Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was thinking about this today after i read this "have your say" on BBC news website...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/05/what_should_foreign_powers_be.html

The question is "What should foreign powers be fighting for in Afghanistan?" and some of the answers amused me. You get the ridiculous right wing ones like "exterminate them all" kinda thing, and then you get the ridiculous left wing ones like "leave immediately and give the Afghans billions in compensation"

Anyway i started thinking, isnt it an odd situation over there?

I did two tours, we spent alot of time doing security while the UN folks gave out school equipment and such to kids, secured girls schools, opened libraries.. gak like that.

Under the Taliban, women got stoned to death, they werent allowed to read or write, modern things were banned, ancient monuments were destroyed etc..

So, surely then, right wing types (im pretty right wing myself) who are generally more jingoistic and less likely to be concerned about the plight of other nations peoples, should be the ones wanting us to pull out right?

And left wing politically correct save the whale types, should want us to stay shouldnt they?

I dont get it.... why do hippies all want us to leave, and aggresive right wing types want us to stay?

You've made an assumption about people's political view of the Afghanistan situation which may not be correct.

You should produce some evidence to support your assumption before you can advance it as a serious topic for discussion.

nevermind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics

I read that, i dont think ive ever met a war mongering "progressive" or a right wing conservative who wants to have more relaxed approach to law and order or a smaller less well equipped military.

Do you believe my assumption IS incorrect? It seems perfectly plausible to me in the majority of cases..

There are three basic criteria for a just war:
1. right cause
2. right means
3. right end

The war in Afghanistan satisfies the first condition but not the second, certainly, and most likely not the third.

mattyrm wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics

I read that, i dont think ive ever met a war mongering "progressive" or a right wing conservative who wants to have more relaxed approach to law and order or a smaller less well equipped military.

Do you believe my assumption IS incorrect? It seems perfectly plausible to me in the majority of cases..

I'm not making any assumptions about your assumption other than that without evidential support it could be spot on or wildly wrong. If it isn't just an assumption you should be able to produce some reasoned chain of evidence to support it.

Let me make a demonstration.

1. The Labour party is left wing.
2. It represents left wing thinking manifested as voter support in general elections put into practical action by formation of a government.
3. We had a Labour government for 13 years which got us into Afghanistan and did nothing to get us out.

You could argue that the Labour government wasn't left wing.

In my view, the general public does not see Afghanistan as a major issue compared to the economy, so people haven't thought about it much.

the war has lasted way too long, and cost way too much. nobody ever wins in afganistan.nobody gave a damn about the war till last year, and Osama is long gone.people do horrible things everywhere.

simply put right wingers love war and left wingers hate it.

I've done a tour myself. The taliban deserved the whooping they got. but then so does every country that treats people like crap. There is a better way to win rights for women than blowing up the country. and when we leave they will just start again. There has to be a popular uprising against the way of life and government first.

Well here's my thoughts on the matter, im presuming that most people that protest the war do so as they percieve that it is causing human suffering.

But they havent educated themselves as to the real details of the conflict, because doesnt it make sense that somebody who is against human suffering would want the coalition troops to remain in country to allow regular Afghan people to improve their quality of life?

And selfish people like me, who dont really care what Afghans quality of life is like, would want the troops to come home because they care only about British citizens and not Afghan ones?

See what i mean? And yet it seems to me its the exact opposite... :S

mattyrm wrote:Well here's my thoughts on the matter, im presuming that most people that protest the war do so as they percieve that it is causing human suffering.

But they havent educated themselves as to the real details of the conflict, because doesnt it make sense that somebody who is against human suffering would want the coalition troops to remain in country to allow regular Afghan people to improve their quality of life?

And selfish people like me, who dont really care what Afghans quality of life is like, would want the troops to come home because they care only about British citizens and not Afghan ones?

See what i mean? And yet it seems to me its the exact opposite... :S

Everyone’s politic views are confused and contradictory. In part because people haven’t always fully thought through each issue, but mostly because it’s a really complicated world and contradiction is necessary. I’d think less of a person’s opinions if they held no contradiction – they’re likely ideologues worried too much about pure theory and too little about things really are.

