Re: After 20 years of fighting the Taliban
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:36 am
https://www.webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/
https://www.webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3628
The Taliban must be kicking themselves that they spent so many years trying to take Afghanistan by force when apparently all they had to do was stand for elections and win the popular vote.leon1122 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:43 amSelf-determination. Americans wanted independence, so the American government is legitimate. Likewise, Afghans chose to have the Taliban as their government, so the Taliban is their legitimate government. Governments propped up by foreign intervention are illegitimate.I look forward to seeing you support the return of the colonies to the House of Windsor.
The proof is in the result. The Taliban, composed almost entirely of Afghani people, defeated a foreign occupier and took control of the country. Hence they are the government chosen by the Afghani people.
Democracy isn't the only way to make the voice of the people heard. The Afghans have traditionally been a nondemocratic nation, and they have chosen to continue having a nondemocratic government. Domestic revolutions and insurgencies are perfectly legitimate ways of coming to power. The American Revolution comes to mind as a good example. No referendum was ever held on declaring independence, but we still accept it as the legitimate will of the people.Octavious wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:30 pmThe Taliban must be kicking themselves that they spent so many years trying to take Afghanistan by force when apparently all they had to do was stand for elections and win the popular vote.leon1122 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:43 amSelf-determination. Americans wanted independence, so the American government is legitimate. Likewise, Afghans chose to have the Taliban as their government, so the Taliban is their legitimate government. Governments propped up by foreign intervention are illegitimate.I look forward to seeing you support the return of the colonies to the House of Windsor.
Or, alternatively, your analysis isn't entirely accurate.
What’s your point?Randomizer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:36 pmDemocratically elected governments don't always result in the people making good choices and some remain in power without having another election that would remove them.
Hitler, Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas were all election winners with the last two never allowing another vote. Trump was also elected, but was forced to leave despite his fake claims of winning a second time.
Just because of the claim that 20 plus years ago after the Soviets left Afghanistan and the Taliban came to power, the people still want them in power.Octavious wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:57 pmWhat’s your point?Randomizer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:36 pmDemocratically elected governments don't always result in the people making good choices and some remain in power without having another election that would remove them.
Hitler, Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas were all election winners with the last two never allowing another vote. Trump was also elected, but was forced to leave despite his fake claims of winning a second time.
Firstly, they are Afghans, not Afghani - that is the name of their currency.Afghani people
and I can't fully describe the ethnic diversity in Afghanistan, only able to name 3 of this list.Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimaq, Turkmen, Baloch, Pashai, Nuristani, Gujjar, Arab, Brahui, Qizilbash, Pamiri, Kyrgyz, Sadat and others.
It's not "democratically legitimate" because democracy isn't the only path to legitimacy. I concede your point about French interference in the American Revolution and admit that it was not entirely legitimate in that regard, but it also happened in a different environment in regards to international relations, when imperial powers openly sought to undermine each other. Since WW1, the idea of self-determination has been enshrined as a basic tenet of international relations, and the imposition of an unwanted form of government on a foreign country is unacceptable in this day and age.Octavious wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:07 pmDo we, though? The reality of the civil war in the Colonies is that it was led by a criminal elite determined to feather their nests, and sponsored by a foreign power who were only interested in trying to destabilise Britain. I have never seen anything to suggest it was democratically legitimate.
There's no real legitimate government of Afghanistan going back centuries since they've all been puppets to foreign powers in one way or another, but the Taliban is clearly more organic and thus legitimate than the US occupation government, Pakistani support notwithstanding.Randomizer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:51 pmJust because of the claim that 20 plus years ago after the Soviets left Afghanistan and the Taliban came to power, the people still want them in power.
And they can join their ethnic brethren if they're ever able to win a war of independence. However, I'm not aware that there is even any significant movement that favors separation.orathaic wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:58 pmSecond they are Tajiks, Pashtuns, Uzbeks, and a variety of other ethnic groups mostly linked to other countries. Afghanistan is largely a fabrication, drawn on a map by Imperial powers. The country, it seems has never been united, even in opposition to the US occupation.
Unless you are Tibetan, Kurdish, any of numerous federal subjects of Russia, Uyghur, Puerto Rican, Hawaiian, first nation peoples in North America, Amazonian Tribe in Brazil, Sami in scandanavia... The aspiration to decolonize is just that, an Aspiration.Since WW1, the idea of self-determination has been enshrined as a basic tenet of international relations, and the imposition of an unwanted form of government on a foreign country is unacceptable in this day and age.
There's no real legitimate government of Afghanistan going back centuries since they've all been puppets to foreign powers in one way or another,
Why, though? If the French want to call me Anglais or the Germans an Engländer then what's the problem? I dare say that there will be a certain sort of person who would take offence by not having a specific word associated with their nationality, but as they're the sort of person I'd quite like to insult anyway it's very much a win win.
Sorry, managed to miss this reply.Randomizer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:14 pmUnlike the Vietnam Conflict, the "Korean War," and the fighting with the Indians, the Afghanistan War was legally granted by the US Congress as a war.
Typically, it costs nothing to use the words which they use to describe themselves.Octavious wrote: ↑Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:07 pmWhy, though? If the French want to call me Anglais or the Germans an Engländer then what's the problem? I dare say that there will be a certain sort of person who would take offence by not having a specific word associated with their nationality, but as they're the sort of person I'd quite like to insult anyway it's very much a win win.
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel!Octavious wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:26 am
What we have done in Afghanistan is send a massive "fuck you" to the people of the Middle East who, against all common sense and experience, still held the opinion that Western values were something worth aspiring to. We have let them know that we don't give a shit about them. They know that the Russians and the Chinese are bastards, and now they know that we're no better.
And we have shown the world that Biden is a morally corrupt piece of shit. Some of the things he has said about it have been stomach turning.
"The truth is, this did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated"
Oh, really? So you expected them to fall to tyranny but do it slowly? In Biden's pathetic little mind he envisioned the Afghans fighting a doomed war and racking up heavy losses purely to give the West a chance to run away like pitiful cowards more comfortably? What a piece of work! He is the worst president I've ever seen, and he's up against some pretty stiff competition. If he had any respect for the office he'd resign.
What would you have had him do? Erdoğan isn't a problem of Trump's making.
Would you have preferred him to to have left US troops as bystanders in the middle of a confused war zone? Would you have preferred him to have US troops open fire on a NATO ally? Would you have preferred him to try and cripple NATO by seeking to remove Turkey, who provide both a key position and significant military strength?