It's not a secret anymore!*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes On destroying fascism Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Murach's Java Servlets and JSP this week in the Servlets forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Reply locked New topic
Author

On destroying fascism

Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
then why do they hate US so much ??
Who says they do?


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
...but Kashmir sure was independent (as much as any other british colony was) before 1947.
Isn't that an oxymoron? How could they be independent if they were a colony?
Also, Chechnya must have been free just like XXXstans before USSR came into existance.
Perhaps you are unaware that there was a country called Russia that existed prior to the USSR?
Finally, the mother of all conflicts, Israel, was never a free country.
Never a free country? How about today? And yesterday? And 5 years ago? And how about before the Romans conquered them?
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
This will be truly selfless act. You are not getting anything in return, not even the happyness
Supporting bums would make me sad. Selfless acts I save the for the deserving.
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
...but Kashmir sure was independent (as much as any other british colony was) before 1947.
Isn't that an oxymoron? How could they be independent if they were a colony?
Also, Chechnya must have been free just like XXXstans before USSR came into existance.
Perhaps you are unaware that there was a country called Russia that existed prior to the USSR?
Finally, the mother of all conflicts, Israel, was never a free country.
Never a free country? How about today? And yesterday? And 5 years ago? And how about before the Romans conquered them?

1. Kashmir and other states that now constitue India were independent states. They had their own rulers (however proxy). In 1947, some states such as Kashmir, Hyderabad, Junagarh did not mearge with India. There were independent contries without British or Indian rule.
2. IMNS abt the situation in Chennya.
3. You are proving my point regarding Israel. On one hand you are saying all the other places were part of an already existing country and so were nor independent. On the other, you are saying Israel was a free country probably before Roman conquered them. So were other places not independent before some country conquered them? In this case, chechnya, XinXiang, and Kashmir?
Is the basis on which you are supporting Israel not valid for other places???


I'm just saying...it's right there!
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Isn't that an oxymoron? How could they be independent if they were a colony?
[/QB]

Some one show him deleted thread, Yaar
>>Selfless acts I save the for the deserving.
Ya, very true, which will give you self satisfaction.
Thats what I am saying
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Is the basis on which you are supporting Israel not valid for other places???
You missed the point... Israel is a free country. None of the other places you mentioned are free. Afghanistan was an independent nation when it was invaded by the USSR. Surely you can see the difference between Israel and Afghanistan on one side and Chechnya and Kasmir on the other.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
>>Selfless acts I save the for the deserving.
Ya, very true, which will give you self satisfaction. Thats what I am saying
So if we get self satisfaction for a selfless act then it is not selfless?
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So if we get self satisfaction for a selfless act then it is not selfless?

Have you ever done anything against your wish ?? reason might be anything.
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You missed the point... Israel is a free country. None of the other places you mentioned are free. Afghanistan was an independent nation when it was invaded by the USSR. Surely you can see the difference between Israel and Afghanistan on one side and Chechnya and Kasmir on the other.

There is absolutely no difference between Afgn and Kashmir in this regard. Afgn. was independent but was invaded by USSR. Kashmir was also independent but was INVADED by Pakistan and then willingly acceeded to India (as did other states).
Were XXXstans a part of earswhile Russia??? Were they not held by force by USSR?
What about Tibet? Tibet was completely free of earstwhile China even during the british rule. But Later on China conquered them. They are also fighting for freedom. Why doesn't US do anything about them? On the other hand, US is taking a lot of interest in Taiwan. It is even confronting China about it. Why?
You are saying Israel is a free country that's why you support them. So that means your point of reference is today (or may be some years earlier) not "for ever". Whoever was free on XXX date should be free, is what you are saying. And that XXX date varies as per your convenience.
You are on a very loose ground here.
San Su
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 06, 2001
Posts: 313
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
...but Kashmir sure was independent (as much as any other british colony was) before 1947.
Isn't that an oxymoron? How could they be independent if they were a colony?
Also, Chechnya must have been free just like XXXstans before USSR came into existance.
Perhaps you are unaware that there was a country called Russia that existed prior to the USSR?
Finally, the mother of all conflicts, Israel, was never a free country.
Never a free country? How about today? And yesterday? And 5 years ago? And how about before the Romans conquered them?

