Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 140 posts

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#131

Post by ouilala »

mantas wrote: post #116
ouilala wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion regarding this is very simple. I like honesty. If a person or culture does not believe in human rights, then it has to right to complain if we decide to kill, oppress and torture them and raze them to create civilization there. Because what argument do they have for not being tortured if they don't believe in human rights? And Afghanistan is prime pickings right now because they have little allies currentl…

The current problem with human rights is it was turned into ever-moving target. It’s a pretty shitty situation to be forced to believe in something people on another continent keep coming up with. With old school religions, at least they move slowly and there are literally centuries to adapt. Now what was obscure crazy stuff in some far away corner of the world a decade ago is claimed to be must-have human rights. Go…

I don't have massive goals, if we can even get them to the point of equality of man under the law we would have civilized them to the point of being much better than most non-Western countries.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#132

Post by ouilala »

mantas wrote: post #117
ouilala wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA wasn't trying to fight a war there. As I note in my argument of non-believers in human rights having no right to oppose their own oppression....I don't really have any issues eliminating 90% or even higher of these elements until sanity emerges. If I were in charge I'd be flying in those with seeds of civilized thought into Western countries for training and acculturation, and destroy the hardliners meanwhile…

USSR tried that for a decade. Then US. But reality is such conversion would take few generations at least. Good luck convincing tax payers that 50 years occupational forces are worth it.

I am saying that the previous approaches were too soft and light handed. The Taliban hasn't ever faced an opponent that wants their annihilation at an existential level.

These countries were simply fighting a war of economic or other interests. I hate Taliban at a very core level itself and want their complete annihilation. A war conducted by those with a strong intrinsic motivation like this would be much different from those previous engagements.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#133

Post by mantas »

ouilala wrote: post #129
tm-infringement wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because what argument do they have against being tortured if they don't believe in human rights? Obviously, it's against the most basic principles that the humanist worldview of human rights is based on. I mean, you clearly don't believe in them sincerely, maybe you lie to yourself but you don't. You are the type of self-righteous goon that would happily disappear people in the Stasi or Pinochet's DINA. > Afghanist…

I truly believe in human rights. Therefore I believe that someone who believes in human rights should be treated like one. And someone who doesn't believe in human rights, should be treated likewise. Again tell me, if X is someone that does not believe human rights exist what argument do they have to tell you to stop torturing them? If they say their humanity, you can clearly answer they don't believe in it. And rega…

What is your human rights definition you „believe“ in?

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#134

Post by mantas »

ouilala wrote: post #132
mantas wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USSR tried that for a decade. Then US. But reality is such conversion would take few generations at least. Good luck convincing tax payers that 50 years occupational forces are worth it.

I am saying that the previous approaches were too soft and light handed. The Taliban hasn't ever faced an opponent that wants their annihilation at an existential level. These countries were simply fighting a war of economic or other interests. I hate Taliban at a very core level itself and want their complete annihilation. A war conducted by those with a strong intrinsic motivation like this would be much different…

I think you underestimate how complex society is. And how that complexity connects the hardliners, the moderates and the collaborators.

Take a look at Nazis approach in eastern europe in 1941. USSR was not exactly beloved in western territories. Be it Baltic states, modern western Belarus or modern western Ukraine. Even deeper in pre-1939-USSR many people weren't exactly happy with the leadership. Nazis had a perfect situation to make use of this sentiment to push forwards towards main goal of annihilating Stalin regime. Yet they decided that'd be too soft and light handed on the locals. That was not exactly great to turn locals against you.

And the local sentiments was in big part due to Soviet not-light-handed approach in 1939-41. When even many proponents changed their minds after seeing too many trains leaving for Siberia. All they had left were full-on collaborators who managed top switch back-and-forth between Soviets and Nazis several times :) I doubt such sleazy partners is what you want to build the new better superafghan...

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#135

Post by brickfaced »

googlehater wrote: post #119
brickfaced wrote: post #22

Strikes me as odd how one flavor of commenters who've long called for the "end of the American Empire," reductions in our "overseas military imperialism," and closure of the VoA "propaganda outlet" now stand by the institutions of said Empire to the death.

