D Angelo Barksdale Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 27 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: At no point did I claim the War in Afghanistan was one done for liberal interventionist reasons. But now that we're here we should stay forever right ? 27 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: The NATO bombing campaigns in the Balkans were absolutely justified, and it takes cretinous "unpardonable folly" merchants to claim otherwise with a straight face. Yes, it's definitely the guy who is opposed to bombing non military targets and a 100 years war with all that entails who is the cretin here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 Bombing Serbian TV news headquarters was unconscionable, they should have known that only Aljazeera and Reuters are fair game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 7 minutes ago, Proposition Joe said: But now that we're here we should stay forever right ? Yes. 7 minutes ago, Proposition Joe said: Yes, it's definitely the guy who is opposed to bombing non military targets and a 100 years war with all that entails who is the cretin here. You are a cretin. Here to help. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 1 hour ago, Ad Lib said: We went in. In doing so, we created the conditions in which these women were able to throw off their burqas, a significant number of young girls to go to school, to enter into professions and live something even remotely approximating a free-ish if still deeply suboptimal life for almost two decades Permanent war so 1% of the population can get onto LinkedIn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 6 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Bombing Serbian TV news headquarters was unconscionable, they should have known that only Aljazeera and Reuters are fair game. Having this view makes you a cretin unfortunately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 47 minutes ago, Proposition Joe said: I'm at work, so I'll look for the thread later. Unfortunately for you (and them) bombing journalists and TV stations doesn't come under 'liberal interventionism' and neither does the invasion of Afghanistan. And, it's you that needs to have a word, 100 years war ffs. Maximum Boot already talked up the 100 year war stuff and gave the game away by saying it was about preserving the frontiers of empire. Unfortunately for the libs throwing up smokescreens their more honest brothers on the right have zero issue saying what the stakes actually are. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 12 minutes ago, Detournement said: Permanent war so 1% of the population can get onto LinkedIn. No, an essentially permanent military presence so that more than half of that population (within the bits we have control over) can live otherwise than in constant fear of being raped, tortured and killed by theocrats for having the audacity not to cover their mouths, cheeks and noses outside the family home, or to have a job, or to go to secondary school. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 46 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: Yes, I'm saying that's not credible. Has a Taliban shagged your maw? You seem to want to obliterate them because of their treatment of women but anyone else in the world can get away with it. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 A lot of education on this twitter thread here. The level of commentary on this in the media (just as happened in the wars of Yugoslav succession in the 1990s) is staggeringly poor / misinformed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 I'd also recommend this very rich and insightful piece; yesterday's scenes and those that will come out of Afghanistan in the weeks ahead are the visual backdrop to the decisive end of the post-1991 order and liberal technocracy https://tinkzorg.wordpress.com/2021/08/16/farewell-to-bourgeois-kings/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 8 minutes ago, Left Back said: Has a Taliban shagged your maw? You seem to want to obliterate them because of their treatment of women but anyone else in the world can get away with it. If NATO tried to invade Saudi Arabia, it would precipitate a series of conflicts in the Middle East that it would be completely unable to control. It would fail to to assert the kind of control over Riyadh in any remotely comparable way to how it controlled Kabul (which is necessary to provide the advantages to those women), and would almost certainly drag nuclear powers into the conflict or one of its satellite conflicts. It would lead to neither the partial or complete emancipation of women and girls and would cost millions of civilian lives. That would be a really stupid thing to do. Whether or not going into Afghanistan was a stupid thing to do, the reality is that we did do it, and Kabul (and a handful of other provincial capitals) was created as a kind of safe haven for millions of Afghan women and girls. Having done that, then to withdraw is unconscionable. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 37 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: Yes. Well, thankfully the people making the decision aren't having an emotional and hysterical fit in their safe little pious 'liberal' bubble. Unlike yourself. 37 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: You are a cretin. Here to help. Lovely stuff. Taking a huge L here alongside your fellow 'liberal' travellers. Please continue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 If NATO tried to invade Saudi Arabia, it would precipitate a series of conflicts in the Middle East that it would be completely unable to control. It would fail to to assert the kind of control over Riyadh in any remotely comparable way to how it controlled Kabul (which is necessary to provide the advantages to those women), and would almost certainly drag nuclear powers into the conflict or one of its satellite conflicts. It would lead to neither the partial or complete emancipation of women and girls and would cost millions of civilian lives. That would be a really stupid thing to do. Whether or not going into Afghanistan was a stupid thing to do, the reality is that we did do it, and Kabul (and a handful of other provincial capitals) was created as a kind of safe haven for millions of Afghan women and girls. Having done that, then to withdraw is unconscionable.There were far more Afghan troops in Kabul than Americans you realise. Why are they not protecting their women ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: No, an essentially permanent military presence so that more than half of that population (within the bits we have control over) can live otherwise than in constant fear of being raped, tortured and killed by theocrats for having the audacity not to cover their mouths, cheeks and noses outside the family home, or to have a job, or to go to secondary school. Just potentially raped, tortured and killed in the black site on Bagram Airbase. Presenting the occupation as neutral is denial of the horrific crimes committed by the occupiers. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54996581 This is what you are demanding 100 years of because you have completely swallowed the racist logic of capitalism to advance your career. Edited August 17, 2021 by Detournement 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 17 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: No, an essentially permanent military presence so that more than half of that population (within the bits we have control over) can live otherwise than in constant fear of being raped, tortured and killed by theocrats for having the audacity not to cover their mouths, cheeks and noses outside the family home, or to have a job, or to go to secondary school. Genuine question - would you be willing to pick up a gun and fight against the Taliban? Would you be happy for someone you care about to do that? I'm asking because, even during the relative stability of the past 5 years, 101 US and 15 other soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, with many more seriously wounded. I wouldn't be willing to risk that or have one of my kids do so, so I don't feel I can tell others that they have to do it. I wish I could say "the West must stay to protect human rights" but that's easy when I don't have any skin in the game, nor would I ever chose to. I know soldiers accept the risks when they sign up but I don't think many sign up to fight humanitarian wars for other countries, I think they expect to fight for their own country. Maybe I'm wrong about that, I dunno. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 1 minute ago, Detournement said: Just potentially raped, tortured and killed in the black site on Bagram Airbase. Presenting the occupation as neutral is denial of the horrific crimes committed by the occupiers. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54996581 Those crimes are indeed horrific and inexcusable. They are orders of magnitude fewer in number than those of, and tolerated and encouraged under, the Taliban. 1 minute ago, Detournement said: This is what you are demanding 100 years of because you have completely swallowed the racist logic of capitalism to advance your career. I'm literally a public servant who votes for social democrats, but cool story bro. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufc Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 When compared to the alternative, which is the complete and utter re-emergence of a theocratic regime that will treat tens of millions of women like animals, treat young girls as spoils of war to be forcibly married off and raped, and a refugee crisis that will cause significant instability in the region, yes, absolutely the death of tens of thousands of soldiers a year, supported both financially and in raw military personnel by the west some of whose own soldiers will also die, is a far less bad option and therefore the only morally acceptable choice.Can we not just strongly advise them not to do these things? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, GordonS said: Genuine question - would you be willing to pick up a gun and fight against the Taliban? Would you be happy for someone you care about to do that? I'm asking because, even during the relative stability of the past 5 years, 101 US and 15 other soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, with many more seriously wounded. I wouldn't be willing to risk that or have one of my kids do so, so I don't feel I can tell others that they have to do it. I wish I could say "the West must stay to protect human rights" but that's easy when I don't have any skin in the game, nor would I ever chose to. I know soldiers accept the risks when they sign up but I don't think many sign up to fight humanitarian wars for other countries, I think they expect to fight for their own country. Maybe I'm wrong about that, I dunno. We don't have conscription. That's the beginning and end of the discussion. Any soldier signing up for the US or UK military in the last three decades cannot have done so ignorant of the possibility, nay, likelihood, that they would be asked to serve in combat zones otherwise than for purely defensive purposes. If conscripted I would of course join one of the Armed Forces, but I doubt they'd want me. I am an obese 5ft 7 man in my 30s with poor eyesight and impaired hearing, and I shit myself when a car unexpectedly backfires. Judging by the one and only time I went paintballing, or any of the times I've played Halo, it would be in their strategic interest to keep me as far away from combat as possible. Edited August 17, 2021 by Ad Lib 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 Go to say, those having a go at Ad Lib for being in a "liberal bubble" aren't really recognising that we're all in the same nice safe bubble here. It's easy to play the cynical internet dude and castigate those capitalist pig dogs when we're not the ones who are about to have our freedom ripped away, and not the bullshit 'wearing a mask is like the holocaust' way, in a very real way none of us have ever experienced. I can't say I trust the judgement of anyone who's certain about what's the right course of action here. It's all shades of doubt. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.