Afghanistan: The War for Girls

reply to post by Aeons


Excellent post regarding the importance of women, culture and control.

In reply to the thread in general, I ask this. I do not for a moment think that we are not our brothers' (and sisters') keepers, but I wonder just precisely how we are going to liberate the women of Afghanistan from their culture. Given our abysmal record of fighting limited wars and changing cultures in the atomic era, do you really think we can make a lasting difference?

The way that many early, "primitive" peoples solved their problems with difficult neighbors was to exterminate them. We could do that to the Taliban, killing the lot of them, and eradicating their savage culture from the Earth. But we will not do that, will we? We are civilized, we respect human life, and we are loathe to commit what we consider to be a crime against humanity. Would Dresden be bombed given today's mindset? I do not think so.

I think that recognizing the moral imperative to help others is important, but it is equally important to realize that there are limits to our power, and an insufficient application of power can leave those we are trying to help in worse circumstances than before we became involved.

In the end, the Afghani's have to want something better.

reply to post by KrazyJethro

Feel free to come back when you have something to say.

Wow, talk about a god complex.

No, the idealistic comment isn't for you. Your position seems to be the ultimate pessimist, your stance is along the lines that nothing is possible, so we shouldn't try.

The point I made about the only things stopping us from taking over the third world is our sense of humanity is what you need to recognize.

reply to post by poet1b


Whooa there, the US could take over the world if it wanted?!?

I think you over estimate your military capability significantly, currently with Afganistan and Iraq it is fair to say you are stretched both man power wise and financially. And you are stretched because the same combat units have multiple tours and not two or three (Fact). These are not what I would call traditional combat theatres compared to say an invasion of China which would require ALOT more of everything and I mean alot. And when you have them all but defeated or in a no win position they nuke you. So what would be the point? With nuclear weapons came the end of warfare in it's historic sense, anyone that cannot see that is delusional. Anyone who has or is in the military or has basic common sense knows this fact.

The US military would have to first defeat a significant defence force (pick your country or region - China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Africa, Europe) and then deal with the same threat you currently try to manage in Iraq or Afganistan but on a much larger scale. All the while you maintain supply routes from the US, I would say from a military position that is impossible with what you have. It has nothing to do with humanity (Nobel as your statement may be) more like logistics and wars are won and lost on that key fact.

Also earlier China and the little island off it's shore was mentioned, if they took it there is nothing you could do. Unless you are happy for the entire North American continent to be totally and utterly destroyed. So how important would that moral right be to defend then? Economic sanctions? China can self sustain and it would be the rest of the world which would suffer. It would not happen and you know it, and so do they..

Remember beware the sleeping Dragon... That is a threat worth losing sleep over. Maybe it is China which is showing humanity in some twisted logic kind of way?!?

Why did the UK give back Hong Kong and yet not the Faulkland Islands or Gibraltar? Again you know the reasons why if you apply logic, better to do a deal and improve diplomatic relations than just simply lose it which is what would have happened.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Bunker or Bust]

reply to post by Grumble


Our problem is not the limit of our power, we are more capable than ever of wasting large numbers of people.

The problem is how do we defeat a determined enemy with humanitarian concerns, when our enemy has no humanitarian concerns.

Up to WW II the technique was to beat your enemy into submission.

The answer was to respond to aggression with over whelming force.

I remember a comment from a WW II vet on a forum once, that in WW II, if someone from a village shot on a platoon, they would have taken out the whole village. There simply was no tolerance for enemy aggression.

Of course these were war hardened men who had already seen so much death and destruction from their enemies that they had little or no sympathy, and killing had became a job.

Could we do that again? If it came down to kill or be killed, yes, I think we very well could and would. A couple more 9-11 attacks, and I think people would change very quickly in their opinions of what we would be willing to allow.

What is going on in Europe with immigration and population growth, and what has been going on in India for centuries now, is a real threat to our way of life, and control of the women is the tool that Islam uses in this slow constricting type of invasion they are practicing.

This is why this war is for girls.

The question then becomes, exactly how humane do we need to be towards the men who kill girls for daring to go to school?

How humane do we need to be towards the world's warlords?

reply to post by Aeons


I completely misread this post originally, sorry, I hope to do better this time.

Women are no more of a cultural commodity than men.

I think this current crisis goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks, and before. The Europeans were Hellenistic and had a fairly liberal attitude towards sex, while the Middle Eastern religions are Abrahamic and have very strict rules about sex.

In war, the Hellenistic cultures have dominated with only a few exceptions. While in cultural wars, and their ability to spread their religious beliefs, Abrahamic culture has dominated. Rome conquered Israel, but Christianity conquered Rome, and eventually took control of Europe for several centuries.

However, I don't think Christianities success was due to its control over the women, but its promise of eternal life.

The problem with cultures that succeed by controlling the women, and therefore the lives of the people, is that they stagnate, and become technologically backwards.

What we see in Western civilization is that by throwing off the yoke of religious oppression, we have succeeded in re-energizing our culture, resulting in a technological explosion that enabled us to dominate the world. The promise of opportunity and self government has exceeded the promise of eternal life.

The Islamic technique of controlling the women by out birthing its opponents is relatively new in its conflict with the West. Essentially, the plan relies on the West's ideals of tolerance, and the belief that Islam can continue to play dirty, without the humanitarian beliefs that we embrace, and that we will refuse to take up their game.

Why not, this technique has worked so well in India in the centuries long cultural war that has gone on there.

However, the west is very culturally different than India, and not so nearly caught up in the whole sacredness of life belief. The whole political correctness straight jacket that that we have allowed to be put on us is already beginning to chap.

You are right, we have changed a great deal, and I think we are about to change again.

It is one thing to be tolerant towards others, but when that tolerance is used against you, it is time to stop being tolerant, and time to start fighting back.

I am glad we agree. We do have a degree of responsibility to the people of the world, to help our neighbors, and if that means killing some vermin in the process, there is no reason we should feel guilty about it.

We need to fight this war for the girls.

reply to post by Bunker or Bust


No, not the whole world, the third world. There is a big difference.

I guess China and India might still be considered third world, but I would think more second world.

You might want to consider that if China had our capabilities, they might be less hesitant in their conquest of third world nations.

Originally posted by poet1b
No, the idealistic comment isn't for you. Your position seems to be the ultimate pessimist, your stance is along the lines that nothing is possible, so we shouldn't try.

Reading helps. I'll say it once more.

I do not support global aggression against other nations because they make you feel bad.

I do not support using tax money to give aid, give weapons, drop bombs, or otherwise kill people that have no capacity to hurt our nation.

I do not support the idea that we have some obligation to make the world safe, but the government's JOB (literally) is only to protect America.

I support private enterprise and would support the education and guidance of other national leaders in how they might make their nations better. It's more cost effective and better PR anyway.

The point I made about the only things stopping us from taking over the third world is our sense of humanity is what you need to recognize.

Maybe that's part of it, but I'd be more inclined to think it's because there would be no point or purpose.

The problem is not sweeping in and putting some nasty holes in the bad guy's heads. The problem is actually creating an environment and culture where a system even REMOTELY close to ours would take hold.

We can not seem to get the job done in Afghanistan, how do you propose we do it in Africa?

You don't. You have no idea. That is my point. Thinking beyond the end of your own nose would help greatly when thinking of complex issues.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by KrazyJethro]

reply to post by KrazyJethro


Do you know we are in Afghanistan because they did attack us?

The Taliban was actively running a war against us using terrorist tactics, actively training those willing to carry out terrorist tactics against the U.S., and any and all of our allies.

To pull out of Afghanistan before we finish either wiping out the Taliban, or destroying their will to fight, then we would lose this war, and only encourage our enemies.

If the GW regime hadn't paid minor attention to Afghanistan, instead of concentrating most of their effort against Iraq, we might have finished with this war in Afghanistan long ago.

The realization that we are also fighting for the rights of the girls in Afghanistan only helps to give us the moral grounds, and motivation to continue this war.

Now that Pakistan has started to fight the Taliban within its borders, it narrows the time frame in which the Taliban can hold out.

Have you even bothered to look into the deeper causes of this war, and its significance for the future?

Originally posted by poet1b
Do you know we are in Afghanistan because they did attack us?

That's debatable. Did we attack Russia when they were in there, or did we facilitate those who did? Either way, their ability to hurt us is still rather small.

The Taliban was actively running a war against us using terrorist tactics, actively training those willing to carry out terrorist tactics against the U.S., and any and all of our allies.

Perhaps, but they have done a poor job of it on the whole. But again, the seriousness of their abilities is very debatable.

To pull out of Afghanistan before we finish either wiping out the Taliban, or destroying their will to fight, then we would lose this war, and only encourage our enemies.

It's not possible to wipe out an enemy unless you kill every man woman and child. As for destroying their will to fight, I think that's accomplished with more bombs and less nation building.

However, if the job is left "undone" (murky as the definition of "job" might be), there will be little to no consequences for America.

If the GW regime hadn't paid minor attention to Afghanistan, instead of concentrating most of their effort against Iraq, we might have finished with this war in Afghanistan long ago.

Doubtfully. Trying to create an artificial democracy in an area that is poorly to not educated, has no infrastructure to speak of, are terribly poor, have no cultural basis for our system, and are really only good at being terribly annoying to invaders isn't something you can do in a handful of years.

The realization that we are also fighting for the rights of the girls in Afghanistan only helps to give us the moral grounds, and motivation to continue this war.

Moral grounds are a weak support for losing American lives and wasting copious amounts of American money. I have serious doubts that any family would be happy to lose a family member so some third world girl can go to school without being stoned.

Now that Pakistan has started to fight the Taliban within its borders, it narrows the time frame in which the Taliban can hold out.

Ah Pakistan. Isn't this one of those "warlord" situations you were talking about earlier? Shouldn't we already be gearing up to put some expensive holes in them?

Then again, I think it'd be a good idea (under your model) to eliminate Islam entirely. They have a different system of morality, so they must be exterminated yes?

Have you even bothered to look into the deeper causes of this war, and its significance for the future?

How deep, exactly, was the cause for this war? Not very.

Also, how do you propose one would look into the significance of this for the future? You can speculate, but my guess is you'd be wrong and this will fail.

reply to post by poet1b


Gotcha, just the ones that need moral correction that can't fight back as effectively as a super power. Brave and nobel...

What was that about finishing jobs?

reply to post by Bunker or Bust


Who can't fight back?

The families of school girls in Afghanistan?

The Taliban are very capable of fighting back and terrorizing their own people.

I guess as long as it is not you are yours, you don't care who they kill.

We are uncommitted to what it would take to do this.

It would be a direct and ongoing commitment to actually giving a #.

Currently we are held in check mainly by.....ourselves. Our sense of guilt, our questions about if we have the right to dictate laws and minimum standards.

Our sense of "fair play" and our concerns about being "Empire" like make us hold ourselves back.

Plain and simple - we as a people do not actually as a group believe in Universal Human Rights. If we did, we'd unequivocally use our cultural, political and economic might to push these concepts.

We'd create regulations that said that companies that interact with our cultures will adhere to certain minimum universal standards or they will find themselves with a far more difficult market here.

When someone says, "Oh, you just think your way of women being legally equal is BETTER you big meanie" we'd respond, "That Is For Damn Sure."

We'd prepare a framework in which there would be checks and balances on tolerance and bias. That had guidelines along that defined that cultural content is all acceptable but will function within the MINIMUM STANDARDS set out by Universal Human Rights.

We'd DEFINE very specifically what Equality, Justice, Freedom, Peace mean. Because there are entire groups that have use these terms all the time and they do not mean what you and I think they do.

Military has a purpose and it is NOT cultural. It does not enforce or change memes. It clears and secures an area. Further changes are wrougth in a civil structure.


The "other side" of this already knows this. We are all sitting around pretending that this is a war about Afghanistan, or a war about Islam.

This is not either. It an ongoing cultural-mash-up.

We aren't winning because WE AREN'T EVEN FIGHTING THE SAME DAMN CONFLICT the other sides are.

How does anybody expect to say they finished or "won" when one side is having a cultural holy war and the other is just trying to change out a regime to something that won't get in the way of international trade.

Originally posted by Grumble
reply to post by Aeons

 

Excellent post regarding the importance of women, culture and control.

In reply to the thread in general, I ask this. I do not for a moment think that we are not our brothers' (and sisters') keepers, but I wonder just precisely how we are going to liberate the women of Afghanistan from their culture. Given our abysmal record of fighting limited wars and changing cultures in the atomic era, do you really think we can make a lasting difference?

The way that many early, "primitive" peoples solved their problems with difficult neighbors was to exterminate them. We could do that to the Taliban, killing the lot of them, and eradicating their savage culture from the Earth. But we will not do that, will we? We are civilized, we respect human life, and we are loathe to commit what we consider to be a crime against humanity. Would Dresden be bombed given today's mindset? I do not think so.

I think that recognizing the moral imperative to help others is important, but it is equally important to realize that there are limits to our power, and an insufficient application of power can leave those we are trying to help in worse circumstances than before we became involved.

In the end, the Afghani's have to want something better.

reply to post by KrazyJethro


As long as it isn't you or a member of your family, it is no big deal, but I imagine if you or a member of your family who wound up in the wrong place at the at wrong time you would change your mind.

I would say that 9/11 was a very successful event for them.

You don't have to kill the women and the children, just the men who are pursuing this radical agenda.

You still fail to recognize that this is a very small world, and that they are mobilizing to bring this war to us.

There is no reason to wipe out all of Islam, only the radical terrorists.

This war of terrorism is far deeper and wider than you are willing to entertain. This fight is now going on throughout all the continents of the Eastern hemisphere. You can't just close your eyes and hope it goes away.

You probably would have said the same thing about the NAZIs back in the day.

reply to post by Aeons


And this whole belief that we should be guilty about doing what is right is ridiculous.

A universal standard of human rights is what we should be pursuing, and doing it through trade is a very good idea.

Too many people want to pretend this isn't a serious problem until they start to perceive a real threat to themselves. This type of thinking only insures that things will get far worse before they get better.

This is how WW II got to the point where it turned into the blood fest that it was.

If or when it turns into a nuclear war, maybe then people will wake up.

Originally posted by poet1b
As long as it isn't you or a member of your family, it is no big deal, but I imagine if you or a member of your family who wound up in the wrong place at the at wrong time you would change your mind.

You think so? I don't. I was in NYC on 9-11, saw the planes with my naked eye, smelled the burning, felt the dust and yet I remain the same.

History does not change. The founding fathers scorned the idea that we owe anything to anyone other than our own protection militarily. I tend to agree for a variety of reasons.

I would say that 9/11 was a very successful event for them.

Again, that's debatable on the framing. Either way, starting a two wars based on that isn't the best idea unless you go to win and come home. We did not.

We planned it poorly, executed it poorly, and continue to run it poorly. Trying to change culture and religious beliefs isn't something we can do for them, especially at the end of a gun.

You don't have to kill the women and the children, just the men who are pursuing this radical agenda.

Sure. Tell you what, let's try wiping out gangs in America as step one. We can move on from there.

You still fail to recognize that this is a very small world, and that they are mobilizing to bring this war to us.

The question, is why are they doing it.

There is no reason to wipe out all of Islam, only the radical terrorists.

How do you sort out the good from the bad? There's quite a lot of them all over the planet.

This war of terrorism is far deeper and wider than you are willing to entertain. This fight is now going on throughout all the continents of the Eastern hemisphere. You can't just close your eyes and hope it goes away.

The fact remains that terrorism isn't something that suddenly appeared. Muslims being savages isn't anything new either. Horrible human rights conditions is the norm for the vast majority of human history. I close my eyes to nothing, as it's everywhere.

You probably would have said the same thing about the NAZIs back in the day.

No, I wouldn't. I am not anti-fighting or anti-war specifically. I am, however, anti-stupid and anti-empire.

Empire is what you suggest. A global government/police force is what you suggest we man, run, fund, and take the heat for in complete disregard for anyone but what we think is the right way to do things.

You want a real mess on your hands? Try even 1% of what you propose, or since it's already in motion, just watch and enjoy comfortably on your couch.

I suggest not Empire.

I suggest that you cannot win a fight when the other side isn't even fighting the fight you think they are.

There isn't enough to do on this planet, and what there is to do is managed so horribly that it gives my bureaucratic Canadian soul nightmares.

People don't have any training. They don't have education. They don't have critical thinking. They often don't have food or water, let alone further resources. All of it is due to poor LOCAL management - and those local bureaucrats, religious figures, feudal lords, have a vested interest in keeping people from challenging them.

Further, they have young people - men - glut. They got a whole lot of bored young men, with no prospects, nothing to do, couldn't question a damn thing even if it occured to them to do so. Fighting "enemies" is FUN.


This isn't even far away. Mexico is battling this same formula and they have some advantages. Instead they have a corrupt bureaucracy or a series of feudal lords who happen to be gangsters.

Bad managment. Every last bit of it. Bad managment with cult gurus telling everyone that God commanded bad management.


Even in areas that could be better managed - Iraq has oil fields that could supply petroleum for 300 years at current rates of consumption, and the way they develop them is a freaking crime. Why a crime? Because the sheer stupid wasteful stupidity of how they manage their pools will precipitate some major trade wars in a couple o hundred years. And the people of that era will castigate us for letting a bunch of feudal mullahocracies waste hundreds of years of production due to stupidity and bad management.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
While I find these types of law abhorrent, who are we to say how they should live? If we justified attacking any country with a questionable or poor human rights record -- we'd be fighting all over the world. And frankly, China would be right at the top of the list! And for China, it's worse in my opinion because of their status in the world's economy and moreover, because they actually consider themselves to be a democracy!

No amount of military muscle is going to change laws such as these. The only way Afghanistan women are going to be permitted to attend school is if the actual citizens of Afghanistan fight for it!

The only way to win against laws such as this is if the people fight to have them changed. The citizens far outweigh the Taliban and need to band together in order to save their own country.

Remember the Afghan law that gave a man the right to rape his wife? Do you remember the international outcries AND the displeasure of the women? This law was changed -- still not perfect, but much improved -- and not a single drop of blood was spilled. Rather, it was the collective protests that occurred within their borders. At best, international support gave them the courage to voice their opinion, but in the end it was they themselves that forced the law to change.

People in the Middle East and elsewhere really don't care how we want them to live. They want to be able to live how THEY want to live.

The War in Afghanistan is 100% justifyable. On September 11th you know what happend.... This is an Act of War. No if's ands Or buts. We had an absolute RIGHT to persue the Taliban. It just so happend that the Taliban, was the Leading Government of a Country called Afghanistan. So We are technically at war with... Afghanistan! When we took out the Taliban leadership, Afghanistan became our responsiblity. Why wouldnt we try to install a Democratic Government there? What are we supposed to do? Just leave? Then what happens, Chaos, thats what. Look no further than Somalia.

But im sure you are so delusional that somalia is a TPTB Vacation resort or some crap.

What is so hard for you to understand? This couldnt be simpler.

However, if the job is left "undone" (murky as the definition of "job" might be), there will be little to no consequences for America.

WOW, that is pretty selfish of you, I knew thats how you people saw things.

What happens to the people of Afghanistan is the question, but you obviously don't give a damn.

You are up in arms because American Bombs kill women and children, but when Obama pulls out, and the Taliban Storms in, Kills the government, and continues its Crimes against humanity, that, according to your kind, the Taliban are ALLOWED to commit because it is their beliefs.

You see, Suddenly my Warmonger ass is the humanitarian, and YOU are the oppressor. You my freind, doomed those people, not I.

reply to post by Mikeyy


Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi, Al Q is made up of people from all different countries and the group is transient hence the lack of capture. 9/11 was not a Taliban strike and that is a fact. Whilst the Taliban were sympathetic to their cause I am sure hardline extremists all over the world were, including the hardline element of your number one partner in the region Saudi Arabia. Training camps? Maybe but what about the ones in other countries? Justification to send in a special forces extraction team with required backup? Yes I would agree but mass land invasion I would not.

The only way to fight a guerilla war is the same way. Intelligence and special forces, follow the bad guy around the globe because they are not staying put in Afghanistan that is plainly obvious.

I would suspect that a significant majority of Afghan people have never even heard of Al Q and Osama Bin Laden, again another reason for the lack of capture.

He might have been in Tora Bora at one point but I doubt he is even in the country now if alive at all, chasing shadows. So why continue? It is like a detective looking for a murder suspect and going to look for the guy at a friends house only to find he is not there. But the detective just decides to stay there rather than carry on the investigation..

Why has the trail gone cold? I keep hearing about second in command of this and that getting picked off, do they not watch these people?!?

Think about it a bit

The idea that the U.S. is trying to build an Empire is a strawman argument that even the people peddling this nonsense don't even buy. By pulling out this nonsense, it is clear that poster's only intent is to derail the conversation.

The practices of radical Islam are abhorrent. This is perfectly clear to anyone with a moral compass. The main goal of Islamic radicals is essentially to treat women like slaves and lock them into domestic arrangements that insure to keep women in a role of servitude to their husbands.

Among the many atrocities well known to anyone who has bothered to learn about the ways of radical Islam, include the following:

Selling girls as young as eight into sexual slavery to men over the age of forty through arranged marriages;

Punishing women for reporting rape, establishing a system where any woman put into a position where she does not have a male relative to protect her is considered free game for rape;

Murdering girls for daring to seek out an education, murdering their families for daring to help their daughters seek out an education, and murdering those attempting to provide an education for girls;

Murdering innocent bystanders on a random basis through acts of terrorism in order to impose their political goals.

Men who practice these atrocities are the scum of the Earth, and that is insulting scum. These are evil men, and if there is a just God, he will see that these cold heart lechers get their just punishment. They make one wish there is such a place as hell to send these people.

Yes, in the barbaric past of humanity there have been other societies who practiced such brutal treatment of others, but in this modern world, Where technology has shrank our planet to the point where everyone is your neighbor, we can not continue to ignore such vile practices.

When it comes to the people who defend these lechers, I wonder, is it really some exaggerated sense of tolerance that drives them to defend people of such acts, could it just be their ignorance, or could it be that in secret, they long for a social arrangement where women are held in such subservient positions to men.

To pretend that we should over look the practices of these men under the guise of cultural tolerance is ludicrous.

To claim that it is wrong to seek out and destroy men who practice these acts is to deny and sense of decency or morality.

If we are going to let such men roam our planet freely, we might as well eliminate the justice system, let loose all the prisoners, and go back to walking around armed with weapons at all times, turning our homes into fortresses.

In such a barbaric world of kill or be killed, controlled by warlords, these types of practices make sense, but in a civilized world, these things can not be tolerated.

In our small world, is it worth the effort to fight for what is right, for the morality necessary to establish a communal trust that allows for the advancement of mankind, or should we just pretend that these things should be over looked under the guise of cultural tolerance and hope that it is not our loved ones who are sold into sexual slavery, gang raped, or blown up in a random act of violence?