• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US to keep nearly 10k troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

OldWorldOrder said:
Well...doesn't every nation have a reason for doing things? Aren't you very critical of American hegemony? But doesn't the US have a reason for doing so?
Click to expand...

That is true. I'm just saying, there is another side to that story.
 
MildSteel said:
That is true. I'm just saying, there is another side to that story.
Click to expand...

There's another side to every story. I think the point is that Pakistan has been attempting to get Afghanistan under its sphere of influence for decades. Of course there's reasons why- it'd be nonsensical that it would do something for no reason at all- but that doesn't change the fact itself.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
There's another side to every story. I think the point is that Pakistan has been attempting to get Afghanistan under its sphere of influence for decades. Of course there's reasons why- it'd be nonsensical that it would do something for no reason at all- but that doesn't change the fact itself.
Click to expand...

OK. You are telling the truth. I don't argue with what I perceive to be truth.
 
Ikari said:
Yay, you've seen something I said happens. Huzzah! And then spoke nothing to the statistics that I brought up. Great!

Any other null factors you want to get off your chest. I'm sure there was more than 1 humanitarian effort in Afghanistan, maybe you can point that out too. That would be real helpful.
Click to expand...


In the post I was replying to you implied we were not doing those things. When some one says we could be doing something it implies we are not doing it.
You also didn't bring up any statistics what so ever.
Just because you got caught making crap up is no reason to get butt hurt.
 
Last edited:
braindrain said:
In the post I was replying to you implied we were not doing those things. You also didn't bring up any statistics what so ever.
Just because you got caught making crap up is no reason to get al snotty.
Click to expand...

No, this is the post you quoted

Ikari said:
It's not. We have had limited humanitarian efforts in some of the countries. But our major form of interventionism is military, and we've done far more damage than good.

Arguing from a position of propaganda and hyperbole is not helpful.
Click to expand...

What does it say? Read it. What does it say? LIMITED HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS. Does that mean zero? No, it doesn't. What else does it say? OUR MAJOR FORM OF INTERVENTIONISM IS MILITARY. Did you read that? It seems maybe not so much. You know what that says? We have limited humanitarian efforts, but our major form of interventionism is military. That's a statistical assessment. X and Y, but more Y than X.

Do you get it? Can you read? Can you comprehend what was written? Because it's clear as day. Just because you got caught making crap up is no reason to get all snotty.
 
MildSteel said:
OK. You are telling the truth. I don't argue with what I perceive to be truth.
Click to expand...

Just odd that you seem willing to go through the justifications for some organizations but not others.
 
Ikari said:
No, this is the post you quoted



What does it say? Read it. What does it say? LIMITED HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS. Does that mean zero? No, it doesn't. What else does it say? OUR MAJOR FORM OF INTERVENTIONISM IS MILITARY. Did you read that? It seems maybe not so much. You know what that says? We have limited humanitarian efforts, but our major form of interventionism is military. That's a statistical assessment. X and Y, but more Y than X.

Do you get it? Can you read? Can you comprehend what was written? Because it's clear as day. Just because you got caught making crap up is no reason to get all snotty.
Click to expand...

That is not the post that I first replied to and the fact that you changed your crap after getting called on it changes nothing. Or did you forget what you said. Here I will remind you.

Ikari said:
But we could engage in our own propaganda if we were really interested in breaking the cycle. Building roads and schools and hospitals would go a much further way to producing a more Western sympathetic Middle East than blowing up friends and family could ever do.
Click to expand...

Nice try though
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Just odd that you seem willing to go through the justifications for some organizations but not others.
Click to expand...

It's like you are trying to find a fight. What's up with that?????????????
 
braindrain said:
That is not the post that I first replied to and the fact that you changed your crap after getting called on it changes nothing. Or did you forget what you said. Here I will remind you.



Nice try though
Click to expand...

