Clear and Present Danger

[Exhumed]

I know you're probably bored with all that time on your hands, but is this really the best you can come up with? I mean, this is just lazy. Besides the obvious ham-handed trolling, you don't even address the topic that YOU tried to create. If there was a question (and there should have been) then debate over the fears of the Dutch could be discussed. But there was no question, only another troll.

Trolling is not defined as someone having vastly different views as you/the average american.

Apparently to you something like,

Can you give me a reason why Afghanis should not kill Dutch troops occupying their country?

is highly extreme, and you find it incomprehensible to be seriously put forward, so bluntly?

I find it rather rational. They are suffering under an occupation. Does this actually need to be explained further?

I'm sure that if the US was occupied by China you would have no problem with the concept.

 

[15ofthe19]

You're right. Afghanistan was a lovely place back in 2001.

I don't why anybody bothers anymore. This is like arguing with my 2 year old.

 

[Exhumed]

You're right. Afghanistan was a lovely place back in 2001.

Who said that? Please elaborate (I don't want to have to guess which point you're making).

I don't why anybody bothers anymore. This is like arguing with my 2 year old.

I'm unable to help you there.

 

[(Q)]

What is clearly so blatantly obvious to everyone else fails entirely on Muslims.

Bad reviews hurt filmmakers far more than cutlery. The pen IS mightier than the sword.

Perhaps what we're dealing with is the inability of Muslims to use a pen.

 

[Exhumed]

Not all Muslims are using the sword, and I'm sure a lot of them have used the pen.

 

[Mr. G]

Perhaps what we're dealing with is the inability of Muslims to use a pen.

Q means use a pen in ways other than having them stuck through your eye sockets.

 

[15ofthe19]

I wonder if the Dutch troops working in Afghanistan under the ISAF would bother to risk it all if they were aware just how worthless some of the lives are that they are defending?

 

[Exhumed]

Is that what they are doing? Risking their lives for the betterment of Afghanis?

 

[15ofthe19]

Is that what they are doing? Risking their lives for the betterment of Afghanis?

I wasn't referring to the Afghanis.

 

[Exhumed]

With your complaint of "ham-handed trolling" you sure don't do much to have a intelligent conversation. I wanted to debate the point of view of Afghanistan's occupation that an Afghani should be expected to have, but I guess I'll abort.

 

[15ofthe19]

With your complaint of "ham-handed trolling" you sure don't do much to have a intelligent conversation. I wanted to debate the point of view of Afghanistan's occupation that an Afghani should be expected to have, but I guess I'll abort.

Abort? This whole thread is an abortion. Listen, you can pretend to care, but the fact is you don't. You never have.

I guess what continues to just puzzle me is how on earth someone like you, or SAM for that matter, surrenders their mind to hatred to the point that they defend the indefensible. You don't even understand that which you try to stick up for. How does that work, exactly?

 

[Exhumed]

Abort? This whole thread is an abortion. Listen, you can pretend to care, but the fact is you don't. You never have.

Are you projecting on me? In any case, all I don't see how that has anything to with anything.

I guess what continues to just puzzle me is how on earth someone like you, or SAM for that matter, surrenders their mind to hatred to the point that they defend the indefensible.

Then I'm happy to inform you that such a thing did not happen. What puzzles *me* is how you are unable to understand legitimate disagreements, and you must assume it is hate. You sound like Bush, saying terrorists "hate our freedom", rather than facing reality.

How does that work, exactly?

I already made a point of debate with you on this, but so far you've preferred to talk about personal things. I'll try again.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect the Afghanistan people to tolerate an occupation, especially given the way it has gone, and it's lack of progress.

If your rebuttal is to say that they deserved it because of terrorist attacks, and are in no position to complain... how would you like it if the same happened to you? The US has done plenty of things itself. What if someone attacked and occupied us for 7 years (and counting)? For some reason, I don't think you would be tolerant of an occupier, no matter what.

 

[15ofthe19]

You're not going to answer my questions. Why in the hell should I answer yours?

Just answer this: Would the world be better off if the U.S. had made no response after 9/11, and the Taliban was still controlling Afghanistan, and allowing Al Qaeda a safe haven to operate and coordinate more attacks around the world?

 

[Exhumed]

You're not going to answer my questions. Why in the hell should I answer yours?

Just answer this: Would the world be better off if the U.S. had made no response after 9/11, and the Taliban was still controlling Afghanistan, and allowing Al Qaeda a safe haven to operate and coordinate more attacks around the world?

There is a lot of room between no response and invasion + occupation. But, since you didn't ask that, I will just say yes.

Look at the statistics of terrorist attacks. They aren't a huge threat. The invasion of Afghanistan has done incomparably more damage to them than they did to us.

And on the contrary to thinking that we are safer from them not having a safe haven in Afghanistan, I think we are worse off. We've created more terrorist and strengthened the extreme elements.

Also, what do you think the chances of success are in Afghanistan? Occupations tend not to work.

 

[15ofthe19]

There is a lot of room between no response and invasion + occupation. But, since you didn't ask that, I will just say yes.

Look at the statistics of terrorist attacks. They aren't a huge threat. The invasion of Afghanistan has done incomparably more damage to them than they did to us.

And on the contrary to thinking that we are safer from them not having a safe haven in Afghanistan, I think we are worse off. We've created more terrorist and strengthened the extreme elements.

Also, what do you think the chances of success are in Afghanistan? Occupations tend not to work.