Chechnya history
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0857260.html
Was there an unified country called "Russia" in Roman's period???
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0860838.html
After reading all these posts, I can rightly say one thing..
USA illegally occupied VietNam and (f)USSR and China helped the north vietnamese to free the south vietnam from the invading forces. What a great help from (f)USSR and China. kudos to them.
(f)USSR illegally occupied Afganistan and USA helped the people to liberate their motherland from the invading forces. Great help from USA. Kudos to them.
In both wars, millions of people got killed.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:

Chechnya history
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0857260.html
Was there an unified country called "Russia" in Roman's period???
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0860838.html
After reading all these posts, I can rightly say one thing..
USA illegally occupied VietNam and (f)USSR and China helped the north vietnamese to free the south vietnam from the invading forces. What a great help from (f)USSR and China. kudos to them.
(f)USSR illegally occupied Afganistan and USA helped the people to liberate their motherland from the invading forces. Great help from USA. Kudos to them.
In both wars, millions of people got killed.


Please provide link, as you did in other cases, to support case of US illegally occupying Vietnam.
This should be interesting.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:


What about Tibet? Tibet was completely free of earstwhile China even during the british rule. But Later on China conquered them. They are also fighting for freedom. Why doesn't US do anything about them? On the other hand, US is taking a lot of interest in Taiwan. It is even confronting China about it. Why?


I don't think it takes a geo-political strategical genius to undeerstand that liberating Tibet or preventing China from taking over Tibet would have and would be nearly impossible. China is next to Tibet and has the largest army in the world. The US is quite far away. The task is clearly impossible without risking hundreds of thousands of US causalities and the use of nuclear weapons. The cost is just too high, is that so hard to see?
Taiwan is modern country and well developed. They have their own modern defense capabilities which Tibet never did. They are also on an island which makes defense easier. The contrast is clear to anyone unbiased.
San Su
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 06, 2001
Posts: 313
Originally posted by herb slocomb:


Please provide link, as you did in other cases, to support case of US illegally occupying Vietnam.
This should be interesting.


http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0850869.html
and would you be kind enough to provide afgan version of the story? We can start our discussion by comparing both situations and see which force went to the other country against the will of the population.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Sorry, its slightly off topic ..
You donate because you feel happyness and it is self interest.
Cool ... everyone lives for himself. Say it and believe it.
No one does favor to any one.

My donation only brings happiness to the extent it benefits OTHERS. You have set up a false dichtomy. It is not an either/or proposition.
San Su
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 06, 2001
Posts: 313
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
[QB]

I don't think it takes a geo-political strategical genius to undeerstand that liberating Tibet or preventing China from taking over Tibet would have and would be nearly impossible. China is next to Tibet and has the largest army in the world. The US is quite far away. The task is clearly impossible without risking hundreds of thousands of US causalities and the use of nuclear weapons. The cost is just too high, is that so hard to see?

hmmm.. I didnt know afganistan is next/close to USA. Damn.. I have to check the world map very often I think.
US can take the other super power but it would be nearly impossible to fight with china??? China must be really good.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Why did I ever start this thread... I was pissed off by someone's meteorological observations, and I was even thinking to close it after a few posts, since there isn't much to discuss... Cassandra.
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
As I understand, losses in Afgn. was one of the chief causes for the breakup of USSR. That's exactly what the US wanted. USSR was blead to death by the US, in a way.

