You don't get it.
If we don't turn Afghanistan into a smoldering crater, the terrorists win.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
You don't get it.
If we don't turn Afghanistan into a smoldering crater, the terrorists win.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Technically the terrorists will win because the Taliban will win and the Taliban are the worst people in the world.
I mean... you can argue that we should leave, but that will lead to the Taliban taking control and executing all women that attended school. Leaving may still be the right option, but horrible things will happen.
If we kill literally everyone in Afghanistan, then there won't be any terrorists left or people to eventually become terrorists. Everyone wins! /s
This is pure fantasy. Islamist power in Afghanistan is a direct result of American intervention. We couldn't let Afghanistan become a Soviet ally, so we funded groups of Muslim fascists instead.
I'm not sure if a full withdrawal from Afghanistan is the solution or not, but escalation won't make things better.
GW Bush, HW Bush and etc never bragged about winning any of the elections they were nominated to represent the GOP. Trump is acting kinda arrogant right now.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I will say that a new Cold War would be pretttty good for climate change.
The best method for defeating Russia would be to move away from fossil fuels (and thus destroy their economy and country since Putin has made it into a petrol state) and we would be able to sell deficit spending to build solar panels as an economic war and that might be embraced by the public.
There would be negative consequences (threat of nuclear annihilation for one) but there are some potential benefits here.
Yes, we did fund terrible Islamic groups... Who were already fighting the Soviet installed dictator who was butchering Afghan people with the help of Soviet troops.
The war was started by the Soviet Union.
The best method for defeating Russia would be to move away from fossil fuels (and thus destroy their economy and country since Putin has made it into a petrol state) and we would be able to sell deficit spending to build solar panels as an economic war and that might be embraced by the public.
There would be negative consequences (threat of nuclear annihilation for one) but there are some potential benefits here.
Yes, we did fund terrible Islamic groups... Who were already fighting the Soviet installed dictator who was butchering Afghan people with the help of Soviet troops.
The war was started by the Soviet Union.
Aaron Strife
Banned
You know, I was thinking Huntsman but I like this better.
I'd also prefer him running as a Republican - this "hoho, he's an Independent, but not really!
" game never actually works and is a waste of time. We should encourage moderate Republicans to start taking over the deep red states. Flake and Heller represent swing states so there's no reason we can't do better - that's the gamesmanship I guess.
GregLombardi
Member
This is basically the understatement of the century. He is acting like a 15 year old.
It's going to be interesting when people here start criticizing the US for not allying with the Taliban.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think you've missed Valhelm's point. Obviously, what if-ing is a difficult art, but if America had never provided support for the mujihadeen, then they probably would have been heavily reduced in influence compared to the status quo. The 1988 secret discussions between the USSR and the mujihadeen were nearly successful in our own timeline, it's not a far stretch to suggest that Afghanistan might have emerged much more unified than it did for us. The Taliban suffered several early setbacks in the attempt to oust Watan even after the Soviets left and that was with American support and higher numbers.
I mean, there's no guarantees - al-Assad's Syria was initially seen as one of the most stable in the Middle East and with the most entrenched secular norms in governance. It could very well have been the case that the Afghan government would have collapsed anyway, in time. But I think trying to shift all of the blame onto the Soviets is just wrong - America bears a large part of the culpability, especially for effectively refusing to work with the Soviets when Gorbachev basically came cap in hand asking for Afghanistan to be made a neutral state.
But it will be a very free crater.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
There are literally dozens of ISIS fighters in Afghanistan, we have to make sure to ally with the Taliban in Afghanistan who are... well, they're exactly as bad as ISIS, but we've gotten bored with the Taliban so it's okay.
The mistake would be cultivating the Taliban in lieu of ISIS because you create the same situation as Syria where it's a "shithead or ISIS" choice, and suddenly the world has to support the Taliban, warts and all.
I'm sure Pakistan's all over that to suppress Indian influence in Afghanistan.
I'm sure Pakistan's all over that to suppress Indian influence in Afghanistan.
TestOfTide
Banned
I always wish that after we funded the Taliban in the 80s to fight the soviets that we also spent money on helping Afghanistan rebuild itself like we did in Europe after WWII.
