• 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!

How hard is it to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan? Very hard.

Or, if not racist according to the most strict definition, at least so hypocritical and down right stupid as to render their opinions moot.

Arguments (if you could call the silly things that) such as these are so relativistic as to be nihilistic in nature, and it is because of this nihilism that any thinking person would reject them.

I call it racist because these soft expectations always seem to apply to cultural groups that are swarthy and perceived as minorities. I'm not exactly comfortable with the words use there, but I fail to see how else to describe it
 
I call it racist because these soft expectations always seem to apply to cultural groups that are swarthy and perceived as minorities. I'm not exactly comfortable with the words use there, but I fail to see how else to describe it

Oh, yes. I definitely agree. You need go no further than the European section to see me offering this same observation over and over to all the apologists there. If it is a white-skinned person doing something it's "Boo! Hiss!!!". If it is a dark-skinned person from another culture it is automatically defended.

It is just mindless conformity when it gets right down to it. Unthinking people say things because other unthinking people say them, and the costs associated for thinking are too great due to rejection by their peers. It acts no differently than the religious fundamentalism of the far right. .
 
It worked during WW2. How do you explain the success then?

What are you proposing is more like what the Russians and Germans did to each other in WWII, and they aren't the same. The closest example might be the Bombing of Dresden, but that was controversial and pales in severity next to the Nanking Massacre. Twenty-thousand casualties versus hundreds of thousands.

Not sure why you compared the two to begin with. Fighting terrorists isn't like fighting nations.
 
Last edited:
What are you proposing is more like what the Russians and Germans did to each other in WWII, and they aren't the same. The closest example might be the Bombing of Dresden, but that was controversial and pales in severity next to the Nanking Massacre. Twenty-thousand casualties versus hundreds of thousands.

Not sure why you compared the two to begin with. Fighting terrorists isn't like fighting nations.

No, I'm talking about the Allied execurion of the war.
 
You are always right there to defend female genital mutilation, honor killings and forced marriages, aren't you? Oops -- make that a "progressive" enslavement and degradation of women. Sounds so much easier to swallow if you consider your support for the brutalization of women as something "progressive" , doesn't it?

And you always use the sad worn out CON game- where did I 'defend' any of the crap you rant about? typical CON deflection.

Fact is CONs could give a flying flip about ANY of that- it is just an excuse to degrade another culture that refuses to accept outsider interference. Did we go into the Middle or South East to 'defend' women's rights???

the 'inferior' culture was quite progressive until Westerners tried the latest go-round of 'civilizing' Afghanistan. the forced attempt to push 'equal rights' for women and the abolishing of religious laws by the Soviet created a backlash we are fighting today. back when these religious kooks fought the Soviets they were likened to our Founding Fathers by no less than St. Reagan. now of course they are in power and degraded as 'inferior'. :roll:

If you want to talk about FMG let's talk about our allies, the ones we embrace as 'good' Muslims. The Kurds in Iraq practice FGM and we don't trash them as 'inferior'. Honor killings??? Hell we do that here, and have you ever heard the term 'shotgun' marriage? You argue in degrees and with blinders firmly on.

I do enjoy some CONs 'defending' women while some others demand THEY get to decide many female reproductive issues. :roll:

Embrace the woman's rights to work in other nations but hold a nomination convention where that Right wing is mute and CON women are saluted for raising kids.

No Sir, what we don't like about their society is based on our rather capricious standards. We see their faults quite clearly but seem to ignore our own, from free and easy drugs to incredible rates of unwed teen moms, a culture that puts sex scandal women on a pedestal-make a sex tape and be famous. We attack their forms of government as corrupt but can we really look at our governments and power brokers in any better light?

What matters isn't their culture, as we have lost the hearts and minds of so many different cultures. No Sir, it is first and foremost does that culture even want our 'help', do they have a history of accepting such 'help'. Next is do we understand sometimes there is no 'good guy' to back, and all we or the Soviets did was stir the pot.

As long as we continue to make excuses for why we don't prevail and blame 'their culture' instead of our folly we are destined to repeat this hot mess over and over.

Accuse me of defending female mutilations, what a CON strawman.... :roll:
 
Why is it hard?
1)We are not a religious culture. They are.
2) We are a society of "peace." They are a society of "war." (Means we have relative peace...they have existed in perpetual warfare).
3) we screwed them over already.
4) we destroyed the country to kill a small group.
5) we are dishonest.
6) we don't respect their religion.

I mean I can come up with a hundred reasons why they hate America. But the reality is that while the people not hate us all that much, it is our actions they have to define us. And some of our biggest insults involve their religion, and their culture. We fundamentally are very different.
 
A culture that, ny it's nature, breeds and cultivates terrorism IS flawed.

You people see the culture in the American South as being flawed, because you all insist that southerners are all racist, backwards and ignorant. In many instances Libbos have a great big "**** you" attitude to your own countrymen, but you'll go to the mat to defend a culture that breeds terrorism.

There is a US Middle Eastern Policy that breeds terrorism.
 
Who said anything about bombing innocents? People who support terrorists aren't "innocents".

Do babies and little children and the family dog support terrorists??
 
No, I'm talking about the Allied execurion of the war.

Please. Those allies would have been in the same quagmire had the other side taken off their uniforms and blended in with the civilians. It's a no win situation.
 
the 'inferior' culture was quite progressive until Westerners tried the latest go-round of 'civilizing' Afghanistan. the forced attempt to push 'equal rights' for women and the abolishing of religious laws by the Soviet created a backlash we are fighting today. back when these religious kooks fought the Soviets they were likened to our Founding Fathers by no less than St. Reagan. now of course they are in power and degraded as 'inferior'.

Wait, so to justify your mindless defense of these brutal cultural ideals, you basically accuse people of something, while lacking any proof they actually supported such a policy? How does that make sense to you and do you ever managed to approach a subject outside the confines of some simplistic "us vs them" metric?


If you want to talk about FMG let's talk about our allies, the ones we embrace as 'good' Muslims. The Kurds in Iraq practice FGM and we don't trash them as 'inferior'. Honor killings??? Hell we do that here, and have you ever heard the term 'shotgun' marriage? You argue in degrees and with blinders firmly on.

1) you're making an assumption, without proof, then arguing against the position based on a perceived hypocrisy. Neither of which actually address the issues of the practice or the fact that these people can easily choose not to engage in it.

2) Anyone threatening violence, to enforce a marriage of such social standards, would be clearly breaking the law. So I am unsure on what basis you would compare such to someone engaging in a socially acceptable practice.

Honestly, try thinking before you post

PS the rest of your rant follows the same inane and absurd formula.

Accuse me of defending female mutilations, what a CON strawman.

then what was the point of your original post when you wrote <<<ALL cultures disrespect some basic human right or another. What we think are basic rights in this country is a hot topic of discussion. Race, abortion, gay rights... you know the drill.

In a way it is like going into the desert and faulting the flora there for not being redwoods. The climate and conditions do not support that.>>>

Seems like you are clearly defending their barbaric cultural practices as an inescapable aspect of their nature
 
Last edited:
Why is it hard?
1)We are not a religious culture. They are.
2) We are a society of "peace." They are a society of "war." (Means we have relative peace...they have existed in perpetual warfare).
3) we screwed them over already.
4) we destroyed the country to kill a small group.
5) we are dishonest.
6) we don't respect their religion.

I mean I can come up with a hundred reasons why they hate America. But the reality is that while the people not hate us all that much, it is our actions they have to define us. And some of our biggest insults involve their religion, and their culture. We fundamentally are very different.

We are a society of peace!! Haha. I bet all societies claim that of themselves, but for some its true, and for others it's not.


1 Extraterritorial and major domestic deployments
1.1 1775–1799
1.2 1800–1809
1.3 1810–1819
1.4 1820–1829
1.5 1830–1839
1.6 1840–1849
1.7 1850–1859
1.8 1860–1869
1.9 1870–1879
1.10 1880–1889
1.11 1890–1899
1.12 1900–1909
1.13 1910–1919
1.14 1920–1929
1.15 1930–1939
1.16 1940–1944
1.17 1945–1949
1.18 1950–1959
1.19 1960–1969
1.20 1970–1979
1.21 1980–1989
1.22 1990–1999
1.23 2000–2009
1.24 2010–present


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations


Not a lot of peace time in there. I know, in every single case, we were a victim defending ourselves.
 
There is a US Middle Eastern Policy that breeds terrorism.

By that logic, I take it you would also justify Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. The, 'It's all Amerca's fault', meme lost it's luster a long time ago. It's absolitely disgusting to insist that America is to blame for 3,000 Americans being murdered. It's a display of the ignorance of history and the Islamofacist agenda.
 
We are a society of peace!! Haha. I bet all societies claim that of themselves, but for some its true, and for others it's not.


1 Extraterritorial and major domestic deployments
1.1 1775–1799
1.2 1800–1809
1.3 1810–1819
1.4 1820–1829
1.5 1830–1839
1.6 1840–1849
1.7 1850–1859
1.8 1860–1869
1.9 1870–1879
1.10 1880–1889
1.11 1890–1899
1.12 1900–1909
1.13 1910–1919
1.14 1920–1929
1.15 1930–1939
1.16 1940–1944
1.17 1945–1949
1.18 1950–1959
1.19 1960–1969
1.20 1970–1979
1.21 1980–1989
1.22 1990–1999
1.23 2000–2009
1.24 2010–present


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations


Not a lot of peace time in there. I know, in every single case, we were a victim defending ourselves.

So. How many of those did our entire society have to revolve around war? In this last and most recent conflict...did the average citizen sacrifice anything? Did we have war on our doorstep? No.

