Brumerican Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I think we should invade more countries and kill more civilians if Im honest. George? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Believing the Afghans will become democrats is like believing lions will become vegetarians. And, at the end of the day, why should we expect them to? Or the Iraqis? Or any of the "non democratic nations"? Maybe there is more to politics than liberalism. Sure, it works for us more or less, but we have a long liberal tradition, going back 200 years or more. Even so, for most of those 200 years we excluded one group or another from our "democracy". Maybe expecting cultures where they dont have that liberal tradition to suddenly just accept that philosophy overnight and understand how to implement it effectively is being just a tad condescending? Who gave us the right to decide what's right and wrong? You can't force a population to choose liberalism but you can give them the oppostunity to do so. Currently many people do not have the choice, their government system is physically forced on them. If we leave Iraq, it settles down and they vote back in a dictatorial form of government then fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerlad Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I think we should invade more countries and kill more civilians if Im honest. George? Hillary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 31, 2009 Moderator Share Posted March 31, 2009 Will we ever really know? Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artetasgirl Posted March 31, 2009 Visiting Supporter Share Posted March 31, 2009 After losing 2 friends out there, it is a categorical no from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerlad Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 After losing 2 friends out there, it is a categorical no from me. So you'd rather have your friends die in a meaningless war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artetasgirl Posted March 31, 2009 Visiting Supporter Share Posted March 31, 2009 After losing 2 friends out there, it is a categorical no from me. So you'd rather have your friends die in a meaningless war? I'd rather have my friends not die at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villal Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 After losing 2 friends out there, it is a categorical no from me. So you'd rather have your friends die in a meaningless war? Bizarre question :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerlad Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Yeh I realise I didnt word it very well, let me try and explain it, I too have lost a friend to the war in Iraq. So I dont talk about this not knowing what its like. I meant wouldnt you rather your friends had died in war that had meaning than a war that was pointless? im sure it can be phrasedmuch better and obviously you'd rather they didn;t die at all. Sorry if my last post upset you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 31, 2009 Moderator Share Posted March 31, 2009 Are people really still under the impression this war was about Saddam Hussain? How bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 After losing 2 friends out there, it is a categorical no from me. So you'd rather have your friends die in a meaningless war? All of the fallen died in a meaningless war for a phoney cause. That doesn't devalue their personal sacrifice and bravery, but kidding yourself it wasn't meaningless in order to rationalise why they died leaves the door open for it to happen again - 'it' being the deployment of troops into harms way for no good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Are people really still under the impression this war was about Saddam Hussain? How bizarre. It might not be what the war was about but that doesn't change the fact that he and his party was removed as a result of this war. For that reason it was worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 31, 2009 Moderator Share Posted March 31, 2009 Are people really still under the impression this war was about Saddam Hussain? How bizarre. It might not be what the war was about but that doesn't change the fact that he and his party was removed as a result of this war. For that reason it was worth it. I don't eat in Pizza Hut because the side salad is nice, the rest of the meal just isn't worth it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 so lies, deceipt and incompetence justify the end result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerlad Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 so lies, deceipt and incompetence justify the end result? This isn't the place to discuss the demise of the Lovely Ladies Thread :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 so lies, deceipt and incompetence justify the end result? For me it did. Lies, deceit and incompetence are a very small price to pay compared to the hope the Kurdish and Shi'ite people of Iraq now have of a proper life where they had no hope before. They now have the same rights we do to elect a government who can lie to them and act incompetantly on their behalf. We do take it for granted how good we have it compaired to the majority of the people on this planet. Joking aside, I actually think Tony Blair did believe what he was saying. I think his intelligence was poor but he actually believed it in good faith that Saddam was a threat and if the war would remove a brutal dictator as well then all the better. History has shown the first side was incorrect but the secondary side effect still applied. In conclusion, it didn't help us because Saddam turnd out to not be a threat to us but it still helped the people of that country so the net result is still a positive one for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 31, 2009 Moderator Share Posted March 31, 2009 Joking aside, I actually think Tony Blair did believe what he was saying. I think his intelligence was poor but he actually believed it in good faith that Saddam was a threat and if the war would remove a brutal