The analogy is apt, but only to a point. PC's response to Macs refusal to comply with the organizing principles of the majority of computer users in the world is most certainly not to Invade, cajole, undermine Mac territory and totally misunderstand the overarching fact that the minority operating system is fundamentally different in its nature and in its assumptions.

Moreover Mac, doesn't aspire to be anything like the alien PC mainstream herd, no matter what the latest PC televison moron asserts.

What's it to us if the Pan Regional Pashtun Tribal Complex wants to go their own way in a Nation State infested world? Let the oppressed women and other dissenters in Afghanistan do what humans have always done and vote with their feet.

Lots of oppressive practices extant in the world seem to attain global focus only when commodities , or easy Euro-American access to same, are in dispute.

Next oppressed "freedom loving" people to murder and send your neighbors kids to die for? The Bolivians. No shit.

Expect the Corporate Christians and the paid moralists like Chr*stopher to get all weepy over the rights of the oppressed Bolivian women quite soon. Bolivia's alkalin deserts are chock-a-block with half the planet's lithium ( for electric car batteries) and they have a left leaning head of state to complete the predictable equation.

Tribes versus nation states. The saga continues.

We'll make the same formulaic stupid moves in Bolivia that we did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Vietnam and become a military presence there too. . Last week, nearby Colombia formally handed over significant new base rights to United States military personnel, alledgedly to combat the war on drugs. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say mo more.

"What's it to us if the Pan Regional Pashtun Tribal Complex wants to go their own way in a Nation State infested world? Let the oppressed women and other dissenters in Afghanistan do what humans have always done and vote with their feet."

Good plan. Let Afghaistan fall back into the hands of the Taliban. If people aren't happy they can simply leave. I had forgotten that the developed world has adopted an enlightened approach to economic migrants and asylum seekers. We would NEVER herd them into quasi-concentration camps for eventual deportation to their home countries, especially after all the hardship they had to endure to reach our shores anyway. Nor would we EVER allow our immigration policies be influenced by knee-jerk xenophobia, racial/cultural chauvanism or a legitimate fear for our own jobs. Nope, we are far too enlightened and selfless to ever do a thing like that.

And of course we would positively encourage those countries neighbouring Afghanistan to take as many refugees as they can. After all, Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan are such stable outstanding countries, they will have no difficulty absorbing large numbers of migrants, and I am sure that their robust economies will be able to weather the economic burden of doing so. Why the idea practically sells itself! Mass migrations never leads to political instability in the host countries. Look how great Lebanon turned out! Its a non-stop party fest!

And lets not forget that the average Afghan is simply loaded with wealth, and will have no difficulty securing the means to leave Afghanistan in the first place. Or that they will no problems adjusting to their new homes, because you will never find a more cosmoplitan people than the Afghans.

Sir, I salute you! Your plan is fool-proof! I sincerely hope that your enlightened self is in a position of authority, helping to form government policy!

I'm afraid you're missing the point. If you want to "liberate" the afghan "people", then I suggest you head over there and start shooting at some afghans that are oppressing the other afghans. I have no desire to send soldiers (payed for by tax dollars extorted from me) to kill afghans in order to "liberate" other afghans. Unfortunately, I have no say and am forced to pay for the bombs that rain down on both hostile and civilian targets. Perhaps you like having the military blow people to pieces, but not me.

Oh please. Thats an over-simplification and you know it.

America did not invade Afghanistan to liberate Afghans. It went in there in the heat of 9/11 to kill/capture Al Qaeda and dismantle the terrorist training camps there. The Taliban were given an ultimatum to surrender Al Qaeda and dismantle the camps. The Taliban refused because they viewed Al Qaeda as kindred spirits. Economic sanctions are meaningless to the Taliban. With no other leverage to compel the Taliban to disgorge Al Qaeda, America then went to war.

Having dismantled the Al Qaeda apparatus, America couldn't very well just leave. The Taliban would simply have returned, now all the more embittered, and the camps would have sprung up again. So America stuck around trying to put in place a civilain government. A democratically elected government would be a plus for PR reasons, but otherwise any dictatorship or junta capable of standing up to the Taliban would do. And then America got distracted by a needless war in Iraq.

You say you object to spending your tax payer dollars on liberating Afghanistan. Fine. Isolationism and selfishness, while unpleasant and a far cry from the herosim of your grandparents' generation, are legitimate life style choices. How about spending some of that taxpayer money so your kids won't have to worry about another failed state exporting terrorists.

khengsta:

"What's it to us if the Pan Regional Pashtun Tribal Complex wants to go their own way in a Nation State infested world? Let the oppressed women and other dissenters in Afghanistan do what humans have always done and vote with their feet."

Good plan. Let Afghaistan fall back into the hands of the Taliban. If people aren't happy they can simply leave. I had forgotten that the developed world has adopted an enlightened approach to economic migrants and asylum seekers. We would NEVER herd them into quasi-concentration camps for eventual deportation to their home countries, especially after all the hardship they had to endure to reach our shores anyway. Nor would we EVER allow our immigration policies be influenced by knee-jerk xenophobia, racial/cultural chauvanism or a legitimate fear for our own jobs. Nope, we are far too enlightened and selfless to ever do a thing like that.

It almost certainly will fall back into their hands, but the majority of Afghans aren't going to leave. Those who WOULD have left mstly already have; the ones remaining will likely support the Taliban, especially if they reestablish order.

As to 'voting with their feet,' what they do and what surrounding nations do is again their affair, not ours.

And of course we would positively encourage those countries neighbouring Afghanistan to take as many refugees as they can. After all, Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan are such stable outstanding countries, they will have no difficulty absorbing large numbers of migrants, and I am sure that their robust economies will be able to weather the economic burden of doing so. Why the idea practically sells itself! Mass migrations never leads to political instability in the host countries. Look how great Lebanon turned out! Its a non-stop party fest!

Again, not likely to be that many, and what they do about it is up to them.

And lets not forget that the average Afghan is simply loaded with wealth, and will have no difficulty securing the means to leave Afghanistan in the first place. Or that they will no problems adjusting to their new homes, because you will never find a more cosmoplitan people than the Afghans.

The "cosmopolitan' ones are already living in the U.S. and Europe. As noted, the other ones aren't likely to leave, and....oh, screw it. I'm doing the same thing you are, just saying the same thing over and over.

Sir, I salute you! Your plan is fool-proof! I sincerely hope that your enlightened self is in a position of authority, helping to form government policy!

Blow it out your ear.