I do agree that a significant portion of the left, more notably the academic left than the political left, makes a lot of noise about getting the troops out of Afghanistan. I’d think it’s probably drawn from an assumption among the left wing that you can’t build a decent country under force of arms, that peaceful co-operation and economic incentives are a better way to encourage reform in another country. It’s a fairly sound general principle, but I personally don’t think it applies to Afghanistan.

I think most of the opposition to the war, right and left wing, comes from the idea that Afghanistan has a magical property that makes them ungovernable. It’s stupid, Afghanistan has a violent history but no more than any surrounding countries, all of whom have governments, and some of those government are even reasonably ‘good’. The history of Afghanistan in the 20th century was pretty stable in terms of internal politics, there was a coup in the 70s but that’s a whole lot less than most countries suffered.

That changed, of course, with the invasion and bloody occupation by the Soviets, and the subsequent rise of extremism among the Afghani population. Even then, it should be noted that the Taliban was never a popular government, the initial defeat of the Taliban involved a few thousand Western troops and more than 50,000 troops from other Afghani factions. That support has faded because Karzai’s government is quite horrid. Ultimately that’s the issue, improve the Karzai government or replace it with a better government. If that can be done then in time Taliban influence will fade, and become an issue an Afghani government can control, if that can’t be done, then coalition forces will keep fighting until we eventually decide to declare victory and leave it up to the Afghanis.

mattyrm wrote:
And left wing politically correct save the whale types, should want us to stay shouldnt they?

I dont get it.... why do hippies all want us to leave, and aggresive right wing types want us to stay?

I'm so pissed off with your consistant stereotyping of the left.

You seem to have some weird hard-on for the idea that being right wing means being aggressive and manly and being left wing makes you weak and 'hippie'. Being a selfish gakker doesn't make you a tough guy, just a selfish gakker who wants to pay less tax.

As a socialist, I entirely back the intervention by the armed forces to break the despotic religious right wing Taliban and their inhumane treatment of the populace. I am very pleased it was done with the endorsement of the UN. We should remain now to secure the area, ensure stability and break the taliban for good, to ensure it does not simply return to power after a few years of our forces departing, rending the sacrifices of our soldiers meaningless.

I was and remain opposed to the actions of the administrations of the United States and United Kingdom in the invasion of Iraq. That was conducted illegally. That was conducted on lies and for the aquisition of oil and to settle a personal feud. It cost lives and both Blair and Bush Jnr should stand trial for murder.

You are constantly blurring the left/right divide with liberal/authoritarian and it's making you look really bloody stupid with your 'daily mail' rhetoric and blanket insults.

Im relatively convinced that my theory is correct, turn up at a march in support of Joe Glenton and see if its full of Daily Mail reading conservatives. If thats the case, how does it make me look stupid? Oh and im sick of your absurd Daily Mirror reading Thatcher is worse than Hitler rants, but i dont tell you to shut up and lose my rag! And look at your spit in rich peoples faces sig, your far more militant in your beliefs than i am! Calm down comrade! :-)

sebster wrote: That support has faded because Karzai’s government is quite horrid. Ultimately that’s the issue, improve the Karzai government or replace it with a better government.

Yeah, but we should also remember that the forces of the Taliban and the forces of the Northern Alliance are largely composed of the same people. Anyone not in power fights the power, because they want to be in power.

sebster wrote:
If that can be done then in time Taliban influence will fade, and become an issue an Afghani government can control, if that can’t be done, then coalition forces will keep fighting until we eventually decide to declare victory and leave it up to the Afghanis.

Yep. We must find a way to legitimize the state. However, there is no certainty behind the notion that the West is capable of such a thing. There is an inherent, and well-founded, distrust of external powers. At some point we may simply have to settle for a sort of autocracy.

mattyrm wrote:Im relatively convinced that my theory is correct, turn up at a march in support of Joe Glenton and see if its full of Daily Mail reading conservatives. If thats the case, how does it make me look stupid? Oh and im sick of your absurd Daily Mirror reading Thatcher is worse than Hitler rants, but i dont tell you to shut up and lose my rag! And look at your spit in rich peoples faces sig, your far more militant in your beliefs than i am! Calm down comrade! :-)

Ok, so you don't even understand the Diogenes quote... It means that in the most extreme and difficult situations, sometimes the most extreme action is the only recourse. It is not a 'leftist' quotation.