I find this interesting as well, so I think it's unfortunate you are downvoted. In a similar vein, the ultrapatriotic type that loved the USA being #1, having influence everywhere, also seem to be cheering on the dismantling of the soft (and some hard) power structures. But I get the feeling there's some granularity we are both missing, and the group saying those things then and these things now (pro/anti Trump react…

The simple answer is that one group's ideological allies grabbed control of the Empire and now they don't want to give it up.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#136

Post by ouilala »

mantas wrote: post #133
ouilala wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I truly believe in human rights. Therefore I believe that someone who believes in human rights should be treated like one. And someone who doesn't believe in human rights, should be treated likewise. Again tell me, if X is someone that does not believe human rights exist what argument do they have to tell you to stop torturing them? If they say their humanity, you can clearly answer they don't believe in it. And rega…

What is your human rights definition you „believe“ in?

The golden rule, or rather the modification if you believe in human rights I will treat you as such, if you don't believe in human rights...I will also treat you as such. Its only fair to give people what they want.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#137

Post by ouilala »

mantas wrote: post #134
ouilala wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am saying that the previous approaches were too soft and light handed. The Taliban hasn't ever faced an opponent that wants their annihilation at an existential level. These countries were simply fighting a war of economic or other interests. I hate Taliban at a very core level itself and want their complete annihilation. A war conducted by those with a strong intrinsic motivation like this would be much different…

I think you underestimate how complex society is. And how that complexity connects the hardliners, the moderates and the collaborators. Take a look at Nazis approach in eastern europe in 1941. USSR was not exactly beloved in western territories. Be it Baltic states, modern western Belarus or modern western Ukraine. Even deeper in pre-1939-USSR many people weren't exactly happy with the leadership. Nazis had a perfect…

The difference is that Europeans there were at least partially civilized so there was some raw material to work with.

The Taliban have nothing of civilization in them. They actively resist and hate civilization. There is no reforming them.

You also underestimate the amount of hatred a local person of sane mind would have against the Taliban. The most rabid haters of any shitty system are often those who escaped it personally. If you can supply and support such people they would be much more violent and extreme in suppressing the Taliban than any external Western person could be. If we are taking the example of Nazis, just look at the attitude of Jews who survived and began assassinating Nazis after the war vs American etc liberators who just chose to "forget" everything after the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_hunter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakam

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#138

Post by ben_w »

kennysoona wrote: post #76
hermitcrab wrote: post #2

The USA appears to be destroying much of the 'soft power' that it spent decades building. And it cost a tiny amount compared to the 'hard power' of the military. As an outsider, it seems very short sighted. The BBC is also cutting jobs in the BBC World Service, which seems similarly short sighted. But I don't think the cuts are as far reaching as the US ones: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpql1vvdn58o

> The USA appears to be destroying much of the 'soft power' that it spent decades building. And it cost a tiny amount compared to the 'hard power' of the military. As an outsider, it seems very short sighted. Republicans think this is a good thing because they think the US can rule the world through hard power alone. It's such a depressing monumental mistake.

> Republicans think this is a good thing because they think the US can rule the world through hard power alone. It's such a depressing monumental mistake.

Given the way they talk about everyone else's media/free speech rules and limitations, I think they're projecting what works for their own domestic support base onto countries that consider the Democrat party to be worryingly right wing.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#139

Post by ben_w »

coldtea wrote: post #58
addicted wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soft power is simply the capability to persuade others without coercion. So it’s usually a much less destructive tool to achieve the same goal when the alternative is “hard” power. Whether you build the soft power ethically or unethically (and false propaganda could be one of the many unethical ways to build soft power) is upto the country in question. And whether that soft power is deployed for “good” or “bad” purpo…

> Soft power is simply the capability to persuade others without coercion. So it’s usually a much less destructive tool to achieve the same goal when the alternative is “hard” power. Powerful countries don't use soft power to bring good, they use it to serve their interests - when the target country's interests and its people's inclinations are not favorable to them.

All nations use all power, soft and hard, to serve their interests, even nations which regard themselves as having the divine role of intermediary between humanity and God e.g. Vatican City, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

Soft power doesn't exclude hard power — though it is less painful to be on the receiving end of.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#140

Post by tempodox »

ben_w wrote: post #138
kennysoona wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The USA appears to be destroying much of the 'soft power' that it spent decades building. And it cost a tiny amount compared to the 'hard power' of the military. As an outsider, it seems very short sighted. Republicans think this is a good thing because they think the US can rule the world through hard power alone. It's such a depressing monumental mistake.

> Republicans think this is a good thing because they think the US can rule the world through hard power alone. It's such a depressing monumental mistake. Given the way they talk about everyone else's media/free speech rules and limitations, I think they're projecting what works for their own domestic support base onto countries that consider the Democrat party to be worryingly right wing .

It's a common mistake for U.S.-ians to think the rest of the world works exactly like their banana republic.
Post reply on HN