persecution (Turkey and Iraq).

Point is, whether or not the U.S.is in the region, there will still be conflict. There will still be suicide bombings. They just won't be directed at us.

Plus, the notion that suicide bombings will stop once the US pulls out ignores a key factor in the region's politics - the Arab/Israeli conflict. There is no easy solution there and it is unlikely that the violence will cease anytime soon.

Do I think Iraq was a mistake? Mostly. I don't know what the Bush Administration knew/didn't know, so I don't think I'm one to judge. Do I think it was poorly planned? Hell yes. No excuses there.

Fortunately, either way, President-elect Obama is definitely going to do what he can to make a speedy withdrawal.

Now, does a bungled war in Iraq affect how I view my country? Not really... I'm still proud as ever to be an American. The fact that I can openly bitch about how the government bungled foreign policy makes me grateful to hold citizenship here.

[solace19k]

Recent research by a professor at the University of Chicago shows that the use of suicide attacks by terrorists is directly linked to the presence of troops from an invader on the homeland of the suicide attacker. It is quite clear from this research, and common sense, that the suicide terrorist attacks will stop once we leave Iraq and the other Muslim countries we have invaded.

For the record, that's exactly what Ron Paul said in every GOP debate he was ever in. Go figure.

In any case, obviously suicide attacks on us will cease once we peace out of the Middle East (of course, Lord knows when that will be). Nonetheless, the idea that suicide bombings will stop completely is a different story.

Every since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire the Middle East has had a history of internal conflict and violence. While it is true that this is in no small part due to Western powers (Britain and France, the U.S. wasn't "the enemy" until fairly recently), internal dissent in Syria (for instance) is not directly caused by the West. I choose Syria because in the nation's early history there were a ridiculous amount of coups. The violence and civil war surrounding this internal unrest was not the result of Western intervention, it was the result of clashing ethnic and religious groups.

I think the mistake a lot of people on both sides of the debate make is lumping people in the Middle East into one category. One of the really surprising things I learned when I started studying for my major (Middle Eastern Studies) was the huge variety of peoples in such a small region. I think one of the many reasons that nation-states never existed in the Mid East prior to the British and French takeover was that there were so many ethnic and tribal groups that forming a cohesive state was impossible.

Once the 20th century rolled along, however, all these diverse tribes, religions/sects, and peoples were smunched into artificially drawn borders and expected to act like nations. This happened in some countries (such as Egypt) but was more difficult in others and resulted in either instability (Syria and Lebanon) or ethnic cleansing and persecution (Turkey and Iraq).

Point is, whether or not the U.S.is in the region, there will still be conflict. There will still be suicide bombings. They just won't be directed at us.

Plus, the notion that suicide bombings will stop once the US pulls out ignores a key factor in the region's politics - the Arab/Israeli conflict. There is no easy solution there and it is unlikely that the violence will cease anytime soon.

Do I think Iraq was a mistake? Mostly. I don't know what the Bush Administration knew/didn't know, so I don't think I'm one to judge. Do I think it was poorly planned? Hell yes. No excuses there.

Fortunately, either way, President-elect Obama is definitely going to do what he can to make a speedy withdrawal.

Now, does a bungled war in Iraq affect how I view my country? Not really... I'm still proud as ever to be an American. The fact that I can openly bitch about how the government bungled foreign policy makes me grateful to hold citizenship here.

Good post. I don't feel that it was just a shot in the dark like everyone tends to believe.
I feel that there were tactical and logistical mistakes made. I believe that the United States is fighting a war on a bigger scale than just Iraq and Iran. I am not so quick to believe that our interests lie just in those two countries. There is a bigger advantage that is obviously worth 650 billion and the lives of so many. Quite a few come to mind.

[Grooveman2007]

Yet another thread runs away from me...

[OnlyAmbrose]

Good post. I don't feel that it was just a shot in the dark like everyone tends to believe.
I feel that there were tactical and logistical mistakes made. I believe that the United States is fighting a war on a bigger scale than just Iraq and Iran. I am not so quick to believe that our interests lie just in those two countries. There is a bigger advantage that is obviously worth 650 billion and the lives of so many. Quite a few come to mind.

That's not exactly the meaning I had in mind. That we have a vested interest in the middle east is obvious.

