Fate of Afghanistan, Taliban resurgence

[Draco-Onis]

Sure, you are free to believe that

Historically speaking those regimes can come about from either left or right however in modern day it is mostly the right wing openly pushing for it. I would go further and say it's not really a left and right thing but populism in general because that is where people are so angry they are willing to accept anything but the status quo.

[Specialka]

Historically speaking those regimes can come about from either left or right however in modern day it is mostly the right wing openly pushing for it. I would go further and say it's not really a left and right thing but populism in general because that is where people are so angry they are willing to accept anything but the status quo.

And then you will have people arguing that populism is a "right thing", and that is why I try to not engage in debate with those people as they have no clue.

[Draco-Onis]

And then you will have people arguing that populism is a "right thing", and that is why I try to not engage in debate with those people as they have no clue.

Did you read anything I wrote? Where did I say populism was a "right thing"? I simply stated that the right wing currently is pushing for dictatorial governments around the world however populism is neither left or right. The next time you want to throw faux indignation you may want to pay attention otherwise you can find a mirror for your conversations.

[Specialka]

Did you read anything I wrote? Where did I say populism was a "right thing"? I simply stated that the right wing currently is pushing for dictatorial governments around the world however populism is neither left or right. The next time you want to throw faux indignation you may want to pay attention otherwise you can find a mirror for your conversations.

That was not directed to you. It was merely a remark that you will have people arguing about that while I do agree with you.

[jonnysensible]

looks like the talibs are already falling out over the spoils.

Also blinken is a fucking idiot. I liked his answer where he said (and im paraphrasing) 'there is no danger of Afghan forces equipment falling into Taliban hands because they contractors who maintain them have all left' No wonder the army folded you fucking mutant.

[Gaidax]

looks like the talibs are already falling out over the spoils.

Also blinken is a fucking idiot. I liked his answer where he said (and im paraphrasing) 'there is no danger of Afghan forces equipment falling into Taliban hands because they contractors who maintain them have all left' No wonder the army folded you fucking mutant.

I'll tell you a secret, the "army" would fold regardless. There was no army, it was a bunch of people going full "every man for himself" submitting to people with bigger sticks in the area. And that's fine, because in the end people don't want to die over abandoned cause.

While I think the pullout could have been definitely executed better, the ultimate outcome would not change - at very most you'd have Taliban taking over in half a year instead of a month.

[ati87]

I'll tell you a secret, the "army" would fold regardless. There was no army, it was a bunch of people going full "every man for himself" submitting to people with bigger sticks in the area. And that's fine, because in the end people don't want to die over abandoned cause.

While I think the pullout could have been definitely executed better, the ultimate outcome would not change - at very most you'd have Taliban taking over in half a year instead of a month.

Partly true but I would argue that the people in power and on top since the very beginning where double dipping. The US supported corruption in Afghanistan because they like control and what is easier to control that corrupt government officials and warlords who will give you just enough to ensure your support. But these same corrupt officials and warlords probably also worked for the taliban.

I mean it was hardly a secret that the Taliban and Afghanistan was a major producer of poppy plants (see article of 2005). Bombing these farms would have been a much cheaper and probably more effective solution than trying to build a "afghan army".

[Gaidax]

Partly true but I would argue that the people in power and on top since the very beginning where double dipping. The US supported corruption in Afghanistan because they like control and what is easier to control that corrupt government officials and warlords who will give you just enough to ensure your support. But these same corrupt officials and warlords probably also worked for the taliban.

I mean it was hardly a secret that the Taliban and Afghanistan was a major producer of poppy plants (see article of 2005). Bombing these farms would have been a much cheaper and probably more effective solution than trying to build a "afghan army".

All in all, what other choice there was? US and allies were a bunch of foreigners that don't understand the language and customs. Of course they needed to work with local influential people to make the thing work, that's how it is. Instantly assembling a government of starry eyed heroes selflessly working for the people happen only in the movies.

What Afghanistan needed is a good old style mandate rule for 60-80 years plus (minus the atrocities), so you'd have quite a few generations changing and ideas and practices changing with each newer generation being a bit better in beliefs and morals than what came before.

It's just that US/Allies just clearly weren't prepared or interested to do that, which makes me ask the question what was the point of staying there to begin with if they were not ready to commit real long term. There just was no real long term plan except for winging it, it seems.

[ati87]

All in all, what other choice there was? US and allies were a bunch of foreigners that don't understand the language and customs. Of course they needed to work with local influential people to make the thing work, that's how it is. Instantly assembling a government of starry eyed heroes selflessly working for the people happen only in the movies.

What Afghanistan needed is a good old style mandate rule for 60-80 years plus (minus the atrocities), so you'd have quite a few generations changing and ideas and practices changing with each newer generation being a bit better in beliefs and morals than what came before.

