What is Digg?92 Comments
- Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -12/+30Anyone who thinks the US invades other countries for "humanitarian" reasons is messed up. We can't even do democracy right here!
- Zeonix, on 12/31/2007, -4/+12Except the war in Afghanistan is a NATO operation.
- AntBing, on 12/31/2007, -3/+10We went to kill Al-qaeda and stayed to steal the neighbors oil. Democracy had nothing to do with it.
- inactive, on 12/31/2007, -0/+6Afghanistan was a case where we might have been able to help the country put itself back together. There was a window of opportunity for the USA with allies to enter into Afghanistan bravely and in sufficient numbers to repair the destroyed infrastructure of roads, electricity, potable water and especially their ancient irrigation systems. You can't farm in Afghanistan without water.
If we had done that while forcing the Taleban out AND if we had guaranteed to buy crops at a subsidized price for a number of years while having a large enough presence in the Provinces to assure some security we would probably have won the Afghan's hearts and minds.
But Afghanistan was never the goal. Iraq was the goal from before 911. - inactive, on 12/31/2007, -2/+7There would be plenty of hope if some country in NATO other than the US increased their troop levels. You can't expect the Taliban to just give up. You have to kill them to the man. Media stories like this echo the fervor of the surrender monkeys who wanted to give away Iraq. All we need is a General Petreaus to emerge in Afghanistan to bust some heads.
- inactive, on 12/31/2007, -0/+5Check out http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinc ... the website of the Project for a New American Century. Cheney Pummy, Wolfie, Norman Podhoretz, Bill Kristol and company really thought that they could use American military to IMPOSE democracy on Muslim countries and that they would turn into happy suburbanite Wallmart shoppers.
They really thought that the answer is democracy, and incredibly after 6 years of failure, they still do!
I would be happier with scheming, intelligent cynics, pursuing realpolitik around the globe. It would be better than the current ***** brigade. - masterm1nd, on 12/31/2007, -3/+8That didn't take long.
- Rotzooi, on 12/31/2007, -3/+8Who knew Dick Cheney is a Digger! Hi.
- masterm1nd, on 12/31/2007, -2/+7The US is a democracy, but more specifically it is a representative republic or constitutional republic.
- jmpeagle, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4we are actually a Federal Democratic Republic or Federal Representative Democracy. We are a union of states, like Mexico, Canada, Germany, and Russia as opposed to the systems of France, UK, etc...
- cyberdork, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4Well yeah, but according to your definition there is not one single democracy on the planet. I live in the Federal Republic of Germany, it would be new to me that I dont live in a democracy.
Its just funny how Repuglicans deny the democratic foundation of their country every single time the democratic shortcomings of the US are pointed out. But in the next minute they start talking about the lack of democratic elections in Russia or Pakistan etc. - ClickSnd, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4I am here in Afghanistan right now. You all have no idea how much of a positive impact we have had on the populus. Had we not come here at all, the Taliban, AQ and HiG would still have an iron grip on villages. You don't hear the stories of entier provinces and districts running out insurgent commanders looking for recruits. Or when talking to the ANSF guys, how they are all proud to be serving thier country to protect thier families.
What the hell do you think is going on here? Do you think that we are giving a full combat load to some grunts and telling them not to come back until they fire it all? - inactive, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4"A pure democracy will always devolve into the abuse of the minority"
I've never heard anyone make that argument in my entire life. The US is a republic to avoid the "tyranny of the masses" or, what the majority of Americans wants.
A republic actually gives more power to the government as opposed to giving the power to the people. That's the whole point.
It's like a fascist government based on a system rather than a person, but the people who run it are changed every 4 years to avoid the system from corrupting itself. Of course, that principle is immediately destroyed once you introduce a secretive agency, the IRS, the DEA and other permanent government institutions that impact the system.
You're not a republic either. That term would be applicable to a country like France, which is inherently different from America.
You have your own distinct system. Some call it a corporate republic, some call it the lobby system. There's no official word for it yet. But when we study the American system, we can no longer call it a republic. And it's not a democracy.
A minority has been controlling your government for almost a hundred years now. Corporate interest. Your government is not about its citizens, it's about its corporations. The people who have the greatest influence on any kind of public decision making in America are corporate lobbies. A rich corporate lobby can make the government change its views and its policies. A massive citizen protest does nothing. - mirunit, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3You do realize that even nations like the Philippines struggle from insurgency's. There are always people who do not want democracy and in certain areas of the world they have a rather loud voice. If the United States does nothing, Afghanistan will never have anything close to a democracy and will likely turn into a Islamic militant stronghold once again.
"There was a window of opportunity for the USA with allies to enter into Afghanistan bravely and in sufficient numbers to repair the destroyed infrastructure of roads, electricity, potable water and especially their ancient irrigation systems. You can't farm in Afghanistan without water."
It would just be made into a target again. I am sorry but fear rules over someone coming to build your nation. Most of the passive people are farmers and such will always be subordinate to whoever can instill the most fear, or in the case of the US provide the most saftey. - cyberdork, on 12/31/2007, -2/+5Let me give you the combined finger of the following NATO personnel:
3600 from Germany
2160 from Italy
1665 from the Netherlands
1200 from Poland
1150 from Turkey
1100 from France
665 from Denmark
500 from Norway
479 from Romania
400 from Spain
381 from Belgium
224 from the Czech Republic
180 from Hungary
170 from Greece
150 from Portugal
130 from Estonia
130 from Lithuania
100 from Bulgaria
98 from Latvia
66 from Slovenia
60 from Slovakia
9 from Luxembourg
9 from Iceland
That's 14626 middle fingers in your face!
The US has 14000 troops under NATO command in Afghanistan and another 12000 under US command 'to hunt for Bin-Laden'.
When taking into account the population of the countries then the Dutch have send the equivalent of 30.000 US troops, the Germans 13.000... - ryanward, on 12/31/2007, -8/+11It's a republic, not a democracy. That would be your first problem.
- awtripp, on 12/31/2007, -2/+5Really? No blame to be placed on the President or his administration? ?
- yojiffyskippy, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Nice rebuttals Acewrap and awtripp. I guess the experience based comment by USMarineTanker must have overwhelmed you. I'm surprised that you didn't respond with some name calling or conspiracy theory wackaroo.
- rsh28630, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4There are two recent works of fiction that cast Afghanistan in human terms: "The Kite Runner" and "A Thousand Splendid Suns" are both books by Khaled Hosseini with the former in theaters now as a film. It's very easy to lose perspective that wars impact people on an extremely personal level even when those individuals are not directly involved in battle. In non fiction - for those interested - "Charlie Wilson's War" by George Crile (also a current film) tells a story from one side while "The Hidden War" by Artyom Borovik reveals a different view. "The Places In Between" by Rory Stewart adds still another vision.
The point is, the more you read of this country and its people, the greater your likelihood to get beyond the propaganda and see Afghans as individual human beings tragically caught up in a turbulent swirl of history. - awtripp, on 12/31/2007, -4/+7I'm not sure you know what sarcasm is. What Bush & Co. did do though was go in to Afghanistan, stabalize Kabul for a little bit, get Halliburton in there, and then left to do worse thing in Iraq. Meanwhile, our Troops that are left in Afghanistan are essentially forgotten about because this whole useless Iraq mess is getting all the attention and the bulk of the funding. Al qaeda wasn't even in Iraq when we went in there, sure there were a select few nut jobs just like anywhere else, but we really fubar'd things over there, and there is no way you can't pass that blame to anyone other than Bush, Cheney and their minions.
- AntBing, on 12/31/2007, -4/+7I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands... Seriously, we are not and never have been a true democracy. You've probably said that pledge hundreds of times and you never stopped to understand the words you blindly repeated. That's the real thing the U.S. isn't getting right, education.
- laterthandawn, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3I'm not all that hopeful about much in world politics in 2008. Things are going to get much worse before they get better (aka: until every single one of us puts the greater good before the minor trappings of our daily lives).
Bummer? Yes. But the sooner we realize it, the sooner we start to set things right. - supermanred, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3No, it's a Republic NOT a democracy. The MINORITY control the country and its political parties. YOU have no chance of EVER becoming President. You can't just put your name in and start campaigning, you would have to get permission from a political party, of which the US only has two that their media considers REAL parties. In a true democracy there are no such barriers to running for office and there are not only 2 parties.
It's neighbour to the North, Canada is a constitutional monarchy NOT a democracy.
democracy |diˈmäkrəsē|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives : capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world.
• a state governed in such a way : a multiparty democracy.
• control of an organization or group by the majority of its members : the intended extension of industrial democracy.
• the practice or principles of social equality : demands for greater democracy.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French démocratie, via late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule.’ - MJG2007, on 12/31/2007, -2/+4It's just you. Nearly every article I ever read from the UK spells it that way. For some reason the US spells it Taliban and the UK spells it Taleban.
- yojiffyskippy, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3Drag you lazy ass out of your mommies basement Mr Taliban Man, put those bad ass Xbox skills that you've mastered to work and go over there and join the Taliban cause.
- mos6507, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2Yeah, they were better off with public executions in soccer stadiums.
- Carthagefield, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2"A Constitutional Republic limits the power of the government so that it cannot be harnessed by the majority to harass and steal from the minority."
Meanwhile, back in the real world the following statement is more pertinent: 'A Constitutional Republic INCREASES the power of the government so that it CAN be harnessed by the MINORITY to harass and steal from the MAJORITY'. Tell me of a social order in recorded history that has not evolved to this state (and no, America is not the exception ;-). - inactive, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2im from uk and ive nevr seen it spelt taleban
- AntBing, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2Way to jump on the bandwagon! You're a bit late though.
- mirunit, on 12/31/2007, -2/+4Who besides Haliburton was equipped to handle a large portion of the duties in Iraq? I have been waiting for this answer for the last 2 years. On top of that Haliburton was not the only corporation over there. If not Haliburton the US would of had to likley used a Saudi based firm, thus presenting an inherent security risk. Please try to be realistic. Also, you may forget the troops in Afghanistan - I have not. Also, reminiscing about Iraq will not help anyone now. Imagine if you spent 5 years of your life thinking about what you should of done, what a travesty.
- inactive, on 12/31/2007, -2/+4Fortunately we are not a "real" democracy. A "real" democracy would never have lasted for 230 years. A pure democracy will always devolve into the abuse of the minority (and that does not necessarily have anything to do with race, gender or sexual orientation) by the majority.
A Constitutional Republic limits the power of the government so that it cannot be harnessed by the majority to harass and steal from the minority. Thank God that the founders were wise men! - BossKey, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2On the flip side, all those who believe that our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been successful are welcome to move their families to these new, American-liberated, and comfortably pacified bastions of freedom and democracy. Oil, American freedom...it's paradise!
- inactive, on 12/31/2007, -2/+4Was there ever any hope for a bunch of people who arrest men for shaving off their beards and cane women for going outside their house alone?
So now instead of people being decapitated and stoned to death for offenses that civilized countries like to call freedoms there is violence from the people that want to go back to legal decapitating and stonings.
How many women were killed in Arab nations this year for not behaving like property? Or gay teenagers on only one adults testimony? Or people who wanted to worship differently or didnt want to worship at all? How many tourists were attacked or killed for being familiar with Muslim law but NOT that cities local imam's translation of the Koran?
Do those deaths count as violence or only when Americans sent by a President you don't like do it? - lee1199, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2Personally I was against the Iraq war for all the obvious reasons but the Afghan war is a different matter. Firstly there was universal support especially after the Taliban refused to hand over OBL, also there was a sizable Afghan element who wanted UN support to help get rid of the Taliban, the Northern Alliance.Then within a matter of weeks the Taliban had been driven out, this was the time to flood the country with aid and reconstruction when we still had credibility with the Afghan people, but no, we made the monumental mistake of Iraq!!.This has acted as the best recruiting sergeant for every disaffected young man in the mo slim world, its been a disaster.
- robotcommander, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2supermanred is correct in that NATO members hardly put up an equal share of effort and resources into the mission.
You point out troop numbers as a measure of a NATO country's contribution to the mission. Those troop number contributions are MEANINGLESS if the nation state (notable cases are Germany, France, and Italy) places such overwhelming deployment restrictions as to make them useless in actually combating the insurgency.
It is the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and the Dutch who are deployed in the southern provinces of Afghanistan which are taking the brunt of the renewed Taleban insurgency and is also the reason why they are dying in vastly disproportionate numbers with respect to their NATO "allies". - yojiffyskippy, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1Well here's a news flash for you. If you live in the Federal Republic of Germany then you don't live in a democracy, you live in a Federal Republic.
Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives. - markgl, on 12/31/2007, -2/+3yeah, we should leave and let the taliban take over again. shucks.
- Ryan0617, on 12/31/2007, -2/+3Is it just me or did the editor write 'Taleban' wrong plenty of times?
- inactive, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1Because everyone knows we invaded Afganistan for their oil... oh, wait, they dont have oil, it must have been for their cashmere. Yeah, we invaded them to support the Pashmina Industry with enough cashmere to fill the demand Oprah created. "No Blood for Cashmere!" Damn you, Ralph Lauren!
- springboks, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1You can also add to that list. Little hope for:
Pakistan
Kenya
(I'm sure there's at least a dozen more). - yojiffyskippy, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1Even if the actions were successful, living in Iraq and/or Afghanistan will never be as good as living in the US. Maybe "never" is too strong of a word, but it certainly isn't going to change in the next few 100 years.
- Stevanoski, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Cuba, Columbia are a few I would add.
- Stevanoski, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Especially if a Democrat wins carrying a white flag with him.
- inactive, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1The taliban.
Afghanistan's GOP. - inactive, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1PNAC as an organization should be charged with treason and waterboarded.
- masterm1nd, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1I was regarding blaming America...
Anyways, when you blame everything solely on Bush, you give every other politician who is responsible a free ride... - Carthagefield, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2Why have you dugg him down? It was a sarcastic sentiment, aside from the fact that it pretty accurately reflects three of the consequences of the invasion, which all *coincidently* benefit the American Far-Right's Agenda.
- Carthagefield, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pip ...
^Something that prior to 9/11, the Taliban refused to comply with.
Besides which, the occupation of Iraq was always the primary goal of the "War on Terror" initiative, despite what FOX has led you to believe. Subduing Afghanistan merely provided a platform for its activities in the Middle-East, as well as pacifying a post-9/11 American public that had been indoctrinated to believe that Osama Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda/Taliban and by extension Afghanistan, were responsible for the attacks. - BossKey, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1If nothing's going to change in the next 100 years, then we were there dropping billions of tax dollars into the sand...why again?
-
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is