This paper is ridiculous. Why people "study" countries they have little ideas about? Why not to learn your own country?
It would be demonstrated that Soviet might was not invincible and that resistance is possible. What are the Afghans for Central Asia? It is a small, wild and poor country. So then, if the Afghans could inflict a military and political defeat, then that makes anything possible.
Ugum, 10 years the Soviet kept the regime they wanted to keep, and then decided to leave the country - "military and political defeat" indeed. If somebody in Central Asia wanted their country to be occupied for 10 years - then of course...
And everyone in Central Asia knows that. I think that in Soviet Russia they know it too.
In Soviet Russia they know that the Afghans get help from some other countries. How can a part of the USSR get such a help? There were such thing as state borders, and they were kinda protected...
And indeed, a few weeks after the withdrawal from Afghanistan in February 1989, the Lithuanian democratic movement, Sajudis, declared that its goal was full independence from Moscow.
In 1989! Do the authors understand the difference between the USSR in 1984 and the USSR in 1989?
Basically, in 1985 Gorbachev said "Freedom, guys! You can protest! Go ahead." Yet it took 3-4 years for "ethnical movements" to figure that yeah, the boss wasn't kidding...
The Afghanistan war also accentuated ethnic unrest within the Soviet Army. Even in the early 1980s, the reliability of Central Asian soldiers was questioned and they were often removed from active combat duties in Afghanistan.
There was another version that I heard, that they couldn't speak Russian well enough.
For example, Usmankhodzhaev, the Uzbekt party chief, told
reporters in 1987 that hundreds of Komsomol members in Uzbekistan had been prosecuted for draft-dodging.

I would be really impressed if all this happened in 1983.
As a result, Soviet leaders no longer considered their army to be reliable for suppressing secessionist movements.
"Soviet leaders no longer considered their army to be reliable for suppressing secessionist movements" of unarmed population? And there were not any significant secessionist movements until they were officially authorized by Soviet leaders themselves.
So Gorbachev started "democratization" in 1985, and the Army left Afghanistan in 1989. Yet the authors try to explain that everything was the other way around.
Just read, I.Brodsky: "a consequence is seldom capable to look at its reason with approval"
[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:

hmmm.. I didnt know afganistan is next/close to USA. Damn.. I have to check the world map very often I think.
.

The US donation of SAM 7 and other weapons to Afghnistan had a worthwhile effect. A similar donation to Tibet would have not had the same effect. In this case it is because of the adversary, China, and the geography, and other 3rd parties. China's army is simply too large and can be too easily resupplied in Tibet. China was also simply too determined, unlike Russia. Also, Tibet never had a resistenace movement as well motivated or as large as those in Afghnistan. Furthermore, the Afghan resistance was supported by other Islamic countries who also donated. Add all these up and the Afghan situation is much different than that of Tibet. Those diferences lead to different decsions.
.

US can take the other super power but it would be nearly impossible to fight with china??? China must be really good.

The US never fought modern Soviet troops in a war. The causalties would have been unacceptably high either with China or the Soviets, is that hard to understand?
[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:


http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0850869.html
and would you be kind enough to provide afgan version of the story? We can start our discussion by comparing both situations and see which force went to the other country against the will of the population.

The link you gave in no way what so ever says the US occupied Vietnam illegally. The least you can do is find a good communist web site to support you're incredible allegations.
The aid I am referring to throughout this entire post is the aid the US gave to the afghanis resisting the Soviets. Are you saying the Afghnis did not want the SAM 7s we gave them to shoot down Soviet helicopters?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
I'm surprised you're wasting your time trying to explain the obvious to somebody who can't grasp the differences in situations between somewhere like Afghanistan and somewhere like Tibet. I would think that the need for risk management being a large factor in international decisions was apparent, but I guess not to everyone.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:
hmmm.. I didnt know afganistan is next/close to USA. Damn.. I have to check the world map very often I think.
US can take the other super power but it would be nearly impossible to fight with china??? China must be really good.

The US didn't fight with the Soviets in Afghanistan. We did have a friendly neighboring country that helped us get arms to the native Afghani troops. Now show me (1) who we would send arms to in Tibet (2) how we would get the arms to them.
San Su
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 06, 2001
Posts: 313
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I'm surprised you're wasting your time trying to explain the obvious to somebody who can't grasp the differences in situations between somewhere like Afghanistan and somewhere like Tibet. I would think that the need for risk management being a large factor in international decisions was apparent, but I guess not to everyone.

