Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why are we propping up such garbage?

[preCRT]

The US 'attacked' the USSR when the Soviets fought against the Taliban in 1980. Now we are propping up a regime that is spewing the same hateful anti-human rights shit.

Almost 30 years later and nothing has changed, except for now its Americans losing their lives over there instead of Soviets/Russians.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...tan-womens-rights-rape


Afghanistan passes 'barbaric' law diminishing women's rights

Rehashed legislation allows husbands to deny wives food if they fail to obey sexual demands


Jon Boone in Kandahar
guardian.co.uk, Friday 14 August 2009 14.17 BST


Afghanistan has quietly passed a law permitting Shia men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands' sexual demands, despite international outrage over an earlier version of the legislation which President Hamid Karzai had promised to review.

The new final draft of the legislation also grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, and requires women to get permission from their husbands to work.

"It also effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying 'blood money' to a girl who was injured when he raped her," the US charity Human Rights Watch said.

In early April, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown joined an international chorus of condemnation when the Guardian revealed that the earlier version of the law legalised rape within marriage, according to the UN.

Although Karzai appeared to back down, activists say the revised version of the law still contains repressive measures and contradicts the Afghan constitution and international treaties signed by the country.

Islamic law experts and human rights activists say that although the language of the original law has been changed, many of the provisions that alarmed women's rights groups remain, including this one: "Tamkeen is the readiness of the wife to submit to her husband's reasonable sexual enjoyment, and her prohibition from going out of the house, except in extreme circumstances, without her husband's permission. If any of the above provisions are not followed by the wife she is considered disobedient."

The law has been backed by the hardline Shia cleric Ayatollah Mohseni, who is thought to have influence over the voting intentions of some of the country's Shias, which make up around 20% of the population. Karzai has assiduously courted such minority leaders in the run up to next Thursday's election, which is likely to be a close run thing, according to a poll released yesterday.

Human Rights Watch, which has obtained a copy of the final law, called on all candidates to pledge to repeal the law, which it says contradicts Afghanistan's own constitution.

The group said that Karzai had "made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election".

Brad Adams, the organisation's Asia director, said: "The rights of Afghan women are being ripped up by powerful men who are using women as pawns in manoeuvres to gain power.

"These kinds of barbaric laws were supposed to have been relegated to the past with the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, yet Karzai has revived them and given them his official stamp of approval."

And before any of ATOT's neanderthals reply, remember those women could be your sisters or daughters.

Definitely a P&N topic. -Anandtech Moderator DrPizza

 

[nick1985]

P&N

-------------------------------------->

 

[thecrecarc]

Post it in the right forum!

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: nick1985
P&N

<--------------------------------------

Fixed

 

[TheoPetro]

I know where im getten married!!!

"Rehashed legislation allows husbands to deny wives food if they fail to obey sexual demands"

 

[Beev]

Just nuke the middle east. It's not worth saving.

 

[rudder]

No matter what the U.S. accomplishes... whether it be building a bunch of school, improving the infrastructure, attracting international business, improving the infrastructure, etc, etc... As soon as the last U.S. soldier leaves... the place will erupt into chaos.

There is no way for that country to be ruled by a central government. I say just give the people that don't want to live under taliban rule some real nice weapons and let them go at it. If al-qaeda ever looks like it has opened up a training camp we can shoot a few hellfire missiles from a drone.

 

[yllus]

The mission objective: Destroy Al Qaeda and any government that supports/allows them to congregate and organization without harassment.

Not the mission objective: Turn Afghanistan into the United States lite and reflect all of its moral/cultural values.

 

[Zedtom]

Here's the question for the gung-ho, exterminate-the-taliban and all the radical Islamists crowd:

What exactly is our exit strategy in Afghanistan?

