Jump to content

Afghanistan Crisis


Recommended Posts

Thought Ad Lib was joking to begin with, but then I remembered that time he had a massive hard on for Nato bombing Serb journalists in the Balkans conflict, so a forever war to make him feel good about girls going to school checks out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Maybe they should have turned Kabul into a Berlin, a little Disneyland of liberal values with big walls keeping medievalism out.

That’s pretty much exactly what they did. And for 20 years it was utterly transformative for millions of women and girls.

It’s a disgrace that we’ve thrown it away, and in some ways put them in even greater danger by creating an illusory space to live something even approximating a meaningful life, in essence, because Biden thinks it will keep some former Trump 2016 voters happy and save a bit of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Left Back said:

So you'd be in favour of invading China as well to "free" the Uyghurs from similar oppression?

No don’t be stupid that would trigger a nuclear war, wouldn’t free a single Uyghur from any domestic oppression, and would lead to catastrophic loss of life that makes every war fought in the last 200 years look like a playful skirmish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Proposition Joe said:

Thought Ad Lib was joking to begin with, but then I remembered that time he had a massive hard on for Nato bombing Serb journalists in the Balkans conflict, so a forever war to make him feel good about girls going to school checks out.

The NATO interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo were, Sierra Leone aside, possibly the most emphatic triumphs for liberal interventionism.

Away and have a word with yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

No don’t be stupid that would trigger a nuclear war, wouldn’t free a single Uyghur from any domestic oppression, and would lead to catastrophic loss of life that makes every war fought in the last 200 years look like a playful skirmish.

So you only want to impose your will and morals on people where you think you have a chance of getting away with.  Glad we cleared that up.

Any other societies we should be forcing to live by our values or are the Taliban the only nasty people in the world that you want to commit other people to spend a lifetime fighting with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Left Back said:

So you only want to impose your will and morals on people where you think you have a chance of getting away with.  Glad we cleared that up.

I want to impose the basic morals of "don't kill, forcibly marry and rape women and girls" on the whole planet.

I accept that it is more feasible to impose this in some places than others.

Just now, Left Back said:

Any other societies we should be forcing to live by our values or are the Taliban the only nasty people in the world that you want to commit other people to spend a lifetime fighting with?

I'm not asking for societies to live by our values. I'm saying that it's an absolute moral imperative, where it is feasible, to prevent the torture, rape, forced marriage and execution of women and girls. There are some moral absolutes, and societies which abrogate those moral absolutes don't have a moral right to exist. Their existence is only tolerated to the extent that it is not feasible to override them.

Having already invaded Afghanistan, and assumed effective responsibility for the security that underpinned their very basic freedoms, we have a specific duty to them to continue to preserve that situation and not to make their predicament worse than if we had never gone in the first place. If that means turning Kabul into a Berlin and committing a million NATO soldiers for a century, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I want to impose the basic morals of "don't kill, forcibly marry and rape women and girls" on the whole planet.

I accept that it is more feasible to impose this in some places than others.

I'm not asking for societies to live by our values. I'm saying that it's an absolute moral imperative, where it is feasible, to prevent the torture, rape, forced marriage and execution of women and girls. There are some moral absolutes, and societies which abrogate those moral absolutes don't have a moral right to exist. Their existence is only tolerated to the extent that it is not feasible to override them.

Having already invaded Afghanistan, and assumed effective responsibility for the security that underpinned their very basic freedoms, we have a specific duty to them to continue to preserve that situation and not to make their predicament worse than if we had never gone in the first place. If that means turning Kabul into a Berlin and committing a million NATO soldiers for a century, so be it.

🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

That’s pretty much exactly what they did. And for 20 years it was utterly transformative for millions of women and girls...

How far do you think you would have needed to travel from the centre of Kabul to reach areas where that wasn't happening? The expression Potemkin village comes to mind. Show the western media the story they want to broadcast to keep the narrative intract so the money keeps flowing into the networks of corruption and patronage propping the whole system up.

Meanwhile when is something "utterly transformative" going to happen for millions of women and girls in Saudi Arabia? Maybe maintaining the petrodollar cycle and plundering third world resources through offshare tax havens is really what drives the west geostrategically with everything else being window dressing to convince the plebs we are the good guys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Left Back said:

🤣

No one is asking them to be a liberal democracy. No one is asking them even to treat women, LGBT people or religious minorities equally.

The standard is a really basic one: don't treat women like war trophies and don't systematically rape and dehumanise them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

The NATO interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo were, Sierra Leone aside, possibly the most emphatic triumphs for liberal interventionism.

Away and have a word with yourself.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LongTimeLurker said:

How far do you think you would have needed to travel from the centre of Kabul to reach areas where that wasn't happening? The expression Potemkin village comes to mind. Show the western media the story they want to broadcast to keep the narrative intract so the money keeps flowing into the networks of corruption and patronage propping the whole system up.

Meanwhile when is something "utterly transformative" going to happen for millions of women and girls in Saudi Arabia? Maybe maintaining the petrodollar cycle and plundering third world resources through offshare tax havens is really what drives the west geostrategically with everything else being window dressing to convince the plebs we are the good guys?

Not far. I'm not denying that the Taliban had effective control over substantial parts of Afghanistan for most of the last 20 years. But the lives of millions in Kabul are not trivial.

I agree we should be doing everything feasible to free women and girls in Saudi society. I'm not convinced any military strategy that could be thought up and plausibly implemented in the foreseeable future would have the effect of doing that for even part of Saudi Arabia.

By contrast it did happen for Kabul. It would not have happened if we had withdrawn at any point in the last 20 years, and it will revert to not happening because we have withdrawn. That is the reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 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.

At no point did I claim the War in Afghanistan was one done for liberal interventionist reasons.

The NATO bombing campaigns in the Balkans were absolutely justified, and it takes cretinous "unpardonable folly" merchants to claim otherwise with a straight face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Not far. I'm not denying that the Taliban had effective control over substantial parts of Afghanistan for most of the last 20 years. But the lives of millions in Kabul are not trivial.

I agree we should be doing everything feasible to free women and girls in Saudi society. I'm not convinced any military strategy that could be thought up and plausibly implemented in the foreseeable future would have the effect of doing that for even part of Saudi Arabia.

By contrast it did happen for Kabul. It would not have happened if we had withdrawn at any point in the last 20 years, and it will revert to not happening because we have withdrawn. That is the reality.

Are you now saying the West couldn't invade Saudi and take control?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...