Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Afghan: Was it all for nothing?

Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

The national coalition leader, Abdullah Abdullah, will install another theocratic state, and diminish the BSA immediately, ending all hope at the nation being a true democratic institution.
|
Ashraf on the other hand, is an extremely wise guy. He is pro BSA, and is against religious fundamentalism being tied in with the state. He is extremely educated, and led a great economic recovery movement.

As a Independent candidate, I think it would be all for nothing if he didn't win. Once again, don't try to convince me otherwise, as I'll let time tell. It looks like Abdullah will win regardless though. He had a 10% lead in opinion polls, so don't feel to positive.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 10:12:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

The national coalition leader, Abdullah Abdullah, will install another theocratic state, and diminish the BSA immediately, ending all hope at the nation being a true democratic institution.
|
Ashraf on the other hand, is an extremely wise guy. He is pro BSA, and is against religious fundamentalism being tied in with the state. He is extremely educated, and led a great economic recovery movement.

As a Independent candidate, I think it would be all for nothing if he didn't win. Once again, don't try to convince me otherwise, as I'll let time tell. It looks like Abdullah will win regardless though. He had a 10% lead in opinion polls, so don't feel to positive.

I understand what you are trying to say there, but don't you think that saying that one specific candidate is the only one that must win isn't the most democratic position to take?
I know that in a country like Afghanistan, that has absolutely no experience with democracy, it's very likely that some candidates probably aren't very committed to democratic principles in the first place, but that's a risk you must take when you try to artificially implant democracy in another country.
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 10:48:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 10:12:28 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

The national coalition leader, Abdullah Abdullah, will install another theocratic state, and diminish the BSA immediately, ending all hope at the nation being a true democratic institution.
|
Ashraf on the other hand, is an extremely wise guy. He is pro BSA, and is against religious fundamentalism being tied in with the state. He is extremely educated, and led a great economic recovery movement.

As a Independent candidate, I think it would be all for nothing if he didn't win. Once again, don't try to convince me otherwise, as I'll let time tell. It looks like Abdullah will win regardless though. He had a 10% lead in opinion polls, so don't feel to positive.

I understand what you are trying to say there, but don't you think that saying that one specific candidate is the only one that must win isn't the most democratic position to take?

I'm not taking aa democratic position. I'm taking the position that will lead to the only beneficial outcome for the country, that doesn't offset all the progress made. That is what Abdullah will do if he is elected. I am hoping the citizens of Afghan will make the right choice here, and pick the western leader, who wont support a theocratic Islamic state..

I know that in a country like Afghanistan, that has absolutely no experience with democracy, it's very likely that some candidates probably aren't very committed to democratic principles in the first place, but that's a risk you must take when you try to artificially implant democracy in another country.

I 100% agree. Afghan has never had a peaceful transition of power in its whole history. They have always lived in a theocratic sharia state, so thats most likely why the national coalition is in the lead.

As for Ashfar, he is extremely committed to democracy, a theory thats never exiisted within the country, He reminds me of Attaturk in a lot of ways, who practically eliminated the culture of the nation to reform to western standards.

I'm not saying that Afghanistan needs to eliminate its culture, but I think sharia is only detrimental. Afghanistan at this point, has the most potential to be a regional democratic power, but this only relies on them reforming to the western standards.
Sad as it is, nations that don't have the support of the west, don't end up very well when it comes to the final outcome.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 11:08:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 10:48:34 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 10:12:28 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

The national coalition leader, Abdullah Abdullah, will install another theocratic state, and diminish the BSA immediately, ending all hope at the nation being a true democratic institution.
|
Ashraf on the other hand, is an extremely wise guy. He is pro BSA, and is against religious fundamentalism being tied in with the state. He is extremely educated, and led a great economic recovery movement.

As a Independent candidate, I think it would be all for nothing if he didn't win. Once again, don't try to convince me otherwise, as I'll let time tell. It looks like Abdullah will win regardless though. He had a 10% lead in opinion polls, so don't feel to positive.

I understand what you are trying to say there, but don't you think that saying that one specific candidate is the only one that must win isn't the most democratic position to take?

I'm not taking aa democratic position. I'm taking the position that will lead to the only beneficial outcome for the country, that doesn't offset all the progress made. That is what Abdullah will do if he is elected. I am hoping the citizens of Afghan will make the right choice here, and pick the western leader, who wont support a theocratic Islamic state..

I know that in a country like Afghanistan, that has absolutely no experience with democracy, it's very likely that some candidates probably aren't very committed to democratic principles in the first place, but that's a risk you must take when you try to artificially implant democracy in another country.

I 100% agree. Afghan has never had a peaceful transition of power in its whole history. They have always lived in a theocratic sharia state, so thats most likely why the national coalition is in the lead.

As for Ashfar, he is extremely committed to democracy, a theory thats never exiisted within the country, He reminds me of Attaturk in a lot of ways, who practically eliminated the culture of the nation to reform to western standards.

I'm not saying that Afghanistan needs to eliminate its culture, but I think sharia is only detrimental. Afghanistan at this point, has the most potential to be a regional democratic power, but this only relies on them reforming to the western standards.
Sad as it is, nations that don't have the support of the west, don't end up very well when it comes to the final outcome.

I understand your point, but if you want Afghanistan to be a real democracy, the choices the people make must be respected, imposing a result to an election is itself the least democratic thing that can be done.

If people aren't let to make their own mistakes, there can never be democracy. But that's the paradox of democracy, it's the only system that allows itself to be contested.
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 11:10:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 11:08:16 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 5/1/2014 10:48:34 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 10:12:28 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

The national coalition leader, Abdullah Abdullah, will install another theocratic state, and diminish the BSA immediately, ending all hope at the nation being a true democratic institution.
|
Ashraf on the other hand, is an extremely wise guy. He is pro BSA, and is against religious fundamentalism being tied in with the state. He is extremely educated, and led a great economic recovery movement.

As a Independent candidate, I think it would be all for nothing if he didn't win. Once again, don't try to convince me otherwise, as I'll let time tell. It looks like Abdullah will win regardless though. He had a 10% lead in opinion polls, so don't feel to positive.

I understand what you are trying to say there, but don't you think that saying that one specific candidate is the only one that must win isn't the most democratic position to take?

I'm not taking aa democratic position. I'm taking the position that will lead to the only beneficial outcome for the country, that doesn't offset all the progress made. That is what Abdullah will do if he is elected. I am hoping the citizens of Afghan will make the right choice here, and pick the western leader, who wont support a theocratic Islamic state..

I know that in a country like Afghanistan, that has absolutely no experience with democracy, it's very likely that some candidates probably aren't very committed to democratic principles in the first place, but that's a risk you must take when you try to artificially implant democracy in another country.

I 100% agree. Afghan has never had a peaceful transition of power in its whole history. They have always lived in a theocratic sharia state, so thats most likely why the national coalition is in the lead.

As for Ashfar, he is extremely committed to democracy, a theory thats never exiisted within the country, He reminds me of Attaturk in a lot of ways, who practically eliminated the culture of the nation to reform to western standards.

I'm not saying that Afghanistan needs to eliminate its culture, but I think sharia is only detrimental. Afghanistan at this point, has the most potential to be a regional democratic power, but this only relies on them reforming to the western standards.
Sad as it is, nations that don't have the support of the west, don't end up very well when it comes to the final outcome.

I understand your point, but if you want Afghanistan to be a real democracy, the choices the people make must be respected, imposing a result to an election is itself the least democratic thing that can be done.

If people aren't let to make their own mistakes, there can never be democracy. But that's the paradox of democracy, it's the only system that allows itself to be contested.

I never said the result shouldn't ne honored. I 'm simply pointing out that the 11 years we spent rebuilding the war torn nation at the request of the coalition would of been for nothing.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 11:16:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 11:10:56 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:08:16 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 5/1/2014 10:48:34 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 10:12:28 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

The national coalition leader, Abdullah Abdullah, will install another theocratic state, and diminish the BSA immediately, ending all hope at the nation being a true democratic institution.
|
Ashraf on the other hand, is an extremely wise guy. He is pro BSA, and is against religious fundamentalism being tied in with the state. He is extremely educated, and led a great economic recovery movement.

As a Independent candidate, I think it would be all for nothing if he didn't win. Once again, don't try to convince me otherwise, as I'll let time tell. It looks like Abdullah will win regardless though. He had a 10% lead in opinion polls, so don't feel to positive.

I understand what you are trying to say there, but don't you think that saying that one specific candidate is the only one that must win isn't the most democratic position to take?

I'm not taking aa democratic position. I'm taking the position that will lead to the only beneficial outcome for the country, that doesn't offset all the progress made. That is what Abdullah will do if he is elected. I am hoping the citizens of Afghan will make the right choice here, and pick the western leader, who wont support a theocratic Islamic state..

I know that in a country like Afghanistan, that has absolutely no experience with democracy, it's very likely that some candidates probably aren't very committed to democratic principles in the first place, but that's a risk you must take when you try to artificially implant democracy in another country.

I 100% agree. Afghan has never had a peaceful transition of power in its whole history. They have always lived in a theocratic sharia state, so thats most likely why the national coalition is in the lead.

As for Ashfar, he is extremely committed to democracy, a theory thats never exiisted within the country, He reminds me of Attaturk in a lot of ways, who practically eliminated the culture of the nation to reform to western standards.

I'm not saying that Afghanistan needs to eliminate its culture, but I think sharia is only detrimental. Afghanistan at this point, has the most potential to be a regional democratic power, but this only relies on them reforming to the western standards.
Sad as it is, nations that don't have the support of the west, don't end up very well when it comes to the final outcome.

I understand your point, but if you want Afghanistan to be a real democracy, the choices the people make must be respected, imposing a result to an election is itself the least democratic thing that can be done.

If people aren't let to make their own mistakes, there can never be democracy. But that's the paradox of democracy, it's the only system that allows itself to be contested.

I never said the result shouldn't ne honored. I 'm simply pointing out that the 11 years we spent rebuilding the war torn nation at the request of the coalition would of been for nothing.

Well, it was a decision of the USA to finance the democracy building in Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure that those who made the decision knew what the risks were, and they still thought it would be worthy.
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 11:21:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 11:16:52 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:10:56 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:08:16 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 5/1/2014 10:48:34 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 10:12:28 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

The national coalition leader, Abdullah Abdullah, will install another theocratic state, and diminish the BSA immediately, ending all hope at the nation being a true democratic institution.
|
Ashraf on the other hand, is an extremely wise guy. He is pro BSA, and is against religious fundamentalism being tied in with the state. He is extremely educated, and led a great economic recovery movement.

As a Independent candidate, I think it would be all for nothing if he didn't win. Once again, don't try to convince me otherwise, as I'll let time tell. It looks like Abdullah will win regardless though. He had a 10% lead in opinion polls, so don't feel to positive.

I understand what you are trying to say there, but don't you think that saying that one specific candidate is the only one that must win isn't the most democratic position to take?

I'm not taking aa democratic position. I'm taking the position that will lead to the only beneficial outcome for the country, that doesn't offset all the progress made. That is what Abdullah will do if he is elected. I am hoping the citizens of Afghan will make the right choice here, and pick the western leader, who wont support a theocratic Islamic state..

I know that in a country like Afghanistan, that has absolutely no experience with democracy, it's very likely that some candidates probably aren't very committed to democratic principles in the first place, but that's a risk you must take when you try to artificially implant democracy in another country.

I 100% agree. Afghan has never had a peaceful transition of power in its whole history. They have always lived in a theocratic sharia state, so thats most likely why the national coalition is in the lead.

As for Ashfar, he is extremely committed to democracy, a theory thats never exiisted within the country, He reminds me of Attaturk in a lot of ways, who practically eliminated the culture of the nation to reform to western standards.

I'm not saying that Afghanistan needs to eliminate its culture, but I think sharia is only detrimental. Afghanistan at this point, has the most potential to be a regional democratic power, but this only relies on them reforming to the western standards.
Sad as it is, nations that don't have the support of the west, don't end up very well when it comes to the final outcome.

I understand your point, but if you want Afghanistan to be a real democracy, the choices the people make must be respected, imposing a result to an election is itself the least democratic thing that can be done.

If people aren't let to make their own mistakes, there can never be democracy. But that's the paradox of democracy, it's the only system that allows itself to be contested.

I never said the result shouldn't ne honored. I 'm simply pointing out that the 11 years we spent rebuilding the war torn nation at the request of the coalition would of been for nothing.

Well, it was a decision of the USA to finance the democracy building in Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure that those who made the decision knew what the risks were, and they still thought it would be worthy.

I think if the system will keep power transitioning peacefully, regardless of the president, then that's good, but its unlikely under Abdullah.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
TheJesusParadox
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 11:55:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If people aren't let to make their own mistakes, there can never be democracy. But that's the paradox of democracy, it's the only system that allows itself to be contested.

Joe, he is right on point with what America think about Democracy: we only support democracy in other nations if a pro-American gets elected. Actually, we do not care what political ideology other nations choose as long as they are pro-American. In fact, there are ample examples of America supporting the worst kind of dictators in order to advance our interests.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 12:03:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 11:55:28 PM, TheJesusParadox wrote:
If people aren't let to make their own mistakes, there can never be democracy. But that's the paradox of democracy, it's the only system that allows itself to be contested.

Joe, he is right on point with what America think about Democracy: we only support democracy in other nations if a pro-American gets elected. Actually, we do not care what political ideology other nations choose as long as they are pro-American. In fact, there are ample examples of America supporting the worst kind of dictators in order to advance our interests.

I don't care if Ashraf is pro-american. I do care when their are two candidates, and one is a radical fundamentalist who seeks to install a theocratic state. Afghanistan has a future with the west, and I'm stating that as a truth,
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 12:45:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 12:03:39 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:55:28 PM, TheJesusParadox wrote:
If people aren't let to make their own mistakes, there can never be democracy. But that's the paradox of democracy, it's the only system that allows itself to be contested.

Joe, he is right on point with what America think about Democracy: we only support democracy in other nations if a pro-American gets elected. Actually, we do not care what political ideology other nations choose as long as they are pro-American. In fact, there are ample examples of America supporting the worst kind of dictators in order to advance our interests.

I don't care if Ashraf is pro-american. I do care when their are two candidates, and one is a radical fundamentalist who seeks to install a theocratic state. Afghanistan has a future with the west, and I'm stating that as a truth,

You need to try to separate what you want to be true from what will be true. Sometimes you will be right but you will also sometimes be wrong. AT the present there is no good reason to think that the US will be able to impress it's will on the people of that country. Much more likely they will lean toward Pakistan and the US will need to continue to kill those who won't succumb to the occupation.

And of course we all should know that the occupation will not end, just as it didn't end in Iraq. It is of utmost consequence that the slaughter of people continues to go on in both countries. And the slaughter exceeds the proclaimed purpose of the missions in both countries.

Facts for you!
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:03:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 12:45:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:03:39 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:55:28 PM, TheJesusParadox wrote:
If people aren't let to make their own mistakes, there can never be democracy. But that's the paradox of democracy, it's the only system that allows itself to be contested.

Joe, he is right on point with what America think about Democracy: we only support democracy in other nations if a pro-American gets elected. Actually, we do not care what political ideology other nations choose as long as they are pro-American. In fact, there are ample examples of America supporting the worst kind of dictators in order to advance our interests.

I don't care if Ashraf is pro-american. I do care when their are two candidates, and one is a radical fundamentalist who seeks to install a theocratic state. Afghanistan has a future with the west, and I'm stating that as a truth,

You need to try to separate what you want to be true from what will be true. Sometimes you will be right but you will also sometimes be wrong. AT the present there is no good reason to think that the US will be able to impress it's will on the people of that country. Much more likely they will lean toward Pakistan and the US will need to continue to kill those who won't succumb to the occupation.

And of course we all should know that the occupation will not end, just as it didn't end in Iraq. It is of utmost consequence that the slaughter of people continues to go on in both countries. And the slaughter exceeds the proclaimed purpose of the missions in both countries.

Facts for you!

Facts for you. There are 0 US Combat troops in Iraq and haven't been for several years. Clap clap clap.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:09:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 1:03:30 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:45:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:03:39 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:55:28 PM, TheJesusParadox wrote:
If people aren't let to make their own mistakes, there can never be democracy. But that's the paradox of democracy, it's the only system that allows itself to be contested.

Joe, he is right on point with what America think about Democracy: we only support democracy in other nations if a pro-American gets elected. Actually, we do not care what political ideology other nations choose as long as they are pro-American. In fact, there are ample examples of America supporting the worst kind of dictators in order to advance our interests.

I don't care if Ashraf is pro-american. I do care when their are two candidates, and one is a radical fundamentalist who seeks to install a theocratic state. Afghanistan has a future with the west, and I'm stating that as a truth,

You need to try to separate what you want to be true from what will be true. Sometimes you will be right but you will also sometimes be wrong. AT the present there is no good reason to think that the US will be able to impress it's will on the people of that country. Much more likely they will lean toward Pakistan and the US will need to continue to kill those who won't succumb to the occupation.

And of course we all should know that the occupation will not end, just as it didn't end in Iraq. It is of utmost consequence that the slaughter of people continues to go on in both countries. And the slaughter exceeds the proclaimed purpose of the missions in both countries.

Facts for you!

Facts for you. There are 0 US Combat troops in Iraq and haven't been for several years. Clap clap clap.

Well you're just plain wrong if you intend to debate what I said. There are lots of US troops in Iraq and they aren't leaving. Neither will they be leaving Afghanistan.

Aside from that, I don't want to play your stupid denial game any further. But you go right ahead and fill your boots!
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 2:52:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 1:09:28 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:03:30 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:45:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:03:39 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:55:28 PM, TheJesusParadox wrote:
If people aren't let to make their own mistakes, there can never be democracy. But that's the paradox of democracy, it's the only system that allows itself to be contested.

Joe, he is right on point with what America think about Democracy: we only support democracy in other nations if a pro-American gets elected. Actually, we do not care what political ideology other nations choose as long as they are pro-American. In fact, there are ample examples of America supporting the worst kind of dictators in order to advance our interests.

I don't care if Ashraf is pro-american. I do care when their are two candidates, and one is a radical fundamentalist who seeks to install a theocratic state. Afghanistan has a future with the west, and I'm stating that as a truth,

You need to try to separate what you want to be true from what will be true. Sometimes you will be right but you will also sometimes be wrong. AT the present there is no good reason to think that the US will be able to impress it's will on the people of that country. Much more likely they will lean toward Pakistan and the US will need to continue to kill those who won't succumb to the occupation.

And of course we all should know that the occupation will not end, just as it didn't end in Iraq. It is of utmost consequence that the slaughter of people continues to go on in both countries. And the slaughter exceeds the proclaimed purpose of the missions in both countries.

Facts for you!

Facts for you. There are 0 US Combat troops in Iraq and haven't been for several years. Clap clap clap.

Well you're just plain wrong if you intend to debate what I said. There are lots of US troops in Iraq and they aren't leaving. Neither will they be leaving Afghanistan.

Aside from that, I don't want to play your stupid denial game any further. But you go right ahead and fill your boots!

There are embassy guards of your actually counting that. Which would be stupid because basically every actual nation has embassies in other countries and these embassies are guarded by military personal so...
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 3:40:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 12:45:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:03:39 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:55:28 PM, TheJesusParadox wrote:
If people aren't let to make their own mistakes, there can never be democracy. But that's the paradox of democracy, it's the only system that allows itself to be contested.

Joe, he is right on point with what America think about Democracy: we only support democracy in other nations if a pro-American gets elected. Actually, we do not care what political ideology other nations choose as long as they are pro-American. In fact, there are ample examples of America supporting the worst kind of dictators in order to advance our interests.

I don't care if Ashraf is pro-american. I do care when their are two candidates, and one is a radical fundamentalist who seeks to install a theocratic state. Afghanistan has a future with the west, and I'm stating that as a truth,

You need to try to separate what you want to be true from what will be true. Sometimes you will be right but you will also sometimes be wrong. AT the present there is no good reason to think that the US will be able to impress it's will on the people of that country. Much more likely they will lean toward Pakistan and the US will need to continue to kill those who won't succumb to the occupation.

And of course we all should know that the occupation will not end, just as it didn't end in Iraq. It is of utmost consequence that the slaughter of people continues to go on in both countries. And the slaughter exceeds the proclaimed purpose of the missions in both countries.

Facts for you!

1) The US is not occupying Afghanistan. We tried to leave the country 5 times, but were stopped on request of the National Congress.

2) The US is not slaughtering people. The Taliban was slaughtering people, in one of the worst regimes known to man. We went in on the request of dozens of governments, including the National Coalition.

3) We have no troops in Iraq, besides a couple of bases and outposts near the no fly zone.

4) It would of been morally and politically wrong to leave the country. We just helped a moderately small millitia overthrow a highly radical army. When they took power, they had no army, no government, and no infrastructure, and 40 terrorist groups ready to fill the power vacuum. The US paid for all of that with our budget.

5) The US signed a bilateral security agreement and named Afghanistan a MNNA. Those to things alone cost us dozens of billionns of dollars.

If anything Monty, Afghanistan was the one who ended up benefiting from the 2004 invasion.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 3:44:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 1:09:28 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:03:30 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:45:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:03:39 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:55:28 PM, TheJesusParadox wrote:
If people aren't let to make their own mistakes, there can never be democracy. But that's the paradox of democracy, it's the only system that allows itself to be contested.

Joe, he is right on point with what America think about Democracy: we only support democracy in other nations if a pro-American gets elected. Actually, we do not care what political ideology other nations choose as long as they are pro-American. In fact, there are ample examples of America supporting the worst kind of dictators in order to advance our interests.

I don't care if Ashraf is pro-american. I do care when their are two candidates, and one is a radical fundamentalist who seeks to install a theocratic state. Afghanistan has a future with the west, and I'm stating that as a truth,

You need to try to separate what you want to be true from what will be true. Sometimes you will be right but you will also sometimes be wrong. AT the present there is no good reason to think that the US will be able to impress it's will on the people of that country. Much more likely they will lean toward Pakistan and the US will need to continue to kill those who won't succumb to the occupation.

And of course we all should know that the occupation will not end, just as it didn't end in Iraq. It is of utmost consequence that the slaughter of people continues to go on in both countries. And the slaughter exceeds the proclaimed purpose of the missions in both countries.

Facts for you!

Facts for you. There are 0 US Combat troops in Iraq and haven't been for several years. Clap clap clap.

Well you're just plain wrong if you intend to debate what I said. There are lots of US troops in Iraq and they aren't leaving. Neither will they be leaving Afghanistan.

Aside from that, I don't want to play your stupid denial game any further. But you go right ahead and fill your boots!

We don't even control our bases anymore. We handed them off. We have not one troop in Iraq, besides the 7 guards in our embassy. If you call that a occupation, then that makes me laugh
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 8:13:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 3:44:19 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:09:28 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:03:30 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:45:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:03:39 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:55:28 PM, TheJesusParadox wrote:
If people aren't let to make their own mistakes, there can never be democracy. But that's the paradox of democracy, it's the only system that allows itself to be contested.

Joe, he is right on point with what America think about Democracy: we only support democracy in other nations if a pro-American gets elected. Actually, we do not care what political ideology other nations choose as long as they are pro-American. In fact, there are ample examples of America supporting the worst kind of dictators in order to advance our interests.

I don't care if Ashraf is pro-american. I do care when their are two candidates, and one is a radical fundamentalist who seeks to install a theocratic state. Afghanistan has a future with the west, and I'm stating that as a truth,

You need to try to separate what you want to be true from what will be true. Sometimes you will be right but you will also sometimes be wrong. AT the present there is no good reason to think that the US will be able to impress it's will on the people of that country. Much more likely they will lean toward Pakistan and the US will need to continue to kill those who won't succumb to the occupation.

And of course we all should know that the occupation will not end, just as it didn't end in Iraq. It is of utmost consequence that the slaughter of people continues to go on in both countries. And the slaughter exceeds the proclaimed purpose of the missions in both countries.

Facts for you!

Facts for you. There are 0 US Combat troops in Iraq and haven't been for several years. Clap clap clap.

Well you're just plain wrong if you intend to debate what I said. There are lots of US troops in Iraq and they aren't leaving. Neither will they be leaving Afghanistan.

Aside from that, I don't want to play your stupid denial game any further. But you go right ahead and fill your boots!

We don't even control our bases anymore. We handed them off. We have not one troop in Iraq, besides the 7 guards in our embassy. If you call that a occupation, then that makes me laugh

Something tells me he IS going to call that occupation.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:05:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 8:13:17 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 3:44:19 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:09:28 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:03:30 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:45:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:03:39 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:55:28 PM, TheJesusParadox wrote:
If people aren't let to make their own mistakes, there can never be democracy. But that's the paradox of democracy, it's the only system that allows itself to be contested.

Joe, he is right on point with what America think about Democracy: we only support democracy in other nations if a pro-American gets elected. Actually, we do not care what political ideology other nations choose as long as they are pro-American. In fact, there are ample examples of America supporting the worst kind of dictators in order to advance our interests.

I don't care if Ashraf is pro-american. I do care when their are two candidates, and one is a radical fundamentalist who seeks to install a theocratic state. Afghanistan has a future with the west, and I'm stating that as a truth,

You need to try to separate what you want to be true from what will be true. Sometimes you will be right but you will also sometimes be wrong. AT the present there is no good reason to think that the US will be able to impress it's will on the people of that country. Much more likely they will lean toward Pakistan and the US will need to continue to kill those who won't succumb to the occupation.

And of course we all should know that the occupation will not end, just as it didn't end in Iraq. It is of utmost consequence that the slaughter of people continues to go on in both countries. And the slaughter exceeds the proclaimed purpose of the missions in both countries.

Facts for you!

Facts for you. There are 0 US Combat troops in Iraq and haven't been for several years. Clap clap clap.

Well you're just plain wrong if you intend to debate what I said. There are lots of US troops in Iraq and they aren't leaving. Neither will they be leaving Afghanistan.

Aside from that, I don't want to play your stupid denial game any further. But you go right ahead and fill your boots!

We don't even control our bases anymore. We handed them off. We have not one troop in Iraq, besides the 7 guards in our embassy. If you call that a occupation, then that makes me laugh

Something tells me he IS going to call that occupation.

I've fully read all his posts, and I don't think he even fully understands the situation. He thinks we invaded Afghanistan fir WMD's :/
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:23:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

Afghanistan's precarious future doesn't abrogate -or even threaten- the value or meaning of our investment there. It just means that the Afghani people, when given an opportunity to taste of freedom, mistook it for hemlock. It also emphasizes the reality that democratization requires a midwife, that it's a process which must redefine cultural norms and values and that expecting overnight change is myopically idealistic.
Tsar of DDO
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:26:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:23:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

Afghanistan's precarious future doesn't abrogate -or even threaten- the value or meaning of our investment there. It just means that the Afghani people, when given an opportunity to taste of freedom, mistook it for hemlock. It also emphasizes the reality that democratization requires a midwife, that it's a process which must redefine cultural norms and values and that expecting overnight change is myopically idealistic.

11 years is hardly an over night change
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:39:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:26:21 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:23:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

Afghanistan's precarious future doesn't abrogate -or even threaten- the value or meaning of our investment there. It just means that the Afghani people, when given an opportunity to taste of freedom, mistook it for hemlock. It also emphasizes the reality that democratization requires a midwife, that it's a process which must redefine cultural norms and values and that expecting overnight change is myopically idealistic.

11 years is hardly an over night change

It is when you're thinking about in a generational context. Afghanistan is a country that has known nothing but chaos and invasion since its monarchy's overthrow in the early 1970s. Even then, the extant political order had been falling apart at least since the the 1920s.

So, every living generation of Afghanis has lived under turmoil and no living Afghani's life has existed in any kind of even relative political order. The impact of that cannot be overstated. These are people who are incredibly suspicious of outsiders, to whom the concepts of "democracy" and "freedom" are unknown states of existence. To create a lasting democracy requires first creating an actual political order and then reshaping Afghani culture in a way that is conducive to democratization because if the people don't buy into the idea of elections and votes -rather than militias and weapons- deciding who gets to rule, the vision of a democratic Afghanistan will never be realized.

It's hard for Westerners to even begin to appreciate and understand the status quo in Afghanistan, or the reality of life even in Afghanistan's most modern parts because we have, from birth, been a part of the first world. Leaders in America vie for power with rhetoric rather than bullets and RPGs. That doesn't happen in Afghanistan, nor has it ever happened in Afghanistan, nor will it ever happen if the first world doesn't oversee their transition. Even still, the point is that who the Afghani's elect doesn't undermine the value of American sacrifice there. That election only indicates the choice that Afghani's made. Though, I don't expect either option to be favorable -even though anyone other than Karzai would be an improvement. So, at least there's that.
Tsar of DDO
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:46:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:39:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:26:21 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:23:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

Afghanistan's precarious future doesn't abrogate -or even threaten- the value or meaning of our investment there. It just means that the Afghani people, when given an opportunity to taste of freedom, mistook it for hemlock. It also emphasizes the reality that democratization requires a midwife, that it's a process which must redefine cultural norms and values and that expecting overnight change is myopically idealistic.

11 years is hardly an over night change

It is when you're thinking about in a generational context. Afghanistan is a country that has known nothing but chaos and invasion since its monarchy's overthrow in the early 1970s. Even then, the extant political order had been falling apart at least since the the 1920s.

So, every living generation of Afghanis has lived under turmoil and no living Afghani's life has existed in any kind of even relative political order. The impact of that cannot be overstated. These are people who are incredibly suspicious of outsiders, to whom the concepts of "democracy" and "freedom" are unknown states of existence. To create a lasting democracy requires first creating an actual political order and then reshaping Afghani culture in a way that is conducive to democratization because if the people don't buy into the idea of elections and votes -rather than militias and weapons- deciding who gets to rule, the vision of a democratic Afghanistan will never be realized.

It's hard for Westerners to even begin to appreciate and understand the status quo in Afghanistan, or the reality of life even in Afghanistan's most modern parts because we have, from birth, been a part of the first world. Leaders in America vie for power with rhetoric rather than bullets and RPGs. That doesn't happen in Afghanistan, nor has it ever happened in Afghanistan, nor will it ever happen if the first world doesn't oversee their transition. Even still, the point is that who the Afghani's elect doesn't undermine the value of American sacrifice there. That election only indicates the choice that Afghani's made. Though, I don't expect either option to be favorable -even though anyone other than Karzai would be an improvement. So, at least there's that.

I believe I did address what your saying earlier. Afghan, has never has a peaceful exchange of power in its history, and has always been subjected as a fundamentalist state, and one filled with plenty of unrest.

I do indeed think that who they choose as their president will effect everything we did the last 11 years. We have a candidate who campaigns for a Islamic Fascist state, with ties to several revolutionary groups, and a candidate who will install a actual democracy, without third party influence.

I don't like to sound skeptical , but this scenario played out a million times throughout modern history. Abdullah owes to many groups to many people. Religious extremists will still control the country, the only difference is who. Yeah, the Taliban wont be in power, but his national coalition's just filling the power vacuum. We might as well screw the BSA and Partnership Pacts we have with the country.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:58:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:46:29 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:39:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:26:21 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:23:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

Afghanistan's precarious future doesn't abrogate -or even threaten- the value or meaning of our investment there. It just means that the Afghani people, when given an opportunity to taste of freedom, mistook it for hemlock. It also emphasizes the reality that democratization requires a midwife, that it's a process which must redefine cultural norms and values and that expecting overnight change is myopically idealistic.

11 years is hardly an over night change

It is when you're thinking about in a generational context. Afghanistan is a country that has known nothing but chaos and invasion since its monarchy's overthrow in the early 1970s. Even then, the extant political order had been falling apart at least since the the 1920s.

So, every living generation of Afghanis has lived under turmoil and no living Afghani's life has existed in any kind of even relative political order. The impact of that cannot be overstated. These are people who are incredibly suspicious of outsiders, to whom the concepts of "democracy" and "freedom" are unknown states of existence. To create a lasting democracy requires first creating an actual political order and then reshaping Afghani culture in a way that is conducive to democratization because if the people don't buy into the idea of elections and votes -rather than militias and weapons- deciding who gets to rule, the vision of a democratic Afghanistan will never be realized.

It's hard for Westerners to even begin to appreciate and understand the status quo in Afghanistan, or the reality of life even in Afghanistan's most modern parts because we have, from birth, been a part of the first world. Leaders in America vie for power with rhetoric rather than bullets and RPGs. That doesn't happen in Afghanistan, nor has it ever happened in Afghanistan, nor will it ever happen if the first world doesn't oversee their transition. Even still, the point is that who the Afghani's elect doesn't undermine the value of American sacrifice there. That election only indicates the choice that Afghani's made. Though, I don't expect either option to be favorable -even though anyone other than Karzai would be an improvement. So, at least there's that.

I believe I did address what your saying earlier.

Yeah, well... you didn't.

Afghan, has never has a peaceful exchange of power in its history, and has always been subjected as a fundamentalist state, and one filled with plenty of unrest.

Afghanistan has not always been ruled by religious fundamentalists.

I do indeed think that who they choose as their president will effect everything we did the last 11 years.

I don't think I can say it any more clearly. That election only indicates the choice that Afghani's made. Afghanistan's precarious future doesn't abrogate -or even threaten- the value or meaning of our sacrifice there. The future doesn't change the past, or undermine the value of work done in the past. It might be dismal and it could very well turn out to be less than we'd hoped for, but that doesn't mean that it was all in vain.

We have a candidate who campaigns for a Islamic Fascist state, with ties to several revolutionary groups, and a candidate who will install a actual democracy, without third party influence.

By "third party" I think you're saying "a party whose leadership style is aligned with western standards for political leadership" -and you're hoping for an impossibility. It would be unreasonable to expect, given Afghanistan's past and present, that they could even produce a candidate that would meet our expectations at this point in time. Change is slow, but it must be kept on track -and it could be, but right now, we play the cards we're dealt with the other players at the table. Wishing that there was someone else on the other side isn't productive, and it doesn't undermine the value of the blood, sweat and tears sacrificed to get the table there and the players in the same room in the first place.

I don't like to sound skeptical , but this scenario played out a million times throughout modern history.

No, it hasn't -but it has played out in one specific place before. Just as in Vietnam, Americans are tired of fighting, want to call it quits and go home because they're tired of hearing about all the unpleasantness because they can't conceive of the long-term strategic interest in pursuing democratization and cultivating our investment. It's nothing less than moral and practical cowardice on the American people's part, but that's just how people are.
Tsar of DDO
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 12:08:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:58:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:46:29 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:39:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:26:21 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:23:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

Afghanistan's precarious future doesn't abrogate -or even threaten- the value or meaning of our investment there. It just means that the Afghani people, when given an opportunity to taste of freedom, mistook it for hemlock. It also emphasizes the reality that democratization requires a midwife, that it's a process which must redefine cultural norms and values and that expecting overnight change is myopically idealistic.

11 years is hardly an over night change

It is when you're thinking about in a generational context. Afghanistan is a country that has known nothing but chaos and invasion since its monarchy's overthrow in the early 1970s. Even then, the extant political order had been falling apart at least since the the 1920s.

So, every living generation of Afghanis has lived under turmoil and no living Afghani's life has existed in any kind of even relative political order. The impact of that cannot be overstated. These are people who are incredibly suspicious of outsiders, to whom the concepts of "democracy" and "freedom" are unknown states of existence. To create a lasting democracy requires first creating an actual political order and then reshaping Afghani culture in a way that is conducive to democratization because if the people don't buy into the idea of elections and votes -rather than militias and weapons- deciding who gets to rule, the vision of a democratic Afghanistan will never be realized.

It's hard for Westerners to even begin to appreciate and understand the status quo in Afghanistan, or the reality of life even in Afghanistan's most modern parts because we have, from birth, been a part of the first world. Leaders in America vie for power with rhetoric rather than bullets and RPGs. That doesn't happen in Afghanistan, nor has it ever happened in Afghanistan, nor will it ever happen if the first world doesn't oversee their transition. Even still, the point is that who the Afghani's elect doesn't undermine the value of American sacrifice there. That election only indicates the choice that Afghani's made. Though, I don't expect either option to be favorable -even though anyone other than Karzai would be an improvement. So, at least there's that.

I believe I did address what your saying earlier.

Yeah, well... you didn't.
'
Uh huh. The reason Abdullah is in the lead, is because he represents the most traditional aspects of the country. Ashraf is radically liberal, which is why he lost 10% of the votes before the recount.

Afghan, has never has a peaceful exchange of power in its history, and has always been subjected as a fundamentalist state, and one filled with plenty of unrest.

Afghanistan has not always been ruled by religious fundamentalists.

Afghanistan HAS always been a Islamic Fascist state, unless you count the short period of time before extremists started taking government positions.

I do indeed think that who they choose as their president will effect everything we did the last 11 years.

I don't think I can say it any more clearly. That election only indicates the choice that Afghani's made. Afghanistan's precarious future doesn't abrogate -or even threaten- the value or meaning of our sacrifice there. The future doesn't change the past, or undermine the value of work done in the past. It might be dismal and it could very well turn out to be less than we'd hoped for, but that doesn't mean that it was all in vain.

What were we hoping for? We occupied the country for 11 years, established a functioning system of government, built and trained them an army, and fought off half of the groups that threatened their security. How is it worth it, if the new administration just supports what we just fought off? Another Islamic Fascist regime.

We have a candidate who campaigns for a Islamic Fascist state, with ties to several revolutionary groups, and a candidate who will install a actual democracy, without third party influence.

By "third party" I think you're saying "a party whose leadership style is aligned with western standards for political leadership" -and you're hoping for an impossibility. It would be unreasonable to expect, given Afghanistan's past and present, that they could even produce a candidate that would meet our expectations at this point in time. Change is slow, but it must be kept on track -and it could be, but right now, we play the cards we're dealt with the other players at the table. Wishing that there was someone else on the other side isn't productive, and it doesn't undermine the value of the blood, sweat and tears sacrificed to get the table there and the players in the same room in the first place.

Ashraf actually does meet most "western" standards. People have compared him to Attaturk, who led the muslim nation of turkey through a radical transformation to democracy and basic freedoms.

When I said third party, I was reffering to the various extremist groups and millitias that are allied with the northern coalition or comprise it. These groups will fill the power vacuum, just like the Taliban did.

I don't like to sound skeptical , but this scenario played out a million times throughout modern history.

No, it hasn't -but it has played out in one specific place before. Just as in Vietnam, Americans are tired of fighting, want to call it quits and go home because they're tired of hearing about all the unpleasantness because they can't conceive of the long-term strategic interest in pursuing democratization and cultivating our investment. It's nothing less than moral and practical cowardice on the American people's part, but that's just how people are.

I was referring specifically to governments that bring baggage with them, or who install systems that take them three steps back.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 12:14:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 12:08:11 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:58:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:46:29 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:39:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:26:21 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:23:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

Afghanistan's precarious future doesn't abrogate -or even threaten- the value or meaning of our investment there. It just means that the Afghani people, when given an opportunity to taste of freedom, mistook it for hemlock. It also emphasizes the reality that democratization requires a midwife, that it's a process which must redefine cultural norms and values and that expecting overnight change is myopically idealistic.

11 years is hardly an over night change

It is when you're thinking about in a generational context. Afghanistan is a country that has known nothing but chaos and invasion since its monarchy's overthrow in the early 1970s. Even then, the extant political order had been falling apart at least since the the 1920s.

So, every living generation of Afghanis has lived under turmoil and no living Afghani's life has existed in any kind of even relative political order. The impact of that cannot be overstated. These are people who are incredibly suspicious of outsiders, to whom the concepts of "democracy" and "freedom" are unknown states of existence. To create a lasting democracy requires first creating an actual political order and then reshaping Afghani culture in a way that is conducive to democratization because if the people don't buy into the idea of elections and votes -rather than militias and weapons- deciding who gets to rule, the vision of a democratic Afghanistan will never be realized.

It's hard for Westerners to even begin to appreciate and understand the status quo in Afghanistan, or the reality of life even in Afghanistan's most modern parts because we have, from birth, been a part of the first world. Leaders in America vie for power with rhetoric rather than bullets and RPGs. That doesn't happen in Afghanistan, nor has it ever happened in Afghanistan, nor will it ever happen if the first world doesn't oversee their transition. Even still, the point is that who the Afghani's elect doesn't undermine the value of American sacrifice there. That election only indicates the choice that Afghani's made. Though, I don't expect either option to be favorable -even though anyone other than Karzai would be an improvement. So, at least there's that.

I believe I did address what your saying earlier.

Yeah, well... you didn't.
'
Uh huh. The reason Abdullah is in the lead, is because he represents the most traditional aspects of the country. Ashraf is radically liberal, which is why he lost 10% of the votes before the recount.

And that's inconsequential to my point...


Afghan, has never has a peaceful exchange of power in its history, and has always been subjected as a fundamentalist state, and one filled with plenty of unrest.

Afghanistan has not always been ruled by religious fundamentalists.

Afghanistan HAS always been a Islamic Fascist state, unless you count the short period of time before extremists started taking government positions.

Dude... just read the Wikipedia page. Remember that time when we talked about conservatism in Japan and you didn't know what you were talking about then? This is a similar situation.

I do indeed think that who they choose as their president will effect everything we did the last 11 years.

I don't think I can say it any more clearly. That election only indicates the choice that Afghani's made. Afghanistan's precarious future doesn't abrogate -or even threaten- the value or meaning of our sacrifice there. The future doesn't change the past, or undermine the value of work done in the past. It might be dismal and it could very well turn out to be less than we'd hoped for, but that doesn't mean that it was all in vain.

What were we hoping for? We occupied the country for 11 years, established a functioning system of government, built and trained them an army, and fought off half of the groups that threatened their security. How is it worth it, if the new administration just supports what we just fought off? Another Islamic Fascist regime.

You're framing value of past efforts as contingent upon future results, when the future results depend on more than past efforts.

We have a candidate who campaigns for a Islamic Fascist state, with ties to several revolutionary groups, and a candidate who will install a actual democracy, without third party influence.

By "third party" I think you're saying "a party whose leadership style is aligned with western standards for political leadership" -and you're hoping for an impossibility. It would be unreasonable to expect, given Afghanistan's past and present, that they could even produce a candidate that would meet our expectations at this point in time. Change is slow, but it must be kept on track -and it could be, but right now, we play the cards we're dealt with the other players at the table. Wishing that there was someone else on the other side isn't productive, and it doesn't undermine the value of the blood, sweat and tears sacrificed to get the table there and the players in the same room in the first place.

Ashraf actually does meet most "western" standards. People have compared him to Attaturk, who led the muslim nation of turkey through a radical transformation to democracy and basic freedoms.

Attaturk is hardly the guy I want in Afghanistan, lol. But even still, that doesn't mitigate my point. More or less favorable candidates to western interests could be elected. We don't have control over who the Afghani people elect -but we do control how we respond to that election. The point is that whatever happens, that just indicates how we've got to deal with Afghanistan in future diplomatic/strategic dealings. It doesn't abrogate the value of American sacrifice there.

When I said third party, I was reffering to the various extremist groups and millitias that are allied with the northern coalition or comprise it. These groups will fill the power vacuum, just like the Taliban did.

Ah. Still doesn't impact my point.

I don't like to sound skeptical , but this scenario played out a million times throughout modern history.

No, it hasn't -but it has played out in one specific place before. Just as in Vietnam, Americans are tired of fighting, want to call it quits and go home because they're tired of hearing about all the unpleasantness because they can't conceive of the long-term strategic interest in pursuing democratization and cultivating our investment. It's nothing less than moral and practical cowardice on the American people's part, but that's just how people are.

I was referring specifically to governments that bring baggage with them, or who install systems that take them three steps back.

Still doesn't impact my point.
Tsar of DDO
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 12:16:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 12:14:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/3/2014 12:08:11 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:58:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:46:29 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:39:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:26:21 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:23:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:50:36 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I'm just going to call out the hard fact of the matter, and please don't try to convince me otherwise. The Afghan election resulted in a revote, due to neither side having a majority vote.

If Ashraf doesn't win the election, then everything we did in Afghanistan was for nothing. All the casualties, unrest, economic burden, will be all for nothing.

Afghanistan's precarious future doesn't abrogate -or even threaten- the value or meaning of our investment there. It just means that the Afghani people, when given an opportunity to taste of freedom, mistook it for hemlock. It also emphasizes the reality that democratization requires a midwife, that it's a process which must redefine cultural norms and values and that expecting overnight change is myopically idealistic.

11 years is hardly an over night change

It is when you're thinking about in a generational context. Afghanistan is a country that has known nothing but chaos and invasion since its monarchy's overthrow in the early 1970s. Even then, the extant political order had been falling apart at least since the the 1920s.

So, every living generation of Afghanis has lived under turmoil and no living Afghani's life has existed in any kind of even relative political order. The impact of that cannot be overstated. These are people who are incredibly suspicious of outsiders, to whom the concepts of "democracy" and "freedom" are unknown states of existence. To create a lasting democracy requires first creating an actual political order and then reshaping Afghani culture in a way that is conducive to democratization because if the people don't buy into the idea of elections and votes -rather than militias and weapons- deciding who gets to rule, the vision of a democratic Afghanistan will never be realized.

It's hard for Westerners to even begin to appreciate and understand the status quo in Afghanistan, or the reality of life even in Afghanistan's most modern parts because we have, from birth, been a part of the first world. Leaders in America vie for power with rhetoric rather than bullets and RPGs. That doesn't happen in Afghanistan, nor has it ever happened in Afghanistan, nor will it ever happen if the first world doesn't oversee their transition. Even still, the point is that who the Afghani's elect doesn't undermine the value of American sacrifice there. That election only indicates the choice that Afghani's made. Though, I don't expect either option to be favorable -even though anyone other than Karzai would be an improvement. So, at least there's that.

I believe I did address what your saying earlier.

Yeah, well... you didn't.
'
Uh huh. The reason Abdullah is in the lead, is because he represents the most traditional aspects of the country. Ashraf is radically liberal, which is why he lost 10% of the votes before the recount.

And that's inconsequential to my point...


Afghan, has never has a peaceful exchange of power in its history, and has always been subjected as a fundamentalist state, and one filled with plenty of unrest.

Afghanistan has not always been ruled by religious fundamentalists.

Afghanistan HAS always been a Islamic Fascist state, unless you count the short period of time before extremists started taking government positions.

Dude... just read the Wikipedia page. Remember that time when we talked about conservatism in Japan and you didn't know what you were talking about then? This is a similar situation.

I do indeed think that who they choose as their president will effect everything we did the last 11 years.

I don't think I can say it any more clearly. That election only indicates the choice that Afghani's made. Afghanistan's precarious future doesn't abrogate -or even threaten- the value or meaning of our sacrifice there. The future doesn't change the past, or undermine the value of work done in the past. It might be dismal and it could very well turn out to be less than we'd hoped for, but that doesn't mean that it was all in vain.

What were we hoping for? We occupied the country for 11 years, established a functioning system of government, built and trained them an army, and fought off half of the groups that threatened their security. How is it worth it, if the new administration just supports what we just fought off? Another Islamic Fascist regime.

You're framing value of past efforts as contingent upon future results, when the future results depend on more than past efforts.

We have a candidate who campaigns for a Islamic Fascist state, with ties to several revolutionary groups, and a candidate who will install a actual democracy, without third party influence.

By "third party" I think you're saying "a party whose leadership style is aligned with western standards for political leadership" -and you're hoping for an impossibility. It would be unreasonable to expect, given Afghanistan's past and present, that they could even produce a candidate that would meet our expectations at this point in time. Change is slow, but it must be kept on track -and it could be, but right now, we play the cards we're dealt with the other players at the table. Wishing that there was someone else on the other side isn't productive, and it doesn't undermine the value of the blood, sweat and tears sacrificed to get the table there and the players in the same room in the first place.

Ashraf actually does meet most "western" standards. People have compared him to Attaturk, who led the muslim nation of turkey through a radical transformation to democracy and basic freedoms.

Attaturk is hardly the guy I want in Afghanistan, lol. But even still, that doesn't mitigate my point. More or less favorable candidates to western interests could be elected. We don't have control over who the Afghani people elect -but we do control how we respond to that election. The point is that whatever happens, that just indicates how we've got to deal with Afghanistan in future diplomatic/strategic dealings. It doesn't abrogate the value of American sacrifice there.

When I said third party, I was reffering to the various extremist groups and millitias that are allied with the northern coalition or comprise it. These groups will fill the power vacuum, just like the Taliban did.

Ah. Still doesn't impact my point.

I don't like to sound skeptical , but this scenario played out a million times throughout modern history.

No, it hasn't -but it has played out in one specific place before. Just as in Vietnam, Americans are tired of fighting, want to call it quits and go home because they're tired of hearing about all the unpleasantness because they can't conceive of the long-term strategic interest in pursuing democratization and cultivating our investment. It's nothing less than moral and practical cowardice on the American people's part, but that's just how people are.

I was referring specifically to governments that bring baggage with them, or who install systems that take them three steps back.

Still doesn't impact my point.

This thread has exhausted the character limit, and has resorted to one word responses. That's a good sign we need to stop, and I don't get all the impact my point
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 12:17:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 12:16:21 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:

Reread what I wrote. Let it sink in. Maybe you'll want to respond tomorrow.
Tsar of DDO
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 12:25:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 12:17:13 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/3/2014 12:16:21 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:

Reread what I wrote. Let it sink in. Maybe you'll want to respond tomorrow.

I would of responded to that one paragraph, but i had 5 characters, so I'll do that here.

Attaturk is hardly the guy I want in Afghanistan, lol. But even still, that doesn't mitigate my point. More or less favorable candidates to western interests could be elected. We don't have control over who the Afghani people elect -but we do control how we respond to that election. The point is that whatever happens, that just indicates how we've got to deal with Afghanistan in future diplomatic/strategic dealings. It doesn't abrogate the value of American sacrifice there.

Attaturk was a great guy. Turkey was in a period of upheaval, being subjugated between east and west, along with infighting between reformers and traditionalists. He led his country through one of the most impressive modernization's in modern history. A country which has never been through democracy, and had just been occupied by Italy and Greece.

Turkey's situation is a lot like Afghanistan's right now, which leads me to believe that extreme reformists like Ashraf are what the country needs. My problem is not with who gets elected though, it mostly relies on his decisions and platform, which are no different then those of other Fascist governments.

I think your trying to argue that the US should respect Afghanistan's decision, and I agree, but that does not change the outcome of what happens if Abdul gets in power. I really see no reason how the lives, money, and work we put into the country will not be of waste if the vacuums just filled by the same idiots.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 12:30:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 12:25:03 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I think your trying to argue that the US should respect Afghanistan's decision, and I agree, but that does not change the outcome of what happens if Abdul gets in power. I really see no reason how the lives, money, and work we put into the country will not be of waste if the vacuums just filled by the same idiots.

The point, articulated over numerous posts now, was that if Adbul gets power, that does not devalue American sacrifice in Afghanistan. The reason for that is because Abdul may have power now, but that doesn't mean that he's going to always have power in the future or that any damage he does is irreversible. The reason you don't see that is because you can't think further than a result you don't like.
Tsar of DDO
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 12:36:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 12:30:10 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/3/2014 12:25:03 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I think your trying to argue that the US should respect Afghanistan's decision, and I agree, but that does not change the outcome of what happens if Abdul gets in power. I really see no reason how the lives, money, and work we put into the country will not be of waste if the vacuums just filled by the same idiots.

The point, articulated over numerous posts now, was that if Adbul gets power, that does not devalue American sacrifice in Afghanistan. The reason for that is because Abdul may have power now, but that doesn't mean that he's going to always have power in the future or that any damage he does is irreversible.

Thank you for the simplified answer. I already said in another post, that I don't mind if Abdullah gets power, as long as power will be relinquished peacefully following the end of his term.

Unfortunately, I don't foresee that happening at all. When has a authoritarian leader ever taken power, and kept democracy intact. It simply doesn't happen, and from what I read of Abdullah's platform, the Sharia laws he wants to impose makes it very easy to claim dictatorship in the name of Allah. So what I'm trying to say, is that Fascist leaders should not be trusted to uphold a democratic institution.

The reason you don't see that is because you can't think further than a result you don't like.

Explained above, and frankly, ad hominen's don't warrant response. I adequately displayed my reasoning.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 12:44:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 12:36:26 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 12:30:10 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/3/2014 12:25:03 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
I think your trying to argue that the US should respect Afghanistan's decision, and I agree, but that does not change the outcome of what happens if Abdul gets in power. I really see no reason how the lives, money, and work we put into the country will not be of waste if the vacuums just filled by the same idiots.

The point, articulated over numerous posts now, was that if Adbul gets power, that does not devalue American sacrifice in Afghanistan. The reason for that is because Abdul may have power now, but that doesn't mean that he's going to always have power in the future or that any damage he does is irreversible.

Thank you for the simplified answer. I already said in another post, that I don't mind if Abdullah gets power, as long as power will be relinquished peacefully following the end of his term.

Unfortunately, I don't foresee that happening at all. When has a authoritarian leader ever taken power, and kept democracy intact. It simply doesn't happen, and from what I read of Abdullah's platform, the Sharia laws he wants to impose makes it very easy to claim dictatorship in the name of Allah. So what I'm trying to say, is that Fascist leaders should not be trusted to uphold a democratic institution.

I'm not saying that fascist leaders should be trusted, for any reason -nor was that an implication of what I said.

The reason you don't see that is because you can't think further than a result you don't like.

Explained above, and frankly, ad hominen's don't warrant response. I adequately displayed my reasoning.

That wasn't an ad hom -it was a stated fact. Your perspective is necessarily constrained to one event, while you're not adequately considering what came before or what could come after that event.
Tsar of DDO