Terrible mistake in Afghanistan.

[colker]

And Colker, there are Solon members who served in Vietnam and elsewhere. Try to muster up a little respect for them.

They feel respected by my posts and don´t need you as their lawyer. Try not to copy the worst of nationalist demagoguery and you will write a lot better posts; and the world will be a better place.

[Corso]

They feel respectd by my posts and don´t need you as their lawyer. Try not to copy the worst of nationalist neofascist demagoguery and you will write a lot better posts.

Do they? Have they told you that?

I'll continue to defend my country where I see fit. As an American tax payer I have that right. You (and other non-Americans) can keep up your condescending criticism if it make you feel better.

If you were living in a better country, I may take your seriously.

[colker]

But, you ARE asking for our help. And so does everyone else. If you believe China is a better "big brother" you are a bit naive.

You are way out of your comprehension span in this thread and i am ignoring from now on all your posts regarding international conflict. Unfortunately these are the times we are living when there is no hope for collective understanding. Instead we have fanaticism disguised as opinion.

[colker]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[colker]

Do they? Have they told you that?

I'll continue to defend my country where I see fit. As an American tax payer I have that right. You (and other non-Americans) can keep up your condescending criticism if it make you feel better.

If you were living in a better country, I may take your seriously.

Demagoguery.

[Corso]

Demagoguery.

You and I have had conversations for years, on this and other forums. You've done better.

Ignoring other's postings is simply admitting defeat.

[sk_tle]

And Colker, there are Solon members who served in Vietnam and elsewhere. Try to muster up a little respect for them.

I'd say "serve" is not the right word. Being used is. And I am sorry for them.

[thollandpe]

If you were living in a better country, I may take your seriously.

Lighten up, Francis.

[colker]

Do they? Have they told you that?

I

If you were living in a better country, I may take your seriously.

_ "my country is better than your country".. how old are you? 5?

[Corso]

_ "my country is better than your country".. how old are you? 5?

Maybe I should toss out words like "Demagoguery". Your sophomoric "way out of my comprehension" invited my observation. How many Afghan refugees are asking to be flown to South America? I digress....

Your country appears to be FAR from perfect on so many fronts. Yet I don't feel the need to criticize it, until provoked. Why? because I don't live there, I don't know everything there is to know about it, first hand. So I don't understand, or like, when people who know the US only from a short visit or internet "news", criticize as if they have a clear understanding.

It goes back to "no skin in the game."

I've lost relatives and friends, and sons of friends in the wars you put down, so perhaps it means a bit more to me.

[BBB]

If you were living in a better country, I may take your seriously.

Really?

That is terribly condescending.

And how do you define better? If its lack of gun deaths and the provision of universal health care, then Australia beats the US hands down. Therefore does my opinion have greater weight in your eyes?

I've said this before in these types of conversations, this is a global cycling forum and people from Brazil, Europe and Australia (amongst others) are perfectly entitled to their point of view. Particularly in this instance (or in this thread) where terrorism has touched many from New York through to Bali and there was no universal consensus back then (ie 2001) and now about how to tackle the issue. Australia had troops on the ground in Afghanistan and the withdrawal has caused angst on many levels, including from veterans, refugee advocates and at a policing level as there are potentially a number of charges to come out of our special force's behaviour in Afghanistan.

[Corso]

Then why, are not I entitled to my point of view also?

Stating that I was "way out out of my comprehension" was not terribly condescending also? Don't judge me with a hand on the scale, look what others post also.

Earlier here I stated: "Yes, it was a messy-no win-situation from day one. I feel for the American (and NATO) soldiers and their families who were duty-bound to follow orders. Thousand killed and wounded. "

You may not agree on what I say, or how I say it, but don't I have the same "right" to be on this forum as the rest of the globalist?

Sooo, you just said Australia is "better" based on universal healthcare....and you slam me for saying "better". Interesting.

Ok, I'll define in the context of this thread. Brazil send zero to fight the war on terror. Many other countries did a hell of a lot more.

[BBB]

Then why, are not I entitled to my point of view also?

Stating that I was "way out out of my comprehension" was not terribly condescending also? Don't judge me with a hand on the scale, look what others post also.

Earlier here I stated: "Yes, it was a messy-no win-situation from day one. I feel for the American (and NATO) soldiers and their families who were duty-bound to follow orders. Thousand killed and wounded. "

You may not agree on what I say, or how I say it, but don't I have the same "right" to be on this forum as the rest of the globalist?

Sooo, you just said Australia is "better" based on universal healthcare....and you slam me for saying "better". Interesting.

Ok, I'll define in the context of this thread. Brazil send zero to fight the war on terror. Many other countries did a hell of a lot more.

You are entitled to your point of view. No one is denying that.

I also never said you were "way out of my comprehension." That was someone else.

The "better" point was posed as a question. Here it is (again): "And how do you define better? If its lack of gun deaths and the provision of universal health care, then Australia beats the US hands down. Therefore does my opinion have greater weight in your eyes?" (my emphasis).

Brazil may or may not have contributed, but that does not invalidate one person from that country expressing an opinion on a global chat forum. Terrorism and how to best to combat it is an extremely vexing issue.

[Corso]

The "better" point was posed as a question. Here it is (again): "And how do you define better? If its lack of gun deaths and the provision of universal health care, then Australia beats the US hands down. Therefore does my opinion have greater weight in your eyes?" (my emphasis).

I already answered that, perhaps our replies crossed. Here it is again:

Ok, I'll define in the context of this thread. Brazil send zero to fight the war on terror. Many other countries did a hell of a lot more.

Better = involvement.