As to my 'Thatcher is worse than Hitler' rants, citation please? Given my feelings towards fascism, that to is your usual hyperbole bs and a flamebait more to the point. Given the atrocities committed by the Nazis, you further insult the memory of all those who lost their lives to that regime, civilian or soldier, in using it as an attempt to 'get one over' in an internet argument.

"I'm relatively convinced that my theory is correct..." So you're reasonably sure that your own idea is right, ok then, well, I'd hope you would be, since it's.your.theory.isn't it...

Joe Glenton should serve a term in prison, he joined the army. You don't get to sign up on some provisio that 'well, it's nice and sunny and there aren't any real wars, but if a war starts, I'd rather go home'.

There are 2 arguments there, whether the war he was being sent to was legal and whether the guy was just seeking to avoid bullets.
Those who demonstrate that he was justified in defying his call up because we 'should never have been there and all wars are injust and we nasty western powers shouldn't interfere etc' are arguing from a liberalism stance. I have no agreement with them.
Those who demonstrate that he was justified in defying his call up because we 'were conducting an illegal war in Iraq we had no place carrying out in defiance of international law' have a very good point.

I agree with neither of them. If you sign to the armed forces, you conduct the military actions dictated by the democratically elected government. The only cases I can see being justified in that circumstance would be something that breaches the Geneva convention, suppression of civilian population by violence etc.

Glenton was ducking his responsibility and betraying his uniform.

Because the lefties hate 'the man' i.e. the capitalist west that allows them the freedom to whinge and whine more than they hate the women stoning, monument destroying, free speech ending, terrorism supporting 'baddies' on the other side of the world.

Something about seeing, wood and trees....

Because there's this idea of self-determination, and that any chance we force on another society through armed force is bad, regardless of the reasons.

If I thought that a revolution against a dictatorship was possible in today's world I might even agree with it. However, these days, dictatorships have access to such powerful weaponry, it means that the absolute minority can rule the majority and never be unseated. If we don't free these countries from oppression, they never will be. For that, I'm grateful we invaded Iraq, wrong or right reasons.

Ketara wrote:Because there's this idea of self-determination, and that any chance we force on another society through armed force is bad, regardless of the reasons.

If I thought that a revolution against a dictatorship was possible in today's world I might even agree with it. However, these days, dictatorships have access to such powerful weaponry, it means that the absolute minority can rule the majority and never be unseated. If we don't free these countries from oppression, they never will be. For that, I'm grateful we invaded Iraq, wrong or right reasons.

+1

I don't care if your against the wars or not. Its the people that disrespect the troops/vets that piss me off. Like those Fundie freaks (nicest word I can think of) that protest at soldiers funerals saying it was "god's punishment" for tolerating homosexuality and things of that nature. Those people need to be lined up and shot. It is the worst form of disrespect that could ever be shown to this country (dunno if you have this problem in the UK). God I'm pissed just thinking about it

Because (and please, just look at Karzai), you can't force western reforms on a foreign culture at gunpoint... they'll just associate it with the occupation and it's going to take YEARS for us to be able to leave and the country not revert back (from what I know at any rate).

You have to let countries arrive at their own conclusions, if the womenfolk feel repressed, let 'em agitate for freedoms...

I'm not against the Afghanistan War per-se though, I'm mostly undecided... Iraq, however... DEFENDIN' OUR FRAHDOM BY GOING AFTER A COMPLETELY UNRELATED-TO-AL-QAEDA-PARTY!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

Ketara wrote:Because there's this idea of self-determination, and that any chance we force on another society through armed force is bad, regardless of the reasons.

If I thought that a revolution against a dictatorship was possible in today's world I might even agree with it. However, these days, dictatorships have access to such powerful weaponry, it means that the absolute minority can rule the majority and never be unseated. If we don't free these countries from oppression, they never will be. For that, I'm grateful we invaded Iraq, wrong or right reasons.

