RE: Policy Change
>On the contrary, many of the
>citizens who have access to
>worldwide television admire and envy
>the American way of life.
> I remember hearing (sadly)
>that the most popular show
>for people in Palestine is
>"Baywatch," a show that most
>Americans revile.
>
>If they don't want our form
>of "freedom" they haven't had
>access to view it.
>In states like Palestine where
>satellite dishes dot the landscape,
>the people love the American
>way of life, citing that
>it is a confident, care-free
>way of life (from the
>sitcoms they see), but what
>they really don't like about
>the USA is while we
>have all this freedom loving-ness,
>we don't help overthrow oppressive
>regimes like their own governments
>or in many eyes, Israel.
Admiring the romantic part of "the American way" is a long, long way from accepting the form of government, you know that as well as I do.
Look at it this way, from 1992 to 1996, the Afghanese were abandoned by America, whose interest grew again in 1996 to support the Taliban. To say there might be some dislike from this to America would be an understatement, and you can't just kiss it and make it all better.
You see, just because they admire the American way of life (which I don't believe they do, it's not very Koran-based, remember? Especially the more fanatic believers would think of it rather as filthy than admirable, much as the fanatic Christians do) doesn't mean they'll swallow it if you say "Hey, we know how you should be run, you'll see".
Even if you admire a foreign way of life, that doesn't mean you want them to rule you. And that's what taking over our way of politics would probably mean to them. It has nothing to do with admiring a way of life, it's raping your country's history and picking up someone else's.
Look at it this way: In the early Dark Ages, the Europeans had a vast admiration for the muslims, their society far outranked that of the Europeans, as they found out during the Crusades. Yet when the muslims tried to invade (though Spain), the Europeans fought back with everything they had to beat them back. Why? Because even though they admired and envied the muslim way of life, it just wasn't their way of life, or their way of government.
>And when their eyes have been
>opened?
That's not relevant, and it won't be for the next few years.
This is a land in turmoil, which has known nothing but suffering. Do you think they're gonna go "whoopie" when you go "let me show you freedom"
>The Taliban maintains its power by
>enforcing a lack of information.
> The people who even
>have TVs and the like
>aren't ALLOWED to see what
>the outside world is like.
> Do you think we're
>using jets to send out
>radio transmissions because we're trying
>to block the airwaves over
>Afghanistan? No, we're delivering
>messages they can't receive anyway.
> Why do you think
>those missionaries are being held
>for trying to convert Muslims?
> They don't LIKE outside
>ideas and they will keep
>them out by whatever means
>possible.
>
>I hardly think that the people
>their are simply content to
>live out a simple life
>if they've see what it
>is like on the "other
>side." It is like
>the country boy going to
>the big city, he fears
>it because he doesn't understand
>it, and if he knew
>more about the big city,
>he would want to become
>part of it.
I'm afraid you're rather close minded to the reality of these people.
Not everyone cheers and hollers when they see the American way of life. The biggest reason for this is not that it isn't nice, but that it just isn't THEIRS.
This is a basic principle you don't seem to grab. Let me put it this way: If Aliens were to land tomorrow on the garden of the White House and show us proof that there's a better way of living, would we drop all our traditions and just adapt to their way of life? No, we wouldn't, we'd have to be forced to be. And that's exactly what you're proposing to do with the Afghanese.
Honestly, they won't accept a government "we put their".
I wish I were able to articulate this better, but I'm not. =
Simply put: Even presuming they believe it's "better" (which they probably don't, seeing the un-islamic nature of the American system and the way the USA treated Afghanistan the last decennium), they won't accept our system. It's simply not theirs.
>I think "survival" and "making a
>suitable life out of life"
>is higher on their priority
>list than merely having the
>right to free religion.
>Afghanistan is probably the most
>desolate area on the planet
>next to Sibera and Tibet,
>these people probably want a
>better life than scrounging about
>on the dead land that
>makes up most of Afghanistan.
Which is exactly why instituting "The American way of life" should not be an issue.
Let these people govern themselves more, I mean, whose been living in that country for the last millenia?
>I am sure they would appreciate
>a government that would take
>care of them rather than
>merely saying they're in charge,
>and sitting on their asses.
I didn't propose to do that. But they won't appreciate a government that has a bunch of Western burocrats that look over their shoulder constantly checking if everything is morally correct FOR US and benificial FOR US either, and that's what the effect of what you propose would be.
>Would it? Against who?
>After you remove the Taliban
>and the Northern Alliance, who
>is left?
As I noted above: You CAN'T remove the Taliban completely. And their smart enough to mount a rebellion from "the powerless populace" as you said it.
>The powerless
>populace?
The power is in the hands of the populace. Wasn't that the whole point of democracy, btw?
>Why WOULD they
>oppose a government who's purpose
>is to restore order, peace,
>and relative prosperity?
Because:
1) It won't be able to restore order, peace and prosperity. No one can do that in a country in turmoil like Afghanistan, least of all a government started by a bunch of clowns that don't know shit about the country.
2) The Afghanese wouldn't believe they were out to do that, they would sooner believe they were there as a pawn to the USA.
And sad as that may be, you know that's true, Xotor.
If the USA instituted a government under their own system, it would become nothing but a mindless pawn, dependant of them.
After all the pawn-governments (of USSR and Pakistan), do you really think they want that AGAIN? Especially from a country that 1) is not islamic and 2) has proved itself to be untrustworthy.
>Do
>not these people want jobs,
>a peaceful way of life,
>and a less oppressive government?
> Would not industrializing
>the nation be a good
>thing in that it would
>provide jobs, an economic infrastructure,
>and improve the standard of
>living? If anyone has
>voted "no" they know no
>better.
Again: This is not relevant.
You sorely underestimate the exact level of pain, suffering, turmoil, corruption and poverty this country has gone to. "Industrializing" this nation is NOT relevant yet, ESPECIALLY not for the people.
A few oil companies would help, but those will come in the country once the Taliban is gone automatically, because of the planned fuel line. But truthfully speaking, you know you can't just "make them rich" like Japan or Germany. It's impossible.
>Oh that's really romantic Kharn, but
>who's going to go in
>an enforce that system?
>Who is going to provide
>that government with the power
>and economic infrastructure to maintain
>power?
That would be us, at least for the first few years. But that doesn't mean we have to institute OUR system, we can have them have their own system, and just keep them in check with peace forces, like we do in other countries.
This should also be temporary.
"Give a man a fish, and he is fed for a day, give him a fishing pole and teach him to fish, and he is fed for a lifetime" and all that stuff.
>Is it not our goal, if
>not our obligation, to help
>rebuild this broken nation after
>we've kicked it down?
>Do we not want a
>Western-friendly government in place so
>that we don't get another
>Taliban? No we don't
>want a puppet government, but
>at least we should have
>a government created by the
>people, under our influence.
>We should bring about something
>like what became of South
>Africa, a government established much
>like our own, but of
>their people, by their people,
>and a government we have
>influence over.
That's all great, except the last part
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE INFLUENCE OVER THEIR GOVERNMENT
It's no tragedy if they're anti-American. Heck, the Taliban is anti-American, that's no problem. That they're killing their own people, that's a problem, but their anti-American nature shouldn't bother anyone. If a country wants to be anti-American, that's its choice, and it should be left with that choice (unless it attacks America, but that's war, and a whole other matter)
Look, "a government we have influence over" IS a puppet-government. This may not be true in theory, but it is so practially, especially if the country is important economically speaking, like Afghanistan.
You seem to think it's more important than the government is under our influence than that is it accepted by the people.
No, it isn't. If the bigger part of the Afghanese turns out to be anti-American, we shouldn't sit there and try to "convert" them, we should make it clear that they can be anti-American, as long as they leave us alone (something the Taliban understood quite well, so don't say it can't be done).
Seriously, though, a government based on our system and under our influence that is accepted by the people is impossible.
It might happen in another country, like South Africa, but the history of Afghanistan makes it impossible that it happens there.
Just read up a bit on them, you'll see what I mean.
>On the contrary, many of the
>citizens who have access to
>worldwide television admire and envy
>the American way of life.
> I remember hearing (sadly)
>that the most popular show
>for people in Palestine is
>"Baywatch," a show that most
>Americans revile.
>
>If they don't want our form
>of "freedom" they haven't had
>access to view it.
>In states like Palestine where
>satellite dishes dot the landscape,
>the people love the American
>way of life, citing that
>it is a confident, care-free
>way of life (from the
>sitcoms they see), but what
>they really don't like about
>the USA is while we
>have all this freedom loving-ness,
>we don't help overthrow oppressive
>regimes like their own governments
>or in many eyes, Israel.
Admiring the romantic part of "the American way" is a long, long way from accepting the form of government, you know that as well as I do.
Look at it this way, from 1992 to 1996, the Afghanese were abandoned by America, whose interest grew again in 1996 to support the Taliban. To say there might be some dislike from this to America would be an understatement, and you can't just kiss it and make it all better.
You see, just because they admire the American way of life (which I don't believe they do, it's not very Koran-based, remember? Especially the more fanatic believers would think of it rather as filthy than admirable, much as the fanatic Christians do) doesn't mean they'll swallow it if you say "Hey, we know how you should be run, you'll see".
Even if you admire a foreign way of life, that doesn't mean you want them to rule you. And that's what taking over our way of politics would probably mean to them. It has nothing to do with admiring a way of life, it's raping your country's history and picking up someone else's.
Look at it this way: In the early Dark Ages, the Europeans had a vast admiration for the muslims, their society far outranked that of the Europeans, as they found out during the Crusades. Yet when the muslims tried to invade (though Spain), the Europeans fought back with everything they had to beat them back. Why? Because even though they admired and envied the muslim way of life, it just wasn't their way of life, or their way of government.
>And when their eyes have been
>opened?
That's not relevant, and it won't be for the next few years.
This is a land in turmoil, which has known nothing but suffering. Do you think they're gonna go "whoopie" when you go "let me show you freedom"
>The Taliban maintains its power by
>enforcing a lack of information.
> The people who even
>have TVs and the like
>aren't ALLOWED to see what
>the outside world is like.
> Do you think we're
>using jets to send out
>radio transmissions because we're trying
>to block the airwaves over
>Afghanistan? No, we're delivering
>messages they can't receive anyway.
> Why do you think
>those missionaries are being held
>for trying to convert Muslims?
> They don't LIKE outside
>ideas and they will keep
>them out by whatever means
>possible.
>
>I hardly think that the people
>their are simply content to
>live out a simple life
>if they've see what it
>is like on the "other
>side." It is like
>the country boy going to
>the big city, he fears
>it because he doesn't understand
>it, and if he knew
>more about the big city,
>he would want to become
>part of it.
I'm afraid you're rather close minded to the reality of these people.
Not everyone cheers and hollers when they see the American way of life. The biggest reason for this is not that it isn't nice, but that it just isn't THEIRS.
This is a basic principle you don't seem to grab. Let me put it this way: If Aliens were to land tomorrow on the garden of the White House and show us proof that there's a better way of living, would we drop all our traditions and just adapt to their way of life? No, we wouldn't, we'd have to be forced to be. And that's exactly what you're proposing to do with the Afghanese.
Honestly, they won't accept a government "we put their".
I wish I were able to articulate this better, but I'm not. =
Simply put: Even presuming they believe it's "better" (which they probably don't, seeing the un-islamic nature of the American system and the way the USA treated Afghanistan the last decennium), they won't accept our system. It's simply not theirs.
>I think "survival" and "making a
>suitable life out of life"
>is higher on their priority
>list than merely having the
>right to free religion.
>Afghanistan is probably the most
>desolate area on the planet
>next to Sibera and Tibet,
>these people probably want a
>better life than scrounging about
>on the dead land that
>makes up most of Afghanistan.
Which is exactly why instituting "The American way of life" should not be an issue.
Let these people govern themselves more, I mean, whose been living in that country for the last millenia?
>I am sure they would appreciate
>a government that would take
>care of them rather than
>merely saying they're in charge,
>and sitting on their asses.
I didn't propose to do that. But they won't appreciate a government that has a bunch of Western burocrats that look over their shoulder constantly checking if everything is morally correct FOR US and benificial FOR US either, and that's what the effect of what you propose would be.
>Would it? Against who?
>After you remove the Taliban
>and the Northern Alliance, who
>is left?
As I noted above: You CAN'T remove the Taliban completely. And their smart enough to mount a rebellion from "the powerless populace" as you said it.
>The powerless
>populace?
The power is in the hands of the populace. Wasn't that the whole point of democracy, btw?
>Why WOULD they
>oppose a government who's purpose
>is to restore order, peace,
>and relative prosperity?
Because:
1) It won't be able to restore order, peace and prosperity. No one can do that in a country in turmoil like Afghanistan, least of all a government started by a bunch of clowns that don't know shit about the country.
2) The Afghanese wouldn't believe they were out to do that, they would sooner believe they were there as a pawn to the USA.
And sad as that may be, you know that's true, Xotor.
If the USA instituted a government under their own system, it would become nothing but a mindless pawn, dependant of them.
After all the pawn-governments (of USSR and Pakistan), do you really think they want that AGAIN? Especially from a country that 1) is not islamic and 2) has proved itself to be untrustworthy.
>Do
>not these people want jobs,
>a peaceful way of life,
>and a less oppressive government?
> Would not industrializing
>the nation be a good
>thing in that it would
>provide jobs, an economic infrastructure,
>and improve the standard of
>living? If anyone has
>voted "no" they know no
>better.
Again: This is not relevant.
You sorely underestimate the exact level of pain, suffering, turmoil, corruption and poverty this country has gone to. "Industrializing" this nation is NOT relevant yet, ESPECIALLY not for the people.
A few oil companies would help, but those will come in the country once the Taliban is gone automatically, because of the planned fuel line. But truthfully speaking, you know you can't just "make them rich" like Japan or Germany. It's impossible.
>Oh that's really romantic Kharn, but
>who's going to go in
>an enforce that system?
>Who is going to provide
>that government with the power
>and economic infrastructure to maintain
>power?
That would be us, at least for the first few years. But that doesn't mean we have to institute OUR system, we can have them have their own system, and just keep them in check with peace forces, like we do in other countries.
This should also be temporary.
"Give a man a fish, and he is fed for a day, give him a fishing pole and teach him to fish, and he is fed for a lifetime" and all that stuff.
>Is it not our goal, if
>not our obligation, to help
>rebuild this broken nation after
>we've kicked it down?
>Do we not want a
>Western-friendly government in place so
>that we don't get another
>Taliban? No we don't
>want a puppet government, but
>at least we should have
>a government created by the
>people, under our influence.
>We should bring about something
>like what became of South
>Africa, a government established much
>like our own, but of
>their people, by their people,
>and a government we have
>influence over.
That's all great, except the last part
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE INFLUENCE OVER THEIR GOVERNMENT
It's no tragedy if they're anti-American. Heck, the Taliban is anti-American, that's no problem. That they're killing their own people, that's a problem, but their anti-American nature shouldn't bother anyone. If a country wants to be anti-American, that's its choice, and it should be left with that choice (unless it attacks America, but that's war, and a whole other matter)
Look, "a government we have influence over" IS a puppet-government. This may not be true in theory, but it is so practially, especially if the country is important economically speaking, like Afghanistan.
You seem to think it's more important than the government is under our influence than that is it accepted by the people.
No, it isn't. If the bigger part of the Afghanese turns out to be anti-American, we shouldn't sit there and try to "convert" them, we should make it clear that they can be anti-American, as long as they leave us alone (something the Taliban understood quite well, so don't say it can't be done).
Seriously, though, a government based on our system and under our influence that is accepted by the people is impossible.
It might happen in another country, like South Africa, but the history of Afghanistan makes it impossible that it happens there.
Just read up a bit on them, you'll see what I mean.