Top 15 Reasons to Get Out of Vietghanistan

[masuki bance]

By David Swanson

1. The planning of 9-11 was done in hotels and apartments in Germany and Spain, and flight schools in the United States. Even Paul Pillar, former CIA deputy chief for counter-terrorism will tell you that an al Qaeda base in Afghanistan would not significantly increase threats to the United States.

2. If the Taliban had control of Afghanistan, it would likely not allow al Qaeda in. Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. president's guy in Afghanistan, will tell you the same.

3. The Taliban would not necessarily gain full control of Afghanistan if the United States left. It never had it before, and appears unlikely to be able to take it now. These three points, as Robert Naiman has pointed out, make the leap from US withdrawal to an al Qaeda attack on the United States quite a large one.

4. Occupying and bombing Afghanistan is actually making us less safe. It is enraging people against the United States, building the Taliban and other resistance.

5. The occupation is also damaging the rule of law. Our engagement in this illegal enterprise makes it more difficult to prevent other nations from engaging in wars of aggression.

6. The occupation is not benefitting the Afghan people. It is not protecting their rights or their lives. It is brutally taking their lives with bombs and imprisoning them without charge or trial or the rights of prisoners of war.

7. The Taliban is made up of poor people fighting in order to eat. They need aid, diplomacy, jobs, education, and resources, not bombs and troops and mercenaries. We're paying tens of thousands of Afghans to fight as mercenaries. We could pay them to rebuild their country and have money to spare.

8. That we are supposedly succeeding against al Qaeda when arguments are needed to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, but supposedly failing against al Qaeda when it's time to continue or escalate wars is insulting, not credible.

9. The citizens of the United States oppose the war, and it's our money and our kids, and our country being placed in danger of blowback.

10. The people of Afghanistan, according to an ABC News poll, want the United States to withdraw. It's their country, and you cannot impose democracy on them without obeying their majority opinion.

11. If we've been through eight years of this and not been able to even devise a rough description of what a "success" would look like, what are the chances that it will be identified and achieved in year nine?

12. It's called the graveyard of empires for a reason.

13. Our states' militias, the national guard, is needed at home and cannot constitutionally be sent abroad to fight for empire.

14. US soldiers signed up to defend the United States, not to commit war crimes in distant lands.

15. There is nothing worse than war that could conceivably take its place. Killing people is the worst thing there is.

Has your congress member committed to voting No on all war money, to cosponsoring Jim McGovern's bill for an exit plan, to cosponsoring Betty McCollum's bill to defund criminal government contractors, and to cosponsor Barbara Lee's bill to block funding for an escalation?

Have you asked them? Have you asked them face-to-face? Have you used the local media? Have you gone to their office, sat down, and refused to leave?

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/46818

[DrToast]

1. War of aggression? WTF is wrong with these morons?

After Downing Street: Making Tebaggers Look Sane!

[ShortnFiery]

11. We're still bombing and killing in a sovereign country.

We are INVADERS but the populace will never surrender.

Occupations don't work - they bring out suicide bombers and ambushes while we kill more innocents than insurgents.

War of aggression? Without a doubt!

[mvd]

15. I agree with you. It should have been a targeted approach from the beginning

A targeted approach would still work the best (if needed,) but after Bush, there might be no perfect solution. :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

19. We've already LOST the people. We've lost the challenge for the hearts and minds due to bombing

campaigns. Too many dead Wedding and Funeral procession ... too many poor people's homes have been destroyed for the people of this nation to forgive, much less, WORK WITH the USA.

They simply want us OUT.

[mvd]

24. I want out, too

Do you think we need to phase out, or can we get everyone out in a short period of time?

[ShortnFiery]

27. I'd pull out as expediently as possible. It's not going to be pretty, but if we stay

we will merely half-step and kill THOUSANDS more soldiers and innocent civilians ... and still leave in the end.

It's always the women, children and old men who suffer the most during war. :(

[mvd]

29. That's my thinking

Out as soon as we can. We have so many troops that I don't know if they can all be out right away. But I'd start withdrawing now.

Thanks for the discussion. :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

60. You're welcome.

Hate to cut and run, but I have real world chores. :-) :hi:

[dionysus]

30. advocating a pull-out is fine, but you seriously undercut yourself when you sugarcoat the taliban.

[masuki bance]

2. kick

[dionysus]

3. #7 is the stupidest thing i ever heard. straight-up sympathizing with those monsters.

they beating and killing women, blowing up schools, terrorizing the afghan polulation just for a meal? dude is fucking naive. they happen to be swimming in opium money.

