Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39
Like Tree9Likes
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By nano
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By kojax

Thread: Why don't we just divide up Afghanistan?

  1. #1 Why don't we just divide up Afghanistan? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I have to admit I really don't know very much about Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, or Uzbekistan, and Iran doesn't exactly seem friendly, but I'm wondering: when small nations like Afghanistan provoke us, why not just invade, conquer, and then distribute their lands to their neighbors, thus erasing the country off of the map forever? I'm sure their neighbors wouldn't mind being granted new territory. If Afghanistan's case, we could even give some of it to China if we wanted, since they have a small common border to the North East.

    I think that would solve the whole problem of setting up a new government. All the citizens immediately become subjects of the governments that claimed their lands.

    https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en





    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Well, that worked a real treat in Africa, Papua, Timor, name-your-favourite-colonial-horse-trading-debacle.

    Not.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Yeah . . . this is not a good idea
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Well, that worked a real treat in Africa, Papua, Timor, name-your-favourite-colonial-horse-trading-debacle.

    Not.
    Taking one big country, and creating a whole bunch of new countries out of it may not be the best idea. I suppose in Iraq we could make separate countries for some of the ethnicities (Kurds, Sunni, Shiites..... or something like that). But there are already way too many countries out there.

    However, I'm thinking that reducing the number of total countries on Earth might really help, since it's hard for little countries to build strong economies on their own. Hence, partnerships like the European Union.
    westwind likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    However, I'm thinking that reducing the number of total countries on Earth might really help, since it's hard for little countries to build strong economies on their own.
    Switzerland, Finland, New Zealand? All do pretty well for themselves most of the time.

    The EU is the biggest formally acknowledged linkage of sovereign countries. (We won't mention the annexations and assimilations of the empire type aggregations - Indonesia and China being the prime current examples.) But there are bodies like ASEAN and the Pacific Islands Forum as well as others linking African states and the South and Central American countries. These could very well develop along EU type lines - learning from some of the serious mistakes of the EU if they're wise. Give them time, give them breathing space, give them a chance.

    As for other processes, look at the way many US citizens regard NAFTA. The balance of culture, tradition and perceived self-interest is a juggling act with many pitfalls.
    westwind likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Maybe it's better to just simply accept that competently governed small countries are fine, while horrible incompetence on the part of a government should/ought-to result in some kind of consequence. Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan may not have stellar records (I really don't know anything about the first three), but if they haven't failed so badly as to allow a major terrorist organization to set up base in their country, then they're better than Afghanistan's government, and reassigning those lands and people to their rule would most likely be a step up.

    If they don't want the land and people, they can always refuse to take it. I certainly doubt China would refuse.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    If they don't want the land and people, they can always refuse to take it. I certainly doubt China would refuse.
    If they wanted those dysfunctional places they'd already have them. As it is they can get the precious resources, largest secured by Western military muscle--without the hassle or trying to run or change the place--the best of both worlds.
    msafwan and sculptor like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    If that's true, then why did the Soviet Union fight such a long and costly war in the 1980's trying to get it?


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
    westwind likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    56
    Putting aside the moral factors and practicalities regarding civil unrest and the sort, here are a few questions.

    What if a country decides it doesn't want its portion? Indeed, some regions of Afghanistan would incur a greater economic cost than gain.
    Do you distribute based on area or value? After all, reserves are not evenly distributed across the country.
    Do you provide land to other totalitarian states such as Iran?
    When Pakistan invade Tajikistan for their portion of Afghanistan, do we invade again and divide that region further?
    Who are we, as outsiders, to decide on such matters?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by nano View Post
    Putting aside the moral factors and practicalities regarding civil unrest and the sort, here are a few questions.

    What if a country decides it doesn't want its portion? Indeed, some regions of Afghanistan would incur a greater economic cost than gain.
    Do you distribute based on area or value? After all, reserves are not evenly distributed across the country.
    Yeah, it would have to be split up by value instead of area, giving each taker some of the good lands, but also requiring them to accept bad areas if they accept any area at all. Some may choose to accept none. That's their choice.

