I think if we utilize the Northern Alliance (which is admitedly, not a stable group) we might have a chance of making it clear that we are not out to occupy or dominate Afghanistan.
I’ve thought about it. Take a look at my Pakistan Thread.
Gee, xen, sounds like a paraphrase of my OP. Thanks for your support.
Next up: KellyM explains why those sheepish blacks should have simply risen up against their Southern slavemasters and made the Civil War entirely unnecessary. It’s their owned damned fault that they remained slaves, and they got what they deserved.
“Well, Abdul, we have no phones, no provisions, no guns, and we can’t read–what say we storm Kabul today?” “Great thinking, Achmed! Let me get my sandals!”
If they are truly unable to protect themselves against tyranny, then it is our obligation as moral agents to come to their deliverance, by toppling from without the regime that imprisons them within. Just as abolitionists did with respect to Southern slavery.
I would have no problem with this SO LONG AS the Northern Alliance will not establish its own repressive regime. Neither the United Nations nor the United States should support any regime which would curtail fundamental freedoms, especially the right to freedom of religion and the right to self-sufficiency (both of which are routinely denied under the Taliban regime). If there is no group already at ground that would, if in power, rule with a proper respect for fundamental human rights, then we, as a world united, are obliged to force all of them from power and occupy the nation to ensure that the people are protected.
It is time that we, as a world, recognized that governments are there to serve all the people, not just those in the majority. The right of peacable dissent must be respected. Everywhere.
Perhaps when they don’t have food they don’t have the strength to rise up? Perhaps they don’t have the means?
Perhaps they’re so used to it they don’t think.
To say they deserve that they get-that’s just cold.
If, by “paraphrase” you mean “eloquent presentation of ideas inadequately developed in the OP” or “reasoned refutation of the OP’s preoccupation with force as a primary solution”, then you’re welcome. I guess. Maybe you should read the entire article.
From the article you linked, xen:
You’ll note I did not reference anything other than radical isolationism.
Whereas I said:
I also said in a follow-up post
Huh. I see a whole lot more development in his article for humanitarian aid because his article was largely about humanitarian aid. Though you mentioned it, perhaps it hasn’t sunk in yet: the OP was about what force we should use and why we should use it. I only mentioned humanitarian aid to be complete; the thread is really about force. I know, I know: you know that. So you say.
Back that up, please. Please demonstrate that I feel force is somehow primary or more important than the humanitarian effort, or how that article acts as a “refutation” of the use of force.
Jee-ZUS, erl. You really want it both ways, don’t you? You want to point out to me that
but at the same time you ask me why I assume the OP was preoccupied with the military options?!
Screw it. I have more interesting threads to play in which don’t require me to argue with a sophist.
I would have figured an Eris lover’s solution would be something more along the lines of a golden submarine filled with elite orgy squads.
xen, why don’t you take some advice that many have been offering and COOL IT.
This thread is about what seems to be a schism in the SDMB: how to apply physical force, and why physical force should be used.
I have not stated that physical force is “better than” humanitarian aid or that it is more important than it, or that it is a primary concern.
No, I ask you why you assume that this thread indicates force is a primary concern over anything else.
If you don’t think that, then we’re not arguing about anything at all (as I suspect).
Chas, haha. The solution is merely to make everyone trip hard on acid while listening to music. When the terrorists come Eris will toss her Golden Apple at them, and we’ll dance away.
Think George Bush wants to say, “I sank Osama bin Laden!”
HAHAHA
Hail Eris
I think you may be confused by the difference between what is right (eg overthrowing the Taliban) and what is practical (eg starving Afghans doing it).
I agree with your moral position above. It is right.
Your implication is that we should demand that China leave Tibet immediately, particularly as they are persecuting the local religion. Not practical (at least at present).
One could go further. The message of Tianaman Square is that China’s dictators don’t want democracy or human rights.
But I can’t see the US or United Nations grasping that nettle…
I don’t know how that was meant, but I did not mean to cause any offense with my remark. I’m just trying to keep a lighter tone on this issue. If a lighthearted remark was inappropriate in this thread, I apologize.
Chas, the “haha” was as serious as they come 
I guess that means you thought my remark was ok. It does seem like the eschaton is imminent.
That doesen’t mean we have to pretend it can be effective at stopping terrorism in general. I think that the main reason for the terrorist attacks was to get us to attack Afghanistan so I don’t think that going to war with them will prevent future similar acts.
That doesen’t make your idea of morals any more valid than theirs. Anyone who has morals considers themselves and their country morally superior to someone. Morals are IMHO worthless.
Morals are worthless? Whoo-ee, I dunno about that. I think they are tools of defining and ascribing worth… is that not worthy? But then we wonder if moral valuations are reflexive.