[tekisui]

4. It is more nuanced than that.

What the West, especially the media call "The Taliban", is not one singular and homogeneous organization. There are tribes and local groups that are all lumped into that term. In fact, many of the groups generically called the Taliban are moderate and helpful organizations. They provide security and services to the communities they serve. The US government has been dealing with lots of these factions for years, in a peaceful way. As has the Afghan government.

Of course this is the extremist Taliban that previous had control of Afghanistan. They can not be dealt with, but the Afghan people have largely rejected that ideology.

[niceypoo]

9. The Taliban are Pakistanis

They marched out of religious schools from Pakistan, into Afghanistan in 1996. They provide a hyper-strict version of Sharia law, and no more.

[niceypoo]

8. But, but....

They are just poor working stiffs, out to make a saw buck....

[dionysus]

14. take this sentence; "They need aid, diplomacy, jobs, education, and resources, not bombs and troops"

taliban version of diplomacy = chop off your limbs\head

education = the taliban razes schools to the ground and kills teachers, esp if they teach girls

resources = the taliban can afford all the food and weapons they need with opium money.

i really am wondering if the author of that sentence is a blithering idiot.

[ShortnFiery]

16. USA's version of pacification = bomb em into the stone age with women, children and goats. eom

[dionysus]

20. you're right, those poor taliban are great folks. they have a bad rap.

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

56. I didn't type that. You don't want to face the fact that the Taliban will remain in those

regions LONG after we've left.

[ShortnFiery]

13. "those monsters" = al Quaeda? Taliban? USA's "smart" bombs? eom

[dionysus]

17. you look mighty stupid defending the taliban. look what they do to their own people.

hey, feel free to volunteer to go over there help, see what happens.

you are defending blowing up schools, killing women and teachers, killing people for being barbers, throwing acid in womens faces for not being covered, all good warm and fuzzy stuff, because you are a self loathing american.

[ShortnFiery]

Again, I'm not defending the Taliban. Are you wrapping yourself up in our flag again?

[dionysus]

65. you have been all over the place. you're making a fool of yourself.

[Romulox]

31. So...bombing civilians...for women's rights and schools?

I don't get it.

[dionysus]

33. uh, civilians getting killed is BAD, but you act like we're bombing civilians intentionally.

civilians always get killed in war, it's something we try to avoid.

if you can name a war where no civilians got killed, maybe you can convince me.

[Romulox]

43. Just like the law assumes an arsonists intends to kill a sleeping victim

whether or not he knows they are in the building.

It's an effect that flows inevitably from a cause that we set in motion...

[dionysus]

46. hundreds of thousands of civilians died in WW2... does that make us the bad guys?

i want to know what kind of flying unicorn world you live in. we're not carpetbombing the joint, killing civilians on purpose you know :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

59. No, when we bomb, it's always righteous:

[dionysus]

63. you've reduced yourself to a cartoon.

nothing left but to :rofl:

[Romulox]

79. Your question assumes that the war is justified, and we're just discussing strategy...

:hi:

[dionysus]

83. i believe the original reason to go in was justified. it was all done wrong.

:hi:

[Romulox]

87. I agree. However, no satisfactory alternative justification has been provided.

"sunk cost fallacy" :hi:

[dionysus]

94. my personal opinion on this, if you are gonna do a war, you go in ww2 style with enough guys.

if bush had done this, it would have been over quickly, and it'd be old news now.

bush was trying to fight iraq and afghanistan not like vietnam, worse than vietman. because in that one we had enough guys, just had them take over the same place and leave it over and over.

now obama, either has to put in a ton of dudes, or pull back. he's screwed either way.
at this point, 8 years into it, i'd lean towards getting out, but either way he'll get a pile of shit for what he does. and if we do pull out, i believe the taliban will take back over and a ton of people will get killed. there's no happy ending.

what irks me is that there are some who seem to think the taliban aren't that bad a set of fellows.

[sabrina 1]

84. Why are we bombing anyone in any country?

The only reason the Taliban gained power was because the US and USSR decided to use their country as a chessboard to fight their own war, leaving the country devasted when it was over. They simply packed up and left those ravaged by the war to try to pick up whatever pieces were left.

The war lords were running the country. Women, children and everyone else were terrified for their safety and for good reason.

