Will Obama mention how evil the Taliban is to women to justify his escalation Tuesday?

[David Zephyr]

I was always amazed at how cynically George Bush, Laura Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News always brought up the plight of women under the Taliban to justify their wars for oil, their war for the Caspian Pipeline. Even after Colin Powell and the the State Department rewarded the Taliban with $43 Million just weeks before 9/11. Apparently, they didn't really give a shit about the women in Afghanistan at all until their pipeline project went down in flames on 9/11.

Anyway, to build consensus for war, there must always be the emotional tug moment in a speech. Especially when the war you are selling is without merit on its own.

Why is it that our nation is all chummy, chummy with the Saudi dictators and those in Kuwait, just to name a few, where women are beaten and murdered regularly at the whim of the male religious ruling class? Why is it that they are our "friends" and the Taliban, who are equally thugs, are our "enemies". How are the Saudis different from the Taliban?

I hope to heaven that Barack Obama does not actually play that transparent old Bush/Cheney parlor trick on Tuesday night as he tries to justify his escalation of war in Afghanistan by using the plight of women there, while at the same time he sanctions and winks at the same activity by the Saudis.

Will President Obama state his military mission (whatever on earth it is at this point) without dragging out the emotional straw-people of the Taliban and the women in Afghanistan? I doubt it. I'll bet the farm it's going to be in his speech. It worked for Bush, it might work again Tuesday.

If it is, then George Bush could have read it off the Teleprompter just as well, because it's the same shit. Just take Bush's famous "surge in Iraq" speech and meld it with Bush's hypocritical speeches about the Taliban and women and there's the speech. Nice and tidy.

Music swells. Hearts are tugged. Opinion is moved.

And then the bombs drop. And meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, the systemic, brutal oppression of women continues without any concern whatsover.

[FrenchieCat]

1. sounds like he'll be damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.....

Which is the way it is with most of Bush's collosal fuck ups that Obama has to deal with,
while trying to keep everyone from starting a fucking revolution,
just because he ain't the second coming of the Golden Messiah with a magic stick.

[David Zephyr]

3. He can tell Americans we are leaving and that Karzai isn't worth the death of our troops.

He is the President. He doesn't need a magic stick, just to do the right thing.

End the war.

[FrenchieCat]

4. He ain't gonna do a Flip-Flop on one of the issues he deemed important enough to mention it

at every single campaign stop.

On Tuesday, he's gonna give us an exit strategy, and tell us why and how we are going to deal with Afghanistan.

If you want to make the entire issue a proposition of "Stay in or Get out", then go ahead; make your day, and start working for your primary pick of 2012 and work hard at making Obama another LBJ (cause at this point, based on the level of hatred towards this President, I don't really give a shit if he is a one termer, but if he isn't the nominee in 2012, me and millions of my closest friends will be staying our asses at home so y'all folks can get exactly what you deserve).....cause Barack Obama ain't about to end the war on Tuesday; not in this world anyways.....

[knightinwhitesatin]

70. So he's not going to

display a flexible mind and save thousands of Afghani and perhaps hundreds of American lives? Yep sounds like playing politics to me. IOSIIMBG

[CTyankee]

81. My guess is that you are right about exit strategies. He has to do that.

It would be very like him to explain that he had repeatedly and specifically queried his experts on this very question, since the American people are very aware of our plight in Iraq and don't want another one.

I think he is going to do things that make a lot of people feel very ashamed of the way they have treated him. He already has, but many don't want to give him credit.

I am not saying that he is perfect and that everybody has to agree with him on everything. I know I don't. But I am willing to listen and hear his argument. It's the best we can do at this point.

[demosincebirth]

6. You got it. Thats life for the good guys. Can't win around here.

[IndianaGreen]

2. I will bookmark this thread and see how it reads after Obama's speech

I hope we can all be civil about it, particularly when disagreeing.

