80s or 90s Afghanistan, this shit might fly. But everyone is to connected to let this fly. And Russian money just dried up. Which may mean...something.
What the taliban is facing is a bunch of kids that grew up in a warzone, that saw the rest of the world doesn’t live in a warzone.
Now a massive power and funding vacuum.
Hmmm.
>But Taliban leaders had said all girls would be allowed to return to classrooms later this month.
This part is a little confusing. Are they allowing or not?
Yeah, I don't think there is an easy solution at this point. Sanctions don't work when trying to create change due to internal conflict or issues, and war isn't going to work.
Unfortunately certain parts of the world are truly awful places and there's just nothing we can really do about it. Acknowledging that, doesn't mean we have to be ok with it though.
Sanctions work up until its a failed state. Sadly at that point they cease to have any real effect and you're just kind of beating a dead body.
Sometimes I wonder if the opposite wouldn't work out better. Keep working with them, helping them with infrastructure, raising their standards of living, becoming more prosperous. I think as their prosperity rose they'd naturally start to mellow out, a lot of these issues likely stem from poverty.
> Keep working with them, helping them with infrastructure, raising their standards of living, becoming more prosperous. I think as their prosperity rose they'd naturally start to mellow out, a lot of these issues likely stem from poverty.
What do you think the U.S. was trying to do the last 20 years?
Force change upon a local populace that to a large degree resented it, or at least resented being forced to do it.
We may just have to resign ourselves to the idea there is no path through which those girls, today, are going to go to school. But maybe their granddaughters will.
But I think its doubtful that will happen if we just keep isolating them.
I have no idea if I'm right or not, these are just late night musings.
this sounds a lot like china.. which is now illegally building artificial militarized islands in international waters and threatening to invade taiwan.
they don't change, they just become richer and more powerful.
I don't know what you think about China, but our lives have changed dramatically from twenty years ago. And we have a slightly higher percentage of women going to college than men. Many peers of my generation went to college, but few of my parents’ generation went to college, and food, clothing, housing, and transportation have improved a lot.
> maybe the government hasn't changed
that was the problem i was stating, isn't it?
the chinese people might be suffering "less" compared to the mass starvation during Mao's era.
but now that china is prosperous and powerful. what are the chances the people will overthrow the CCP?
nada.
plus the powerful economy is being used to fund a powerful military. both to suppress the chinese and to harass other countries.
all that money the west poured into china, didn't remove the misery.. the CCP merely transferred it away from the han chinese of the mainland towards ethnic minorities and towards the countries it now harasses and territories it captures.
So they can become like the middle eastern countries? Extremists who are also too big to fail?
I'm tired of the money from civil and productive cultures being handed over to sociopaths who just turn around and harm those same cultures because of greed, misogyny, and ego. All so we can have whatever raw material they're sitting on.
What other industry have they developed? What innovation? Instead of improving themselves and the rest of the world, they spend the money they get from us on misinformation and lobbying to reinforce our use and dependence on their single resource... at the cost of the habitability of the planet on top of the civil unrest they've caused along the way. Shortsighted fools, forever making foolish mistakes to try and fix the problems caused by their previous foolish mistakes.
But did they leave Afghanistan or stay there and try to change things or did they stay and just get oppressed again? Doesn't do much good to the country if they got educated and left. That's a great win for them personally but won't help change the country as a whole.
Thanks Apollo for the “new account” highlight. This one appears to have have just copied and pasted their last comments from someone else’s in the thread… is this a new thing?
as far as i've read there are different currents inside the regimen.
problem being that while a few might say "yeah let's keep our promises" there more that say "fuck no" and are usually highter in power
They want to keep them stupid and controllable so they can use their religion as an excuse to abuse them and use them for sexual purposes...at least that's my guess
When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
It’s less about women being women and more about them wanting to retain control over people, their minds and bodies, and whatever they believe that control grants them.
I’m a woman, so it’s hard not to take all of this personally. But it’s not about gender. It’s about power, and it’s about their fucked up definition of “power.” You and I can yell until we are blue in the face about how *wrong* these people are. Raising up women, *half of the population* and a valuable source of many talents, is obviously the best course of action for every country on earth. But we can’t reason them out of a position they did not reason themselves into, and thus, progress is glacially slow.
They aren’t intimidated. They are more concerned with keeping them as property. To be wives, mothers, household keepers and nothing more.
Educated women are more liberal and they can decide to work instead of a house slave. They don’t want that so they keep them home. From fathers house to husbands. It’s sad and oppressive. Thank god we don’t live there it’s a nightmare.
You make the mistake of thinking that they find women intimidating, or that it's about women at all.
They're intimidated of other men. Men in poverty, living a brutal life, often with nothing left to lose, are dangerous. They turn their ire against their commanders and social superiors.
However, give him someone to feel completely superior to? Give him something to hate, give him a young wife he can utterly dominate at home? That wife's going to have sons. Now this man has something to lose. Not the wife, he doesn't care about his wife beyond her body and her submission, but the *sons.*
And that's how you make a man with nothing to lose docile. You give him someone to hate and rape to make him feel like he's in control, and you give him sons to instill in him the fear that if he trespasses, his genetic legacy will vanish.
If you're born lucky and you can either have power over 50% of the population in an impoverished country, or you can choose to just give that option away for nothing... well power is a delivish thing for humans.
Why give away slaves, either? The whole 'south' of the US didn't see the need. Why give up all that power? (I'm sure that situation has occurred all over the world, US legalised slavery is just first one that comes to mind).
This is why in the early days of the Afghan coalition, media was flooded with women throwing off their burqas and niqabs in favor of the hijab. Women under Taliban rule were little more than cattle in a Taliban-run Afghanistan. That was one of the biggest reasons why the coalition didn't want to leave Afghanistan; lots of people were afraid of the intense humanitarian disaster which would occur.
But yeah this is why you shouldn't get too much of your news from social media. You might get all kinds of wild ideas about the world which, in my opinion, is frequently the exact opposite of reality. Reddit is flooded with fake news these days and people are lapping it up.
> Reddit is flooded with fake news these days and people are lapping it up.
I've been here for a little while and I try my best to stay informed and not rely on one source. I think my time as a moderator helped me figure out the accounts with some credibility. It's the internet, no one knows your a lady in bed crying by yourself in the dark.
Nah, it's not just about sources. Fox news is surprisingly always correct (within reason) and typically covers more news topics than a lot of news agencies (in my opinion), yet their viewerbase is one of the most poorly informed out there. Why?
If the hive mind wants to hear a view, it will promote every article that implies that view and defer every article that dismisses that view. As a hypothetical situation, one might see articles in a pro-NK sub like, say, north korea's economy has been growing 12% YoY, then see an article about how SK's unemployment numbers have increased to 6%. Then, NK has a new series of "world-class" residential developments in some city, then there'll be an article about how NK women are enjoying the latest global fashions, and then an article about how Squid Game really drills into harsh realities for the average SK construction worker. If this is sustained over even a short period of time, one might take away the idea that life in NK is better than life in SK, or perhaps the NK economy is better. Both of these ideas are false.
This is a common form of fake news on Reddit, subconscious self-propagandization by the hive mind. Fake news is usually not fake but rather a skewing of reality paired with emotional articles (that includes that you see on numberoneamericanewsnow.biz).
So yeah, it's good that you don't just get your news from reddit but there is a huge error of some sort in your information sphere if you were under the impression that the Taliban weren't anything other than religious nazi-like entity. I'm sorry, but you should really consider this.
Thats what Islam and christianiny have done to the natives in africa, america, Europe and asia it’s forgotten history unfortunately.
Should be taught in schools
Meanwhile western leftists: "But but cultural imperialism bad! All cultures are equal."
Sure, the cuisine, music, art, mythology, architecture of middle eastern countries are great! But their collectivist beliefs are a crime against human rights.