+1

I don't care if your against the wars or not. Its the people that disrespect the troops/vets that piss me off. Like those Fundie freaks (nicest word I can think of) that protest at soldiers funerals saying it was "god's punishment" for tolerating homosexuality and things of that nature. Those people need to be lined up and shot. It is the worst form of disrespect that could ever be shown to this country (dunno if you have this problem in the UK). God I'm pissed just thinking about it

Regarding the point you quoted:
Keep an eye on Iran, or look back to agitation against the USSR... Any dictatorship can be unseated by the will of the people. What about those Chinese soldiers that defected at Tienanmen Square? Revolutions are rarely successful on the first try but the people have memories.

As for Bane, I dunno... Westboro are a joke of course but when I was younger at the time Iraq was still waging, the way I looked at it was: If you join the military and are fully aware that you will be sent to Iraq and have bothered to actually read about the war: "Then you're complicit in murder, you are not a hero and you are not defending freedom and I will not mourn your casket". I've kind of dummed it down now, what with the army being the only option for a lot of people, but when I hear rhetoric about "Heroes fighting for what's right" and such, well, I can't help but meet it with cynicism.

There's nothing wrong with toppling Saddam, I wish we'd get stuck into Mugabe and several other African tyrants and knock the fethers out of power.

There's everything wrong with not waiting for UN approval and using the excuse of 'liberating the people of Iraq' to secure oil rights and settle personal agendas.

The Kurds and marsh arabic peoples were promised aid and military support if they rose up to oppose Saddam in the 1st Gulf War, they were then abandoned and left to Sadam's reprisals. If it had been about helping free the people of Iraq, they should have done so there and then.

I'm so pissed off with your consistant stereotyping of the left.

Yeah, because you would never resort to THAT sort of thinking regarding the right, would you?

Ok, so you don't even understand the Diogenes quote... It means that in the most extreme and difficult situations, sometimes the most extreme action is the only recourse.

I hadn't heard of this quote and decided to look it up:

Diogenes was particularly upset by extravagant and lavish interior decorations, and at one rich man's house, on finding himself surrounded by expensive carpets and sumptuous cushions, Diogenes spat in the owner's face, and then wiped it with his rough cloak and apologized, saying it was the only dirty place in the room he could find to spit.

This seems to square quite well with your views of the wealthy as demonstrated here from time-to-time, so I would say mattyrm had a point.

Albatross wrote:

I'm so pissed off with your consistant stereotyping of the left.

Yeah, because you would never resort to THAT sort of thinking regarding the right, would you?

Ok, so you don't even understand the Diogenes quote... It means that in the most extreme and difficult situations, sometimes the most extreme action is the only recourse.

I hadn't heard of this quote and decided to look it up:

Diogenes was particularly upset by extravagant and lavish interior decorations, and at one rich man's house, on finding himself surrounded by expensive carpets and sumptuous cushions, Diogenes spat in the owner's face, and then wiped it with his rough cloak and apologized, saying it was the only dirty place in the room he could find to spit.

This seems to square quite well with your views of the wealthy as demonstrated here from time-to-time, so I would say mattyrm had a point.

I'm really pleased you have the passion to leap to your chum's defence.

So, your first point: but you do it so he can do it! great... Do you have a particular post in mind, did any of them come about initially or were they all in response to right wing ignorance, tubthumping and soundbites?

I also find it amusing you read the instance of Diogenes behaviour and don't extrapolate the meaning. I would, again, suggest you consider what he meant not what he did.

Modquisition on.

Everyone needs to turn it down a notch or this thread will be closed and disciplinary procedings enforced. The fact you made me type 'proceding' has officially ticked me off. Ticked off Frazzled without his morning coffee is a dangerous thing boys.

MGS you need to relax mate, i was merely pointing out something that i thought was an interesting paradox, ie. 'kill em all let god sort em out' rightie types should want us to pull out and 'peace man' lefty types should want us to stay. There is no need to be so deliberately petty, i mean, come on. Im slandering the service of WW2 veterans because i said socialist types like you try and make out like 'Thatcher is worse than Hitler' really? :-) You know exactly what i am talking about so dont play dumb just to try and make a cheap point. Im not trying to flamebait you either, and if your upset then i sincerely apologise. Im just somewhat stunned you get as offended as you do when you make broad sweeping generalizations about the right just as often as i do the left. Indeed i have found some of yours about 'floppy haired toffs' to be geniunelly amusing as im not wealthy. :-)

Interesting that you think the left want to stay in... mnyah, I have no idea what should be done; we've made an investment I guess and I personally approved of the war at the time... No point pulling out.