If you had been the POTUS on 9/12/01, what steps would you have taken to deal with the attack?

 

[S.A.M.]

Fired the CIA and FBI chiefs for incompetence.

 

[Exhumed]

Multilateral diplomacy. There was a lot of support of the US during that time, a lot could of been done. Whether much would of been accomplished with Afghanistan directly, I don't know. I didn't say there was a immediate, perfect solution for all parties. But a lot could have been done. There was a huge diplomatic opportunity with Iran, who tried to make themselves an ally in dealing with Afghanistan. I would end US actions that give justifications to extremists. I would give aid to progressive elements in the entire region.

They are human beings after all. I'm sure the people of Afghanistan would choose progress towards normalcy (as they did before the US supported Osama decades ago) over living in the conditions they were in.

 

[15ofthe19]

Multilateral diplomacy. There was a lot of support of the US during that time, a lot could of been done. Whether much would of been accomplished with Afghanistan directly, I don't know. I didn't say there was a immediate, perfect solution for all parties. But a lot could have been done. There was a huge diplomatic opportunity with Iran, who tried to make themselves an ally in dealing with Afghanistan. I would end US actions that give justifications to extremists. I would give aid to progressive elements in the entire region.

They are human beings after all. I'm sure the people of Afghanistan would choose progress towards normalcy (as they did before the US supported Osama decades ago) over living in the conditions they were in.

Clinton attempted to establish diplomatic relations with the Taliban, but it became apparent that they simply weren't able to understand the concept. You must remember, we're talking about the equivalent of backwoods hillbillies as government officials. They had no concept of foreign policy.

I'm sure you mean well, but you're simply out of your element here. You've obviously done nothing to educate yourself about what the situation was on the ground in Afghanistan in 2001. This wasn't a sovereign nation with diplomatic protocols in place with which to negotiate. It was a failed state, recognized diplomatically by only two countries, if my memory serves me correctly.

Regardless, they were giving safe haven to terrorists, and they knew it, and ultimately paid the price as they should have.

You talk of occupation. Would you consider the Marshall Plan an occupation? And if so, would it have better if the Allies had just left Germany and Japan in utter ruin?

 

[Exhumed]

Clinton attempted to establish diplomatic relations with the Taliban, but it became apparent that they simply weren't able to understand the concept. You must remember, we're talking about the equivalent of backwoods hillbillies as government officials. They had no concept of foreign policy.

The people at the top, perhaps, but I'm sure the majority of the population could be turned towards progress. Indoctrination is hard to fight, but all humans tend to want similar things. I think the extremist culture can be dealt with diplomatically, eventually. Simply because it is not a desirable condition for any normal person, and if they have no provocation, or moral justification, they will opt towards progressiveness.

Perhaps you could succinctly inform me what Clinton tried. I know of nothing besides sanctions and retaliatory bombing of terrorist camps.

I'm sure you mean well, but you're simply out of your element here. You've obviously done nothing to educate yourself about what the situation was on the ground in Afghanistan in 2001. This wasn't a sovereign nation with diplomatic protocols in place with which to negotiate. It was a failed state, recognized diplomatically by only two countries, if my memory serves me correctly.

They did have people to negotiate with, I am fairly sure of that.

Regardless, they were giving safe haven to terrorists, and they knew it, and ultimately paid the price as they should have.

Some of them paid a price, while the people of Afghanistan payed most of it for them. Lots of the organization survived and simply relocated. I consider that a big reason for invasion to be a poor decision.

You talk of occupation. Would you consider the Marshall Plan an occupation? And if so, would it have better if the Allies had just left Germany and Japan in utter ruin?

Well, they were occupied. The circumstances in those cases were different, especially Japan. What happened in Japan is pretty unique. As far as I know, there was no guerrilla warfare resistance in Germany, or none of significance.

 

[15ofthe19]

The people at the top, perhaps, but I'm sure the majority of the population could be turned towards progress. Indoctrination is hard to fight, but all humans tend to want similar things. I think the extremist culture can be dealt with diplomatically, eventually. Simply because it is not a desirable condition for any normal person, and if they have no provocation, or moral justification, they will opt towards progressiveness.

Perhaps you could succinctly inform me what Clinton tried. I know of nothing besides sanctions and retaliatory bombing of terrorist camps.



They did have people to negotiate with, I am fairly sure of that.



Some of them paid a price, while the people of Afghanistan payed most of it for them. Lots of the organization survived and simply relocated. I consider that a big reason for invasion to be a poor decision.



Well, they were occupied. The circumstances in those cases were different, especially Japan. What happened in Japan is pretty unique. As far as I know, there was no guerrilla warfare resistance in Germany, or none of significance.

Ok, so you more or less concede that there was no negotiating with the Taliban, and you would be correct to accept that fact, because it's true.

As for the rest of what you posted, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. How does one nation establish diplomatic relations with the man on the street? I guess that's what you were trying to say, but honestly, I'm not sure. I think you want to believe there was something there to deal with that just wasn't.

As to your response to my question about the Marshall Plan, it was a nice dodge, but you really didn't answer the question. I'll answer for you: If the U.S. had not stayed in Germany and Japan and helped restore the government and rebuild the infrastructure, those countries would still be lagging behind where they are today. There is no question that the U.S. presence in those countries expedited their respective rise to be the economic powers that they became. And all the while, an occupation was underway, at least under your definition of it.