Then the Taliban took over. For a while the people of Afghanistan were grateful to get some security.

But the US wanted to put an oil-pipeline through Afganistan and had no problem negotiating with the Taliban. Until they turned down the offer. Then, on the pretext of the 'War on Terror' they went back.

We will have to leave sooner or later and when we do, the battle for the country will continue. Who are we supporting as possible rulers?

The War Lords are equally as bad as The Taliban. We helped put some of them in the Karzai government, now we are complaining about corruption in that government. And I am certain if it serves the oil interests of the US, the Taliban will be recognized as a legitimate government.

The Obama administration is now talking about making deals with the Taliban. Empires do not do things for altruistic reasons. The US does not care who they deal with, so long as they can make a deal. That's what they did in Iraq. They boast about it, how they made deals with the same people who were killing US troops. Iow, they paid them off. How that affects the Iraqis, is of no consequence to the US.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/03/10/afghan.women/index.html

Suraya Pakzad tells CNN any deal between the U.S. and Taliban moderates should consider women's concerns.

" I go to the office I don't use the same way ... every day," she told CNN's Carol Costello. "I cannot share my schedule even with my friends, with my staff and even sometimes I'm not secure talking on phone."

Pakzad is one of several Afghan women's rights advocates who are in the U.S. capital this week to address a move the Obama administration is considering: reaching out to Taliban moderates in an effort to bring peace to Afghanistan.

She took part in a hearing on Capitol Hill -- sponsored by Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, and Richard Lugar, R-Indiana -- titled "Women Shaping Afghanistan's Future."

Last weekend, President Obama told The New York Times that he is willing to talk to some members of the Taliban.

Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that he agreed with a recent assessment by Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke that only about 5 percent of the Taliban is "incorrigible, not susceptible to anything other than being defeated."

So, according to Biden, most of the Taliban are nice guys. Bush tried dealing with the War Lords but that didn't work, now we'll try dealing with the Taliban to see if that works.

We don't belong there, our government doesn't care about the people there, they will do what works for the US, as always.

We have tens of thousands of Americans dying right here in the US because they can't afford health-care. End all these foreign adventures, which haven't done the US much good so far, and spend the money saving American lives and on re-building our own country.

I was against both wars from the start, and both turned out to be far worse than I imagined, especially for the civilians of both countries. Now, the world is more terrified of the US than any terror group. We are seen as wanting to dominate the world. And a real back-lash is beginning, look at what is happening to the dollar.

Obama was the hope for the world that the US would change course, but so far, it doesn't like that's going to happen. It's up to the people to end this madness. I thought that was the people did when they threw out Republicans ~

[ieoeja]

5. Five out of Fifteen. Good enough for baseball!

I will give him points 1, 4, 8, 9 and 10. The rest make little or no sense.


2. Makes no sense. The Taliban let al Qaeda in last time. What has changed? The leader of the extremist Taliban element is still bin Laden's brother-in-law.

3. Makes no sense. The Taliban was so close to taking full control of Afghanistan that they had already begun incursions into neighboring nations to the north.

5. Makes on sense. Almost every country in the world believes the US occupation is justified. This point was just stupid.

6. Makes little sense. The occupation is certainly not benefitting all the Afghan people. But is just as certainly benefitting some of the Afghan people.

7. Makes no sense. The idea that the Taliban is just looking for a meal is so stupid, I don't see any reason to even comment.

11. Makes little sense. The Worst President Ever was in charge for the first seven of those eight (not nine) years. His replacement has only just begun to consider the definition of "success". It is sensible to predict he might not succeed, but assuming he can not because the Worst President Ever did not makes no sense.

12. Makes no sense. Afghanistan has been under indigenous control about 100 years out of the last 2300 years. Of the half dozen empires to rule them, they only managed to kick out one of them. All the others ruled for centuries only to be outed, not by the Afghans, but by the next empire to rule the area for centuries.

13. Makes no sense.

14. Makes no sense.

15. Makes no sense.

[ProSense]

6. "The Taliban is made up of poor people fighting in order to eat."

Crack is dangerous. What next: a Taliban appreciation thread?

[dionysus]

22. b-b-but, they're TINOS!!11!11 why do you hate those poor misunderstood folks?

:P

[niceypoo]

7. Hmmmmm

2. If the Taliban had control of Afghanistan, it would likely not allow al Qaeda in. Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. president's guy in Afghanistan, will tell you the same.

