That "Disturbing" TIME Magazine Cover

[Cosima___J]

Things that are hard to look at are typically called by the media "disturbing". Well sometimes we really need to be distrubed by things that go on in this world. A good example of that is the cover story from TIME magazine (August 9 issue) which talks about the treatment of women and how the fate of Afghanistan's women will most likely become far worse if the Taliban takes over.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 38,00.html

Frankly I don't know what the best solution to our situation in Afghanistan is. What is our moral obligation to the people of that country? What is our moral obligation to the American people who are sacrificing blood and treasure in a country far away?

Cosi

[RebLem]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 38,00.html

Frankly I don't know what the best solution to our situation in Afghanistan is. What is our moral obligation to the people of that country? What is our moral obligation to the American people who are sacrificing blood and treasure in a country far away? Cosi

Our obligations to our own soldiers is not to throw good money and good lives after bad. It is to recognize our errors and get out so no more American lives will be lost in this misadventure. I am not a big fan of Pat Buchanan's, but he is right when he says, "Afghanistan is where empires go to die."

As for the woman on the TIME cover and others in her situation: our obligation is to take in anyone so threatened, who has a reasonable fear of persecution, as refugees in our country if they so wish.

[Cosima___J]

You make a very valid point Reb ---- one I'm inclined to agree with. But still, my conscience troubles me.

[piston]

And we certainly could not intervene in every country where the Shariah Law victimizes women, from the forced marriage and subsequent rape of nine-year-old girls in Yemen to the relatively widespread cultural practice of female genital mutilation in Africa, the Middle East, and Muslim Asia. This law is basically victimizing women everywhere:

1. The requirement of women to obtain permission from husbands for daily freedoms.

2. It forbids women from wearing jewelry and make-up and from making noise with their shoes when they walk.

3. If a woman does work outside the home, she is forbidden to sit beside the driver when traveling to and from work.

4. Stylish dress and decoration of women is forbidden.

5. The beating of disobedient woman and girls and insubordinate wives by men.

6. The execution of homosexuals and lesbians.

7. The engagement of polygamy and forced child marriages.

8. The testimony of four male witnesses to prove rape.

9. Honor killings of those, principally women, who have dishonored the family.

10. Death without trial to apostate Muslims who chose to leave Islam.

11. Inferior status of non-Muslims.

12. Capital punishment for those “slander Islam.”

13. Women are eligible for only half of the inheritance of men.

14. Virgins may be married against their will by a father or grandfather.

15. Arab women may not marry non-Arab men.

16. Muslim men may marry 4 women, including Christians and Jews.

17. Offensive war (military jihad) against non-Muslims is a religious obligation

18. Non-Muslims ruled by Islam must follow shari'a, including discriminatory “dhimmi” taxes and laws.

19. Non-Muslims may not receive Muslim charity (“zakat”), but may be bribed to convert to Islam.

20. Lying to infidels during jihad, or to promote Islam, is permissible.

21. Slavery is permitted and legitimate.

22. Muslim men have unlimited sexual rights over slave women, even married slaves.

23. Female sexual mutilation (cliterectomy) is obligatory.

24. Adultery is punished with death by stoning.

25. Women's testimony in court is worth half that of men (and is permitted only in property cases).

26. Non-Muslims may not testify in shari'a courts.

[Agnes Selby]

Cosi, reading Piston's list of rules, makes me realize that no
effort on the part of the civilised world could change the prevailing Islamic
culture. I am afraid, our young men are dying in vain.
Except for the fear of Pakistan's nuclear capabilities falling
into the hands of the Taliban, the war in Afghanistan is pointless.

[david johnson]

The tali-nazis and shariah law can kiss my butt. Any jihadist who wants to discuss this with me is welcome to visit. I PROMISE a 'warm' welcome.

[Cosima___J]

A few other quotes from the TIME article:

"Under the Taliban, Robina Muqimyar Jalalai, one of Afghanistan's first two female Olympic athletes, spent her girlhood locked behind the walls of her family compound. 'I go running in the stadium where the Taliban used to play football with women's heads. If the Taliban come back, I will lose everything that I have gained over the past nine years.'"

"What matters is that mounting insecurity is eroding the few gains they [women] have made. Taliban night letters - chilling missives delivered under the cover of darkness - threaten women in the south of the country, a Taliban stonghold, who dare to work. 'We warn you to leave your job as a teacher as soon as possible otherwise we will cut the heads off your children and shall set fire to your daughter,' reads one. 'We will kill you in such a harsh way that no woman has so far been killed in that manner,' says another. Both letters, which were obtained by Human Rights Watch, are printed on paper bearing the crossed swords and Koran insignia of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the name of the former Taliban government. Elsewhere, girls' schools have been burned down and students have had acid thrown in their faces."

[piston]

"... acid thrown in their faces..."

There are a few pictures of those on the internet. I plainly refuse to post them...

It's ironic, isn't it, that one objection of the Islamic world in this global internet world, is the porn that admitedly comes out of the USA on a daily basis. Porn can be very abusive too; indeed, there's a very valid distinction between pornography and eroticism that a lot of Americans fail to respect.

Yet, porn does not involve throwing acid in a woman's face, cutting her nose, or mutilating her clitoris.

There lies the distinction. Islamic Shari'a Law wounds, maims and kills women; porn, as much as I disagree with this typically US cultural projection of the joys of sexuality, does not.

[Agnes Selby]

A few other quotes from the TIME article:

"Under the Taliban, Robina Muqimyar Jalalai, one of Afghanistan's first two female Olympic athletes, spent her girlhood locked behind the walls of her family compound. 'I go running in the stadium where the Taliban used to play football with women's heads. If the Taliban come back, I will lose everything that I have gained over the past nine years.'"

"What matters is that mounting insecurity is eroding the few gains they [women] have made. Taliban night letters - chilling missives delivered under the cover of darkness - threaten women in the south of the country, a Taliban stonghold, who dare to work. 'We warn you to leave your job as a teacher as soon as possible otherwise we will cut the heads off your children and shall set fire to your daughter,' reads one. 'We will kill you in such a harsh way that no woman has so far been killed in that manner,' says another. Both letters, which were obtained by Human Rights Watch, are printed on paper bearing the crossed swords and Koran insignia of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the name of the former Taliban government. Elsewhere, girls' schools have been burned down and students have had acid thrown in their faces."

...and yet, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, spoke
in suport of some aspects of Sharia Law in Feruary,2008.

[Cosima___J]

Hmmmm. I wish we could find a copy of that speech. But I must assume that the good Archbishop is not advocating playing football with women's heads.

[John F]

We have no moral obligation to the Afghans, women and men, except to kill as few of them as possible while making war there. We didn't go into Afghanistan to benefit the Afghan people but to defend ourselves against a terrorist organization based there which had just killed 3,000 of our own people. If after we've gone, Afghanistan allows itself to be taken over again by the Taliban, in full memory of what their history, be it on their heads.

[dulcinea]

And we certainly could not intervene in every country where the Shariah Law victimizes women, from the forced marriage and subsequent rape of nine-year-old girls in Yemen to the relatively widespread cultural practice of female genital mutilation in Africa, the Middle East, and Muslim Asia. This law is basically victimizing women everywhere:

1. The requirement of women to obtain permission from husbands for daily freedoms.

2. It forbids women from wearing jewelry and make-up and from making noise with their shoes when they walk.

3. If a woman does work outside the home, she is forbidden to sit beside the driver when traveling to and from work.

4. Stylish dress and decoration of women is forbidden.

5. The beating of disobedient woman and girls and insubordinate wives by men.

6. The execution of homosexuals and lesbians.

7. The engagement of polygamy and forced child marriages.

8. The testimony of four male witnesses to prove rape.

9. Honor killings of those, principally women, who have dishonored the family.

10. Death without trial to apostate Muslims who chose to leave Islam.

11. Inferior status of non-Muslims.

12. Capital punishment for those “slander Islam.”

13. Women are eligible for only half of the inheritance of men.

14. Virgins may be married against their will by a father or grandfather.

15. Arab women may not marry non-Arab men.

16. Muslim men may marry 4 women, including Christians and Jews.

17. Offensive war (military jihad) against non-Muslims is a religious obligation

18. Non-Muslims ruled by Islam must follow shari'a, including discriminatory “dhimmi” taxes and laws.

19. Non-Muslims may not receive Muslim charity (“zakat”), but may be bribed to convert to Islam.

20. Lying to infidels during jihad, or to promote Islam, is permissible.

21. Slavery is permitted and legitimate.

22. Muslim men have unlimited sexual rights over slave women, even married slaves.

23. Female sexual mutilation (cliterectomy) is obligatory.

24. Adultery is punished with death by stoning.

25. Women's testimony in court is worth half that of men (and is permitted only in property cases).

26. Non-Muslims may not testify in shari'a courts.

'twas in reference to this appalling evil garbage that Madonna said her famous statement of wishing that Khomeini would reincarnate as a woman in Khomeini's own Islamic Republic so that he would suffer the same type of abuse he made women suffer.

[living_stradivarius]

It never ceases to amaze me how many self-styled 'progressives' are willing to abandon Afghanistan to the Taliban. George Orwell must be somersaulting in his grave. Surely if there were a leftist cause célèbre worth fighting for, just as some traveled to Spain to fight Franco, it would be battling the Taliban.

Frankly I don't know what the best solution to our situation in Afghanistan is.

End state corruption and administer the freaking country ourselves.

[piston]

I don't see the analogy. If it is to fight for genuine democracy, as opposed to fascism, and for less injustice against half of the population, then what do you propose we can achieve in Afghanistan alone? Not only has this "country" been undefeatable (take a pill, all you great machos out there!), but it's also a mere island in the sea of Islamic "fascism" and misogyny. Assuming that one could be victorious there, in a most tribally organized "nation," what do you propose next? To occupy the area until everybody has relinquished such a fundamental cultural identity and become American-like? Ridiculous.

This situation has nothing to do with right, left, and center in the USA. It has to do with strong, immutable tribal allegiance, loyalty, identity, solidarity in Afghanistan. And they're not attempting to overturn a leftist opposition; they're fighting to liberate their region.

Immense nuance. Liberation movements have tended to be irresistible lately, including in Vietnam.

[Cosima___J]

Living Stradivarius says:
"End state corruption and administer the freaking country ourselves."

Surely you are joking!!!!

[living_stradivarius]

I don't see the analogy. If it is to fight for genuine democracy, as opposed to fascism, and for less injustice against half of the population, then what do you propose we can achieve in Afghanistan alone? Not only has this "country" been undefeatable (take a pill, all you great machos out there!), but it's also a mere island in the sea of Islamic "fascism" and misogyny.

-The nuance is the distinction between the neocon "fight for genuine democracy" (Hamas anyone?) and a pragmatic liberation of people who wish to be free of oppression and corruption. The problem today is our aversion to hand-holding weak states towards stable governance for fear of being labeled imperialists. Gimme a break!
We've invested the manpower to do this but our "confidence" in Karzai has bungled the entire operation. If we continue to mismanage our presence there of course it's going to be a resource suck. I'd advocate a withdrawal if there were no way to change governance there. But there is a way and many of us are just turning a blind eye to it. You don't run from a fight you can win because some idiots in leadership made poor decisions -- you correct those decisions and finish the fight. This has everything to do with how Americans react to the President's handling of our presence in Afghanistan.

Assuming that one could be victorious there, in a most tribally organized "nation," what do you propose next? To occupy the area until everybody has relinquished such a fundamental cultural identity and become American-like? Ridiculous.

-Yes, it can be done. Remember this? http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ?page=full

-If we are to fight the sea of Islamic fascism, this is the place to start. You agree it's a problem, so what's your alternative? Are you saying we leave Afghanistan to become the breeding ground for more al Qaeda operatives?

[Chosen Barley]

Ever heard of the golden rule? It applies to international matters, too.

There may be countries who dislike our style of government, culture & way of life here in North America. But you may not appreciate the results, including collateral damage, when & if their governments send hundreds of thousands of soldiers & war apparatus to free us of the cesspool of slime & injustice that constitutes 90% of our "culture".

Does anyone not recall the purported reason the US and other countries went into Afghanistan in the first place? It was to capture Al Qaeda. Funny we don't hear about this noble cause any more. Now, it's regime change, saving women & establishment of democracy. How about a little bit of regime change in North Korea? That joint needs it far worse than Afghanistan. Why Afghanistan only?

It is not one world and never will be, the efforts of the warmongers notwithstanding. Never. A people has to change its government by and for itself.

[living_stradivarius]

I'm no war monger and if we continue to support the corruption of the Karzai regime pulling out is the alternative on my list. But why are we overlooking the fact that we CAN establish security in Afghanistan first and proactively administer the government?

There may be countries who dislike our style of government, culture & way of life here in North America. But you may not appreciate the results, including collateral damage, when & if their governments send hundreds of thousands of soldiers & war apparatus to free us of the cesspool of slime & injustice that constitutes 90% of our "culture".

That is why strong, stable governments (and cultures) have a military, deterrence mechanisms, and engage in multilateral negotiations. Wanna preserve your way of life? Then it'd better keep your people smart, strong, and reliable contributors to the world. I don't see the merit of your Kantian approach to IR. You think that if we pull out of Afghanistan that will teach the Russians not to invade us?

Does anyone not recall the purported reason the US and other countries went into Afghanistan in the first place? It was to capture Al Qaeda. Funny we don't hear about this noble cause any more. Now, it's regime change, saving women & establishment of democracy. How about a little bit of regime change in North Korea? That joint needs it far worse than Afghanistan. Why Afghanistan only?

We certainly do need to do something about North Korea. Only thing holding us back is the casualty count and the fact that Seoul will be in flames before we can take out the DPRK's artillery. The only thing holding us back in Afghanistan is government corruption -- military casualties can be substantially reduced and/or eliminated if we fix that problem.

A people has to change its government by and for itself.

A respectable position to take, but the Third Reich and the Japanese empire didn't change their regimes by and for themselves.

[piston]

I believe that the last time we won "hearts and minds" was in post-war Germany and Japan. Why did it work so well there? Many reasons, for sure, including good dollar diplomacy, but it was all built on the exact same foundation: we first had to crush all resistance.

Without a very decisive military victory, sweeping through the entire country like the Allies did, and leaving no opponent behind, how is this going to happen in Afghanistan? Add to this analogy the extremely important fact that neither Germany or Japan were religious fundamentalist nations. Sure, Japan had a great sense of honor but it was crushed, by force, and by no other way.

To achieve results in Afghanistan there must occur a decisive, overwhelming military victory. Nobody has been tying our GIs' hands this time around. No resources have been cut by Congress. Yet, there's no real progress in sight, no sweeping victory, just the contrary!

What is it you wish, LS, 2 million GIs? And what would that achieve other than bankrupting us for good? These troops would not begin to win hearts and minds until they occupy every mountain cave in Afghanistan.

[Barry]

... The problem today is our aversion to hand-holding weak states towards stable governance for fear of being labeled imperialists. Gimme a break!
We've invested the manpower to do this but our "confidence" in Karzai has bungled the entire operation. ...

That fear of being labeled imperialists holds us back in other ways too; including doing our best diplomatically to help create a better situation in Iraq before we rush out of there so the President can say he kept his promise (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... S3pE4lVNP0).

On the argument that the U.S. went into Afghanistan solely to get to Al Qaeda, that's not how I understood it. Bush said more than once publicly that he would go after countries that aid or protect terrorists. The Taliban was such a regime.

There has been a lot of talk about blow-back from not helping the Afghan people to the extent we should have after giving them the tools to defeat the Soviets (see Charlie Wilson's war). How we leave a place - be it Afghanistan or Iraq - matters and could have long-term consequences.

[living_stradivarius]

I believe that the last time we won "hearts and minds" was in post-war Germany and Japan. Why did it work so well there? Many reasons, for sure, including good dollar diplomacy, but it was all built on the exact same foundation: we first had to crush all resistance.

Without a very decisive military victory, sweeping through the entire country like the Allies did, and leaving no opponent behind, how is this going to happen in Afghanistan? Add to this analogy the extremely important fact that neither Germany or Japan were religious fundamentalist nations. Sure, Japan had a great sense of honor but it was crushed, by force, and by no other way.

...Yet, there's no real progress in sight, no sweeping victory, just the contrary!

Our entry into Afghanistan was an enormous failure, no doubt about it. Overwhelming force and the Powell Doctrine went out the window for the sake of "leaving a small footprint".
But at this point of our prolonged occupation, our ongoing "lack of progress" due to corruption and mismanagement more than it is due to lack of a decisive military victory.

What is it you wish, LS, 2 million GIs? And what would that achieve other than bankrupting us for good? These troops would not begin to win hearts and minds until they occupy every mountain cave in Afghanistan.

Actually my POV isn't too different from yours. I don't want to waste American lives in an operation doomed to fail. Where you and differ is our assessment of problem. I see corruption and mismanagement as the primary issues to address, whereas you take those as a given and advocate withdrawal. If corruption and mismanagement were a given, I'd agree with withdrawal. But those factors are NOT set in stone. The media is making us believe it is, and popular fixation over casualty count (proportionately small vs. Vietnam) and $ spent aren't helping. Instead of focusing our energies on protests for withdrawal, why don't we pressure the administration to eliminate corruption and poor leadership in Afghanistan? Fix those two problems and US casualties will drop. A secure state will also provide economic benefits -- stable oil & natural gas lines and access to those newly discovered mineral deposits.

[Chosen Barley]

A people has to change its government by and for itself.

A respectable position to take, but the Third Reich and the Japanese empire didn't change their regimes by and for themselves.

"We" (the Allies) didn't make war against the Third Reich to rescue the Germans; most Germans looked pretty happy with their government. Same with Japan.

As for Afghanistan, they may have a horrid government and cultural practices (treatment of women, etc) but it doesn't serve our interests to go to war against them. It is not our business. The function of government is to serve the interests of its citizens. No one has yet been able to tell me how I am benefited by the war in Afghanistan.

I see things in western culture that curl my toes, and it's getting worse. But we have to fix these things without foreign military intervention.

Do you see anything in your country that you just can't stand? Could you list at least some of them and tell me if you would want foreign troops on your soil dealing with them?

[Barry]

Do you see anything in your country that you just can't stand? Could you list at least some of them and tell me if you would want foreign troops on your soil dealing with them?

I imagine plenty of slaves in the South were happy to have northern troops down there during the Civil War.

And while I can't know for sure, I'd like to think that if I were a woman in a society where they are forbidden from going to school or working outside of the home and subjected to the kinds of brutal punishments that women are subjected to in the most extreme societies, that I'd be thrilled to have a foreign power come to overthrow that system.

[Jean]

Cosi, reading Piston's list of rules, makes me realize that no
effort on the part of the civilised world could change the prevailing Islamic
culture. I am afraid, our young men are dying in vain.
Except for the fear of Pakistan's nuclear capabilities falling
into the hands of the Taliban, the war in Afghanistan is pointless.

I agree. Warfare isn't going to fix the agreegious way in which women are viewed and treated. That requires a cultural revolution.

[Agnes Selby]

Cosi, reading Piston's list of rules, makes me realize that no
effort on the part of the civilised world could change the prevailing Islamic
culture. I am afraid, our young men are dying in vain.
Except for the fear of Pakistan's nuclear capabilities falling
into the hands of the Taliban, the war in Afghanistan is pointless.

I agree. Warfare isn't going to fix the agreegious way in which women are viewed and treated. That requires a cultural revolution.

Indeed, but that is not going to happen under Sharia Law.
I wonder how many women would survive if they initiated a revolt and
how many men would get involved in a cultural revolution
when Sharia Law supports their superior status. It is a no win situation.

[Chosen Barley]

Do you see anything in your country that you just can't stand? Could you list at least some of them and tell me if you would want foreign troops on your soil dealing with them?

I imagine plenty of slaves in the South were happy to have northern troops down there during the Civil War.

And while I can't know for sure, I'd like to think that if I were a woman in a society where they are forbidden from going to school or working outside of the home and subjected to the kinds of brutal punishments that women are subjected to in the most extreme societies, that I'd be thrilled to have a foreign power come to overthrow that system.

You tell me that the slaves in the South sure must have approved of the Civil War, and that if you were a woman in a dreadful antifemale country, then a war on your behalf might be to your liking.

Personally, I don't know either way. I just asked if anyone here on this forum thought that anything was so bad in USA or Canada,right now, that they would not mind their country being invaded and a nasty, prolonged war fought for that cause.

So I'll try again: Is there anything so awful that you would welcome thousands of foreign troops on American soil, along with all the collateral damage, infrastructure destruction, heartbreak & all-round misery resulting? Suppose that was your children's wedding party that got bombed by accident? What would make such a loss worth it to you?

Here is what Walter E. Williams (black American) thinks of Thomas di Lorenzo's anti-Lincoln book "The Real Lincoln - A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, his Agenda, and an Unnecessary War":

As DiLorenzo documents – contrary to conventional wisdom, books about Lincoln, and the lessons taught in schools and colleges – the War between the States was not fought to end slavery; Even if it were, a natural question arises: Why was a costly war fought to end it? African slavery existed in many parts of the Western world, but it did not take warfare to end it. Dozens of countries, including the territorial possessions of the British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, ended slavery peacefully during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Countries such as Venezuela and Colombia experienced conflict because slave emancipation was simply a ruse for revolutionaries who were seeking state power and were not motivated by emancipation per se.

I'd like to add to this that slavery in the USA was on its way out for purely economic reasons. And that I am not making light of slavery, only that wars are not always fought for noble reasons, but rather for political ones that most people are not aware of.

A war is not a tea party.

[living_stradivarius]

"We" (the Allies) didn't make war against the Third Reich to rescue the Germans; most Germans looked pretty happy with their government. Same with Japan.

We helped rescue the Jews, gypsies, gays, and countless others. We were also provoked by an attack on our soil. Afghanistan harbored those who did the same.

Personally, I don't know either way. I just asked if anyone here on this forum thought that anything was so bad in USA or Canada,right now, that they would not mind their country being invaded and a nasty, prolonged war fought for that cause.

So I'll try again: Is there anything so awful that you would welcome thousands of foreign troops on American soil, along with all the collateral damage, infrastructure destruction, heartbreak & all-round misery resulting? Suppose that was your children's wedding party that got bombed by accident? What would make such a loss worth it to you?

-The nasty-prolonged war is the result of corruption and poor government administration, not the inevitable result of our presence there.
-What's your point? There's no equivalent form of oppression in the US and unlike Afghanistan, as we have social/legal channels that address injustice. If we had gone in with overwhelming force and established a secure government, collateral damage and infrastructure destruction would have been minimal.
-And yes, there are awful things that would have me welcome thousands of foreign troops at my doorstep:

[Barry]

Do you see anything in your country that you just can't stand? Could you list at least some of them and tell me if you would want foreign troops on your soil dealing with them?

I imagine plenty of slaves in the South were happy to have northern troops down there during the Civil War.

And while I can't know for sure, I'd like to think that if I were a woman in a society where they are forbidden from going to school or working outside of the home and subjected to the kinds of brutal punishments that women are subjected to in the most extreme societies, that I'd be thrilled to have a foreign power come to overthrow that system.

You tell me that the slaves in the South sure must have approved of the Civil War, and that if you were a woman in a dreadful antifemale country, then a war on your behalf might be to your liking.

Personally, I don't know either way. I just asked if anyone here on this forum thought that anything was so bad in USA or Canada,right now, that they would not mind their country being invaded and a nasty, prolonged war fought for that cause.

So I'll try again: Is there anything so awful that you would welcome thousands of foreign troops on American soil, along with all the collateral damage, infrastructure destruction, heartbreak & all-round misery resulting? Suppose that was your children's wedding party that got bombed by accident? What would make such a loss worth it to you?

Here is what Walter E. Williams (black American) thinks of Thomas di Lorenzo's anti-Lincoln book "The Real Lincoln - A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, his Agenda, and an Unnecessary War":

As DiLorenzo documents – contrary to conventional wisdom, books about Lincoln, and the lessons taught in schools and colleges – the War between the States was not fought to end slavery; Even if it were, a natural question arises: Why was a costly war fought to end it? African slavery existed in many parts of the Western world, but it did not take warfare to end it. Dozens of countries, including the territorial possessions of the British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, ended slavery peacefully during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Countries such as Venezuela and Colombia experienced conflict because slave emancipation was simply a ruse for revolutionaries who were seeking state power and were not motivated by emancipation per se.

I'd like to add to this that slavery in the USA was on its way out for purely economic reasons. And that I am not making light of slavery, only that wars are not always fought for noble reasons, but rather for political ones that most people are not aware of.

A war is not a tea party.

I'm sorry, but asking that question without allowing anyone to point out that there are things in other places that are so far beyond any societal issues in the modern U.S. renders it almost meaningless. That an American wouldn't answer that question affirmatively doesn't mean people in far worse situations in other parts of the world would answer it the same way.

And as to your points on slavery, the answer to your question on why it ended in those other places peacefully while it took a war to end it hear is obvious. Those other countries were willing to give it up peacefully and not fight over it. In contradiction to your statements, the American South was most certainly not near being willing to give it up peacefully. It may have happened eventually, but possibly not for a number of decades (I won't surmise how many). Pointing out that Lincoln's initial motivation for going to war wasn't to end slavery is a strawman argument. The fact remains that "but for" the Civil War, slavery as an institution was going to continue in the South for the foreseeable future. The South's paranoia with regard to their fears that Lincoln would end slavery had much to do with the War breaking out. The reality was that while Lincoln hated slavery, he didn't think the federal government had the power to end it in the South. His goal prior to the war and in its early years was to stop it from spreading further. Had the South realized that, the War may not have happened and slavery may have gone on much longer.

Of course I'd have strong feelings if my family was mistakenly killed during a wedding party. I'm sure there were people all over Western Europe who felt terrible about their family members who were killed in the process of their countries being liberated. But there are some situation that are so intolerable, that I believe those who live through it want to be liberated, even if it takes force to do so. There were people in France who jumped for joy when the bombs started following from Allied ships in the lead-up to the D-Day invasion.

[Chosen Barley]

I am in Canada and I can assure you, living strad, that thousands of men here cheerfully signed up to defend Great Britain, not because they were concerned about Nazism as a general ideology or Jews or homosexuals. No old soldier that I have ever spoken to (and I know a few, having worked in the military) knew anything about the depredations of the Nazis against various minorities, or, dare I say, would give a hoot if they had known. It was about your opportunity to stand up and "be a man" and to defend a king & country that they still felt some attachment to. It was not our war and, today, neither Canadians nor Americans have any right to be warring in Afghanistan because that war does not serve our interests, either.

One old WW II veteran, where I worked, on explaining to me why rifles had bayonets & precisely how they had to be used, said, when I looked horrified, "War is hell". And he strode down the hall without another word. This was more than 35 years ago and I was a teen at the time. This is not some sort of emotional antiwar argument, because I'm not antiwar nor a pacifist. Just a little story.

Barry, you refer to the situation in other lands as so far beyond our own societal issues. There's the rub - there are atrocities, to my mind, taking place here that should be issues but are not, at least not among liberals and the mainstream media.

War is the health of the state.

Y'all feel so sorry for the women of Afghanistan? Then join the military and go over there & free them, and don't tell me you are too old or decrepit. Over the past 10 years the standards have been mightily lowered. Betcha they'll take you!

[living_stradivarius]

I am in Canada and I can assure you, living strad, that thousands of men here cheerfully signed up to defend Great Britain, not because they were concerned about Nazism as a general ideology or Jews or homosexuals. No old soldier that I have ever spoken to (and I know a few, having worked in the military) knew anything about the depredations of the Nazis against various minorities, or, dare I say, would give a hoot if they had known. It was about your opportunity to stand up and "be a man" and to defend a king & country that they still felt some attachment to. It was not our war and, today, neither Canadians nor Americans have any right to be warring in Afghanistan because that war does not serve our interests, either.

The fact that some WWII vets you know were oblivious to the Holocaust at the time does not change the fact that advances in media and communications make us aware of human rights violations in the here and now. Times change, and we should adapt. So if Japan had never attacked Pearl Harbor, you would sleep comfortably at night knowing we never lifted a finger to help millions more people who were about to be slaughtered? And need I remind you that we were attacked by a terrorist organization that recruited and trained in Afghanistan?

Y'all feel so sorry for the women of Afghanistan? Then join the military and go over there & free them, and don't tell me you are too old or decrepit. Over the past 10 years the standards have been mightily lowered. Betcha they'll take you!

Quite a few of my close friends have joined the military to do just that. We should be focusing on eliminating corruption and bad governance in Afghanistan, not second-guessing ourselves and being so selfish as to vacillate over whether oppressed people deserve a better life. I'm willing to make room for debate on the practical matters on the ground, but ethically and morally, we stand apart.

[Barry]

Barry, you refer to the situation in other lands as so far beyond our own societal issues. There's the rub - there are atrocities, to my mind, taking place here that should be issues but are not, at least not among liberals and the mainstream media.

War is the health of the state.

Y'all feel so sorry for the women of Afghanistan? Then join the military and go over there & free them, and don't tell me you are too old or decrepit. Over the past 10 years the standards have been mightily lowered. Betcha they'll take you!

They wouldn't (sorry ... but I really am too old and decrepit). And as I've said before, I have much regret over not having served in the military (I was a knee-jerk anti-war liberal for most of my adult life). But my age and ability to serve don't change the principle. It seems to me that you asked a question on a significant matter, and you don't like that the answer isn't the one you were setting us up for. If you've read any of my recent posts on the matter, you know I think we need to seriously consider pulling out of Afghanistan because I'm skeptical that it can be salvaged under the current conditions under with our troops are fighting. But you wanted to know if there are times when people would invite outside troops into their country, and I still insist that while there may not be in the U.S., there are in other places, and once were in the U.S.

Ask African-Americans if they think the Civil War was worth it. Ask Europeans if fighting to free them was worth it. Ask the people of any country that's been liberated from the worst types of societal wide horrors if they think the war that liberated them was worth it. I see what the Taliban does to the people under their rule as being at that level of depravity. It's beyond even what most other totalitarian regimes do. It's an unfortunate truism that many, if not most of the most depraved regimes in history have only been stopped from continuing to carry out their crimes by way of war. And in most of those cases, liberation probably wasn't the leading cause for the war.

I understand that we can't go around liberating every group of oppressed people on the planet. We simply don't have the resources and there aren't enough countries in addition to us with the will and ability to do it. That's why we generally only do it when it serves a national interest. There has been a debate about that going on here for years with regard to Afghanistan. You may think that we have no interest there, but a lot of people who have given that matter a great deal of thought, including Presidents from both sides of the aisle, disagree with you (in part because of its proximity to Pakistan). Liberating people doesn't have to be the driving reason for a war to be glad when it happens. Again; see the Civil War.

[living_stradivarius]

Frankly I don't know what the best solution to our situation in Afghanistan is. What is our moral obligation to the people of that country? What is our moral obligation to the American people who are sacrificing blood and treasure in a country far away?

Here's my view on the ethics/morality of it:
1. We always have a moral obligation to attempt to help people who are subject to human rights violations and atrocities.
2. We ALSO have a moral obligation to preserve the lives of our servicemen and minimize casualties.

Now if we can't achieve 1. without 2. then we're at a moral/ethical stalemate. So in that case, withdrawal is bitterly palatable. But in the case of Afghanistan, we CAN achieve both 1. and 2. if we address the corruption within Karzai's regime.

[Cyril Ignatius]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 38,00.html

Frankly I don't know what the best solution to our situation in Afghanistan is. What is our moral obligation to the people of that country? What is our moral obligation to the American people who are sacrificing blood and treasure in a country far away? Cosi

Our obligations to our own soldiers is not to throw good money and good lives after bad. It is to recognize our errors and get out so no more American lives will be lost in this misadventure. I am not a big fan of Pat Buchanan's, but he is right when he says, "Afghanistan is where empires go to die."

As for the woman on the TIME cover and others in her situation: our obligation is to take in anyone so threatened, who has a reasonable fear of persecution, as refugees in our country if they so wish.

I think Reblem may actually be correct on this one.

[Cyril Ignatius]

Frankly I don't know what the best solution to our situation in Afghanistan is. What is our moral obligation to the people of that country? What is our moral obligation to the American people who are sacrificing blood and treasure in a country far away?

Here's my view on the ethics/morality of it:
1. We always have a moral obligation to attempt to help people who are subject to human rights violations and atrocities.
2. We ALSO have a moral obligation to preserve the lives of our servicemen and minimize casualties.

Now if we can't achieve 1. without 2. then we're at a moral/ethical stalemate. So in that case, withdrawal is bitterly palatable. But in the case of Afghanistan, we CAN achieve both 1. and 2. if we address the corruption within Karzai's regime.

Possibly so. But I am doubtful. I think taking a hard look at reducing our military presence around the world is really needed. I would like to see sharply scaled back international ventures. We would be better served by fewer ventures abroad, while maintaining a more than credible deterrence effect of an overwhelming military strike, should one of these country's take aggression on us. Our problem under Obama is an sharp intensification of our problem under Bush and and Clinton and Bush Sr.: We have too any ties in too many places, and we lack the resolve to act forcefully and coherently dealing with any one of them.

[Agnes Selby]

I am in Canada and I can assure you, living strad, that thousands of men here cheerfully signed up to defend Great Britain, not because they were concerned about Nazism as a general ideology or Jews or homosexuals. No old soldier that I have ever spoken to (and I know a few, having worked in the military) knew anything about the depredations of the Nazis against various minorities, or, dare I say, would give a hoot if they had known. It was about your opportunity to stand up and "be a man" and to defend a king & country that they still felt some attachment to. It was not our war and, today, neither Canadians nor Americans have any right to be warring in Afghanistan because that war does not serve our interests, either.

One old WW II veteran, where I worked, on explaining to me why rifles had bayonets & precisely how they had to be used, said, when I looked horrified, "War is hell". And he strode down the hall without another word. This was more than 35 years ago and I was a teen at the time. This is not some sort of emotional antiwar argument, because I'm not antiwar nor a pacifist. Just a little story.

Barry, you refer to the situation in other lands as so far beyond our own societal issues. There's the rub - there are atrocities, to my mind, taking place here that should be issues but are not, at least not among liberals and the mainstream media.

War is the health of the state.

Y'all feel so sorry for the women of Afghanistan? Then join the military and go over there & free them, and don't tell me you are too old or decrepit. Over the past 10 years the standards have been mightily lowered. Betcha they'll take you!

---------

Even if your veterans did not know what they were fighting for in World War II,
its a good thing that they did fight. Had the Germans won the war, Europe
would have been a place of terror and concentration camps would not have
been confined only to Poland and Germany. England would have been under
the might of Germany and soon the USA would also have fallen. And so would
have Canada. I, for one, am most grateful to the Allies and owe them my life.

[Cosima___J]

Getting back to the thread title --- that disturbing TIME magazine cover, I just heard on the news that the woman in the picture, who had hear nose cut off, is coming to the US for reconstructive surgery. A happy ending for her??? Only, I would think, if she is not sent back to Afghanistan.

[Chosen Barley]

Europe (Eastern) WAS a place of terror, for God's sake, Agnes!

It's who prefers the Nazis and who prefers the Bolsheviks that this comes down to. If you put a gun to my head, I'd go with the former. Not happily, but at least I would stand a chance. My relatives in eastern Europe had NO chance. If you prefer the Red Terror, so be it. That is because you apparently didn't have to live with it.

[Donald Isler]

Eastern Europe was certainly a place of terror, but I think most Jews would come down on the other side of the argument. I have a friend, a Romanian Jew, who remembers when Stalin's army arrived in his part of Romania. There was no nice democracy in-between, just Stalin's army on one side and Hitler's army on the other. All of his relatives 40 miles to the west, where Hitler's army was in control, were murdered (dozens of people). The arrival of Stalin's army in the area where my friend was located meant that the Jews there might survive. And they did.

[Agnes Selby]

[quote="Chosen Barley"]Europe (Eastern) WAS a place of terror, for God's sake, Agnes!

I know what it was like during World War II, "For God's Sake"! However, after
nine months of being buried underground in a forest in Slovakia, we
were freed by the Russian army. I remember it well, it was April 4, 1945,
my birthday. My account of those 9 months was published by "Quadrant
Magazine" under the title "Escape on my father's horse". There is no
comparison between the brutality of the Germans and the freeing Russian
Army. You have to live it to believe it!!!

