Yes, Joe,

I'm a little confused too.

You say that you agree with me on what the West has done to Iraq.

That they decided to invade to foist "democracy" and "freedom" on that country (which is code for control of resources, under the guise of altruism). Unfortunately, in Iraq's case, instead of liberating anyone, all the West managed to do was knock them for a six back into an undeveloped era - that happens when you bomb the infrastructure out of existence.

Tell me how the West's invasion of Afghanistan was any different in it's intention. Tell me how the West's intervention in Afghanistan is going to leave any long term or tangible improvement in any Afghan's lives.

Can you also tell me why the West isn't beating its chest about all the other societies where men go out and hunt, protect the tribe, and spend the rest of their time scratching themselves while the women do the lion's share of everything else. Grab an anthropologist and check out all the societies on all of the continents - and you'll find women doing what they've done for thousands of years and men doing the same...cooperating for the survival of their tribe in the way that they know how.

If you're going to pop into somewhere like Afghanistan and say "This isn't the way you do it. Look at us in the West. We'll show you how it's done."...then you have to be prepared to take along with you a whole Western infrastructure and give it to them as well....even then, things won't change because you say it should.

What we usually do is bomb the sh!t out of the infrastructure, give them locals advice, shake out heads in admonition, lord it over them for a while - then bugger off back to our holier than thou homeland.

Do you really believe a society can change just like that because we decree it so?

Just remembered an instance, while we're talking about Western intervention in "underdeveloped" societies, which is instructive.

An Australian mining company went into PNG to work near the Ok Tedi River. what they managed to do was silt up the river that the native population depended on for their survival - something they'd been doing for eons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ok_Tedi_environmental_disaster

My point here is that the locals were supposed to be gratified that the company built them a school and a hospital....all the while totally destroying their means of support and their autonomy.

Another group of indigenous people had survived for eons on the Mekong, a most bountiful river. Their government decide to dam their part, thereby removing the local's means of support and autonomy. This dam was to provide electricity, 90 percent of which was to be funnelled to a neighbouring country.

So those locals who lived a bountiful life on the river, were all moved into purpose-built dwellings, given electricity and TV, with the opportunity to spend their days in factories.

This is progress, apparently.

Iraq. Afghanistan.

Oh I see, the Wolfowitz Defence.

Well, I suppose, Poirot, the easy answer is

(1) that Saddam hadn't launched any terrorist attacks on the US, or allowed any attacks on the US to be supervised from Iraq, so

(2) the US had no reason to attack Iraq at that time.

Are you still with me ? There was ample reason to get stuck into one, but not the other.

I wonder how much simpler I can make it.

No, sorry, that's about it.

Oops, I should have headed this post:

Warning - Sarcasm Alert !

Cheers :)

Joe

P.S. Are you two serious about 'women who are perfectly happy with their lot' ? You're not just trying to pull my wick ? So does this 'perfectly happy about their lot' apply to, say, African slaves in the US 200 years ago (or in Muslim Mauretania today) ?

So there's never been any real reason to get interested in the liberation of people from any sort of oppression - it's all 'natural', 'cultural', and anyway it's not really any of our business ? And slave-owners can be really nice, hospitable people, just as mullahs and imams are so dignified, so knowledgeable, with such neat beards. It's not our place to unnecessarily disrupt their lives.

Okay, got it.

That's an odd example to use, Joe.

Those African slaves were in America because "civilised" white men, not content with colonising other countries, decided it was an even better idea to to pinch a whole lot a dark-skinned humans to use as slaves.

You won't relieve people of oppression by parking a foreign military complex among them, one that is populated by artless boys from the back-blocks of the US.

Regarding your observation that "There was ample reason to get stuck into one...." Note that the Saudis, who seem to have a similar opinion on women's autonomy, and who were conspicuous for their involvement in 9/11, seem to have just carried on regardless.

But they're a rich country - and if there's one thing the yanks require when they go in to "stand up for other people's rights' it's that the country they're invading should be practically defenceless. (It took 'em a while to achieve that in Iraq before they actually decided to unleash "shock and awe")...something they had no worries about in Afghanistan.

Poirot,

Iraq. Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia. Different countries, different situations. But nice try :)

I'll attempt to make it more easy for you:

(a) Nasty Al Qa'ida bomb buildings in Tanzania, Kenya, etc., etc. Then they bomb buildings in New York and fly plane into Pentagon - 3,500 people killed, including Muslims.

(b) Nasty Taliban in Afghanistan harbor al Qa'ida.

(c) Iraq not harbor a' Qa'ida.

(d) Saudi Arabia not harbor al Qa'ida.

(e) US not right to attack Iraq.

(f) US not right to attack Saudi Arabia.

At least, not for that reason.

(g) US within its rights to attack Afghanistan under the Taliban, harborers of al Qa'ida. Principle of 'hot pursuit' involved. Regrettable, but legal.

(h) Iraq not Afghanistan.

(i) Not legal to invade Iraq. Wolfowitz wrong. Neo-cons wrong. Iraq not involved in anti-US terrorism. Anti-Israel and anti-Iran terrorism, maybe, but not anti-US.

I hope that clarifies matters for you, Poirot, in simple enough terms even for neo-cons.

Cheers :)

Joe

Joe, you've moved a long way from "Afghan women need our help because Afghan men hate Afghan women" "Did everyone notice how caring I am?"
to your present rant, which has nothing to do with the topic, which you may have noticed is about the future of women in Afghanistan.

Presumably that means you've got nothing more to say about that topic?

No solutions to making the place a better place to live? No predictions for the next few generations? No answers to the problem of turning a group of fiercely independent enclaves into a coherent Western democratic whole?

But you've got that ol'"white hot anger" thing all worked out, eh?

Good for you.