James O'Neill: Thanks for some factual context.
I find it strange that the one-eyed pro-US folks still think that Australia needs the US for "defence". The degree of ignorance required to maintain such a delusion is staggering...however all one needs to do is remain in the bosom of the mainstream media and the official history: (WMDs, Staging post for terror, "they hate our freedom", etc).
The US military strategy relies on low-level police action in order to achieve political and economic outcomes...the CIA is particularly illuminating as to the strategy (even from the few bits that have been made public).
Real war changed forever since the V2. Given our geography and wealth Australia can be *defended* with domestic missile batteries and smart mines. The traditional "diggers" are political cannon fodder...a stick for weak neighbours and a stick for hire for the US.
I respect the military, however not while it is used as a cynical political toy for ruthless immoral leaders. Causing mass deaths to enrich a few whilst ostensibly for "national defence" is a disgusting sham.

What is Aristocrats solution to human rights abuses in the US and for all the other countries they have occupied?
The US is by 21st century financial thugs who have no compunction about what they do to the population there as long as they are in control and looting the country.

Hi Saurian,

All that may be true but what has it to do with human rights, especially those of women, in Afghhanistan ?

I don't think the Yanks realised what they were getting into when they invaded the country, to deny it as a safe haven for al Qa'ida [or was that just propaganda ? Al Qa'ida doesn't exist, any more than the Mafia ? And anyway, it is a peace-loving organisation ? And anyway, even on the rare occasions when it isn't, the Yanks deserve it ?]

Either way, they inevitably opened up a Pandora's box of women's rights: after all, should they have left the entire social structure in place, with women confined to the home and traded like sheep from one family to another for breeding purposes, and menial labour ? Should the Yanks have left such vile cultural practices alone ? If they had, how could they ever have declared that they were fighting for freedom in any sense ?

So they had to try to open up opportunities for Afghan women and girls, mainly in education and employment, and in the process of course, stir up the resentment of the men, as a challenge to their reactionary culture ?

Now three million Afghan women and girls are either at school or in training, or in employment, as many had been before the Taliban and other mujahidin took over in the nineties. How do you put those women back in their medieval cultural boxes ? The Taliban will find a way, while the pseudo-Left in the West looks on.

Sometimes - I know it's hard to imagine - there are cultural forces more reactionary and evil than the Yanks, you know :)

So what does the pseudo-Left do in this situation ? Support reactionary culture. Support backward societies. Oppose human rights. After all, what's a few Afghan women in the scheme of things ? Opposing the US is all-important, regardless.

Cheers,

Loudmouth

sarnian
"What is Aristocrats solution to human rights abuses in the US and for all the other countries they have occupied?
The US is by 21st century financial thugs who have no compunction about what they do to the population there as long as they are in control and looting the country."

Answering a question with a question only (dishonestly) deflects the original question.
I'll ask again, what is Tranter's, and her followers like yourself, solution to human rights abuses in Afghanistan?
I don't deny that America has abused human rights, although I doubt very much it has done so on its own soil given that equality of opportunity is deeply entrenched in their culture, which is far more than what you can say for Afghanistan.
If America could, by some miracle, install its institutions in Afghanistan, then the women would be much more educated, much more employable, much more independent, much more financially secure; in summary, given all the opportunities women are given in America and the West.
If only leftists such as yourself and Tranter could apply their research and vindictive skills to regimes like the Taliban.

Aristicrat,

You're particularly vocal on the supposed altruistic motivation for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. And if we ponder the reason that they haven't bothered to extend the same "caring intervention" to places like Zimbabwe, you would no doubt say that America and its allies can't be expected to police the world....especially if the country in question offers nothing of intrinsic value to the invading force.

Thank you, Poirot, you've provided an answer to your own question:

Q. Why haven't the US invaded Zimbabwe ?

A. Because it does not provide a safe haven to forces which have attacked the US.

Isn't that so ? Isn't it the case that the Taliban 'government' sheltered al Qa'ida after its attack on New York ? Yes, yadayada, oil, gas, yes, but isn't this still true ?

So should the US have left a Taliban-'ruled' Afghanistan alone ? If they had, would al Qa'ida have never again mounted a similar attack, another 9/11 ? Not just in the US, but in any and every country it chose to ?

Would the Bali bombers have been able to flee to Afghanistan, knowing that they were completely safe to plan further attacks ?

Well, that was then, this is now.

So, Afghan women are now out in the world. Three million or so. What is your advice in connection with those equal human beings, your sisters ?

Cheers,

Joe