    However, you've got to factor in the way this would likely look to a small nation. In the modern world, those nations have no hope of ever expanding their borders any bigger than they are now. Their entire legacy is, in many cases, contained within an administrative line that got drawn this century, and I would venture to bet that most of them do not like how small an area it encloses. Adding more territory, at any cost, would be a long term investment.


    Do you provide land to other totalitarian states such as Iran?
    I don't see why we'd have to give any of the territory to anyone we don't like. But we couldn't split up the nation at all without international support like the UN, so probably they'd make us give some of it to Iran. Oh well. No plan is perfect.

    When Pakistan invade Tajikistan for their portion of Afghanistan, do we invade again and divide that region further?
    Who are we, as outsiders, to decide on such matters?
    Pakistan has nukes. I don't think we'd invade them, but for them to deliberately annex territory without the support of the international community would be a likely trigger for MADD.
    msafwan likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    56
    I vote kojax for President of the World.

    Final question: What if the Afghani's say that they want to govern themselves?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    13
    The British created India and Pakistan form a single country that really didn't turn out so good. That was just two countries from one, if you subdivided one country into say five where would that leave the region but even more unstable than it was before ?? Besides do you not think the people should choose their own fate ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    56
    Pakistan and India is a good point actually. What was effectively a single nation was divided into two and now look at the hatred between them.
    The same thing with Croatia and Serbia breaking up from Yugoslavia. North and South Korea. The Iraqi states. East and West Germany for a time.
    The same thing with sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland.
    Et cetera.
    When you divide a nation you create hatred and tension between them.
    It would surely be better for peace to try and unite the nation under a single, self-ruling, democratic governance.
    msafwan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The question is whether we're dividing Afghanistan up, or uniting greater Tajikistan with its long lost brothers (who recently lived in Afghanistan)? Or maybe greater Turkmenistan or greater Uzbekistan, or greater China.

    The goal isn't to start with one nation and end up with 4. The goal is to start with 5 nations and end up with 4.


    Quote Originally Posted by nano View Post
    I vote kojax for President of the World.

    Final question: What if the Afghani's say that they want to govern themselves?
    I'm pretty sure they already did say that. However, they also hosted Al Qaeda. Hosting Al Qaeda is a pretty good way of indicating to the Western European powers that you don't take the business of running your own country very seriously.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    13
    I agree with the premiss that we need fewer smaller countries and more consolidated larger countries. However, take the UK, one country but 4 sovereign nations in their own right, unification brings strength but results in civil unrest due to centralised governance. The very fact that regions are united in a language (England & Scotland) and have similar social backgrounds and even religion still creates the them and us scenario. That is why the world will never be ruled as a single entity. Unless you want to use force.

    Any Thoughts ??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by garr View Post
    I agree with the premiss that we need fewer smaller countries and more consolidated larger countries. However, take the UK, one country but 4 sovereign nations in their own right, unification brings strength but results in civil unrest due to centralised governance. The very fact that regions are united in a language (England & Scotland) and have similar social backgrounds and even religion still creates the them and us scenario. That is why the world will never be ruled as a single entity. Unless you want to use force.
    What civil unrest?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    What civil unrest?
    Tibet, Papua and other parts of Indonesia, Yugoslavia didn't go so well after Tito, half a dozen African nations, some 'independence' movements in places like Britain can get a bit testy, separatist groups in a good dozen other places .....
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    13
    Civil unrest is not just difined as direct action but other parties who would like to split the union. Such as sinn fehn in northern ireland. Scottish nationalist party in scotland plaid cumri in wales.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by garr View Post
    I agree with the premiss that we need fewer smaller countries and more consolidated larger countries. However, take the UK, one country but 4 sovereign nations in their own right, unification brings strength but results in civil unrest due to centralised governance. The very fact that regions are united in a language (England & Scotland) and have similar social backgrounds and even religion still creates the them and us scenario. That is why the world will never be ruled as a single entity. Unless you want to use force.
    What civil unrest?
    Have you not heard of the Irish Republican Army? Knee capping? Bombs?

