You know, it’s amazing how well that works if you turn it around.
Gee, nope, I guess it doesn’t really work, at least not for me. YMMV.
Yeah, that worked so well in the Philippines.
Sheesh. Have you even read ANYTHING about US History or World History?
I was being facetious.
Forgive me, but isn’t the whole point of the Great American Experiment that the structure of government (but not its implimentation) is seperate from culture and religion? White Christians living in a free democratic state will vote for people and policies that reflect their concerns, so will Afgani Muslims. It would be nice if we could impose the concepts of freedom and pluralism on them. If they choose then to eat at MickeyD’s that’s their problem.
DDG: A minor nitpick, but please do try to be careful to distinguish between Arab and Muslim. If we are going to fight for people’s hearts and minds, it behooves us to pay attention to such details.
Umm…didn’t it work pretty well in Germany and Japan?
Or are you saying that the Philippines is a better analogy to the present situation and if so why?
It could be argued that the Federated States of Micronesia were “completely changed” in only a generation or two.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/06/shell-p1.htm
However, $100 million a year for 15 years, divvied up among a population of only 134,597 people (July 2001 est.), who live in a place with the following natural resources–
–i.e. “zero”–is considerably different than $100 million a year for 15 years, divvied up among 26,813,057 people (July 2001 est.), in a country with the following natural resources:
The Micronesians may truly be said to have had nothing, in terms of material goods. Yes, if you give “EVERYTHING” to people who have nothing, if you give them a humongous amount of spending money, then yes, they’re extremely likely to become converts to whatever way of life the people who gave them “EVERYTHING” pursue, because obviously, it must work.
But the people of Afghanistan cannot truly be said to have “nothing”, and therefore anything we give them will be proportionately less important.
Lolo: It didn’t sound facetious when it was the gist of your OP.
Or here:
Or here:
Either you think their culture would be a pushover for American “values”, or you don’t. I agree that the power of the free market is the way to go, but I wouldn’t expect it to take only a few generations before Afghanistan was a complete U.S. dependent or satellite nation, and I wouldn’t expect Afghani culture to be as completely subsumed in the “American way of life” as Micronesian culture evidently has been.
Fight my ignorance, please, Epolo. Are not the populations of Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Pakistan, and Libya predominantly Muslim? Are there in fact any “Arab” nations whose population is other than predominantly Muslim?
Are there any “Arab” or “Muslim” nations who would not be expected to take offense at Uncle Sam’s annexing of Afghanistan?
Duck Duck Goose,
the whole idea is mostly facetious. I mean, come on, big macs and big screen TVs? Were you really under the impression my solution to the problem was a massive influx of big macs and TVs?
I think, and it turns out I was wrong, I was being fairly, clearly facetious.
Now the idea of taking Afghanistan is a good topic. I, however, in the interest of provoking response, tossed out a few suggestions to get the ball rolling.
If anything, we could say my “big macs and TVs” suggestion was a simple conflation of US ideals, and that is all.
In general, acclimating a country such as Afghanistan would take much longer, lest we eliminate any recollection of a past preceding the supposed acclimated generations. So, in essence, perhaps it could be done… but by what means?
It makes me think of 1984. The old stories are changed to make Big Brother seem infallible.
But these are all just thoughts…
You do realize that you’ve just declared war on me and other theists, don’t you? I’m dead serious here too.
You have also expressed contempt for the Constitution of the U.S.A. and the values therein.
You know, Stalin had similar ideas. They didn’t exactly benefit the citizens of the USSR.
EternalStudent may be an atheist, but he’s certainly being a bloody stupid atheist.
At the very least, if he’s going to condemn Islam in Afghanistan, he should have the cojones to condemn Christianity in America, too. Otherwise it’s just hypocrisy (“Yeah, our religion sucks too, but it’s ours, so leave it alone”).
“No, officer, I don’t know this person, my views do not coincide with his in any way at all…”
**
Uhh, yeah, so? What are you gonna do? Declare Jihad?
**
**
It’s got some problems.
Greaat, bring up Stalin. That’s original. Your love of mythology is the entire reason we’re in this mess to begin with. Well maybe not your love, but people like you. If it didn’t come down to god, there’d be nothing to fight about.
Hey, I personally think Christianity blows, ok? But I didn’t want to turn this into Christian bashing (plenty of time for that later 
). That’s not the purpose of my argument.
I simply stated that if we annexed Afghanistan, then we would need to wipe out Islam there in order to establish control. That’s all I’m saying.
As much as I don’t like Christianity, I will say that when looking at the state of most Islamic people and most Christian people, I’d side with the jesus lovers. At least they have food. And without food, nothing matters.
I know this isn’t addressed to me, but let’s not lose focus here or dig ourselves into any holes.
I am interested in seeing what you mean when you suggest ES has expressed contempt for the Constitution and its values.
Also, let’s not start discussing atheism vs religion when it comes to death and political movements b/c I’m sure we’ll find movements spurred by religions tally a much higher death toll.
But anyway, interested in your mention of the Constitution. Please elaborate.
Eternal Student, by the common consent of the Christian majority of this country (and by statistics it is still a majority), you have just been instructed to profess belief in Jesus Christ as your very own personal Savior.
Oh, and you are hereby instructed to cease posting here, or to use a computer for anything.
And your “eternal studentship” has just been terminated. Report immediately to Fred’s Contractors; they are expecting you, and need a new ditch digger.
Don’t like it? How about stopping deciding for other humnan beings what they ought to do?
Oh, and by the way, most people look up the words they choose to use: “vicious” means cruel, sadistic, and is the word usually used in “vicious cycle.” “Viscous” means “tending to stick together, sticky.” “*Viscious” means “I don’t respect you enough to bother spelling correctly; you’re not leet enough.”
And the facts. Check out the works of Joseph Campbell on the value of myth in human culture and psychology.
Call it what you want, but the fact of the matter is that no nation in the Middle East/Western Asia that practices Islam happens to have a truly democratic society.
It doesn’t matter what Islam truly is if, when practiced by these people, ends up justifying distasteful to horrific crimes on its own citizenry.
I’m preoccupied with the effects.
Ohhh jesus, I didn’t want it to get to this. But what the hey. No better time like the present to shit on Christianity.
Typical moronic jesus-lover. Can’t actually argue with any of my points, so just bash one misspelled word in a pathetic attempt to feel superiority. While I am not familiar with a “humnan being” as you described above, I hardly see a silly typing error as grounds to attack someone.
And thanks for the ‘facts’ dude. Only a christian would regard reference to a book as ‘the facts’
You’re making your own people look dumber. That’s quite a task. I suggest you stop now.
DDG, “Arab” is a cultural/ethnic term, while Muslim/Islamic refers to religion. Pakistan is a Muslim state, but her citizens are not Arabs.
EternalStudent, your last post was something of a tactical error. While I will leave it to others to heap deserved praise on Polycarp and to shower deserved abuse on you, for myself, I will have a look at your arguments. I will certainly delve no deeper than your analysis merits.
What exactly is the American way of life, Student? If its freedom and liberal-mindedness is inherently opposed to fundamentalism, how is it still firmly entrenched in America despite growing religious fundamentalism at home?
If the “American way of life” is intrinsically related to consumerism and luxury goods, as you suggested below, how come Big Macs don’t calm Jerry Falwell down? How come real jobs and access to goods and “things to do” don’t stop anti-choice protesters?
Don’t you suppose that geography has more to do with food production than religion?
Osama’s brand of Fundamentalism makes Falwell’s downright gay-lovin’. Besides, I don’t know of Falwell hijacking any planes lately “in the name of _______.”
I thought it would be obvious. I’m referring to the idea of Liberty presented in the preamble, and the Bill of Rights.
Firstly the preamble, from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html:
(emphasis mine)
Secondly, the Bill of Rights, namely:
(emphasis mine) and Amendment I:
The freedom to worship God as you please is one of the most (if not the most) fundamental ideas in the US Constitution.
Because you’re not a legislator, the proper response is to expose the idiocy and ignorance of the idea. If such action were taken, or similar legislation were passed, I guarantee that the US would dissolve virtually overnight.
You know, if you keep painting with that wide brush, you’re going to make a mess out of yourself. I see you can’t find a flaw in my statement, so you have to call it unoriginal. The fact is, Stalin did in fact have similar ideas, and did in fact work to remove religion from Russia. And the people of Russia were demonstrably not benefitted by his work.
I find it the height of irony that you would advocate making Afghanistan part of the US, while suspending the fundamental rights the US stands for. If you can’t learn this simple lesson, your screen name might be more apt than you think.
Indeed, Jerry Falwell is no terrorist.
Neither is he the ruling power in the United States.
I suspect were he in a position of absolute or near-absolute power, his views would not be tempered by the fact that he is but one spokesman of an extremely vocal minority.
Sure, the people of Afghanistan can have those rights… just as soon as they’re Americans. 
I think our retaliation is justified by our loss. The Afghanis have shown their inability to control their own people. If we, US, harbored terrorist organizations with the express goal of killing Afghanis, you can imagine the flak we’d get from other countries.
Essentially, Afghanistan has royally fucked up. Now, that doesn’t mean all the Afghanis (or is it Afghans?) are bad. IMHO we definitely have justification in taking the country.
We find ourselves in an unprecedented situation.
How about a vote?
ALL IN FAVOR, say “Jesus hates me.”
ALL OPPOSED, say “nay.”