I don't know enough about Australia's universal healthcare system to declare it better - but I'll take your word for it.

I'm ready to move on- or back- to the original purpose of this thread. Anyone else?

[BBB]

Okay better equals involvement. Thanks for the clarification.

Still, the war on terror was launched following bin Laden's attacks on September 11. As I understand (and anyone please interject and correct me if I am wrong), bin Laden had declared his intentions vis à vis the US some years prior because of the US role in the Middle East and also its treatment (from bin Laden's perspective) of Muslims in general. Hence various acts of terrorism eventually leading to the September 11 attacks. The response to this event saw NATO invoke a 'one in all in' type provision in their agreement and Bush was given power to use force against terrorists. These were done within days of the attacks in September 2001. Without commenting on the rights or wrongs of what took place, but ultimately Afghanistan was invaded as was Iraq, resulting in the fall of the Taliban and Hussein respectively. Bin Laden was killed much later in the piece following a raid in Pakistan.

Australia was involved in both Afghanistan and Iraq and presumably therefore it falls in the "better" camp.

However, given bin Laden's specific aims and the ultimate response (including the use of NATO) how can Brazil be criticised? They weren't a target (that was the US) and they weren't/aren't part of NATO. The vast bulk of sensible and sane people don't condone flying planes into buildings, but at the same time not committing military resources to an open ended war shouldn't disentitle people to a view or lead to a "better" country designation.

Maybe had bin Laden blew up Christ the Redeemer or the Maracanã Stadium, Brazil would have been all in and would be better too. But, he (bin Laden) didn't have a beef with football or large statues and hence Brazil wasn't involved in Afghanistan.

[ABiCi]

I've lost relatives and friends, and sons of friends in the wars you put down, so perhaps it means a bit more to me.

While I am sorry that you have lost people close to you in these wars, and I understand that you would like to feel that those loses have been in the pursuit of a worthy cause, the fact remains that the causes these people lost their lives for were not worthy.

Until you and others in your country accept that and both hold your government to account for these decisions and not allow it to make the same kinds of decisions again and again, until you break out of this form of patriotic denial, you and others are going to continue to lose relatives and friends.

Please don't try to make these statements out to be disrespectful to those who lost their lives, because it isn't. My disrespect is for those who made (and continue to make) the decision to send them to their deaths. And again I will say that this is not an issue that is isolated solely in the US, it is applicable to the rest of us in the western world too. I'm a dual Italian/Australian citizen who lives in Germany. All three of those countries have basically been there alongside the US through these same conflicts, and my criticism is for those governments too.

The rest of the world has an opinion about the US because the reach of US power compels us to have one. The decisions that your government makes have significant and real impacts on our lives, directly or indirectly. As such, on the whole the rest of the world is far less ignorant about the US than the US is about us.

No one has stopped you from voicing your opinion in this thread as far as I can see. You are allowed to hold whatever belief you want to hold. That isn't the same thing as being free from criticism or challenge. That isn't the same thing as being called upon to justify your beliefs. As far as I can see you are the only person who is telling others that they aren't allowed to have an opinion.

[ABiCi]

I already answered that, perhaps our replies crossed. Here it is again:

Ok, I'll define in the context of this thread. Brazil send zero to fight the war on terror. Many other countries did a hell of a lot more.

Better = involvement.

But when that involvement in the "war on terror" mainly just extends conflicts across generations, creating more terrorists along the way, is it really better for a country to be involved? What ends are actually being served by that involvement?

You can't defeat terrorism with conventional warfare. You can't impose a form of liberal democracy on a people who don't have both the desire and capacity to build it and defend it for themselves. Surely those are the takeaways from the last few decades of interminable asymmetric warfare?

[sk_tle]

"war on terror" are just marketing terms and do not describe involvement in Afghanistan. Bin Laden and many supposed Al Qaida members have been targeted and killed in countries where US of A wasn't in active war.

[jclay]

While I am sorry that you have lost people close to you in these wars, and I understand that you would like to feel that those loses have been in the pursuit of a worthy cause, the fact remains that the causes these people lost their lives for were not worthy.

Until you and others in your country accept that and both hold your government to account for these decisions and not allow it to make the same kinds of decisions again and again, until you break out of this form of patriotic denial, you and others are going to continue to lose relatives and friends.

Please don't try to make these statements out to be disrespectful to those who lost their lives, because it isn't. My disrespect is for those who made (and continue to make) the decision to send them to their deaths. And again I will say that this is not an issue that is isolated solely in the US, it is applicable to the rest of us in the western world too. I'm a dual Italian/Australian citizen who lives in Germany. All three of those countries have basically been there alongside the US through these same conflicts, and my criticism is for those governments too.

The rest of the world has an opinion about the US because the reach of US power compels us to have one. The decisions that your government makes have significant and real impacts on our lives, directly or indirectly. As such, on the whole the rest of the world is far less ignorant about the US than the US is about us.

No one has stopped you from voicing your opinion in this thread as far as I can see. You are allowed to hold whatever belief you want to hold. That isn't the same thing as being free from criticism or challenge. That isn't the same thing as being called upon to justify your beliefs. As far as I can see you are the only person who is telling others that they aren't allowed to have an opinion.

Excellent post.

[bertiewhang]

There's been a lot of expert opinion here and none of it has covered the fact that in excess of ten thousand. U.S. citizens have been left outside Kabul Airport in a wild country with absolutely fuck all being done about getting them home safely. What a clustershambles. Any war machine can spring into action at essentially the drop of a hat but eight months isn't long enough to gather your own nationals? Not to mention all of the locals that were promised protection.