Pulling out of Afghanistan could risk women's rights progress

Another story in the long lasting argument of whether or not the US military is welcome in other countries—this time concerning women's rights in Afghanistan.

Apparently, the media has found that "US lawmakers and Afghan women's rights activists" are worried that pulling the military out of Afghanistan will set women back.

However, it is my opinion that it wouldn't have been an issue if it weren't for Russia invading and occupying the country in the 80s, and the US consequentially funding the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the 90s. (That's not ignoring that there are more reasons than that about the mujahideen reasoning for their current activities.)

Prior to the 80s, it can be seen that women had been able to "enjoy" many freedoms and rights that they don't have now in Afghanistan.

They could wear damn near whatever they wanted, even those sinful miniskirts. They could drive, vote, hold political office, but because of the Soviets and US government during the Cold War era, the Taliban and Al Qaeda were able to gain more influence, and through the further actions of the US government and Russians began to see themselves has having been played.

And women suffered for it through the radicalization that swept through the Middle East.

But now lawmakers and women's right's activists are worried about the withdrawal of US troops? After decades of meddling and toppling? After two decades of the "War on Terror?" After years of complaining that the US shouldn't be the "World Police?" After years of people in countries around the world saying that the US is evil? When people around the world are scorned for showing support for the US military?

Now lawmakers are worried about women's rights?

Oh, the travesty! Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Honestly, you know what this is? The war hawks are just finding reasons to keep the military there, and are worried that the people who live there are going to start running their own country. The US government and MIC can't have that now can they?

If they're so worried about it, they should draft all the new wave feminists that are so repressed in the US to go over there and fight for women's rights for the women who have no rights and can only expect to be sold off for a goat or two at a young age to be abused and impregnated repeatedly.

amp.cnn.com...

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Women's rights, opium, lithium, strategic positioning... Same thing, the only difference is the former sounds far more virtuous.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Sooooo the U.S. military is supposed to police their social and cultural norms?

It would be more effective if we just sent our media in there. They do more damage than any boots on the ground ever could do.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

We can't comment on China's human rights abuses because that is their "normal" according to the Biden administration.

But we have to stay in the Middle East forever because of woman's rights?

WTF, over?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: AutomateThis1

Women's rights, opium, lithium, strategic positioning... Same thing, the only difference is the former sounds far more virtuous.

Truth.

I'm thinking "women's rights" is code for hijacked opium production.

Hard core Islam treats women like cattle. That's not going to change any time soon.

The crazy thing is that Fatima Gailani was in her 20s back when women had rights, and she's so happy to be able to work towards a "New Afghanistan." Like she's acting like women didn't have rights before. Now she's more than happy to work with the US government, Taliban, and other antagonistic groups.


The other woman im the article. Fawzia Koofi was born in the 70s so she's only been able to here stories of how women used to be more free.

Even though she considers the US government to be an ally, and she's worried about the effects of the troops being removed she says "We want to see this war end tomorrow."

www.npr.org...

I was going to write a thread on this actually.

Now we see how the US is being expected to solve "the Russia/Ukraine problem", "the Iran/Israel problem".

Just tack this onto the list of never-ending problems the US is expected to figure out. GRANTED are hands are not exactly clean in say Afghanistan or the M.E.

Then again maybe somebody in the Taliban in Afghanistan some years ago, when a Saudi showed up in their country and started planning on schemes to fly planes into US skyscrapers, might've had a little foresight and thought to themselves "hmm, when the STHF and the cruise missiles start ripping and Marines start dropping in, ... is this tall string bean bearded smiley guy going to help us with the raining death ... or is this whole Jihad and suicide in the name of Allah thing only for the peons, and will string bean smiley guy just run off to another country"?

I am sick and f'ing TIRED of the balkanization of the US to the point where certain demographic slices from our country want to use the US military as a blunt instrument to solve some geopolitical problem in /their/ homeland, it's either the Russia thing, or some M.E. flare up, or some problem South of the border, or it's China/Hong Kong, on and on and on.

America. FIRST.

We are not rent a cop security. We do not exist to un-fkuc your country's inability to set up a stable, self-sustaining governmental system.

And the 'deep state' actors in the US, the Bushes and Chennies and others (pretty much CIA top to bottom) that want to export 'Murica's "democracy to all!" at the expense of our soldiers blood are just as much part of the problem. Every country should have the right to self-governance and the right to choose how to self-organize and establish their political systems.

NOW, if your country's ethos and political system involves say gender mutilation or suicide vests or illegally crossing borders, you should probably expect us to not take kindly to that in this country, and it shouldn't surprise you to get smacked down, deported or maybe not allowed to immigrate to begin with. But if you are an immigrant who REJECTS that type of sociological pathology, come on in to the US, we welcome you with open arms. But don't expect us to fix the problems in your traditional homeland. We (the US) can't win in that game. We've tried and failed at it countless times. It may turn out to not be a 'winnable' activity. Whenever we go into a place, EVEN with pure intentions, we're either imperialist invading pigs /OR/ we're abrogating our expected role as magical fixer of the peoples of Earth. You can never be everything to everybody, and satisfy everyone.

But you see that's why Trump was ejected with extreme prejudice. "America First" meant that we were going to be getting out of the business of global problem solving by the barrel of a gun, which turns out is a very very lucrative business to some. So the MIC/Deep State engineered the most intense negative P.R. campaign against a political figure in modern history, got the poles all lined up, the MSM was a more than willing accomplice, and the lot succeeded in entrenching a "Commander in Sleep" in the White House so they can get back to making money off international intervention.

All of this was foreseen, predicted, and bashed into thick skulls over and over, Trump was put in the office to get the US out of foreign adventurism, but that philosophy ain't got nothin' on mean Tweets t'would seem.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

That's pretty much my opinion give or take a few things. I'll type up a better response in a bit.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Pulling out general is good for a lot of women's progress.

originally posted by: NightVision
a reply to: AutomateThis1

Pulling out general is good for a lot of women's progress.

Don't have to pull out if you never go in!

I wonder how many "subsidies" these activist groups are being paid to give a sh#t.

Also, who is looking out for the 'dancing boys'?
Lemme guess, no one.

Some so called liberals will lap this up like some sort of moral victory but the sad truth is, they are feeding the beast.

This is nothing more than bought and paid for virtue signalling to justify perpetual war and many a fool will believe it.

Old Military Industrial Complex Proverb: "For every bomb we drop, a bleeding heart leftist will justify it for us".

Remember when this war was about catching Osama Bin Laden?

They have been asked by their owners in Beijing and communicated to them by the Premier of the Sino-American Union of States, Xiao Bai Den that troops must protect Beijing mining interests.

originally posted by: Ohanka
Remember when this war was about catching Osama Bin Laden?

I think it's pretty clear that it was never about Osama Bin Laden. It was about Opium.

Your sarcasm is noted by the way. I just felt the need to point that out.

a reply to: projectvxn

Oh sh#t!

I went and forgot about the Rare earth minerals!

Trillions of dollars!

Are we really going to let China have these?

I wish TPTB would just be honest and stop pretending to give a sh#t about women or any other demographic of peasants...

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
I wonder how many "subsidies" these activist groups are being paid to give a sh#t.

Also, who is looking out for the 'dancing boys'?
Lemme guess, no one.

Some so called liberals will lap this up like some sort of moral victory but the sad truth is, they are feeding the beast.

This is nothing more than bought and paid for virtue signalling to justify perpetual war and many a fool will believe it.

Old Military Industrial Complex Proverb: "For every bomb we drop, a bleeding heart leftist will justify it for us".

Remember the money going to Pakistan for "gender equality?"

Go look up where the Taliban and Al Qaeda originated. Coincidence?

a reply to: AutomateThis1

As you know, Pakistan are a nuclear power.

It seems that nukes are the going entry fee to play on the Global Chess Board.

It's clear that Pakistan have duplicitous interests but western intelligence agencies seem happy to let them carry on regardless. Aside from the odd drone strike gone wrong, Pakistan just cruises along with their nuke deterrent and nobody gives a sh#t.

originally posted by: projectvxn
They have been asked by their owners in Beijing and communicated to them by the Premier of the Sino-American Union of States, Xiao Bai Den that troops must protect Beijing mining interests.

I'm just spit balling here... But I think it has more to do with our own oligarchy. Corporations have gotten so big by the restructuring of US taxes and lowering of tariffs that they're hooked on the way things are now.

Maybe part of that is due to China pulling strings, maybe it's a result of our own policy, or a mixture of the two. I'm leaning towards a mixture.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

FFS, from the same SJWs always on the back of the Military ?.... let these social justice "warriors" prove their warrior selves by doing the job themselves....fat chance of that happening....requires actual work and effort....