    I guess one advantage of having terrorists not be from your own country is that you don't have to extend them rights. You can torture on suspicion by labeling them "illegal combatants" and not giving them a trial to prove whether they're innocent of that classification or not before you break out the water boarding paraphernalia. Hard to say if that's an advantage or a disadvantage, though, because the USA's decision to do so lost us a lot of political credibility in the "War on Terror". Hard to get other countries to assist you when you've made yourself look like a throw back to the dark ages.

    The benefit of the terrorists being under your rule is you can more easily suspend their bank accounts, and when you finally identify them, you can make it really hard for them to run very far. Also it's a lot easier to recruit and place undercover agents. Intel gathering is way easier if most of your population speaks the same language and looks similar to the people you're trying to gather intel about.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I guess one advantage of having terrorists not be from your own country is that you don't have to extend them rights.
    And you do this to demonstrate that your ideas of governance and civil organisation are superior?

    Sounds like tyranny to me.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I guess one advantage of having terrorists not be from your own country is that you don't have to extend them rights.
    And you do this to demonstrate that your ideas of governance and civil organisation are superior?

    Sounds like tyranny to me.
    Even if our system were a great deal inferior to theirs, that wouldn't give them the right to kill our civilians in cold blood. So, no. If our goal is anti-terrorism, then we're not trying to prove anything to them about our system.

    However, if our goal is colonialism, then we need to prove our system is better. Admittedly, it's a waste of time, though. No amount of evidence is going to convince them to agree on that point. Every culture prefers its own way of doing things.

    The problem with the current "war on terror", is the monkey who started that war apparently couldn't tell the difference between those two objectives, and consequently decided to lump them together into a tangled mess that has cost us a lot of lives and dollars. He decided we would "bring them democracy" and that would make them not want to kill us. (Because of course, two democratic nations would never go to war with one another, right?)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Because of course, two democratic nations would never go to war with one another, right?)
    Can you think of a case where that's ever happened?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    If you leave the nation intact (not divided) then you can easily exert more control over the WHOLE nation using just 1 government. For example: in USA, state government is controlled by a central-government because USA is a nation & not 51 nation. -If it is 51-nation it might be hard to collectively agree to make a billion dollar spacecraft to the moon.

    For example (hypothetically/theoretically): Pakistan and India. If you require their cooperation you should give them twice the money, one for Pakistan, and another for India. It might be easier if they are united.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The only problem if we keep the nation intact and allow it to be absorbed by one nation, is it's easier for the people of Afghanistan to form resistance movements. If they're divided up prior to being absorbed, then each absorbing country gets one part to deal with. One nation would benefit more, but it might also find itself overwhelmed. I'm pretty sure China could handle it, due to its own size. Maybe India or Pakistan could.

    On the other hand, it's not like the people of Afghanistan really work together all that much as it is. At least not as a collective group. In small tribal groups they seem to be extremely well organized, as evidenced by their success as insurgents. But as a full country they've not been seen working well together unless under threat by an outside power (and even then not very well.) Maybe breaking the country into pieces would make it actually harder to manage instead of easier.
    TimeLord likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    59
    We should only show mercy to those villages we consider to be on our side.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Not to worry, if all goes according to plan, we'll be out of there in 2 years. Then, the old mujahideen warloards will partition the state as they did after the collapse of the Najibullah government 20 years ago.
    The militias are rearming as i type this in preperation for the fall of the current government.

    Does history repeat? We armed the mujahideen to fight the soviets, meanwhile supporting Pakistan which was training and arming the taliban, who we then fought because bin laden(who had been a mujihideen, using his wealth to help the jihadists) used bases there in his anti-western economic war.