Fighting against the world's top nuclear weapon state and well maintained army is less risk than fighting against less developed nation? You are talking about Excellent risk management.
I am wasting my time trying to have a conversation with someone who bury their head in the sand and thinks whatever they do is correct and selfless act. Goodluck to you guys..
San Su
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 06, 2001
Posts: 313
Originally posted by herb slocomb:

The link you gave in no way what so ever says the US occupied Vietnam illegally. The least you can do is find a good communist web site to support you're incredible allegations.

Ha... but you will provide a western link about Soviet "occupation" and every one should agree with you.. right?
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
[MI]: Why did I ever start this thread... I was pissed off by someone's meteorological observations, and I was even thinking to close it after a few posts, since there isn't much to discuss... Cassandra.
Well there was a reason I closed the earlier thread. Is started with an obnoxious anti-American overgeneralization, mild but sufficient to provoke an obnoxious pro-American overgeneralization, which set other people off, including you... There actually is plenty of interesting worthwhile stuff being discussed here IMO, but as usual too many people can't seem to respond to a provocation without making a counterprovocation...
[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:
Fighting against the world's top nuclear weapon state and well maintained army is less risk than fighting against less developed nation? You are talking about Excellent risk management.
You missed the point... the USA didn't fight with the Soviets. That would have been very dangerous. We supplied their enemies through a third country. Practically risk free!
San Su
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 06, 2001
Posts: 313
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You missed the point... the USA didn't fight with the Soviets. That would have been very dangerous. We supplied their enemies through a third country. Practically risk free!

I didnt miss the point, but, Thomas, I agree with you. It was the most desirable way of fighting the enemy, but it was not risk free. What would have happend if the soviets decided to attack pakistan from the east and India attacking Pakistan from the West? Worldwar III?. But even if we take it as risk free, dont you think the same anology apply incaseof Tibet. If you read Tibet uprising, you would find good friend(s) for this cause. Was not china enemy at that time (helping and fighting along with northkoreans against Americans?)
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Is started with an obnoxious anti-American overgeneralization, mild but sufficient to provoke...

Really? I did not perceive it as "obnoxious" and "anti-American"... Is this how Americans see it? This is a known fact that while in American (perhaps not only in American) culture people tend a little overstate themselves (especially during hiring process), in other cultures norms of politeness require the opposite - to understate. I could understand how this difference can frustrate or even disgust the author of the post, but I failed to see that this could be seen as "an obnoxious anti-American overgeneralization", so Tom's reaction looked unfounded to me, which aggravated... never mind. You can think, it's a small issue, but I remember one person of anti-American origin (kidding about "anti" ) saying to me that he/she doesn't want to be a moderator any more, because of cultural/whatever differences his/her words were often misunderstood. I also periodically get sick of it...
This "Americans vs. rest of the world" issue pops up every time it gets a chance to, and it's sad, that the only apparent progress made is that most of our pathological arguers are getting tired of it, rather than getting any better understanding of each other motivation.
[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:
But even if we take it as risk free, dont you think the same anology apply incaseof Tibet. If you read Tibet uprising, you would find good friend(s) for this cause. Was not china enemy at that time (helping and fighting along with northkoreans against Americans?)
We would have very happily have supported the Tibetans but how? You have China on one side and the Himalayas on the other. How do you get arms to those fighting against China? I don't see any way (especially in the 50's) to have kept an army supplied in Tibet.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
...so Tom's reaction looked unfounded to me, which aggravated... never mind.
Which reaction?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
"It comes from kicking ass in a couple of world wars. If destroying fascism and communism around the world was a breeze then what's the big deal about coding some program. "
San Su
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 06, 2001
Posts: 313
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
We would have very happily have supported the Tibetans but how? You have China on one side and the Himalayas on the other. How do you get arms to those fighting against China? I don't see any way (especially in the 50's) to have kept an army supplied in Tibet.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Even the monks escaped from China by taking Himalayan routes to enter India. Do a google on Tibetian uprising.
You are selectively quoting my post. Do you agree that the risk involved with the proxy war you were waging against soviet union was much higher than than even the direct war with China? What would have happend if the Soviet issued an ultimum saying "if you dont disband the terrorist camps in pakistan, we would invade or nuke the whole pakistan"? Remember 1963 and Kennedy? Would the US dare to go to nuclear war and risking millions of american's life for saving afgans?
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
I don't know why I am termed as Anti-American or US basher. I have stated many times that I admire American policies and most other things. Most importantly, after living in the US, I have realized what my country lacks, what my country has, and what we need to do. I only argue when some people try to take credit or try to ride a high horse (if there is such a thing) or try to preach morality where there is no scope. I don't even think that your parameters of morality are wrong, but you can't just apply them everywhere. There are domains where they are simply not applicable. But many people have a problem with that. They think what they say is right for everyone.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:
Where there is a will, there is a way.

