Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Although I agree with you most of the time and certainly about the excessiveness all the time what would you propose as a real political solution without any military intervention, US  and/or Nato, when it comes to hot spots with millions of peoples' lives at risk like Darfur, Kosovo etc. ? How can you believe the same unreasonable people who would kill people on the basis of their religious or political differences could agree to a political solution without military intervention. Should Afghanistan go back to the days of Taliban rule where women are second class citizens and human rights are ignored? Should 'terrorist' groups be incubated by the Taliban? What is your poltical solution for the country?

We all know it is not the way the US has been acting but I am not sure poltical solutions can be accepted without the need sometimes for military intervention. Please clarify your thinking.

by An American in London on Sat Mar 1st, 2008 at 10:56:58 AM EST
And the situation of Afghani women is better now, how?
by Fran on Sat Mar 1st, 2008 at 11:00:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
' We all now the ay to fo forward is not the way the US has been acting' but what would you propose?
by An American in London on Sat Mar 1st, 2008 at 11:05:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know. :-( But I know more bombing of Afghanistan will not improve their situation. War tends to cement macho structures even more.

It propably will take decades to undo the wounds of the Russian and now the US/NATO invasion. It will take education and helping to build a society and economy, where woman can become more independent. Besides the goal of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was not to improve the lot of women.

I was always against the war on terrorism and the invasion of Afghanistan. I never been able to see this as an solution. It is only the civilians that are suffering once more.

by Fran on Sat Mar 1st, 2008 at 11:16:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
AAiL:
...but what would you propose?

You may want to read or re-read Afew's diary: The Afghanistan Problem, in Jerome's links.

You might object that none of us here at ET is proposing "The Solution For Afghanistan" you're looking for. It may be hard to accept, but in that particular occurrence, there's just no such thing. Orderly withdrawal is the best that can be hoped for.

by Bernard on Sat Mar 1st, 2008 at 02:37:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
rg linked to a serious project to hook up afghani opium producers to the world pharma market. how many civilians/soldiers would that save?

but no....out comes the paraquat, sop to keep the black market price up.

it 'works' on coca in colombia, right? <snark>


'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 02:44:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
oy, metavision! did you troll rate me on purpose?

why?

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 12:13:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Corrected.

It's the second one today that has slipped by me and the first was J., also corrected.

I'm sorry, I'll try to be more careful with my mouse.  

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 01:30:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You don't have someone's latest Tribext? Download it, and this should be a yesterday's worry... You can 4 with one click, and it warns prior to giving anything else than a 4.
by Nomad on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 04:30:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
they can go to school now, (dodging bombs, rapists, kidnappers, holyroller stoners, honour-killings from vengeful relatives). that is important, at least symbolically, right?

oh yeah and don't forget the kites, or are those just for boys?

taliban are bad news, no doubt, but who encouraged them by acting like global assholes?

fundies like war...it's what they do... inside their heads, most of all.

i was fortunate enough to travel in afghanistan in around '74, and was struck by so many good things about the country, it burns me up to see the suffering they endure through foreign meddling.

they have been traumatised more than almost any other nation on earth, and we, the supposedly enlightened west, can only come up with violence as solution to almost all problems.

war machines need wars...afghanistan is just one of the 'crappy little countries' michael ledeen mentions as needed to beat up every so often, just to piss on the territory and blow up expensive munitions.

i would imagine that if the alternative is a rabid western kill-force bent on instrumentalising your geography and monopolising your resources, then maybe even loons like the taliban start looking better, at least they speak the language.

lose-lose...till we get out the killers and replace them with genuine aid that has a transparent, entirely sustainable agenda.

obama will doubtless make that his first priority.

mcpain or shrillary, i don't go there...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 03:00:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think this diary is really about Afghanistan, maybe Jérôme's choice of titel is a little misleading. In my opinion the diary and the article in the Spiegel is about how Obama will deal/handle the Europeans.
by Fran on Sat Mar 1st, 2008 at 11:05:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Should Afghanistan go back to the days of Taliban rule where women are second class citizens and human rights are ignored?

Women are second-class citizens and human rights are ignored, as of current. Plus, there is widespread banditry, rape, and warlords from all factions depend on cultivating heroin.

You are speaking on the basis of an illusion, an illusion that what 50,000, 100,000 troops do there has any positive influence on people's lives.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Mar 1st, 2008 at 11:29:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
An American in London:
Should Afghanistan go back to the days of Taliban rule where women are second class citizens and human rights are ignored?
Hmm, they are already there as far as women's rights are concerned. The American invasion and occupation hasn't delivered on that front, either.

In fact, in Iraq things are not just as bad as they were, but much worse: under Saddam Iraq was secular and women had more rights, and the US occupation has empowered religious reactionnaries.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Mar 1st, 2008 at 12:24:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Should Afghanistan go back to the days of Taliban rule where women are second class citizens and human rights are ignored?

Pashtun Suicide Terrorism---an Update International Terrorism Monitor--Paper No. 370
By B. Raman

(...) In its issue of August 3-9, 2007, the "Friday Times" of Lahore wrote as follows: "Recruits are formally registered with the Taliban as suicide bombers and given a receipt indicating their registration number. At any given point, there are thousands in line waiting to sacrifice their lives, an observer returning from South Waziristan told the weekly. If one of them is selected to be the next bomber, the news is a cause for celebration in his household. (...) ....Women, because of the Taliban's strict anti-wife-beating policy, are largely in favour of them..... This is part of the
strategy of winning over the mothers, who, according to the Taliban, have the greatest influence on the child as he grows up. Women are thus actively involved in the process of indoctrinating children in favour of the Taliban."

Seems Pashtun women in Afghanistan now mostly view the Taliban as comparatively more women-favouring than the other lot - so imagine just how womens'-rights-friendly the northern alliance warlords must be!

"Ignoring moralities is always undesirable, but doing so systematically is really worrisome." Mohammed Khatami

by eternalcityblues (parvati_roma aaaat libero.it) on Sat Mar 1st, 2008 at 03:25:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
An American in London:
Should 'terrorist' groups be incubated by the Taliban? What is your poltical solution for the country?

'Terrorist' groups are incubated by the Saudis - to the extent that the biggest bribery and corruption investigation in the UK in recent history was derailed at least in part by hints that more terrorism might happen if it continued.

Afghanistan has nothing to do with anything. It's a monkey trap - the place where empires go to die.

An American in London:

Please clarify your thinking.

The lack of clarity would not appear to be on Jerome's side here.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Mar 1st, 2008 at 12:27:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My mind is still reeling on this one.

The threat from the Saudis was not a surprise. The Saudi royals are thugs. Still, the response from the UK was a big surprise to me. I wouldn't expect Her Majesty's Vanguards to unload on the peninsula but folding like that? Then, what's next?

by Francois in Paris on Sat Mar 1st, 2008 at 08:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was puzzled by it, too.  But we've given the Saudis the upper hand with every post-9/11 misstep.  After the attacks, we should've rallied around the cause of getting off the oil, and we should've said to the Saudis, "You did this, you little bastards.  We're ditching the oil now, but, in the meantime, you'd better keep it flowing, or there isn't going to be much of a Saudi Arabia left when we're through."

That's one period on which I would've most certainly used the stick approach rather than the carrot.  But I guess that's easy to say for me, as someone who isn't buddy-buddy with these scumbags.

And now we've pissed away the opportunity.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 08:53:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The opportunity is still there, but yes, there was a singular moment right after 9-11 where this could have happened, and more importantly, the president actually had a chance to change Saudi policy (where under normal circumstances the president does not have that power). Sadly, well, we all know about the family connections.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 04:26:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How can you believe the same unreasonable people who would kill people on the basis of their religious or political differences could agree to a political solution without military intervention.

That is the problem, is it not? How can we get the people who would kill others to agree to political solutions? Maybe we could prosecute them and jail them, or just stop rewarding them. Not electing them in the first place would be a starter.

Or wait, are you talking about murderous leaders in other countries?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Mar 1st, 2008 at 06:15:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As TBG pointed out, the terrorism problem is much more in Saudi Arabia than Afghanistan.  (Where do you think the money/education comes from?)  The only people worth going after in Afghanistan are bin Laden and his immediate circle, and much of that is just symbolism rather than anything of truly practical importance.

But we don't talk about that, because the Saudis are our bffs.

But why talk about it?  Nothing will be accomplished on that front until we're free of their oil, and we're a little too concerned with bullshitting Ohioans about NAFTA than we are about ending the oil addiction and actually making ourselves safer.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Mar 1st, 2008 at 07:58:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series