[living_stradivarius]

Europe (Eastern) WAS a place of terror, for God's sake, Agnes!

It's who prefers the Nazis and who prefers the Bolsheviks that this comes down to. If you put a gun to my head, I'd go with the former. Not happily, but at least I would stand a chance. My relatives in eastern Europe had NO chance. If you prefer the Red Terror, so be it. That is because you apparently didn't have to live with it.

And this dilemma is relevant because...? In fact, had the Americans pressed the Soviets more forcefully, eastern Europe might have become free after WWII. Unfortunately, the Soviets had a huge standing army. Afghanistan, on the other hand, doesn't. We should make the difference when we have the chance.

[Barry]

Europe (Eastern) WAS a place of terror, for God's sake, Agnes!

I know what it was like during World War II, "For God's Sake"! However, after
nine months of being buried underground in a forest in Slovakia, we
were freed by the Russian army. I remember it well, it was April 4, 1945,
my birthday. My account of those 9 months was published by "Quadrant
Magazine" under the title "Escape on my father's horse". There is no
comparison between the brutality of the Germans and the freeing Russian
Army. You have to live it to believe it!!!

Very poignant response Agnes! And thank you for helping me to answer Chosen's question on whether there are situations where people would choose military liberation, with the destruction that will likely include, over the status quo.

I've given a lot of thought to this issue the past couple days. As I indicated earlier in this thread, I understand that there are practical reasons why the U.S. and other countries can't go around liberating every group of people that suffers under the worst forms of oppression, and therefore generally only does it when there is an additional national interest involved. I'm not asking the following question flippantly. I am genuinely curious. I see people, including on this board, all the time who consistently favor domestic policies that are based chiefly on helping those who are worst off in society or those they see as oppressed. Yet even the notion of rescuing people in other parts of the world who are oppressed far worse than anyone in this country is something they reject out of hand.

Is it because they view anything preferable to war? Is it a feeling that we should be spending our tax dollars on helping people in this country before worrying about people in other countries? Or is it something else?

A close friend of mine, a doctor who is also in the Air Force reserves, is on a several-month tour of duty in Iraq now providing medical services and also sometimes having to go into potentially dangerous areas. He sent this:

[Cyril Ignatius]

Certainly one of the basic things America will HAVE to do if it wants anything resembling national "Security" is to reform immigration and stop letting scores of non-assimilationist people into the country. Bush (Jr. and senior) were a bad joke in these areas, and Obama is far worse.By failing to head this off, we are turning our own nation into a sinkhole of social strife.

[Agnes Selby]

Europe (Eastern) WAS a place of terror, for God's sake, Agnes!

I know what it was like during World War II, "For God's Sake"! However, after
nine months of being buried underground in a forest in Slovakia, we
were freed by the Russian army. I remember it well, it was April 4, 1945,
my birthday. My account of those 9 months was published by "Quadrant
Magazine" under the title "Escape on my father's horse". There is no
comparison between the brutality of the Germans and the freeing Russian
Army. You have to live it to believe it!!!

Very poignant response Agnes! And thank you for helping me to answer Chosen's question on whether there are situations where people would choose military liberation, with the destruction that will likely include, over the status quo.

I've given a lot of thought to this issue the past couple days. As I indicated earlier in this thread, I understand that there are practical reasons why the U.S. and other countries can't go around liberating every group of people that suffers under the worst forms of oppression, and therefore generally only does it when there is an additional national interest involved. I'm not asking the following question flippantly. I am genuinely curious. I see people, including on this board, all the time who consistently favor domestic policies that are based chiefly on helping those who are worst off in society or those they see as oppressed. Yet even the notion of rescuing people in other parts of the world who are oppressed far worse than anyone in this country is something they reject out of hand.

Is it because they view anything preferable to war? Is it a feeling that we should be spending our tax dollars on helping people in this country before worrying about people in other countries? Or is it something else?

A close friend of mine, a doctor who is also in the Air Force reserves, is on a several-month tour of duty in Iraq now providing medical services and also sometimes having to go into potentially dangerous areas. He sent this:

It is a difficult question. All of us would like to live in a peaceful world but
the study of history tells us that every generation produces someone like
Hitler, Stalin, Sadam, the Iranian idiot (whatever is his name) going back to Napoleon
and way back to the Roman emperors. None of us want to lose our sons in war.

The devastation of World War II was terrible but would capitulation had been better?
Even though Americans were divided on America's entry into World War II,
what choice was there after Pearl Harbor? Had America not intervened,
Asia and Australia would have been under Japanese control. It came
very close in Australia. Not long ago Japanese submarines were discovered
at the bottom of Sydney Harbour. In a peacetime celebration of their
dead, the Japanese were allowed to declare that part of the Sydney Harbour
as their cemetery. So, there are some dead Japanese buried in their
submarines in Sydney Harbour but Australia itself is a free country.

There seems to be only one answer. Freedom is the most precious commodity.
In order to be free, in order to vote and even criticise our leaders freely,
we must fight the aggressors and defeat them. No child should be buried
undergound and never see daylight for 9 months. No one should be fed into
ovens and no one should live in constant fear. I can't think of anything
else to say, Barry, except that I value freedom above all.