Women in Burkas Surround Afghan Embassy in Washington

by righteous pragmatist Tue Sep 12, 2006 14:28

The real reason for toppling the Taliban was to deny Al-Qaeda a haven from which they could plan and execute terrorists attacks on US soil. The replace the Taliban with a government which would be friendly to the US. The Karzai administration is the first democracy in the history of Afghanistan - an imperfect democracy obviously but it leaves room open for further reforms by the Afghans themselves into the future and in tandem with this reforming process the Bush administration and subsequent administrations have an obligation to pressure the Karzai government to respect the human rights and freedom of the Afghan people especially women.The root cause of terrorism is the blind eye of the US and all Western governments toward the activities of dictatorships throughout the Muslim world.It is in the interests of the US and all of the world to foster democracy throughout the Middle East not just to give aid and support to "friendly" autocrats.

by krossie - wsm personal capacity Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:27

Maybe its time for Afghans to fight and obtain "rights" for themselves
Bush and the Taliban and all the other "protectors" can go and "f "off with their selves

Krossie

by Pushkin Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:36

Its time for the Afghan people to be relieved of the twin yokes of US Imperialism and Islamist Oppression. Marines Out & Mullahs Out!

by RAWA Fan Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:37

“The Afghan people see Americans as liberators.”

A distorted proclamation! As we have repeatedly asserted and shown, all of the fundamentalist bands including Taliban were created, funded, and trained by the CIA turning a blind eye to the higher interest of the Afghan people and to the consequence of such sinister support to the fate of freedom and democracy in our country. Thus, the US war on the Taliban is nothing but a family fracas between the father and his rogue children. The US started the fracas by not replacing religious tyranny with democracy, by not relying on the people, but rather by siding with the NA, the very worst enemies of our people. It goes without saying that Afghans will not see as their “liberators” those who drove the Taliban wolves through one door and unchained the rabid dogs of the NA through another. How a nation “sees as liberators” those who have blown to shred not the terrorists but thousands of innocents? How can simple Afghans “see Americans as liberators” while the “liberators” are going to woo their men in the government and in the parliament to approve the establishment of the US bases on our soil for decades, which obviously goes contrary to the independence of the country? Our people say that if Americans were their liberators, they should have not allowed about 200 criminals and arch enemies of democracy to pave their way to the parliament and provincial council. After four years the people see that the “liberators'” promises for them were all lies.

The above is from Oct 2005 in response to one of the frequent clap-happy pieces of propaganda about how bombing for feminism worked and the noble mission of the west in Afghanistan. The US/UK/Candian/Danish forces are having their arses kicked by Taliban despite the fact that there are a lot of people that were hostile to the Taliban. That's because the reality of the US occupation has been appalling and has perpetrated many of the same problems and compounded them by massive violence.

by Billy Joe Luke Bob Tue Sep 12, 2006 18:29

Karzai is an ex-Unocal oil representative. He negotiated with the Taliban on behalf of Unocal at a meeting in the US about putting an oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan. The deal fell through, partly due to pressure from Madeline Albright. Now Karzai is president of Afghanistan, and the pipeline got the green light. Although it's more widely joked that Karzai is the president of Kabul, as his authority isn't respected outside of the capital.

The Taliban are a bunch of backward, fanatics, with no concept of modern human rights. They are a creation of the US proxy war against the Russians in the 80s, assisted by the CIA and Pakistani ISI and filled with delusion that they are doing the work of a divine power. Karzai, ont he other hand is a power hungry westerne educated politician, has a good idea of what human rights are, they just don't fit in with his job description.

RPs suggestion that is the every present 'blind eye' to dictatoriships is rubbish. Karzai's power comes from US support, and US weapons. You can be sure that he's doing what he can to please his paymasters. The rubbish, that at least the people have a starting point to democracy is more pungent. The US should 'pressure' Karzai to reform, and the US will foster democracy? What if those people want the US to leave them alone? Not likely to happen is it? After spending billions of dollars bombing the place in 2001 and 2002, and allowing heroin production to return to an indeed exceed pre-Taliban levels (those kiljoys didn't allow heroin production either, but notice the spin in the media that the Taliban uses narco-profits to fight, when in fact it has been the CIA allowing heroin production to continue, as a bargaining chip with warlords.) The country is a wreck, and run by an autocrat.

by iosaf Tue Sep 12, 2006 22:57

On the 10th of September 2006 after an absence of more than 10 years, the Coca Cola corporation returned to Afghanistan. Karzai welcomed them in person leading a governmental and commercial delegation in prayers. The message was clear :- any industry which invests 25 million dollars in building a bottling plant in a state devoid of industry or any other taxable financial sector is welcome.