You can say we are aggressive and imperial (a joke if you consider any historical context). But you can't claim we are a society of war. Our society hasn't faced war at home since WW2. And that was limited to outlying regions and fear of submarine attack. Prior to that it would have been the civil war.

Don't disservice the plight of the Afghan people by comparing their civilization of perpetual war since before the British...to that of an obese democracy that goes to other places to fight their wars.
 
Please. Those allies would have been in the same quagmire had the other side taken off their uniforms and blended in with the civilians. It's a no win situation.

We would have targetted everyone, since at that point everyone would have legally been the enemy.

Your defense of the terrorists is absolutely disgusting!
 
Did we loose 4,800 soldiers in AG. Now, respond to the statement.

A post about Iraq is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

There were 3,527 American KIA's in Iraq. Why do you keep lieing about the numbers?
 
Last edited:
How hard is it to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan? Very hard.



entire article here:

How hard is it to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan? Very hard.

Very difficult...... How would you like it if a bunch of Afghans were running around in your backyard (regardless of intent)?

I don't believe that those who resent our presence do so because they sympathize with radical terrorists, but rather because we're in their back yard... Many hate both terrorists and US forces.

Hell, I'd be pissed off too if the National Guard occupied my neighborhood and declared Martial Law.

If we want friends in occupied areas we need to treat the locals with the respect and dignity they deserve. I know that is difficult when you can't tell a terrorist from a local but the best way to handle that is to make an example out of terrorists. You don't send terrorists to GETMO - you hang them in the middle of the street.. That may sound savage to your typical progressive but that is how "justice" is served in the same cultures we occupy...

"Abducting" terrorists and throwing them in a cushy GETMO proves nothing to the local communities that we occupy, other than there is a reward for being a terrorist - 3 meals a day, your own cell and your own soapbox.
 
Wait, so to justify your mindless defense of these brutal cultural ideals, you basically accuse people of something, while lacking any proof they actually supported such a policy? How does that make sense to you and do you ever managed to approach a subject outside the confines of some simplistic "us vs them" metric? 1) you're making an assumption, without proof, then arguing against the position based on a perceived hypocrisy. Neither of which actually address the issues of the practice or the fact that these people can easily choose not to engage in it. 2) Anyone threatening violence, to enforce a marriage of such social standards, would be clearly breaking the law. So I am unsure on what basis you would compare such to someone engaging in a socially acceptable practice. Honestly, try thinking before you post PS the rest of your rant follows the same inane and absurd formula. then what was the point of your original post when you wrote <<<ALL cultures disrespect some basic human right or another. What we think are basic rights in this country is a hot topic of discussion. Race, abortion, gay rights... you know the drill. In a way it is like going into the desert and faulting the flora there for not being redwoods. The climate and conditions do not support that.>>> Seems like you are clearly defending their barbaric cultural practices as an inescapable aspect of their nature

You seem intent on offering no refute, just your opinion. The Soviets did promote the concept of women to be educated, part of the work force and government. They did insist on the end of religious rule in courts and government. St. Reagan did refer to the 'freedom fighters' many well known to be extreme religious warriors, as the Aghan Founding fathers. The CON praisees are in the book CONs love to trump- "Charlie Wilson's War'.

The us vs them metric is the CON template for everything... they don't act or think like we do so they are inferior.

No Sir, it is a matter of degree, we accept the honor killings in this country, the forced marriages, the violence because we have a law against it. That sometimes these laws are ignored such as the KKK murders of 'uppity' blacks or 'meddlesome' yankees is shrugged off as 'the past'.

While we don't let a dad go scot-free for killing the rapist who defiled his daughter,(many CONS would do just that), we do allow mitigation and tend to not judge the dad as a cold blooded murderer.

But you continue down the 'white man's folly' road. You blame the 'inferior' culture for our failures, rather than our own hubris and folly. :2wave:
 
Who said anything about bombing innocents? People who support terrorists aren't "innocents".

You justify bombing innocents for the greater good. That's exactly what they say and do. Our "justifiable" war is their "Jihad".

Btw, a total of 25,000 to 39,000 French civilians died during Operation Overlord. We had to kill them to free them. :lamo
 
You justify bombing innocents for the greater good. That's exactly what they say and do. Our "justifiable" war is their "Jihad".

Btw, a total of 25,000 to 39,000 French civilians died during Operation Overlord. We had to kill them to free them. :lamo

The Nazis felt their cause was justified. Are you going to defemd them, as well?
 
Your defense of the terrorists is absolutely disgusting!

I love terrorism. It's a fantastic tactic the US taught and exported to the rest of the world.

"As many critics have pointed, out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world." - General William Odom, NSA Director under Reagan.
 
I love terrorism. It's a fantastic tactic the US taught and exported to the rest of the world.

"As many critics have pointed, out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world." - General William Odom, NSA Director under Reagan.
Islam is the enemy of all people who are not followers of Islam.
 
Back
Top Bottom