 

[sandorski]

I've always been somewhat torn on the whole Afghanistan issue. This doesn't help any. :laugh: Afghanistan and Pakistan are both big messes that would be nice to clean up, but to do that would take decades and is complicated by the fact that entering Pakistan is a whole other issue. Changing such a backwards regional Culture will probably prove to be impossible, yet seems worth a try since it has proved to be a danger far beyond that region. If they had kept it all too themselves I'd say leave, but they didn't and they seem intent on spreading their stupidity.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Beev
Just nuke the middle east. It's not worth saving.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe some merit to the idea, but its worthless on this thread because Afghanistan is well to the east of the Mid-East.

But at the end of the day, we will probably be debating for years on which quagmire is GWB's biggest screw up. Iraq or Afghanistan????????? Throw in complication from Pakistan and India, and many may argue its Afghanistan.

But cheer up, fools rush in and by the Pottery barn convention, we broke it and we bought it until we fix it.

And years alter, no one seems to ask, why we bought that ugly Iraqi or Afghan bric a brack in the first damn place.

 

[Fern]

Why are we still in Afghanistan?

The simple and easy answer is that we're there to prevent them from again becoming a place were terrorists can launch attacks on the Western world; a safe-haven.

What specifically Obama intends beyond that I don't know. The MSM ignores it now that GWB is gone.

So I don't think we're necessarily there to prop up this government (which basically only exerts control over a rather small part of the country anyway). I hope we're not gonna do 'nation building' either.

Overall, I'm rather pessimistic about it.

Fern

 

[OCGuy]

Because Obama has decided it is a war that is worth escalating.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Fern
we're there to prevent them from again becoming a place where terrorists can launch attacks on the Western world; a safe-haven.

This.

I'm guessing 20-30 years of NATO presence... at least.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Because Obama has decided it is a war that is worth escalating.

Yep. War is profitable. Thats a fact. It doesnt matter if its in the Balkins, the USSR, Iraq, or Afghanistan....war is profitable. Does the end result make it worth it? It has, in some instances. Japan for example. But we wont know for decades.

But yeah. Afghanistan is the new Iraq.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: preCRT
Why are we still in Afghanistan?

Put simply; our presence in Afghanistan allows us to prevent the establishment of pipelines which would otherwise which would otherwise carry oil and gas though the region to China and Russia, and it also allows our robber barons to fill their pockets with our tax dollars and by exploiting what resources Afghanistan has. Claims of noble intentions are just propaganda used to sucker the public along for the ride.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Because Obama has decided it is a war that is worth escalating.

Didn't obama clearly state his intentions to put more into afganistan during his campaign last year? The place where your bushie should have concentrated in the first place?

The military and many others have supported this. But nice anti-obama try anyhow. We know that republicans are your religion.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: OCguy
Because Obama has decided it is a war that is worth escalating.

Didn't obama clearly state his intentions to put more into afganistan during his campaign last year? The place where your bushie should have concentrated in the first place?

The military and many others have supported this. But nice anti-obama try anyhow. We know that republicans are your religion.

Wrong. Obama isnt doing anything new that Bush didnt already put in motion. He is simply carrying on the WOT in Bush's footsteps. He's using Bush's withdrawal dates and plans for Iraq, and continuing ramp ups in Afghanistan that Bush started in late 2006/early 2007.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Obama isnt doing anything new that Bush didnt already put in motion. He is simply carrying on the WOT in Bush's footsteps. He's using Bush's withdrawal dates and plans for Iraq, and continuing ramp ups in Afghanistan that Bush started in late 2006/early 2007.

truth.

 

[BoomerD]

To me, an equally great concern is why are we allowing the Afghan farmers to continue their opium growing/heroin manufacturing operations?
Since that is providing the Taliban with Millions of $$$ in funds to continue the fight, (and thus, costing us millions of $$$ to continue the occupation) wouldn't it be cheaper to nuke the opium fields and give the farmers food and cash? (or perhaps some form of script that can't be converted to cash by the Taliban?)

