Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

athom

Did We Really Go To Afghanistan To Fight For Womens Rights?

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00m704z

With British soldiers dying in record numbers and the country arguing over the wisdom of the war, Jane Corbin travels across Afghanistan to ask if the British presence has made the lives of Afghan women any better, which was one of the justifications for going to war in the first place.

Ahhh, we're so nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to your question...No, it had nothing to do with Women's Rights...

We're there to help out the Yanks who want to maintain the Opium Production, (which was all but eradicated by the Taliban) so that the US Government can continue to use the "Fight on the War on Drugs" as an excuse for massive spending of Public Finances...oh yeah, then there's the Oil thing aswell.

All wars are about Greed, nothing more, nothing less....We won't gain anything from fighting for Womens Rights so therefore it is not the reason.

mspL4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In answer to your question...No, it had nothing to do with Women's Rights...

Well, thanks to the Afghan govt that we're supporting, its now legal for Afghan men to beat their wives if they're refused sex. Makes you pround, doesn't it ? :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just can't help ourselves, we just have to keep "doing the right thing." And as an earlier poster pointed out that involves oil and opium, what have womens rights got to do with protecting our illicit narcotics trade? I suppose they could sign up to protect the oil and gas pipelines, jobs for the girls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, thanks to the Afghan govt that we're supporting, its now legal for Afghan men to beat their wives if they're refused sex. Makes you pround, doesn't it ? :angry:

It wasn't beat their wives it was STARVE them. Yep, reet proud to be a brit. If our aim was to help them we have done a right fine job of it. Not to mention the number of women killed as collateral damage, the number who have had children killed, or been widowed in a country where single mums don't get so much help as we're used to. I FVCKING LOVE US I DO, WE ROCK :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The emancipation of Afghanistan's society was one of the justifications that the Soviets used once they'd invaded the country in the 1980s. Women's rights is just the Western liberal democratic equivalent to the communist piffle about freeing the Afghan workers from the shackles of a feudal system. It's just nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We went to Afghanistan as part of an international coalition to eradicate Al Qaeda's safe haven for training terrorists. In the process it was neccessary to remove their allies the Taliban from power there. The mission wasn't to restore human rights in Afghanistan, it was to attempt to dismantle the heart of a global terrorist network. However the opportunity did exist, briefly, after the removal of the Taliban, to ensure the restoration of womens' rights, and other general basic freedoms and for a while the situation looked hopeful - now things seem be reverting a bit.

Clearly, after 9/11, something had to be done about Afghanistan and I've yet to see those who opposed the invasion offer any alternative course of action that could have been taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, thanks to the Afghan govt that we're supporting, its now legal for Afghan men to beat their wives if they're refused sex. Makes you pround, doesn't it ? :angry:

Are you suggesting that wives who refuse sex don't need a good rogering?

What is the World coming to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We went to Afghanistan as part of an international coalition to eradicate Al Qaeda's safe haven for training terrorists. In the process it was neccessary to remove their allies the Taliban from power there. The mission wasn't to restore human rights in Afghanistan, it was to attempt to dismantle the heart of a global terrorist network. However the opportunity did exist, briefly, after the removal of the Taliban, to ensure the restoration of womens' rights, and other general basic freedoms and for a while the situation looked hopeful - now things seem be reverting a bit.

Clearly, after 9/11, something had to be done about Afghanistan and I've yet to see those who opposed the invasion offer any alternative course of action that could have been taken.

Your on drugs you are :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We went to Afghanistan as part of an international coalition to eradicate Al Qaeda's safe haven for training terrorists. In the process it was neccessary to remove their allies the Taliban from power there. The mission wasn't to restore human rights in Afghanistan, it was to attempt to dismantle the heart of a global terrorist network. However the opportunity did exist, briefly, after the removal of the Taliban, to ensure the restoration of womens' rights, and other general basic freedoms and for a while the situation looked hopeful - now things seem be reverting a bit.

Clearly, after 9/11, something had to be done about Afghanistan and I've yet to see those who opposed the invasion offer any alternative course of action that could have been taken.

Wow, you're every politicians wet dream :lol: Verbatim propaganda, absolutely verbatim. I'm sort of impressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We went to Afghanistan as part of an international coalition to eradicate Al Qaeda's safe haven for training terrorists. In the process it was neccessary to remove their allies the Taliban from power there. The mission wasn't to restore human rights in Afghanistan, it was to attempt to dismantle the heart of a global terrorist network. However the opportunity did exist, briefly, after the removal of the Taliban, to ensure the restoration of womens' rights, and other general basic freedoms and for a while the situation looked hopeful - now things seem be reverting a bit.

Im amazed there are still people who belive these lies.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, you're every politicians wet dream :lol: Verbatim propaganda, absolutely verbatim. I'm sort of impressed.

Athom,

Lend Blankster your avatar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Athom,

Lend Blankster your avatar

He's my new inspiration for it!

Talking of avatars what is yours? Looks like Top Cat about to be hit in the head by a flying dressed chicken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's my new inspiration for it!

Talking of avatars what is yours? Looks like Top Cat about to be hit in the head by a flying dressed chicken?

good question, reminded me it need replacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We went to Afghanistan as part of an international coalition to eradicate Al Qaeda's safe haven for training terrorists. In the process it was neccessary to remove their allies the Taliban from power there. The mission wasn't to restore human rights in Afghanistan, it was to attempt to dismantle the heart of a global terrorist network. However the opportunity did exist, briefly, after the removal of the Taliban, to ensure the restoration of womens' rights, and other general basic freedoms and for a while the situation looked hopeful - now things seem be reverting a bit.

Clearly, after 9/11, something had to be done about Afghanistan and I've yet to see those who opposed the invasion offer any alternative course of action that could have been taken.

Look we already know the "official reason", you don't need to repeat it here. It is however a total fabrication.

Al Qaeda doesn't exist, it is a CIA term for a disparate group of Sunni Muslim terrorists. It isn't global in the same way that there isn't a global ring of car theives. Cars get stolen in every country but that doesn't mean that a man in a cave controls the whole network.

The Taliban were Western allies until they asked the most reasonable question to provide proof of Bin Laden's involvement and the existence of Al Qaeda. No-one in Afghanistan attacked either the UK or the US, the 911 attacks were carried out by Saudi, Yemeni, and UAE nationals. More friends of ours, but we weren't about to attack them.

It was a strategic move based on the geo-politics of the region, the Russians had exactly the same idea in 1980, we just copied them, and used the terrorist angle as an excuse to start another war.

Oh. and we weren't too happy about the Taliban stopping opium production.

What else could we have done after the attack of 911, some introspection wouldn't have gone amiss followed by some foreign policy initiatives that didn't involve propping up unpleasant regimes and bombing peasants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post this,

Mayhap it was better to come out punching than introspecting.

This atrocity was committed because some Muslims blame the West for atrocities committed against Muslims by Muslims.

Some Muslims do this because they are unable to confront the putrefaction that lies within their own faith.

They would rather kill innocent people in New York.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look we already know the "official reason", you don't need to repeat it here. It is however a total fabrication.

Al Qaeda doesn't exist, it is a CIA term for a disparate group of Sunni Muslim terrorists. It isn't global in the same way that there isn't a global ring of car theives. Cars get stolen in every country but that doesn't mean that a man in a cave controls the whole network.

It was a strategic move based on the geo-politics of the region, the Russians had exactly the same idea in 1980, we just copied them, and used the terrorist angle as an excuse to start another war.

Iran is nicely sandwiched in between iraq and afghanistan,so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the real reaon we are there is to grab the air bases for "penetration" into that section of the middle east that we have the real problem with.

I still think deals can be done with russia if the spoils of war are carved up in a suitable fashion.It's not in russia's interests to provoke not just the US but the EU section of NATO.

russia are playing a high stakes game of poker,the combined might of the US and EU forces will utterly obliterate them should they get rowdy,and will most certainly plunder their rather significant recource base to boot when they lose.

so it's probably best for all concerned that they concede they have a bit of a problem with chechnya and keep schtum while the weaker faction of rogue islamic states is dealt with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iran is nicely sandwiched in between iraq and afghanistan,so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the real reaon we are there is to grab the air bases for "penetration" into that section of the middle east that we have the real problem with.

What problem?

I still think deals can be done with russia if the spoils of war are carved up in a suitable fashion.It's not in russia's interests to provoke not just the US but the EU section of NATO.

russia are playing a high stakes game of poker,the combined might of the US and EU forces will utterly obliterate them should they get rowdy,and will most certainly plunder their rather significant recource base to boot when they lose.

I think we need to change our way of thinking. It's not like the good old bad old days when we could wonder in anywhere and put down the savages machine guns vs. spears. It doesn't matter how much combined might we have, we have what we have and can't just take stuff any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   285 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.