    If you were Pakistan what would you be preparing to do in 2014?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    As in all wars, whoever has the most power to kill civilians and get away with it is who wins. The USA has voluntarily relinquished that power, so nothing much we do over there is really going to affect the outcome of anything. Mujahideen will kill your mother in front of you without a second thought if they think you're offering them any defiance (or pour acid on the faces of school girls).

    http://www.amren.com/news/2012/03/sa...n-in-pakistan/

    Gulbuddin Hekmatyar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    We can't defend against it because the only good defense against those kinds of tactics is a good offense, and the only kind of offense that means anything is for those who act in that way to be afraid their own women and children will become targets of the same brutality. A concern they really don't need to think about, because we won't. Even against the men themselves, the worst we might do is detain them and send them to Guantanimo Bay or shoot them and kill them. Both are things we'd do anyway, even if they didn't commit crimes against humanity.

    Hell, even if we do catch up with Mr. Hekmatyr and manage to kill him, we probably wouldn't even go so far as to deny him a proper Muslim burial.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I have to admit I really don't know very much about Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, or Uzbekistan, and Iran doesn't exactly seem friendly, but I'm wondering: when small nations like Afghanistan provoke us, why not just invade, conquer, and then distribute their lands to their neighbors, thus erasing the country off of the map forever? I'm sure their neighbors wouldn't mind being granted new territory. If Afghanistan's case, we could even give some of it to China if we wanted, since they have a small common border to the North East.

    I think that would solve the whole problem of setting up a new government. All the citizens immediately become subjects of the governments that claimed their lands.

    https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en




    I don't agree with distributing territory to it's neighbours, but instead of all this continuous fighting why don't we partition Afghanistan and allow the taliban to govern one part on the condition they stop fighting us. Then we simply allow everyone in Afghanistan to make a choice of where they wish live either in the democratic part or the taliban controlled part.

    If they agree it will give everyone a fair choice, save a fortune and save lives, infact then we can all pack up and go home.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    "why dont we just divide up Afghanistan?"

    Yes, pure Imperialism, its like playing Risk but killing real people. Ok, now back to your question, the reason "we just" dont divide up Afghanistan is thats not the type of evil Imperialism youre looking for, its the wrong flavor of icecream, what you want is a brand of evil imperialism that can still trick a hanfull of less astute people into thinking youre the good guys, that allows you to keep a straight face when you say you kill women and children for good reasons, unlike others that do the same on a smaller scale but with poor PR. Dividing up Afghanistan doesnt fit the marketing style warmongers seek, it will make it harder to sell mass killing to the public, and harder for criminally corrupt politicians to pretend the people want it. You want to divide up afghanistan and give to China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran? hum, let me think about it, now that you put it this way, "give it" to the SCO, its almost a good idea. I can already picture someone going to the taliban and say "look i have a piece of paper here with a drawing made by people on the other side of the planet that have been bombing you and now want to leave so they can invade another country, look on this piece of paper, they say the land where you have lived for generations, fighting back empires for centuries, is now ours, see this little line right there"
    Last edited by icewendigo; September 7th, 2012 at 05:38 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Conquer and divide.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    Yeah. Have you ever heard of Australia.? westwind.
    Words words words, were it better I caught your tears, and washed my face in them, and felt their sting. - westwind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 How many tennis courts, how many swimming pools, how many little athletic clubs are there in Afghanistan? 
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    Are we, in the West, Still showing our paranoia about Tribal People.? You scratch the ground with a stick, and burn cow, or camel manure to keep the mosquitoes away. Your different to us. How can we unload all our consumer goods onto Tribesmen who haven't got a wheelbarrow? So we have, in the 20th and 21st Century, screwed them up. To sell them Wheelbarrows? No. To get our hands on their oil. westwind.
    Words words words, were it better I caught your tears, and washed my face in them, and felt their sting. - westwind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by garr View Post
    I agree with the premiss that we need fewer smaller countries and more consolidated larger countries. However, take the UK, one country but 4 sovereign nations in their own right, unification brings strength but results in civil unrest due to centralised governance. The very fact that regions are united in a language (England & Scotland) and have similar social backgrounds and even religion still creates the them and us scenario. That is why the world will never be ruled as a single entity. Unless you want to use force.

