20
   

Obama made a terrible decision re Afghanistan

 
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 11:28 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Arent their Law Courts and prosecutions, not to mention spy agencies, still independant ?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 11:34 pm
@Ionus,
My understanding is not extensive. In the beginning, the European Union was not established as a strong military alliance but an economic one. Many now share the same currency (which I personally believe was a big mistake for many of those countries), and they still don't really have anything resembling a bonafide military EU establishment. Most are on their own when they volunteer troops or other assistance to war zones. They have what is called "European Security and Defense Policy, but I'm not sure how effective they are. They depend more on cooperation than they do stringent rules and regulations about participation.

Maybe Walter, oe, or another European can explain it better than I.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 03:33 am
@Ionus,
I have great difficulty equating the American War of Independence with the current invasion of Afghanistan, Ionus.

(To me, anyway) there's a huge difference between a genuine home-grown struggle for independence and the nature of the war currently being fought in Afghanistan.

Quote:
You cant suggest a course of action without regard to the consequences of it and other possible courses further into the future.


Precisely my thinking on the US & allied invasion of Afghanistan. We are knowingly supporting an entrenched, corrupt government, with little concern about the effects this is having on the lives & aspirations of the ordinary people. This will hardly win over their hearts & minds.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 06:04 am
@msolga,
Are you aware of the revolution within Afghanistan that the Allies went to help ? A bit like the French in the American war of independance. How do you think Afghanistan was taken without our ground troops ? And in Iraq, have you forgotten how joyous everyone was to be rid of Sadly Insane ?
Quote:
We are knowingly supporting an entrenched, corrupt government, with little concern about the effects this is having on the lives & aspirations of the ordinary people.
They are not entrenched. They are vulnerable, that is why we are there. Great concern has been expressed, so I wouldnt call it little.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 06:11 am
@Ionus,
No, I'm not aware of this revolution you're referring to, Ionus. It's news to me. Could you explain it?

Of course there's great concern about Kazai's (sp?) government. It is widely accepted as corrupt. Have you not read about the recent election? The vote rigging? The deals that were done to secure power?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 06:21 am
@msolga,
The Northern Alliance were fighting the Taliban for years before we went in. As the country was liberated, more fighters joined. If it had of been the other way around, and they had of resisted, we would still be trying to take the capital. Everyone had enough of the Taliban and it was only their fighters versus most of Afghanistan with US airpower support and ground controllers that took the country back.
Quote:
Of course there's great concern about Kazai's (sp?) government. It is widely accepted as corrupt. Have you not read about the recent election? The vote rigging? The deals that were done to secure power?
Yes, and this is why I said great concern was expressed, in opposition to you saying little concern was expressed. We pressured enough to get new elections.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 06:34 am
@Ionus,
Ionus, I don't mean to be rude, honestly ... but your account hardly warrants to title of a "revolution".

Did I imply little concern was expressed? I thought I said that it was our (US & allies) presence that was directly supporting this corrupt government.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 06:43 am
@msolga,
You are not rude you are very polite.

Revolution :
Definition - A fundamental change in political organization, or in a government or constitution; the overthrow or renunciation of one government, and the substitution of another, by the governed.

It worked the same way revolutions usually work. One armed party resists the government and eventually liberates land and people adding to its legitamacy. Finally the original government is not in control.

Quote:
it was our (US & allies) presence that was directly supporting this corrupt government.
They certainly would be in a lot of trouble without us. They are very corrupt. Drug money is like a cancer.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 07:11 am
@Ionus,
We will have to agree to disagree about whether in fact a "revolution" occurred in Afghanistan. Wink

Quote:
They certainly would be in a lot of trouble without us. They are very corrupt. Drug money is like a cancer.


Would Karzai's government even exist without our support?
It is not just the drug money. It's the deals with the warlords to retain power. It's that the results of the election are widely disputed because of all the corruption & vote rigging. It's the fact that Karzai's government is responsible for laws like this, despite pressure from the US & human rights groups. As a pre-election deal to gain support, apparently.:

Afghanistan passes 'barbaric' law diminishing women's rights
guardian.co.uk, Friday 14 August 2009

Rehashed legislation allows husbands to deny wives food if they fail to obey sexual demands
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2009/8/1/1249157752758/Women-in-Islamic-dress-we-001.jpg
Women wearing the burka in Baharak town, Afghanistan. Photograph: Tim Wimborne/Reuters

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/14/afghanistan-womens-rights-rape



dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 05:49 pm
@msolga,
That was a while back, wasn't?

Yes, things are great for women in Afghanistan now.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 05:54 pm
@dlowan,
It was the result of a deal with a powerful a fundamentalist faction leader for votes/support, just prior to the election.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 07:02 pm
@msolga,
It's not the first or last time we support a corrupt regime to invade their country to get involved in killing their people, and destroying their infrastructure. Even when most Americans are against our involvement in Afghanistan, Obama has approved sending 30,000 more of our service men and women to fight a war not supported by the American people.

Maybe, after we stay there for a few more years, we'll capture Karzai and charge him with crimes against humanity - and hang him.

Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 07:21 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
Would Karzai's government even exist without our support?
I dont know. I tend to think the default in Afghanistan is anarchy.
Quote:
It's the deals with the warlords to retain power.
Withdrawing now would increase the vulnerability of the central government to warlord pressure.

In your quote beginning :
Quote:
Afghanistan has quietly passed a law permitting .......
This is typical of Middle Eastern and Eastern Asian Muslim countries. Are we to withdraw because they are not moving fast enough ? How do we determine a pace for change ? Previously they used to execute women in the sports oval.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 07:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
It's not the first or last time we support a corrupt regime to invade their country to get involved in killing their people, and destroying their infrastructure.
That has so much emotion in it I cant determine any facts behind it. Take a deep breath and tell me what you are trying to say.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 07:28 pm
@Ionus,
I guess you missed the whole Iraq war. I'm not about to repeat what we did there, but you can find loads of information on Google.
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 07:28 pm
@msolga,
even the german government is in favour of the karzai government ... ...
i would have thought that the german government would be able to see through the smoke screen ( they probably know the dirty thruth but are willing to make a pact with the devil ) .

see : german news service
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4907997,00.html

Quote:
19.11.2009
Westerwelle ( german foreign minister) welcomes Karzai speech during Afghanistan visit

Karzai has been inaugurated to a second term as the president of Afghanistan. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle praised the message in Karzai's inaugural speech, and called on Karzai to follow through.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle joined around 800 dignitaries from around the world to witness Karzai's swearing in for a second term in office.


pretty sad imo .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 07:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I guess you missed the whole Iraq war.
No, I didnt miss it. What is your point ?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 07:41 pm
My personal opinion is that remaining in Afghanistan is a fundamental error because (1) it's not winnable and (2) has no bearing on the safety, integrity of the US.
On the other hand I have no idea what Obama knows or thinks, he may be correct in his assessment.
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 08:07 pm
@dyslexia,
a/t a report by The Council On Foreign Relations ( december 2008 ) even saudi-arabia has trouble understanding what is really happening in afghanistan .

won't clutter up a2k and just give the link and headlines :

http://www.cfr.org/publication/17964/saudi_arabia_and_the_future_of_afghanistan.html

Quote:
Saudi Arabia and the Future of Afghanistan
Author: Greg Bruno, Staff Writer

December 11, 2008

1.Introduction
2.Saudi Ties to Afghanistan
3.Aiding the Rise of the Taliban
4.Peace Brokers or Strategic Lobbyists?
5.Leveraging Saudi Support


seems to me that the saudis and other nations of the region are prepared to let the U.S. do their ( dirty ? ) work for them .
they have enough troubles in their own countries anyhow .

(i'd think that president obama has been given some bad advice - and he has accepted it ) .
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 08:11 pm
@Ionus,
You missed it, or you don't understand what happened there.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 03:38:34