While it may be a "noble" idea to allow the farmers to be self-sufficient, allowing them to grow opium, which in turn, funds the Taliban, seems awfully short sighted and counter productive.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
To me, an equally great concern is why are we allowing the Afghan farmers to continue their opium growing/heroin manufacturing operations?
Since that is providing the Taliban with Millions of $$$ in funds to continue the fight, (and thus, costing us millions of $$$ to continue the occupation) wouldn't it be cheaper to nuke the opium fields and give the farmers food and cash? (or perhaps some form of script that can't be converted to cash by the Taliban?)
While it may be a "noble" idea to allow the farmers to be self-sufficient, allowing them to grow opium, which in turn, funds the Taliban, seems awfully short sighted and counter productive.

A better question is why are we not out-bidding the Taliban for the opium crop? Cut Taliban income and win the hearts of Afghani farmers far cheaper than any equally effective military action.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
While it may be a "noble" idea to allow the farmers to be self-sufficient, allowing them to grow opium, which in turn, funds the Taliban, seems awfully short sighted and counter productive.

I'd prefer that we just cut the Taliban out of the loop and buy the opium poppies from the farmers in Afghanistan the same as we do from those in Turkey and India.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
To me, an equally great concern is why are we allowing the Afghan farmers to continue their opium growing/heroin manufacturing operations?
Since that is providing the Taliban with Millions of $$$ in funds to continue the fight, (and thus, costing us millions of $$$ to continue the occupation) wouldn't it be cheaper to nuke the opium fields and give the farmers food and cash? (or perhaps some form of script that can't be converted to cash by the Taliban?)

While it may be a "noble" idea to allow the farmers to be self-sufficient, allowing them to grow opium, which in turn, funds the Taliban, seems awfully short sighted and counter productive.

From what I can gather (Only what I have come across, not directly researched), NATO/US royally fucked this up.

Hell, it was being fucked up before 9/11 when the taliban where successful in destroying much of the poppy crops with the international community applauding them and vowing to give aid to keep farmers from going back to poppy crops. Surprise surprise, none of that money arrived and the poppy farms returned.

After the invasion, poppy crops where destroyed but that was it. There was no plan beyond spraying/burning crops, leaving desperate farmers just trying to make a living with no livelihood. These farmers are not evil drug lords, they want food to eat and in this hell hole poppy is one of the few money makers (which they see a tiny fraction of the value of the crap when process and hits the streets), they where not given a alternative livelihood. Like pre 9/11 there was much talk about switching poppy farmers to other crops but no aid was ever given to them.

It also seemed the failed NATO/US policy on this aided the taliban as they can come in and help these farmers who lost all their income. And there is the fact the taliban can threaten these farmers if they switch from poppy because NATO/US troops only pop in and out of many towns, leaving the locals to deal with the taliban the other 95% of the time.

So more troops and a god damn plan that works is needed. As for nation building, there was no nation when NATO/US invaded and there is no nation today. THIS is the real nation building.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: OCguy
Because Obama has decided it is a war that is worth escalating.

Didn't obama clearly state his intentions to put more into afganistan during his campaign last year? The place where your bushie should have concentrated in the first place?

The military and many others have supported this. But nice anti-obama try anyhow. We know that republicans are your religion.

Wrong. Obama isnt doing anything new that Bush didnt already put in motion. He is simply carrying on the WOT in Bush's footsteps. He's using Bush's withdrawal dates and plans for Iraq, and continuing ramp ups in Afghanistan that Bush started in late 2006/early 2007.

Then blaming obama for the escalation is more repug subterfuge.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: OCguy
Because Obama has decided it is a war that is worth escalating.

Didn't obama clearly state his intentions to put more into afganistan during his campaign last year? The place where your bushie should have concentrated in the first place?

The military and many others have supported this. But nice anti-obama try anyhow. We know that republicans are your religion.

Wrong. Obama isnt doing anything new that Bush didnt already put in motion. He is simply carrying on the WOT in Bush's footsteps. He's using Bush's withdrawal dates and plans for Iraq, and continuing ramp ups in Afghanistan that Bush started in late 2006/early 2007.

Then blaming obama for the escalation is more repug subterfuge.

I don't blame him for it. Hell, in fact, I commend him for following through on these Bush plans.

Then again, I'm not a "repug," so...