The Taliban harbored Bin Laden and al quaeda, remember, they offered to hand him over to Bush?

7. The Taliban is made up of poor people fighting in order to eat. They need aid, diplomacy, jobs, education, and resources, not bombs and troops and mercenaries. We're paying tens of thousands of Afghans to fight as mercenaries. We could pay them to rebuild their country and have money to spare.

The Taliban are religious fundamentalists fighting some vague, cosmic battle for God, hence their glee at blowing themselves up in the name of Allah. They are not Afghanis, they originally marched into Afghanistan from religious schools in Pakistan. Their fight has nothing to do with eating or jobs. It has to do with imposing Islamic fundamentalism on women and innocent people.

10. The people of Afghanistan, according to an ABC News poll, want the United States to withdraw. It's their country, and you cannot impose democracy on them without obeying their majority opinion.

The opinions of Afghanis are mixed, at best: http://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/Afghanistanin2008.pdf

11. If we've been through eight years of this and not been able to even devise a rough description of what a "success" would look like, what are the chances that it will be identified and achieved in year nine?

Obama isn't Bush. Bush had no interest in Afghanistan outside of an excuse/platform for attacking Iraq.

Besides the above points your list is generally spot on.

[cliffordu]

10. I think my main rebuttal points have been covered by other thoughtful

people above this response.

Let me just add that I believe item number 7 is the stupidest fucking paragraph of the month, if not the whole year.


Fuck me, if all they needed was our help building infrastructure, they'd stop blowing up the schools and medical clinics we have already set up.

I hope teh stupid isn't a virus.

[ShortnFiery]

12. Those "little brown people" do NOT want us there. It's a sovereign nation.

It's time to go.

The stupid is REMAINING in a hostile nation whose population will NOT EVER surrender to invasion.

[ProSense]

18. "little brown people"? Your post is condescending as shit. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

21. I was using quotes because you God Almighty "USA can fix anything" folks seemingly

convey such condescension. You're going to FORCE these people to accept the USA when they flatly HATE US. Some whose family members who have been blown to kibbles and bits would appear to have good cause.

What? You don't think peoples within a SOVEREIGN NATION should be allowed to rule themselves without the USA coming in and *destroying* their land?!?

[ProSense]

25. No, your made up BS is condescending tripe! n/t

[ShortnFiery]

28. No, if you read my other posts in this thread, you'd realize that I hold the utmost respect

for the peoples in the ME.

Hell, I was born in the ME. :eyes:

[ProSense]

"I hold the utmost respect for the peoples in the ME." Yeah, apologizing for the Taliban

is a terrific sign of respest. Disgusting.

[dionysus]

34. it's their "culture", you warmongerer you.

if you're a westerner you won't understand that throwing acid in a womans face for not wearing a burqa is a time honored tradition. how dare you impose upon that.
;)

[ShortnFiery]

38. No, LET'S force ourselves on them? Why? We can do anything. Just like Bobby Jindal says?

:crazy:

[dionysus]

39. like talking to a dining room table.

you think civilian casualties from us are bad, what the hell do you think it will look like if the taliban took over the country. hellllloooooooooooooo....
:banghead:

[ShortnFiery]

47. We've killed MORE people than the Taliban. Can you process that fact?!?

No, for one brief moment, CONSIDER what you would think if you were an Afghani citizen?

The PEOPLE prefer the Taliban to the Invaders.

Yes, even the women!

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=604

Despite this, politicians, military leaders, and sadly even some misguided American feminist groups continue to use the plight of women in Afghanistan to justify more spending, more troops and more war. People who care for the people of Afghanistan have got to see this for what it is. Women never benefit from bombs and bullets.

[dionysus]

48. we've killed more civilians than the taliban? hookay.

[ShortnFiery]

62. Yes. WE. HAVE. eom

[ShortnFiery]

35. Oh stop with the faux Patriotism, it's so unbecoming. I don't approve of the Taliban but

they are part of the native peoples in this area. WE, the USA created them. Do you feel ashamed for that? I do.

Go wrap yourself in the flag of false patriotism. I have served my country in the Army Officer Corps.

I want US to stand for humanitarian and good forces.

When we MUST go to war, it should be "just."

[dionysus]

37. i don't give a shit if you were a fucking general. you'd rather have the taliban take over and kill

a shitload of people, taking the place back to the stone age, because you have grown to loathe your country. it's messed up. and BTW, they came from madrassas pakistan.

and attacking prosense's patriotism is disgusting. you're making a fool of yourself.