Iraq was another matter entirely though, as I've said.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Albatross wrote:

I'm so pissed off with your consistant stereotyping of the left.

Yeah, because you would never resort to THAT sort of thinking regarding the right, would you?

Ok, so you don't even understand the Diogenes quote... It means that in the most extreme and difficult situations, sometimes the most extreme action is the only recourse.

I hadn't heard of this quote and decided to look it up:

Diogenes was particularly upset by extravagant and lavish interior decorations, and at one rich man's house, on finding himself surrounded by expensive carpets and sumptuous cushions, Diogenes spat in the owner's face, and then wiped it with his rough cloak and apologized, saying it was the only dirty place in the room he could find to spit.

This seems to square quite well with your views of the wealthy as demonstrated here from time-to-time, so I would say mattyrm had a point.

I'm really pleased you have the passion to leap to your chum's defence.

So, your first point: but you do it so he can do it! great... Do you have a particular post in mind, did any of them come about initially or were they all in response to right wing ignorance, tubthumping and soundbites?

I also find it amusing you read the instance of Diogenes behaviour and don't extrapolate the meaning. I would, again, suggest you consider what he meant not what he did.

It has less to do with 'leaping to his defence' and more to do with recognising a hypocrite when I see one. And you most assuredly are one. Actually, Matty and I disagree on a LOT of things - I'm a liberal arts student and he's an ex-serviceman for feth's sake! We're like night and day! I don't even necessarily agree with the premise of this thread. But you're being obnoxious.

For a change.

Any cultural text has various levels of meaning - you can be as patronising as you like, but if you decide to go down this route with me you will end up looking foolish. That an interpretant would view this as a comment on the crassness of extravagance is perfectly reasonable. I do have a feeling that you selected that quote for the reasons you stated, but the fact that it reinforces some of the 'class-warrior' sentiment which you occasionally display would have been more than a happy accident I feel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Frazzled - Whoops! Just saw your post - I'll dial it down a couple of notches.

mattyrm wrote:Indeed i have found some of yours about 'floppy haired toffs' to be geniunelly amusing as im not wealthy. :-)

Which makes your continued support of a political party that reinforces and rewards the ultra-wealthy to the detriment of the poorest in the country all the more depressing. You're working class, same as me, they have never given a gak about us and you think they're doing us a favour.

But I'll step out of this now.

I argue aggressively, I am relaxed, but I believe strongly in the protection and support of a unified society. You have to understand that when you make a blanket statement that includes something along the lines of 'those brown rice munchin woollen tie open sandal wearing pinkos', that someone with leftwing politics may decide to return fire.

If you're down Bristol way, I'll buy you a pint and continue the discussion face to face. I'll move out of the thread however.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:
It has less to do with 'leaping to his defence' and more to do with recognising a hypocrite when I see one. And you most assuredly are one.

Where is the hypocrisy in what I've said?

Why don't you two just move it to PMs before you get this thread locked?

Henners91 wrote:Why don't you two just move it to PMs before you get this thread locked?

My hero.

@MGS - I meant that the whole 'blanket stereotyping' thing that you accused Matty of is something which I have observed you doing - in this very thread, no less. Why would you assume all conservatives are 'selfish'?

Who is more selfish? Someone who believes that encouraging the growth of businesses (and as a result, employement), individual responsibility, aspiration and civic pride, or someone who believes that they are entitled to anything that they can get because 'it's free money' - that whatever bad decisions they make, the government will be there to wipe their arses for them? Now I'm not saying that all Labour supporters are like that - although I do believe that their policies have encouraged economic inertia in the 'lower classes' (don't get me started on the 'class system' - what a shower of gak) - some (Most? Hard to say...) are decent, selfless people who believe in the betterment of society. But you don't have a monopoly on that. Conservatives want what is best for the country, and I believe what is best for the country is also best for society.

What could be more selfless than that?

Alby, I think that is a different, and potentially very interesting topic.

I am closing this thread. I don't think it will succeed in acheiving anything more than flames. The topic is interesting but on more general aspects-What do liberals believe/conservatives believe and why (although that one would likely go down in flames as well).