Oh well, I'm being simplistic as usual. There was more than one message but they all were very clear. Coca Cola chose as its opening date the 10th of September so that share-holders & TV viewers back in the USA could relish the power of the real thing. & though the civil war of 1992-1996 saw at least 50,000 deaths in the capital Kabul and the destruction of the Coca Cola plant - globalised capitalism is not to be beaten.

Coca Cola's 25 million dollar investment is really quite paltry. They'e created 350 jobs in a country whose unemployment may not be measured because the state controls less than half the territory.
But those happy 350 people will produce 15 million cases containing 24 bottles (each of 2 litre volume) a year.

Some of the brighter readers will wonder who is going to buy Afghan bottled Coca Cola with its cute local & ethnic Urdu label. The even more brilliant & promising readers won't need the photo of a beggar in Kabul next to the "real thing" advertisement. Afghans aren't on smack they just grow opium. Afghans can't even afford coke.

Yet financial analysts (the sort of person if I were granted despotic powers for a day I'd round up and crucify) agree that the 4 million people of Kabul just want to fulfill president Bush's vision for them as he expressed succintly one day later in his White House Address.

"across the middle east there are moms and dads who just want choice for their kids"..........................Do they have that choice?

Pepsi Cola has expressed interest in taking advantage of recent nationwide protests in regional market leader India against Coca Cola. Consumers as young as primary school kids ( that's like the 4th grade South Park age ) were seen pouring 2 litre bottles of Coca Cola onto the streets. If they had drains they would have poured the stuff down the drain but you know how it is. "cut the cloth to your measure". The kids rebelled against Coca Cola because the indian government revealed worrying breaches of Health & Sanitation regulations in the product. they say it's as poisonous as whatever would go in the drains .

Pepsi will have to follow up its new advertising campaigns with a hard hitting globalised message of kiddy love pop singing. But it's too early to suggest they'll open up in Kabul. a 10% increase in GDP & purchasing power just doesn't cut the ice.

It seems such a long time since the fat man of the BBC, John Simpson tellingly told viewers that he (& the BBC) had liberated Kabul by arriving a few hours before NATO. Something so wonderfully recorded at the time by the Guardian's cartoonist Steve Bell.

They now have Coke.
& still can't afford Smack.
and no matter whether they're in Burkas or not they like their neighbours don't have clean water. I recommend that people who can't find out more about Coca Cola in Asia or Water in India at least watch the movie "Kandahar" & find out about Burkas.

by Latte Grrl - starbucks critic Tue Sep 12, 2006 23:22

"The US/UK/Candian/Danish forces are having their arses kicked by Taliban"- Maybe in your alternate dimension boyo, not on Earth though. I'd take the odd's of being killed as a Canadian Soldier over a Tali any day of the week.

by Mapleleaf Wed Sep 13, 2006 04:49

The likelihood is that you would be killed by "friendly fire" by your American colleagues.

by update Wed Sep 13, 2006 21:55

If anyone tells you the "war on terror" is real - remind them that NATO is losing the war in Afghanistan because its resources were moved to Iraq. Then ask them where the terrorists were.
So far no member state wants to send more of its soldiers to Afghanistan. The Soviets ended up with 300,000 stationed & still lost.

by Bill Wed Feb 27, 2008 02:08

I don't think it is completely fair to say that it is a sign of oppression and subservience to wear a burka. Some women do it by choice. Under Islam, a burka also means that you are being humble and that you are respecting Allah (God). Unless it is forced, the burka isn't necessarily bad.

by E Mon Jun 29, 2009 20:51

Karzai kharkoon ast