Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Get On Board
Enter your email address below to receive updates each time we publish new content.
Please Support our Efforts
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Don’t bother trying to explain it to them, TSO. They’ve totally confused peace with lack of conflict. They’re also more than content to live on their knees. Just don’t ask them to do any of the heavy lifting that it takes for them to sit in the back of the room and throw spitballs at all us “dumb bastards” for having the balls to do what it takes to give them their freedom.
Okay, let me get this straight. In order to keep people in Afghanistan from doing something that they do with impunity while we occupy their country, we must continue to occupy their country. That makes no sense.
The unfortunate fact is that muslims stone people to death for no reason. If we’re going to start invading countries because of their brutal ancient superstitions, we’re going to have to invade the entire continent of Africa.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv-0-TorRQI
I personally don’t care if albinos are getting hacked up so witch doctors can use their body parts, and I also don’t care if muslims stone each other to death for listening to rock music or badmouthing the ayatollah. We can’t go around invading every country with human rights abuses.
@ CRaissi – you’re OK with these behaviors until they happen here, and to you? OK to kill women for getting an education? OK to kill people for not believing in their God? If you can tolerate it there, why not here? Cause if we leave A-Stan to the Taliban and the Taliban way of life they’ll export it here. Already have to a degree.
“The unfortunate fact is that muslims stone people to death for no reason.”
——————
Please re-read your own statement. Because, if it’s true, there’s something you need to realize.
You’re next.
Of course, we are already there now and they are still doing this. So obviously we need to heavily increase our troop presence. That would also entail heavily increasing the cost. Then we have to convince the American people that the cost is worth it to stay indefinitely. We also have to redefine who the “enemy” is there and be willing to follow them into Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudi, Iran, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and any other place they may exist. We have to be wiling to place a sufficiently large number of troops in each one of these countries and be willing to stay there permanently. Otherwise things like this will keep happening. If we are not fighting them over there, then we are fighting them here.
Ladies and Gents,
Acts such as these are already happening here in America. The so-called “Honor Killing” has become quite the rage among our citizens, and legal aliens who follow the Religion of Peace.
And, if video of women being executed by a shot to the head after being buried up to their neck didn’t sway them, then it is reasonable to think that they are amoral, morally numb, or truly enjoy snuff video.
Reminds me of that chilling Shirley Jackson short story, “The Lottery”. The practice is primitive, brutal, and heinous. Having said that, as previous commentors noted, it’ll take a whole lotta troops to prevent this from happening in the future. That’s the choice we face. The bigger question, how do we eradicate the “meme” that says it’s OK to kill people in that manner. Until that concept is replaced by a more enlightened one, we have an uphill battle. We’re fighting a war of ideas as much as a conventional war, and we haven’t always put our best foot forward in that sense.
There is a big difference between Western civilization and a 7th century “religion”. That difference is that Western civilization welcomes discussion and even differences between people. Islam does not. It is their way or the death way. Look at the persecution of the Iraqi Christians over the Christmas time period. No tolerance whatsoever. Yet, here in America, we allow Muslims to practice their religious beliefs however they want.
The issue that I have with Muslims in Western society is that an increasing number are refusing to acclimate themselves to our ways and are demanding that we submit to their way of life. That, to me, is intolerable. If they wish to live under Muslim law, fine. Just don’t expect me to accept, condone, tolerate or turn a blind eye towards it.
As Joe stated, we are fighting a war of ideas. This war has gone on for centuries and will continue long after we are all dead and gone from this Earth. However, while I am here, I will live a life based on freedom as espoused in the Constitution of the United States of America and not the Koran.
Joe, we ARE putting our best foot forward, and HERE where you can get a glimpse of what it looks like:
http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/afghanistan/
With more than 70% of Afghans supporting democracy as “the best, if flawed form of government” and opposing the Taliban which murders people (as does Iran) for adultery, one must ask, does the violent minority in Afghanistan have the right to “self-determination” to brutalize the majority?
What value does a single human life have? Is it better to return to the old (90’s style) policy of sacrificing a few lives of Americans (or Afghans, or Iraqis) to terrorists, so that we can save money in the prevention of more lives being sacrificed?
Afghan Polls: http://www.asiafoundation.org/
Iraq Polls: http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx
Does the fact that the enemy continues to murder the unarmed bystander (at reduced rates) mean that the cost of preventing even greater numbers of murdered civilians is not worth it? Or does it mean that we should assess the most efficient means of continuing the fight against terroristic murderers that desire a tyrannical empire, but must first start with a tyrannical nation?
Are the lives of an Afghan couple really worth so little to the purveyors of “peace?” Or, is it the racist belief that Afghans are too barbarian to embrace the concept of peaceful change of government (democracy)? That they can only embrace continued violence as the only legitimate means of changing rulers?
Does this disregard for Afghan and Iraqi lives and majority desires, as well as the lives of so many Americans murdered by terrorists in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s, imply a selfish disregard of National Security, or is it pure envy of those tax dollars for their own agenda?
PintoNag,
I’m not criticizing the herioc efforts of individual soldiers or units. I’m talking about, for lack of a better phrase, the “Bully Pulpit”. It’s no coincidence that two of our greatest presidents, the two Roosevelts, not only had a definite plans of action, but they were adept at describing the benefits of their platforms, and selling those plans. It takes both parts to succeed. Obama, whatever you think of his platform, has been a miserable failure at using the Bully Pulpit, both domestically and abroad.
I’m talking about a full scale, madison avenue approach to showing the Afghan people the benefits they will gain of a democratic, market-based economy. I mean madison avenue has figured out how to sell us all sorts of crap we don’t need – how about a similar effort demonstrating in no uncertain terms that our meme beats the hell out of their meme.