The Chinese are not now nor never were comparable to the Soviets. The US and USSR were diametrically opposed to each other in just about every conceivable way. The Soviet empire was expanding and seen as a direct threat. The Chinese on the other hand were contained. The Soviets, unlike the Chinese, were capable of force projection and wielded a large sphere of influence. While we were cool towards the Chinese, we were openly hostile towards the Soviets. Additionally, the military forces and doctrines of the USSR and US were specifically designed to counter the other.
Today, the Chinese are seen as an up-and-coming economic power who it would be advantageous to deal with cordially. So we will try, when possible, to approach problems with them different than we had with the Soviets. As it is more in our interest to be a trading partner with the Chinese, we will handle problems like Tibet differently than we would problems like Afghanistan with the Soviets. We will exert different kinds of pressure when necessary on the Chinese, usually economic incentives, to help reach an agreement on a problem.
We were effectively at war with the USSR, this has never been the case with the Chinese. The comparisons you are trying to make are quite a bit off.
San Su
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 06, 2001
Posts: 313
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

The Chinese are not now nor never were comparable to the Soviets. The US and USSR were diametrically opposed to each other in just about every conceivable way. The Soviet empire was expanding and seen as a direct threat. The Chinese on the other hand were contained. The Soviets, unlike the Chinese, were capable of force projection and wielded a large sphere of influence. While we were cool towards the Chinese, we were openly hostile towards the Soviets. Additionally, the military forces and doctrines of the USSR and US were specifically designed to counter the other.
Today, the Chinese are seen as an up-and-coming economic power who it would be advantageous to deal with cordially. So we will try, when possible, to approach problems with them different than we had with the Soviets. As it is more in our interest to be a trading partner with the Chinese, we will handle problems like Tibet differently than we would problems like Afghanistan with the Soviets. We will exert different kinds of pressure when necessary on the Chinese, usually economic incentives, to help reach an agreement on a problem.
We were effectively at war with the USSR, this has never been the case with the Chinese. The comparisons you are trying to make are quite a bit off.

I agree with all your points. Your post effectively says you helped the afgans to defeat your enemy. Nothing more nothing less..
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

The Chinese are not now nor never were comparable to the Soviets. The US and USSR were diametrically opposed to each other in just about every conceivable way. The Soviet empire was expanding and seen as a direct threat. The Chinese on the other hand were contained. The Soviets, unlike the Chinese, were capable of force projection and wielded a large sphere of influence. While we were cool towards the Chinese, we were openly hostile towards the Soviets. Additionally, the military forces and doctrines of the USSR and US were specifically designed to counter the other.
Today, the Chinese are seen as an up-and-coming economic power who it would be advantageous to deal with cordially. So we will try, when possible, to approach problems with them different than we had with the Soviets. As it is more in our interest to be a trading partner with the Chinese, we will handle problems like Tibet differently than we would problems like Afghanistan with the Soviets. We will exert different kinds of pressure when necessary on the Chinese, usually economic incentives, to help reach an agreement on a problem.
We were effectively at war with the USSR, this has never been the case with the Chinese. The comparisons you are trying to make are quite a bit off.

That's what I said in the beginning. You do what serves best for your interest. So there is no reason to claim that you do stuff for somebody just for the heck of it.
Ok let's just end this, Do you seriously believe that US had any interest in the well being of Afgn. people? Yes or No. I don't believe it.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:

I agree with all your points. Your post effectively says you helped the afgans to defeat your enemy. Nothing more nothing less..