It's just that US/Allies just clearly weren't prepared or interested to do that, which makes me ask the question what was the point of staying there to begin with if they were not ready to commit real long term. There just was no real long term plan except for winging it, it seems.

What the Afghanistan needed (and most of the world tbh) was having a live without foreigners telling them what to do. I mean, what country for the past 500 years has been better off with some foreign overlord telling them what to do? Only two countries I can think off that managed to get out OK are Germany and Japan and that situation can not be compared to the situation of any other country.

mandate rule for 60-80 years

And this has worked so well for any other country in the past? This is the definition of stupidity that you keep repeating the same mistake over and over again expecting different results. Maybe at some point the West needs to understand that being a foreign overlord only breeds more conflict.

[Gaidax]

And this has worked so well for any other country in the past? This is the definition of stupidity that you keep repeating the same mistake over and over again expecting different results. Maybe at some point the West needs to understand that being a foreign overlord only breeds more conflict.

This worked well for plenty of countries, if you remove agenda goggles for a bit.

It's also often down to what said countries decide to do afterwards, the moment mandate is over. But the mandate rule itself often resulted in growing the intellectual and leadership core that resulted in viable countries that moved forward.

"Having a life without having foreigners telling what to do" - that's cute, but you're not living on Mars. Ultimately you're part of the world and you have to deal with it.

The whole Afghanistan thing started sometime in 60s when Afghani leadership decided to try play the superpowers to begin with. They bit more than they could chew, but becoming North Korea was not an option either.

[ati87]

This worked well for plenty of countries, if you remove agenda goggles for a bit.

It's also often down to what said countries decide to do afterwards, the moment mandate is over. But the mandate rule itself often resulted in growing the intellectual and leadership core that resulted in viable countries that moved forward.

"Having a life without having foreigners telling what to do" - that's cute, but you're not living on Mars. Ultimately you're part of the world and you have to deal with it.

The whole Afghanistan thing started sometime in 60s when Afghani leadership decided to try play the superpowers to begin with. They bit more than they could chew, but becoming North Korea was not an option either.

Highly subjective statement to say "it worked out well" when it's mostly worked for the foreign powers who's own intrest didn't really align with the intrest of that country.

Between South America countries, African/ME countries and Asian countries which of the former western colonies would you want to move to?

[Gaidax]

Highly subjective statement to say "it worked out well" when it's mostly worked for the foreign powers who's own intrest didn't really align with the intrest of that country.

Between South America countries, African/ME countries and Asian countries which of the former western colonies would you want to move to?

I'm already in one such a country. In the end it's down to what populace makes of it - quite a few of our institutions and laws are a heritage of British order, form of governance is parliamentary democracy and so on and so forth. Brits had to bail eventually but they left just enough of systems and ideas in place to make a functioning state in their wake.

Take India as another example - there you quite literally had generations over generation of learning, seeping in the ideas and creating political movements that eventually led to Britain leaving, but again leaving it to people who could take over and continue making a state.

Same goes for quite a few South American countries, it's not all sex, drugs and gangs there. There are quite a few well off countries there.

Ultimately it's down to people to make use of what they are given, yes colonists were not doing it for the goodness of their hearts, but ultimately given time they had just enough influence and most importantly time to have local intelligentsia grow and make use of that to the betterment of their country.

Or not... after all, it is down to people living there.

[JohnBrown1917]

All in all, what other choice there was? US and allies were a bunch of foreigners that don't understand the language and customs. Of course they needed to work with local influential people to make the thing work, that's how it is. Instantly assembling a government of starry eyed heroes selflessly working for the people happen only in the movies.

What Afghanistan needed is a good old style mandate rule for 60-80 years plus (minus the atrocities), so you'd have quite a few generations changing and ideas and practices changing with each newer generation being a bit better in beliefs and morals than what came before.

It's just that US/Allies just clearly weren't prepared or interested to do that, which makes me ask the question what was the point of staying there to begin with if they were not ready to commit real long term. There just was no real long term plan except for winging it, it seems.

Ah, yes, bringing back good ol' colonialism.


It is what Israel is good at after all.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm already in one such a country. In the end it's down to what populace makes of it - quite a few of our institutions and laws are a heritage of British order, form of governance is parliamentary democracy and so on and so forth. Brits had to bail eventually but they left just enough of systems and ideas in place to make a functioning state in their wake.

Israel is a Settler-colonial state that has a high population of European jews, its a lot closer to Australia or New-Zealand than any of the former colonials.

Take India as another example - there you quite literally had generations over generation of learning, seeping in the ideas and creating political movements that eventually led to Britain leaving, but again leaving it to people who could take over and continue making a state.

I'm sure the indians at the time loved being ruled by genocidal pricks like Churchill.

Same goes for quite a few South American countries, it's not all sex, drugs and gangs there. There are quite a few well off countries there.