[ShortnFiery]

40. You're so blinded by false patriotism and a sense of self-righteous indignation that

you can't see that what you and prosense are spewing is VILE. You think that you are being Pro-America but you are only use this Rah Rah lines to intimidate others. Our occupations are making our nation less safe.

You know EXACTLY what you're doing and I'm calling you on it.

We, the USA are NOT GOD.

We have no right to force ourselves on peoples within a sovereign nation.

You know that? Don't you?

[ShortnFiery]

42. I love my country and have proven it. Why don't you prove it by enlisting today? eom

[dionysus]

45. that cliched card? give me a break. go ahead and defend the taliban all you want so you can cry

about how evil america is. it's become all you do anymore.

[ShortnFiery]

50. I am an AMERICAN. I want my country to do what's right. But you keep attacking my patriotism

Didn't one very enlightened founder of our nation state that Patriotism was the last vestige of a scoundrel?

[ProSense]

49. What an utterly bullshit strawman

We, the USA are NOT GOD.

We have no right to force ourselves on peoples within a sovereign nation.

The fucking Taliban aided the 9/11 attacks. They are a bunch of brutal sick fucks. They tormented the people of Afghanistan and violated their basic human rights. They are still a threat and shouting "get out" without offering a solution is dangerously simplistic.

[ShortnFiery]

51. I can see this is getting heated. 15 of the 19 of the FUCKING hijackers were from

Saudi Arabia.

If you insist on whipping yourself into the justification of "death and destruction" may I suggest we bomb Saudi Arabia?

I hear they don't treat their women so well either. :eyes:

[ProSense]

53. I can see you have no rational point. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

54. I see that you're blinders are firmly affixed: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Bye :-) :hi:

[dionysus]

70. i'd give up if i were you. dining room table and all that.

::

[ShortnFiery]

73. Barney Frank wouldn't approve. :P Still, I hope you have a good day.

:hi:

[dionysus]

78. fair enough

:hi: between you and my clients i need a drink.

[bvar22]

98. +1

Total agreement.
Even the bogus justification of "apprehending those who attacked us" has long ago disappeared.
The people we are killing today did NOT attack us,
and can NOT attack us.

Any justification the US may have had in Afghanistan expired years ago.

To those of you cheering on the slaughter, why haven't you volunteered?
The army needs warm bodies to go save people who don't want us there.
If you won't go yourself, they will take your sons and daughters, nieces and nephews.
Go ahead, KILL and BOMB your way to PEACE.
Its the only thing those "ragheads" understand.
RAH, RAH...USA.
WE have the BIGGEST and MEANEST bombs in the WORLD.
You MUST submit!
So, Just GO DO IT!

UGLY Americans!

[spoony]

75. And you'd rather we bomb them to the stone age first

so they don't get the chance. Gotcha. This thread is very revealing. And, hint, the fools in this thread aren't who you think.

[ProSense]

41. "WE, the USA created them. Do you feel ashamed for that?" Wow

So after lauding them you are implying that I should join you or accept them because "the USA created them"?

Your logic is screwed up and suggests that you are disingenuous.

[ShortnFiery]

52. You're more intelligent than to make that leap. NO, but they are there to stay ...

and they are THE NATIVES.

China has horrific human rights violations but I don't see anyone getting "in a lather" over their brutality.

Bottom Line: It's up to the NATIVE PEOPLE to sort out in their own SOVEREIGN nation.

[ProSense]

57. "they are THE NATIVES"? "China has horrific human rights violations"?

You need to come back to reality: China had nothing to do with 9/11.

Keep defending the Taliban.

[ShortnFiery]

61. Keep defending the indefensible. :-).

[ProSense]

67. As opposed to defending the Taliban? Do start that Taliban appreciation thread.

You have enough material: collect all your comments in this thread.

[ShortnFiery]

71. You know that I'm not defending the Taliban but acknowledging the FACT that they

are there to stay. Whether we withdraw now or ten years from now.

[ProSense]

74. The Taliban are not native, and who cares if they're there to stay?

They are a threat, and nothing says that threat cannot be contained or severely reduced. It's beyond simplistic to look at the events of 2001 and since, and simply demand withdrawal without a strategy to reduce the threat.

[ShortnFiery]

77. Yes they ARE! Many reside in the area along the border with Pakistan. They don't

recognize the border. So now are we going to EXPAND our bombing campaigns into Pakistan. I think that the leadership there would not approve of anything more than a few predator drones aimed solely at al Quaeda.

[Flaneur]

81. The Taliban are Afghan, not just Pakistani

You keep saying they came from Pakistan. Well, yes, from Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan. You know, the ones created by the last imperialist invasion. And the wheel turns.

[ProSense]

95. "not just Pakistani"

What exactly are you arguing? The Taliban is made up of a lot of different nationalities.

[ShortnFiery]

97. True and many now float back and forth across the the Afghan-Pakistan border.

They are THERE to stay. Bank on that.

[ShortnFiery]

96. They're natives now and Pakistan will not take them on directly.

The Taliban are there to stay. They have more claim to the land as they are members of "the neighborhood."

We, however, have no right to threaten sovereign nations.

[dionysus]

64. i thought the RW cliche of liberals hating america was bullshit, till i saw it on DU.

[ShortnFiery]

69. Wow, I love my country more than words can say ... you just don't get it?

I'm truly sorry for you ... that we can't intellectually relate.

Please try to understand that when we go to war it should be *a just war?*

These occupations are VILE and a poor use of our military.

Have a good one. :hi:

[dionysus]

23. actually, the ones not being killed by the taliban do. the ones caught in the crossfire,

not so much. read todays article about code pink. or are they warmongers now too?

[ShortnFiery]

26. I read it but they haven't done their research. Watch this ...

correction:

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=702

[Turborama]

76. They went there for a week

and "met with government officials, politicians, ministers, women activists and civil society groups". That is research, it just didn't come up with the findings you'd like them to have come up with, that's all.

[cliffordu]

89. This assumes you are right about anything. You aren't.

[Romulox]

32. Can you offer an example of a society that we've forced our way of life on by bombing?

:shrug:

[dionysus]

36. preventing schools from being up, killing women, ect, is imposing the western life? who knew?

:shrug:

[Romulox]

44. It's self-evidentally not the indigienous culture.

:hi:

[ShortnFiery]

55. Hello? The women do not want "the invaders" to remain in the country.

They choose the Taliban over the Invaders. I know it sucks, but they would rather FIGHT FOR THEMSELVES than having us force our culture on them.

[dionysus]

68. you might not realize it, but the people in areas where the taliban aren't in ctrl, sure as hell do.

you'll ignore any evidence of this, because it undermines your america as evil schtick.

[ShortnFiery]

72. Yes, Karzai is a great mayor of Kabul and some women in the larger urban areas

have seen some progress. However, that's not most of the area.

[SIMPLYB1980]

58. Gemany, Japan, ect...

[ShortnFiery]

66. But here's the rub: Both Germany and Japan *unconditionally surrendered.*

Even if the Afghani people had a homogenous society like those of German and Japan, they have NEVER surrendered ... and never will.

[Romulox]

80. Hogwash. nt

[SIMPLYB1980]

82. Really?

We also bombed all of Europe to force the Nazis out. We bombed the Philippines to force the Japanese out. The list goes on or do you just deny history?

[Romulox]

85. Look up the history of the German people. We did not find them as tribal people...nt

[SIMPLYB1980]

86. I see a lot of tribal aspects to Germany in WWII.

Seeing as how they wanted to set up their "Aryan Super Race".

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=16c_1208104147

"The German Nazis wanted to get rid of "inferior races" (this included white americans and russians who were deemed "short" and "mongrels") and create a "Super Race" composed of blue-eyed, blonde-haired men who were at least 6'0 ft. tall and not weighing more than 190 lbs."

Lots of Tribalism in Japan as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65EShYbK5ww

"Saipan, early July, 1944. The battle is near the end. Japanese women and children begin to emerge from the caves in wich have taken refuge. While a few soldiers surrender, the majotity of Japanese will fight to the finish. Appeals to surrender are made trough loudspeakers.
Japanese propaganda, was successful in convincing many that an honourable death is preferable to surrender to the Americans. That's why some civilians, many of them women, choose suicide jumping from the cliffs of Saipan while the Marines are filming them."

Lots of Tribalism in the US as well.

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html

[Romulox]

88. Pedantic. Afghanistan has no history of civil society whatever. nt

[SIMPLYB1980]

91. Oh well.

:shrug:

[Romulox]

92. Indeed. nt

[cliffordu]

90. This assumes that all we are doing is bombing the population.

Fuck me teh stupid IS a virus.

[Romulox]

93. No it doesn't. nt