Our foreign policy is retarded, part MMMMCXXV5billion

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Wezil


Wanna buy a bridge?

Hmmmm....

Been looking for one in the New York area. Got one for sale?


Just kidding. I do think that it makes a difference having an internationally recognized elected government. If you will recall, only a couple of countries ever recognized the Taleban government...it was an early pick as terrorist and it still is a terrorist organization. Karzai's government, while maybe not ideal, does fit every international definition of legitimate.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by PLATO
Just kidding. I do think that it makes a difference having an internationally recognized elected government. If you will recall, only a couple of countries ever recognized the Taleban government...it was an early pick as terrorist and it still is a terrorist organization. Karzai's government, while maybe not ideal, does fit every international definition of legitimate.

Karzai was originally appointed to his position until "winning" an election that was flawed in so many ways (I won't do this research for you - it is widely available with the simplest of searches) that he could hardly be considered "legitimate". His opponents (almost all former warlords at one time or another personally supported and supplied by the US) cried foul, but under pressure from US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, later backed down.

Whether the international community recognized the Taliban is neither here nor there. The Taliban did rule most of the country and were the government. The rest of the world wouldn't accept them. So what?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Wezil


Karzai was originally appointed to his position until "winning" an election that was flawed in so many ways (I won't do this research for you - it is widely available with the simplest of searches) that he could hardly be considered "legitimate". His opponents (almost all former warlords at one time or another personally supported and supplied by the US) cried foul, but under pressure from US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, later backed down.

Whether the international community recognized the Taliban is neither here nor there. The Taliban did rule most of the country and were the government. The rest of the world wouldn't accept them. So what?

I think we may be talking two different points. I certainly agree that the Karzai election was flawed. The entire governmental process in Afghanistan is flawed. My point is that the government is still legitimate despite these flaws and that its legitimacy far out weighs any that the Taleban had. The international recognition of the Karzai government vs that of the Taleban government was stated simply to support my contention.

[Ramo]

Why is it that liberals always have to distort what people say to try to make their point?

Plato, I'm not a liberal, and that's a total non-sequitur to what I wrote. You wrote that hurting civilians is ok and is definitely not terrorism because they're taxed by other people who hurt civilians ("terrorists").

You did make another argument about Karzai being internationally recognized, but that's a pretty dumb basis on which to make distinctions about terrorism. Various parts of the territory Israel governs are not recognized as sovereign Israeli territory by the international community; does it then become not-terrorism if Hamas hurts or kills civilians in these areas?

Not hardly

You didn't say this?:
"What would you think of a buy and plant scheme for loyal areas (where we buy this years crop and assist in planting alternatives for next year) [...]"

Because I'm pretty sure you did... If you legalize opium production in Karzai-controlled areas, you can't make the argument that opium production in Omar-controlled areas is inherently beyond the pale.

Why is it that conservatives don't understand remedial logic?

[Wezil]

Plato - The only thing making it "legitimate" is our force of arms and diplo power (NATO, UN, etc). As you may know, Karzai's own personal security is STILL in the hands of Americans. He rules at our pleasure.

[Ramo]

The international recognition of the Karzai government vs that of the Taleban government was stated simply to support my contention.

Why does international recognition have anything to do with what we're discussing here?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo

Why is it that liberals always have to distort what people say to try to make their point?

Plato, I'm not a liberal, and that's a total non-sequitur to what I wrote. You wrote that hurting civilians is ok and is definitely not terrorism because they're taxed by other people who hurt civilians ("terrorists").

Sorry for mis characterizing you, but you had me fooled.

No, I did not write that hurting civilians is okay. I didn't even remotely write anything like that. See what you want, but it isn't there. I wrote that eradicating an illegal and dangerous crop was okay in areas that are under terrorist control.

You did make another argument about Karzai being internationally recognized, but that's a pretty dumb basis on which to make distinctions about terrorism.

Once again, you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never used that to draw a distiction about terrorism in any fashion whatsoever. You continue to call eradicating illegal and dangerous crops terrorism. It isn't, but once again...see what you want. If it is, however, than you have branded nearly every country in the world as terrorist. Hmmm....maybe that explains a lot about your position.

Various parts of the territory Israel governs are not recognized as sovereign Israeli territory by the international community; does it then become not-terrorism if Hamas hurts or kills civilians in these areas?

See above...or

Since you insist that all nations are terrorist, what are you trying to say here?

Not hardly

You didn't say this?:
"What would you think of a buy and plant scheme for loyal areas (where we buy this years crop and assist in planting alternatives for next year) [...]"

Because I'm pretty sure you did... If you legalize opium production in Karzai-controlled areas, you can't make the argument that opium production in Omar-controlled areas is inherently beyond the pale.

Who said anything about legalizing it? Oh! That was you!! I said buy the crop in the field in Government controlled areas and pay them to plant something else. I thought it was simple enough to understand that destroying the product we bought was what would happen next.

Why is it that conservatives don't understand remedial logic?

Because first of all it has to be logic and secondly we don't need remediation like the "those who appear liberal but state they aren't" people do.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo

The international recognition of the Karzai government vs that of the Taleban government was stated simply to support my contention.

Why does international recognition have anything to do with what we're discussing here?

It really doesn't...as I said earlier it was simply to add a little weight to a point. Perhaps you could actually read my posts?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Wezil
Plato - The only thing making it "legitimate" is our force of arms and diplo power (NATO, UN, etc). As you may know, Karzai's own personal security is STILL in the hands of Americans. He rules at our pleasure.

Nonetheless, my points still stand...

[Wezil]

Not really.

[Ramo]

Who said anything about legalizing it? Oh! That was you!! I said buy the crop in the field in Government controlled areas and pay them to plant something else. I thought it was simple enough to understand that destroying the product we bought was what would happen next.

Ok, so the government doesn't in any way punish the people who produced opium, and instead gives the farmers money in exchange for the opium In what respect is the production of opium illegal in this scenario (except in the future)?

But let's not get hung up on the semantics. The point, which you totally skirted, is that if opium growing is tolerated (or whatever euphemism you prefer) in one area, it isn't intrinsically intolerable in another.

You continue to call eradicating illegal and dangerous crops terrorism.

Where did I say that? I spelled out exactly why this is considered terrorism multiple times already.

Your policy punishes civilians for perceived political views. Opium growing is tolerated (/legalized or whatever euphemism you prefer) in areas loyal to Karzai, and is eradicated in areas loyal to Omar. That's terrorism.

I never used that to draw a distiction about terrorism in any fashion whatsoever

Yes you did:

If the Taleban was legal in Afghanistan then you might have a point...if they were not in open rebellion against the legitimate government, then you might have a point.

You claim that international recognition is somehow important to this debate. Care to back up this claim?

[Arrian]

Terrorizing civilians by destroying an illegal, dangerous substance being grown by people who are in open rebellion?

I love ya Ramo! You do make good comedy.

Actually, this is pretty funny.

Illegal substance? Says who? WE DO. Whose country is it?

Dangerous substance? It can be, yes. So are lots of things.

People in open rebellion? First, the farmers themselves are not necessarily rebels (I would imagine the vast majority just want to grow crops & make some money). Second, this is Afganistan we're talking about. They rebel against everyone. It's their thing.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Your policy punishes civilians for perceived political views.

Nothing PLATO said can in any way be viewed as punishing civilians. How exactly is buying their crop, enforcing AFGHAN law concerning poppie production, and giving incentives to grow something else punishing anyone?

I know you seem to think remaking all of Afghanistan on the rural Columbia model is seen as a good think by you, but that doesn't mean you have do deliberatly hack PLATOs posts.

[Kuciwalker]

Illegal substance? Says who? WE DO. Whose country is it?

Also illegal to export to pretty much any other country in the world.

[Ramo]

Nothing PLATO said can in any way be viewed as punishing civilians. How exactly is buying their crop, enforcing AFGHAN law concerning poppie production, and giving incentives to grow something else punishing anyone?

Jeebus, this isn't a difficult concept. In his scenario, poppies are treated as a defacto legal (the specific term to describe its status doesn't matter, but that's what we're talking about) crop in areas loyal to Karzai. You can't justify dumping herbicides on disloyal areas by saying that opium is inherently beyond the pale, because of the aforementioned de-facto legalization. What he's talking about is punishing civvies for percieved political views.

Conservatives and remedial logic..