That's utter BS though.
No, they are not exaggerated.So...Afghan women's concerns are exaggerated? The Taliban will allow them to thrive and live freely? How should I interpret this post of yours?
LGBT and women have existed forever within those cultures for centuries. Visit Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, or other Muslim cultures and you'll find them openly living and in most cases thriving. This is the agenda and narrative I am talking about being pushed. if you're old enough I'm am sure you'll know the enlightened West were a lot more anti-LGBT just a few decades back.
Yes, there will be groups and individuals who are against LGBT but that is also the case in most countries around the world.
Just to expand on this, as apparently it was due a warning for 'quality control' -
@Lebowski's take of "I hope that the lesson learned from this is that these sorts of military interventions are never justifiable and should never be repeated."
Is BS, is because WWII, The Korean war, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and many many more have been demonstrably justifiable and successful.
Shouldn't really need said though. It's a terrible take.
No, they are not exaggerated.
What I am getting at is many countries and cultures around the world do not treat women, LGBT, minorities as they should be treated. Should we start carpet bombing and taking over these countries and introducing them to puppet regimes?
Let's start with the Saudi's, UAE, Israel, Russia, China, etc. What can possibly go wrong?
I think you can say that about Iraq, but Afghanistan's war aims were easy to see: at core, the US retaliated against the regime hosting the organisation that attacked it. Any country would have done the same.@Dante is right and hits the nail on the head.
The US wanted to show its strength post 9/11, and in some ways, killing 45,000 innocent Afghanis is someway of showing it
I'm not sure I made it clear. We cannot invade countries and force-feed cultures and ways of life. This is done with wisdom and education over many decades. The West is a prime example. I am from a generation that frowned on LGBT. I remember some of my posts on this very subject when I joined. I am sure I would be banned and frowned upon if I wrote those opinions these days.That doesn’t really answer what he asked though.
There have been some successful and justified interventions (some of which you describe above), but the general trend in the present is that they tend to create more problems down the road, which is going to cause most observers to question whether the loss of "blood and treasure" (aka death and destruction) is worth it. Even Republicans have turned into anti-interventionists lately.
I don't see much criticism of countries or actions that have similar issues with LGBT as those I mentioned in my previous post. EU turns a blind eye to Hungary, Poland. No one dares mention Russia, or Israel whose certain sections are very anti-LGBT.There's a difference between bombing and criticizing. Surely, these authoritarian states, including religious theocracies shouldn't receive a pass out of fear that it would offend them or impugn their religious/cultural traditions.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Hungary has been heavily criticized, specifically by several EU-nations.I don't see much criticism of countries or actions that have similar issues with LGBT as those I mentioned in my previous post. EU turns a blind eye to Hungary, Poland. No one dares mention Russia, or Israel whose certain sections are very anti-LGBT.
I don't see much criticism of countries or actions that have similar issues with LGBT as those I mentioned in my previous post. EU turns a blind eye to Hungary, Poland. No one dares mention Russia, or Israel whose certain sections are very anti-LGBT.
I don't see much criticism of countries or actions that have similar issues with LGBT as those I mentioned in my previous post. EU turns a blind eye to Hungary, Poland. No one dares mention Russia, or Israel whose certain sections are very anti-LGBT.
No, they are not exaggerated.
What I am getting at is many countries and cultures around the world do not treat women, LGBT, minorities as they should be treated. Should we start carpet bombing and taking over these countries and introducing them to puppet regimes?
Let's start with the Saudi's, UAE, Israel, Russia, China, etc. What can possibly go wrong?
You simply don't retaliate by going to war against a country whose individuals were not even the nationals of Afghanistan committing atrocities in another country. They were remnants of those that were left behind from the invasion by the Russians. It should have been a covert action against the perpetrators. However, the hawks had different ideas and the rest is history and the present.I think you can say that about Iraq, but Afghanistan's war aims were easy to see: at core, the US retaliated against the regime hosting the organisation that attacked it. Any country would have done the same.
That said, the US likely did not sufficiently understood the nature of the country it was invading, and without doubt it did not have a clear idea of how or why to leave.
Just to expand on this, as apparently it was due a warning for 'quality control' -
@Lebowski's take of "I hope that the lesson learned from this is that these sorts of military interventions are never justifiable and should never be repeated."
Is BS, is because WWII, The Korean war, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and many many more have been demonstrably justifiable and successful.
Shouldn't really need said though. It's a terrible take.
Israel spends a considerable amount of money pinkwashing their regime. This coupled with the fact that Judaic orthodoxy hate LGBT in their holy land means their pretty poor. It was only a few years ago an orthodox Jewish man went on a stabbing frenzy in a pride march.Is this satirical? Did you just pick random countries?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay-friendly
Israel is equivalent to Ireland and above the USA.
Hungary and Poland aren't friendly (and get hammered for it), but are nowhere near Russia and Afghanistan.
That's easy to say with hindsight isn't it, and I'm not even sure whether a covert war have been able to achieve US aims of kicking out the Taliban (and let's not forget, defeating its ideology),You simply don't retaliate by going to war against a country whose individuals were not even the nationals of Afghanistan committing atrocities in another country. They were remnants of those that were left behind from the invasion by the Russians. It should have been a covert action against the perpetrators. However, the hawks had different ideas and the rest is history and the present.
That's a legalistic point that just ignores who actually had control / influence on the ground.PS: The Taliban were not even recognised as a legitimate government of Afghanistan.
I agree, I think we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater on this - admittedly there is a lot of blame to go around - Libya should be a particularly shaming one if you are British - and I think it shows a fundamental weakness that we have no interest in backing people who share our values. We now offer no pushback to some of the worst regimes on earth, because our terrible mistakes have ruined our claims to our values. The isolationism you mention has its roots in cynicism and defeatism because we've fecked up so badly, and I think it should be challenged. There has to be some space between the nation building of WW2 and the fcukup of Iraq that we can try to do some good in.
But the issue here is that Afghanistan was not invaded and bombed because of their appalling women's rights and LGBTQ rights isn't it.
Just to expand on this, as apparently it was due a warning for 'quality control' -
@Lebowski's take of "I hope that the lesson learned from this is that these sorts of military interventions are never justifiable and should never be repeated."
Is BS, is because WWII, The Korean war, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and many many more have been demonstrably justifiable and successful.
Shouldn't really need said though. It's a terrible take.
But the issue here is that Afghanistan was not invaded and bombed because of their appalling women's rights and LGBTQ rights isn't it.
I think Afghanistan perhaps should have qualified for that, except with the addition of a small locally based force able to eradicate any AQ facilities that might have returned.Unless of course you're referring to a really minimalist view of jus post bellum (achieve objectives and gtfo)
Solid pointBut the issue here is that Afghanistan was not invaded and bombed because of their appalling women's rights and LGBTQ rights isn't it.
I'm listening to BBC news as I am reading this.
In the last half hour or so women's rights have been mentioned not only by the presenters and guests but took centre stage in one interview with Taliban sources.
I'm not saying women's issues were the reason for invasion but it's been a constant in any discussion for the last 20 years.
LGBTQ not so much.
News reporter has just asked about girls education and work as I was writing this.
Of course it's an issue for some foreign countries. And to some Afghanis too. But the destruction and invasion has got nothing to do with human rights at all. There would have been no Taliban without the Mujahideen. There would have been no successful Mujahideen without the Americans. Afghanistan didn't have this kind of repressive society before the American involvement there with the Mujahideen.
Of course it's an issue for some foreign countries. And to some Afghanis too. But the destruction and invasion has got nothing to do with human rights at all. There would have been no Taliban without the Mujahideen. There would have been no successful Mujahideen without the Americans. Afghanistan didn't have this kind of repressive society before the American involvement there with the Mujahideen.
It's a bizarre deflection.
An important one must surely be that opinion of the population of the country you are planning to invade supports your invasion. So for example invading France to liberate Paris from Nazi rule.
What is a bizarre deflection?
Talk about LGBT rights in Afghanistan.
I think Afghanistan perhaps should have qualified for that, except with the addition of a small locally based force able to eradicate any AQ facilities that might have returned.
Very good point. Women's rights are just a narrative to win the PR war to appease and justify going to Afghanistan and its aggression against the country.But the issue here is that Afghanistan was not invaded and bombed because of their appalling women's rights and LGBTQ rights isn't it.
Very good point. Women's rights are just a narrative to win the PR war to appease and justify going to Afghanistan and its aggression against the country.
It's a bit rich some talking about LGBT where conversion therapy is still widely practised in many states of the US.Talk about LGBT rights in Afghanistan.
