The POTUS decides to be a chicken, pulls out of Afghanistan

[Zardnaar]

So because they have no real history of democracy, vastly different cultural values and education levels the Taliban would probably win free and fair elections?

I'm not seeing the logic there.

It means the Taliban has a certain level of popularity they could likely win a free and fair election failing that probably a coalition.

The US puppet government couldn't. The Afghan elite negotiated with the Taliban and essentially colluded with them.

They were more popular than the US puppet government by any measure.

Its like if Saudi Arabia ditched the monarchy and had an election some Islamist group would likely win an election.

 

[H4run]

It means the Taliban has a certain level of popularity they could likely win a free and fair election failing that probably a coalition.

The US puppet government couldn't. The Afghan elite negotiated with the Taliban and essentially colluded with them.

They were more popular than the US puppet government by any measure.

Its like if Saudi Arabia ditched the monarchy and had an election some Islamist group would likely win an election.

They would not able to attain what they have accomplished without popular support especially in rural area. Yes Taliban banned television, music and cinema, and was forbidding woman under 10 to attain education (I hope they lifted it now). They also applied strict shariah interpretation and implementation.

But peoples often forget that they are successful in stamping out corruption, curbing lawlessness and making the roads and the areas under their control safe for commerce to flourish. They are popular in Urban area, but not as popular as in rural region, places where suffered the most from the occupation.

I just hope they can evolve, and I think we should consistent with our stance in non-interventionist world view/stance (if we are), years of occupational investment are never the choice of Afghan peoples, it's not an investment to build but to oppress, and that's a mistake of US rabid foreign policy.

 

[Zardnaar]

They would not able to attain what they have accomplished without popular support especially in rural area. Yes Taliban banned television, music and cinema, and was forbidding woman under 10 to attain education (I hope they lifted it now). They also applied strict shariah interpretation and implementation.

But peoples often forget that they are successful in stamping out corruption, curbing lawlessness and making the roads and the areas under their control safe for commerce to flourish. They are popular in Urban area, but not as popular as in rural region, places where suffered the most from the occupation.

I just hope they can evolve, and I think we should consistent with our stance in non-interventionist world view/stance (if we are), years of occupational investment are never the choice of Afghan peoples, it's not an investment to build but to oppress, and that's a mistake of US rabid foreign policy.

As I said more than a few places will willingly create crappy regimes by western standards.

But western standards aren't universal.

When in Rome......

If a crappy regimes sits there minding its own business let them.

To really conquer Afghanistan you could do it but not at a price that the west or even USSR was willing to pay.

 

[Jukebox The Ghoul]

Japan was very literate, had centralized authority, and a western educated elite faction and was ethnically homogeneous. And was industrialized and reasonably wealthy.

Afghanistan doesn't really have that. It's tribal, multiple sects and etbic groups that don't really like each other and poor.

What the hell does ethnic homongeneity have to do with anything? Nazi germany was very homogenous (even before the holocaust) and it was crap.
I noticed you avoided all my questions and made exception only one of my examples. South Korea was a colony, it went through a period of US-supported dictatorship and then transformed in to a democracy. Poland is 96% Polish, and its doing awful.

Come on you can't be serious. Ethnically homogenous are not correlated with doing good as a nation, in fact ethnically homogenous areas are correlated with being less productive and more prejudiced and have *more crime* not less.

Segregation and Crime: The Effect of Black Social Isolation on the Rates of Black Urban Violence on JSTOR
Business Wealth and the Composition of Ownership Teams in New Firms: The Role of Homophily and Diversity | Journal of Business Diversity
Ethnic Diversity and Its Effects on Social Cohesion | Annual Review of Sociology (This is a study of studies.)
Full article: Ethnic diversity, segregation and the social cohesion of neighbourhoods in London
I have more if you care.

And everything else - is an environmental factor, their wealth, their industrialisation, their centralisation (if indeed that is a factor,) and education levels. Meaning we can change them and set up functioning governments. But we didn't! We can invest in their wealth and their education.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Meaning we can change them and set up functioning governments. But we didn't! We can invest in their wealth and their education.

Who do you include by the word "we"?

 

[Jukebox The Ghoul]

As I said more than a few places will willingly create crappy regimes by western standards.

But western standards aren't universal.

When in Rome......

If a crappy regimes sits there minding its own business let them.

To really conquer Afghanistan you could do it but not at a price that the west or even USSR was willing to pay.

"Crappy regimes" never sit still, they create refugees as long as they are alive, they almost always want to expand and invade.
Also this position is unconscionable, the moral objections to Nazi Germany is not that they tried to expand, but it was the genocide they were carrying out amongst citizens of their own nation.

 

[Snowygerry]

(...) The difference being nazis are objectively bad and want to exterminate entire ethnic groups for "racial purity," and these people want to get by in life and not be run by theocratic nutbags. We wouldn't say to a murderer, "oh well, you thought the murder was good so I guess you're off the hook then" No! We put them in jail for murder because we've agreed on certain things being wrong and having certain punishments.