[elocs]

5. This is an aspect of "let's get out of Afghanistan" that does not like to get addressed here at DU.

Not only would the Taliban regaining control in Afghanistan be horrible for woman there would be a bloodbath as the Taliban took revenge on every Afghan who helped of aided the U.S. or coalition forces in any way. There is no perfect solution here.

[mcablue]

7. Ok Let's invade Saudi Arabia, where women are deemed to be worth a bit less than feces

Oh no, wait. They're our allies. Nevermind.

Saudi Arabia ranked last in a study of women's rights in Middle Eastern and North African countries and was the only one of 16 nations surveyed that had no constitutional guarantees of equal protection for females, according to a report released Saturday.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-108967810.html

[David Zephyr]

10. Welcome to the DU and thanks for the link.

Great to have you here. :hi:

[boppers]

48. Let's invade the US, where women are valued at 3/4th of a man.

Or maybe war is a really stupid answer to the problem.

[bigwillq]

83. Hello.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[chill_wind]

8. Good question. Good points.

Ones the unreccers don't seem to like very much.

[ClassWarrior]

9. I don't know. Will he? You're the one who appears to have the crystal ball.

Do tell. Will he? Be a man and give us a real answer, not just a speculative leading question, ala Faux News. Yes or no?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

13. How did I know you'd be too cowardly to answer?

NGU.

[AllentownJake]

11. No he's going to have Larry Sumners explain it n/t

[Aramchek]

12. Obama haters apparently care very little about the women of Afghanistan

[HughMoran]

14. Just making sure all possible arguments are rejected/discounted before Tuesday

It's a cynical & calculated attack we're under - I'm just hiding them all. If nobody talks to them, they have no audience.

[dflprincess]

15. Obama has said the U.S. will "work with" the Taliban

all they have to do is give up their ties to "terrorism". He has said nothing about whether the U.S. also expects them to stop terrorizing women.

Let's not pretend that the U.S. has ever cared about the rights of Afghani women. If it did, it would never have encouraged the Taliban to begin with all those years ago.

[David Zephyr]

17. Exactly, dflprincess! Is it hate week or love week. I can't keep up anymore.

As our fellow DU'er, tekisui, pointed out, "we're making deals" with the Taliban right now. Your points, dflprincess, are right on the mark.

Obama has to make his rally for more war to an American public who is already absolutely sick of eight years of these goddamned stupid wars, to citizens losing their homes, losing their jobs, living in their cars and tents. Americans don't give a shit anymore.

And if he pulls the Bush/Cheney shit about women there when this nation kisses the asses of the Saudis then that will really be cynical. But sadly, I expect it in his speech.

How do you rally Americans to war when there is no merit for that war?

Our young people, eighteen and nineteen years old, are going to die for Hamid Karzai so he can line his pockets?

Thanks for you comments.

[Aramchek]

19. but he didn't say anything about handing Afghanistan back over to them, did he?

that's what you want him to do.

[dflprincess]

28. Don't bet on it

From the Toronto Star

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/731403--emb...

White House and U.S. military sources have signalled for weeks that part of the way forward will be a redefinition of the Taliban as perhaps not so bad after all. Or not so very much worse, at least, than the corruption-plagued regime that has metastasized beneath Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"We believe our strategic problem with the Taliban begins and ends with their support for al Qaeda and their aggression against the United States and our allies," a U.S. official in Kabul told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "If the Taliban made clear that they have broken with al Qaeda and that their own objectives were nonviolent and political – however abhorrent to us – we wouldn't be keeping 68,000-plus troops here."...

The fact is, we can't afford Afghanistan. There are far too many needs going unmet in the U.S. and I'm tired of hearing the health care has to be "deficit neutral" and that the administration is planning big cuts in domestic spending next year while we continue to support corrupt regimes.

The article referenced also mentions that we apparently can afford to pay off Afghan war lords to the tune of $1.3 billion. No money for schools or roads or health care here, but plenty money for bribes over there.

