Fate of Afghanistan, Taliban resurgence

[Mihalik]

Ask the various Native American tribes if violence can crush resistance if applied sufficiently.

That's wasn't an occupation. It's Holocaust levels of genocide. And it took what? 200+, 300 years?

[Yadryonych]

so uh, you're suggesting genocide then?

We call this "Benevolent colonial administration", sometimes "Progression and Civilising" *wink wink nudge nudge*

[JohnBrown1917]

Those are tea parties compared to what would be required.

Nuking them has no monetary benefits.

- - - Updated - - -

so uh, you're suggesting genocide then?

Anything else clearly means the US is too soft.

[Santti]

Ask the various Native American tribes if violence can crush resistance if applied sufficiently.

Ehhh... I'd use something else than Native Americans as an example. They got royally fucked by the diseases we brought, first and foremost. The survivors of that, yeah, they got to experience the violence. But I'd imagine they would have hold much longer than they did, if the diseases wouldn't have reduced their population by as much as 90%.

[Mihalik]

Ehhh... I'd use something else than Native Americans as an example. They got royally fucked by the diseases we brought, first and foremost. The survivors of that, yeah, they got to experience the violence. But I'd imagine they would have hold much longer than they did, if the diseases wouldn't have reduced their population by as much as 90%.

Considering the official duration of the Nativa American Wars is dated from 1609 to 1924 I'd say they held out long enough.

But it's not a working example regardless because it was not an occupation and beyond that active resistance has lasted more than 300 fucking years.

[starlord]

Ehhh... I'd use something else than Native Americans as an example. They got royally fucked by the diseases we brought, first and foremost. The survivors of that, yeah, they got to experience the violence. But I'd imagine they would have hold much longer than they did, if the diseases wouldn't have reduced their population by as much as 90%.

not only that, america
- eliminated many tribes main food sources
- made "peace treaties" that were never upheld to trick them into a false sense of safety
- had aggressive religious programs to "convert" people (still ongoing to this day)
- kidnapped children and indoctrinated them to eliminate language & culture
- had settlement programs to have american settlers push out natives of their land and eliminate them if they objected
- after all that, kept them in abject poverty ever since

so lets say hypothetically america did all that in afghanistan... what would be the point?
they'd have a geographically isolated, volatile territory to defend that would still have "freedom fighters" pouring in from all sides constantly.

and we've seen how easy it is to radicalize americans, much less ones in occupied territory.
what's the big gain?

[Very Tired]

Honest question, but how does the Taliban's treatment of women differ from other middle eastern countries like Saudi Arabia? A lot of the things I have them wanting to impliment are sadly nothing new.

[Kellhound]

so uh, you're suggesting genocide then?

That is one level for sure.

- - - Updated - - -

That's wasn't an occupation. It's Holocaust levels of genocide. And it took what? 200+, 300 years?

It was an occupation by modern definitions, and thanks for proving my point about the level of violence needed.

- - - Updated - - -

Nuking them has no monetary benefits.

- - - Updated - - -



Anything else clearly means the US is too soft.

It does if all you are interested in is the land and "peace".

- - - Updated - - -

Ehhh... I'd use something else than Native Americans as an example. They got royally fucked by the diseases we brought, first and foremost. The survivors of that, yeah, they got to experience the violence. But I'd imagine they would have hold much longer than they did, if the diseases wouldn't have reduced their population by as much as 90%.

The deaths from biological warfare (intentional and unintentional) was a needed level of violence for the Native Americans to be subjugated.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering the official duration of the Nativa American Wars is dated from 1609 to 1924 I'd say they held out long enough.

But it's not a working example regardless because it was not an occupation and beyond that active resistance has lasted more than 300 fucking years.

It WAS an occupation, it WAS put down by force. It took 300 years, but it worked.

[Edge-]

It WAS an occupation, it WAS put down by force. It took 300 years, but it worked.

300 years for a vastly technologically superior force, using biological warfare, violating treaties and agreements constantly to "win"?

Man, that's fuckin pathetic, dude. I get you love being edgy, but this is like...really sad.

[Mihalik]

It WAS an occupation, it WAS put down by force. It took 300 years, but it worked.

Let's not redefine the meaning of words here to fit your narrative please.

Military or belligerent occupation, often simply occupation, is provisional control by a ruling power over a territory, without a claim of formal sovereignty.[1][2][3] The territory is then known as the occupied territory and the ruling power the occupant.[4] Occupation is distinguished from annexation and colonialism by its intended temporary duration.[3][5] While an occupant may set up a formal military government in the occupied territory to facilitate its administration, it is not a necessary precondition for occupation.[6]

The rules of occupation are delineated in various international agreements, primarily the Hague Convention of 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as established state practice. The relevant international conventions, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentaries, and other treaties by military scholars provide guidelines on such topics as rights and duties of the occupying power, protection of civilians, treatment of prisoners of war, coordination of relief efforts, issuance of travel documents, property rights of the populace, handling of cultural and art objects, management of refugees, and other concerns which are very important both before and after the cessation of hostilities. A country that establishes an occupation and violates internationally agreed upon norms runs the risk of censure, criticism, or condemnation. In the current era, the practices of occupations have largely become a part of customary international law, and form a part of the laws of war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

Military Occupation
Military occupation occurs when a belligerent state invades the territory of another state with the intention of holding the territory at least temporarily. While hostilities continue, the occupying state is prohibited by INTERNATIONAL LAW from annexing the territory or creating another state out of it, but the occupying state may establish some form of military administration over the territory and the population. Under the MARTIAL LAW imposed by this regime, residents are required to obey the occupying authorities and may be punished for not doing so. Civilians may also be compelled to perform a variety of nonmilitary tasks for the occupying authorities, such as the repair of roads and buildings, provided such work does not contribute directly to the enemy war effort.

Although the power of the occupying army is broad, the military authorities are obligated under international law to maintain public order, respect private property, and honor individual liberties. Civilians may not be deported to the occupant's territory to perform forced labor nor impressed into military service on behalf of the occupying army. Although measures may be imposed to protect and maintain the occupying forces, existing laws and administrative rules are not to be changed. Regulations of the Hague Conventions of 1907 and, more importantly, the 1949 GENEVA CONVENTION for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War have attempted to codify and expand the protection afforded the local population during periods of military occupation.



Read more: Military Occupation - Occupying, Territory, War, and Law - JRank Articles https://law.jrank.org/pages/8569/Mil...#ixzz73p6adV2o

- - - Updated - - -

300 years for a vastly technologically superior force, using biological warfare, violating treaties and agreements constantly to "win"?

Man, that's fuckin pathetic, dude. I get you love being edgy, but this is like...really sad.

Still wasn't an occupation. It was colonialism and annexation.

Different things.

It neither fits the historical or the modern definition of an occupation.

[Nurasu]

Honest question, but how does the Taliban's treatment of women differ from other middle eastern countries like Saudi Arabia? A lot of the things I have them wanting to impliment are sadly nothing new.

I highly doubt it will be any different than Saudi Arabia. Their old policies about unaccompanied women and things like that aren't even enforceable anymore with the changed dynamics in the larger cities. The population of Kabul is 5X higher than the last time it was Taliban controlled; the old ways aren't even realistic anymore.

Queue sanctions and financial freezes before the Taliban are more successful at running things than the UN though.

- - - Updated - - -

It'll be pretty ironic if Afghanistan is actually more progressive on women's rights than SA, while SA still gets a free pass in the media and Afghanistan gets crucified.

[Mihalik]

Honest question, but how does the Taliban's treatment of women differ from other middle eastern countries like Saudi Arabia? A lot of the things I have them wanting to impliment are sadly nothing new.

At their core they are equally bad but there are some functional, and important, distinctions.

The Saudis apply a fairly strict interpretation of Sharia law, but their treatment of women has some legalistic basis so there's some consistency and rules that women (victims living under it) can navigate, and there are some forms of protections against abandonment (not being financially supported) and courts you can appeal to in case of extreme abuse or such. Also the Saudis don't have rules against educating women as a whole. While women are restricted in which areas they can work in, they can pursue an education and can become things like doctors, nurses, teachers, accountants etc.

That's just not the case with the Taliban, who in general historically despised education in all its forms and who were against even permitting women to learn how to read and write. They also completely restricted them from working in anything outside the household except midwifery.

[JohnBrown1917]

It does if all you are interested in is the land and "peace".

Oh, so it really is too 'soft' to not nuke a whole country(which wont even benefit the US).

[unfilteredJW]

Let's not redefine the meaning of words here to fit your narrative please.

Standard tactic from said poster.

[Mihalik]

It'll be pretty ironic if Afghanistan is actually more progressive on women's rights than SA, while SA still gets a free pass in the media and Afghanistan gets crucified.

Unless the Taliban have 180, ground up and fundamentally changed their ideological stance on the treatment of women and their position in society, and on education in general, they will not be more progressives than the Saudis.

The best we can hope for is them emulating the Saudis. And that would truly be the least of all evils in outcomes.

But deeply doubt that considering that keeping women down has been so important for them that they were willing to go to war with the Soviet union for it.

[Kellhound]

300 years for a vastly technologically superior force, using biological warfare, violating treaties and agreements constantly to "win"?

Man, that's fuckin pathetic, dude. I get you love being edgy, but this is like...really sad.

Has it even going to sink in that this is the point I was making about force?

- - - Updated - - -

Let's not redefine the meaning of words here to fit your narrative please.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation



- - - Updated - - -



Still wasn't an occupation. It was colonialism and annexation.

Different things.

It neither fits the historical or the modern definition of an occupation.

"Military occupation occurs when a belligerent state invades the territory of another state with the intention of holding the territory at least temporarily." Hmm, seems like that is what the US did.

"The 1917 Hague Regulations, like those of 1899, appear to be based on an assumption that a military occupation occurs in the context of a war, and consists of direct control of one hostile State's territory by a rival hostile State's armed forces."

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, so it really is too 'soft' to not nuke a whole country(which wont even benefit the US).

What part of this whole thing is too advanced for you to comprehend? If the use of nuclear weapons is what would be required to control an area by force, then yes, it would be too soft to no go that far. BUT THAT SHOWS WHY OCCUPYING BE FORCE RARELY WORKS.

[Yadryonych]

a geographically isolated, volatile territory to defend that would still have "freedom fighters" pouring in from all sides constantly.

Basically Israel, yet they manage somehow

[Low Hanging Fruit]

That's wasn't an occupation. It's Holocaust levels of genocide. And it took what? 200+, 300 years?

If you toss in the European contributions about 500. But I know we aren't allowed to discuss that part.

[Belize]

Basically Israel, yet they manage somehow

I'm not exactly a geographist here, but a quick glance at a map might reveal some key differences between Israel and Afghanistan.

[Triceron]

P.S.
I can already imagine some posters going off about USA being bad imperialist and how West is at fault for all of this. Would be nice if you could think for a moment before posting, though.

Heh, wishful thinking for these boards.