Invading a country that's not yours is also "objectively bad" - so is helping an invasion force in any way,

or at the very least it could be seen that way IF the invading forces lose the war.

 

[Jukebox The Ghoul]

Invading a country that's not yours is also ""objectively bad" - so is helping the invasion force in any way.

I think for Afghanistan invasion was not a real good idea but In the same way people say it is fine to shoot someone coming to kill you with a big knife, I do not have any qualms with invading fascist nations like Nazi Germany, because the violence inflicted would result in overall less violence against innocent people.. And we also justify shooting people who are about to kill someone else. Same principle.

And helping them depends on what side. If they're helping the genocidal side, that's bad, if they're helping the non-genocidal side fight the genocidal side, thats good.

 

[Samson]

I think for Afghanistan invasion was not a real good idea. But I do not have any qualms with invading fascist nations like Nazi Germany, because the violence inflicted would result in overall less violence against innocent people. In the same way people say it is fine to shoot someone coming to kill you with a big knife. And we also justify shooting people who are about to kill someone else. Same principle.

The thing is, calculations like that are easy in retrospect, but much more difficult if one is relying on foresight as you are when you actually have to choose to do them or not.

 

[Jukebox The Ghoul]

Who do you include by the word "we"?

Rich nations.

 

[Snowygerry]

I think for Afghanistan invasion was not a real good idea. But I do not have any qualms with invading fascist nations like Nazi Germany, because the violence inflicted would result in overall less violence against innocent people. In the same way people say it is fine to shoot someone coming to kill you with a big knife. And we also justify shooting people who are about to kill someone else. Same principle.

And helping them depends on what side. If they're helping the genocidal side, that's bad, if they're helping the non-genocidal side fight the genocidal side, thats good.

What if both sides are "genocidal" ?

How do you feel about invading Soviet Russia in 1941 for example ? That was after all the parallel I was after...

I'm sure no one objected to US troops invading occupied France in 1944 - but rarely are things so crystal clear

 

[EnglishEdward]

That counts us out.

 

[Jukebox The Ghoul]

The thing is, calculations like that are easy in retrospect, but much more difficult if one is relying on foresight as you are when you actually have to choose to do them or not.

Sure, but for example, the UN has publicly called what's happening in Xinjang a genocide. There were reports of the Dachau camp in the 30s and Hitler was obviously spewing hateful rhetoric. Kristalknacht was widely known and it was a PR disaster for Germany.
The UN secretary general has even explained that genocides always have warning signs and are almost never sudden.
https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/sgsm20488.doc.htm
Many many genocides you can look up intelligences of multiple nations could notice markers of coming genocide and predicted them before they happen. And even if we can't have a good burden of proof for predicting it. As soon as we can recognise it, that is absolutely time to make this calculation and a moral time to intervene.

 

[innonimatu]

"Their country" being the absolute garbage Taliban government? I'm not saying betraying that government makes one a saint, but I don't think I would lean too heavily into the "treason" angle here.

Their country being the people of Afghanistan. There's a reason why the puppet government collapsed. Why the occupation never managed to control the country. The occupying armies kept bombing marriages and murdering people left and right throughout the country. Supposedly "mistakes were made". How many times were these local collaborators the ones pointing out the targets for the killing? I mean, someone provided the "intelligence". So imo among these "translators" and helpers of the occupying armies you'll be hard pressed to find innocent people.

The government Afghanistan now has is the one their actions ended up placing in power. It wasn't just the foreigners who invaded, it was the locals also who played their parts in causing power to eventually fall back into the Taliban's hands.

 

[Samson]

Sure, but for example, the UN has publicly called what's happening in Xinjang a genocide. There were reports of the Dachau camp in the 30s and Hitler was obviously spewing hateful rhetoric. Kristalknacht was widely known and it was a PR disaster for Germany.
The UN secretary general has even explained that genocides always have warning signs and are almost never sudden.
https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/sgsm20488.doc.htm
Many many genocides you can look up intelligences of multiple nations could notice markers of coming genocide and predicted them before they happen. And even if we can't have a good burden of proof for predicting it. As soon as we can recognise it, that is absolutely time to make this calculation and a moral time to intervene.

I agree that there are terrible things going on, but to make the decision to invade requires a lot more balacing than that. Should we start WW3 over Xinjang? What about Kristalknacht like behaviour by today's nations, is that enough to invade?

 

[red_elk]

How do you feel about invading Soviet Russia in 1941 for example ?

Indeed, how can anyone feel about murdering 30 millions people to get some lebensraum?

 

[Snowygerry]

Strange thing is they were not convicted for that - they were convicted for "collaboration with the enemy in time of war".

 

[Jukebox The Ghoul]

I agree that there are terrible things going on, but to make the decision to invade requires a lot more balacing than that. Should we start WW3 over Xinjang? What about Kristalknacht like behaviour by today's nations, is that enough to invade?

What if both sides are "genocidal" ?

How do you feel about invading Soviet Russia in 1941 for example ? That was after all the parallel I was after...

I'm sure no one objected to US troops invading occupied France in 1944 for example - but rarely are things so crystal clear

Ofcourse, these calculations will be more complicated, and affected by geopolitics (It would be hard to sanction or invade Russia more than what was already happening in the cold war, and while both nations had nuclear weapons) I don't mean exclusively invasions, for example, war with china would be ridiculous right now. But sanctioning it for the xinjang genocide would be a good start. Also countering its global influence and buying out people they're trying to influence, espionage maybe?

I agree in the 40s, Nazi germany was the first priority, not only because of its expansionism but its entire ideology was explicitly racist. To counter the holodomor, I think it would be interesting to think about other countermeasures. For example when the soviets tried to blockade West Berlin, the allies put together an emergency operation to air drop supplied in to west germany so they didn't starve. Stalin did not want to shoot down the american planes because he didn't want war either. (This was called the Berlin Airlift.)
I think the most moral thing for the holodomor would be to organise a similar airlift to drop food by air on the areas identified in Ukraine, probably make base this operation in the black sea and funnel things through Turkey or Germany again.

With regards to the Kristalnacht behaviour in Israel Palestine - It is already very obviously a genocidal occupation there, and Israel has acted expansionist in many wars before, and even suppresed the more egalitarian Palestine Liberation Organisation in favour of Hamas and for christ's sake, palestinians and arab israeli citizens living in Israel actually have less rights than jewish citizens - essentially segregation based on race.
The most moral thing for that would be to reduce all money and weapons from the West/US to Israel. If Israel would not give up at that point, (likely considering how the polls you can see coming out of Israel about their views on palestinians; their only pro-palestinian party is like 0.01% of their electorate or something?) I would also try to see if the PLO can be re-established and support them with as much aid and weapons as possible. If they gave up on their genocidal behaviour, maybe a reintegratery period, maybe something like a Mandate of a larger nation or coalition of nations whose main aim would be reintegration and prevention of genocide. Tensions are so high that diversification is needed extremely quickly and perhaps ask any of the people who want to leave give them a free pass out of there or economically incentivise that even. I do not think forced expulsion of israelis would be a good idea considering the backlash that would have, but if they're willing to stay and live in an equal society with palestinians that would be great.

If you get what I mean? I don't want just invasions all the time, but whatever gets the best results and acted upon the best intelligence.

 

[Snowygerry]

Wel let's stick to Afghanistan then, surely an average Afghan that considers any foreign army there an invasion force that should be opposed by all means is morally in the clear - no ?

A good patriot.

I'm sure there are many of those...

 

[Samson]

Ofcourse, these calculations will be more complicated, and affected by geopolitics (It would be hard to sanction or invade Russia more than what was already happening in the cold war, and while both nations had nuclear weapons) I don't mean exclusively invasions, for example, war with china would be ridiculous right now. But sanctioning it for the xinjang genocide would be a good start. Also countering its global influence and buying out people they're trying to influence, espionage maybe?

I agree in the 40s, Nazi germany was the first priority, not only because of its expansionism but its entire ideology was explicitly racist. To counter the holodomor, I think it would be interesting to think about other countermeasures. For example when the soviets tried to blockade West Berlin, the allies put together an emergency operation to air drop supplied in to west germany so they didn't starve. Stalin did not want to shoot down the american planes because he didn't want war either. (This was called the Berlin Airlift.)
I think the most moral thing for the holodomor would be to organise a similar airlift to drop food by air on the areas identified in Ukraine, probably make base this operation in the black sea and funnel things through Turkey or Germany again.

With regards to the Kristalnacht behaviour in Israel Palestine - It is already very obviously a genocidal occupation there, and Israel has acted expansionist in many wars before, and even suppresed the more egalitarian Palestine Liberation Organisation and for christ's sake, palestinians and arab israeli citizens living in Israel actually have less rights than jewish citizens - essentially segregation based on race.
The most moral thing for that would be to reduce all money and weapons from the West/US to Israel. If Israel would not give up at that point, I would also try to see if the PLO can be re-established and support them with as much aid and weapons as possible. If they gave up on their genocidal behaviour (unlikely considering how the polls you can see coming out of Israel about their views on palestinians; their only pro-palestinian party is like 0.01% of their electorate or something?)maybe a reintegratery period, maybe something like a Mandate of a larger nation or coalition of nations whose main aim would be reintegration and prevention of genocide. Tensions are so high that diversification is needed extremely quickly and perhaps ask any of the people who want to leave give them a free pass out of there or economically incentivise that even. I do not think forced expulsion of israelis would be a good idea considering the backlash that would have, but if they're willing to stay and live in an equal society with palestinians that would be great.

If you get what I mean? I don't want just invasions all the time, but whatever gets the best results and acted upon the best intelligence.

I totally agree "we" should use economic pressure more and military pressure less. What does that mean in the context of Afghanistan though? Leave them to starve under the Taliban? That is not going to help the goal of reducing the risk from radicalised individuals to the world in general.