You and others keep bringing this up like it's some sort of brilliant criticism, as though an army travelling to a different country shouldn't have supplies and equipment, and the government shouldn't have paid suppliers for those things. A war isn't like a charity pancake breakfast where you ask the volunteers to bring spatulas and extra syrup from home.
9 You helped them create their own Constitution and democratic government which was intended to look like and be amenable to your own. No one (AFAIK) here is arguing that you were "in charge" of Afghanistan, but then again for much of our time there the British were not directly in charge of India. The East India company was chartered in Britain but floated on the stock market, open to investments from around the globe and supported a local government amenable to (profitable) British cooperation. At the time much the same arguments were used to justify the British presence, that we were civilising the locals, bringing them modern values, morals, technology, infrastructure. No one now would seriously argue our intentions were selfless, nor would they deny the long term ramifications. That's on us. Afghanistan is on you.
I bring it up in response to the claim that the goal was to "help Afghans". In fact it was the shareholders of weapons companies and the like who have benefited, and who clearly had an interest in perpetuating things indefinitely.
And the fire department is actually a scam to funnel money to the powerful hose and ladder and Dalmatian industries.
You're all over the map here. "America did something that liberated women but they're still monsters because it wasn't their primary motivation!" "America just wanted to lash out violently in revenge, the 20 years it spent rebuilding Afghanistan don't count because it eventually left!" "America doesn't have the moral legitimacy to help anyone ever! No more trying to help, you jerks! " "Why doesn't America do the same thing I condemned it for doing in Afghanistan in other countries where it has no credible excuse for intervening in the affairs of those people? Why aren't they helping? "
No, quite straightforward. Having started something contentious the only decent course is to see it through and make good on the claims of benign intentions else the end result will be worse for those women than the previous status quo. I haven't emphasised how the Taliban’s mentality has been shaped by centuries of outside interference to generate sympathy for them but rather to explain my prediction of a move even further to the extremes and thus a worsening of conditions for those women, many of whom have never known the Taliban first hand. I draw attention to the imperialistic nature if the invasion because the historical parallels are too common and numerous to deny. That the occupation was largely a strategic failure in no way deters from the reality of self interest in the intent or the loss of prestige that was being compensated for. That is not compatible with the assertion that the purpose was humanitarian, nor does the specificity of the concern in light of the tolerance shown elsewhere really fit with the narrative of a West set on improving the lives of oppressed women. Empires always make that claim and in no way is that mutually exclusive with private enterprise or investment.
America and Russia never really cared about liberating those concentration camps, they just wanted to hurt someone over Pearl Harbour! And Germany didn't even do Pearl Harbour! Germany loved the Nazis, that's why they were in charge in the first place. I've got a survey here that says Germans love it when the trains run on time. It's all a scam to enrich Ford and the makers of Tootsie Rolls!
I know you're joshing here, but that's actually pretty damn close to the truth. People knew of the concentration camps and many Jews were turned away at ports and sent back to Europe, mostly to their deaths. WWII is probably the last war people agreed we should have gotten involved in, but let's not pretend that we would have joined up to help England if we hadn't gotten attacked. The fact that they could use "security" as an excuse to round up Japanese folks and steal the tons of farmland many owned out West was an added bonus.
No, you were just a nation. Not a great experiment, world police, champions of democracy. Just a country like any other being as cynical as any other.
We were also a nation that convinced most of it's population that women were too crazy to vote, black people do better when whipped and enslaved by white masters, and the bible said it was our destiny to kill off the natives and claim their land. not that other nations did not do similar things, but we pretended we were the harbingers of freedom while doing these things.
The story of the MS St Louis. I bet a whole lotta people would object to this being taught in schools. This Twitter account shares the stories of the passengers on that ship.
And now you have the same sort of thing happening with FOX etc playing the "We can't bring Afghan refugees here! They're either terrorists or they'll want Sharia!!!" card.
Racists gunna racist. I must point out that the US does allow for the application of religious law in civil contracts if the parties to the contract agree to it. What they do not get is freedom may mean a person abides by a religious code rather than the laws of the land. That just goes down to the problems with them being perfectly fine with imposing their religious beliefs on others through morality laws, while they hate on other groups for practicing their religious morality in their community. This is where the government should be small. This is the freedom that the government should allow to an extent that it does not harm others unreasonably. The government has a purpose in the social sector with regulations and laws based on protecting people from the harm of others. Still, in the case of our bodies the government should stay out of it except where it may effect society like with vaccinations and the spread of infections and disease.
I dealt with that a lot when I was up in NY. It should apply to anyone who wishes to use that standard. It should not be forced like we do with drugs and drinking laws, but there should be no forced breaking of religious vows. That being said there should be some reasonable alternative that is provided by the public.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/29/asia/afghanistan-kabul-evacuation-intl/index.html Uh oh, the US killed some alleged ISIS-K suicide bombers with a drone strike. Imperialism! Colonization! We have no right to impose our values on this situation! Defending ourselves just makes the Afghan people hate us more!
I almost certainly could... but mocking the "America is always wrong" crowd isn't technically whining. It's mockery.
"You shouldn't defend yourself if you are where you aren't wanted." "Okay, we'll leave." "You can't leave. This is your mess and you have to clean it up no matter how long it takes."
I'm not defending ISIS-K, but they have every right to use violence against evil foreign invaders, and any civilians caught in the middle should blame the colonizers that have no reason to be there. Also, committing to a suicide bombing takes true bravery. But I'm not defending those brave, heroic freedom fighters and I'll be very offended if you try to suggest otherwise. WHY DOESN'T AMERICA TRY TO HELP MORE??
Rick is the biggest anti-American voice left on this board and even he hasn't been railing on Biden for most of this.