It might help to improve the Afghan situation if we’d convince them to start growing other crops besides opium. After all, their agricultual capable land is pretty limited and they still insist on growing something that ends up financing the very people that oppress them. Take away the Taliban’s funding and you take away part of their power and stranglehold on the Afghan people.
Joe, if we only shot at people who shot at us in Afghanistan, we wouldn’t be any better than the Russians when they were there. How we are winning in the ME is in the measures taken by the military alongside the fight. They are building roads and schools and medical clinics; they are working in animal husbandry; they are working in agriculture. That list goes on and on. The reason that is so important and so powerful is that the AFGHANIS GET TO SEE THE MEN BEHIND THE GUNS. The Taliban won’t be able to lie to them anymore; they’ll see for themselves who we are and what we stand for. It’s not going to happen overnight, but it WILL happen. In the end, it will be EXACTLY the blood of our soldiers, not the parroting of politicians and intelligencia, that wins this war and brings peace.
It really amazes me that people equate the US with this group of “poor oppressed peoples” why our little brown brothers could NEVER be as bad as those barbaric Soldiers. *sarcasm*
Yes it isn’t 100% better and still sucks ass in the Stan. But mark my words if we do not confront such people it will continue and escalate.
Stonewall116 – we are fighting a war of ideas. The jihadis are fighting a war of religion.
DaveO, their religion is an idea. Maybe the phrase should be that we are fighting a war of opposing philosophies. All I know is that Islam is an abstract idea that, even if we wiped out the entire Muslim faith, would still exist in a book somewhere. All it takes is one person to read it and convert and it would be reborn. So, that is how we are fighting a war of ideas because once an idea is thought and communicated with others, there is no totally destroying it. It is just a matter of showing the Afghans and the rest of the world that our Western culture is better than the 7th century Islamic culture. Thus, a war of ideas. I think we’re talking semantics here.
Can anyone explain why we only help out in certain places or for certain human rights abuses?
What about the sexual exploitation and rape of children in multiple countries (some of whom are trafficked to the US)? Drug cartel murders in Mexico? Women murdered and dumped in Juarez?
What about the recent murders of gay people in Africa?
J:
We only help out in certain places/abuses based on two things:
The will of the President of the United States to commit forces.
The will of the Congress of the United States to sustain the President’s commitment. In this case, “sustain” is defined as “pay for.”
That’s how you get Bosnia-Herzegovina, and not Darfur. My explanation is perhaps overly simplistic since I don’t go into the politics, economics, and interpersonal relationships of the various players on the world scene who work to affect the wills of the POTUS and Congress.
Hope that helps.
J:
I would say that we can not patrol the entire globe. We will *always* have to pick and choose our battles. Notice how we’ve pretty much stayed out of Africa for almost 20 years now? Iran by rights should have been the one we went after, but in the end we must pick and choose our battles. Afghanistan became what it was pre-OEF because we never stayed to clean up (after the Soviet invasion). Now we HAVE to stay, to leave it better than when we found it. Iraq, is pretty much the same story.
Any future country we go to war with it will have to be with the knowlege that we will stay till the job is done. as we did with Germany and Japan. That we must always leave such place better than it was.
America sees itself as a shining beacon on a hill. And we try to provide a guiding light to the world. If that is so, then we must do our best to confront shyte like this
The U.S. engages in realpolitik, we act militarily to secure resources & strategic routes etc. not being nice for the sake of nice.
Yeah the Taliban are monsters… Yet we fund a rather nasty Egyptian gov’t amongst others, that habitually tourtures it’s own citizens…
“That’s how you get Bosnia-Herzegovina, and not Darfur.” I don’t think we have much to crow about regarding our scatter brained intervention in the Balkans. The U.S., the U.N. and NATO alike interfered with the Bosniacs efforts to arm themselves and took forever to decisively intervene in the war over there. It can be argued that had the Bosniacs been allowed to arm themselves and fight their own battles, the war would’ve ended sooner and far fewer people would’ve died.
We also armed and trained using MPRI as our proxy, a rather nasty Croat Army that engaged in some fierce “ethnic cleansing”, aka killing civillians wholesale, against Serbs. Sheesh, I remember hitting the Croat border on the way to Markaska in ’99 (sp?) for some R & R & getting the impression the nazis won the war there… SS, ’88’ & Heil Hitler painted all over the place.
I am for a well armed, trained and disciplined military to defend our borders, but the globo-kop mission needs to be discarded post haste. We cannot afford the mantle we’ve assumed anymore.
Choosing Our Battles.
One side of the aisle espouses action where we have no National Interests.
The other side of the aisle espouses action only where we have National Interests.
Eqypt/Iran demonstrates this. The violence against peaceful protests in Iran was ignored by the Administration, even with overwhelming proof of election fraud. The violence by protestors against an ally is ignored by the Administration.
Our National Interests is pro-Egyptian and anti-Iran, but this Administration seems to be siding with Islamists in both cases.
This administration bends over backwards to avoid definition of the enemy and is more concerned with “ending” wars than in winning, to the point that in the article/video I just published, he confuses the conflicts in Iraq/Afghanistan in a White House/Youtube interview controlled by his handlers.
He is convening his AfPak council for the first time of the year. Afghanistan is not and never has been a priority for him.
#20 Junior AG:
The Bosniaks were armed. By Iran, among other nations, which also sent thousands of fighters, most of whom remain in Bosnia. That’s one of the why’s for NATO crapping itself to get America to intervene.
The Bosniaks engaged in realpolitik as well when they removed their forces guarding Srebrenica after inviting international news crews into the city. The Serbs did not have to do as they did, and the Bosniaks calculated the international outcry would spur action that would save them. They were correct.
I do agree with you on being the world’s policeman.