I was worth 50 sheep

[Bakustra]

Ahh, here we have the greatest of false dilemmas- either submit to the exertion of imperial power to crush the disfavored, or come up with a perfect solution. I don't have to have a solution to oppose the US permanently annexing Afghanistan, indoctrinating its population in atheism, wiping out the entire Afghan culture, et cetera- leaving alone whether such a thing would really happen. Indeed, it should be up to you to demonstrate how this course of affairs would solve Afghanistan's problems.

But what do I think would work better for Afghanistan? Providing Afghans with the means to achieve their own liberation. Improving the general conditions of Afghanistan, increasing the public welfare, all can be done without ruling as the permanent masters of Afghanistan or seeking to annihilate Afghan identity. Saying that Afghanistan will never change on its own- well, the same could have been said about the US and slavery, or sexism, racism, and homophobia all around the world. People have changed things within their own countries, without the privileged making them conform to an idea at the barrel of a gun. I mean, should the US invade and annex Uganda, killing all Ugandan writers, artists, philosophers, and historians, because of the death penalty being associated with homosexuality? If we were to invent time travel, should Americans go back and conquer our past selves, murdering all our past artists and writers and thinkers because of slavery?

[K. A. Pital]

So you're suggesting imperialism and religious indoctrination as the preferred method, then?

No, I suggest destroying religion via secular education. It is not unknown that secular education destroys religion, and in a non-violent way, too. Imperialism? Maybe not. But if Afghanistan is your client state, or your occupied territory, which IT IS, you are responsible for what it is. A narco-state that makes 90% of world's opiates that already killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, is what has been created. Perhaps there were alternatives.

Do you think that trying to exterminate Islam in Afghanistan is going to be well-received?

No. But perhaps without doing that, even if you get economic development in Afghanistan (highly unlikely, considering the odds), the end result will not be good. I heard even Turkey, which tries to get into the EU (hahah) has honor killings at a one per day rate. Whoops, that is not civilized. A grin of the dark age.

Finally, do you really think that trying to exterminate cultural identity is a good thing? You're devolving into a parody of yourself.

"Culture" itself is worth nothing. If that culture revolves around Dark Age concepts like God, murder and enslavement of women, that culture is crap. In fact, as a utilitarian I can argue that such a culture results in negative utility for the people.

Providing Afghans with the means to achieve their own liberation. Improving the general conditions of Afghanistan, increasing the public welfare, all can be done without ruling as the permanent masters of Afghanistan or seeking to annihilate Afghan identity.

How many factories were built during the US occupation? How many fields were turned to poppy crops? Compare these two statistics, I believe the result will indicate a problem. No, I don't think the US should be "permanent masters" of Afghanistan, but they are responsible for Afghanistan. If you occupy a nation, YOU are responsible for what it does.

[Bakustra]

So you're suggesting imperialism and religious indoctrination as the preferred method, then?

No, I suggest destroying religion via secular education. It is not unknown that secular education destroys religion, and in a non-violent way, too. Imperialism? Maybe not. But if Afghanistan is your client state, or your occupied territory, which IT IS, you are responsible for what it is. A narco-state that makes 90% of world's opiates that already killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, is what has been created. Perhaps there were alternatives.

What if you don't want it to be a client state in perpetuity, as your proposal requires? Isn't the USSR equally responsible for Afghanistan's status, seeing as it was the last state to occupy it? Should we be demanding that Russia take over Afghanistan and clean up the mess it obviously made?

Do you think that trying to exterminate Islam in Afghanistan is going to be well-received?

No. But perhaps without doing that, even if you get economic development in Afghanistan (highly unlikely, considering the odds), the end result will not be good. I heard even Turkey, which tries to get into the EU (hahah) has honor killings at a one per day rate. Whoops, that is not civilized. A grin of the dark age.

So you're in favor of exterminating religions if they are common in cultures that uphold things you find to be barbaric. Okay, time to wipe out every single religion and force everybody to become atheists! I'm sure that that's what secularism is all about- denying freedom of self-expression whenever religion becomes involved! Your solution to possibly religiously-motivated violence is to institute religious oppression. I don't think that will work out in the way that you're hoping.

Finally, do you really think that trying to exterminate cultural identity is a good thing? You're devolving into a parody of yourself.

"Culture" itself is worth nothing. If that culture revolves around Dark Age concepts like God, murder and enslavement of women, that culture is crap.

Maybe you should parse my sentences better. My point is that trying to erase cultural identity is- well, Stas, what makes you consider yourself to be a Russian, besides accidents of birth? Is there anything positive about your identity as a Russian? Because I'm going to swoop in, and I'm going to do my level best to destroy it, and forbid you from ever mentioning it again, and I'm going to be killing/indoctrinating people who bring it up. I'll also destroy anything negative too, as long as it's different from the cultural identity I'm imposing on you, and then I'm going to start in on wiping out the concept of Russia. That's what extermination entails. It ain't pretty, and it doesn't work very well, and if you still support it then fuck you, you're nothing more than a two-bit authoritarian.

[K. A. Pital]

What if you don't want it to be a client state in perpetuity, as your proposal requires?

Um... Remove the "client state" status when the nation can develop on its own? Sure, being a client state is insulting. But it is even more insulting when Afghanistan is de-facto a client state, but America does shit to seriously redevelop Afghanistan. I believe there's no Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, right? If you were willing to pour untold billions in reconstruction of the nation, that might have made Afghanistan into an independent and powerful nation. As of now, its an occupied territory and a failed state by most indicators. The fact that you don't formally call it "client state" doesn't change this situation. So what is more insulting, being a formal client state or being de-facto one, except in a very crappy condition?

Isn't the USSR equally responsible for Afghanistan's status, seeing as it was the last state to occupy it? Should we be demanding that Russia take over Afghanistan and clean up the mess it obviously made?

Seeing as you along with your best friends Pakistan and their ISI gave money to fundamentalists in Afghanistan to manufacture Soviet invasion and your government fully admitted that they did instigate the islamist insurgency in Afghanistan to provoke a crisis and subsequent Soviet intervention... um... You want Russia to try and reoccupy Afghanistan? Maybe you do, but America does not.

So you're in favor of exterminating religions if they are common in cultures that uphold things you find to be barbaric. Okay, time to wipe out every single religion and force everybody to become atheists! I'm sure that that's what secularism is all about- denying freedom of self-expression whenever religion becomes involved! Your solution to possibly religiously-motivated violence is to institute religious oppression. I don't think that will work out in the way that you're hoping.

Hmm... You missed the bit about secular education destroying religion in a natural and non-violent way (takes time, obviously). Either you're not reading my posts, or you're being deliberately dense. Nations with a good secular education system now experience record levels of deconversion and more and more agnostics and atheists than anywhere in the world (Europe, I'm looking at you). It is not "religious opression" if kids go to school, learn that God is bullshit and no longer go to their church. This is knowledge making them capable of critical thinking.

Maybe you should parse my sentences better. My point is that trying to erase cultural identity is- well, Stas, what makes you consider yourself to be a Russian, besides accidents of birth? Is there anything positive about your identity as a Russian? Because I'm going to swoop in, and I'm going to do my level best to destroy it, and forbid you from ever mentioning it again, and I'm going to be killing/indoctrinating people who bring it up. I'll also destroy anything negative too, as long as it's different from the cultural identity I'm imposing on you, and then I'm going to start in on wiping out the concept of Russia. That's what extermination entails. It ain't pretty, and it doesn't work very well, and if you still support it then fuck you, you're nothing more than a two-bit authoritarian.

Hmm... I don't think Russian thinkers and poets like e.g. Pushkin were fans of treating women like cattle or killing people who don't pray the right way. Those who were, like some Orthodox "thinkers", frankly, do not deserve to have a place in the heritage except a negative one. Which tells people just how crappy their views were.

I don't think you quite understand that Afghanistan and Islam are not the same. There can be a secularized Central Asian state. Kazakhstan has devolved since the collapse of the USSR, but guess what - it is still ways better than Afghanistan. Women there are not afraid of stonings, and questioning the local imam doesn't get you killed, and "adultery" doesn't automatically result in mass raping and then murder.

Yeah, the USSR attempted to supress Islam. And in a way, it succeeded. Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are not cream of the crop, but I believe you would pick any of those versus Afghanistan, Iran or other naturally developed "Islamic" nations. And don't even get me started on what the Young Turks and the Turkish Revolution did with Islamic culture. Without this supression Turkey would not be able to develop as a modern state. And even then, in many ways it remains a failure.

Criticize me, but don't strawman my points. National identity and religion are not the same.

And once again, secular education adequately destroys superstitions and religion over a lengthy course of time. There is no need to use violence. Of course, if religious fanatics violently resist secular education, there might be a need to protect secular schools from them. But their mere establishment and work over years will change the situation, as well as demanding that a secular constitution is to be drawn up. Once again, if you think that secular constitution and secular education are "violence" aimed at "cultural eradication", I have nothing to talk about with you.

[K. A. Pital]

Some background about who is using violence to "eradicate" what:

Kandahar, on the other hand, is more dangerous than most Canadians know, and there is no one in more danger there than an Afghan student going to a secular school.
...
In recent years, the Taliban have waged a ferocious assassination and intimidation campaign in Kandahar Province, and schools have been on the frontlines of this assault. In an infamous incident in November 2008, 11 Kandahari girls were sprayed with acid as they were walking to school. Many schools have been burnt down, many more are shuttered due to security threats, and principals and teachers commonly receive death threats, often known as ”night letters.”

But hey, let us just say secular education does not mix well with Afghani culture, leave them in the Dark Age and let it be. They will develop into something good... when they stop the barbarity... maybe.

Criticize the USSR, sure do. At least when Afghanistan was its client state, the USSR forced it to install de-jure equal rights for females and proper secular education with physics, math, astronomy, chemistry and biology. What has America done? Its client government does not even fully control the nation. In many regions, the government tries to pose as Islamic, to make sure people do not go into the Taliban. But yeah, let us talk about "murdering all the poets and thinkers".

[Broomstick]

Maybe not. But if Afghanistan is your client state, or your occupied territory, which IT IS, you are responsible for what it is. A narco-state that makes 90% of world's opiates that already killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, is what has been created. Perhaps there were alternatives.

Stas, Afghanistan was the major producer of illicit opiates before the US invaded. Many wrongs have been done by Americans there, but that is not one of them.

[K. A. Pital]

Maybe not. But if Afghanistan is your client state, or your occupied territory, which IT IS, you are responsible for what it is. A narco-state that makes 90% of world's opiates that already killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, is what has been created. Perhaps there were alternatives.

Stas, Afghanistan was the major producer of illicit opiates before the US invaded. Many wrongs have been done by Americans there, but that is not one of them.

It was. Then again, the Taliban shut off opium production right before the American invasion.

Finally, Afghanistan started their sad story with opium only after the American-provoked Soviet intervention started failing and really picked up steam during the 90s and 2000s, but in the years following 2001 it increased even more!

[Broomstick]

So what are you saying? That because the Taliban greatly reduced opiate production they were better than the Americans? That rising opiate production during the Soviet invasion was entirely the fault of the Americans (somehow) and that Soviet actions couldn't possibly have been a factor?

Seriously, the why of it is quite simple: opium is a very profitable cash crop, more so than food crops. Enough that if half an opium field is wiped out the farmer can still get enough money to survive, which is not true of say, wheat. In war time crops are trampled/burned/destroyed routinely, so farmers have great incentive to turn to those that will provide money even there are losses. That's the nature of war, things of value are often destroyed.

Unless the Soviets were taking pains to preserve crops and fields during their invasion it was their actions that were driving farmers to grow opium.

[Bakustra]

What if you don't want it to be a client state in perpetuity, as your proposal requires?

Um... Remove the "client state" status when the nation can develop on its own? Sure, being a client state is insulting. But it is even more insulting when Afghanistan is de-facto a client state, but America does shit to seriously redevelop Afghanistan. I believe there's no Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, right? If you were willing to pour untold billions in reconstruction of the nation, that might have made Afghanistan into an independent and powerful nation. As of now, its an occupied territory and a failed state by most indicators. The fact that you don't formally call it "client state" doesn't change this situation. So what is more insulting, being a formal client state or being de-facto one, except in a very crappy condition?

People brought up the central Asian republics as examples for the US to emulate in Afghanistan. I am fully in favor of economic development in Afghanistan- but I am opposed to imperial methods of doing so, as people have been suggesting, or use of force to induce cultural change. The Marshall Plan would be a far better method for emulation, but people haven't brought it up before now.

Isn't the USSR equally responsible for Afghanistan's status, seeing as it was the last state to occupy it? Should we be demanding that Russia take over Afghanistan and clean up the mess it obviously made?

Seeing as you along with your best friends Pakistan and their ISI gave money to fundamentalists in Afghanistan to manufacture Soviet invasion and your government fully admitted that they did instigate the islamist insurgency in Afghanistan to provoke a crisis and subsequent Soviet intervention... um... You want Russia to try and reoccupy Afghanistan? Maybe you do, but America does not.

Fuck America. We kidnap innocent farmers and torture them into admitting we're terrorists. If America doesn't want it, it may well be the right thing to happen in most situations. But the point is that the US is not solely to blame for conditions in Afghanistan. The USSR, Russian Empire, Pakistan, UK, and probably other nations each contributed to Afghanistan's problems. Playing the blame game leads to some ludicrous places. You might as well just say that whoever ends up in a position to do so has a responsibility to help other nations- which I agree with.

So you're in favor of exterminating religions if they are common in cultures that uphold things you find to be barbaric. Okay, time to wipe out every single religion and force everybody to become atheists! I'm sure that that's what secularism is all about- denying freedom of self-expression whenever religion becomes involved! Your solution to possibly religiously-motivated violence is to institute religious oppression. I don't think that will work out in the way that you're hoping.

Hmm... You missed the bit about secular education destroying religion in a natural and non-violent way (takes time, obviously). Either you're not reading my posts, or you're being deliberately dense. Nations with a good secular education system now experience record levels of deconversion and more and more agnostics and atheists than anywhere in the world (Europe, I'm looking at you). It is not "religious opression" if kids go to school, learn that God is bullshit and no longer go to their church. This is knowledge making them capable of critical thinking.

This is the exchange that provoked my response:
Me: "Do you think that trying to exterminate Islam in Afghanistan is going to be well-received?"
You: "No. But perhaps without doing that, even if you get economic development in Afghanistan (highly unlikely, considering the odds), the end result will not be good. I heard even Turkey, which tries to get into the EU (hahah) has honor killings at a one per day rate. Whoops, that is not civilized. A grin of the dark age."

I asked you point-blank about extermination- and you replied in the affirmative. Secular education would be a good idea, but simple secular education is not enough to wipe out religions. Europe is still majority religious, even if they're mostly Easter-and-Christmas Christians and Muslims who take halal lightly. Maybe secularism will wipe out religion if given a couple more centuries, or maybe it allows people who aren't particularly devout to avoid having to express false levels of faith, and so eventually you'll have a number of atheists and agnostics, a number of people who believe because of various reasons but aren't devout, and some devout.

Maybe you should parse my sentences better. My point is that trying to erase cultural identity is- well, Stas, what makes you consider yourself to be a Russian, besides accidents of birth? Is there anything positive about your identity as a Russian? Because I'm going to swoop in, and I'm going to do my level best to destroy it, and forbid you from ever mentioning it again, and I'm going to be killing/indoctrinating people who bring it up. I'll also destroy anything negative too, as long as it's different from the cultural identity I'm imposing on you, and then I'm going to start in on wiping out the concept of Russia. That's what extermination entails. It ain't pretty, and it doesn't work very well, and if you still support it then fuck you, you're nothing more than a two-bit authoritarian.

Hmm... I don't think Russian thinkers and poets like e.g. Pushkin were fans of treating women like cattle or killing people who don't pray the right way. Those who were, like some Orthodox "thinkers", frankly, do not deserve to have a place in the heritage except a negative one. Which tells people just how crappy their views were.

I don't think you quite understand that Afghanistan and Islam are not the same. There can be a secularized Central Asian state. Kazakhstan has devolved since the collapse of the USSR, but guess what - it is still ways better than Afghanistan. Women there are not afraid of stonings, and questioning the local imam doesn't get you killed, and "adultery" doesn't automatically result in mass raping and then murder.

Yeah, the USSR attempted to supress Islam. And in a way, it succeeded. Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are not cream of the crop, but I believe you would pick any of those versus Afghanistan, Iran or other naturally developed "Islamic" nations. And don't even get me started on what the Young Turks and the Turkish Revolution did with Islamic culture. Without this supression Turkey would not be able to develop as a modern state. And even then, in many ways it remains a failure.

Criticize me, but don't strawman my points. National identity and religion are not the same.

And once again, secular education adequately destroys superstitions and religion over a lengthy course of time. There is no need to use violence. Of course, if religious fanatics violently resist secular education, there might be a need to protect secular schools from them. But their mere establishment and work over years will change the situation, as well as demanding that a secular constitution is to be drawn up. Once again, if you think that secular constitution and secular education are "violence" aimed at "cultural eradication", I have nothing to talk about with you.

The Soviet Union did deliberately murder Kazakh poets, artists, and thinkers in the 1930s. That is part of what is required for the destruction of cultural identity. Again, I asked you point-blank about exterminating cultural identity, and you responded that culture is irrelevant. I responded by pointing out that I was talking about cultural identity, which requires excessive force to have a hope of destroying. You're not willing to defend that, it seems. Good. I'd frankly be horrified if anybody was willing to defend extermination of cultural identity.

Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan are doing fairly well, though Uzbekistan can't finance its educational system and all of them are still fairly religious, which appears to count as a negative in your worldview. Kazakhstan also has a president-for-life who's immune to criminal prosecution, regularly censors the press, bans democratic election of governors... But does the US or the world need to follow everything the USSR did, or could we try and focus on the positives- economic development, universal public secular education- rather than the negatives- attempts to suppress culture and identity, environmental devastation, resettlement policies for dissidents and exiles, imperial conquest? Because people were smugging about the central Asian republics without noting the negative aspects of Soviet rule.

People also were being imperialist- insisting that Afghanis are too primitive to have a role in running their country. I am firmly opposed to that, or to efforts to justify the First World/Third World dichotomy by blaming the victim and insisting that it's their fault. It's easy to pretend that it's about religion rather than culture- but honor killings, in one form or another, formal or informal, are found in some areas around the world and not in others. Legally, while honor killing is used solely for north African and south and southwest Asian nations and applies mainly to Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, the honor defense is still partially or wholly enshrined within the Brazilian, Peruvian, Guatemalan, Ecuadorian, Venezuelan, and Argentinian legal codes, was only recently outlawed in Colombia, and definitely exists, though under a different name, in the US and in parts of Europe, uncommon though they thankfully have become in recent years.

Now, you can point out that most of these nations are impoverished and religious as well, but the point is that it's cultural, not religious, for honor killings to occur. Either way, you cannot change a culture or a religion without either the consent of its members- or incredible amounts of force. The one is, you agree, immoral and impractical even if you disregard morals. The other, oddly enough, requires not dismissing the people involved.

[K. A. Pital]

So what are you saying? That because the Taliban greatly reduced opiate production they were better than the Americans? That rising opiate production during the Soviet invasion was entirely the fault of the Americans (somehow) and that Soviet actions couldn't possibly have been a factor? Seriously, the why of it is quite simple: opium is a very profitable cash crop, more so than food crops. Enough that if half an opium field is wiped out the farmer can still get enough money to survive, which is not true of say, wheat. In war time crops are trampled/burned/destroyed routinely, so farmers have great incentive to turn to those that will provide money even there are losses. That's the nature of war, things of value are often destroyed. Unless the Soviets were taking pains to preserve crops and fields during their invasion it was their actions that were driving farmers to grow opium.

What I am saying is that:
1) before the Soviet invasion and during its early years, illicit opium production was far lower, similar to the minimum seen in 2001
2) America was complicit in funding and arming radical nationalist and islamist insurgents in Afghanistan, and did this specifically to provoke armed Soviet intervention
3) after the USSR disengaged from Afghanistan, the independent nation outright collapsed into a civil war and illicit opium production reached new all-time highs until the Taliban instituted a ban
4) after America invaded Afghanistan, illicit opium production reached new all-time highs, unseen not only during the era of socialist Afghanistan, Soviet intervention and following independent Afghanistan - unseen during all time Afghanistan existed as a nation American involvement in Afghanistan has been the extreme example of new imperialism. First they used is as a proxy war battleground to provoke a rival nation into getting involved, later invaded when it suited their interests of global terrorist hunt they have initiated. I am not saying America has a malicious intent to make Afghanistan into a narco-state, oh no. It just does not care if Afghanistan becomes one, because as a narco-state Afghanistan poses no threat to America. Impact is mostly felt in Europe.

People brought up the central Asian republics as examples for the US to emulate in Afghanistan. I am fully in favor of economic development in Afghanistan- but I am opposed to imperial methods of doing so, as people have been suggesting, or use of force to induce cultural change. The Marshall Plan would be a far better method for emulation, but people haven't brought it up before now.

Marshall Plan, like many other post-war reconstruction plans, relied on pouring lots of money into war ravaged nations. Right now Americans are not ready to pay the sums really needed to reconstruct either Afghanistan or Iraq. They are willing to pay but a pittance of the sum needed; which is why nations' reconstruction will take far longer than it could. America is willing to kill brown people it thinks are threatening it, not spend exorbitant sums of money to make said peoples' lives better.

The USSR, Russian Empire, Pakistan, UK, and probably other nations each contributed to Afghanistan's problems. Playing the blame game leads to some ludicrous places. You might as well just say that whoever ends up in a position to do so has a responsibility to help other nations- which I agree with.

I agree. And this is exactly what I've been saying. When the USSR occupied Afghanistan, Afghanistan was Soviet responsibility. The USSR failed. America took the role of occupier a decade later. You cannot take the role of the occupier and just say you're not responsible. Everyone who occupied Afghanistan was responsible during their period of occupation, and most of them miserably failed (or, rather did not even try). But America is occupying the place right now. It has current responsibility to the place, not just a historic one considering its shenanigans with the Mujaheed movement.

Maybe secularism will wipe out religion if given a couple more centuries, or maybe it allows people who aren't particularly devout to avoid having to express false levels of faith, and so eventually you'll have a number of atheists and agnostics, a number of people who believe because of various reasons but aren't devout, and some devout.

I think so. But secular education is the very first step to this process. If you cannot have that, it does not matter if your economic development is good. Right now Iran is solidly around Second World by life indicators, economic development and such. It took them a bit longer to get where the USSR is. However, female rights in Iran... *shrugs* I think everyone knows that the situation is bad. Even the obscenely wealthy Saudi Arabia (well, the obscenely wealthy masters, not the slaves!) practice ruthless Sharia law. Wealth is far less important than secular education, in my view. After all, the 70%-illiterate and highly religious USSR was not wealthy by any means in the 1920s and 1930s - it was poor. And yet, it was secular education which allowed science and industry to flourish and female rights to get good traction. Without education, pouring heaps of money will not be good.

Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan are doing fairly well, though Uzbekistan can't finance its educational system and all of them are still fairly religious, which appears to count as a negative in your worldview. Kazakhstan also has a president-for-life who's immune to criminal prosecution, regularly censors the press, bans democratic election of governors... But does the US or the world need to follow everything the USSR did, or could we try and focus on the positives- economic development, universal public secular education- rather than the negatives- attempts to suppress culture and identity, environmental devastation, resettlement policies for dissidents and exiles, imperial conquest? Because people were smugging about the central Asian republics without noting the negative aspects of Soviet rule.

Yeah, Kazakhsan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenia are oligarchic dictatorships, no mistake about it. But what is worse, this or a corrupt theocracy? I was not saying you have to follow Soviet or British recipes by the letter, but frankly, one is connected to the other. The cultural identity supression was not without the action-reaction process. The USSR supressed Islam? It did. Because in the 1920s-early 1930s islamist bandits kept trying to restore old feudal ways in Central Asia. What is worse, supressing Islam or letting it flourish, knowing that it is being used for feudalism propaganda? Central Asia was sort of integrated in the Russian Empire, as you noted beforehand. The Tsars unlike the USSR, did not attempt to "supress" cultural identity. But what has this brought Central Asia? By 1917, the Russian Empire's Western territories were culturally developed and strove to be more like Europe, but there was a place where feudalism still ran rampant, which was still in the same development stage as it was in the late Middle Ages: Central Asia of the Russian Empire. This is what the policy of status-quo, the policy of "non-interference in the cultural rites of the natives" brought Central Asia.

Once again, you try to distance the installation of secular education (a positive aspect) from supression of Islam. How is that possible? One would not be possible without the other. Religious teachers lost their jobs, mosques were closed down and only then the pupils went to secular schools, this allowed to grow a population mostly free of fundamental Islam (the Islam Central Asia practices now is closer to the moderate European one than the radical Afghani one!) in just a few years. And secular schools were burned and teachers killed there, because there were people not content with this policy. Who are the "heroes" here?

Now, you can point out that most of these nations are impoverished and religious as well, but the point is that it's cultural, not religious, for honor killings to occur. Either way, you cannot change a culture or a religion without either the consent of its members- or incredible amounts of force.

The problem is, the US is projecting incredible amounts of force to conquer Third World nations. But it does not spend a similar amount of force on fundamentally improving them. I believe we both agreed to that. Oh, and I hardly support imperialism. But if an imperialist act has happened, is the imperialist not responsible for the development of his conquered territory? That is what I was talking about. And culture and religion are deeply connected things. Excising religion from culture requires lots of time and effort. The US is not even trying. Maybe because it is religious as well?

[Broomstick]

Marshall Plan, like many other post-war reconstruction plans, relied on pouring lots of money into war ravaged nations. Right now Americans are not ready to pay the sums really needed to reconstruct either Afghanistan or Iraq. They are willing to pay but a pittance of the sum needed; which is why nations' reconstruction will take far longer than it could. America is willing to kill brown people it thinks are threatening it, not spend exorbitant sums of money to make said peoples' lives better.

I believe the historical experience of the Marshall Plan is a reason Americans are not enthused to do it again - the US poured enormous sums into European reconstruction with the explicit agreement of countries accepting the money that the US would be paid back. So far, only Finland and the UK have done this. Meanwhile, the rest of Europe that benefited from US money not only has resisted repayment, but shakes their finger at how horrible and deplorable the Americans are. If that's how US allies treat a Marshall Plan how will former adversaries behave? You don't see why that might factor into a reluctance to try that experiment again?

I agree. And this is exactly what I've been saying. When the USSR occupied Afghanistan, Afghanistan was Soviet responsibility.

That doesn't square with you implying that, somehow, increased opium production during the Soviet invasion was the fault of the US.

The problem is, the US is projecting incredible amounts of force to conquer Third World nations. But it does not spend a similar amount of force on fundamentally improving them. I believe we both agreed to that. Oh, and I hardly support imperialism. But if an imperialist act has happened, is the imperialist not responsible for the development of his conquered territory?

You may want that to be the case but historically it seems that the Imperial power is always more interested in exploitation than improvement. If improving a territory makes for better profit and exploitation it will be done, but altruistic improvement is almost unheard of.

That is what I was talking about. And culture and religion are deeply connected things. Excising religion from culture requires lots of time and effort. The US is not even trying. Maybe because it is religious as well?

The US isn't going to try to exorcise religion because the base document for the government insists on government NOT doing so. The First Amendment is hardly secret. It prohibits the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion (with limitations the courts have decreed limited to health and safety). Until you re-write the US Constitution no, the US is not going to try to eliminate religion in any of its territories. Why? Because doing so would be against the law. It might attempt to eliminate specific practices, such as suttee (as a hypothetical example), and honor killings in the US are prosecuted as first degree murder, but there's no way the US would outlaw Hinduism or any of the various religious sects that condone honor killings.

That's not a statement of support on my part, I hasten to add, it's simply a fact.

[Metahive]

I believe the historical experience of the Marshall Plan is a reason Americans are not enthused to do it again - the US poured enormous sums into European reconstruction with the explicit agreement of countries accepting the money that the US would be paid back. So far, only Finland and the UK have done this. Meanwhile, the rest of Europe that benefited from US money not only has resisted repayment, but shakes their finger at how horrible and deplorable the Americans are. If that's how US allies treat a Marshall Plan how will former adversaries behave? You don't see why that might factor into a reluctance to try that experiment again?

The Marshall Plan's explicit purpose was to nurse Europe back to economic health so it wouldn't become a hotbed of destabilizing extremism again as it did after the first World War. The "repayment", was mostly that the US now had an entire market full of hungry customers to dominate. I'd say that's fair enough and complaints about ungrateful Europeans therefore not justified.

[Broomstick]

No, the agreement was that the money loaned to Europe be repaid (with the note that not all of it was a loan, some of it was a frank outright gift which, needless to say, needn't be repaid). Historical revisionism has mutated that into "provide a market for American goods and services" but nope, that wasn't the deal. Effectively, yes, in the initial years a lot of purchases were made of American goods, particularly food, because European agricultural production had been devastated by the war and North America was where the food was growing, but the Marshall Plan money functioned as a subsidy to enable nations to buy more food than they would be able to otherwise. At no time was the Marshall aid restricted to purchasing only American goods - the Canadians reaped a couple billion of the aid money by selling their agricultural output and various other goods and services to Europe as well. As Europe recovered there were no restrictions on Europe using the money to purchase things from other European nations.

Those who haven't repaid as agreed are, in fact, delinquent on loan payments. Not that I expect repayment at this point, and honestly the Americans at the time were probably cognizant that they wouldn't be getting all the money back, but the fact remains - significant amounts of money were loans, not a grant, and only two countries have honored the arrangement (arguably, Finland was not part of the Marshall Plan due to proximity and concerns about the Soviets, but US aid was given under separate arrangements and they were the first to repay the post-war loans. In the US, this aid is lumped under "the Marshall Plan" as it was part of the overall plan, but perhaps abroad hair-splitting distinctions are still made)

It's not like there was a requirement to pay back the money in a short time frame, it is perfectly in alignment with the Marshall Plan to take decades to repay. For example, the UK was given 50 years to repay with an option for up to five years of deferment for all debts related to the US post-war assistance (they did take the full deferment, and this included all forms of lend-lease, loan, and so forth), but quite a few countries can't be arsed to make even a token effort.

The Germans are a somewhat special case - they were a divided country for decades, and a conquered enemy, and quite a bit of aid was just flat-out given. But the rest of Europe? It's not like anyone was required to accept - we offered the same deal to the Soviets and their allies, who declined the offer (and yes, Soviet allies were arm-twisted into refusal, I'm aware of that. Then the Soviets set up their own rebuilding programs.)

But really, if Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey accepted and benefited from Marshall Plan what's their excuse for not paying back the people who put up the money for it? I am willing to accept a decent excuse - continuing poverty, for example, such that making payments could undermine the gains under the plan - but that would be hard to put forward for, say, France.

Then again, in the US "The Marshall Plan" is assumed to mean ALL post-war aid given to Europe under Secretary of State George Marshall, and not, specifically and only, the European Recovery Program which was only one part of his overall plan to revitalize Europe and which was a gift, not a loan. No doubt that also accounts for substantial disagreement. One must be careful that everyone is working from the same definition of a term. If the Europeans only see the ERP as "the Marshall Plan" but Americans see that ERP as part of "the Marshall Plan" then it's plain to see where resentment can happen on either side.

[Metahive]

What exactly is your peeve here? The Marshall Plan did ultimately turn out to be beneficial to both Europe and the US, all these griping about loans that weren't paid back on time and complaints about ungrateful and anti-american Europeans strike me as incredibly petty in light of the quite tight alliance that the US and Western Europe formed for most of the recent fifty years. It's as if you're insulted about the fact that Europe retained some sort of individuality and didn't become mindless yes-men to their american overlords.
You came as liberators, remember?

[PeZook]

Broomstick is wrong, anyway ; Any loans granted to Europe were separate from the Marshall Plan, which was distributed in the form of grants.

Grants which were mostly used up to buy American food, supplies, construction equipment and machine tools

[Broomstick]

What exactly is your peeve here? The Marshall Plan did ultimately turn out to be beneficial to both Europe and the US, all these griping about loans that weren't paid back on time and complaints about ungrateful and anti-american Europeans strike me as incredibly petty in light of the quite tight alliance that the US and Western Europe formed for most of the recent fifty years. It's as if you're insulted about the fact that Europe retained some sort of individuality and didn't become mindless yes-men to their american overlords.
You came as liberators, remember?

I was attempting to explain why there is continuing resentment and confusion on this issue, and why the US is reluctant to launch another such effort. The same people in Congress who are favoring slashing the social safety net and refuse to even consider single-payer health care are exactly the same crowd who still bitch about the cost of the Marshall Plan and how we're still owed money (whether the US is, in fact, owed money or not). That same crowd sure as hell aren't willing to fork over money to anyone, not even their own fellow citizens, much less anyone else. They're also the same crowd who were making decisions regarding the conflict in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2008. These are the folks who want to do nation-building on the cheap. Me, I don't see that working out, and I assume most of the folks in this thread will agree with me on that particular point. If they had been in charge in the late 1940's you can be damn sure that Europe wouldn't have gotten a penny out of the US for any rebuilding, as the Republican fiscal conservatives of that era argued quite loudly against any aid legislation for Europe (or Japan, but that's a different issue).

Personally, I couldn't care less about what has and hasn't been repaid at this point, it's all water under the bridge. Had I been alive back then I would have been in favor of simply making it all gifts to a war-ravaged Europe. However, my viewpoint is not shared by all Americans, or even a majority of them. Believe it or not, there are quite a few Americans still walking around all butt-hurt because not every penny loaned was repaid. This is THEIR peeve, not mine. I'm not saying it's right, just that the attitude exists. There are also quite a few Americans who, like me, feel that helping Europe rebuild was more important that accounting for every penny and squabbling over the rubble.

Broomstick is wrong, anyway ; Any loans granted to Europe were separate from the Marshall Plan, which was distributed in the form of grants.

Again, incorrect. In fact, there was never any piece of legislation passed or document produced labeled "Marshall Plan" in the US. The "Marshall Plan" was exactly that - a plan, which from the American viewpoint consisted of ALL the aid, be it grant, loan, good, or whatever, sent to Europe in the immediate post-war period. I've found that Europeans seem to apply the term solely to the grants involved, which, as I pointed out, is where the confusion starts to arise. The US and Europe are using different definitions for the term. This is why from the European viewpoint there is nothing that requires repayment, and from the US viewpoint there are still a bunch of loans still outstanding.

No doubt this is also why the US says Finland was included in the Marshall Plan and in Europe it is said that it was not - aid to Finland was kept quiet and separate from the aid to Western Europe specifically so it wouldn't cause problems between them and the Soviet Union.

Really, this is a case of both sides being right and both sides being wrong due to different use of language. Hardly the first time that's happened, and it won't be the last.

Grants which were mostly used up to buy American food, supplies, construction equipment and machine tools

As I also pointed out, in the early years Canada also substantially benefited from that money, and after the first couple years the Europeans started buying stuff from each other with that money. There was no obligation to buy American, but given how shattered Europe was it's not surprising that's what happened initially.

The Marshall Plan had several goals - humanitarian aid to prevent starvation, political stabilization, rebuilding of Europe's infrastructure to prevent it turning into a primitive hellhole, and yes, a market for American goods but there was recognition that wasn't going to happen unless Europe actually was rebuilt. I suspect some people in the US currently somehow believe that "nation building" consists of setting things up in, yes, a more truly Imperial manner where the subject people are locked into dealing with Americans exclusively or nearly so, extracting the natural resources of the subject nation for the master's benefit, and using them as a source of cheap labor. No, I don't approve of that, just in case that wasn't clear, but it would be foolish to pretend such a mindset doesn't exist.

Unquestionably, the goal of getting Europe back on its feet was accomplished, although there is also a debate as to how "necessary" the Marshall Plan was to that goal. It was a rare case of everyone involved coming out ahead, even if there are some sour-pusses who continue to bitch.

However, during the era of the Marshall Plan the war was over. You didn't have Nazi insurgents systematically going around blowing up whatever Marshall Plan money rebuilt, or killing people who accepted such aid. Right now, there is still war in Afghanistan and Iraq regardless of the official line, so until the fighting really does stop I doubt any permanent rebuilding can occur regardless of how much money is spent. And the Soviets would have had the exact same problem - the whole time they were there fighting and destruction were occurring, so how much actual rebuilding of either infrastructure or society could actually take place?

As I see it, part of the problem is that there hasn't been a clear end to the fighting with a clear winner or loser in those places. Thus, conflict hasn't ended. Contrast this with South Korea where they are still officially at war with North Korea but because the fighting has been halted for 50 years substantial rebuilding and development has occurred.

Effective rebuilding can't occur while people are still shooting at each other and blowing each other's stuff up. So.... how to bring a conflict such as exists in Afghanistan today to an actual resolution where the fighting actually stops?

[PeZook]

Again, incorrect. In fact, there was never any piece of legislation passed or document produced labeled "Marshall Plan" in the US. The "Marshall Plan" was exactly that - a plan, which from the American viewpoint consisted of ALL the aid, be it grant, loan, good, or whatever, sent to Europe in the immediate post-war period.

No, actually there's a very well defined area to which the term "Marshall Plan" applies. There is no confusion. It refers specifically to the funds administered by the Economic Cooperation Administration, established by the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948.

You know, that act of legislation that supposedly did not exist?

I've found that Europeans seem to apply the term solely to the grants involved, which, as I pointed out, is where the confusion starts to arise. The US and Europe are using different definitions for the term. This is why from the European viewpoint there is nothing that requires repayment, and from the US viewpoint there are still a bunch of loans still outstanding.

There are loans still outstanding, of course, but none of them are related to the specific reconstruction effort that is known as the Marshall Plan. It's been 70 years since the end of the war ; Of course there's been loans taken out and given in that time.

As I also pointed out, in the early years Canada also substantially benefited from that money, and after the first couple years the Europeans started buying stuff from each other with that money. There was no obligation to buy American, but given how shattered Europe was it's not surprising that's what happened initially.

Yes, and? The money was funneled into the ECA, distributed using various methods (for example, Germany did it as low or no interest loans to businesses which were reinvested when repaid, again and again) with some development funds started with the money remaining in operation to this day.

Any outstanding loans to the US government are a separate issue ; Tying them to the Marshall Plan is fallacious, as the term has a specific meaning (at least amongst economists), unlike what you're trying to portray.

[Broomstick]

Again, incorrect. In fact, there was never any piece of legislation passed or document produced labeled "Marshall Plan" in the US. The "Marshall Plan" was exactly that - a plan, which from the American viewpoint consisted of ALL the aid, be it grant, loan, good, or whatever, sent to Europe in the immediate post-war period.

No, actually there's a very well defined area to which the term "Marshall Plan" applies. There is no confusion. It refers specifically to the funds administered by the Economic Cooperation Administration, established by the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948.

You know, that act of legislation that supposedly did not exist?

And on what do you base that?

"Marshall Plan" was never solely defined as just the ERP on this side of the Atlantic. I am well aware that Europe has a different opinion. Sorry, that's the way it is. Both sides have been shouting about it for 70 years, maybe we should just stop saying "Marshall Plan" and refer to specific programs.

[Metahive]

I was attempting to explain why there is continuing resentment and confusion on this issue, and why the US is reluctant to launch another such effort. [...] I'm not saying it's right, just that the attitude exists.

Well, reading this:

"I believe the historical experience of the Marshall Plan is a reason Americans are not enthused to do it again - the US poured enormous sums into European reconstruction with the explicit agreement of countries accepting the money that the US would be paid back. So far, only Finland and the UK have done this. Meanwhile, the rest of Europe that benefited from US money not only has resisted repayment, but shakes their finger at how horrible and deplorable the Americans are. If that's how US allies treat a Marshall Plan how will former adversaries behave? You don't see why that might factor into a reluctance to try that experiment again?"

didn't sound as if you were putting that much distance between you and the people I dub "Rusmfeldians". But o well, you explained yourself/recanted so it's not really worth pursuing further I guess.

[Bakustra]

Again, incorrect. In fact, there was never any piece of legislation passed or document produced labeled "Marshall Plan" in the US. The "Marshall Plan" was exactly that - a plan, which from the American viewpoint consisted of ALL the aid, be it grant, loan, good, or whatever, sent to Europe in the immediate post-war period.

No, actually there's a very well defined area to which the term "Marshall Plan" applies. There is no confusion. It refers specifically to the funds administered by the Economic Cooperation Administration, established by the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948.

You know, that act of legislation that supposedly did not exist?

And on what do you base that?

"Marshall Plan" was never solely defined as just the ERP on this side of the Atlantic. I am well aware that Europe has a different opinion. Sorry, that's the way it is. Both sides have been shouting about it for 70 years, maybe we should just stop saying "Marshall Plan" and refer to specific programs.

Cite your sources- you are making it sound like the Marshall Plan is held to be more than the ERP in a scholarly sense. If you're suggesting a public-opinion sense, then I doubt that the majority of the population has defined opinions on the Marshall Plan.

[Broomstick]

My sources are people who were alive at the time, plus what I was taught as history growing up - given that that pre-dates the web I can't give you all a convenient link, nor do I recall the exact title and publisher of textbooks I last saw 30 years ago.

As I said - I am not quibbling that in Europe "The Marshall Plan" is defined as the ERP. But in the US the ERP is just one part of "The Marshall Plan" as sold and explained to the public (yes, that's a good way to put it). From the viewpoint of of the US, yes, most certainly it was not just grants of money but also the loans and also food and goods given as outright gifts to Europe. This is why I'm saying it's a language problem as much as anything else. The program is defined differently depending on where you are. I'm not talking about how academics in journals use the term, I'm talking about common usage. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

My point about sources is that if your sources are European it will be defined one way and in the US quite likely another. I suspect this is due in part to politics - and gave the example that for the Finns it was very important that their aid not be labeled "Marshall Plan" due to proximity to the soviet union but here in the US that Finnish aid is lumped under "Marshall Plan" regardless of how Europeans view the matter. In that case, if you were in the US there was no consequence to using the broader/more inclusive/sloppier definition but if you were in Finland it could be a matter of life or death. So.. no wonder the European definition is far more specific.

You don't have to agree with it, I'm just telling you the difference exists. It's also the reason why so damn many Americans claim the US was never paid back - from their viewpoint no, they weren't paid back. The Europeans have a different viewpoint, so what else is new. If you want to diffuse the American argument point out that the money under the ERP was not a loan but a gift not requiring repayment, and that the loans are not defined as part of the "Marshall Plan" in European or (if this is the case - frankly I don't know either way) by Americans who actually are historians as opposed to pundits. They'll probably accuse you of splitting hairs, but then ask them to provide cites for which countries owed how much in loans. Finland paid the US back (and feel free to point out that officially Finnish aid was NOT part of the Marshall Plan, even though US politicians frequently lumped it in as such when they discussed it at all) and that the UK, which truly did receive enormous amounts of aid, actually paid back the US in accordance with loan agreements and as of 2006 it's done and over. Contrary to what I've argued with some Americans, no, the UK wasn't "late", either - we gave 'em 50 years with an option to make deferments. Ask them to provide cites on how much else is owed, by whom - I seriously doubt they'll be able to do so. End of argument at least on this forum.

[Serafina]

My sources are people who were alive at the time, plus what I was taught as history growing up - given that that pre-dates the web I can't give you all a convenient link, nor do I recall the exact title and publisher of textbooks I last saw 30 years ago.

Great. I can make the exact same claim. I was thought the opposite of what you're claiming in history, and i had people alive at that time confirm it. And "it's pre-web" is no damn excuse, otherwise you wouldn't have to cite any sources about anything historical either. By your logic, i can make any claim about WW II i want. Or about the moon landing, or any other period of history.

[PeZook]

And on what do you base that?

"Marshall Plan" was never solely defined as just the ERP on this side of the Atlantic. I am well aware that Europe has a different opinion. Sorry, that's the way it is. Both sides have been shouting about it for 70 years, maybe we should just stop saying "Marshall Plan" and refer to specific programs.

Look, George Marshall announced his plan during his June 7, 1947 speech. A series of meetings with European nations followed, and the issue culminated in the 1948 Economic Cooperation Act, turning Marshall's ideas into legislation and establishing the administrative framework for distributing the aid money.

That piece of legislation is what economists call "The Marshall Plan". You will also find that most pophist sources also refer to this piece of legislation as the Marshall Plan. The USAID organization refers to it as such. Your own National Archive does the exact same thing.

If you are saying that it's common Americans who think the Marshall Plan somehow included loans et al, then I posit this is completely irrelevant. The public might be as ignorant as they damn well please - it changes nothing. The Marshall Plan was a resounding success, accomplished its goals, and much of the aid money returned to US businesses anyway despite there being no "explicit agreement it would be paid back" included as part of the plan.

[Thanas]

Americans whining about the Marshall Plan is hilarious, considering that in many nations it was actually a net benefit to the USA. For example, Germany received a total of 14 billions under the plan. In exchange, it honored and paid back 16 billion of pre-war debt they had no legal obligation to pay as the claims were unenforcable. And it is paying back the Marshal plan even now, so it is not as if the money disappeared.


And guess what - even if all the money had disappeared into a huge sinkhole, it still bought 50+ years of allegiance and friendship to the USA, as well as providing an enormous market for US goods.


Anybody who claims the money was a missed investment is either very, very misinformed or very, very dumb.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't believe Broomstick ever stated otherwise.

Part of the problem is that the US went directly from being relatively isolationist to being a hegemon whose only peers were the Evil Empire (and later China: Evil Empire II!). This creates a distorted historical perspective among the devotees of American exceptionalism: they simply do not have a frame of reference in which to understand how the US might interact with other nations as peers, in the sense that Britain has been interacting with France for the past several hundred years and so on.

So they see disagreement over tactics, or (God forbid!) disagreement over objectives, or mere refusal to accept a state of subordinate client-patron relationship with the US... and interpret this as a sign of disloyalty, stupidity, hatred, ingratitude, and the like.

Because, again, they do not have a frame of reference within which it makes sense for other civilized nations to disagree with what they think is The Right Thing To Do. A designated Evil Empire disagrees with the US because it is evil, a minor state may disagree with the US because they are evil and/or primitive... but if a not-evil state disagrees with the US? Well, they must be at least a little bit evil after all then!

[insert whatever gestures are needed here to make it obvious that I am describing, in sarcastic terms, the mindset of people I despise for their historical myopia, not trying to tell Thanas how I think the world ought to work]