Troops Told Geneva Rules Don't Apply To Taliban

[Bizud]

I'll ignore the completely assinine comparison of the Taliban to the Nazis. The more relevant question is what is the difference between the current German government and Hamid Karzai's government. The answer is that the German government is not being propped up by foreign troops.

 

I am completely, 100% in favour of helping the Afghan people govern themselves without religious fundamentalists. I am in favour of helping free the women of Afghanistan from what is essentially slavery. But what do we do with Afghans who have more loyalty to these fundamentalists than to the government we're intervening on the side of? What do we do when even Afghans who don't have any particular loyalty to the Taliban want us to leave? Get this into your head - we are at war against the Afghan people, and no matter how much we tell ourselves it's for their own good, I can guarantee you they won't see it that way. Afghans know occupation when they see it, and they know they don't like it, and they have the right to resist occupation.

[supercanuk]

Get this into your head - we are at war against the Afghan people, and no matter how much we tell ourselves it's for their own good, I can guarantee you they won't see it that way. Afghans know occupation when they see it, and they know they don't like it, and they have the right to resist occupation.

This is exactly what is being spun, it's not "occupation" its "liberation" of the Afghan people, this is how people begin to believe that this mission is being effective. Afghans defintely know occupation when they see it, and if the roles were reversed do you think anyone in this country or the U.S. would put up with ANY government trying to occupy its lands? I am also in agreeance with Bizud, we should most definetely support the people of Afghanistan, not thier rulers who oppress them, and that is essentially what we are doing.

[Matt]

After World War Two troops didn't just go home Bizud, they never do, there were still troops there to ensure nothing else happened that would give them a cause to stay, that's not occupation. Actually the two situations are quite similar, people the world over felt screwed over, looked for a cause and bought into something. Bizud, why look at a government now, sixty years later, when it has gone so far past the post war stage, those two comparisons are incredibly inane and have no meaning whatsoever because they are not actually good comparisons.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

"I am completely, 100% in favour of helping the Afghan people govern themselves without religious fundamentalists. I am in favour of helping free the women of Afghanistan from what is essentially slavery."

 

How would you guys go about doing this? I just have trouble believing NGOs can operate without something backing them up.

[Bizud]

How would I go about improving the situation in Afghanistan? I would pursue diplomatic means. We are not making the situation any better in Afghanistan. And I think you know that the second we leave (and we will have to leave someday), the government we are backing will not last a week.

 

Again, I have no idea what Matt is talking about. The Taliban were a repressive regime, but not the worst in the world, and not a threat to world peace. There are plenty of other repressive regimes out there, some of which are threats to world peace. Like the one in Washington. I would wager most people believe the regime in Washington is a threat to world peace (most people in Afghanistan certainly do). Pretty sure not even George W. Moron himself believed the Taliban were.

[Matt]

Actually the Nazis were not the most repressive nor worst regime in the world, the Soviets under Stalin were. Also, there was a time when the Nazis could have been stopped in no time because no one took them seriously until one day they became strong enough that they almost could not be stopped.

 

Also, the second we leave Afghanistan, they could fend for themselves, our forces should be training theirs. However, how will diplomacy work with a regime that does not want to listen to the west but rather see them gone all together?

[ecnarf]

"I am completely, 100% in favour of helping the Afghan people govern themselves without religious fundamentalists. I am in favour of helping free the women of Afghanistan from what is essentially slavery."

 

How would you guys go about doing this? I just have trouble believing NGOs can operate without something backing them up.

And why is it that the Afghan women are in a position tantamount to slavery? I don't see them working any cotton (or poppy) fields while the men sit around all day talking about sports.

 

Yes, it is oppression, and yes it is a violation of human rights, but could we at least stick to the right terminology? It makes having a proper debate easier when hyperbole is left out.

[Bizud]

They do slave work in the home, not in the fields.

 

Matt, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about. Have the Taliban ever acted to extend their power beyond afghanistan? Uh, no. They're ugly and oppressive, but not expansionist or even militaristic. Get a clue.

[Matt]

Please Bizud, my comparison is accurate, wow they haven't gone outside of Afghanistan, yet, it doesn't mean they never will, and they still compare quite handidly to Nazi Germany there was a before where they were just trying to get back "everything that was taken from them". Your comparison, however, was far off. Bizud, you're acting like there's no grey area to this when there is plenty of it.

[Bizud]

You tell me how the Taliban compares to Nazi Germany. Are they intolerant of ethnic minorities? No. Are they militaristic and fascist? No. Do they rule by fear? No.

[ecnarf]

You tell me how the Taliban compares to Nazi Germany. Are they intolerant of ethnic minorities? No. Are they militaristic and fascist? No. Do they rule by fear? No.

Please tell me you weren't being serious.

[Bizud]

The comparison to the Nazis is ridiculous. The Taliban are very oppressive, but they aren't totalitarian in the way the Nazis were. There's no cult of personality around the Taliban leadership. Afghanistan is a patchwork of ethnicities; intolerant of ethnic minorities isn't a criticism you can make of them, nor is militarism. They didn't win their popularity by branding a group as enemies and vowing to do away with them. They didn't even start out as enemies of the US - as late as 2001 they were being praised by the Bush administration for helping to reduce opium cultivation. They're theocratic, not fascist. These are poor priests from the backwaters of Afghanistan imposing the only kind of law and order they understand. I'm not defending the Taliban, but people seem to have absolutely no understanding of what makes these people tick and who they are.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Bizud

[ecnarf]

I know that comparing the Taliban to the Nazis is fucking riculous (as is the comparison of any government/leader to the nazis/Hitler) but don't pretend that the Taliban were okay to live under. They were pretty controlling.

[Matt]

Not only that, but a comparison doesn't need to be exact, but it does have to be similar and the Taliban did run things similarly. Sure they may not have been the threat that the Nazis became, but the Nazis were not always that threat either. I'm not saying the Taliban should have or should not have been stopped, I am just saying that this isn't as clear cut as some people try to make it.

[no yu begin wher i end]

The comparison to the Nazis is ridiculous. The Taliban are very oppressive, but they aren't totalitarian in the way the Nazis were. There's no cult of personality around the Taliban leadership. Afghanistan is a patchwork of ethnicities; intolerant of ethnic minorities isn't a criticism you can make of them, nor is militarism. They didn't win their popularity by branding a group as enemies and vowing to do away with them. They didn't even start out as enemies of the US - as late as 2001 they were being praised by the Bush administration for helping to reduce opium cultivation. They're theocratic, not fascist. These are poor priests from the backwaters of Afghanistan imposing the only kind of law and order they understand. I'm not defending the Taliban, but people seem to have absolutely no understanding of what makes these people tick and who they are.

But couldn't it also be argued that the Taliban were closer to Nazis than facism? Facism doesn't promote one religion/race over all others the way Nazism does. The Taliban weren't tolerant of other religions (the demolishing of those giant Buddha statues comes to mind). Similarities do exist, I think, between the two.

[Bizud]

Turns out that you can ignore what I said about them not being racist, because they apparently were somewhat genocidal. My bad!