That doesn't imply we're doing nothing. It implies that investing in propaganda along the lines of building roads and schools and hospitals would go much further to producing a more Western sympathetic Middle East that blowing up friends and family could ever do. That's a true statement. The limited humanitarian efforts we engage in (which was explained to you later in another post that you had read and replied to...well I assumed read) is not an investment in constructive propaganda. We bomb far too many, kill far too many for that to be propaganda. That's just some little thing on the side we do to try to cover our own ass, not to produce some aggregate and fundamental change in perception to a more Pro-West orientation.

Do you not read what you're replying to? I mean, for real. Within 2 posts the majority of major questions concerning my opinion had been addressed. There was no need for this ridiculousness.
 
Ikari said:
That's just some little thing on the side we do to try to cover our own ass, not to produce some aggregate and fundamental change in perception to a more Pro-West orientation.
Click to expand...

lol absolutely untrue.
 
MildSteel said:
You tell me
Click to expand...

Tell you what?

It seems odd that you sometimes decide to go through these motivations and justifications for nation-states but other times don't. Is that a "fight" to you? I don't get it. Can I not make that observation?
 
Ikari said:
Governments obtain their legitimacy through the consent of the governed. If you are not of the governed, you have no proper say. End of story.

But we could engage in our own propaganda if we were really interested in breaking the cycle. Building roads and schools and hospitals would go a much further way to producing a more Western sympathetic Middle East than blowing up friends and family could ever do.
Click to expand...

Ikari said:
That doesn't imply we're doing nothing. It implies that investing in propaganda along the lines of building roads and schools and hospitals would go much further to producing a more Western sympathetic Middle East that blowing up friends and family could ever do. That's a true statement. The limited humanitarian efforts we engage in (which was explained to you later in another post that you had read and replied to...well I assumed read) is not an investment in constructive propaganda. We bomb far too many, kill far too many for that to be propaganda. That's just some little thing on the side we do to try to cover our own ass, not to produce some aggregate and fundamental change in perception to a more Pro-West orientation.

Do you not read what you're replying to? I mean, for real. Within 2 posts the majority of major questions concerning my opinion had been addressed. There was no need for this ridiculousness.
Click to expand...

Sure it means we doesn't. Normal people would say we should be doing more not that we could do something implying that we are not doing it.
And the fact that you think we only do civil operations to cover our ass shows you do not know what you are talking about. Civil projects are a major focus over there and have been for a long long time. What evidence do you have that it's not.

We could be doing more but with the limited security and Taliban activity it is extremely hard to accomplish that with out an active military presence. I have seen them burn a brand new school simply because the village elder accepted US help for his people. You need the stick and the carrot either one without the other is pointless.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Tell you what?

It seems odd that you sometimes decide to go through these motivations and justifications for nation-states but other times don't. Is that a "fight" to you? I don't get it. Can I not make that observation?
Click to expand...

It seems like you want to create a point for dispute. There is a reason for that. It's a latent hostility that's in your mind. I can make that observation, can't I?
 
MildSteel said:
It seems like you want to create a point for dispute. There is a reason for that. It's a latent hostility that's in your mind. I can make that observation, can't I?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I guess the operative word there would be "seems". I'm just making a simple note. If you think it's hostile, that's cool.
 
MildSteel said:
Your response was ridiculous. The Taliban did not kill those innocent people.
Click to expand...

The Taliban caused those people to, because Taliban terrorists are hiding among them. The use of human shields is a war crime. You should be outraged.
 
MadLib said:
I didn't mean to say that you didn't have a legitimate argument against a continued presence in Afghanistan, and if it came across that way I apologize. That one line, however, is an oft repeated canard that is used in place of actual debate. It's really just an ad hominem; it implies that only people who are personally affected by a policy have the right to an opinion on that policy without actually debating the merits of that policy.

Imagine how ridiculous that would be if applied to other issues. I'm sure this has been said before, but what if someone stated that only pregnant women have the right to debate abortion? What if I said that only the family of shooting victims can argue gun control? That only rich people should be discussing income taxes? For some reason it seems to mostly occur in foreign policy debates, but that doesn't make it any more legitimate.