But no instead we have a history of only funding the Middle East with weapons instead of showing the world that actually US Intervention can do GOOD.
But no instead we have a history of only funding the Middle East with weapons instead of showing the world that actually US Intervention can do GOOD.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
The tweet he was responding to was about how "History shows that democrats are the racist party." I can't even at this point. Democrats have done a terrible job with messaging the idea that the parties drastically reversed belief systems decades ago.
TestOfTide
Banned
By doing what the progressives would hate for us to do: Backroom deals with people like McMullin so that we have a more unified front against the Trump side.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
What do you want them to do? No one really believes it except GOP voters. I guess it makes them feel that they're not racist because theyre in the party of Lincoln or whatever, but theyre probably not going to admit to racism either way.
(Also, things like Jefferson-Jackson dinners haven't helped this, although these have thankfully changed in recent years)
To him, he is playing an online game and the only emote, or anything, he has on his hotbar is the tea bag emote.
I'm surprised the idiot didn't say something stupid today about Abe and Obama visiting the Pearl Harbor memorial.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
tsk tsk someone seems a tad bit insecure he lost the popular vote by the margins he did.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Half of Trump voters believe in Pizzagate, but Hillary voters believe in dumb things too sometimes.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/12/27/belief-conspiracies-largely-depends-political-iden/
But it's interesting that 9/11 Truthers are now evenly divided between parties. That used to be a Dem only conspiracy and now it's supported by the fringe of both sides now.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/12/27/belief-conspiracies-largely-depends-political-iden/
But it's interesting that 9/11 Truthers are now evenly divided between parties. That used to be a Dem only conspiracy and now it's supported by the fringe of both sides now.
RustyNails
Member
I'm reading this opinion piece in Haaretz on the UNSC resolution and Netanyahu in general, holy crap I dont think I've read such a searing indictment of a sitting head of state in a while. Will link in a bit.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Maybe you want to go further back and explain why the US should have funded the "freedom fighters" to begin with?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Well, the Soviet-Afghan War did end the Soviet Union and the Cold War and the Afghan dictator was as nearly as horrible as the Taliban.
Iran supported some terror groups in the aftermath of the Iraq War, but the United States is obviously to blame for the consequences of the Iraq War, not Iran.
I think lefties sometimes consider the United States to be the only country that has agency.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
TestOfTide
Banned
Because they were directly fighting the Soviet Union and the sooner the Cold War ended the better.
The problem wasn't funding those "Freedom Fighters". The problem was that it was yet another example where we spend money on fights in the Middle East, then leave the area in shambles instead of doing something like the Marshall Plan.
Turkey is having some issues right now, but the fact that they were a successful Democracy for decades shows that a Marshall Plan in the Middle East could work.
I'm probably alone in this, but while the WMD bullshit was a deplorable lie, there COULD be an argument made to support intervening in Iraq in the context of harnessing the Arab Spring to turn middle Eastern nation's into secular Democracies like Turkey was for decades.
If there's one thing this election proved it's that stupidity doesn't have an ideological bias. Just look at all the so called progressives that bought the email scandal hook, line, and sinker.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The communist government in Afghanistan executed 27k political prisoners.
But sure, secularism is always good even if it's promoting horrific state violence against dissenters.
But sure, secularism is always good even if it's promoting horrific state violence against dissenters.
It was both. Funding the Mujahideen directly lead to the creation of alQaeda.
The United States escalated the Cold War after the invasion. Carter made the decision to end the detente we had with Russia after they projected power into Afghanistan. But this was pretty much identical to our behavior in Vietnam. Two years before we withdrew forces, the American government ahelped Agosto Pinochet overthrow the democratic government of Chile and install a right-wing dictatorship.
Supporting Islamo-fascist rebels in Afghanistan wasn't just enormously destructive, it was unnecessary. This was an aggressive action that escalated the Cold War rather than quickly ending it. After the SALT talks, reconciliation with the Soviet Union was definitely possible. The actions of Carter and Reagan destroyed that hope.
Don't say you prefer the Taliban over the socialist regime in Afghanistan. Is this really the hill you're going to die on?
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I've got a friend who's a hardcore leftist (like, all profit is immoral and all people should be mandated to go into certain occupations with flat pay stuff), and he's got a similar (bad) opinion. Every left wing dictatorship falls into the "No True Left" camp. Literally no atrocity matters. Even Stalin gets thrown around as a guy who "had some good ideas."
TestOfTide
Banned
If you are referring to me, keep in mind that I specifically said secular DEMOCRACY.
Obviously the whole reason he Arab Spring happened was because so many Middle Eastern nations were only securing secularism through Totalitarianism.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I'm going to respond to Valheim in a second, but can we not use Socialism as a term anymore?
I have no idea what people define socialism as anymore. Bernie Sanders called himself a Socialist because he wanted an expanded welfare state and more taxes on the rich (and a ton of moderately left people define socialism the same way), but then others use "socialist" to mean the government seizing the means of production and abolishing private enterprise and these are not the same.
It just has like no meaning as a term anymore. Can we use MOPS (means of production seizing) instead for the governments similar to 1980s Afghanistan and current Venezuela?
Or maybe we can just agree on what the term means again because it has wildly different definitions for each person right now.
I'm referring to Ether Strike and other edgelords like him. These people are generally like "Assad is Actually Good because he isn't that super religious. Sure he's gassed and bombed hundreds of thousands but he's better than the savages!"
Atheist, Hindu, and moderate Christian edgelording taken to its most extreme.
I have no idea what people define socialism as anymore. Bernie Sanders called himself a Socialist because he wanted an expanded welfare state and more taxes on the rich (and a ton of moderately left people define socialism the same way), but then others use "socialist" to mean the government seizing the means of production and abolishing private enterprise and these are not the same.
It just has like no meaning as a term anymore. Can we use MOPS (means of production seizing) instead for the governments similar to 1980s Afghanistan and current Venezuela?
Or maybe we can just agree on what the term means again because it has wildly different definitions for each person right now.
I'm referring to Ether Strike and other edgelords like him. These people are generally like "Assad is Actually Good because he isn't that super religious. Sure he's gassed and bombed hundreds of thousands but he's better than the savages!"
Atheist, Hindu, and moderate Christian edgelording taken to its most extreme.
TestOfTide
Banned
Oh ok then. My apologies. I'm just on edge because we have yet another thread in the OT where liberals and progressives are talking over one another.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
No True Socialist. According to some, there's never been a left wing government that had problems.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I'm not going to defend Reagan's aggression, I'm attacking the Soviets for installing a brutal regime that kicked off a terrible war.
The Taliban are the worst people in the world, but the communist regime in Afghanistan was also brutal. I believe if Reagan actually thought that only aggression could end the Cold War (which was a bad thought) then funding Islamic fighters in Afghanistan was defensible. The Taliban taking control was the worst case scenario and a regime like Saudi Arabia (brutal and horrific, but as bad as the prior Afghan government and not as bad as the Taliban) coming forth from the Afghan Civil War was probably more likely than the Taliban winning.
And obviously Reagan installing Pinochet was a humanitarian disgrace.
And_Gignac
Member
Language is flexible. There's an academic meaning to socialism, but people can use it to mean plenty of things depending on the context. There's an agreement to what it means. When in doubt you can check Wikipedia instead of assuming your confusion is widespread.
Anyway. In other news, Bernie Sanders keeps fucking it up with his low key, passive aggressive, bizarre criticism of idpol. I think he doesn't understand the concept with clarity.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I would say that if Socialism is taxing luxury homes a lot more so that we can give more money to the poor via EITC, then I am a Socialist and there's probably a lot of conservative economists who are socialists too. If Socialism is social security, then I am a Socialist.
If Socialism is the government setting the price of a bag of chips and a gallon of milk and literally every item while being willing to steal output from manufacturer so that they can distribute the output later, then I am firmly against Socialism.
Language obviously changes, but people use socialism both as "expanded welfare state" and "government controls all production and pricing decisions" and this is just inconsistent to me.
If Socialism is the government setting the price of a bag of chips and a gallon of milk and literally every item while being willing to steal output from manufacturer so that they can distribute the output later, then I am firmly against Socialism.
Language obviously changes, but people use socialism both as "expanded welfare state" and "government controls all production and pricing decisions" and this is just inconsistent to me.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Bernie ran on a platform of social democracy and called it democratic socialism even though they aren't the same thing.
It would be better if people just used the term liberal correctly, honestly.
It would be better if people just used the term liberal correctly, honestly.
Socialism is a pretty easy concept to understand. In a socialist society, industry is held by the workers rather than by private capitalists. Individuals cannot own and profit off of factories, mines, or plantations.
20th century socialist states were derived from Marxism-Leninism, an ideology that endowed the state with huge power over the economy. Soviet workers didn't directly control any industries, but because it was a "worker's state", they supposedly did so by proxy. Because the workers were so alienated from their economy and politics, many modern lefties don't believe the USSR should be considered socialist in practice. Its politicians wanted socialism, and eventually hoped to abolish the state (thus creating communism), but they never got close to that. Venezuela is even worse example of a socialist society. It's just a capitalist economy where a ton of businesses are owned by the state. Belarus operates the same way, despite not appropriating the "socialist" label.
When Bernie Sanders talks about socialism, he's really talking about social democracy. The policies he calls for address many of the issues socialism tries to solve, but make no effort to abolish capitalism. I'm not entirely sure why Bernie decided to run as a socialist. Doing so was confusing and disingenuous. He may support socialism deep down, but never advocated for such in his candidacy.
My best guess is that Bernie thought he could change the dialogue on capitalism if he used the world socialism. Thanks the Cold War, no prominent American politician has run as a socialist since the Great Depression. By doing so, Bernie probably hoped to inculcate anticapitalist sentiment among some of his supporters and help them down the path to learning about actual socialism.
Bernie's economic thinking is clearly rooted in (lily white) socialism, even though his actual politics are basically that of a social democrat.
It's not just this concept- it's many. He could never go into details on subjects, which, over time, could lead one (such as I) to believe that it's not just that he's not interested in details, he's just not capable of diving into them. This was a consistent problem throughout the campaign.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
"Liberal" as a term is awesome now that the American left has decided to take the European definition of liberal meaning libertarian.
Now conservatives shout "Liberals!" at Venezuela while some left leaning people shout "Liberal!" at Paul Ryan.
The European meaning was always the correct one though.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Sure, definitely. Milton Friedman is super happy right now.
But reintroducing the correct meaning after the term has had a different meaning for so long just makes some things odd in the transition period.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Well kind of. Social democrats and New Deal liberals are still liberals, it's just that so is Paul Ryan.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
And I'll point out that I'm a big critic of the guy, but I don't think he's bad on this out of malice. He's been a Vermont politician for decades. I'm not surprised he sucks on minority issues in the same way that the mayor of LA probably doesn't have much experience dealing with rural farmers. It's not his wheelhouse because his constituents are overwhelmingly white.
I agree but I am also surprised that his language did not change throughout the primary. He never learned how to do it better. Bernie is right there with any other democrat on race, gender, lgbtq issues. He is consistent in his support of people of color, immigrants, etc. But because he's a 70 year old white male politician from Vermont he didn't have a grasp of the contemporary language for these issues. That didn't surprise me. But then he never learned and still hasn't. That surprises me.
Socialism means worker ownership of industry. Full stop. But there are so many ways to achieve this kind of arrangement and even more forms of expression. Socialism doesn't require repression, a one-party state, or even a strong government. Some socialists believe the government should just manage large and powerful labor unions. Some socialists believe there should be any government at all! Anarchists are just socialists with particularly radical aims.
The Marxism Leninism practiced by Soviet Russia represented one of the worst expressions of socialism imaginable, especially during the Stalin era. The state had far too much power over the lives of workers. Banning elections is obviously indefensible. The biggest failure of the Soviet Union was allowing somebody like Stalin to attain so much power. With no real state accountability, he and his cadres were able to punish all citizens who did not fully comply with the Soviet Union's authoritarian demands. Because they were the beating heart of the socialist world, the Soviet Union forced most of their allies to pursue their repressive style of governance. Socialist leaders who tried to follow a different path were shunned or suppressed. Much like America, the Soviet Union supported a lot of third-world countries used force and coercion to make sure they played by the rules.
- Status