[Aramchek]

29. he will not try to kill 'em all, but he won't leave the people of Afghanistan to them, either

get off your high horse, and see what's going on in the real world

[Bluenorthwest]

53. He speaks of seeking out the 'moderate Taliban'

and handing some areas to them. Just what they have been saying. Here, DUers try to push this war as having humanitarian reasons, but our 'allies' in the Kingdom do all the same horrible things that the Talibs do. With full force of a government empowered with our money and our friendship.
So that argument is transparent and meaningless unless the plan includes invading the Kingdom as well as all of the other many nations that abuse women and other minorities.

[IndianaGreen]

65. Reagan thought there were moderates in Iran during Iran-Contra

He was proven wrong, just as Obama will be proven wrong about Afghanistan. There is nothing "moderate" about Wahhabism, the Saudi-based religion of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

If by "moderate" you mean Taliban elements that can be bought, this is what will happen: they will take our money, make public pledge they hate the Arabs of Al-Qaeda, and then proceed to attack us because they hate us as foreigners.

While we are spending $1.3 billion in Taliban payoffs (as reported by the Toronto Star), the American people suffer for lack of a viable safety net. The US will go the way of other empires in Afghanistan.

[David Zephyr]

30. Thanks again for being quick with the inconvenient facts, dflprincess.

Sort of takes the rah, rah out of their war cheers, huh?

Facts do that. Thanks!

[dflprincess]

31. I'd love to hear what they'd say about this if Bush were doing it

then we'd see more anti-war talk from them. But, just some thought that when Nixon did whatever it was not illegal - whatever Obama does is not wrong - even if it bankrupts us.

[Aramchek]

33. I'm glad you are omniscient. Tell God his replacement has arrived.

the Princess with the Peabrain

[David Zephyr]

34. She's countered each of your arguments with facts.

Including countering your embarrassing suggestion that Obama wouldn't work with the Taliban -- when he's already doing it.

I'm sure you mean well, and I truly hope that you consider what you are supporting and why.

President Obama is making a colossal mistake, one that he can't take back.

[Aramchek]

36. I never said Obama wouldn't work with the Taliban. I said he wouldn't give them Afghanistan

try reading next time instead of typing.

You certainly think a lot of your own opinion.
I guess most bloviating writers do, though.

You have none of the information that Obama has,
yet you feel you know everything.

[dflprincess]

40. I really wouldn't bother to continue to try and reason with someone who

can only counter with name calling.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. Insults where arguments belong are the fist sign of a person

speaking hot air. Why do you feel the need to do that? Each of your posts involves personal insults while we are talking about life and death matters. Clearly you do not understand the importance of the subject matter, as you see it the same way an 6th grader sees a schoolyard quibble.

[inna]

74. how old are you, 12?

[juno jones]

22. Yup.

Karazi and the warlords ain't exactly feminists either.

[tekisui]

16. Right. That's what it is all about.

:eyes:

What country is next on our 'Free the Women Crusade'?

[David Zephyr]

18. It won't be Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. We're too busy kissing their asses.

I am dreading the speech he's going to give.

It is going to be a shameful night. And those hyenas, Cheney and the Bush family will be toasting away.

"My fellow Americans, for those of you who still have a television set and who are listening..."

[Aramchek]

21. when was the last time a Girls' School was bombed in either of those countries?

[David Zephyr]

23. That's your measuring stick? Wow. The Saudis don't bomb girls. You're right, they just kill them.

Speaking of bombing, when American planes stop dropping bombs 'accidentally' on hospitals and villages killing women and children in Afghanistan and when the White House stops saying "oops" after it happens, then you are welcome to come back to me with your "bombing schools" argument.

You might just check the stats on how many "accidents" we've caused in Afghanistan and Iraq just since January this year.

Anyway, I get it. You support the escalation of more war.

Now, define victory for me, though, could you?

[Aramchek]

32. You don't get it. You just want an excuse to be pissy.

Are you actually dumb enough to think there will be a specific moment to hang up a Mission Accomplished sign?

Victory takes place over time as the Afghans gain control of their own country.

I surely can define defeat, however.
Follow Zany Zephyr's "Bring all the troops home now" stratego.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. I remember that Girls School fire in the Kingdom

where they made the girls burn to death rather than escape without the proper attire. This is who you are defending.

[Aramchek]

20. you wouldn't be so obtuse if you lived in a Taliban village.

in fact, you would be stoned for not having a beard

[David Zephyr]

24. So why don't you rally to invade Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?

You know good and well that our Armed Forces are not their to defend the women. You know better. The rest of the world knows better, too.

[noamnety]

25. That obvious from some of the posts here on DU

even here, we get people puffing themselves up stating that we should "just nuke them" or bomb their entire country.

(I guess because nothing says "we care about your women" like genocide.)

[Aramchek]

26. that wasn't the initial goal, of course. but it has been accomplished tangentially

and you know damned well what will happen if we pull out and leave those people to the Taliban.

you are the one who is blind if you cannot see this,
or you are too selfishly tied to your own ideas of what should happen, that you cannot perceive their repercussions.

[Unvanguard]

38. While the US is hardly consistent in its opposition to institutionalized sexism

the Taliban embodied a rather special brand of fundamentalist tyranny that made their counterparts in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia look like mere pretenders to theocratic brutality.

There's a reason it was one of the few regimes al Qaeda actually liked and supported.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. Odd claim to defend the Kingdom

Please clarify and be specific. What actions differentiated one set of murders from another? In what exact ways do you claim the Saudis only pretend to be brutal? That is one hell of a statement.
So define the exact elements that make Saudi injustices so much more acceptable than Talib injustices. Your claim, back it up.

[Unvanguard]

63. I didn't say "the Saudis only pretend to be brutal".

I was employing a rather common rhetorical device to emphasize the extremity of the Taliban even against other genuinely brutal and theocratic regimes. To pick one example, women in Saudi Arabia are educated (in inferior and segregated institutions); women under Taliban rule were denied education by law.

[tekisui]

45. I wear a beard.

[Starry Messenger]

27. Have you enlisted yet?

[Aramchek]

39. why don't you read your own signature line? you might learn something.

[liquid diamond]

78. You guys really need to stop with this shit.

Just because one supports a war does not mean they have to enlist. What asinine logic.

[Starry Messenger]

82. I don't really care what you think.

Save yourself the effort next time.

PS: enlist.

[liquid diamond]

95. Then why did you respond?

Yeah.

P.S. We're sending more troops to Afghanistan.

[Starry Messenger]

98. Why did you respond to a post I made that

WASN'T TO YOU?

What kind of underoos are you wearing tonight? I bet they're the Captain America ones.

[IndianaGreen]

99. You guys support wars that someone else will have to fight

I suggest you guys put your asses on the line, or else you are nothing but chicken hawks.

[jefferson_dem]

85. Oh, fucking get a grip.

Now nobody can speak out in support of the President carrying out his pledge to "finish the job" in Afghanistan without being heckled with "have you enlisted yet"? Are you that shallow? Seriously?

[Starry Messenger]

86. You sound young and energetic

Here you go:

http://www.goarmy.com/

You don't like it? Don't hit reply on my posts.

[jefferson_dem]

88. It's not that I "don't like it".

It's that I am trying to save you the embarrassment of continuing to parrot some of the most asinine illogic ever to grace the pages of DU.

If you wish to keep digging, however... Please carry on.

[Starry Messenger]

89. lulz

http://www.marines.mil/Pages/Default.aspx

What's the matter? Chicken?

[jefferson_dem]

90. Please.

Continue...

You're fun to watch. :popcorn:

[Starry Messenger]

91. Chairborne Rangers are fun to watch too.

Bwak-bawk-bawk

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. I cared about the women of Afghanistan probably before you knew Afghanistan existed

I tried to tell people in 1980 that the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan were actually fanatic Islamic rednecks who objected mostly to the Marxist government's advocacy of women's rights.

If we had let the Marxist government alone, Afghan women would be unveiled and educated.

But no, we had to arm one of the most retro forces on the planet.

[Vidar]

64. The facts will only confuse him.

[Unvanguard]

35. Do you think the horrific tyranny of the Taliban is irrelevant to the issue?

I do not.

[David Zephyr]

37. Obama is cutting deals with them right now.

We are paying them, working with them.

So what part of that "horrific tyranny of the Taliban" is acceptable to you and what part is not?

This war makes Viet Nam look smart.

[Unvanguard]

42. Wooing away more amenable parts of the enemy's base is an old strategy

against insurgencies, and a reasonably effective one. That is not the issue.

The issue is that apparently you think, in a discussion about how much the US should be willing to invest in keeping the Taliban from returning to power, that the Taliban's brutality toward women is irrelevant and tangential, a mere distraction. I'm not sure why you think this: it seems quite relevant to me. It is not a reason in itself for continuing the war--if the aim is to help women, all those billions of dollars could be better used elsewhere--but it plays a part in the calculus: we need not balance the security interests of the United States against the interests of the Afghan people, for in this case they are one and the same.

[IndianaGreen]

41. The US is prepared to pay $1.3 billion to Taliban warlords

Zero dollars for universal health care, but lots of money for human rights abusers.

[Unvanguard]

43. Would you prefer the US use merely military means to attain its objectives?

Do you object to its failure to use what you would deem to be sufficient violence?

Or are you just tossing out whatever rhetoric you think is most useful to your political point?

[vaberella]

50. Sure they would---so they could complain about that and drones.

They'll be angry over anything he does.

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. When can we be expecting Secretary Clinton's resignation?

You are suggesting, after all, that the Secretary of State, who has perhaps done more to advance the global rights of women than anyone in recent history, would be going along with a cynical ploy that merely uses the rights of women as a wedge. Surely if Colin Powell should have resigned rather than give the infamous "anthrax vial" speech before the United Nations, then Ms. Clinton must resign rather than assent to such a dastardly and cynical rhetorical flourish that merely deploys rights of women around the world for the purpose of making war?

No?

[pnwmom]

47. Reality check: women are worse off under the Taliban than in Saudi Arabia.

I'm not defending Saudi Arabia, so don't say I am.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. You need to be specific. Worse in what way?

And you need to declare your metrics. What level of abuse is worthy of our use of military force? What abuses are acceptable for you? At what point do human rights abuses become important? Apparently in Afghanistan that is reason to make war. But in Saudi, they are 'better' in some way that you have not defined, but merely declared. You accept their abuses of women and others but you do not say why. Be specific and detailed as we are speaking of the most important sort of decision, to send others to war. The lazy opining is not going to work here. The Saudis are acceptable why? They are better how? Can not wait to hear this 'reasoning' of yours.

[pnwmom]

59. I didn't say that our continuing use of force in Afghanistan was justified

on the basis of the abuse of women, or on any other basis. That's a separate issue.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. But you did say the Kingdom is not as bad as the Taliban

and I asked you 'in what respect, Charlie' and you had no reply but avoidance. You are the one that ranked abuses, one is not as bad as the other. I am simply asking you to be specific. If the Saudis are not as bad, tell us why. Tell us where the line is that makes one set of oppression worthy of bloody war, and the other worthy of a respectful visit from Sec Clinton and huge amounts of trade dollars?
You said the Saudis are not as bad. Explain what you meant, in specific detail. Define your metrics. This is about life and death. No room for proclamations, a time for well defined terms and many questions for those who declare unsupported 'facts'. You maybe right. But you need to be specific. And clear. What act is the one that put the Taliban on the other side of the acceptable Saudis?

[pnwmom]

62. Education, for one thing. Even schools for girls-only have been banned by

the Taliban.

But, again, I did NOT say that the abuse of women in Afghanistan justifies our conduct of war there. So I don't know why you're implying I did.

[vaberella]

49. Well by DUs estimation (Bush3, Bush-lite) & your word usage in the beginning sentence...

Of course he will. He is Bush 3, making the country worse afterall.

:eyes:

Editing for a smiling spelling.

[jefferson_dem]

51. This is an utterly disgusting post.

Suggesting that speaking out against the deplorable oppression of women under the Taliban is nothing but a cynical "heart tug"? You should be ashamed.

[jonnyblitz]

58. oh please, it's right the fuck ON. when the puppet regime we

want to install (Karzai and the national alliance warlords) is just as abusive to the women as the taliban what else is anybody supposed to think?

[Bluenorthwest]

60. But if we look the other way at some oppression

The 'speaking out against' is just a co opting of that cause to justify a war. And that is cynical, and it is very wrong. To claim that as the reason, when other nations do the same and worse without a cross word from us, and in fact get respect dripping visits from our highest officials, is simply hypocritical. Nothing could be so vulgar as to use suffering to justify a war that really does not have a thing to do with that oppression or suffering. We are not invading the Kingdom. Do you support invading Iran? When? They oppress and abuse. So what is the hold up?
Or are you merely using one set of oppression as a device to distract from other oppressions? How is that a good thing, to pretend a motive that is untrue?
Or do you think we should invade all nations that oppress minorities or women? Or just the one, while the rest get to be 'trade partners'? If you are really calling for world war, do you also support a draft?
Or are you saying that some oppression is not deplorable? What are your metrics?
Oppressed people should not be used as a rhetorical device nor as an excuse for more violence.

[David Zephyr]

71. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[jefferson_dem]

84. So we should not have confronted Nazi Germany, and the systematic extermination of Jews, in WWII?

After all, other nations were also violently oppressive at the time. By your logic, we either go to war against them all or against none. So i'll mark you down as against the War...and, by definition, in support of the Nazi terror regime.

See. Two can prop up slippery slope straw men. So put that stupid bullshit back in the barn.

My only comment was a challenge to the claim that speaking out against the Taliban's oppression of women amounts to nothing more than heart tugging. While you may agree with the OP that that is the case, don't insult us with a shitstorm of illogical nonsense in trying to make your point.

[polichick]

52. Since it's insane to keep killing and dying there, he'll have to come up with...

...some emotional tug or the usual American jingoism ~ either way, it will be bullshit wrapped up in pretty words.

It's tragic that Barack Obama refuses to stand up to the military, Wall Street, the insurance industry, Republicans, etc.

[tekisui]

67. I expect to hear the entire laundry list of excuses.

[David Zephyr]

72. You have capsulized the great disappointment in this President.

You write: "It's tragic that Barack Obama refuses to stand up to the military, Wall Street, the insurance industry, Republicans, etc." Word!

I will be writing about that very subject shortly. I hope I can quote you. Thanks for your post.

[polichick]

79. Feel free to quote - the more people writing about it, the better! nt

[Patriot 76]

66. So what's your plan for convincing the President to leave Afghanistan?

Do you think your using the Teleprompter meme helps bring others to your side?

Do you think constantly comparing Obama to Bush will bring others to your side?

The only plan I'm seeing out of you is to run away and put our heads in the sand because Saudi Arabia oppresses women too.


I personally like the "have you enlisted" crowd's meme better.

[shadesofgray]

68. If he does, I will consider it a cynical ploy to win support for the war - unless he outlines a

detailed plan to help women during and after the war (if it ever ends - which I consider doubtful). And I am not holding my breath.

After all, Obama used women's rights in the US to get elected as President. He used gay rights. And he hasn't exactly spent much capital on either.

So IF he uses them as any kind of justification, in reality Afghan women would be just so much fodder for the Obama administration - nothing more.

[David Zephyr]

73. Welcome to the DU, shadesofgray.

We need good progressives like you here who care more about issues than just elections. :hi:

[shadesofgray]

77. Thank you :)!

[jefferson_dem]

87. Welcome to DU!

Thanks for contributing. :hi:

[azmouse]

69. How about we give the man a chance to speak before bashing him?

[Lord Helmet]

75. congratulations!

you have officially jumped the shark

[ShortnFiery]

76. He better not! That would be hypocritical ... Karzai's government is equally PATRIARCHAL.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=604

[girl_interrupted]

80. David Zephyr If he does, someone should remind him what happened to Iraqi Women.

The 1970 Iraqi constitution, gave Iraqi women equity and liberty unmatched in the Muslim World. Since the U.S. invasion, Iraqi women's rights have fallen to to the lowest level in Iraq’s history. Thanks to the introduction of Sharia Law into their new constitution.

And Afghani women have not fared much better. Under Karzai's regime, in 2009 alone, there have been over 2,000 "Honor Killings". As late as August 2009 a law was passed in Afghanistan that permits men to withold food from their wives if they refuse sexual relations. Fathers still are permitted to sell their daughters, and other horrific abuses continue.

I'm as confused as you, as to why abuse of women is continued to be ignored...as long as it's in Saudi Arabia.

And something else...15 of those 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

It seems we tolerate dictators and abuse of women as long as those doing it, are our "friends".

Given this country's economic problems, I just don't see how we are going to benefit from further escalation in Afghanistan.

Ever since the Pat Tillman fiasco, I find it very hard to trust anything Gen. McChrystal says.

But I keep hoping.

I saw this the other day & it truly broke my heart, trouble is, it's occuring on Karzai's regime and because of the fighting between US Forces and the Taliban. It's like we never learn:

Children of Afghan Refugees Are Dying From the Cold As Kabul Ignores Their Plight

"Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for us to focus only on the humanitarian aid instead of bombing them? Yeah, I know there are huge logistical challenges - but are the challenges any worse than they are for trying to win a war?"

"Afghan refugees who fled the war-torn south have claimed they are so neglected by government in Kabul that their children are dying from hypothermia for want of the most basic supplies. Families that left Helmand, Kandahar and other southern provinces to escape the fighting between US-led forces and a resurgent Taliban say the cold is much more lethal."

"Living in a make-shift camp on the edge of Kabul, residents told Al Jazeera's James Bays that no government official has ever come to see how they have been forced to live. The claim comes as UN officials say Afghan children are suffering disastrous levels of abuse and deprivation."

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/children-afghan-refugees-are-dying-co

[David Zephyr]

93. Excellent observations.

Thanks for reminding everyone of what happened to women's rights in Iraq, too.

Glad you are here at the DU.

[ShortnFiery]

96. Children of Afghan Refugees Are Dying From the Cold As Kabul Ignores Their Plight

:cry:

[Honeycombe8]

94. The U.S. is patriarchal, too. Patriarchal is different from throwing acid in young girls' faces

for going to school.

[ShortnFiery]

97. What part of "the women of Afghanistan HATE the invading army" can you not understand?

Of course my heart breaks at the abuse of women, but we are NOT going to make the plight of Afghan women BETTER by going in with our ARMY of SMART BOMBS, half-baked ideas and ignorance of all of their cultural norms which THEY ABIDE. It's their MEN we are killing. :crazy:

They choose their COUNTRY and their MEN over "us invaders" and our dumbass good intentions.

[LooseWilly]

92. Wouldn't it be refreshing if Obama would just say: "Look folks, it's about oil..."

"We need a reliable route for pipelines that doesn't go through Iran, and which the Russians and the Chinese would be hard pressed to threaten. And that, folks... is Afghanistan."

"And we're going to pass a Health Care Bill with a Strong Public Option, to cover these soldiers, their families, and to save money to pay for the war..."

Think of the political capital with the Hawks... or maybe he could just admit it and then get the Congress to pass a special tax on the oil industry, to cover the costs of the war... since they'll be reaping so many benefits.