However, I don't believe that fighting a war for those interests is worth it whatsoever. To bring MORE foreign conflict to an already unstable region notorious for reacting violently to foreign intervention (and violent reactions just lead to more instability) is not in ANYONE's interest.

The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are here and that's a reality, but I think we should really take away a lesson from them. The days of Western imperialism are over. It's no longer popular on the homefront, and the peoples overseas are no longer willing to put up with foreign intervention.

[Snorri1234]

For the record, that's exactly what Ron Paul said in every GOP debate he was ever in. Go figure.

Well yeah, but nobody listened to him because he wasn't big enough. Just because you're right doesn't mean people will accept that you are.

In any case, obviously suicide attacks on us will cease once we peace out of the Middle East (of course, Lord knows when that will be). Nonetheless, the idea that suicide bombings will stop completely is a different story.

Yeah, I think mpjh was talking about the suicide attacks on the US and other western countries. Israel will still be there and other conflicts still exist, it will just be regional.

[jbrettlip]

or instead of suicide bombers, without the US military presence, it will go back to roving bands of militia (afghanistan, sudan) or governemnt sponsored armies (iraq)carrying out mass genocide. that would be much better.

[mpjh]

Actually, the Taliban had a relatively stable government and had completely killed the drug trade. Iraq's divergence into war was at our request and with our funding. If we were not in either country, who knows they might develop into civilized forces in the region.

[jbrettlip]

Please ignore the mass graves in Iraq. Those were obviously not Saddam's troops doing. And destroying statues of Buddha, and stoning to death women who want to attend school sound like Afghanistan was on the BRINK of civilization. Screw the US for intervening in that utopian society.

[Snorri1234]

or instead of suicide bombers, without the US military presence, it will go back to roving bands of militia (afghanistan, sudan) or governemnt sponsored armies (iraq)carrying out mass genocide. that would be much better.

Yup. And the minute you leave it will go back to that.

Unless you're saying that the US should take over all the countries in the world where this shit happens, I fail to see what the point of this reasoning is.

[mpjh]

Please ignore the mass graves in Iraq. Those were obviously not Saddam's troops doing. And destroying statues of Buddha, and stoning to death women who want to attend school sound like Afghanistan was on the BRINK of civilization. Screw the US for intervening in that utopian society.

Have you ever visited Wounded Knee or the mass graves of freed blacks in Roseville, Florida, or studied about the Trail of Tears, or the use of small pox contaminated blankets to kill of Native Americans, or read about the lynching capital of the world in Caro, Illinois, or visited a KKK office in today's Louisiana. These are just a few of the things we Americans love. We should clean up our own house before telling the rest of the world how to live.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Actually, the Taliban had a relatively stable government

Stable, maybe, but repressive beyond western imagination...

and had completely killed the drug trade.

Eh?

Iraq's divergence into war was at our request and with our funding. If we were not in either country, who knows they
might develop into civilized forces in the region.

Well maybe Iraq, but there is no doubt in my mind that the Taliban would not have allowed Afghanistan to develop into a "civilized force" in the region. The Taliban was based on an interpretation of Islam which simply prevented progress. Even under the warlords areas such as Kabul were becoming relatively modernized. The Taliban reversed all forward progress and partook in all sorts of human rights violations.

No one really knows what would have happened in Iraq - Saddam was a secular leader, his major flaw was simply that he was a sociopath. The Taliban is a totally different story though, we're talking religious government which drove the Afghanistan into a pre-Medieval phase of repression.

[mpjh]

Actually, the Taliban had a relatively stable government

Stable, maybe, but repressive beyond western imagination...

and had completely killed the drug trade.

Eh?

Iraq's divergence into war was at our request and with our funding. If we were not in either country, who knows they
might develop into civilized forces in the region.

Well maybe Iraq, but there is no doubt in my mind that the Taliban would not have allowed Afghanistan to develop into a "civilized force" in the region. The Taliban was based on an interpretation of Islam which simply prevented progress. Even under the warlords areas such as Kabul were becoming relatively modernized. The Taliban reversed all forward progress and partook in all sorts of human rights violations.

No one really knows what would have happened in Iraq - Saddam was a secular leader, his major flaw was simply that he was a sociopath. The Taliban is a totally different story though, we're talking religious government which drove the Afghanistan into a pre-Medieval phase of repression.

Actually the Taliban might have been better for Afghanistan that you think. While it is true that they were religious fanatics, that is not a reason to invade and destroy their country. If it were we would have wiped out Israel, Indonesian, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and well our own current governments of the face of the earth, just for starters. The Taliban ended the growing of poppy and stopped all drug exports from Afghanistan. They extended governance to the entire country. They developed a close relationship with our ally in Pakistan.

Actually the Taliban were our creation. We birthed and funded them to defeat the Russians. We didn't mind their human rights activities so long as they did what we wanted.

Simnilarly, Saddam was our puppet who got out of control, so we iced him. Whatever happened in Iraq happened because we created it in our efforts to get back at Iran for the Shaw's defeat and the embarrassment of the hostages they took.

All that has happened is what is called "blow back." It is the unintended consequence of our own activity.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Actually the Taliban were our creation. We birthed and funded them to defeat the Russians. We didn't mind their human rights activities so long as they did what we wanted.

MMMmmmmmm no we didn't. We funded the Mujahideen, who were fighters, not a government.

The Taliban was a bunch of students who fled to Pakistan during the Russian occupation. We definitely did not fund them nor did we create them NOR did they at any time fight the Russians. They came back eventually with all sorts of new fundamentalist Islamic ideas that they learned in fundamentalist Islamic Pakistani schools.

While it is certainly true that we are willing to buddy up to regimes despite human rights violations (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc), the Taliban was NOT good for Afghanistan. Maybe in terms of infrastructure they can be considered beneficial, but that's fairly pointless when you consider that only a small portion of the population was able to enjoy that infrastructure.

Unless you consider the fact that women were not allowed to leave the house a good thing, that is.

Now, about Opium:

The Taliban ended the growing of poppy and stopped all drug exports from Afghanistan. They extended governance to the entire country. They developed a close relationship with our ally in Pakistan.

Patently untrue. The Taliban promoted Opium export. I quote from the book Taliban, published before 9/11:

The Taliban have provided an Islamic sanction for farmers ... to grow even more opium, even though the Koran forbids Muslims from producing or imbibing intoxicants. Abdul Rashid, the head of the Taliban's anti-drugs control force in Kandahar, spelled out the nature of his unique job. He is authorized to impose a strict ban on the growing of hashish, "because it is consumed by Afghans and Muslims." But, Rashid told me without a hint of sarcasm, "Opium is permissible because it is consumed by kafirs in the West and not by Muslims or Afghans."

Basic point of this post is -

1) Getting historical facts straight - we did not create the Taliban, nor did we fund them. The Taliban encouraged Opium export.

2) The human rights violations in Afghanistan were above and beyond most of the nations you cited. Not that it matters because we didnt invade on the pretext of fixing human rights issues, we invaded because we had VERY sufficient reason to believe that the Taliban was heavily linked to Al Qaeda. And they were.

[mpjh]

You got it wrong. The Taliban fought for us and the Pakistanis. The eliminated all drug trade in the country. They set up Muslim schools throughout the country. The instituted Islamic law. We had no problem with them until we wanted Osama and they wouldn't cough him up.

February 2001

U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan -- once the world's largest producer -- since banning poppy cultivation last summer.

A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.

"We are not just guessing. We have seen the proof in the fields," said Bernard Frahi, regional director for the U.N. program in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He laid out photographs of vast tracts of land cultivated with wheat alongside pictures of the same fields taken a year earlier -- a sea of blood-red poppies.

[OnlyAmbrose]

You got it wrong. The Taliban fought for us and the Pakistanis. The eliminated all drug trade in the country. They set up Muslim schools throughout the country. The instituted Islamic law. We had no problem with them until we wanted Osama and they wouldn't cough him up.

(fastposted by your edit, hang on)

LOL. I like your style mphj. "You got it wrong." Don't bother citing any sources. Just say that I'm wrong.

The Mujahideen were the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. Not the Taliban. They were busy studying Islamic militancy in Pakistan while the Russians were occupying their home.

There is no evidence that we funded the Taliban. They didn't come to power until after both the Soviet occupation and the reign of warlords. We had no interest in Afghanistan once the Russians left.

(edit in progress)

[mpjh]

better read the whole post