I agree here. An educated, politically knowledgeable populace is necessary, for better or worse. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done.


I am, in fact, autistic and physically disabled. I'm not sure what the standards are for service in regards to physical disability, but even if I were fit for service I highly doubt that I'd be placed in harms way were I to join. Again, though, why am I morally obligated to hold a certain opinion based on that? I can't be personally involved in every single issue that I may think about.
Click to expand...

Well, while I agree that one doesn't have to have "skin in the game" to have a political opinion on something, Americans in general should at least have SOME when it comes to our own wars. That's where my problem is. We have the longest war of our nation's history, and yet 99% of Americans are not effected by it in any way, so nobody gives a flying rat's ass about ending it.

That is a tremendous problem. I'm not suggesting a Heinlein style of government where only the vets can vote and make decisions, I'm just saying if the American people as a whole suffered even a fraction of what our soldiers are suffering, this war would've been long over.

You're entitled to whatever opinion you choose to have, and you're not necessarily "morally obligated" to choose either side, but if you're sending off other men to fight for you, you should have an extreme conviction for the purpose and goals for the war. There are also other ways to help the war effort, if it's that important to you.
 
Last edited:
OldWorldOrder said:
lol absolutely untrue.
Click to expand...

lol, absolutely true. If we were really engaged in such a propaganda war to change the hearts of the people in the Middle East, we wouldn't be spending the majority time blowing it up. lol lol lol
 
OldWorldOrder said:
All that was needed was to help the Northern Alliance win and have a persistent, small presence at Bagram. That was it. Trying to nation build there was always retarded and based in a silly idea of revenge. If there was one war to actually prosecute, it was Iraq. Afghanistan should've een treated more or less like the Philippines.
Click to expand...

I agree. It should have been a clear specific attack and out. The nation building of the Neo-Cons has never worked.
 
Yay for another satellite state!
 
Conservative said:
Obama has been in office almost 6 years. You are entitled to your opinion. You claim Bush left a mess and yet ignore the mess Obama is leaving. Guess liberals simply have no idea of reality and you prove it with your posts. It really is quite telling how shortsighted you are as well as your lack of understanding of what leadership is even about.
Click to expand...

I never said that.....why don't you read. I agree that Obama is leaving a mess. After 6 or 8 years, Obama's decision to pursue many of the Bush policies in the Mideast have proven idiotic. He should have done what he said he would do, refocus the efforts on Afghanistan, get Bin Laden and get out. It doesn't change the fact that he inherited a huge mess, from a guy who took his eyes of the prize and decided to manipulate US public fears to pursue a decades long Neo-Con agenda. Then again....considering everything else you believe, you probably think that Bush left Obama Middle Eastern Utopia.
 
disneydude said:
I never said that.....why don't you read. I agree that Obama is leaving a mess. After 6 or 8 years, Obama's decision to pursue many of the Bush policies in the Mideast have proven idiotic. He should have done what he said he would do, refocus the efforts on Afghanistan, get Bin Laden and get out. It doesn't change the fact that he inherited a huge mess, from a guy who took his eyes of the prize and decided to manipulate US public fears to pursue a decades long Neo-Con agenda. Then again....considering everything else you believe, you probably think that Bush left Obama Middle Eastern Utopia.
Click to expand...

Not only is Obama leaving a mess in his foreign policy but leaving an economic mess as well. First quarter GDP was just announced as a negative 1%. The new liberal normal is taking place, low/stagnant economic growth, high unemployment, high debt, decline in foreign influence and leadership. You must be so proud.
 
Conservative said:
Not only is Obama leaving a mess in his foreign policy but leaving an economic mess as well. First quarter GDP was just announced as a negative 1%. The new liberal normal is taking place, low/stagnant economic growth, high unemployment, high debt, decline in foreign influence and leadership. You must be so proud.
Click to expand...

So I guess the new conservative normal is letting the economy crater. Since we're blaming everything on the guy in the White House.
 
It's all George Bush's fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom