You mean the same army that spent 20 years replacing the Taliban with the Taliban? And is now under new, significantly dumber management? No, no I don’t.
As an Afghan friend of mine says, it was not the fault of the US. The Afghan people is not ready to form a western-style government, as it’s a land of a hundred tribes where most just think of themselves. This is why the government fell so quickly when the US left. Few are motivated to defend the country, corruption is immense.
In her words, it was totally understandable for them to leave, as they saw this and realized they would be fighting a losing battle for decades by staying.
Pretty much spot on; the only way for Afghanistan to have succeeded as a democracy would have required multiple generations of occupation, in order to permanently impact the culture through ideological immersion.
Only once the pre-occupation population dies out (or at least severely diminished due to old age) - and are replaced by successive generations that grew up in that environment - would it become self-sustaining.
It’s very easy to dismiss the Afghan people have “always been like that” - all the while forgetting that the current religious ferver is mostly due to a power vacuum following the failed Soviet invasion of the late ‘80s.
Prior to that, the metropolitan areas weren’t all that different to pre-revolution Iran.
That’s overly reductive, and not very accurate - would you describe West Germany and Japan as colonised post-WW2?
While an imperfect comparison, I’d liken it more to reparations; if someone were to drive a bulldozer through your house, should they not be responsible for ensuring that the property is fully repaired and you as the homeowner made whole?
Afghanistan pre-Soviet invasion was not too dissimilar to Iran pre-Revolution; it was only once the US abandoned the reconstruction following the collapse of the USSR, that Afghanistan found itself under the despotic rule of the Taliban.
This directly lead to the 9/11 attacks, and the Afghanistan war. Now, by again abandoning their allies in the fledgling Afghan Government and allowing it to fall back into radicalised hands - it has ultimately devalued all of the hard work the US had spent for the prior 20 years.
Would you describe West Germany and Japan as colonised post-WW2?
Obviously yes? They both literally have american military base on their soil to this day. They empowered fascists infiltrating security services and the governement.
“Obviously”? No. Especially given that most academic discussion on the subject is most coached in nuance - it more reflects your black and white worldview more than the complex truth of the matter.
Military occupation of a conquered adversary? Sure, that one a definite tick.
Cultural and ideological domination? Hardly, both nations have their own distinct cultural and ideological identities.
Economic exploitation? Japan was one of the biggest economic forces through to the mid-90s, and Germany has the largest GDP in Europe. One can’t argue with a straight face they were exploited - especially given how vanquished adversaries were treated prior to WW2.
Political control and loss of sovereignty? Strike three, unless you’re seriously going to try and insinuate that somehow neither Germany nor Japan have sovereignty?
True, the US has deployed military bases all over the globe, but that in and of itself is not “colonisation”. These bases exist with express permission from host nations - usually as part of a mutual defence pact.
Don’t believe that? Look at what happened in Afghanistan following the collapse of the provisional government.
Given their most recent acts of war (and war crimes) in Iran, inability to sufficiently defend their Gulf state “allies” from retaliatory strikes, and going fanatical support of the Zionist regime in Israel, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few more nations evict US military bases from their territories in the near future.
TL;DR - just because you don’t like something, doesn’t automatically make it “colonisation”. The world is a million shades of grey, so stop trying to call half of it black.
Beside, you literally wish for afghanistan “multiple generations of occupation, in order to permanently impact the culture through ideological immersion” (your words). How is that not colonisation? Quit contradicting yourself
It’s not a contradiction to want to see Afghanistan restored to how it was pre-Soviet invasion; the US is arguably just as responsible as the USSR was for Afghanistan’s fall into religious fundamentalism, due to abandoning its reconstruction following the fall of the Soviet Union.
Undoing that level of cultural damage takes a long time, in order to ensure subsequent generations aren’t radicalised. So while it does suck, it would have taken at least another generation of occupation to shape a more democratic and progressive future for Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, the US isn’t as good at nation building as it once was - it’s actually not as good at a lot of things, as it once was.
I mean you want to colonise Iran so why on earth would I think you’re unbiased.
True, the US has deployed military bases all over the globe, but that in and of itself is not “colonisation”. These bases exist with express permission from host nations - usually as part of a mutual defence pact.
I want to colonise Iran? Be careful you don’t pull a hamstring jumping to those sorts of conclusions!
While I have no love for the Ayatollah and the IRGC, the US and Israel are the unprovoked aggressors in this conflict, and I look forward to their defeat and inevitable retreat from this war. I just hope that they are made to pay for the death and destruction they have caused over the past month.
if someone were to drive a bulldozer through your house, should they not be responsible for ensuring that the property is fully repaired and you as the homeowner made whole?
…so anyone who owns a construction yard in this analogy has carte blanche to demolish as many houses as they want without any penalty or repercussions?
You think reconstruction of europe after the war was made for shit and giggles? They reconstructed europe because its good business. America made money out of the marchall plan, it’s no charity. The same ways colonisers didn’t go to africa to help poor people develop out of charity. They went there to open new markets, forcibly if needed.
The guy who destroy houses shouldn’t be the one getting contracted to reconstruct them afterward, idiot. It just gives him more incentive to destroy more houses.
The guy who destroy houses shouldn’t be the one getting contracted to reconstruct them afterward, idiot. It just gives him more incentive to destroy more houses.
Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Firstly, sticking with the original analogy - the construction company that does the damage doesn’t need to be the one contracted to rebuild, but it should definitely should be held accountable and foot the bill - reparations are a thing for a reason.
Secondly, the US made money as a result of the Marshall Plan (which was largely grants, not loans) - because rebuilding Europe meant additional friendly markets for which to trade with, but also because it would serve to prevent the same dire economic circumstances that befell Europe in the aftermath of WW1, leading to the rise of the Nazi Party, and ultimately WW2.
Doing an ostensibly good thing, even for purely selfish reasons, where one stands to benefit from others also doing well, is not inherently a bad thing. The phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats” is fitting - or maybe I’m just a Consequentialist at heart.
So America can at max half ass all their decisions without thinking of the long term aside from the money the private military contractors made during 20 years? Got it make sure the USA stays the fuck out of the middle east
In her words, it was totally understandable for them to leave, as they saw this and realized they would be fighting a losing battle for decades by staying.
Shouldn’t have started started a war without intending to ‘win the peace’, in a Marshall Plan sort of way.
They won the war but failed at installing a lasting regime that aligns with their interests. A decades-long occupation is not generally counted as part of a war.
You mean the same army that spent 20 years replacing the Taliban with the Taliban? And is now under new, significantly dumber management? No, no I don’t.
As an Afghan friend of mine says, it was not the fault of the US. The Afghan people is not ready to form a western-style government, as it’s a land of a hundred tribes where most just think of themselves. This is why the government fell so quickly when the US left. Few are motivated to defend the country, corruption is immense.
In her words, it was totally understandable for them to leave, as they saw this and realized they would be fighting a losing battle for decades by staying.
they are not “ready”? What makes you think western-style governement are somehow more evolved? wtf
Pretty much spot on; the only way for Afghanistan to have succeeded as a democracy would have required multiple generations of occupation, in order to permanently impact the culture through ideological immersion.
Only once the pre-occupation population dies out (or at least severely diminished due to old age) - and are replaced by successive generations that grew up in that environment - would it become self-sustaining.
It’s very easy to dismiss the Afghan people have “always been like that” - all the while forgetting that the current religious ferver is mostly due to a power vacuum following the failed Soviet invasion of the late ‘80s.
Prior to that, the metropolitan areas weren’t all that different to pre-revolution Iran.
you’re describing colonisation
That’s overly reductive, and not very accurate - would you describe West Germany and Japan as colonised post-WW2?
While an imperfect comparison, I’d liken it more to reparations; if someone were to drive a bulldozer through your house, should they not be responsible for ensuring that the property is fully repaired and you as the homeowner made whole?
Afghanistan pre-Soviet invasion was not too dissimilar to Iran pre-Revolution; it was only once the US abandoned the reconstruction following the collapse of the USSR, that Afghanistan found itself under the despotic rule of the Taliban.
This directly lead to the 9/11 attacks, and the Afghanistan war. Now, by again abandoning their allies in the fledgling Afghan Government and allowing it to fall back into radicalised hands - it has ultimately devalued all of the hard work the US had spent for the prior 20 years.
Obviously yes? They both literally have american military base on their soil to this day. They empowered fascists infiltrating security services and the governement.
You’re a mad man
“Obviously”? No. Especially given that most academic discussion on the subject is most coached in nuance - it more reflects your black and white worldview more than the complex truth of the matter.
Military occupation of a conquered adversary? Sure, that one a definite tick.
Cultural and ideological domination? Hardly, both nations have their own distinct cultural and ideological identities.
Economic exploitation? Japan was one of the biggest economic forces through to the mid-90s, and Germany has the largest GDP in Europe. One can’t argue with a straight face they were exploited - especially given how vanquished adversaries were treated prior to WW2.
Political control and loss of sovereignty? Strike three, unless you’re seriously going to try and insinuate that somehow neither Germany nor Japan have sovereignty?
True, the US has deployed military bases all over the globe, but that in and of itself is not “colonisation”. These bases exist with express permission from host nations - usually as part of a mutual defence pact.
Don’t believe that? Look at what happened in Afghanistan following the collapse of the provisional government.
Given their most recent acts of war (and war crimes) in Iran, inability to sufficiently defend their Gulf state “allies” from retaliatory strikes, and going fanatical support of the Zionist regime in Israel, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few more nations evict US military bases from their territories in the near future.
TL;DR - just because you don’t like something, doesn’t automatically make it “colonisation”. The world is a million shades of grey, so stop trying to call half of it black.
Beside, you literally wish for afghanistan “multiple generations of occupation, in order to permanently impact the culture through ideological immersion” (your words). How is that not colonisation? Quit contradicting yourself
It’s not a contradiction to want to see Afghanistan restored to how it was pre-Soviet invasion; the US is arguably just as responsible as the USSR was for Afghanistan’s fall into religious fundamentalism, due to abandoning its reconstruction following the fall of the Soviet Union.
Undoing that level of cultural damage takes a long time, in order to ensure subsequent generations aren’t radicalised. So while it does suck, it would have taken at least another generation of occupation to shape a more democratic and progressive future for Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, the US isn’t as good at nation building as it once was - it’s actually not as good at a lot of things, as it once was.
You mean the colonial government?
So did congo. I guess algeria wasn’t colonised by france because they still had “their own distinct cultural and ideological identites”?
Gish-gallop.
The topic of debate was whether US colonised West Germany and Japan following WW2.
I’ll take your pivot as your concession.
I mean you want to colonise Iran so why on earth would I think you’re unbiased.
Ah yeah like egypt and the UK?
I want to colonise Iran? Be careful you don’t pull a hamstring jumping to those sorts of conclusions!
While I have no love for the Ayatollah and the IRGC, the US and Israel are the unprovoked aggressors in this conflict, and I look forward to their defeat and inevitable retreat from this war. I just hope that they are made to pay for the death and destruction they have caused over the past month.
Not when that guy owns the construction company
…so anyone who owns a construction yard in this analogy has carte blanche to demolish as many houses as they want without any penalty or repercussions?
What?
You think reconstruction of europe after the war was made for shit and giggles? They reconstructed europe because its good business. America made money out of the marchall plan, it’s no charity. The same ways colonisers didn’t go to africa to help poor people develop out of charity. They went there to open new markets, forcibly if needed.
The guy who destroy houses shouldn’t be the one getting contracted to reconstruct them afterward, idiot. It just gives him more incentive to destroy more houses.
Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Firstly, sticking with the original analogy - the construction company that does the damage doesn’t need to be the one contracted to rebuild, but it should definitely should be held accountable and foot the bill - reparations are a thing for a reason.
Secondly, the US made money as a result of the Marshall Plan (which was largely grants, not loans) - because rebuilding Europe meant additional friendly markets for which to trade with, but also because it would serve to prevent the same dire economic circumstances that befell Europe in the aftermath of WW1, leading to the rise of the Nazi Party, and ultimately WW2.
Doing an ostensibly good thing, even for purely selfish reasons, where one stands to benefit from others also doing well, is not inherently a bad thing. The phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats” is fitting - or maybe I’m just a Consequentialist at heart.
So America can at max half ass all their decisions without thinking of the long term aside from the money the private military contractors made during 20 years? Got it make sure the USA stays the fuck out of the middle east
Shouldn’t have started started a war without intending to ‘win the peace’, in a Marshall Plan sort of way.
yea just buy them out /s. Marshall plan wasn’t the only thing that made america win the peace. They also murdered politicians
Oh, absolutely. My point is more that the US shouldn’t have been there to begin with, just like the US shouldn’t be bombing Iranian children now.
Perhaps. The same friend is thankful that the US did try to save them from the Taliban, at least.
the US empowered the talibans in the first place lmao
Winning a war and installing a lasting regime are two very different things. The US crushed the war part and fumbled the regime building.
So they won the battle but lost the war?
They won the war but failed at installing a lasting regime that aligns with their interests. A decades-long occupation is not generally counted as part of a war.
So… they lost the war?
It really is. War means you crush your enemies. We absolutely did not.
That is correct, and don’t let anybody tell you you are wrong.