NationStates Jolt Archive

When the time for re-election comes up, many politicians will do whatever it takes to appease the voters who determine if they want to extend the politician's life line and allow them to destroy... I mean, constructively contribute to the betterment of his/her nation. This often means pandering to the popular vote by pushing through what is often distasteful legislation that key voters will gobble up happily for breakfast.

Canadian officials contacted the Afghan government yesterday to express concern about new legislation that would reportedly allow men to rape their wives.

The Canadian government reacted with outrage following reports that the Karzai administration has approved a wide-ranging family law for the country's Shia minority.

The legislation is believed to contain articles that make it illegal for Shia women to refuse their husbands sex, leave the house without permission, or have custody of children, the London-based newspaper The Guardian reported yesterday.

(Gee... sounds like the Taliban never left).

This would, if the law was passed - note, it is not yet passed, so no need to get all up in arms, though collective moral outrage is always amusing - deprive Afghani women of the right to consensual sexual relations, regardless of their relationship with the other person. It would essentially allow husbands to against his wife's will, engage in sexual intercourse; an act that in Canada is illegal, as it is in other "western" nations. A husband cannot have sex with his wife against her will. If he is told "no", he better keep it in his pants because the law is clear here and in other places where such a law exists.

Such actions became illegal in Canada in 1983, and in 1993 put in as a human's rights violation in the eyes of the UN (not that it helps)

The Canadian government is seeking information, and rightfully so. We've spent countless millions of dollars and have been told ad nauseum that we're there to fight the Taliban and bring rights to the people. It seems though that the longer we stay there, the most Karzai's government is looking exactly like the Taliban...

Canadian officials contacted the office of President Hamid Karzai, and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon spoke to two Afghan cabinet ministers yesterday seeking clarification.

Karzai's office has so far refused to comment on the legislation.

Critics say Karzai's government approved it in a hurry to win support in the upcoming election from ethnic Hazaras – a Shia Muslim minority that constitutes a crucial block of swing voters.

Canada, which has lost 116 soldiers in Afghanistan and spent up to $10 billion propping up the Karzai government, has demanded more information about the law.

Note the part in bold. This is to pander to key voters, but at a significant cost to the women who were previously led to believe that the 'west' and Canada is there to aid them; aid their nation is breaking free from the oppressive draconian system that delegates them as being second class citizens.

No kidding that Karzai's office won't respond. How can someone possibly respond when they are party to an attempt to legislate harm against other?

"If these reports are true, this will create serious problems for Canada," said International Trade Minister Stockwell Day.

"The onus is on the government of Afghanistan to live up to its responsibilities for human rights, absolutely including rights of women.

"If there's any wavering on this point from the government of Afghanistan, this will ... create serious problems and be a serious disappointment for us."

Day was fielding questions in the House of Commons about the reported law while Cannon was in Europe attending an international summit on Afghanistan.

Late yesterday, Canadian officials said they had learned the law was not yet in effect but that they remained "very concerned."

Afghan rape law spurs anger (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/611568)
New Afghan law forcing sex draws outrage from Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/31/afghan-family-law-women.html)
Karzai backs law ravaging women's rights (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090401.wafghan01/BNStory/Afghanistan/home)

(multiple sources for those who may not like the Toronto Star because of a potential local bias).

'Very concerned'... ah, I love that phrase. So passive and polite.

If something was to be done, I say that it is this: Canada ought to withdraw all of its troops should this disgusting law pass. And it could be one of the fastest withdrawals in history. It may make us appear unpopular and go against the Tories' asinine mission, but it will send a strong message to those trying to stay in power in Afghanistan.

What should your nation do? I'm sure there are other nations where the outrage is as palatable.

So... c'mon NSG... let's here the collective, moral outrage. I know I'm damn pissed. I always opposed the 'War on Terrorism' and the presence of the Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan. All this does is add gas to the tire fire.

So much for bringing freedom and democracy, eh?

So much for bringing freedom and democracy, eh?

Damn it- I was gonna say that.

So almost 8 years of war.... and it's pretty much the same as it was. Huh, kudos.

So almost 8 years of war.... and it's pretty much the same as it was. Huh, kudos.

Same BS, different administration. 8 years of utter futility...

For ever step forward there, it seems that progress takes 5 steps back.

So much for bringing freedom and democracy, eh?

Apparently they don't want both at the same time. :(

Same BS, different administration. 8 years of utter futility...

For ever step forward there, it seems that progress takes 5 steps back.

Oh I wasn't blaming any administration in particular, rather the general "West".

I imagine the Russians are sitting back, fingertips together saying "We told you this would happen"

I imagine the Russians are sitting back, fingertips together saying "We told you so"

Corrected. ;)

But yes, they were smart for keeping their hands out of the honey pot.

"Afghani women STAND to lose rights?"

More like they already have lost them, providing they ever had them at all, which I would argue they didn't.

This is just another bitter goddamned pill -- literally sacrificing the lives of women for political gain. Bastards. And even more bastards the bastards who put Karzai and his ilk in charge. Lying bastards.

Sometimes, I just hate human beings.

I surprised no one said it already. Afghani Women Stand to Lose Rights. Who knew they had rights to lose?

"Afghani women STAND to lose rights?"

More like they already have lost them, providing they ever had them at all, which I would argue they didn't.

This is just another bitter goddamned pill -- literally sacrificing the lives of women for political gain. Bastards. And even more bastards the bastards who put Karzai and his ilk in charge. Lying bastards.

Sometimes, I just hate human beings.

Damn missed by 2 minutes. Well done. I second what she said.

This is their government leave them alone.

"Afghani women STAND to lose rights?"

In my view, as the legislation is pending and it could be revoked, they in theory would have the right to reject advances and go out without permission. Of course, I can't say I'm up on my Afghani law, but having read previous stories, it was my assumption based on the information give that they did receive a few rights. Though chances are, I'm wrong as usual...

More like they already have lost them, providing they ever had them at all, which I would argue they didn't.

Questionable. After all, the media is what we are relying on for our knowledge, and it did seem that a little progress was made... of course, the media just publishes what the government feeds it most days it seems.

This is just another bitter goddamned pill -- literally sacrificing the lives of women for political gain. Bastards. And even more bastards the bastards who put Karzai and his ilk in charge. Lying bastards.

Sometimes, I just hate human beings.

I completely agree with this last statement. No objections.

Damn missed by 2 minutes. Well done. I second what she said.

I third it.

When the Taliban was (temporarily) ousted, Afghan women did not have rights restored - they were simply permitted a little more leeway in an already oppressive atmosphere. They have no rights to lose, they're just going to lose that tiny bit of ephemeral leeway.

I think I'd rather see our troops in Afghanistan wiping out those vital bits of the Taliban than to have them remain in Iraq.

This is how we got in this mess in the first.

Step 1: Shia Law

The words should be prevent from being strung together. You may not use the both of them in the same sentence! It is like saying living death an oxymoron of the higher caliber

Here is the question though really what did we think was going to happen? Do you really expect them to put up McDonald's over night?

Afghanistan has been pretty much kicked around by every regime on the planet. They really do need support but here in lies the problem if the majority of the people vote for this piece of [legislation], (you could substitute other words here) isn't that democracy in action?

If this legislation passes, the NATO Coalition should just tear down the government and set up a new one.

Wow. I suddenly no longer care if we stay there or not.

If this legislation passes, the NATO Coalition should just tear down the government and set up a new one.

You mean like we did in 2001...and then this happened?

Fool me once....

Fool me once....

A foo man can't get foo no mo.

We need to guarantee women the right to vote on this legislation through secret ballot. If it passes then hey what do we know. I mean really at some point all we can do is open the cage it is their job to run out of it.

Women in Afghanistan were suffering horribly under the Taliban for years before anyone seemed to give a flying fuck about Afghanistan...and when we went in, there were some platitudes about women's rights, but we didn't go in for the women. Is it any surprise we leave their fate up to someone else? It's what we've always done.

Women in Afghanistan were suffering horribly under the Taliban for years before anyone seemed to give a flying fuck about Afghanistan...and when we went in, there were some platitudes about women's rights, but we didn't go in for the women. Is it any surprise we leave their fate up to someone else? It's what we've always done.

It's as if, since they're not European or American, they're not human, so who cares - not even PETA.

It's as if, since they're not European or American, they're not human, so who cares - not even PETA.

Hey Japan and Korea Count as human now too.

Hey Japan and Korea Count as human now too.

But they're still only third class humans.

It's as if, since they're not European or American, they're not human, so who cares - not even PETA.

They're Muslims. They'll never count as human.

:tongue:

They're Muslims. They'll never count as human.

:tongue:

Especially not the men who misuse their religion as an excuse to oppress them.

But they're still only third class humans.

No No Japanese and Koreans are worth more then most Europeans, just less then an American.

No No Japanese and Koreans are worth more then most Europeans, just less then an American.

I was talking about the women specifically. Swedish women are almost first class citizens, European and American women are second class citizens, Asian women are third class citizens. Muslim women in Muslim countries aren't counted as humans, much less citizens.

I was talking about the women specifically. Swedish women are almost first class citizens, European and American women are second class citizens, Asian women are third class citizens. Muslim women in Muslim countries aren't counted as humans, much less citizens.

whats wrong with how the Japanese and Koreans treat their women ??
I could understand mainland China or some such but Japan and Korea are right along with the US and Europe.

whats wrong with how the Japanese and Koreans treat their women ??
I could understand mainland China or some such but Japan and Korea are right along with the US and Europe.

Legally, yes. There are some cultural differences that I find - disturbing.

Item: In China, as a result of the one child only policy, girl babies have been abandoned at birth. Now, since one can tell the sex of a child before birth, girl babies are aborted.

Item: In Japan, a woman who objects to being sexually harassed is considered to be, and is treated as, emotionally immature and unstable. The men can harass women at will.

Item: In Japan, Rape Man, a comic which glorifies a rapist, is popular.

Item: In Japan, if a woman is raped, it is only considered rape if there are witnesses who will testify to it. Since, as far as I know, rapists don't tend to perform the act in front of witnesses, a woman can't be raped in Japan.

Yeah, Karzai is a dickhead. I have no idea why we don't just proclaim an actual colonial government and lay some Pax Brittanica down.

Yeah, Karzai is a dickhead. I have no idea why we don't just proclaim an actual colonial government and lay some Pax Brittanica down.

You could put Harry in charge.

You could put Harry in charge.

If nothing else, it would be exceedingly amusing to no end. :D

Yeah, Karzai is a dickhead. I have no idea why we don't just proclaim an actual colonial government and lay some Pax Brittanica down.

This is truly what we want. Damn it don't do your way do it our way. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't care if you all voted for it...Oh, wait a minute.

I was talking about the women specifically. Swedish women are almost first class citizens, European and American women are second class citizens,
Woah, are we living in the same country? Or is this one of those crazy Midwest things?

This is truly what we want. Damn it don't do your way do it our way. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't care if you all voted for it...Oh, wait a minute.
Actually yes. This is almost exactly what I want.

"Yeah sorry you don't know how to be civilised people yet, let's fix that at bayonet-point"
":("
"You fucking asked for it by having no decorum or respect for the rights of half the population"

This is a war about promoting equal rights for women? We fight wars over that now? People believe that? Why aren't we at war with India then, with an estimated 5000 bridal burnings a year?

Hmm. Maybe there's another reason. Oh, right. Terrorism. Because left unchecked, Afghanistan can be used for terrorist training camps. They could learn how to build roadside bombs and how to effectively combat modern armed forces... oh wait, we've basically built them a training compound in that case...

Hmmm. There's gotta be a reason. Oh wait, this is a NATO operation. Must be about containing Soviet aggression then, because that's what NATO's for, right? Oh wait, there is no Soviet Union...

Hmmmm...

What the hell are we doing there again?

Actually yes. This is almost exactly what I want.

"Yeah sorry you don't know how to be civilised people yet, let's fix that at bayonet-point"
":("
"You fucking asked for it by having no decorum or respect for the rights of half the population"

Birthplace of civilization, ha! My butt.

We should just say it. All you Afghani politicians are back out of a job. You suck. You are all fired. That goes for Iraq too if they get out of line.

Item: In China... ...since one can tell the sex of a child before birth, girl babies are aborted.

I actually don't see whats wrong with this part, they're not people anyway.

I actually don't see whats wrong with this part, they're not people anyway.

Once a fetus has developed a brain, or started to develop one, around 14 weeks, it's human. But that's neither in this thread nor the next one.

Once a fetus has developed a brain, or started to develop one, around 14 weeks, it's human. But that's neither in this thread nor the next one.

I'm actually against abortion completely, but most posters aren't, I honestly don't see how you can have a problem with aborting "girls" if you don't think its a wrong to abort anyone in the first place.

On CNN they're this as a law that "some say" legalizes rape. I don't understand how that's a "some say" statement. It obviously legalizes rape.

On CNN they're this as a law that "some say" legalizes rape. I don't understand how that's a "some say" statement. It obviously legalizes rape.

I think the Afghanis who support this legislation disagree.

I'm actually against abortion completely, but most posters aren't, I honestly don't see how you can have a problem with aborting "girls" if you don't think its a wrong to abort anyone in the first place.

I don't have a problem with the fact that companies hire and fire people.

However, if they won't hire someone because she's female, or fire her for that reason, I do have a problem with it.

See the difference?

I think the Afghanis who support this legislation disagree.

No, they just think this particular type of rape is ok.

No, they just think this particular type of rape is ok.

To you, sure. To them, its not rape.

I don't have a problem with the fact that companies hire and fire people.

However, if they won't hire someone because she's female, or fire her for that reason, I do have a problem with it.

See the difference?

no, because theres still a disconnect, as a fetus=/=human, no rights or any of that. therefore to make an analogy like that is just wrong. It's like getting upset that they cut the balls off of bulls but cows keep their lady parts.

Both are calculated responses to the societal or economic expectations/realities, and both don't affect humans, unlike your female firing analogy.

This is a war about promoting equal rights for women? We fight wars over that now? People believe that? Why aren't we at war with India then, with an estimated 5000 bridal burnings a year?
Yeah we tried to ban that shit back when we ran India for real. Seems some people just love to suck.
Hmm. Maybe there's another reason. Oh, right. Terrorism. Because left unchecked, Afghanistan can be used for terrorist training camps. They could learn how to build roadside bombs and how to effectively combat modern armed forces... oh wait, we've basically built them a training compound in that case...
They don't seem to be very good at fighting us at all.
Hmmm. There's gotta be a reason. Oh wait, this is a NATO operation. Must be about containing Soviet aggression then, because that's what NATO's for, right? Oh wait, there is no Soviet Union...
No, what NATO's for is ammunition standardisation nowadays.
Hmmmm...

What the hell are we doing there again?
Whatever the situation calls for.

To you, sure. To them, its not rape.

If that's the case, they're plainly mistaken. There are no equally legitimate perspective on whether this is rape.

I suspect, though, that Dempublicents is more likely to be right; they simply don't care whether it's rape or not.

no, because theres still a disconnect, as a fetus=/=human, no rights or any of that. therefore to make an analogy like that is just wrong. It's like getting upset that they cut the balls off of bulls but cows keep their lady parts.

Both are calculated responses to the societal or economic expectations/realities, and both don't affect humans, unlike your female firing analogy.

So, it's okay to pick out female fetuses (feti?) and abort them just because they're female fetuses, and to maintain the male fetuses just because they're male. I think your logic has the disconnect.

So, it's okay to pick out female fetuses (feti?) and abort them just because they're female fetuses, and to maintain the male fetuses just because they're male. I think your logic has the disconnect.

haha, why not? they're not people, prove that its wrong to cut the balls off a bull because we don't similarly mutilate cows.

To you, sure. To them, its not rape.

The word has a definition. Now, their language might have different words, all describing acts of rape, some of which are allowable and some of which are not. But, in English, they would all translate to "rape".


no, because theres still a disconnect, as a fetus=/=human, no rights or any of that. therefore to make an analogy like that is just wrong.

You didn't understand the analogy. It's a matter of motive. If the reason for doing something is bigotry, it becomes wrong, even if it wouldn't be wrong for other reasons.

So, it's okay to pick out female fetuses (feti?) and abort them just because they're female fetuses, and to maintain the male fetuses just because they're male. I think your logic has the disconnect.

It Is freedom of choice for you.

I'm confused as to what SHOULD be done, since people keep acting if there is a clear cut thing we should do, but I doubt anyone would argue that we should just fuck Afghan democracy, or are they?

Let the women of Afghanistan have their own women rights movement.

I doubt anyone would argue that we should just fuck Afghan democracy, or are they?
Yes. Yes I would say that.

I third it.

When the Taliban was (temporarily) ousted, Afghan women did not have rights restored - they were simply permitted a little more leeway in an already oppressive atmosphere. They have no rights to lose, they're just going to lose that tiny bit of ephemeral leeway.

I think I'd rather see our troops in Afghanistan wiping out those vital bits of the Taliban than to have them remain in Iraq.

Same here. Rather than simply accepting Afghanistan as a failiur, we should stay and deal with the Taliban. The problem is, we can't just replace them with another oppressive regiem.

The problem is, we brought democracy to Afghanistan in the sense of having elections, but that doesn't nessissarily equate to lasting or meaningful democracy. For that, you need Constitutional protection of basic rights in such a manner that they cannot be taken away simply by 50%+1. Now, I'm not saying we should try to make Afghanistan a clone of the US, Britain, or Canada. That would be infeasible and unjust. But we should inform their government in no uncertain terms that our support is contingent upon a Constitution that protects all their citizen's rights, regardless of faith or gender.

Legally, yes. There are some cultural differences that I find - disturbing.

Item: In China, as a result of the one child only policy, girl babies have been abandoned at birth. Now, since one can tell the sex of a child before birth, girl babies are aborted.

freedom of choice dont get in the way of that woman's right to choose.



Item: In Japan, Rape Man, a comic which glorifies a rapist, is popular.


In all fairness so is the porno type where the pervert guy gets caught and the girls take turns kicking him in the nuts. This is not a comic by the way. Japanese entertainment runs all gamuts.

Corporate society in Japan is from what I can see still a boys club.

You didn't understand the analogy. It's a matter of motive. If the reason for doing something is bigotry, it becomes wrong, even if it wouldn't be wrong for other reasons.

well I would disagree with that, but that's a much longer discussion and we're already barely on topic as it is.

As far as the OP, I would say it would be appropriate to withdraw support for their gov't if they don't do what you say, after all that was the only point of the whole thing. I guess its more a question of whether them doing a few immoral things to you is a big enough reason to condemn the whole place, and give up on your objectives. A better course of action than tearing them down or up and leaving would be to pressure them into voting against it, or buy them off if necessary.

As far as the OP, I would say it would be appropriate to withdraw support for their gov't if they don't do what you say, after all that was the only point of the whole thing. I guess its more a question of whether them doing a few immoral things to you is a big enough reason to condemn the whole place, and give up on your objectives. A better course of action than tearing them down or up and leaving would be to pressure them into voting against it, or buy them off if necessary.

Sounds reasonable. And, its not like their's no presure the US can place on the Afghan government. How long would they stay in power without tens of thousands of foreign troops propping them up?

We can't force them to support human rights, but if they betray our prinicples, we sure as hell don't have to give them blank check support.

We can't force them to support human rights
Oh yes we can.

"Do it or we will run the country ourselves, and you corrupt bastards will be first against the wall when that needs to happen"

Sounds reasonable. And, its not like their's no presure the US can place on the Afghan government. How long would they stay in power without tens of thousands of foreign troops propping them up?

We can't force them to support human rights, but if they betray our prinicples, we sure as hell don't have to give them blank check support.

They wouldn't last too long I would think. There are so many ways we could go with this really. They can ask themselves if they'd rather win next years election with a little help, or if they'd rather have an unfortunate accident when a "suicide bomber" gets them. And theres always straight up bribes, etc. I'm sure they have better ideas than what I can come up with now.

Oh yes we can.

"Do it or we will run the country ourselves, and you corrupt bastards will be first against the wall when that needs to happen"

Theoretically we could. Is their the political will or international support for a re-invasion of Afghanistan? Doubtful, to say the least.

Also, we can't be seen as wanting to turn Afghanistan into an American/western coloney, or permannently control the nation. For obvious political reasons.

Theoretically we could. Is their the political will or international support for a re-invasion of Afghanistan? Doubtful, to say the least.
Why would this require a 're-invasion'? We already have dozens of thousands of well-armed, trained soldiers with masses of materiel that could decapitate the Afghani government in, ooh, an hour tops. Then we try again, without any pretense of democracy until they learn that Human Rights Are Good.
Also, we can't be seen as wanting to turn Afghanistan into an American/western coloney, or permannently control the nation. For obvious political reasons.
Why the hell not? It would make all of those African dictators that go on about neo-colonialism look a bit stupid.

"LOOK THEY ARE TRYING TO RULE THE WORLD, THOSE CRAZY IMPERIALISTS"
"Yes. Yes they are. Pretty obvious, actually"
"Err... hmm..."
"Yeah just you hush."

Yes. Yes I would say that.

So, democracy as long as they conform to our enlightened western standards?

So, democracy as long as the conform to our enlightened western standards?
Pretty much aye.

Pretty much aye.

So, what do you actually propose we do?

Why would this require a 're-invasion'? We already have dozens of thousands of well-armed, trained soldiers with masses of materiel that could decapitate the Afghani government in, ooh, an hour tops. Then we try again, without any pretense of democracy until they learn that Human Rights Are Good.

Yeah, right. Followed by a huge increase in the insurgency as it becomes clear to many that America is going an enemy of Islam, and will remove any government that isnt a puppet.

Also, the ends don't justify the means. We can't use any dispicable, oppressive, and underhanded tactic without losing political support, as well as the legitimacy that comes with maintaining the moral high ground.

We should be taking a tougher approach with the Afghani government. But their are also lines we shouldn't cross, at least not yet. Reckless action tends to be a bad approach in foreign policy, does it not?

Why the hell not? It would make all of those African dictators that go on about neo-colonialism look a bit stupid.

"LOOK THEY ARE TRYING TO RULE THE WORLD, THOSE CRAZY IMPERIALISTS"
"Yes. Yes they are. Pretty obvious, actually"
"Err... hmm..."
"Yeah just you hush."

No, it would make them go from lunatics to legitimate opposition in the eyes of many people. And even if it didn't, why should we prove the worst accusations leveled against us to be true?

We have to make it clear that we don't want to rule Afghanistan, because it if politically important to do so, and because we really have nothing to gain by trying to rule the place that I can see.

They wouldn't last too long I would think. There are so many ways we could go with this really. They can ask themselves if they'd rather win next years election with a little help, or if they'd rather have an unfortunate accident when a "suicide bomber" gets them. And theres always straight up bribes, etc. I'm sure they have better ideas than what I can come up with now.

I can't say I approve of fighting terrorists with terrorist tactics. And we are constrained by law, ethics, and politics in what we can do. Nor can we threaten to simply pull out, because given the goals we're talking about, its an empty threat.

That said, we could be doing more to preasure them, I'm sure.

I can't say I approve of fighting terrorists with terrorist tactics. And we are constrained by law, ethics, and politics in what we can do. Nor can we threaten to simply pull out, because given the goals we're talking about, its an empty threat.

That said, we could be doing more to preasure them, I'm sure.

Absolutely, pulling out is basically the worst course of action unless we like achieving nothing at all.

Those were the more fun suggestions :p, that's the kind of stuff you do if you're really serious about an issue and "pressure" already failed but you didn't want to be seen trying to completely control their government, which I think is a losing preposition.

Honestly it'd be easier to accept the real situation there, this whole thing is really a non-issue, if the public can be convinced to ignore it and continue support of the current Afghan gov't as the lesser evil between the possibility of a Taliban government. But if it is an issue that can't be ignored, yes "pressure" is something to do.

The situation is kind of weird actually, why just the shia minority? is there some sort of philosophical difference on this issue between the two?

We should just get out of Afghanistan. Our presence there is not helping the Afghanis or ourselves.

So our troops are putting their lives on the line and dying for what? If there's no change happening then why the hell are we there?

So, what do you actually propose we do?
Tell them to take this legislation and shove it up their arse or we will run the country ourselves.
Yeah, right. Followed by a huge increase in the insurgency as it becomes clear to many that America is going an enemy of Islam, and will remove any government that isnt a puppet.
"Oh no". Rather a bunch of morons run themselves into artillery fire than let this happen.

The point of not instituting another locally-elected, locally-run government is to show the world that we'll even take on 'friendly' governments unless they clean their act up.
Also, the ends don't justify the means.
Why the hell not -____-
We can't use any dispicable, oppressive, and underhanded tactic without losing political support, as well as the legitimacy that comes with maintaining the moral high ground.
Meh. I'd rather have the moral high ground for taking action against human rights abuses than have the 'moral high ground' for letting some puppet get away with this BS on the grounds that it would be democratic.

The actions of any government are far, far more important than their power structures. Or that's my view, anyway.
We should be taking a tougher approach with the Afghani government. But their are also lines we shouldn't cross, at least not yet. Reckless action tends to be a bad approach in foreign policy, does it not?
So basically letting the male population rape its women to possibly win an election isn't a reckless act by Karzai's joke of a government?
No, it would make them go from lunatics to legitimate opposition in the eyes of many people. And even if it didn't, why should we prove the worst accusations leveled against us to be true?
What, that we bring the rule of law to the world is a terrible accusation?

The kind of people who put up with shit like this, or the situation in Sudan, or Somalia etc. due to white guilt are the real monsters.
We have to make it clear that we don't want to rule Afghanistan, because it if politically important to do so, and because we really have nothing to gain by trying to rule the place that I can see.
Politically important to what, exactly?

We should just get out of Afghanistan. Our presence there is not helping the Afghanis or ourselves.

We could help them, and ourselves, by putting this Taliban bullshit in its grave. We can furthermore help both the Afghanis and ourselves, and a lot of other people, by preventing the Taliban from flourishing to the point that they get control of nuclear Pakistan as well.

The question is, how do we best accomplish this.

too be honest the it is not rape if your married thing.
The US only really started fixing that 20-30 years ago.

Oh yes we can.

"Do it or we will run the country ourselves, and you corrupt bastards will be first against the wall when that needs to happen"

This. :p

Forgive my ignorance for the obvious joke: how can women in Afghanistan lose something they never had?

too be honest the it is not rape if your married thing.
The US only really started fixing that 20-30 years ago.

Isn't that irrelevant? Just because America did something wrong, doesn't make what the Afghanis do right. I don't believe in justifying one's misdeeds by pointing to someone else's.

Women in Afghanistan were suffering horribly under the Taliban for years before anyone seemed to give a flying fuck about Afghanistan...and when we went in, there were some platitudes about women's rights, but we didn't go in for the women. Is it any surprise we leave their fate up to someone else? It's what we've always done.
Women are chattel and property still, it seems -- to be traded, sold, sacrificed for other goals.

It's as if, since they're not European or American, they're not human, so who cares - not even PETA.
You know how the first concept of anti-child-abuse laws got created? I think it was in NYC (might have been another city), the nascent, brand new ASPCA -- that's American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals -- took up the case of a child who had been beaten nearly to death by her father, and brought a case before a court that, inasmuch as humans are a species of animal on the planet, this child deserved at least the same protection against cruel treatment that a dog or a horse would get. EDIT: Note: They were claiming the child should be covered by the brand new laws defining and punishing cruelty to animals.

Apparently, grown female humans don't even qualify for that. Not if their sacrifice can bring monetary or political gain to someone else.

Yeah, Karzai is a dickhead. I have no idea why we don't just proclaim an actual colonial government and lay some Pax Brittanica down.
I think you guys tried that once before in that part of the world. Didn't go so well. Khyber Pass ring any bells?

To you, sure. To them, its not rape.
You can read Afghani minds now? You are plugged into the Afghani hive mind and know how they think about this, oh great mystic Creskin?

So our troops are putting their lives on the line and dying for what? If there's no change happening then why the hell are we there?
They are SUPPOSED to be fighting and capturing al qaeda and taliban militants. That's what they are SUPPOSED to be doing. I have no idea what they are actually doing under current orders, as such may exist.

too be honest the it is not rape if your married thing.
The US only really started fixing that 20-30 years ago.
And...? Point...?

And...? Point...?

Is it really beneficial to expect the world to be where we are now?
give them some time to work through these issues themselves.
In the long run every nation has to find the answer for themselves.

Forcing yourself on an Afghani woman isn't rape because rape is what happens to girls that dress like sluts. Afghani women dress very conservatively. Therefore, this isn't rape.

Its true, I read it in a Chick Pamphlet.



Wait, am I on the right account to say that?

Is it really beneficial to expect the world to be where we are now?
give them some time to work through these issues themselves.
In the long run every nation has to find the answer for themselves.

Totally. Totally.

We should completely allow places like Afghanistan, and say, Iraq, to work through their social issues.

They need to find the answer for themselves.

As opposed to having ostensibly participatory government forced on them in war to "Free" them.

Totally. Totally.

We should completely allow places like Afghanistan, and say, Iraq, to work through their social issues.

They need to find the answer for themselves.

As opposed to having ostensibly participatory government forced on them in war to "Free" them.

And, in the meantime, several generations of women, children and non-Muslim men are brutalized, tortured, neglected, raped and treated to untold misery.

Even animals have a better break.

Totally. Totally.

We should completely allow places like Afghanistan, and say, Iraq, to work through their social issues.

They need to find the answer for themselves.

As opposed to having ostensibly participatory government forced on them in war to "Free" them.

Yep. Afghanistan we were supposedly looking for Bin laden. I really don't care if they set up another religious state in its place so long as they help us find Bin Laden.

And, in the meantime, several generations of women, children and non-Muslim men are brutalized, tortured, neglected, raped and treated to untold misery.

Even animals have a better break.

Oh, its okay. They'll work it out in time, apparently.

Is it really beneficial to expect the world to be where we are now?
give them some time to work through these issues themselves.
In the long run every nation has to find the answer for themselves.
Yes, it fucking is beneficial to expect a country that WE supposedly liberated and in which WE handpicked the fucking new government to actually SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS, god(s) damn it.

Yep. Afghanistan we were supposedly looking for Bin laden. I really don't care if they set up another religious state in its place so long as they help us find Bin Laden.

"I don't care what they do as long as they fulfill our short term goals."

Gee, we did that in the 80's, and pretty much created Bin Laden...

...but why learn from the past. Its like Battlestar Galactica.

And, in the meantime, several generations of women, children and non-Muslim men are brutalized, tortured, neglected, raped and treated to untold misery.

Even animals have a better break.

Can more be done with a friendly suggestion, or by brute force. The Brute force method is the one employed by Bush and other neo cons, it has not produced us much.

Can more be done with a friendly suggestion, or by brute force. The Brute force method is the one employed by Bush and other neo cons, it has not produced us much.

Those are the only choices, good point.

Also, in the Brute Force method, when your guys get killed, they leave behind green memory cubes worth money. We need that kind of economic recovery. And the sniper girl is hot.

"I don't care what they do as long as they fulfill our short term goals."

Gee, we did that in the 80's, and pretty much created Bin Laden...

...but why learn from the past. Its like Battlestar Galactica.
Which Cattlecar Galactica? The crappy boring new one where everyone was crazy and unattracive? Or the crappy boring old one where everyone had Farrah hair and was more interested in getting laid and playing that stupid sport than in fighting the clunky old cylons?

Oh, its okay. They'll work it out in time, apparently.

Like we worked out 200 years of slavery. And the Russians worked out centuries of Tzars. And the French worked out centuries of majority servitude to a minority of noble idiots. Yeah, I see how that works.

"I don't care what they do as long as they fulfill our short term goals."

Gee, we did that in the 80's, and pretty much created Bin Laden...

...but why learn from the past. Its like Battlestar Galactica.

War and interventions should only focus on those types of goals.
After we have Bin Laden lets try to change with friendly suggestions and trade incentives.

Like we worked out 200 years of slavery. And the Russians worked out centuries of Tzars. And the French worked out centuries of majority servitude to a minority of noble idiots. Yeah, I see how that works.
And how the whole world over the past couple thousand years worked out how to rule Afghanistan. *nods*

Oh, wait.

Look, why don't we just export all the women who want to go to more civilized countries, and let the morons left behind work out their issues on their own until they're all finally, blessed, dead?

Like we worked out 200 years of slavery. And the Russians worked out centuries of Tzars. And the French worked out centuries of majority servitude to a minority of noble idiots. Yeah, I see how that works.

Like the Brazilians or the dutch or the English worked out slavery ? Like we worked out woman's right to vote. Not all of these require violence, in fact most do not.

War and interventions should only focus on those types of goals.
After we have Bin Laden lets try to change with friendly suggestions and trade incentives.
Yes, of course. And the women will just have to lie back and enjoy the spousal rape until it becomes convenient for the US to pretend to give a shit about them.

No.

Okay? Just no. Human rights do not wait on political convenience. Period.

Which Cattlecar Galactica? The crappy boring new one where everyone was crazy and unattracive? Or the crappy boring old one where everyone had Farrah hair and was more interested in getting laid and playing that stupid sport than in fighting the clunky old cylons?

The 2nd one.

In the first one, I dress up like Dirk Benedict and give you a thorough balling while your dressed up in the "Triad" outfit, and every time you get your cookie, you slap me across the face and make me say "By your command."

Like we worked out 200 years of slavery. And the Russians worked out centuries of Tzars. And the French worked out centuries of majority servitude to a minority of noble idiots. Yeah, I see how that works.

Well, not everybody is on the same stopwatch.

God help anybody on FPT.

Like the Brazilians or the dutch or the English worked out slavery ? Like we worked out woman's right to vote. Not all of these require violence, in fact most do not.

There might just be a spectrum in between violence and "friendly suggestion/incentives".

And carrying out either probably involves use of tax dollars...and they might use those trade incentives you suggest to improve the health care of people...then you'd be supporting health care with your tax dollars.

You're okay with that, though, yeah?

Yes, of course. And the women will just have to lie back and enjoy the spousal rape until it becomes convenient for the US to pretend to give a shit about them.

No.

Okay? Just no. Human rights do not wait on political convenience. Period.

A woman who complains about servicing her husband will never smell the scent of paradise.

The 2nd one.

In the first one, I dress up like Dirk Benedict and give you a thorough balling while your dressed up in the "Triad" outfit, and every time you get your cookie, you slap me across the face and make me say "By your command."
I like that game. :D

A woman who complains about servicing her husband will never smell the scent of paradise.
"Paradise" -- that's a euphemism for old socks and skid-marked jockeys in the laundry, right?

Like the Brazilians or the dutch or the English worked out slavery ? Like we worked out woman's right to vote. Not all of these require violence, in fact most do not.

You think that, just because there wasn't an organized, violent revolution involved in any of these, that there was no violence?

Let's see - women's suffrage - forced feeding of women in prison because they dared to demonstrate for the vote, women being beaten by their husbands, brothers, fathers because they dared want the vote, violent dispersal of female demonstrators.

Just because there wasn't war, doesn't mean there wasn't violence.

Then we try again, without any pretense of democracy until they learn that Human Rights Are Good.



Seriously, ironic much?

Yes, of course. And the women will just have to lie back and enjoy the spousal rape until it becomes convenient for the US to pretend to give a shit about them.

No.

Okay? Just no. Human rights do not wait on political convenience. Period.

right now Afghanistan has been easy. That's because most of the Afganis(I know not an ethnic group) do not mind us being there. The second we enforce our will too far they will simply disappear into the mountains, and tell us to come make them. We will then have created a new Taliban, a new Iran, a new North Korea, and we will lose all ability to peacefully suggest steps toward modernization. The US army simply can not be an army to liberate the worlds women there are too few soldiers and too many oppressed women in the world.

"Paradise" -- that's a euphemism for old socks and skid-marked jockeys in the laundry, right?

I don't know enough Islamic law to know if this is real Sharia or if this is some kind of leftover tribal stuff that became somehow fused with Muslim culture.

I'd go ask on the Ummah website, but they got mad at me because I couldn't get why a woman is only worth half a man as witness for certain contracts.

So, I don't go there very much anymore.

right now Afghanistan has been easy. That's because most of the Afganis(I know not an ethnic group) do not mind us being there. The second we enforce our will too far they will simply disappear into the mountains, and tell us to come make them. We will then have created a new Taliban, a new Iran, a new North Korea, and we will lose all ability to peacefully suggest steps toward modernization. The US army simply can not be an army to liberate the worlds women there are too few soldiers and too many oppressed women in the world.

Besides, it's much easier to stand around, wringing our hands while watching violence being perpetrated on the vulnerable while spouting off about how horrible it is.

So much easier than trying to end it.

You think that, just because there wasn't an organized, violent revolution involved in any of these, that there was no violence?

Let's see - women's suffrage - forced feeding of women in prison because they dared to demonstrate for the vote, women being beaten by their husbands, brothers, fathers because they dared want the vote, violent dispersal of female demonstrators.

Just because there wasn't war, doesn't mean there wasn't violence.

the violence was trivial, compared to war. More over the violence can not originate externally, it must come from within the country and represent what the woman of that country want.

You think that, just because there wasn't an organized, violent revolution involved in any of these, that there was no violence?

Let's see - women's suffrage - forced feeding of women in prison because they dared to demonstrate for the vote, women being beaten by their husbands, brothers, fathers because they dared want the vote, violent dispersal of female demonstrators.

Just because there wasn't war, doesn't mean there wasn't violence.
Yeah, but that was just beating up on women, so it doesn't count. Hell, if they can just put up with legalized rape until we get around to asking their rapists to reconsider, why should anyone care about that other stuff you mention? They got their way in the end, didn't they? Well, the ones who died in the struggle didn't but...

What I don't understand is why these people keep suggesting that the only options are just to accept Afghanistan legalizing rape or else starting up a whole new war before we're even done fighting the present one?

Why can't we -- and why shouldn't we just send an envoy in to take Karzai aside and tell him,"No." Just "No. Make sure this "law" disappears and is never passed or US support goes bye-bye, and so soon after probably does your whole future." And Karzai can interpret that to mean whatever he wants.

And if Karzai fails to make this disgusting thing vanish, then the US withdraws its support -- and its protection -- from him. Fuck him. Done.

right now Afghanistan has been easy. That's because most of the Afganis(I know not an ethnic group) do not mind us being there. The second we enforce our will too far they will simply disappear into the mountains, and tell us to come make them. We will then have created a new Taliban, a new Iran, a new North Korea, and we will lose all ability to peacefully suggest steps toward modernization. The US army simply can not be an army to liberate the worlds women there are too few soldiers and too many oppressed women in the world.

You mean like we empowered the first Taliban, when they were helping us fight the Russians, using your "I don't care if they form a religioius state, just help us reach our short term goals" mentality?

Besides, it's much easier to stand around, wringing our hands while watching violence being perpetrated on the vulnerable while spouting off about how horrible it is.

So much easier than trying to end it.

Indeed where shall we start ?
children soldiers in Africa ?
Slavery in Sudan ?
Woman's abuses in Iran ?
Where oh great feminist neocon shall we deploy our military.

Indeed where shall we start ?
children soldiers in Africa ?
Slavery in Sudan ?
Woman's abuses in Iran ?
Where oh great feminist neocon shall we deploy our military.

Gee, how about places they already exist, where they're already propping up a U.S. installed government, all done for the purposes of catching Bin Laden (remember, the thing you felt was worth it)?

So much easier than trying to end it.

How are we supposed to do that exactly? Because from reading this thread all I've seen proposed as solutions are:

1) Keep shooting them until they get it right

2) "Withold support" and let the government fall (presumably to the Taliban, with predictable results).

As much I support human rights, and despise patronizing arguments about "country X just isn't ready for democracy yet", I can't help but think people have been naive to presume that Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world, is just a westernized free market democracy waiting to happen if we decapitate the backwards people in charge. Imposing these things from outside is difficult, if not impossible. We have all tried very hard not to learn any lessons from the last eight years, but I think that one ought to stand out.

right now Afghanistan has been easy. That's because most of the Afganis(I know not an ethnic group) do not mind us being there. The second we enforce our will too far they will simply disappear into the mountains, and tell us to come make them. We will then have created a new Taliban, a new Iran, a new North Korea, and we will lose all ability to peacefully suggest steps toward modernization. The US army simply can not be an army to liberate the worlds women there are too few soldiers and too many oppressed women in the world.
You don't get it, do you?

First, see my post #109.

Second, understand that I don't think we can reshape Afghanistan in our image. I just don't want the US propping up someone who legalizes rape for the sake of political benefit to himself.

What I would like to see is the US unapologetically offering what I suppose would amount to a near Underground Railroad, except not so underground necessarily, for women to escape that hellhole. Let those assholes sit around being superior with each other until there are none left, in my opinion, while their women get educations, health care, civil liberties, jobs and income, and maybe even worthwhile husbands, elsewhere. The mountains aren't going anywhere. The women can get them back later.

You mean like we empowered the first Taliban, when they were helping us fight the Russians, using your "I don't care if they form a religioius state, just help us reach our short term goals" mentality?

ummm the Taliban came after that. they formed around 1995 funded by Pakistan to clear roads between Pakistan and other Central Asian countries.
From Rashid's "Taliban" published in 2000. the Mujaheddin whom they were paid to clear the roads of, were the ones with the left over funding from the US.

Indeed where shall we start ?
children soldiers in Africa ?
Slavery in Sudan ?
Woman's abuses in Iran ?
Where oh great feminist neocon shall we deploy our military.
The bold = condescending, dismissive, veiled insult. It indicates a lack of respect for or consideration of human rights issues in the face of your so-called "short term goals" for which you seem to be ready to sacrifice just about anyone (else).

Too bad that approach has utterly failed to deliver anything even similar to the results that would make it all worthwhile (to the raped).

ummm the Taliban came after that. they formed around 1995 funded by Pakistan to clear roads between Pakistan and other Central Asian countries.
From Rashid's "Taliban" published in 2000. the Mujaheddin whom they were paid to clear the roads of, were the ones with the left over funding from the US.

You don't think the Taliban overlaps with Al-Queda, which includes people like Bin Laden and his groups that got US funding?

You don't get it, do you?

First, see my post #109.

Second, understand that I don't think we can reshape Afghanistan in our image. I just don't want the US propping up someone who legalizes rape for the sake of political benefit to himself.

What I would like to see is the US unapologetically offering what I suppose would amount to a near Underground Railroad, except not so underground necessarily, for women to escape that hellhole. Let those assholes sit around being superior with each other until there are none left, in my opinion, while their women get educations, health care, civil liberties, jobs and income, and maybe even worthwhile husbands, elsewhere. The mountains aren't going anywhere. The women can get them back later.


If we do this for all the women of the world. Then we would have a lot of women in the US. Such a gender imbalance would only be good for me.
That I can do.

If we do this for all the women of the world. Then we would have a lot of women in the US. Such a gender imbalance would only be good for me.
That I can do.
It would not be good for you, if any of those refugee women learn enough English to read your posts in this thread.

It would not be good for you, if any of those refugee women learn enough English to read your posts in this thread.

they would also have to learn how to hack jolt and get my IP and otherwise figure out who i am in real life.

Indeed where shall we start ?
children soldiers in Africa ?
Slavery in Sudan ?
Woman's abuses in Iran ?
Where oh great feminist neocon shall we deploy our military.

I could call you a great wishy washy neolib full of words but low on action, but I won't.

I'm just reminded of a saying, "All it takes for evil to win is for good people to do nothing."

Why can't we -- and why shouldn't we just send an envoy in to take Karzai aside and tell him,"No." Just "No. Make sure this "law" disappears and is never passed or US support goes bye-bye, and so soon after probably does your whole future." And Karzai can interpret that to mean whatever he wants.

And if Karzai fails to make this disgusting thing vanish, then the US withdraws its support -- and its protection -- from him. Fuck him. Done.

Let's be realistic about this. Say Karzai does as you want, he loses the elections. Some other guy promising the exact same thing Karzai promised before he folded gets into power instead. What happens then? Promise that something nasty will happen to that guy?

You want to fix something like this, all well and good, but ideas like "Do as we say or Timmy gets it" will only cause more problems than they'll fix since all they do is attack the symptoms. The cause is the mentality and culture which supports this sort of oppression.

Fixing this sort of problem so it never happens is the work of generations with massive investment in infrastructure and education that spans the entire populace. You're not just leaning on one person, you're doing it on an entire culture.

So the question to ask is, do you have what it takes to pay for that kind of effort for so long?

Let's be realistic about this. Say Karzai does as you want, he loses the elections. Some other guy promising the exact same thing Karzai promised before he folded gets into power instead. What happens then? Promise that something nasty will happen to that guy?

You want to fix something like this, all well and good, but ideas like "Do as we say or Timmy gets it" will only cause more problems than they'll fix since all they do is attack the symptoms. The cause is the mentality and culture which supports this sort of oppression.

Fixing this sort of problem so it never happens is the work of generations with massive investment in infrastructure and education that spans the entire populace.

So the question to ask is, do you have what it takes to pay for that kind of effort for so long?
Realistically, I do not think WE (non-Afghanis) can change the Afghan attitude on this at all. On principle, I don't think we should try all that hard.

BUT, on principle again, I am sick and tired of the US throwing away its own stated principles for political/geopolitical expediency. WE have to draw the line of what WE will not do. And I happen to believe that line should be drawn well short of putting into place and supporting a regime that legalizes rape.

Is it easy to find a way around that? No, it is not. But that does not mean it should not be done.

It is not a matter of leading Afghanistan to this or that end. It is about being Americans. And again in my opinion, Americans do not condone rape, nor do they set up and then abandon innocent and defenseless civilians to the worst kinds of abuses.

That is why I would be far more supportive of abandoning the Afghan government if it does not make at least some attempt to adhere to at least basic human rights in accordance with UN resolutions, and/or the US aiding and abetting women and their supporters/allies in leaving Afghanistan and/or resisting such oppression through social and political pressure.

Item: In Japan, if a woman is raped, it is only considered rape if there are witnesses who will testify to it. Since, as far as I know, rapists don't tend to perform the act in front of witnesses, a woman can't be raped in Japan.

While it is difficult to secure a rape conviction in Japan, especially if the offence is against foreigners, it isn't actually true that you need witnesses AFAIK.

That is why I would be far more supportive of abandoning the Afghan government if it does not make at least some attempt to adhere to at least basic human rights in accordance with UN resolutions, and/or the US aiding and abetting women and their supporters/allies in leaving Afghanistan and/or resisting such oppression through social and political pressure.

The problem with abandoning the Afghan government is that it will likely embolden and possibly aid the Taliban, who as we all know consider laws like this as mere appetizers for the main course of ass-backwards "Sharia Law" that included religious police and public executions of women on soccer fields as part of the enforcement.

Realistically, I do not think WE (non-Afghanis) can change the Afghan attitude on this at all. On principle, I don't think we should try all that hard.


This attitude pretty much explains why humanity mucks it up so often everywhere. Humanity can do better. It just doesn't make the effort.


BUT, on principle again, I am sick and tired of the US throwing away its own stated principles for political/geopolitical expediency. WE have to draw the line of what WE will not do.

You'll find that when you expand the lines of connection to more than just immediate action and consequence, it's near impossible to take any sort of absolute stand on principles without compromising on them somewhere.


And I happen to believe that line should be drawn well short of putting into place and supporting a regime that legalizes rape.

As opposed to setting up the conditions that allow for a regime to come to power that does the same?

I saw your suggestions on a railroad to simply remove the women from Afghanistan. Again, I find it's not very much practical, or for that matter, effective. How would you propose it be done? Mass kidnappings and renditions? Groups of armed soldiers going around rounding up women, willingly or not, for exportation and re-education? Fortified evacuation points? And what of those who actually want to stay? The mentality may be foreign to you in the face of the abuses, but I only need point out to you the numerous people who stay with their abusive spouses despite knowing them to be abusive and having better alternatives.

In each and every one of these methods, you only make things worse by hardening Afghani attitudes against foreign intervention, who will further oppress/hide their womenfolk to prevent them from being shipped off.


It is not a matter of leading Afghanistan to this or that end. It is about being Americans.

You cannot save everyone. American or not. Sometimes trying to save people only kills them instead.


And again in my opinion, Americans do not condone rape, nor do they set up and then abandon innocent and defenseless civilians to the worst kinds of abuses.

Until the day where people become physically incapable of cruelty to one another, Americans, and every other country in the world, will continue to do so.

As a whole, they could do better. But they won't. No one will.


That is why I would be far more supportive of abandoning the Afghan government if it does not make at least some attempt to adhere to at least basic human rights in accordance with UN resolutions, and/or the US aiding and abetting women and their supporters/allies in leaving Afghanistan and/or resisting such oppression through social and political pressure.

You know what the problem is? You want solutions that can be delivered in days, maybe months. It's the only explanation I can come to based on the proposals you made. And like many of these proposals, they are simply a stopgap measure of questionable reliability.

There are a variety of methods to solve the mess, to really fix things if you cared enough. Fixing the cause rather than the symptom, the Afghani acceptance of abuses like these.

But as you said, you don't think you should try all that hard. Maybe you don't think

(Gee... sounds like the Taliban never left).


We were told that the war against the Taliban was needed to restore human rights to the Afghani people.
Now everybody knows that even that was pure shit. Holy mother of fuck, even IRAN has better human rights than Afghanistan now!

:mad:

When the time for re-election comes up, many politicians will do whatever it takes to appease the voters who determine if they want to extend the politician's life line and allow them to destroy... I mean, constructively contribute to the betterment of his/her nation. This often means pandering to the popular vote by pushing through what is often distasteful legislation that key voters will gobble up happily for breakfast.



(Gee... sounds like the Taliban never left).

This would, if the law was passed - note, it is not yet passed, so no need to get all up in arms, though collective moral outrage is always amusing - deprive Afghani women of the right to consensual sexual relations, regardless of their relationship with the other person. It would essentially allow husbands to against his wife's will, engage in sexual intercourse; an act that in Canada is illegal, as it is in other "western" nations. A husband cannot have sex with his wife against her will. If he is told "no", he better keep it in his pants because the law is clear here and in other places where such a law exists.

Such actions became illegal in Canada in 1983, and in 1993 put in as a human's rights violation in the eyes of the UN (not that it helps)

The Canadian government is seeking information, and rightfully so. We've spent countless millions of dollars and have been told ad nauseum that we're there to fight the Taliban and bring rights to the people. It seems though that the longer we stay there, the most Karzai's government is looking exactly like the Taliban...



Note the part in bold. This is to pander to key voters, but at a significant cost to the women who were previously led to believe that the 'west' and Canada is there to aid them; aid their nation is breaking free from the oppressive draconian system that delegates them as being second class citizens.

No kidding that Karzai's office won't respond. How can someone possibly respond when they are party to an attempt to legislate harm against other?



Afghan rape law spurs anger (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/611568)
New Afghan law forcing sex draws outrage from Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/31/afghan-family-law-women.html)
Karzai backs law ravaging women's rights (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090401.wafghan01/BNStory/Afghanistan/home)

(multiple sources for those who may not like the Toronto Star because of a potential local bias).

'Very concerned'... ah, I love that phrase. So passive and polite.

If something was to be done, I say that it is this: Canada ought to withdraw all of its troops should this disgusting law pass. And it could be one of the fastest withdrawals in history. It may make us appear unpopular and go against the Tories' asinine mission, but it will send a strong message to those trying to stay in power in Afghanistan.

What should your nation do? I'm sure there are other nations where the outrage is as palatable.

So... c'mon NSG... let's here the collective, moral outrage. I know I'm damn pissed. I always opposed the 'War on Terrorism' and the presence of the Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan. All this does is add gas to the tire fire.

Notably, Women's Rights in Afghanistan did NOT survive the end of the Bush Administration in the United States and the ascent of a Women's Rights supporter (in the U.S.) to the White House.

Amusing. Apalling in its way, but amusing.

Item: In Japan, a woman who objects to being sexually harassed is considered to be, and is treated as, emotionally immature and unstable. The men can harass women at will.

Item: In Japan, if a woman is raped, it is only considered rape if there are witnesses who will testify to it. Since, as far as I know, rapists don't tend to perform the act in front of witnesses, a woman can't be raped in Japan.Sauce pl0x.

Why can't we -- and why shouldn't we just send an envoy in to take Karzai aside and tell him,"No." Just "No. Make sure this "law" disappears and is never passed or US support goes bye-bye, and so soon after probably does your whole future." And Karzai can interpret that to mean whatever he wants.

And if Karzai fails to make this disgusting thing vanish, then the US withdraws its support -- and its protection -- from him. Fuck him. Done.

It would be so much more effective if the whole of NATO collectively withdrew at once should an envoy or diplomatic mission fail to convince Karzai to remove the tabled legislation. In exchange, we teach him and his party all about how to lead a negative ad campaign and still come out smelling like roses. ;)

Second, understand that I don't think we can reshape Afghanistan in our image. I just don't want the US propping up someone who legalizes rape for the sake of political benefit to himself.

None of us in the 'western' bloc would want our nation to be seen as propping up such a government. Though many do understand that we wouldn't be reshaping it in our image, just making it an unwelcoming environment for terrorists and giving it the tools it needs to become a nation with a decent human rights record. Which will never happen in my life time...

Which will never happen in my life time...

To be fair, it could, it's just that most people can't be bothered to take the effort to make it one.

Same BS, different administration. 8 years of utter futility...

For ever step forward there, it seems that progress takes 5 steps back.

What? I thought pandering to fringe voting blocks by stripping all people of certain rights that those people didn't like in order to win an election was a fundamental part of a representative democracy. That's how the US works anyway.

Realistically, I do not think WE (non-Afghanis) can change the Afghan attitude on this at all. On principle, I don't think we should try all that hard.


We've been fucking with governments for decades trying to insert "American democracy" into little backwater countries. We finally succeed and everyone pisses and moans. Hopefully, the US will learn one day that they arn't a "democracy" but are a "representative democracy" and that the American government is full of hypocrites, thieves, liars, and complete dicks willing to choke their own mother to get ahead and most definitely willing to choke YOUR mother to get ahead and that this is something we don't need to spread to other nations. Never mind the fact that very few countries have succeeded in instituting a successful representative government without a coup by the people.

Seriously, ironic much?
... what, you honestly consider the right to pick which of a few leaders their parties have already chosen without your input, and without any recompense to the general public, once every, let's say, four years, a more important right than, say, the right to not get raped?

... what, you honestly consider the right to pick which of a few leaders their parties have already chosen without your input, and without any recompense to the general public, once every, let's say, four years, a more important right than, say, the right to not get raped?

Seriously, you think democracy is limited to the concept of voting, and don't consider freedom of association, expression, the right to participate in civic life, and the public oversight and accountability of government institutions at all important?

This asinine belief that it's possible to govern a people "for their own good" without their consent or input is, well, asinine. A well-intentioned dictatorship makes just as good use of the secret prisons, terror and impunity as the "bad" ones do.

Seriously, you think democracy is limited to the concept of voting, and don't consider freedom of association, expression, the right to participate in civic life, and the public oversight and accountability of government institutions at all important?
No reason that things other than voting in who you wanted would have to disappear. Not like you can't have a dictatorship without people being able to voice their complaints, or that a dictatorship is automatically unaccountable. If you have a problem, go and have a chat with your local government office, and it might get fixed. Tada.

A colonial government doesn't mean Nineteen Eighty-Four for its citizens just because, you know.
This asinine belief that it's possible to govern a people "for their own good" without their consent or input is, well, asinine.
I'd rather that a government wore its insolence on its cuff than pretended otherwise.
A well-intentioned dictatorship makes just as good use of the secret prisons, terror and impunity as the "bad" ones do.
Who said anything about secret prisons? No reason those have to be in there. Not like we're going from an elected but horrible government to an AUTOMATICALLY WORSE BECAUSE IT ISN'T ELECTED one.

The problem with abandoning the Afghan government is that it will likely embolden and possibly aid the Taliban, who as we all know consider laws like this as mere appetizers for the main course of ass-backwards "Sharia Law" that included religious police and public executions of women on soccer fields as part of the enforcement.
I sometimes wonder how many times I have to say something before people will actually hear/see it. For example, I wonder how many times I have to post a two-part or three-part point, before people will see more than just one part of it.

This attitude pretty much explains why humanity mucks it up so often everywhere. Humanity can do better. It just doesn't make the effort.

<snip for length>

But as you said, you don't think you should try all that hard. Maybe you don't think

And maybe you could think a little more, and about something other than picking which way you want to talk down to the person you are debating with and/or suggest that they are stupid or immature or otherwise substitute thought with veiled personal attacks.

All your objections and equivocations sound reasonable on the surface, but they are an old song and dance that amount to little more than making excuses for either inaction or corruption. And your attempt to put me down as unrealistic, thoughtless or immature fails as a camoflage for the weakness of your own position. Instead of applying zero-brain literalness to my words, you perhaps should try reading the full posts and thinking about what I am actually saying. Here, I'll try to make it easier for you:

Step 1: Identify a desired result.

Step 2: Figure out a way to that desired result.

It really is not very much more complicated than that. If the old traditional ways of dealing with difficult foreign governments are not yielding the desired result, then we use our human brains and figure out a different way of dealing with them. I am not interested in excuses or dismissals of why something won't or can't work. I am only interested in trying things that might work.

Simple. Not easy, no, but simple.

In this case, the desired result is to have no law in Afghanistan stating that spousal rape is okay.

I am not interested in pussy-footing excuses about why we can't have any influence over that, or why we have to wait an indefinite period of time before even trying to have influence over it, or any of the other lame old arguments that have been made in this thread and which get made every time a human rights issue comes up in the news.

The US does not get to let itself off the hook so easily this time. WE put Karzai in power. WE bear some responsibility for any abuses he might commit. If this law goes through and women are back to the level of abuse they suffered under the Taliban, only this time with a USA stamp of approval on their abusers, then we will be just as guilty of that abuse as if we were doing it ourselves. We are morally obligated to make a solid effort to stop this law going forward, and/or to assist Aghan citizens in resisting, defeating, and/or escaping it.

Blame will be deserved, and it will be laid if our government continues to turn a blind eye to this kind of thing. And here in net-land, I personally am not inclined to let even random net-talkers get away with the classic shrug-offs, either.

We shouldn't have gone in in the first place, and now that things are all cocked up, people are surprised? Why should we even have a say in what the Afghani government does? It was obvious when we invaded that it was a bad idea, and that ruining the status quo would cause changes we couldn't possibly envision, but when things trend back towards the status quo we're up in arms? This was going to happen from the moment Bush's pen touched the metaphorical invasion papers.

Not like you can't have a dictatorship without people being able to voice their complaints, or that a dictatorship is automatically unaccountable. If you have a problem, go and have a chat with your local government office, and it might get fixed. Tada.


Dictatorship is by definition unaccountable. There's no legal or institutional way to remove the people in charge or overturn their decisions. You may be able to "chat with your local government office" (or you may not), but it doesn't really matter what problem you or ten thousand other people have with what they're doing, because they have no compelling reason to listen to you. Their authority doesn't come from popular mandate.

If this were actually a viable system, Europe would still be ruled by monarchs.



Who said anything about secret prisons? No reason those have to be in there. Not like we're going from an elected but horrible government to an AUTOMATICALLY WORSE BECAUSE IT ISN'T ELECTED one.

History disagrees. (http://www.metacritic.com/books/authors/elkinscaroline/imperialreckoning) Over (http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=681101)and over again (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/haiti19.htm).

Dictatorship is by definition unaccountable.
That entirely depends on how you define it.
There's no legal or institutional way to remove the people in charge or overturn their decisions. You may be able to "chat with your local government office" (or you may not), but it doesn't really matter what problem you or ten thousand other people have with what they're doing, because they have no compelling reason to listen to you. Their authority doesn't come from popular mandate.
Yeah which is why you want a properly effective, neutral civil service in charge of administration. What you don't want is a colony run for political reasons, or as a distraction to the internal problems within your own state.
If this were actually a viable system, Europe would still be ruled by monarchs.
The reason it isn't was because they were piss poor at being dictators.

You can't run a country if you're being distracted by things like "your half-sister's daughter's cousin's wedding to your son's nephew thrice-removed", which you have to attend, or if you're busy making your country broke by fighting your cousins over scraps of land in Europe.
History disagrees. (http://www.metacritic.com/books/authors/elkinscaroline/imperialreckoning) Over (http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=681101)and over again (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/haiti19.htm).
Oh man we have prison camps in Kenya when there's a very brutal war going on, and young countries are terrible at running empires. Lordy me, what a shock.

And maybe you could think a little more, and about something other than picking which way you want to talk down to the person you are debating with and/or suggest that they are stupid or immature or otherwise substitute thought with veiled personal attacks.

You specifically said that "On principle, I don't think we should try all that hard." in regards to changing Afghani attitudes, something that I have pointed out is the cause of the abuses (which you did not deny) and will continue to result in oppression until rectified. The only logical inference I can make from that is that you do not really care to solve the problem.

It's what you said. If you think it is a personal attack, then the problem is with your word choice.

You may of course, try to argue that somehow I've taken your words out of context or interpreted it wrong. I also note you suggest that I've not read your full posts, a patent falsehood. It's a pattern I've noted with you, despite the times I have tried reasoning that maybe your arguments are poorly worded or that you are attacking a position that I simply do not hold.


All your objections and equivocations sound reasonable on the surface, but they are an old song and dance that amount to little more than making excuses for either inaction or corruption.

Excuses for inaction? I have outlined what I believe to be a far superior solution to solving the problem, if at significantly higher cost of effort and investment than yours. But you don't even attempt to argue their merits or drawbacks. You do not even dispute the practical shortcomings I have shown in your suggestion, instead merely continue to argue your position using what I believe to be ultimately result futile positions that you attempt to justify not by arguing their strengths, but on the entirely unsupported idea that they might work despite evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, it is YOUR argument to simply threaten inaction by withdrawal of support. I find it hypocritical that you fling that accusation at me, as is your claim that my position is weak without even making a single attempt at proving it while you do not even bother defending your own.

Hold your morals if you must, if it lets you walk away claiming some sort of moral superiority if only because you merely cleared the way for somebody else to do the deed you condemn Karzai for.

I will continue to hold onto my results oriented approach.

That entirely depends on how you define it.


Originally posted by dictionary.com
dic⋅ta⋅tor⋅ship   /dɪkˈteɪtərˌʃɪp, ˈdɪkteɪ-/ [dik-tey-ter-ship, dik-tey-]
–noun 1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.
2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.
3. the office or position held by a dictator.


Yeah which is why you want a properly effective, neutral civil service in charge of administration. What you don't want is a colony run for political reasons, or as a distraction to the internal problems within your own state.


:rolleyes: Who appoints the civil service? The dictator. What happens when he/she makes bad appointments? Nothing, he/she's the dictator.


The reason it isn't was because they were piss poor at being dictators.

You can't run a country if you're being distracted by things like "your half-sister's daughter's cousin's wedding to your son's nephew thrice-removed", which you have to attend, or if you're busy making your country broke by fighting your cousins over scraps of land in Europe.


But of course dictatorship isn't a system that lends itself to that sort of abuse. Good lord no. It's just that everyone else hasn't been as good at is as....whoever Yootopia is about to appoint in charge of Afghanistan.


Oh man we have prison camps in Kenya when there's a very brutal war going on, and young countries are terrible at running empires. Lordy me, what a shock.

I would dearly love to see these colonial utopias you're basing your ideas upon.

:rolleyes: Who appoints the civil service? The dictator. What happens when he/she makes bad appointments? Nothing, he/she's the dictator.
Why would it have to be a dictator that appoints a civil service?

It could just come out of their own recruiting policies on graduates etc. instead.
But of course dictatorship isn't a system that lends itself to that sort of abuse. Good lord no. It's just that everyone else hasn't been as good at is as....whoever Yootopia is about to appoint in charge of Afghanistan.
Yeah the ridiculous focus on one person is the problem. A colony run by the civil service instead of some overpowered despot would be able to do its job without egos getting in the way.
I would dearly love to see these colonial utopias you're basing your ideas upon.
So would I. I wish people would run countries for the benefit of their citizens rather than themselves. *sigh*

So would I. I wish people would run countries for the benefit of their citizens rather than themselves. *sigh*

I think the fallacy of the "benevolent dictator" (or "effective civil service") models lies in the idea that there is a single, corporate "citizens' best interest", ie: there's one good way to keep a community happy and harmonious, and that a sufficiently neutral and enlightened administration can impose it.

I prefer to think of communities as superorganic systems (http://www.scn.org/cmp/modules/emp-cul.htm) made up of interdependent, coexisting but not necessarily harmonious factions based on social and economic identities. The key to a well-run community is an internally-generated consensus among these factions, not a administratively imposed compromise. Citizen engagement and participation in governance is key.

Now how do you go from the kind of community in, for example, Afghanistan, that will consider laws like the heinous one Karzai is proposing to one more respectful of human rights? That's a separate question, and one I don't have an answer for. But I'm convinced that it's not something we can impose from outside with guns, or diplomacy, or colonial governors. The solution is going to have to come from within Afghanistan.

We shouldn't have gone in in the first place, and now that things are all cocked up, people are surprised? Why should we even have a say in what the Afghani government does? It was obvious when we invaded that it was a bad idea, and that ruining the status quo would cause changes we couldn't possibly envision, but when things trend back towards the status quo we're up in arms? This was going to happen from the moment Bush's pen touched the metaphorical invasion papers.
This is no doubt true. Not invading Afghanistan was not quite as clear cut an issue at the time as not invading Iraq, but this kind of outcome should have been anticipated. However, now that the damage is done, the US has to decide how it's going to relate to the monster it created. I am of the opinion that, we either honor Afghan sovereignty or we don't. If we do, then we have to let the Afghan government do as it sees fit. Then we have to decide if we are going to support them or not. I do not believe we should be supporting or standing in silent non-opposition to a policy such as this one. If that means, a positive relationship with the Karzai government goes to pieces, then so be it. If that means that more leaders we don't like come into power, and we will be pressured to oppose them, too, then so be that as well.

Of course, ideally, we would be able to persuade the Karzai government not to pass this law. But failing that, we must take a stand that is in keeping with US policy and principles. And if that causes us more trouble down the line -- well, we brought it on ourselves, in my opinion.

You specifically said ...

<snip>

I will continue to hold onto my results oriented approach.
Of course you think the approach you outlined is superior. Your opinion of your own views is hardly going to sway me, though, now is it? I stand by my characterization of your approach as old, tried, and unsuccessful. You claim it responds to results. I claim it produces no results.

Also, you apparently misunderstood my "I don't think we should try..." comment. What I meant was that I do not believe it is up to the US, or any nation, to try to force social or cultural attitude change on another nation's people.

I acknowledge that the culture of the region of Afghanistan does not view human rights in general and women's rights in particular the same way the US and western Europe do. History shows that attempts to impose new attitudes usually on produces backlash and deeper entrenchment of the undesirable views. It is viewed as one of the bad forms of "cultural imperialism."

Rather than try to force Afghanis to think and act like Americans, I would rather simply deal with the government/lawmaking bodies and, via pragmatic political and economic pressures, encourage them not to codify undesirable social attitudes into law -- such as legalizing rape in a manner that would be indirect contravention of UN human rights resolutions.

Having such a law on the books would make it that much harder for social reformers within Afghanistan to combat attitudes that strip women of human rights. NOT having such a law on the books would make it nominally easier by not putting up a legal obstacle to social reform.

Get it yet?

Or am I still not thinking enough for you?

And if the Afghan government refuses to cooperate with the expectations of the US, which supports and protects it, then the US should be prepared to use serious pressure to, in effect, punish them for non-cooperation, up to and including withdrawing our support for them. If we are going to recognize their sovereignty, then they have the authority to govern as they wish, but that puts us under no obligation to be helpful to them.

If they are sovereign, then let them deal with us as equals and negotiate our relationship, including giving us what we want so that we can give them what they want.

If they are not sovereign but so dependent on us that they cannot exist without us, then let us use that power in support of human rights. But one way or the other, to do nothing would be the wrong thing to do.

Got that now? Or is that still too lacking in thought to suit you?

Quote by VirginiaCooper
Quote by Muravyets agreeing
/thread

in fact, /internet

What I like most, Muravyets, is that I was being Edmund Burke, the founder of modern conservatism.

/thread

in fact, /internet

What I like most, Muravyets, is that I was being Edmund Burke, the founder of modern conservatism.

A) General is not a role playing forum. Therefore, you must take personal responsibility for everything you post as being your own, and not try to fob them off on absentee persons.

B) I do not see why you consider it so momentous that I agreed with something you said. I do not disagree with EVERYTHING you say. It's just that the things I do disagree with, I disagree with vehemently.

C) Must be easy to play Edmund Burke if all he ever did was ask obvious questions. :p

C) Must be easy to play Edmund Burke if all he ever did was ask obvious questions. :p

I don't think you'd like him. He's not to be associated with the conservatives of today, of course, but he was pretty anti-liberal himself. He believed that change in the government quite simply shouldn't take place. Ever! He supported the American Revolution, however, because he viewed it as the Americans who were defending tradition (very important to Burke - the Americans were defending the Magna Carta and ideas of British democracy, while the Crown had been the one to violate tradition and try and change; plus, the people in charge of the American Revolution were practical politicians, also important).

So when the French Revolution came around, everyone thought Burke was going to be trumpeting the proletarian cause, but instead he surprised everyone by going against it. His view was that any revolution or change based on ideals instead of pragmatism was foolish.

He is against change in government because it always leads to unintended consequences, which are often worst than the thing you were trying to change. Iraq is a prime example of Burke being right, but there are thousands of others. Whether or not you agree with Burke rests on whether you think the ends justify the means or not. Most Americans aren't Burkean at all because he was completely against idealism, and thus liberalism (in the real sense of the word, not the John Kerry sense).

I don't think you'd like him. He's not to be associated with the conservatives of today, of course, but he was pretty anti-liberal himself. He believed that change in the government quite simply shouldn't take place. Ever! He supported the American Revolution, however, because he viewed it as the Americans who were defending tradition (very important to Burke - the Americans were defending the Magna Carta and ideas of British democracy, while the Crown had been the one to violate tradition and try and change; plus, the people in charge of the American Revolution were practical politicians, also important).

So when the French Revolution came around, everyone thought Burke was going to be trumpeting the proletarian cause, but instead he surprised everyone by going against it. His view was that any revolution or change based on ideals instead of pragmatism was foolish.

He is against change in government because it always leads to unintended consequences, which are often worst than the thing you were trying to change. Iraq is a prime example of Burke being right, but there are thousands of others. Whether or not you agree with Burke rests on whether you think the ends justify the means or not. Most Americans aren't Burkean at all because he was completely against idealism, and thus liberalism (in the real sense of the word, not the John Kerry sense).
Did he also have no sarcasm detector? And was he infamous for ordering damned kids off his lawn?

I stand by my characterization of your approach as old, tried, and unsuccessful. You claim it responds to results. I claim it produces no results.


Your claim has no basis when compared to examples of Germany and Japan, both countries that were invested heavily in terms of infrastructure and re-education (or propaganda, take your pick) post-war that took a minimum of a generation before significant change began to occur in their society. Are they carbon copies of American attitudes? Hardly, they still have problems of their own, but they are significantly different from what they were sixty years ago. Cultural shifts in attitudes are the work of generations.

Now, it is your turn to produce evidence backing your claims.


Rather than try to force Afghanis to think and act like Americans, I would rather simply deal with the government/lawmaking bodies and, via pragmatic political and economic pressures, encourage them not to codify undesirable social attitudes into law -- such as legalizing rape in a manner that would be indirect contravention of UN human rights resolutions.

Having such a law on the books would make it that much harder for social reformers within Afghanistan to combat attitudes that strip women of human rights. NOT having such a law on the books would make it nominally easier by not putting up a legal obstacle to social reform.

Get it yet?

Or am I still not thinking enough for you?

I think you have completely ignored the very real possibility of someone else coming to power who does not need American support and will do exactly what Karzai is attempting once he is ousted if he capitulated to your demands.

I also think you utterly failed to produce any measure of preventing the Afghani government as being viewed as even more of a puppet than it is with your measures, further weakening it's already pitiful influence in Afghanistan.

Nor did you account for the consequence of withdrawal of support for the Afghanistan government if Karzai does not capitulate, namely making it even easier to topple, allowing for the Taliban to retake control who will do far worse than what you castigate Karzai for.

I think you did not give your plan any real thought beyond moral outrage and none towards practical realities of the consequences. Social reform is all well and good, but absolutely meaningless if it lacks the populace support to back it up, and absolutely suicidal if they oppose it, something which you have no plan for.


If we are going to recognize their sovereignty, then they have the authority to govern as they wish, but that puts us under no obligation to be helpful to them.

Then you have no room for complaint if the strongest contender for governance, namely the Taliban, become the new government, who will most certainly enact far worse laws.

Or did you mean to say that until a government that does what you want comes into power, you will do everything possible to make it bend to your will? That is no different than a puppet administration. You might as well call for the annexation of Afghanistan.


If they are sovereign, then let them deal with us as equals and negotiate our relationship, including giving us what we want so that we can give them what they want.

If they are not sovereign but so dependent on us that they cannot exist without us, then let us use that power in support of human rights. But one way or the other, to do nothing would be the wrong thing to do.


And if they do not do as you wish, you advocate doing exactly that. Doing nothing by leaving. Leave if you wish, but never again complain of the abuses that occur within that country if you do so.

Your claim has no basis when compared to examples of Germany and Japan, both countries that were invested heavily in terms of infrastructure and re-education (or propaganda, take your pick) post-war that took a minimum of a generation before significant change began to occur in their society. Are they carbon copies of American attitudes? Hardly, they still have problems of their own, but they are significantly different from what they were sixty years ago. Cultural shifts in attitudes are the work of generations.

Now, it is your turn to produce evidence backing your claims.
Wrong yet again and still going strong.

1) NOW it's MY turn? Where did YOU provide any evidence other than your own personal claims?

2) Comparison of apples and oranges. How would like me to counter it -- with turnips?

3) Kindly show me were I have made any "claims." What I have done is express opinions. As in, (1) "These are the facts" followed by (2) "here is what I think the US is responsible for and a suggestion of the kind of thing I would like to see happen."

Do you deny the following facts:

A) The US invaded Afghanistan, deposed the Taliban and installed Karzai as the head of the current Afghan government.

B) The US is still supporting and protecting the Karzai government.

C) The US claims to support equal rights for women and fundamental human rights in general as both a matter of law and a matter of principle.

D) The Karzai government of Afghanistan is currently considering passing a law which would legalize spousal rape against women.

If you deny any of the above asserted facts, kindly show why you think they are not true. THEN you can demand that I should produce evidence in support of the factuality of those assertions. However, if they are not in dispute, I see no reason why I should dig up evidence to support them.

NEXT, kindly make an effort to understand that the my argument is an OPINION expressed in response to those facts. It might be hard for you, but try it. It will be a novelty.

I think you have completely ignored the very real possibility of someone else coming to power who does not need American support and will do exactly what Karzai is attempting once he is ousted if he capitulated to your demands.
When you say you "think", I believe you mean you "imagine," because I maintain there is nothing in my remarks to suggest what you claim. On the contrary, I have made specific comments that would counteract your criticism. No, I will not point them out to you. I base my refusal on past experience with you. Please re-read the posts in their entirety.

I also think you utterly failed to produce any measure of preventing the Afghani government as being viewed as even more of a puppet than it is with your measures, further weakening it's already pitiful influence in Afghanistan.
So? That is your requirement, not mine. It is not a failing of my argument that is not your argument.

Also, you are wrong again. If you had applied thought to what you read in my posts, you might have realized that I was suggesting that if the Afghan government does not cooperate, we could consider honoring its sovereignty and, on that basis, considering it an enemy state. Wouldn't that be a clear signal that it is not a puppet of the US? Clearly, your claim that I have not considered that is false. I merely took it in a direction you either did not like or did not understand.

Nor did you account for the consequence of withdrawal of support for the Afghanistan government if Karzai does not capitulate, namely making it even easier to topple, allowing for the Taliban to retake control who will do far worse than what you castigate Karzai for.
Wrong again. You're good at being wrong about what other people have said. I most certainly did account for it. It's in the posts. Read them again if you want to take a stab at not being wrong.

I think you did not give your plan any real thought beyond moral outrage and none towards practical realities of the consequences. Social reform is all well and good, but absolutely meaningless if it lacks the populace support to back it up, and absolutely suicidal if they oppose it, something which you have no plan for.
I think you just made up some bullshit that I have been floating a "plan" at all. Your obvious failure to comprehend the difference between the expression of an opinion as to a desired KIND of action, and a plan for specific action, goes a ways towards explaining the breathtaking wrongness of your responses on every point.

Then you have no room for complaint if the strongest contender for governance, namely the Taliban, become the new government, who will most certainly enact far worse laws.
You should reserve this comment to throw at me if I ever do complain of such a thing. For now, however, since I have made no such complaint, I dismiss it.

Or did you mean to say that until a government that does what you want comes into power, you will do everything possible to make it bend to your will? That is no different than a puppet administration. You might as well call for the annexation of Afghanistan.
No, that is not what I meant. I meant what the words I posted mean.

And if they do not do as you wish, you advocate doing exactly that. Doing nothing by leaving. Leave if you wish, but never again complain of the abuses that occur within that country if you do so.

Wrong again. Re-read my posts in their entirety, thank you.

Do you just have difficulty following multiple points or arguments that cover two or more contingencies? Is that the problem?

Wrong yet again and still going strong.

So you claim.


1) NOW it's MY turn? Where did YOU provide any evidence other than your own personal claims?

I have provided precedents backing my plan. The reconstruction of Germany and Japan. If you think they do not work at all, then the onus is on you to elaborate why. It is hardly my fault that you decided to pretend I never mentioned them instead.


2) Comparison of apples and oranges. How would like me to counter it -- with turnips?

A turnip would be far better than your sad attempt at dismissing my plan in its entirety as tried and failed without bothering to even outline where it has been tried, much less failed. In fact, given that I specified a timeline of generations, it is simply impossible for you to prove that it has been tried and failed, unless you now claim to prescience. You have made absolutely no other argument against it whatsoever so do not throw your accusation that I "do not read your posts". It is a hollow claim.


3) Kindly show me were I have made any "claims."

I am not interested in excuses or dismissals of why something won't or can't work. I am only interested in trying things that might work.

One such example of your claim. Yet you've not provided a single reason to believe your suggestions might work any more than a plan involving Peter Pan and magic pixie dust.


What I have done is express opinions. As in, (1) "These are the facts" followed by (2) "here is what I think the US is responsible for and a suggestion of the kind of thing I would like to see happen."

And I dispute the utter workability of the latter part of (2). Or is this yet another instance of you avoiding that disputation by arguing something else?


Do you deny the following facts:


I deny your strawman. You suggest a course of action to affect change and then throw out facts which have nothing to do with the ability of that suggestion to achieve the desired results.


NEXT, kindly make an effort to understand that the my argument is an OPINION expressed in response to those facts.

And my argument is that your opinion is as wrongheaded as those who claim that turning off your lights for an hour somehow helps stop global warming.


When you say you "think", I believe you mean you "imagine," because I maintain there is nothing in my remarks to suggest what you claim. On the contrary, I have made specific comments that would counteract your criticism.

Since you've not made any mention of using military force to once again reconquer Afghanistan should a new government capable of holding it's own but with views you despise come to power, there is nothing in your suggestion to back your statement.


Rather than try to force Afghanis to think and act like Americans, I would rather simply deal with the government/lawmaking bodies and, via pragmatic political and economic pressures, encourage them not to codify undesirable social attitudes into law -- such as legalizing rape in a manner that would be indirect contravention of UN human rights resolutions.

As seen above, you specifically limited the tools of control to pragmatic economic and political means, something the previous government laughed in your face at and appears to be waiting for an opportunity to make a comeback. So yes, you've completely failed to take into account the likely scenario I've pointed out.


So? That is your requirement, not mine. It is not a failing of my argument that is not your argument.

Why should it be my requirement when it is the failing I attributed to your argument?


If you had applied thought to what you read in my posts, you might have realized that I was suggesting that if the Afghan government does not cooperate, we could consider honoring its sovereignty and, on that basis, considering it an enemy state. Wouldn't that be a clear signal that it is not a puppet of the US?

And if you had applied some thought, you would have understood the outlined outcome as a consequence of the government capitulating to your demands rather than the reverse.


Clearly, your claim that I have not considered that is false. I merely took it in a direction you either did not like or did not understand.

It's called misinterpreting an argument or a deliberate straw man.


Wrong again. You're good at being wrong about what other people have said. I most certainly did account for it. It's in the posts. Read them again if you want to take a stab at not being wrong.

It's curious how you keep saying how I'm wrong and that you put your contingencies in the posts which simply aren't there.


If they are not sovereign but so dependent on us that they cannot exist without us, then let us use that power in support of human rights. But one way or the other, to do nothing would be the wrong thing to do.

This was your only contingency in the event that another government came to power. Utterly dependent on the condition that the new government depends on US support to maintain it's sovereignty.

I have outlined the very real possibility that any such new government would be more than capable of maintaining it's sovereignty without US support. But you ignored that.


I think you just made up some bullshit that I have been floating a "plan" at all.


The only difference between a suggestion and a plan is the amount of detail and effort behind it. You have been suggested the following in this thread.

1) Economic and political pressure to bend the Afghani government to your will.

2) A US sponsored underground railroad to spirit out women from Afghanistan for re-education and resettlement.

Both courses of action were put down with the intention of reducing human rights abuses. I have pointed out why both ideas would not produce the desired results.

You have dithered between not being involved at all if things did not turn out as you wanted and exerting partial pressure to make sure they did.


Wrong again. Re-read my posts in their entirety, thank you.


The last time I did so at your demand, as well as provided summaries of each and every one of your posts in that thread to prove that I had indeed read them, you claimed that I made all manner of lies. If I do so again, no doubt, given the tone this argument has taken, you will make the same accusation.

So you claim.
You dispute this? Are you saying that you are not going strong, but in fact limping along weakly? Well, I would be willing to entertain such a possibility.

I have provided precedents backing my plan. <snip>
Again with the "plan."

1) Since I made it clear that I am NOT offering a "plan," I refuse absolutely to argue as if I have been doing that, regardless of your persistence in trying to make me do it.

2) Also, since you are not, to my knowledge, an official of the government involved in crafting US policy on Afghanistan, I have no interest in your "plans" for the same. Theory, fine. Opinion, fine. "Plans"? Please. Go apply one of your plans and then argue about the results with me. Until then, be real. This is not a role playing forum.

3) You have "provided" nothing. You have made superficial, passing remarks about other circumstances and claimed that they somehow prove something about how right you are. That is not providing evidence in support of an argument. I would think you would know that.

4) On the grounds that everything else you posted in this last post is predicated on your erroneous belief that I am positing a "plan," I dismiss all of it as a misreading of the nature of my argument. You are attacking an argument I did not make, and I do not defend arguments that I never made.

Based on past experience with you, I do not believe I have failed to make myself clear as to what the nature and content of my argument really are. Rather, I believe you are just trying to push me into arguing on the terms and along the lines you wish to dictate. This is another thing I would have expected you to know better than to try by now, considering past history.

5) Although I refuse to engage you on the terms you dictate because they are unrelated to what I was actually saying on this topic, I will point out that I noticed that, in your "responses" to me, you again ignored the content of my past posts. You again claim that I never said things that I most certainly did say. In particular, you claim I never made any statements about why I thought the kind of approach I would favor might "work" -- by which I assume you meant "advance us towards our goal of not having this law on the books in Afghanistan". As a matter of fact, I most certainly did make a statement to that very effect. Go find it. Happy hunting.