Afghanistan Crisis

[Ad Lib]

16 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

I just can't wait for his reaction when the SC overturns Roe Vs. Wade - fairly basic oppression of women's rights right there. 

I think it says a lot more about you that you're grabbing the popcorn at the prospect of women being denied bodily autonomy because it might upset someone on the internet.

[Ad Lib]

3 minutes ago, TheBruce said:

You really need to get out more.

Get a job ffs.

If you're a taxpayer you pay my salary. Unlucky.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Ad Lib said:

But in some cases it does require military force to be used. People who go door to door looking for teenage girls to rape as a trophy aren't interested in "negotiating" their way out of barbarity.

It appears that's exactly what they're doing at the moment, given that the US and the World Bank have frozen all the Government's dollar assets. Maybe the carrot will work better than the stick.

[101]

3 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

But in some cases it does require military force to be used. People who go door to door looking for teenage girls to rape as a trophy aren't interested in "negotiating" their way out of barbarity.

I agree with the rest of your post.

The Taliban have been negotiating with America for a while now that should be taken over by the UN or NATO with "tactics" such a rape being dealt with by sanctions, asylum and charges in court.

We can't send the army into every country that uses rape as a wepon otherwise we would be at war with Israel ( if the reports are accurate) meaning we would probably be at war with America.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

4 minutes ago, 101 said:

Going to be fun pretending that Qatar is fine during the world cup as the cameras try and not film the hundreds of not thousands of slaves.

Or perhaps we should cut ties with the Saudis who are one of our closest trading partners in the region.

And maybe we should have a word with our commonwealth partners that still criminalise homosexuality. 

Plenty of work to be done around the world, almost none of it involves sending in the army even if we could afford it. Which is assume is your point?

ILO reckons there are about 40 million slaves in the world today, with a quarter or more of them in India. I have no idea what proportion of them are women and children, but as with race, sexual orientation and age, the important defining characteristic is their humanity. Slaves. Today. In a country which is part of the Commonwealth (Leader - Lizzie Windsor) - the Commonwealth whose declaration of purpose includes the statement:

These relationships we intend to foster and extend, for we believe that our multi-national association can expand human understanding and understanding among nations, assist in the elimination of discrimination based on differences of race, colour or creed, maintain and strengthen personal liberty, contribute to the enrichment of life for all, and provide a powerful influence for peace among nations.

Maybe we should set up a permanent occupation force on the subcontinent? 

[Ad Lib]

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

It appears that's exactly what they're doing at the moment, given that the US and the World Bank have frozen all the Government's dollar assets. Maybe the carrot will work better than the stick.

It won't.

6 minutes ago, 101 said:

I agree with the rest of your post.

The Taliban have been negotiating with America for a while now that should be taken over by the UN or NATO with "tactics" such a rape being dealt with by sanctions, asylum and charges in court.

We can't send the army into every country that uses rape as a wepon otherwise we would be at war with Israel ( if the reports are accurate) meaning we would probably be at war with America.

The Taliban were negotiating with Trump, because they saw he was a strategic blunderbus and that they could engineer a situation where NATO prematurely withdrew troops. That the Biden administration didn't properly revisit this is an absolute catastrophe. There was absolutely no attempt in those negotiations to address the way that the Taliban treats women and girls. Both because Trump didn't care and because that simply isn't something that they would compromise on in any enforceable, lasting or meaningful way.

The UN is a toothless organisation. Absolutely no progress will be made there while the Russians and Chinese have an interest in blocking anything (including sanctions) in the Security Council. Saying that we should "hand it over to NATO" literally just means "America should hand it over to an organisation most of whose foreign policies are determined by America and its allies". That doesn't solve or improve anything.

I've never suggested that we can "send the army into every country that uses rape as a weapon". But when we do send the army into countries, and a consequence of our presence is that for at least part of the civilian population that rape can no longer be used as a weapon, we are morally obliged to take all feasible steps to ensure the conditions in those places do not revert as and when we are no longer there.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Ad Lib

[101]

7 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

ILO reckons there are about 40 million slaves in the world today, with a quarter or more of them in India. I have no idea what proportion of them are women and children, but as with race, sexual orientation and age, the important defining characteristic is their humanity. Slaves. Today. In a country which is part of the Commonwealth (Leader - Lizzie Windsor) - the Commonwealth whose declaration of purpose includes the statement:

These relationships we intend to foster and extend, for we believe that our multi-national association can expand human understanding and understanding among nations, assist in the elimination of discrimination based on differences of race, colour or creed, maintain and strengthen personal liberty, contribute to the enrichment of life for all, and provide a powerful influence for peace among nations.

Maybe we should set up a permanent occupation force on the subcontinent? 

Perhaps but as long as Patricia Scotland is running the show at the commonwealth, things are unlikely to happen unless she has a pal she can parachute into post as per her previous form and numerous controversies.

But feel this is a bit off topic.

Edited August 20, 2021 by 101

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

There was absolutely no attempt in those negotiations to address the way that the Taliban treats women and girls.

I get the impression from Taliban statements that there was. Has any of the deal been published?

[Ad Lib]

5 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

ILO reckons there are about 40 million slaves in the world today, with a quarter or more of them in India. I have no idea what proportion of them are women and children, but as with race, sexual orientation and age, the important defining characteristic is their humanity. Slaves. Today. In a country which is part of the Commonwealth (Leader - Lizzie Windsor) - the Commonwealth whose declaration of purpose includes the statement:

These relationships we intend to foster and extend, for we believe that our multi-national association can expand human understanding and understanding among nations, assist in the elimination of discrimination based on differences of race, colour or creed, maintain and strengthen personal liberty, contribute to the enrichment of life for all, and provide a powerful influence for peace among nations.

Maybe we should set up a permanent occupation force on the subcontinent? 

Of course, this slavery is not sanctioned by the Indian state (contra the Taliban expressly authorising the forced marriage, beating and rape of women), and the Indian constitution expressly prohibits both slavery and servitude.

The problem in India is one of inability to enforce basic human rights, not an active desire on its state systematically and deliberately to deny them. The state isn't strong enough, politically or economically, or indeed socially within many communities, to crack down on things like bonded servitude and child labour.

Absolutely no one suggests that the UK and other countries should not be taking action to address these issues. But in this case, it is not clear how a military intervention would make a blind bit of difference.

By contrast it is very clear how a military intervention made the difference for the women and girls of Kabul and Afghanistan's other major population centres.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

25 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I'm not asking "the world" to "adopt this rule". (1).

It is not a set of "liberal norms" that women and girls should not be forcibly married, beaten for being alone in public, raped by soldiers as trophies. It is among the absolute bare fucking minimum set of norms that gives moral legitimacy to the existence of political power.(2)

And no, the West just sitting back and passively doing nothing does not mean there will be "peace" in the world. It means that Russia and China will dominate more of the planet, enable more despotic and brutal regimes to oppress their people, and will destabilise the peace in the West that you and hundreds of millions of others take for granted.

1. Fair enough.

2. Kinda sounds like you are, though. Well, telling the world what is acceptable. And your go-to method of exercising political power throughout this thread has not involved sanctions of any kind other than military intervention. 

[Ad Lib]

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I get the impression from Taliban statements that there was. Has any of the deal been published?

Here is the Doha Peace Agreement signed by Donald Trump.

The words "women" and "girls" do not appear. The words "human rights" do not appear.

[Ad Lib]

3 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

1. Fair enough.

2. Kinda sounds like you are, though. Well, telling the world what is acceptable. And your go-to method of exercising political power throughout this thread has not involved sanctions of any kind other than military intervention. 

There is a difference between 1. Telling the world what is acceptable and 2. Imposing liberal values on the world.

2 involves 1 but it does not follow that 1 involves 2.

The reason I have been primarily talking about military intervention on this thread is because (drumroll please...) this is a thread about NATO and its allies ending the presence of its military personnel in Afghanistan.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

27 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I think it says a lot more about you that you're grabbing the popcorn at the prospect of women being denied bodily autonomy because it might upset someone on the internet.

Thing is - there's really not a lot I can do about the continued influence of the so-called Christian Right in the USA. To suggest I'm looking forward to their society regressing even further is an absolutely wilful misreading of my post. Actually an insult to your own intelligence and comprehension, rather than me. American society is an absolute disgrace on so many levels, and there's nothing amusing about it. This does not detract from the entertainment which is always provided by moral arbiters such as yourself when the folks you've cast as the "good guys" turn out to be bigger cúnts than you original bete noire. "We" have to take our silver linings where we can in these times. 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

20 minutes ago, 101 said:

Perhaps but as long as Patricia Scotland is running the show at the commonwealth, things are unlikely to happen unless she has a pal she can parachute into post as per her previous form and numerous controversies.

But feel this is a bit off topic.

I specifically didn't bring that particular person into the equation. We have history. 

[Billy Jean King]

You are obviously in a coma.

Definitely not, I await your evidence to back your claim up.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

40 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

If you're a taxpayer you pay my salary. Unlucky.

The kind of arrogant statement which allows the public to believe Public Servants are all cúnts. 

FTAOD, we're not, but some cúnts are Public Servants.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

18 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

There is a difference between 1. Telling the world what is acceptable and 2. Imposing liberal values on the world.

2 involves 1 but it does not follow that 1 involves 2.

The reason I have been primarily talking about military intervention on this thread is because (drumroll please...) this is a thread about NATO and its allies ending the presence of its military personnel in Afghanistan.

It's also a thread about arrogance, hypocrisy, cherry-picking where and how inalienable rights should be applied and to whom. 

..and a thread wherw someone who fancies himself something of a debater is continually ending up in a cul de sac of his own making. 

Your 1 and 2 are not mine. Obviously the clues are there in your Fib Dem past, but you really have developed the art of responding to the question you wish had been asked, rather than the one that was. A great future in the legal profession awaits. 

[Ad Lib]

49 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Thing is - there's really not a lot I can do about the continued influence of the so-called Christian Right in the USA. To suggest I'm looking forward to their society regressing even further is an absolutely wilful misreading of my post.

 

1 hour ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

I just can't wait for his reaction when the SC overturns Roe Vs. Wade

 

49 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Actually an insult to your own intelligence and comprehension, rather than me. American society is an absolute disgrace on so many levels, and there's nothing amusing about it. This does not detract from the entertainment which is always provided by moral arbiters such as yourself when the folks you've cast as the "good guys" turn out to be bigger cúnts than you original bete noire. "We" have to take our silver linings where we can in these times. 

 

 

[Ad Lib]

40 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

The kind of arrogant statement which allows the public to believe Public Servants are all cúnts. 

FTAOD, we're not, but some cúnts are Public Servants.

You are though.

[Savage Henry]

13 hours ago, Tight John McVeigh is a tit said:

Absolutely so much in a few paragraphs.

The humanitarian effort should always have been about the immediate needs of the victims not some Utopia.

Driving out the Taliban clearly had to be done, but then helping the locals get back to some form of normality that they want and they recognise and most of all they accept should have been the key. I have little doubt that most troops on the ground would have been trying to achieve that. 

After that the troops should have left but humanitarian efforts continued. This would have made it much more difficult for the Taliban to return imo.

The Taliban play on fear by violence and a distorted view of Islam. We in some form removed the fear by violence, but we did not get the ‘reading of the room’ when it comes to faith (and the general expectations of the majority of the people) that has been a massive plus for the Taliban.

The aim should have been for recognised and acceptable normality as the starting point.

Our prolonged stay and our vision of what Afghanistan should look like was counter productive.

No matter what the west done we would always have been the outsider, with outsider ideas and a fact that the Taliban would manipulate with every misguided idea.

The borderlands for the Taliban was the countryside where most Afghans live. To be out there telling a most likely poorly or uneducated farmer that he is doing his life wrong and he must change is tantamount to being a modern day missionary.

Giving him the vote, as mentioned before, although good, is nothing, means nothing at this point.

I would hazard a guess that the average Afghan would not be setting his sites on his daughter going to university or having equality and the thought of that today would be questionable. The average Afghan would probably want his daughter to be safe and secure and married to a supportive husband within the local and religious values he holds dear and despite us not fully agreeing with that we should accept that at this point.

Going out there and helping him get his life into the order he wants, working with the imams and village elders to achieve this and biting our tongue when we have a conflicting view that could cause harm and/or offence, or guiding them to the right conclusion when it may be non confrontational to do so.

Grand dreams don’t happen over night and acceptable millstones should be in place especially when the progress change is so huge.

Cities and countryside everywhere is hugely different and more magnified in developing countries. All the developments in Kabul count for little if the majority of the population is outside it unless you built a wall. All that we created was a have and have nots and the Taliban could sail through the have nots without resistance, leaving Kabul exposed. The idea that the west knew Kabul would fall is an admission of their f**k ups, how quickly it fell shows how much they fucked up. To go back and repeat is stupidity and a huge amount of human suffering.

The more we pushed our ideas onto the population no matter how right we believe we are, the more we allowed the Taliban the ability to walk back in. 

If the left of the scale is moderate Islam and right of the scale is Sharia Law, where does the western, Christian based value sit? Not on the scale at all. The west need to move the scale first, get it to the left first, then….. Otherwise the west will always be wrong at the ‘baseline’.

It takes multiple generations to change ideals.

I have huge respect for Jinky here, not that he was in the army, but the fact he recognises human suffering and the needs of individuals. Governments could have done better if they had listened to stories from first hand experience first and formed their policies to accommodate the needs of the poor.

Being humble and willing to learn from anyone, even an Afghan farmer, is something of huge value than considering your values are unequivocal. 

 

 

I agree with a lot of this.  What you are basically taking issue with is the predated notion of nation building.  Despite claims to the contrary, the Western governments have been unable to detach their use of military from those Victorian ideals.   That being said, what you have described is precisely what the remnants of Western military in Iraq currently do, and should have been doing in Afghanistan.   The US state department, rather than bombing the shite out of everything that moves, spends the majority of its budget on soft power - building schools, providing academic replacements for universities, and assisting IDP settlements, and so forth.  In practical terms, that requires military presence.  What Trump did was to remove the funding for those soft projects, redistributing it to the hard weaponry of the military.  The cutbacks in overseas spending were achieved not by cutting back on military spending, but by taking away from what the State department should be doing.  Then, when the military moves out, lining the pockets of the odious private security sector (to wit, Trump’s pals).  The effect of this is what you are seeing now.