babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Right on, you'd like to define the "resistance" not on the basis of who is resisting, but whether they are nice people or not. That's how the war against the Afghan people is justified and perpetuated. It was the same with the war against the people of Southeast Asia, because the communists were cutthroat murdering terrorists bent on world conquest - just like the Taliban.
Nuclear arms control is like gun control. If we wish to reduce crime involving firearms, we could ban all guns - save for law enforcement officers.
Detractors make the opposite argument: You cannot eliminate gun crime because criminals will not respect the law and if they want guns, they will get them. You can't always have police in the right place at the right time. How would you feel if you or a member of your family was the victim of a gun crime? How would you feel if you had a gun and the opportunity to successfully defend yourself when there were no police officers available? The argument here is that everyone, legally and in principle, has the right to bear arms. Corollary to this, there must also be strong prevention of gun crimes and strong punishment as deterrent if they occur.
The chief inventor of the atom bomb, Oppenheimer argued that nuclear weapons technology should be public knowledge, not a jealously guarded secret by a (growing number of) few nations.
Which do you prefer:
1. A nuclear weapons free world?
2. A world where every country (or every country that wants them) has nuclear weapons?
In which world would you feel (more) secure?
Just focus on getting Western forces out of another bankrupting and losing war in the MIddle East; trying to defend the Taliban or Al Qaeda themselves will do more to hinder that reasonable goal than help. The majority in the West are already coming around to that. It's not complicated.
See, you do pick out relevant stuff every once in a while.
In fact, the Taliban and Mullah Omar are excluded from the ballot. That's democracy in action. Only parties and candidates approved by the occupying power may stand for election. Gotta keep a tight lid on the locals, lest they get idears in their heads about voting for someone they want. Next thing you know, you get Hamas.
No, it's best that western occupying crusader armies determine whom are eligible for democracy. That's why the boys are a-fightin'!
Crushing Democracy in Afghanistan May '09
Nope! Maybe I was skipping the same time you were when your law class was learning about suspension with pay &CUPE.
Maybe we passed each other in the lunchroom even
Now of course we both know I meant super powers aren't presently launching nuclear strikes against other countries, but don't let that get in your way.
#1 sir.
In my little dream world there's no weapons.
I'm afraid the real rule has been: Nukes for frontline states of the empire expanding eastward, and especially when surrounding the commies ie Russia and China, Iran etc. Fund militant Islamic groups, rinse and repeat.
Very deep. Is that the "Taliban" that's now blowing up polling stations and threatening to kill anyone who even goes to vote? Are these the same "Talibs" that did in fact run most the country for awhile, but seemed to exclude certain members themselves from their own "democratic" process?
Excluding them permanently probably is a bad idea --even guys like Obama have paid lip service towards negotiating with "the enemy" now- but then the Allies and Soviets alike excluded real life Nazis from forming another party immediately after their defeat in WW 2 and Germany somehow survived, so lets try to be a little more realistic here and stop making the Taliban/Al Qaeda/whoever out as nothing but patriotic liberators ok?
Perhaps you could reflect on the notion that it's up to the Afghan people - not you or Obama - as to whether the Taliban are "allowed" to form a party, run in elections, etc.? And that in WW2, the Allies and Soviets had the right to destroy the Nazis and deprive them of all rights because of their aggression and crimes against other peoples - the German people had forfeited the right to govern themselves for the time being.
Colonial psychology runs very very deep in this thread.
Super-long thread.