This movie sounds interesting:
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/shortcuts/shortcuts33.shtml#afghan
Sure, sure anyone who actually supports Bush in this forum is a troll. The question was asked and I answered it. Too bad you didn’t like the answer. I wasn’t specifically flamebaiting nor have I done so. [/quote]
link:
Sure, sure anyone who actually supports Bush in this forum is a troll. The question was asked and I answered it. Too bad you didn’t like the answer. I wasn’t specifically flamebaiting nor have I done so. [/quote]
link:
[/quote]
That is a statement based on the fact that only bad news is posted about preactically everything Bush has done- little if no good news is ever stated. Read the rest of what I said. Take it within context:
“How can I say such a thing? Because THATS what they use for ammunition. Liberals NEED bad things to happen, indeed they crave them so they can come here and post about how terrible Bush is and SEE-SEE THIS is why “The Chimp” needs to be gone. Now, it makes no differece if its Bush’s fault or not, ALL bad news about this nation is GOOD news to liberals because they blame it on Rebuplicans and it could means maybe an extra Democratic seat on the senate or a different person in the whitehouse.”
Whether you like it or not bad news about Iraq is GOOD news for democrats. Bad news about the war on terror is GOOD news for democrats. Bad news about the economy is GOOD news for democrats - ALL of these things help them get elected. I know thats an EXTREMELY cynical view of politics, but often it certainly seems that way to me.
It’s not “extremely cynical”, it’s “totally asinine”.
Do you think that a Democrat who discovers that their child has died in Iraq considers that GOOD news? If you want to try reduce everything to an argument that makes you feel righteous, go ahead, but if you post it in a public forum expect to be ridiculed.
Well I think a lot of that is due to the fact that Afghanistan was a nation dominated by religious fundamentalism for so that its going to take TIME to stabilize things. Whats with everyone expecting these nations to instantly bounce back after the complete destruction of thier oppressive governments?
Al Queda is STILL stirring up trouble there and there are STILL remnants of the Taliban crossing over from Pakistan and also causing problems. Women ARE better off than they where before though and what someone posted earlier about them being used for target practice, I believe thats an exaggeration of whats going on there RIGHT NOW. Things have improved but women are still not completely liberated. They have returned to school and many other things have improved for them and they ARE getting the right to VOTE in the upcoming election. Attitudes however like THIS are a BIG problem:
"Mr. Sighbatullah Mojadeddi, Chairperson of the Afghan Constitutional Loya Jirga, in regards to the human rights and civil rights:
“We all have to respect the vote. Women are free to vote for men. Men are free to vote for women. We cannot make this separation… Do not try to put yourself on a level with men. Even God has not given you equal rights because under his decision two women are counted as equal to one man.”
Most of these rights are limited to Kabul. Things may be changing but change is really going at a snails pace. Islamic rules and law has a LOT to do with it. Even in America it took a good long while for women to get the right to vote though. The US does need to do MORE and use its influence to make sure the women of Afghanistan are treated well. Lets give it some more time and do something about the US-backed mujahideen. It may even take a generation but we need to do everything we can to insure a more secular government. However if we don’t exert some MAJOR pressure over there RIGHT NOW things could return to being, well, like the REST of the mideast with women being considered second-class citizens (it STILL wouldn’t be as bad as the Taliban though):
"Meanwhile, the few rights women do possess are being curtailed. This is largely due to the role of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Fazl Hadi Shinwari, an ally of the pro-Wahabbi Saudi-backed fundamentalist leader Abdul Sayyaf. In violation of the existing constitution, Shinwari is over 80 and has training only in religious, not secular, law.
For women, President Karzai’s appointment of Shinwari is a nail in their coffin. He has packed the 9-member Supreme Court with 137 sympathetic mullahs and called for Taliban-style punishments to implement Shari’a law. He has also brought back the Taliban’s dreaded Department of Vice and Virtue, re-named the Ministry of Religious Affairs, which now deploys women to stop public displays of “un-Islamic” behavior among Afghan women."
Shit, maybe there just isn’t any hope for fucking religious fundamentalist assholes? I guess it may be true that people often get the kind of governments they DISERVE?
I was speaking primarily to those in this forum and to democratic politicians who have no children dying in Iraq and who use EVERYTHING as ammunition for thier political gain and to promtoe specific agendas. How many children have YOU lost to the war, sir? Oh, ok, thats what I thought. To pretend this sort of thing doesn’t go on and hasn’t been going on would be “totally asinine.”
So Gideon… what were you trying to argue for with that Afghanistan post?
That CAPITALIZING too much can make you SOUND like a CRANK.
I’ll laugh at an online liberal shitstorm of truly biblical proportions. Then life goes on pretty much as normal.
Sorry, I mean only to use it to emphasize what I am saying like some use italics. It seems easier but I notice the italics button up above and I will try using italics in place of caps.
There has been some discussion on whether or not we should have turned Iraq over to the UN and/or NATO immediately after the invasion. The UN and NATO are now doing most of the work in Afghanistan and are doing thier typical shitty job. Without a strong presence and strong US leadership the sorts of things I mentioned in the previous post will only continue. I believe things have improved for Afghan women but unless we take back primary control and responsibility over Afghanistan things are going to go downhill for them. I believe we OWE it to the women of Afghanistan after promising them liberty. Kerry has proposed UN involvement in almost everything we do and while it panders to certain democrats its a terrible policy given the incompetence and corruption of the UN. Of course a few years ago Kerry was talking about how we should act unilaterally and about how incompetent the UN was (regarding inspections) but he changes his opinions so often who knows what he really believes. The man has no core.
First off, the UN and NATO became independent organizations when, exactly?
What you’re talking about are the failures of the Bush administration follow-up on the invasion of Afghanistan, and indeed, the funneling of money from the rebuilding process of that nation to the invasion of Iraq.
Kerry has never opposed the idea of unilateralism, when it is a necessary course of action, by the way.
edit: never mind
The UN may not be completely independent but some of our “allies”, particularly France and Germany have far too much influence over certain decisions.
Yes, I believe the US and the Bush administration needs to do more in Afghanistan. Particualrly we need to take away the influence of the UN on ANY decisions of importance and get rid of the mujuhadeen. Its not what I would call a failure, I just believe we need to do more and get rid of any UN influence.
Kerry didn’t oppose the use of unilateralism in Iraq either, didn’t trust the inspectors, and even questioned the backbone of our allies. He has since changed his position due to political expediency.
So you’re basing the difficulties Afghanistan not on the fact that 9000 US-led troops and 6 500 NATO-led troops (maybe a thousand or so more, now, compared to 40 000 troops in Kosovo, for reference, a bit more than 6000 of those are placed in Kabul) are far too few, but “UN influence”. I guess you mean their influence on warlords, Taliban and other threats to the new order. I can certainly see the body coordinating relief efforts being to blame. Yes indeed.
And of course, the spectacular success of stabilizing Iraq also show that if only the US had been in charge of coordinating relief and rebuilding infrastructure, the raw power of their ideals would have swayed the warlords and Taliban. Especially considering the way this administration seems to view nation building.
Maybe you shouldn’t claim things have improved, then, until a) they have or at least b) there’s a clear path to them doing so. Neither is remotely true.
Don’t ask me, talk to the administration officials that said it would happen.
We clearly eliminated a threat in Afghanistan, but a) it’s going to be absurd to claim it as a human rights victory for the immediately forseeable future and b) our policies in Afghanistan might end up creating another threat in the same way the anarchy of Somalia we left behidn let bin Laden rise to power; hard to tell just yet.
Congratulations on setting a new record for absurd online political claims with “Afghanistan is the UN & Nato’s fault”, by the way.
Even playing along with the assertion that it’s the UN’s direct fault, if you start a 12 year old girl at left tackle in an NFL game, is it her fault when your quarterback gets sacked?
Well, if she would have worked out & trained like we had told her to…