"So the Taliban were in power and allowing anti-American forces to train on their property. They were treating women and girls as second class citizens and slaves. What would a peace and human rights loving person do in the situation?This came to mind after reading and seeing the things below. I realize that we can't and probably shouldn't try to save everyone, yet to continually complain about the USA military actions when they are trying to do just that seems odd from a peace loving Liberal. May be it is easier for them to ignore the plight of dissidents in Iraq, women in Afganistan, people in Somalia, etc than to have to face it on the television.
I don't disagree that it is difficult to achieve long term success in the region. Just curious what you would have done different?"
CNN Girl Wounded for Speaking Out
CNN Taliban Execute Woman as Men Cheer
9 comments:
I joined several large protests in 2001-2002 against going to war in Iraq. Maybe if Bush had not taken troops out of Afghanistan for this second unnecessary war we could have gotten out of Afghanistan in 1or 2 years instead of still losing many lives there 11 years later.
About what is the alternative to war in Afghanistan - maybe drone strikes and/or special forces like we have done in Pakistan would have accomplished the goals of weakening Al Qaeda with much less loss of lives, American and Afghanistan(i?)
From a true peacenik perspective maybe if we had done nothing other than beef up intelligence and security we would have had less loss of life than we've had with the 11 years of war.
Yet the women would still be being assaulted in Afganistan.
Back to the assault in the alley, maybe the peacenik could stand there and take good notes, thereby avoiding a potential confrontation and violence. Of course, they can give the notes to an officer who may do something to prevent a repeat offense. Not that it would help the first woman.
Now who would the note takers and intelligence gatherers bring their data regarding Afganistan to. The United Nations? And what can they do about internal policies in Afganistan?
Staying out of Afganistan with ground troops definitely would have been better for our economy and service people. At what cost though as we watch the execution video? Maybe a little bit of our souls?
I just find it interesting that Liberals seem to like to play both sides. We must care for the American poor by ensuring they have free housing, healthcare, food, education, phones, etc. Yet we can ignore the much worse off in other nations by increasing our security fence and staying home.
What a fascinating trade off decision... I see pros and cons.
I always say it takes two sides to make a peace but only one side to make a war. People of peace have my respect, but do not seem to recognize that there is true evil in the world. That doesn't mean the US has to police it, but if we don't we might get killed just the same.
J. Ewing
So, John, rather than attacking a speculative attempt to answer your question (only first paragraph was my actual views), perhaps you should share your wisdom re foreign policy and wars (past and future.) I'm sure there are human rights abuses in many countries around the world. Where would you commit our troops?
Where there is a threat to the USA security and humans rights abuses... Good starting point.
(Ie Afganistan, Iraq, others?)
When would you personally commit for the good of the powerless?
I am not knowledgeable enough to speculate on foreign policy. I defer to Obama who seems to be making good decisions to me re both Afghanistan and Iraq and how he has handled US response to the Arab spring.
back to your other comment about the fascinating trade off- if we don't take steps to help provide for basics needs and opportunities for all here in the USA we will pay for it in other ways - more homeless people, more crime, more prisons etc. What kind of community/country to you want to live in? I think there are selfish reasons to support schools/social services/safety net here in MN to a much greater extent than we attempt to provide for the poor around the world.
I don't disagree, however that sounds like a very Conservative Self Centered thing to say. I am impressed.
Once I mentioned to a strong Conservative who is very dear to me that if we helped the Mexicans to have a better economy and quality of life, not as many of them would violate our borders. Her answer was in essence to build a big fence cause we can not save everyone.
Now if our poor are uncomfortable, slightly hungry and inconvenienced, and their poor are abused, starving and dying... How does this weigh into the trade off since they are all human beings?
I can go either way on this one since it is hard to impossible to save those who don't want to work at it. Be it the American Generationally Impoverished or foreign Religious Fundamentalists who crave power more than peace.
It just frustrates me when Liberals are critical of the military when they are trying to help people. Since Lord knows there is nothing we want in Afganistan...
I suppose one more deciding factor in the trade off is that the American poor vote here. Silly Republicans, they have been squandering their opportunity to buy more votes in order to fight EVIL...
This makes for a very interesting ethical and moral topic.
One more thought that I may post on in more detail later... If the USA was not out playing Super Cop, how would global trade be affected? Would our economy shrink and our people suffer even more?
Peace lovers tend to see all governments as equal and all deserving of peace. In other words, when the US goes to war, it is our fault and the "enemy" are the innocents. I don't believe it, but concede we haven't always been successful even in identifying the "right side" of a battle. But the US military has liberated more people than any nation on earth.
As for poverty, yes charity begins at home, NOT with government. Didja ever notice that the Index of Economic Freedom tends to read like a guide to whether governments are capitalist democracies or socialist dictatorships? With the US slipping down the index as we become more socialistic, what can we learn from that singular fact? Remember JFK saying "A rising tide lifts all boats"? It's only true when people are free to build their own boat.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment