selling your daughter for £50,
February 4, 2002 6:46 AM Subscribe
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:59 AM on February 4, 2002
If making things "inifinitely better" is the standard, then we can all give up now. For those of us heartless enough to be satisfied with the merely finitely better, there is some evidence of improvement.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:01 AM on February 4, 2002
"Military intervention, even if it means lost innocent lives on both sides, can serve the most humanitarian of goals. "
Sure it can. We see this constantly, don't we ?
Military intervention is about economics, time & again.
posted by Mondo at 7:07 AM on February 4, 2002
Yes, things are worse in afghanistan than they have been in years. Yes the war has exascerbated the situation. Yes chucking cash an issue is not neccessarily going to change the situation for the majority of the population who live in outlieing villages.
More later, when i have talked to my friend who has recently returned from Islamabad, where they were working for CNN.
posted by asok at 7:23 AM on February 4, 2002
Good grief. Do you whiners have *anything* to back up your hyperbole? The NY Times article makes specific claims about specific improvements. Do you have *any* evidence that what it says isn't true?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:25 AM on February 4, 2002
posted by spilon at 7:50 AM on February 4, 2002
I don't know about the specific improvements mentioned in the article. In a few years we will have a statistical view on the overall effect of the war on the coutry's population. It is too soon to tell.
BTW I'm willing to wager that secular pro-Soviet governments had a great positive impact on health and literacy conditions in Afghanistan. Should one therefore rush to proclaim that Soviet intervention in Afghanistan had humanitarian aims?
posted by talos at 7:50 AM on February 4, 2002
Whatever are you talking about ?
One needs to be wilfully blind to consider the vast majority of military interventions in the past 20 years to be about anything but economics and advancing the NWO.
Friends become ex-friends and the "Next Hitler". Human rights violations that were winked at become grounds for bombing. Hint: Taleban used to be friends. Until the Unocal pipeline deal fell through. They were in Texas as recently as 1998. Reagan introduced them at the White House back in the 80's, comparing them to America's own founding fathers.
posted by Mondo at 7:59 AM on February 4, 2002
yeah. and in a few months, his daughter will be a big star in alt.binaries.naked-little-kids. what's he bitching about?
posted by quonsar at 8:03 AM on February 4, 2002
posted by johnnyboy at 8:04 AM on February 4, 2002
And I must say, the wording of and choice of link for this FPP screams troll. There are a few valiant attempts above to try and salvage an interesting discussion from this, but those attempts are certainly not encouraged by the poster himself. When did humanitarian concern turn into such a darkly cynical and pessimistic exercise?
MeFi has been having too many flame-bait free days, I suppose.
posted by evanizer at 8:10 AM on February 4, 2002
Quite possibly the best anyone can hope for in Afghanistan is a Chekovian tragedy. "In the conclusion of the tragedy by Chekhov, everyone is disappointed, disillusioned, embittered, heartbroken, but alive."
posted by sheauga at 8:34 AM on February 4, 2002
The original poster wasn't talking about "the vast majority of military interventions in the past 20 years; he was specifically referring to the current intervention in Afghanistan.
The NYT article that I posted a link to has statistics suggesting that things may indeed be getting better for the general population. So far, the naysayers in this thread have nothing more concrete to offer in rebuttal than their terribly sophisticated world-weary cynicism. Maybe the Afghans can make a stew out of that.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:45 AM on February 4, 2002
posted by aacheson at 8:49 AM on February 4, 2002
Save me your empathy, some things are just evil.
posted by Mick at 9:35 AM on February 4, 2002
*slides £50 back into wallet*
Listen.. uh.. I think I misunderstood what was going down at this thread-
(backs away towards exit)
-so I'm just gonna go...
posted by dong_resin at 9:50 AM on February 4, 2002
posted by aacheson at 10:09 AM on February 4, 2002
And to suggest that we shouldn't have been friendly with a government which had not YET turned into a crazy theofascist regime suggests that we can only make foreign policy with the aid of a time machine.
talos, good points about the Soviets, but if you're suggesting that our brief weeks of war, which even using the inflammatory estimates of an anti-war professor of women's studies, some 4000, are a mere fraction of the 1 million deaths during the entire space of the 12-year Soviet-Afghan war, not to mention the 500,000 of the Taliban's war, suggests that somehow American bombs have worse health effects than Russian or Taliban bombs by many factors of ten. Or maybe they're the only ones considered important to discuss?
posted by dhartung at 10:50 AM on February 4, 2002
I don't understand why the Guardian assumes the two are mutually exclusive, as if nation building precludes humanitarian actions.
posted by lizs at 11:53 AM on February 4, 2002
If significantly less people die in the next few years than would have under the Taliban, then even taking into account the "collateral damage", it's been a successful campaign.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:52 PM on February 4, 2002
The argument has little to do with the assertion that removing the Taliban was necessary to prevent further terror attacks against the West, although clearly that was the primary military justification, and which was alone sufficient basis for the war under international law regarding self-defense.
In any war the assumption is that you are protecting your own citizens at the expense of those of the enemy. To argue otherwise -- that any attack should be judged as if it were against a target on your own soil, for instance -- is to argue flatly against war, given the limitations of modern technology.
posted by dhartung at 12:13 AM on February 5, 2002
Second there is no precedent I can remember that might lead one to hope that relief efforts will remain at the same levels as current, when the spotlight is removed from the region. So any forecasts about the next few years are risky. Furthermore the current regime (as indeed the mudjahedeen regime that controlled Afghanistan before the Taliban) is only marginally better than the Taliban when it comes to human rights, as RAWA indicates in a statement about the Northern Alliance.
Also you claim that: In any war the assumption is that you are protecting your own citizens at the expense of those of the enemy. True, but as far as I know there was no war declared against Afghanistan, the Taliban were never recognized as a legitimate government of the country, and therefore there are no enemy civilians in this case.
Also I remind you that Osama Bin Laden was one of those Mudjahedeen that the US trained and supported so the line between the Taleban and the mudjahedeen is not as clear cut as you assume. Generally supporting religious fundamentalists is a very dangerous idea.
posted by talos at 2:15 AM on February 5, 2002
« Older So much for name recognition. | WHACK-A-TROLLTM Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
If it only garners interest due to it being a story related to afghanistan, then the story serves no purpose, if you changed afghanistan and the muslim names of the individuals presented, the story could be about a lot of countries.
posted by bittennails at 6:59 AM on February 4, 2002