1+

The women didn't do good under German occupation neither. For almost 20 years! I've just seen a report on this.

The Germans were just barricading and defending themselves versus attacks of the locals. They were only going out of their fort heavily armed and in tanks. Then they would get attacked by bombs and traps. Many died. Civilians and German soldiers.

The locals didn't want them there. It was a disaster.

You have to imagine heavily armed soldiers from a far distant nation coming to your town and looking for beef with the local gangs. That can't run well. And it didn't. The soldiers were just busy defending themself. That's all they had to worry about. No school, infrastructure building, nothing. Just fighting for survival. They were on the wrong turf in the wrong battle. Nobody profited only paid. (The locals) now they are just back to square one, only that they lost 20 years in terror. This is the bitter truth.


I've listened to an Afghan woman who is working to improve life in Afghanistan for a living. Trust her trust me. No women wanted soldiers and war in their country.

do you really think the USA did anything to mitigate humanitarian issues in Afghanistan? do you actually think the USA invaded and occupied and droned and murdered and raped for "humanitarian" reasons?

Did you read the link you posted?

“highest in South-Western Afghanistan, where the Taliban have retaken control and where severe drought has driven many Afghans deeper into poverty and food insecurity.”

The areas where women want to leave most are controlled by the Taliban. Now that the Taliban controls the entire country what do you think will happen to those numbers?

Do you think that if the Taliban wasn’t sabotaging infrastructure, committing suicide attacks in cities and attacking the Afghan army/police that those rates wouldn’t be lower?

We killed a foreign aid worker on our way out, couldn't be a more fitting end to this disastrous exercise. Just lol at CV and all these ghouls who want us to stay there blowing up randos for another twenty years. bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe HuMaNiTaRiAn IsSuEs???!?

I never said any of those things and certainly don;t think the Afghan & Iraq invasions were done for humanitarian reasons. There's still a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan at present though for the Afghan people and I don't think you realised the context in which I was replying. Maybe you should go over the last few posts again.

as for actually mitigating anything I don't know, but it's debatable at least. I was against invading there from the start as I knew thousands of civilians would die. But it's a more complex issue now. If being there the past 20 years gave the Afghan people a slightly better life than they had under a nutty bunch of theocrats and ensured a slightly better life for women, then things become more nuanced. So it arguably did mitigate things in the sense that they weren't living under the Taliban.
That doesn't mean the invasion was worth it though and certainly not the thousands murdered.

52% vs 47% of the country as a whole so it's not a very large difference between areas which were partially under Taliban control and areas under full occupation by the US military.

Do you think that if the US military didn't kill so many families there wouldn't be so many people who sabotage infrastructure, commit suicide attacks and attack the occupiers?

But the Taliban controlled over half the country (rural areas). If you look at the chart the province where Kabul is its at 36%. The average under Taliban districts vs not would be a better comparison and you’ll see the difference is significant. The US military stopped occupying years ago, which is why there were so few coalition deaths in that time. Forces were relegated to FOBs and air support. The Afghan police and army have been running the show and not doing well despite the aerial advantage coalition support gave them.

I think the US should have never been there to begin with. All they needed to do was give aerial support to the northern alliance and put special forces on the ground to go after al qaeda. This errant drone strike is a microcosm of the war; good intentions (kill an Isis terrorist and preventing civilian deaths) but in actuality end up killing a dozen innocents because of bad intel (only intel was aerial surveillance from a drone apparently).

I just think your argument is in bad faith and you know it. The Taliban are segregating sexes again, forcing women to cover, forcing women to leave their jobs, banning music/art, beating women at protests, not letting women move about without a male escort, bringing back Old Testament style punishment, revenge killings are happening, the list goes on.

You think life will be better for women under the Taliban? You are aware of their history controlling Afghanistan from 1996-2001 before the US invasion I assume.

No, I don't. At least not immediately. In the long run I think the people of Afghanistan will end up better under self rule than military imposed rule by other nations, but that remains to be seen.

I just think it's funny that people only care about the women/people of Afghanistan when it's the Taliban doing the killing.

If the US occupation was really the difference between girls going to school or not, it would be hard for American soldiers to be bad enough to allow someone to reasonably argue that it would have been better if they were not there.

Do you want to try to substantiate that claim? FYI, girls in Afghanistan went to school long before American soldiers showed up. Even 16 year old ones

probably but eventually there has to be a political solution

The Taliban is a horrible organization and it's sad they've been able to gain power in Afghanistan twice.

That doesn't mean the solution is an occupation force followed by drone striking the **** out of civilians, aid workers or whoever happens to be loading the truck up with water jugs that day. As we've seen, that doesn't decrease the number of terrorists. It increases them.

Speaking of 16 year olds. All of Charlie Chaplins wifes were 16. https://www.biography.com/.amp/news/...-chaplin-wives. Look up Mahatma Gandhi = Hugh Heffner. Gl

If only we could all be so lucky, right?

Not really a Ghandi fan and could care less about the other two, but didn't Ghandi marry his 14 year old bride at the age of 13?

He did, but I was more talking about his alegged harem, stuff like this:

"Eighteen-year-old Abha, the wife of Gandhi's grandnephew Kanu Gandhi, rejoined Gandhi's entourage in the run-up to independence in 1947 and by the end of August he was sleeping with both Manu and Abha at the same time"

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...595.html%3famp

Or this: 'Gandhi Was a Racist Who Forced Young Girls to Sleep in Bed with Him'

http://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/e...n-bed-with-him

Before we get to Perkins and Bilzarian, or Berlusconi. (Look up Berlusconi media scandal/ bunga party, if you don't know he owns big chunks of the European media) or finally Einstein or the issue that the Taliban is marrying underage brides to their soldiers.

I agree to every word here, you're absolutely right. We are not invading the sentinal islands neither and tell them how to live life. They can and will sort it out better themselves. That's how it always works. You don't go to your neighbour's house and tell him how to do stuff. Monti will silently jump and down but what this guy says is interesting imo.

Potests against Pakistan. The Taliban always had strong ties to Pakistan, our allies as well by Saudi Arabia, also our allies.



"Hundreds of Afghans, many of them women, protested in Kabul on Tuesday, chanting slogans against neighboring Pakistan and expressing support for rebels in the last part of the country resisting Taliban rule."



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1278583

Michael Moore Meets The Taliban-

They’re too busy organizing against the American Taliban currently in control of the Republican Party, the Deep South, and the US Supreme Court.

Dumbest comment on the Internet today. Congratulations.

The original (and more likely correct) headline is Michael Moore Eats the Taliban.

I’m sure somewhere in America there will a revenge attack for this. Saying sorry won’t be enough.


Calling it a "tragic mistake," the U.S. Department of Defense admitted Friday that it had killed 10 people, including seven children, in a drone strike that wrongly targeted an aid group worker in Afghanistan late last month.

“I offer my profound condolences to the family and friends of those who were killed,” Gen. Frank McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, said at a Pentagon briefing on Friday afternoon. "It was a mistake, and I offer my sincere apology."

Every military action taken by the United States in that region of the world just makes things worse. Nobody ever learns.

Can Afghanis sue the US government for the drone strike? You hear of these lawsuits that American victims of Iranian terrorism or Palestinian terrorism file and win. So how about victims of American terrorism? Do they have any recourse at all? Or just accept the "whoopsie daisy" apology that was issued.

I assume the answer is no because these have been happening for the last 20 years and I've never heard of anyone getting compensation from the US government for when they murder civilians.

I caught some brief snippet on npr earlier and thought I heard that we've been paying around 2500 per accidental drone death. 2500. Sorry you got blown up--don't spend it all in one place now ok?