Posted on Mar 2, 2016
3
3
0
The interesting thing (well ONE of the interesting things) about this article is that one of the reasons why they want the Taliban back is to get a return to "the rule of law".
I suspect that this feeling is caused by much the same conditions as prevailed in Iraq where large segments of the population didn't necessarily LIKE "the laws" BUT they KNEW what they were and could work around them much more comfortably then they could live with arbitrariness.
I suspect that this feeling is caused by much the same conditions as prevailed in Iraq where large segments of the population didn't necessarily LIKE "the laws" BUT they KNEW what they were and could work around them much more comfortably then they could live with arbitrariness.
Why disaffected young Afghans are warming to a Taliban comeback
Posted from washingtonpost.com
War on Terror
Law
Government
Terrorism
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 6
1
1
0
We see much of that here in our own country as well. CPT (Join to see) Only it is often our elected officials seeking alternate routes circumventing the "danger areas" we call laws, particularly those specifically enumerated in our Constitution.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Gerhard S. - Staff; As Able Seaman JONES, Paul J. said on 23 SEP 1779 - "Well you'd better damn well start soon because we're sinking down here!".
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Gerhard S. - Staff; I know (and appreciate) the sense that you are using the word "limited" in.
However, things have changed since the 1790s and there are things today that were NOT within the contemplation of the Founding Fathers.
Can you imagine, for example, if each State had the right to issue broadcast licenses regardless of whether there was already another station using the frequency?
"Broadcasting" DOES NOT fall within any of the powers originally granted to the federal government.
Neither does "Air Traffic Control" (although the price of airline tickets might).
Neither does "interstate (or even intrastate) downstream pollution control" (provided that the polluter isn't SELLING the crap).
However, things have changed since the 1790s and there are things today that were NOT within the contemplation of the Founding Fathers.
Can you imagine, for example, if each State had the right to issue broadcast licenses regardless of whether there was already another station using the frequency?
"Broadcasting" DOES NOT fall within any of the powers originally granted to the federal government.
Neither does "Air Traffic Control" (although the price of airline tickets might).
Neither does "interstate (or even intrastate) downstream pollution control" (provided that the polluter isn't SELLING the crap).
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
It IS in the power of the Federal government to regulate disputes or discrepancies between the many states. Problems arising from overlapping radio frequencies, down wind, down stream, or down current pollution would all fall into such a category. So, the question remains, should these things be mitigated through suit, by the courts, and through interstate, or regional agreement, as is suggested by our Constitution, OR through an expansive, powerful, and ever-growing Federal regulatory behemoth? If the latter, then perhaps a Constitutional amendment creating such a power should be considered, instead of the steady usurpation of Constitutional powers, not granted the Federal government we are witnessing today..
Look, I'm not suggesting there aren't some things that the Federal government isn't best suited to manage, and it is likely that a Federal agency (with Congressional over-watch, and clear criteria) could manage some functions in a more streamlined manner, than could be regulated through the courts. My issue lies with doing so outside the Federal government's Constitutional boundaries, as if this is how things were meant to be... This is NOT how the Constitution dictates such issues should be managed. If we find a regulatory agency is the best way to manage some, or all of these issues, then I am only suggesting we do so Constitutionally, and not Progressively.
Great Conversation... Thanks for your thoughts.
Look, I'm not suggesting there aren't some things that the Federal government isn't best suited to manage, and it is likely that a Federal agency (with Congressional over-watch, and clear criteria) could manage some functions in a more streamlined manner, than could be regulated through the courts. My issue lies with doing so outside the Federal government's Constitutional boundaries, as if this is how things were meant to be... This is NOT how the Constitution dictates such issues should be managed. If we find a regulatory agency is the best way to manage some, or all of these issues, then I am only suggesting we do so Constitutionally, and not Progressively.
Great Conversation... Thanks for your thoughts.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
COL Ted Mc
LTC John Shaw - Colonel; You can only reduce the probability of a "Bribocracy" (I just made the term up) by ensuring that your "public officials" are well educated, well trained, well paid, and dedicated to the best interests of the whole of society.
Just hitting one, two, or even all three of the first four qualities simply won't do the trick UNLESS you hit the fourth one as well as ALL THREE of the first three.
Just hitting one, two, or even all three of the first four qualities simply won't do the trick UNLESS you hit the fourth one as well as ALL THREE of the first three.
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC John Shaw - Colonel; Receiving "bribes" is how the bureaucracy worked for centuries. It isn't "corruption" it's "how things are". Where the people REALLY get ticked off is when their payments don't produce the desired results.
It's sort of like paying "highway taxes" when the government won't build a road that you can use (just more personal and immediate).
Working hand to mouth and struggling day to day to provide for themselves and family is how MOST agricultural societies where the land is poor, and there is no affordable "portable power", work.
It's sort of like paying "highway taxes" when the government won't build a road that you can use (just more personal and immediate).
Working hand to mouth and struggling day to day to provide for themselves and family is how MOST agricultural societies where the land is poor, and there is no affordable "portable power", work.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1) Only one woman was interviewed. I would have to think that most women living in Kabul do not wish for the Taliban to come back, smack them on the head, and tell them to cover their face and not leave home without a man again or we'll stone you in the street.
2) Who do these youths think the Taliban are? The one young man said the Taliban can come back but they cannot change the Internet rules. Hey there youngin, the Taliban don't care what you think and they'll do whatever they want when they come back. Oh by the way, they'll whip you in the street for back talking alongside your girlfriend they're stoning for uncovering her face.
3) I think an accurate point from the article is that the coalition inflated the Afghan economy sooooo bad. We grossly overpaid for everything; buying stuff in Afghanistan was even more expensive than buying goods in Iraq, and we were overpaying there as well. I hope we learned that lesson along with many others, because unfortunately the fact that we were the Afghan economy is going to hurt the Afghans for years.
2) Who do these youths think the Taliban are? The one young man said the Taliban can come back but they cannot change the Internet rules. Hey there youngin, the Taliban don't care what you think and they'll do whatever they want when they come back. Oh by the way, they'll whip you in the street for back talking alongside your girlfriend they're stoning for uncovering her face.
3) I think an accurate point from the article is that the coalition inflated the Afghan economy sooooo bad. We grossly overpaid for everything; buying stuff in Afghanistan was even more expensive than buying goods in Iraq, and we were overpaying there as well. I hope we learned that lesson along with many others, because unfortunately the fact that we were the Afghan economy is going to hurt the Afghans for years.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CW3 (Join to see) - Mr. Brown; If the purpose of the article was to find out why young MEN were reverting to supporting the Taliban, I don't find it at all unusual that only a small number of young WOMEN would be interviewed.
Equally I don't find it unusual that young men have stupid ideas. We ALL go through the "Advanced Contagious Brain Dead" stage in our lives (for some of us it lasts longer than it does for others).
As far as "inflating prices" is concerned, if the US government had placed a limit on the number of levels of sub-contractors allowed in any area that would have kept the prices down considerably. However when you have a dozen levels of sub-contractors and EACH of them is allowed to make a 10% profit, then the "end consumer" ends up paying around 320% of that the "original purchaser" paid.
Equally I don't find it unusual that young men have stupid ideas. We ALL go through the "Advanced Contagious Brain Dead" stage in our lives (for some of us it lasts longer than it does for others).
As far as "inflating prices" is concerned, if the US government had placed a limit on the number of levels of sub-contractors allowed in any area that would have kept the prices down considerably. However when you have a dozen levels of sub-contractors and EACH of them is allowed to make a 10% profit, then the "end consumer" ends up paying around 320% of that the "original purchaser" paid.
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc Sir, the article is titled, "Why disaffected young Afghans.." The article does not specify that the purpose is to find our what men think, actually it implies the opposite by continually stating "young Afghans" as opposed to "young Afghan Men."
I agree that young men have stupid ideas, and I think the ones quoted in this article are particularly naive.
I agree that young men have stupid ideas, and I think the ones quoted in this article are particularly naive.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CW3 (Join to see) - Mr. Brown; The "purpose" of the study can be fairly easily discerned from the way that the study was conducted. If someone doesn't ask one portion of a population a question, then it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of asking the question was to find out what the people who were asked the question thought about that question.
PS - "Headlines" and "content" aren't necessarily the same thing.
PS - "Headlines" and "content" aren't necessarily the same thing.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google