You seem to be missing the fine points though. What you don't seem to get is that the goal of the US during the Cold War was to not only counter the spread of the Soviets but to also spread our own values. Liberating the Afghans from the Soviets, for example, is in line with what our goals were. We not only dealt a blow to Soviet expansion, but we also kept people free from Communism, for what it was worth anyway. Double bonus. Don't you understand that one goal can exist mutually alongside another?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Do you seriously believe that US had any interest in the well being of Afgn. people? Yes or No. I don't believe it.

The people of the US, who influence the government, have a deep interest in the welfare of other people, and this often motivates our actions. Somalia is a prime example. Bosnia is another recent example, although there were several other reasons as well for us being there. The only conceivable interest in a place like Somalia is humanitarian. Now sometimes there are other motivators beside simple humanitarianism that influence our actions, but those factors rarely do anything to diminish our concern for others' welfare.
San Su
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 06, 2001
Posts: 313
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

You seem to be missing the fine points though. What you don't seem to get is that the goal of the US during the Cold War was to not only counter the spread of the Soviets but to also spread our own values. Liberating the Afghans from the Soviets, for example, is in line with what our goals were. We not only dealt a blow to Soviet expansion, but we also kept people free from Communism, for what it was worth anyway. Double bonus. Don't you understand that one goal can exist mutually alongside another?

Damn I am totally confused. What "fine point" you are trying to say. "free" from Communism is effectively containing Soviet/Communist expansion. And in your eyes, Communism is bad. And in their eyes Capitalism is bad. Both are idealogy. Are you saying USA freed the people from Communist idealogy? for what? Give the country back to thugs, drug lords and rapist? I dont see any double bonus in it. I see only one objective in USA's action. That is containing and defeating Soviet. Afgans helped the US in a small way to achieve your goal.
Yes, you were trying to spread your value and they were trying to spread their value. What is wrong with that?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Soviets lose out in Afghanistan. Seen as good thing at the time as it hurts Soviets.
People of Afghanistan not living under Communist dictatorship. Seen as good thing at the time as the general view was that all things considered it is better to not live in a Communist dictatorship than it is to live in a Communist dictatorship. Therefore at the time it seems to be the best course of action regarding the Afghani people's welfare.
There are different effects derived from a) containing Soviet expansion, and b) not living under Soviet dictatorship. The first benefits primarily the long term goals of the US, the second benefits primarily the locals and secondarily the US.
Now living in the bipolar world that we did during the cold war, things were often seen in terms of black-and-white. Today it is clear that there are things worse than Soviet dictatorships, at least imho. While freedom and democracy may be ultimately best for all, the truth is that some parts of the world simply can't handle it. We may have assumed too much of people.
[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Soviets lose out in Afghanistan. While freedom and democracy may be ultimately best for all, the truth is that some parts of the world simply can't handle it. We may have assumed too much of people.

Now, this is where I object..."some part of the world simply can't handle it". This is a wrong way to put it. You always try to convey that somehow your values are better and others are inferior that they don't get it. The fact is, your values are no better or worse than others. Your values simply do not apply everywhere. You don't seem to get this point.
Anyway...
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:

There is no absolute. Your logic could be as absurd to somebody else as somebody else's logic is to you. You may live in a fool's paradise thinking that you are the best but then not every body is inside your "paradise".

I realize that formal logic is not taught widely in the Middle East and Asia which is a pity, but
there really are absolutes in logic. Conclusions can be proven absolutely true or false based on the premises and the reasoning used to arrive at the results. Not in every case can the conclusions be verified, but in many, and even more commonly while the results cannot always be verified, incorrect reasoning can be identified. I would suggest an hour or two of investigaion on the topic of fomal logic. By the way, it was the science of logic that helped the development of symbolic notational systems leading to computers. See "The Universal Computer" after you investigate formal logic.
Your humble, holy, benefactor,
herb
 
wood burning stoves
 
subject: On destroying fascism
 
Similar Threads
Open diferent screen within a jsp screen
The best IDE for the work place is ???????
EJB in part2
tabIndex in Ratio Button
Thanks & How to