No not really. Im not going to dally with purple fingers. The first 'hours after birth' of a democracy is not going to resemble an actually democracy. This is another thing we all know peripherally. Who voted George Washington in? Was he simply a puppet of the French who helped you against the English?

The issue is less about democracy as it is about centralization. It's not such a bad idea to bring back the king as a head of state for example. He's still popular.


Ahk

Not to my knowledge, but the idea was fermenting during the last monarchy, not the introduction of NATO.


I don't know quite how to answer that. Every state that went from one form of governance to a democracy started it without experience. Not a nation in Europe that wasn't foreign to the concept before they adopted it and not one of them is exactly liek the other.
Yes, hard as it may be to swallow, old does shift into new all the time. Russia is no longer soviet. China is no longer 6 kingdoms. Yes. A states growth, place in the world, a whole host of factors lead it to change. You seem to need to insist it is NATO changing Afghanistan and that is plainly false. It is easy for us to put up a school but the commitment is obvious when people send their children (and girls) to school despite the dangers they face, which was more than anyone faced putting the school there in the first place. All NATO is doing is playing an extrapolated game of whack-the-weasel, and they don't even have to be all that successful at it, they just have to keep it up Afghans will attend the school no matter how many times you burn it down because they want it just as they wanted it before the taliban came in and destroyed them 20 years ago.

Tell me Cass: how we were forcing people to go to school at gun point? We didn't. But small bands of guns owned by a small and more than partially foreign group can come along and take that choice away can't they? And they have too. Maybe it's time to consider that you don't know what Afghans actually want.

The real question in the country is not so much one of democracy, since there are soooo many incarnations of that, but one of centralization and regions growing out of their previous inherent isolation. The necessity for mroe centralization started to show before the soviets invaded.

This is not unknown or without precedent: independent states or provinces reconciling the need for centralization on their terms. It happens all over the world and throughout history. The idea that Afghanistan is somehow inherently different or immune to this progression is false.
There is really only one party out of the many, many in Afghanistan not willing to talk about it. They all want to talk about it. Karzai wants to talk. Everyone wants to talk except the Taliban. they're the only ones truely trying to force their way at gun point.





Ahk

Okay the people who make this statement never scrutinize it. My apologies Cass Im not picking on you but this is true imo.

-Question 1: Can you remove a democracy at the point of a gun? Certainly you can. Generally you need a gun to fight a gun.

-Question 2: If you protect a food shipment from people with guns who want to stop it, are you forcing people to eat at the point of a gun? Of course not.

-Question 3: Does the statement not suggest that people are being forced into a democracy when in fact, in the case of Afghanistan, and aside from questions on exactly what form it should take, most people want to give it a try? This is the reality. So no one's being forced.

-Point: Um which history? Generally when a state introduces a genuine attempt at democracy whether by gun or consensus, it sticks.

The statement is false. Period. No offense.  It's just one of those things that has a philosophical ring to it but is not sound rationally, imo. Doesn't make 'military intervention' the best thing since sliced bread, but that's beside the point. We don't live in a 2-dimensional universe.




The question reads like this: Can you grow a garden with a fence?
Of course not but a fence might stop the rabbits from coming in and uprooting everything. This is the obvious fallacy to the statement that most who use it are generally at least peripherally aware of.

Before we start claiming the myth that Afghanistan has always repelled an occupation, well no. They repelled a British one which was half hearted. One must consider that Afghanistan has been pretty much occupied for the last 30 years straight. Considering how many Pakistan personel or citizens were in the Taliban at the zenith of their control one has right to consider that yet another shaky occupation right after the Soviet one --- which was only repelled with GREAT assistance from other powers, as many are quick to point out. Further if you consider that permanent occupation is not on the table (although there may be NATO troops there for quite a while) then this doesn't apply.

There are a lot of myths about Afghanistan,  the Taliban and Afghans. The reputation of Bush and the calamity of Iraq tend to obscure the picture.



Ahk

Media outlets do not want to be out done by the other. If one says something and another says something strikingly similar then all of them will parrot it. Doesn't really matter what it is. When you 'report' the news who cares what the news is so long as you can cover your 30 min time slot or make your 2000 words.

FoxMbcCnnBbcNbcTimesPostHearlds do not satisfy investors or commercial time payers by educating anyone. That is so ridiculously beyond the time+effort vs profit limit it's not funny.  Just look at education. No they're paid to fill time with talk and pictures in the most attention-getting manner they can get away with. Even if it's in a sly, slick chic manner.

Ahk

I didnt mean to forget anyone Terry. Especially since most everyone there is or becomes a 'believer'.




Ahk

That article is crafty.

"Canadian pullout from Afghanistan won’t harm NATO: official"

That's not a headline it's a forgone conclusion. Naturally Canadian pullout (which isn't in question) won't 'harm nato'. Is that really what the article is asking? No, it's implying there's no reason to be there at all.


Mmm no he's simply echoing what his British and American counterparts have been saying. This is a 'nothing' story.

There are a couple of misconceptions about the disagreement between the NATO countries.  Some countries entered the mission way back in '02/'03 on the condition only the 'cooler' less active provinces would be assigned to them and their roles would be not so much "non-combat" but "in the rear" to condense it. The countries who entered "without condition" naturally patrol the hotter areas/provinces and take the higher risk missions. Which is not to suggest that say French special forces or Turkish helo's aren't seeing action. (then again Im not saying they are;) )

Anyways when the mission came up for renewal in '06 it rubbed the "combat" nations the wrong way because they (i think especially Canada) expected to be given relief by someone else who would 'step up'. This was somewhat implied earlier. So the "combat nations" bitch but won't remind us of the earlier agreement, and the other nations don't want to leave but can't step up.

Lets not forget a lot (a LOT) of this has to do with journalism that from the get go has pretty much pushed incorrect information, stories that get peoples hopes up, or contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure as they wax Orson Wells about the coming "Taliban Spring Offensive" as though they were going to come streaming over the mountains like the Mongols of Ol'. When it turns out that 3 roadside bombs and 3 rockets constitutes a "offensive" they still play it like it's doomsday because they'd love nothing more.

Still to this day they play the Taliban as 'crafty' (and they're not stupid. more soldier-like than  what people generally think of in terms of an insurgent) and sneaky and fast when closer to the truth they're more like magpies to a lion. We roar, they scatter. (yes. With or without air support)





lol!
Why thank you. We have 'every right to debate it'. I am always amazed how writers can write essentially 1000 words of absolutely nothing and still get paid. That's great. Naturally we can 'debate it', and have continually done so. This is just another 'truism' statement, a "nothing" story.
 It is a key role regardless of how many troops. There are three NATO nations guarding the hottest provinces and the porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan:

The USA, the UK and Canada.

Considering size of military among NATO member states what's wrong with that picture? No wonder there's a lot of casualties.

France has the second largest worldwide troop deployment and the (i think) 2nd largest military industry. Im not pointing a finger at France specifically because every nation is putting in and taking risks but that IS disproportionate. Heck it'seven disproportionate for a giant liek the US.
In a world where every friendly casualty becomes a political shot against a mission by, not 'the people' but the political opposition -- whose job it is to oppose -- many of the nations went to Afghanistan because their leadership knows how it is important beyond the USA-9/11 mass hysteria, yet they also know the mission can afford no casualties politically. After all there are only 2 ways to lose a war; fire power and will, in this case political will. This is what the opposition will always drive for.



Ahk

i dunno Terry that's how I understood Turkey's position.

NATO has nothign to do with Iraq.





(edit: who to how)

"What's good about the death of a child?"

The scale is too microscopic.

The yin yang also represents homogonous universe. Consider that while there is 'birth' and 'death' in all systems (people or stars), 'creation' and 'destruction', yet still all the matter in the universe remains the same amount throughout all time, it just passes into different states.  Nothing is really ever 'created' or 'destroyed'. It simply transfers...ashes to ashes. dust to dust.

So there is nothing 'good' or 'bad' about the death of a child because that is too tunnel viewed on one object. What would one think if a child was born in one room and another died in the next room?

Naturally this makes a difference to the parents of said baby, but therein is another yin yang of despair / ecstasy.


Ahk

i wish. no the truth is I just failed to read you properly the first time. see my edit.


I understand that, but they do in fact imply that only women suffer from social gender roles and only women deserve to free themselves from them.

Yes i know. see the edit.




Ahk

Uhhhhh what? I mean c'mon now. You say:


Oh? What is the difference? I mean if "feminisim" is not about gender then maybe we should start using a different name? one that doesn't imply female? Of course if we did that then freedom from gender roles -- something males are way behind on recognizing for themselves -- might no longer be your domain or 'property' any longer.

It stands however that NOW makes 2 crucial mis-steps in logic. You'll pardon the lack of surprise in that sentence.

1. It does NOT actually follow that the first woman president will really make anything better for women. The first woman president could, in fact, end up being really bad for women's rights. They propel this notion that a woman as president will make leaps and bounds when there's really no honest evidence to support this beyond the simplistic fact that the prez will no longer have a dick. Further they seem to figure that this is the single most important issue, and naturally it isn't even close.

"female prez = good things for women", is, ironically, an entirely sexist notion and sounds more like a fight for the sandbox rather than an articulate logical statement.

2.  It does not actually follow that if Mr.Ted has done plenty of things in the name of women's rights that he's suddenly betraying women because he doesn't continue to endorse whatever the hell they tell him to. A little bit of "what-have-you-done-for-us-lately" which sounds all too familiar to any male over 30.

In short I believe NOW has embarrassed themselves by releasing a hysterical (yes, hysterical, complete with exclamation marks --- who releases press statements with exclamation marks?) and childish rant. If I was a woman I would completely disassociate myself. The statement reads like a petulant teenager, not someone who has anyone's interests at heart but someone who simply feels jilted over a tiny thing.

EDIT: opps, I'm sorry Cass, this entirely passed over my head:

i trust you'll know which parts of my reply to ignore now
Ahk

Cass,
it's better than what I was going to say which was something along the lines of, "Just because she says's she's working her way through college doesn't necessarily mean she's going to college", but i know I would've been skinned for it, so i didn't.



I'm not that old. (opps. sorry)

But I'm smart. I'm perceptive.  I don’t abide by the ol’ ”well it might be true but he shouldn’t say it”. Never understood that one. When I was in university it was a newer generation and many of them were kinda looking for husbands too although they'd sooner be photographed taking a crap and eating Oreos than admit it. Madonna did the "movement" no favors. Brought it back nearly 50 years with the old, "If I wanna use my body to get ahead that's my choice too."

I kinda wished Cindy Lauper would usurp her but it never happened.

However my university was very male dominated, and still is if you consider subject. For example it's okay for a woman to teach art or anthropology but not physics or psychology. I have no idea why.

Ahk

This is what they tell people in Iran:
"Oh sure if you're a woman and you want to get as educated as a man in the US you can do it, but you have to prostitute yourself. All Western women are, of course, prostitutes"


Ahk

Agreed. Jesus was a terrorist. Even if there was no Jesus there were many like him.

"He lead a insurrectionist cult of little consequence. There are always cults, Caesar." - Marcus Fibius

Frankly I would've nailed him to a post as well.




Ahk

We are building schools, a lot of them. Without the security the schools get burned down.




Ahk

Can you explain? I mean quite literally all the universe and it's mechanics are 'relative'.

Why would I be an 'absolutionist'? I don't feel your definition is without example, just grossly mis-representative  of the whole. I don't see the 'world' through a different prism. There is only one prism, by definition representing the whole spectrum, and it's true that most any 'geopolitical', sociological (anthropological?) situation more often than not IS a spectrum of different catalysts and factors.

But so what? I dunno. Just kinda seemed like it was your definition that was more 'absolute'. I don't get my definition from Fox.

It remains that your definition of terrorist is too narrow, (naturally that's my opinion), to cover a cult like the taliban and a home grown movement like, say, the IRA. It would be difficult to find a singular commonality between those entities. It wouldn't be about the weak vs the strong either. Taliban had their way over the weak for quite a few years: while Afghans starved they went around with rulers measuring beard lengths. The taliban were not without considerable resources, nor where they 'cave-dwelling'. Their home was wherever they decided to lay their hat, so to speak.


Ahk