At any rate, I am not extra concerned about morality in this. We live in a somewhat pluralistic society as these boards themselves indicate, and countries that get grouped into the “western” category are pretty pluralistic too… what morals exactly can we attribute to pluralism? Not very many.
And so while you and I may ramble at liesure about how we valuate the situation, that doesn’t accomplish much when we are dealing with entire nations of people with assorted belief systems.
Apart from that, it is definitely a statistically significant portion of the world that finds these attacks immoral under their valuations, so fine enough. The question still, as ever, remains: what do we do about it? One, retribution and justice of some sort are a concern, and are definitely the source of much debate here.
And no one really is that I can tell. It is one of many components to a holistic solution.
Can we all agree that humanitarian efforts are necessary and important without trying to decide whether it is more important or less impotant than force for a moment? [pauses]
Good. Glad we continue to get that worked out, even amongst those who choose to think otherwise.
So, what force is appropriate?
I outlined two broad types: the threat, and the actual use of force, but I was deliberately vague at first (good thing, too, or this debate would be off on so many tangents I wouldn’t know who to respond to). Now I suppose I shall be more specific.
The Threat
As I mentioned in Scylla’s nuke thread, we should not rule out any level of force whatsoever-- including nuclear weapons. They are obviously not necessary at this point, and politically are a diplomatic death-trap. However, I am not of the opinion that things couldn’t get so bad for whatever reason that nukes are automaticlaly and summarily disregarded. Pakistan itself could be on the verge of civil war, and the tensions between Pakistan and india (both nuclear powers) aren’t the greatest thing right now. So lets not pretend that things couldn’t escalate.
That said, the point of The Threat is simply that: to threaten. The threat of violence is essentially no different than the threat of tough economic sanctions or a harsh cold war. It is one of many ways to get someone who disagrees with you, but isn’t willing to compromise, to come around. It doesn’t always work. Thus, the threat must be able to be carried out.
And so the threat is most effective if no means of warfare are ruled out. The Threat is more effective if our opponents thik we will carry through with it; that is, if they recognize our resolve in the matter.
The Threat only works on governments who oppose us and stand to lose something through violence (who doesn’t?).
Explicit Force Without Looking Back
This is on par with The Threat, but it is also the primary weapon against the violent terrorist factions who do not fear personal defeat.
The point of violence is decimation; to consider it as anything else is foolhardy. It should only be used when necessary, but once the wielder determines it necessary there is little point in looking back. The deed is done, the time for discussing things was already gone once the bullet was fired.
I say “explicit” force, but I mean just that: obvious, deliberate. I do not mean arbitrary, contrary to the opinion of some people here. The force should be deliberate, precise, and efficient. It can send a message of its own. Surgical precision is little cliche when describing advanced weaponry and battle tactics, but I expect no less, and it is what I feel is required.
Strike fast, strike hard, no mercy. This isn’t a cop going after a kid who lifted a box of condoms. It matters if these people get away. That cannot be an option. The logical conclusion of using force in the first place is to accomplish a task that other methods will not provide a realistic solution to. Once that force has been implimented, it is empty if unsuccessful. It only has meaning in completion. Once brought about, once The Threat become a real event, it is now an end in itself. It is almost definitional: I am using force against X. Once X no longer exists (and I mean X as an immediate target or goal), the force is no longer useful. This is the logical conclusion of force. It finishes when either the single objective is met, or there is no more force to apply.
With the stakes as high as they obviously are, people cannot get in the way of using precise force against individuals. We don’t have a city full of terrorists, so a nuke is not precise enough. But if some poor bastard gets in the way, too bad. You are “volunteered” to take one for the team: we are going to take these factions down.
Otherwise our goal is not worthy of military action, terrorist attacks aren’t “that bad” and we can all get on with losing freedoms and living in fear.
I am taking applications, BTW, for the Anarchic Lawn Fornication League. Please bury the $2300 application fee in your back yard; our underground agents will contact you (that was for you, Chas).
My idea of morals is more valid than theirs. My morals are based on logic and reason; theirs are based on prejudice, hatred, and the will to power. That makes mine more valid.
As I previously said, I reject cultural relativity. As do most rational thinkers.
This statement does not follow (it’s not even necessarily true), and suggests to me that you don’t know what “moral” means).
I conclude that the United States is more more than Afghanistan not because I am a citizen of the United States, but because I have examined the policies of the two nations and found that the policies of the United States are more in keeping with how a moral nation conducts itself than those of Afghanistan. The United States is not perfect, but it is definitely better.
That statement frightens me. How do you decide how to behave? Do you live in a social vacuum? (Another statement that leads me to conclude that you don’t know what “moral” means.)
(Would it help if I said “ethical” instead of “moral”?)