[OFF TOPIC] Politics Thread

[MHSN 3,813]

4 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

It used too actually and @MHSN can back me up here. The Middle East was very different before 1915 and after 1960.

 

you mean this line from the other user "And I'm sure lipstick & bikinis wouldn't fly in places like Yemen or Saudi Arabia but nobody calls this xenophobia"

 

well I'm sure Saudi Arabia and Yemen were never different but Iran was a bit different yes, no change for lipsticks though still the same probably much much more but yes of course you can't see bikinis ! (unless you have a private beach)

 

btw why those years ? what happened in middle east in 1915 or 1960 ?!! the only country with a huge overnight change was Iran and in 1979.

[heywoodu 16,460]

3 hours ago, MHSN said:

 

you mean this line from the other user "And I'm sure lipstick & bikinis wouldn't fly in places like Yemen or Saudi Arabia but nobody calls this xenophobia"

 

well I'm sure Saudi Arabia and Yemen were never different but Iran was a bit different yes, no change for lipsticks though still the same probably much much more but yes of course you can't see bikinis ! (unless you have a private beach)

 

btw why those years ? what happened in middle east in 1915 or 1960 ?!! the only country with a huge overnight change was Iran and in 1979.

Didn't Afghanistan go pretty fast as well? I mean, I remember seeing photos from the 60's (or something) where people are free to wear what they want and stuff like that and all of a sudden everything and everyone is covered...although I'm not sure that happened as fast as the 'overnight change' you mentioned in Iran  

[heywoodu 16,460]

By the way, continueing on the Democratic debates (I'm now one hour in): they're still all so..much..the...same. All they're doing is avoiding the questions, avoiding each other to drum up their own pre-practiced nonsense and - most of all - say as many numbers as possible. "Did you know...over 80% of this and that!" and "More than 500.000 of this and that omg!". 

[MHSN 3,813]

1 minute ago, heywoodu said:

Didn't Afghanistan go pretty fast as well? I mean, I remember seeing photos from the 60's (or something) where people are free to wear what they want and stuff like that and all of a sudden everything and everyone is covered...although I'm not sure that happened as fast as the 'overnight change' you mentioned in Iran  

 

oh yes that but Afghanistan isn't in the middle east.

 

honestly I don't know much about Pre-Taliban era in Afghanistan . they were still an Islamic country though. but there were always wars in Afghanistan. so I can assume it was never Switzerland.

 

speaking of Taliban, I can't understand how someone can make "peace" with them as you hear in the news these days. they will never give up their ideology which is against humanity.

[heywoodu 16,460]

2 minutes ago, MHSN said:

 

oh yes that but Afghanistan isn't in the middle east.

 

honestly I don't know much about Pre-Taliban era in Afghanistan . they were still an Islamic country though. but there were always wars in Afghanistan. so I can assume it was never Switzerland.

 

speaking of Taliban, I can't understand how someone can make "peace" with them as you hear in the news these days. they will never give up their ideology which is against humanity.

The only way to have peace with the Taliban is to destroy every single one of them, it seems. Much like IS.

 

And I didn't realize it was about the Middle East, since I didn't think Iran was part of the Middle East. Apparently Cyprus and Turkey are too (Turkey being less surprising, since not a lot of people see it as part of Europe but as part of Asia anyway). Another thing learned  

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

[Dolby 757]

9 minutes ago, MHSN said:

speaking of Taliban, I can't understand how someone can make "peace" with them as you hear in the news these days. they will never give up their ideology which is against humanity.

United States is eager to leave Afghanistan but no president wants to leave it and see a number of untoward incidents happen soon. So, United States has been in talks with Taliban for quite some time to co-opt them in local governance which would basically mean pre-2001 government with a nominal peacenik as President of Afghanistan. I still remember Hillary Clinton's famous distinction about there being a good Taliban and a bad Taliban.  

[heywoodu 16,460]

9 minutes ago, Dolby said:

United States is eager to leave Afghanistan but no president wants to leave it and see a number of untoward incidents happen soon. So, United States has been in talks with Taliban for quite some time to co-opt them in local governance which would basically mean pre-2001 government with a nominal peacenik as President of Afghanistan. I still remember Hillary Clinton's famous distinction about there being a good Taliban and a bad Taliban.  

The good Taliban is the one that only imprisons gay people instead of throwing them off buildings and only cuts off your hand instead of head, or what?

Edited August 2, 2019 by heywoodu

[MHSN 3,813]

8 minutes ago, heywoodu said:

The only way to have peace with the Taliban is to destroy every single one of them, it seems. Much like IS.

 

And I didn't realize it was about the Middle East, since I didn't think Iran was part of the Middle East. Apparently Cyprus and Turkey are too (Turkey being less surprising, since not a lot of people see it as part of Europe but as part of Asia anyway). Another thing learned  

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

 

with their core supporters that's the only way unfortunately, but in long term the only way to completely defeat them is to educate younger generations. USA invaded Afghanistan something like 20 years ago. so if Taliban still can recruit people younger than 30 it means they did absolutely nothing in this matter.  the current government of Afghanistan (which is corrupt) is not a good example too. Taliban right now is much stronger than 10 years ago. guess why. you can't kill an ideology by bombs and missiles.

[Dolby 757]

3 minutes ago, MHSN said:

 

with their core supporters that's the only way unfortunately, but in long term the only way to completely defeat them is to educate younger generations. USA invaded Afghanistan something like 20 years ago. so if Taliban still can recruit people younger than 30 it means they did absolutely nothing in this matter.  the current government of Afghanistan (which is corrupt) is not a good example too. Taliban right now is much stronger than 10 years ago. guess why. you can't kill an ideology by bombs and missiles.

USA never had a plan for Taliban. They were angry at Osama for 9/11 and invaded Afghanistan to get him. And they continue to depend upon Pakistan, one of the only allies of Taliban before 9/11, for strategic inputs to defeat Taliban. Yes, Pakistan will totally help US in defeating Taliban and not milk them for aid in war against terrorism for another generation. Solid logic. 

[MHSN 3,813]

11 minutes ago, Dolby said:

United States is eager to leave Afghanistan but no president wants to leave it and see a number of untoward incidents happen soon. So, United States has been in talks with Taliban for quite some time to co-opt them in local governance which would basically mean pre-2001 government with a nominal peacenik as President of Afghanistan. I still remember Hillary Clinton's famous distinction about there being a good Taliban and a bad Taliban.  

 

yes unfortunately that's the case, they want to leave and they don't care what will happen to poor people there. I follow the news in Afghanistan regularly and people are really worried about this possible agreement with Taliban.

 

I wish I knew how you can make a deal with them when they believe women should not go to school !! (well only for first 2-3 years only to learn how to read and write, no more) and based on what I know about them, they will never give up this. (and that's just an example) even if they do that will be just tactical and for short term.