dictator as well then all the better. You really do have a low opinion of Tony Blair's intelligence if you think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Joking aside, I actually think Tony Blair did believe what he was saying. I think his intelligence was poor but he actually believed it in good faith that Saddam was a threat and if the war would remove a brutal dictator as well then all the better. You really do have a low opinion of Tony Blair's intelligence if you think that. Well I was obviously refering to his millitary intellegence. I think he believed what he was being told. Perhaps we will one day find out the details of who knew what and when but I doubt it to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 You can't force a population to choose liberalism but you can give them the oppostunity to do so. Why? Liberalism is a very western concept. invading a country to bring them what you or I would regard as democracy "because we know best" is a bit like invading a country to bring them Christianity because its "the one true faith" and done for largely the same condescending "civilising" reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Believing the Afghans will become democrats is like believing lions will become vegetarians. I know it's taking this off topic but I just thought I'd link this story to what you have just said: 'Worse than the Taliban' - new law rolls back rights for Afghan women Hamid Karzai has been accused of trying to win votes in Afghanistan's presidential election by backing a law the UN says legalises rape within marriage and bans wives from stepping outside their homes without their husbands' permission. The Afghan president signed the law earlier this month, despite condemnation by human rights activists and some MPs that it flouts the constitution's equal rights provisions. Jon Boone reveals Afghanistan's new law denying women's rights Link to this audio The final document has not been published, but the law is believed to contain articles that rule women cannot leave the house without their husbands' permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands' permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex. A briefing document prepared by the United Nations Development Fund for Women also warns that the law grants custody of children to fathers and grandfathers only. Senator Humaira Namati, a member of the upper house of the Afghan parliament, said the law was "worse than during the Taliban". "Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam," she said. The Afghan constitution allows for Shias, who are thought to represent about 10% of the population, to have a separate family law based on traditional Shia jurisprudence. But the constitution and various international treaties signed by Afghanistan guarantee equal rights for women. Shinkai Zahine Karokhail, like other female parliamentarians, complained that after an initial deal the law was passed with unprecedented speed and limited debate. "They wanted to pass it almost like a secret negotiation," she said. "There were lots of things that we wanted to change, but they didn't want to discuss it because Karzai wants to please the Shia before the election." Although the ministry of justice confirmed the bill was signed by Karzai at some point this month, there is confusion about the full contents of the final law, which human rights activists have struggled to obtain a copy of. The justice ministry said the law would not be published until various "technical problems" had been ironed out. After seven years leading Afghanistan, Karzai is increasingly unpopular at home and abroad and the presidential election in August is expected to be extremely closely fought. A western diplomat said the law represented a "big tick in the box" for the powerful council of Shia clerics. Leaders of the Hazara minority, which is regarded as the most important bloc of swing voters in the election, also demanded the new law. Ustad Mohammad Akbari, an MP and the leader of a Hazara political party, said the president had supported the law in order to curry favour among the Hazaras. But he said the law actually protected women's rights. "Men and women have equal rights under Islam but there are differences in the way men and women are created. Men are stronger and women are a little bit weaker; even in the west you do not see women working as firefighters." Akbari said the law gave a woman the right to refuse sexual intercourse with her husband if she was unwell or had another reasonable "excuse". And he said a woman would not be obliged to remain in her house if an emergency forced her to leave without permission. The international community has so far shied away from publicly questioning such a politically sensitive issue. "It is going to be tricky to change because it gets us into territory of being accused of not respecting Afghan culture, which is always difficult," a western diplomat in Kabul admitted. Soraya Sobhrang, the head of women's affairs at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, said western silence had been "disastrous for women's rights in Afghanistan". "What the international community has done is really shameful. If they had got more involved in the process when it was discussed in parliament we could have stopped it. Because of the election I am not sure we can change it now. It's too late for that." But another senior western diplomat said foreign embassies would intervene when the law is finally published. Some female politicians have taken a more pragmatic stance, saying their fight in parliament's lower house succeeded in improving the law, including raising the original proposed marriage age of girls from nine to 16 and removing completely provisions for temporary marriages. "It's not really 100% perfect, but compared to the earlier drafts it's a huge improvement," said Shukria Barakzai, an MP. "Before this was passed family issues were decided by customary law, so this is a big improvement." Karzai's spokesman declined to comment on the new law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts