I'm neither. I'm a seventeen year old A-Level student in England who doesn't give a flying fuck about where my national loyalties lie.
Are all soldiers like the Nazis?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
She fails to make logical sense quite a bit, doesn't she?
I'm asking you, in their position, would you support the collaborators with the occupiers of your country or the ones fighting the occupation?
I'm trying to figure out how you define "the enemy"
how does that follow?
---------------------------
when we pulled out of the vietnam war, what happened to our sewer systems?
If I knew the so-called occupiers were not trying to take over my country but rather defeat a common enemy, then I might try to understand the relatively few innocent deaths in the context of fighting a difficult guerilla war.
Personally, in their position, I would most likely become a member of the Afghan National Police. It would be a source of pride for me to help bring security and independence to my country, especially after all of the crap that has happened.
The corrupt ones notwithstanding, many police and army members in Afghanistan see it as an opportunity to have a safe and secure country.
The corrupt ones notwithstanding, many police and army members in Afghanistan see it as an opportunity to have a safe and secure country.
Thats not true. You'd probably go with your co-religionists even if they were trying to take over your country. And you would not care about the body count. You've already proved that.
That depends on whether I felt I was oppressed by the government the occupiers were fighting to rid us of. If I wanted away with the old, totalitarian regime, and I saw that the occupiers had far superior weaponry and numbers, of course I would side with them. Your first goal should be self preservation, not fighting for a lost cause.
Thats fine, so for you, "the enemy" would be your countrymen and you would collaborate with the invaders to kill those who opposed them. There is usually a segment of collaborators required to make any occupation a success.
And I'd be a fucking idiot, someone should kill me before I spread my foolishness to any more generations.
Most definitely. The Taliban who came into power were the children of war, brought up under terrible conditions in refugee camps [with the highest infant mortality rate in the world, ignored by everyone in the world], they lacked education, suffered from the trauma of war and displacement and lacked any real cohesive relationship with their community. Like all such war children, they were violent and defensive.
But if the US had not imposed sanctions on them and forced them into greater and greater difficulties of administration, in a generation or two, they would have become open to being guided by the people they admired the most: the Americans. Ironic, then, that now they are back in the cycle of war and deprivation.
Listen... there are no bad reasons for disposing of totalitarianism, wherever it may be. If it could have been removed by sanctions, they would have worked. They were not the "poor, meek, oppressed" people you see them as. The Taliban were and still are nothing more than thugs. They were the oppressors.
At some point, you have to decide whether you stand for anything other than self-congratulatory passivity.
Crap like this makes no sense at all specially knowing that every nation wants only its interests .
So whats next, a war on Saudi Arabia? Israel? China?
Is it not in our interest to reduce the power of fundamentalist Muslims?
So how do you fight an enemy when fighting creates more enemies?