ouilala

I have also been told he runs a pedophile ring and is an ISIS sleeper cell in the USA.

Nothing wrong with it. In fact I should be able to see the papers of the ICE agent, to unlock his phone, to strip search him and detain him if necessary until I find he isn't a terrorist; and if found to be a threat, neutralize him by whatever means necessary. Why not, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't believe in special rights for certain groups. If he can search me, I can search him too.

And that's how we see the USA devolve into a third world shithole. In a proper system the cops should serve and fear the populace. In third world shiteholes, people fear the cops. I should be asking the government why you need any data at all from me? They need to give me a good reason to invade my privacy and I should be able to say fuck off if the reason is not sufficient. In fact I should be able to ask the cop for his id, for him to unlock his phone for him to give away his passwords, for me to strip search him.

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.

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.

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.

As I have said previously, we need a two pronged approach. Keep killing off the hardliners, while flying those with seeds of civilization to western countries for training and acculturation and fly them back in when their relative count compared to the extremists is high enough they can completely and permanently change the culture of the place.

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 regarding "genocide" argument. To take a really extreme example. Look at how many nazis we killed in WW2 to civilize them. If needed I feel even a 95% figure is probably worth it if we can make men out of Afghanistan.

Some cultures are constitutionally unable to be good. I have no hope Afghans or Iranians will ever become civilized of their own accord. I strongly believe a strong program of colonialism (unlike the ultra soft approach used in Afghanistan previously) is needed for these peoples.

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. And when the hardliners are sufficiently decimated, fly back them in as consultants or if they prefer as citizens back in Afg and so on.

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 currently. A motivated and well planned operation can eliminate them right now. I see the Taliban as an issue much longer term than merely using them as temporary pawns. I believe in the complete elimination of Taliban, the Iranian regime and similar groups.

(copying another reply)

It might be an unpopular viewpoint....but neocolonialism is necessary.

Perhaps not the right choice of word but I mean the term 'neocolonialism' here in the sense of introducing peoples to our ways of life: democracy, capitalism, human rights.

The long and short of it is that, you can only get with the web of conflicting interests, pure monetary dealings, etc so far. You don't make any lasting alliance with a peoples and a system fundamentally opposed to you. If you isolate away, they will continue falling into the trap of systems like China and Russia who are quite happy to take your place and have completely opposite ideals to you. Eventually you will be left more and more alone on the world stage with no true allies if you let them keep doing it, and one day you will be finished off by soft or hard means when those entities, who kept expanding their outreach, became powerful enough.

Tldr; Defensive fire. Its not that you want to engage in neocolonialism, but you will have to do so as long as your enemies engage in neocolonialism. The logic is no different than that behind maintaining a traditional military power really.

And yes, it might be an unpopular viewpoint....but neocolonialism is necessary.

Perhaps not the right choice of word but I mean the term 'neocolonialism' here in the sense of introducing peoples to our ways of life: democracy, capitalism, human rights.

The long and short of it is that, you can only get with the web of conflicting interests, pure monetary dealings, etc so far. You don't make any lasting alliance with a peoples and a system fundamentally opposed to you. If you isolate away, they will continue falling into the trap of systems like China and Russia who are quite happy to take your place and have completely opposite ideals to you. Eventually you will be left more and more alone on the world stage with no true allies if you let them keep doing it, and one day you will be finished off by soft or hard means when those entities, who kept expanding their outreach, became powerful enough.

Tldr; Defensive fire. Its not that you want to engage in neocolonialism, but you will have to do so as long as your enemies engage in neocolonialism. The logic is no different than that behind maintaining a traditional military power really.

Is the disagreement because you somehow believe the Taliban are "civilized" or does one have disagreement about the fact that a person claiming not to believe in human rights is in no position to argue against being tortured?