Not thanks to the US, they where too busy overthrowing governments like Chile with fascist ones.

[Omega10]

This worked well for plenty of countries, if you remove agenda goggles for a bit.

It's also often down to what said countries decide to do afterwards, the moment mandate is over. But the mandate rule itself often resulted in growing the intellectual and leadership core that resulted in viable countries that moved forward.

"Having a life without having foreigners telling what to do" - that's cute, but you're not living on Mars. Ultimately you're part of the world and you have to deal with it.

The whole Afghanistan thing started sometime in 60s when Afghani leadership decided to try play the superpowers to begin with. They bit more than they could chew, but becoming North Korea was not an option either.

You mean like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador where people there heard Trump "If you come to America we will separate you from your families and put you in cages.", and people there joined caravans to try to get to the US anyways because that's a lot better than what happens to them in the US supported governments that we have been lording over for quite a while?

[JohnBrown1917]

You mean like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador where people there heard Trump "If you come to America we will separate you from your families and put you in cages.", and people there joined caravans to try to get to the US anyways because that's a lot better than what happens to them in the US supported governments that we have been lording over for quite a while?

But they teach they ''manners'', so its okay!

[Gaidax]

You mean like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador where people there heard Trump "If you come to America we will separate you from your families and put you in cages.", and people there joined caravans to try to get to the US anyways because that's a lot better than what happens to them in the US supported governments that we have been lording over for quite a while?

No I mean Chile, Argentina and Uruguay... I too can cherry pick best cases.

Again, as I said - it's all down to what local populace does with their land after it becomes independent. It is also down to local leadership too as can be seen with Venezuela which used to be a jewel of South America, but was turned to shit with criminal leadership. Can't really blame that on dat evil colonialism 200 years ago.

[JohnBrown1917]

No I mean Chile, Argentina and Uruguay... I too can cherry pick best cases.

Again, as I said - it's all down to what local populace does with their land after it becomes independent. It is also down to local leadership too as can be seen with Venezuela which used to be a jewel of South America, but was turned to shit with criminal leadership.

You just can't stop supporting fascist overthrows of democratic governments, can't you?

Good thing Venezuela dodged it.

[prwraith]

We were never serious about this. If we were we'd have said screw assistance. Afghanistan you are now state 51, we will be colonizing with a permanent force stationed here. Borders protected and interior policed.

[ati87]

I'm already in one such a country. In the end it's down to what populace makes of it - quite a few of our institutions and laws are a heritage of British order, form of governance is parliamentary democracy and so on and so forth. Brits had to bail eventually but they left just enough of systems and ideas in place to make a functioning state in their wake.

Take India as another example - there you quite literally had generations over generation of learning, seeping in the ideas and creating political movements that eventually led to Britain leaving, but again leaving it to people who could take over and continue making a state.

Same goes for quite a few South American countries, it's not all sex, drugs and gangs there. There are quite a few well off countries there.

Ultimately it's down to people to make use of what they are given, yes colonists were not doing it for the goodness of their hearts, but ultimately given time they had just enough influence and most importantly time to have local intelligentsia grow and make use of that to the betterment of their country.

Or not... after all, it is down to people living there.

To keep it a bit simpel but I don't look at India or Pakistan and think "those countries are well off" just looking at the poverty level alone (ignoring an other issue) mst

Best what you can come up with are countries like Canada and Australia (or the US even) which I don't think you should even open that can of worms given what happend to the native population of those countries.

- - - Updated - - -

No I mean Chile, Argentina and Uruguay... I too can cherry pick best cases.

Again, as I said - it's all down to what local populace does with their land after it becomes independent. It is also down to local leadership too as can be seen with Venezuela which used to be a jewel of South America, but was turned to shit with criminal leadership.

It's a bit (read) more complex then this and countries often don't just up and leave.

[Omega10]

No I mean Chile, Argentina and Uruguay... I too can cherry pick best cases.

Again, as I said - it's all down to what local populace does with their land after it becomes independent. It is also down to local leadership too as can be seen with Venezuela which used to be a jewel of South America, but was turned to shit with criminal leadership. Can't really blame that on dat evil colonialism 200 years ago.

Argentina - the country that is having trouble keeping up with its IMF debts?
Chile - the country that recently had tons of protests trying to fight back against what a lot of citizens think of as a dictator?

I don't know much about Uruguay, but if Chile and Argentina and your examples of shining succcess I suspect it's not in that great of shape either.

Brazil had a decent chance of being a huge success - but apparently Bolsonario has been as bad for Brazil as Trump was for the US.

Edit: And Venezuela - a lot of people view Venezuela as an example of just how effective US led sanctions can be in destroying a country's economy. The message: obey the US, or starve.

It wasn't that long ago that the US hijacked a ship heading from Iran to Venezuela and just flat out took its oil and sold it.