    Any Thoughts ??
    One possibility would be to use force.

    The most important aspect of the plan is forcing the children to attend public schools, where they are taught how wonderful the history of your (world) country is and how their ancestors fought and defeated horrible tyrants in order to establish it. ...... Just like what I was taught in the public school where I grew up.

    You can't coerce the first generation completely, but you can win over the second or third if you start young enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    hum, let me think about it, now that you put it this way, "give it" to the SCO, its almost a good idea. I can already picture someone going to the taliban and say "look i have a piece of paper here with a drawing made by people on the other side of the planet that have been bombing you and now want to leave so they can invade another country, look on this piece of paper, they say the land where you have lived for generations, fighting back empires for centuries, is now ours, see this little line right there"

    I think you'd be surprised how good the Chinese are at assimilating territory.

    Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Some of the hints toward social engineering are getting a little creepy.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Some of the hints toward social engineering are getting a little creepy.
    a little?----------------n.w.o.?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I guess the way I look at it, the "be proud of your ethnicity" history lessons children get from their parents and community are just as much BS as anything you could teach them in school. It might as well be BS directed towards a purpose instead of random BS.

    The community tries to turn them into weapons with its BS. A coordinated education system BS program could be directed toward simply making them happy citizens.
    westwind likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    The Loss of Face perspective. Hello kojax. Quote "" beproud of your ethnicity "" End Quote. Where and when did these Middle Eastern Nations lose their Self Respect?? Their loss of Face? Very meaningful to a Middle Eastern Tribe or Tribal Nation. Does the White House have views on this? We must understand any problems we are confronting for whatever reason.. Unless we can understand what the foundations are of conflict, and why the break down of the traditional mores of a society or Nation has occured, and we are willing to see the facts for what they are and plan our strategy accordingly, then no way can we rebuild to the extent of restoring situations to a habital invironment. westwind.
    Words words words, were it better I caught your tears, and washed my face in them, and felt their sting. - westwind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I think self pity is the main problem. Each culture believes it is entitled to something because it was mistreated during the colonial period. Most of those nations/ethnicities/etc were quite warlike in their own right. I almost laugh out loud when people try to describe the "mistreatment" of the Aztecs, for example. It seems they rarely stop to consider the surviving history about them pillaging, plundering, enslaving, raping, everyone around them. Then someone stronger came along and those bullies got what they deserved, becoming the victims of another bully.

    The war era ended with the atom bomb. Now all we have is skirmishes, the outcomes of which mean little more than an honor match. The police actions/nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq are an interesting new idea, but those are still not really wars. They're domestic matters in seized territories (which we don't even want to admit to ourselves that we have seized.)

    It's like if you're in a casino, and some guy bets everything on a roll of dice. He thinks he has a sure thing, but then the dice land on snake eyes and he loses. What these cultures are doing is kind of like if that guy were to demand to get his money back. The only one I feel any pity for is Tibet, because they weren't playing the conquest game. They didn't deserve to lose if they weren't playing the game.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    FRom what tribes are the attacks coming from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. What is the sense to use a troops in Afghanistan?
    By Stanley514 in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 4th, 2012, 11:04 PM
  2. Horses in Afghanistan?
    By 15uliane in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 21st, 2011, 07:50 AM
  3. Economic Strategy in Afghanistan
    By kojax in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2010, 02:59 PM
  4. Warning about Afghanistan by a Russian General!
    By bigOz in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 27th, 2006, 12:34 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •