Don't worry, they're not coming. You see, now the guys forcing them to have "chastity checks" are the "thugs we like." ********************** http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021217/wl_nm/afghan_women_dc_2 "Khan, the governor of Herat, who has received considerable U.S. financial and military assistance, was named as the most flagrant abuser, inventing a series of draconian measures. Among them is a religious police and a "youth police" to haul women and girls to hospitals for gynecological examinations for the purpose of "chastity checks." "Ismail Khan has created an atmosphere in which government officials and private individuals believe they have the right to police every aspect of women's and girls' lives: how they dress, how they get around town, what they say," Coursen-Neff said."
I don't know why this is surprising. The only people who said we went in there to bring freedom are Bush's wife and various right-wing columnists who were upset at women's-issue liberals not being for the invasion. None of these people make or define policy.
Yeah, it's totally not surprising at all. Did you get the feeling I was saying it is? My first reaction when seeing the headline was right out of Casablanca: "I'm shocked! Shocked to find there is gambling going on in this establishment." But it wasn't just right wing columnists and Bush's wife harping on this issue. It was the whole corporate media that got in line behind the attacks and started pimping any ridiculous angle they could. Everything from left leaning The West Wing to CNN all of a sudden had multiple references to Islamic mistreatment of women, often not even specifically connected to Afghanistan (but we got the point anyway ).
Of course we didn't go in there to secure the freedom of the Afghan people, we went in there to secure the safety of the American people. Not that it wasn't nice to liberate Afghanis from the most oppressive regime on Earth, but the fact that people in most of the country now have a million times more personal freedom than they ever did under the Taliban is STRICTLY GRAVY. Besides, power will slowly shift from the warlords to the national government, and this kind of thing will become less and less common. Alex
Alex, for a young guy, you show more intelligence, knowledge, and common sense than 99% of the looney left on Big Soccer. No, make that 100%.
> Of course we didn't go in there to secure the > freedom of the Afghan people I know that is the case, but the problem is that plenty of people said it was, including the President's wife. It gives people the wrong impression. If Bush said, "We are going into Iraq to get oil" it would be a lot more healthy for this nation and it would cut out this stupid UN and inspection stuff that is just pissing off everyone in the world, Saddam included. The problem with lying by using a moral argument for a power action is that eventually the moral stuff has to give way to the real reason for the action, which just ends up confusing the people you convinced in the first place. And if anything goes wrong, the people will demand an exit even if the cost is smaller than the real gains by continuing the action (because they believe the moral gains are smaller than the current costs). Worst of all, sometimes the moral aspect takes on a life of its own and people in power actually believe it. That kept us in Vietnam far past the time Indonesia was no longer in danger. > power will slowly shift from the warlords to the > national government I really doubt this will happen.
Damn, I was drinking when I read that and I laughed so hard that some beaujolais nouveau went up my nose.
By the way, there is no reliable way for a physicians to "diagnose" chastity. If a woman still has an obvious hymen, OK. However most women by their late teens have "lost' most of thier hymen simpoly by exercise etc.. in third world nations where women are beasts of burden, this is quite common.
Actually, if you knuckledraggers were paying attention you would know that Khan is not liked by the State dept nor the current powers in Kabul.Heck even the lowbrow left wing media types like Brokaw and Jennings have reported this numerous times over the past year.he has been a thorn in the side since day one, but unfortunatley he is one of the more stable Afghan warlords.So he isnt going anywhere soon. And yes the US has given him support, but as of now Khan is getting most of his support from tehran (where he has been getting aid for years).But of course, Leftie types have never been known to actually look deeper then headlines when it comes to commenting on foriegn affairs.
We'll take Brokaw, but I saw Jennings actually questioning the fairness of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If there's one thing we can't stand, it's irresolution.