The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, November 22, 2007
"Afghanistan effectively snubbed Canada in United Nations votes affecting a Canadian-led censure of Iran's human rights record."
Should we be surprised?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Afghan Betrayal?:
We're fighting for Afghanistan's independence and freedom - that includes their right to disagree with us. Besides, it's the UN - it has no power.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-22 11:55:14 AM
Yes, we are fighting for Afghanistan's freedom and independence, which is why I find this concerning. We should not be making this sacrifice to ensure an Islamic regime.
This is more than the Afghan's government being entitled to disagree with us and should be addressed in my view. That does not imply we immediately withdraw, but it needs to be raised with their government.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-22 1:08:10 PM
ebt - both the UN and the vote are not of real importance I agree. However I would like to ensure that we are not going through this to end up with an Islamic regime in place. Freedom does not exist under an Islamic regime, especially for women.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-22 1:47:17 PM
Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic with Sharia Law right now.
That's what the people there voted for with purple fingers.
How quickly they revert to Taliban after NATO leaves is anybody's guess, but it will probably happen if things don't change drastically.
The majority of Afghans are Pashtun, the Taliban is Pashtun to the core, and Pakistan's largest ethnic group is Pashtun.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-22 3:54:13 PM
Whatever the outcome of NATO's committment in Afstan, the end result will be a Muslim regime.
What type of a regime is what we are really fighting for. If the Afstan people ultimately reject the hardliners, then our mission will have been a success.The best one can ever hope for is a government that is friendly to the West and one that may adopt a western style of governance within the confines of their religion.
NATO is not there to convert the people. They are there to bring stability to a lawless land.
Posted by: atric | 2007-11-22 3:55:25 PM
In a Muslim state, like Afghanistan, where Sharia Law, which is religious, the infringement of which is interpreted by Mullahs, it's pretty hard to separate the hardliners from the 'hardliners with a cherry-on-top' when lopping off hands and stonings is the Law of the Land.
It matters not that the Afghans have a Western form of government if the body of law is Sharia.
Afghanistan and Iraq had stability before we invaded.
I'm not sure stability is such a good thing.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-22 4:06:27 PM
"Afghanistan and Iraq had stability before we invaded."
. . . at the cost of millions of lives.
I suspect that peace will only break out in that region when either Islam undergoes its long overdue reformation - or it is totally eradicated from the face of the planet.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-22 4:33:48 PM
How did Pakistan vote on that Canadian sponsored Iran-censure resolution?
I appreciate the ethnicity situation which Speller brought up, and the fact that the political leaders of those countries are actually in constant danger.
I would just like to know if General Musharraf has any different level of "freedom" from intimidation by Iran, than does Afghanistan.
This is such a terrible powder keg area, we should give our allies in that area as much latitude as they need to take.
The entire question is whether Islamic people can organically develop a minority rights respecting broadly representative civil government.
I don't know exactly how to fashion such a government. Is the right to commit adultery fundamental to humanity? If you accept such restrictions as that, does that then necessitate that women should be prevented from walking around without their heads covered, or only in the company of a male relative, etc.? Probably not.
I don't know what the actual LAW is in India regarding shooting a sacred cow if one strayed onto your front lawn, but if they don't want you to do that, I guess I'd be OK with it if I lived there.
Some accomodation for "religious" traditions HAS to be expected everywhere.
I want this "democratization" of Afghanistan and Iraq to work out so that we don't have to incinerate a quarter of the population of the globe. It's probably easier to be brave in Calgary or Los Angeles than it is in Kabul. Let's be patient.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-22 4:56:29 PM
A true democracy like maybe Turkey is the only acceptable form of government. If this cannot be achieved, I do not see the point of keeping troops there. If we leave the country though we should make sure that no terrorists take over.
How to do this is a good question. I cannot see Talibans taking over again. Maybe we should think of means we used to end the nazi regime in WWII.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-11-22 4:58:15 PM
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-22 5:29:53 PM
Remi brought up "Turkey" and I guess that triggered the thought.
Our kids are WAY far away today but my wife and I cooked (she would throw a drumb stick at me for taking half credit for 1% effort) the whole traditional meal anyway.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-22 5:43:32 PM
The war must extend to religious militancy both at home and abroad.
Freedom of religion with defined limits.
Muslims must be shown the perversities of their religion and be encouraged to moderate or switch.
This is a long term solution. Socialists will fight it of course.
Posted by: epsilon | 2007-11-22 7:57:42 PM
Last time I checked, the majority of Afghanis are not up to speed on their Locke, Burke, and Rousseau. Thinking that we can change countries with centuries of warlord/dictatorship/theocracy traditions into democracies strikes me a wee bit naive and idealistic.
Posted by: Cynic | 2007-11-22 9:25:51 PM
To obc and company,
It's true that islam plays a large role in the backwardness of the region as a whole, and I agree that either it needs a monumental and massive overhaul, or is totally abandonned as a way of life; frankly, neither of which is likely in the near future.
However, on a political level, it must be remembered that the poverty and problems of these countries are largely created by us. For afghanistan, 'us' would mean the U.S. They lavishly supported the same thugs in the 80's that they now denounce. The same goes for Saddam. He was a favorite of Bush Sr. and Rummy.
Frankly, the neo-cons (or neocon-dom) are a much greater threat to world security than a bunch of rag-tag taliban in sandals. Who is more dangerous: a powerless fanatical iranian mullah or an insane nuclear armed neo-con and cabal member bent on world destruction or domination because his creed says that he is a member of the 'chosen people'? Thank God people are slowly waking up to the nightmare of the cabal/neocons.
Islam should go? Yes. But first, let's get rid of Neocon-dom. So, get a bumper sticker that says: 'NUKE AIPAC HEADQUARTERS'
Posted by: mike | 2007-11-23 7:12:24 AM
>"it must be remembered that the poverty and problems of these countries are largely created by us. For afghanistan, 'us' would mean the U.S. They lavishly supported the same thugs in the 80's that they now denounce."
If Afghanistan wasn't an impoverished country for it's entire existence, which it has been, the US you should be pinpointing is the Soviets who invaded in 1979 and laid waste to Afghanistan for the next TEN YEARS.
Afghanistan is still the most heavily mined country on Earth(Soviet mines) with the highest number of amputees in the world(limbs blown OFF by Soviet mines) and THAT is impoverishing the country.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-23 7:53:43 AM
In addition to my 23-Nov-07 7:53:43 AM comment I'd like to add that the current President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, it's first democratically elected leader, was one of the Mujaheddin that the U.S. backed to fight against the Soviets.
That some of the Mujahideen went 'bad' is irrelevant if one wants to ignore Islamic Jihad, as well as cultural clannishness and tribalism, as factors that mainly contribute to strife and impoverishment.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-23 8:10:11 AM
America has been around and actively pursuing a policy of increasing the freedom for all people on earth for longer than your knowledge of history evidently reaches.
MANY, most, all, of American foreign policy efforts in and around the Middle East related to the 70 or so year long effort to resist, contain, defeat THE EVIL EMPIRE (the old and evidently hoping to return Soviet Union).
The folks like you, who wish to portray America falsely and to ignore the Communist led-inspired radicalization of Iran, which has caused a lot of what we are fighting today (in Iraq and in Afghanistan), and the Communist direct attack upon Afghansitan, in the USSR's never ending effort to expand its EVIL EMPIRE, also led American foreign policy to support (via our friends in Pakistan) the Afghan rebel-resisters to the Soviet initiated attack.
While you may hope that short sighted-ignorant people (perhaps you are one of them) will forget about how these things came to be, the LONG history of American efforts to help and free peoples all over the world has purchased some hard to ignore historical good will.
So a Communist like yourself cannot so easily shift national opinions merely by using stupid assed terms like "neocon" in order to negate a long term honest effort to help people all over the world to become free and safe, from your Totalitarian Communists (or your supposedly much softer and fluffier, Socialist-Atheist-Feminist-Homosexuals crowd, aka Communists).
Unless of course the "main stream media" should become Communist.
Gosh, I hope THAT doesn't happen!
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-23 8:23:44 AM
Well said, Conrad.
I'd like to add that it was the dreaded 'neo-con' President Jimmy Carter that began the policy to aid the Mujahadeen against the Communists occupation of Afghanistan in 1979.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-23 8:49:17 AM
Easy with the name calling; address the issue, and don't attack the individaul by calling him 'communist', 'homo' etc. Only makes you look chilidish, and takes away from the force of anything right you may have to say.
I am more pro-American than both of you combined. I believe in the noble Republic that since its inception has been a force for good to this world and an inspiration for humanity. Liberty, equality, rule of law: these are American inventions.
Here however is my long held thesis that thankfully many pure-blood americans share: in the last 20 years or so, and recently accelerated, the virtuous Republic has been hijacked by a small group of vicious individuals who do not share the values of liberty, or justice, or democracy. This group is largely concerned with one thing, and that is total domination over all matters financial, economic, cultural. Better known as the cabal, and supported by the Lobby and foreign groups like AIPAC, the cabal uses islam as a sideshow and 'smoke and mirrors' to further its own agenda.
The result is a degeneration of true American values. We go to war not for American interests and values but so that the 'ancestoral homeland' of cabal members can remain safe. The fact that american (and canadian) soldiers have to die so that the 'chosen people' can have their way, makes me sick.
Posted by: mike | 2007-11-23 9:48:38 AM
>"The fact that american (and canadian) soldiers have to die so that the 'chosen people' can have their way, makes me sick."
Posted by: mike | 23-Nov-07 9:48:38 AM
Go ahead and choke on your vomit, just don't get any on me.
That you conveniently left out the Communists as a major contributor to Afghanistan's poverty and present condition demonstrates a soft spot for Communism as well as a soft spot in your head.
Leaving out the USSR and blaming the U.S. alone for Afghanistan's state shows your claim to be pro-American for the rubbish it is.
(by the way, you are STILL blaming America and have said NOTHING of the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan)
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-23 10:07:12 AM
For a second mike I thought you meant the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy®- but really you mean Jews Running The World®!
Give your head a shake and get real.
THIS is particularly dumb:
"Frankly, the neo-cons (or neocon-dom) are a much greater threat to world security than a bunch of rag-tag taliban in sandals"
Posted by: Larry | 2007-11-23 10:13:36 AM
That "rag tag Taliban in sandals" defeated the vaunted Red Army when it was at it's zenith and hosted the training camps for the 9/11 terrorists.
Yeah, sure, they're no threat to world security./
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-23 10:20:10 AM
That's "chosen people" obc.
You forgot your sarc tag.
Isn't it ironic that Mike is short for Michael which is a Hebrew name?
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-23 11:04:16 AM
...time for a glass parking lot in Afg.
Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-11-23 11:18:32 AM
"their right to disagree with us"? Well, only if they respect the fundamental human rights--and stop with abuses, and permit people to be people, and stop the islamofacsism!
It IS our interest to ensure that they develop peacefully. If it were simply a matter of disagreement, then if all the women desided that all the men would wear pink--then in a democractic nation--that would be so. What they have been doing is not "disagreement" but disgusting!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-23 4:31:40 PM
Now someone is posting under my nic - like Lady's problem on a different thread.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-23 4:45:12 PM
Yes--you can see that, obc!
This happenned before. They do these things when they think they can get away with it.
Have you Emailed the standard?
I am over and out for the weekend.
Shalom and Good Shabbos,
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-23 4:56:23 PM
The webmaster has been notified.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-23 5:16:58 PM
If you want an eyeful of who is really at fault for the promotion of Islamic propaganda, look at the writings of Bat Ye'or whose research is scrupulous. She pinpoints an alliance between Arab politicians and intellectuals and European politicians (principally French and German) that started in the 1970's when Europeans were willing to sell their sovereignty and patrimony for oil. The fact that there are now 24 million muslims residing in Europe and dictating to Europeans has come back to bite those politicians in a big way.
Posted by: DML | 2007-11-23 7:24:53 PM
I asked one of my favorite French people (France--not Quebec or roc francophonies) what the heck is going on in France, and the answer was that France is bad right now but they are getting used to it.
France voted against going into Iraq--not because there was no knowledge of just how brutal things were for people, but because of the contracts for oil--so there is substance in what you have stated.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-25 10:28:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.