stinkychops said:
Where exactly do you gain enough credence to assert that democracy must be gained through civil uprising? Certainly that has been the major, if not singular cause thus far. However, in the social climate of Afghanistan, where the country is so fragmented and heavily controlled by drugs and violence how can peace come about without external intervention. The democracy which is attempting to be established will definitely fall if they pulled out now, it has a chance if they stay. Wouldn't you want a chance at freedom?
I would. But I would want it at my
own accord. Freedom brought at the hands of
others is not going to help a nation develop positively. If a nation cannot hold up democracy on it's own, it is not ready to be a democratic country yet. Simple as that.
The majority of the anarchistic situation in Iraq/Afghanistan right now was brought about by the occupation of the Coalition forces, which threw the countries into civil alert and chaos.
stinkychops said:
Furthermore you have yet again sidestepped my initial question. How will the troops leaving help?
The Taliban, whom you are mostly fighting, are a group that has rarely to
never gone outside the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only reason they are fighting the Coalition forces, and in turn our people are dying, is because
we are there.
Give the Afghani people the knowledge to create a democracy properly, but do not do it for them. Is that not the opposite of what we teach our children when wanting things in life?
stinkychops said:
A few decades is not a long time. Certainly not long enough for it to force a government system into permanency or the culture.
The Middle East itself is inclined towards theocratic systems of governance. It has been that way for thousands of years. Even if Iraq/Afghanistan have not been that way that long yet, there is still powerful influence from strongly religious groups in the region.
stinkychops said:
Your argument falls down again again however as this is what Coalition forces are trying to do.
I'm sorry, when did we establish this the "first time", exactly?
stinkychops said:
I mean for Christ sake, why do you think even combat troops have such direct roles in trying to bring infrastructural changes about? Its not as though they can simply drive around handing out lollipops. They have to defend themselves while they work to establish infrastructure and democracy.
This is more or less reference to my previous point above.
You cannot create a stable democracy upon a nation in which does not know how to operate one without external aid or defense. Train their militia how to be properly effective, give them the tools and knowledge to help themselves make the decision, and then get the
hell out of there. That, is my stance.
stinkychops said:
So its got far less to do with religion in the practical sense than you presume.
..Who was talking about religion?