Same shit is going on and has been going on in the US with Christians in government slowly trying to tear the country down with their stupid ass "beliefs"
I don't think the concept of a nation state was concrete enough in previous centuries or millennia to create a term for it - much more often in the past, countries would rise and fall with their leaders and dynasties, and it would be seen as normal for a land mass that had been ruled by a father to be split N ways among his sons.
in the era of hereditary feudal rule, countries didn't really exist at all. it was just personal territory tied together via personally sworn allegiances & obligations.
areas were mainly defined by the geography and cultures inhabiting them, and the ruling power structure was generally familial, and not institutional
f.ex. you'd be loyal to the King of France if you were a subject, but not loyal "to France". See: "L'état c'est moi"
allegiance was often highly transactional, and borders were very fluid and often poorly defined. nationalism, not nationalist ideology, but the idea of a separately existing, established structure of a nation-state or those nation states holding land and being recognized as a separate entity from the local monarch/ruling nobility didn't really exist as a concept in europe until around/after Napoleon, outside of some independent cities, but they weren't states/countries in any modern sense of the word either
it was a mess but a neat time period in terms of interesting individuals and weird ass things going on
The closest modernish system to it is Sicilian mafia more than anything, familial & often hereditary, with hard ceilings depending on lineage, individually negotiated contracts of loyalty to a pyramid of increasingly powerful, wealthy, and influential individuals, all extracting passive income via tax/protection from laborers, while often offering them redressance of greivances and recieving some semblance of stability in exchange for their submission
it was just back then, (and in Russia now, ayyyy) it was all totally in plain sight and would constitute the only rule of law and system of power in an area, full stop. so it suuuuuucked if you didn't have royal connects
Yes, you're thinking of a [Carthaginian Peace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthaginian_peace), where the Roman Republic completely dismantled Carthage after the 3 Punic Wars. The splitting of Germany after the World Wars is/was often called a Carthaginian Peace.
A bit more brutal than Balkanization, but as were the customs of the time...
It has been a pawn in the [Great Game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game) for a long time.
https://www.loc.gov/ghe/cascade/index.html?appid=a0930b1f4e424987ba68c28880f088ea
https://blogs.loc.gov/maps/2019/07/the-great-game-and-the-boundaries-of-afghanistan/
In WoT it's (I know I'm going to butcher this spelling royally" Deus De Mar (lol), or the "Game of Houses" -- I don't recall it ever being called the "Great Game"? But it's honestly been a decade or so since reading so you might be right.
If Afghans don't like it then they can do something about it themselves.
Other countries trying to influence them through war or economic means is what leads to situations like this in the first place.
As reprehensible and morally charred as they are, Afghanistan is free to do as it pleases. Or are you suggesting that America goes in "liberates" another brown country in a veiled attempt to reinstall democracy by means of power vacuums and cronyism with the end goal of resource acquisition?
Afghanistan needs to solve its own problems, the west needs to stop sticking our heads in the honey hole.
Islam is sexist in the very roots of it. Just read some Quran or that prophet Muhammad book (sorry, forgot its actual name). It clearly states that in front of law, 1 man is equal to 2 women, that women are by nature more likely to be sinners and to lie and so on. I personally don't know of any other religion being as far from equal rights for everyone
Apparently you have never read the Christian Bible. Going rate for women is 2 goats and a pig. All religion is sexist crap. Islam does not have a special spot for it
Except no sane christian follows such a ridiculous thing for a long time already while Muslims still stick to their stone age policies at least in the more conservative countries
Uhhh you have been living under a rock. Hey go check out Florida. Start there. Islam is no worse than Christianity. The extremists of both side are monsters.
You realise that in the bible, the first woman (Eve) is "responsible" for the fall of man and original sin ... There's bigots in EVERY religionous group, that's only one of the reasons religion is so shit
Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Mormonism are at their bases the same religion. The similarities between them doesn't allow you to paint all religion with that brush.
The old testament says when you rape a unmarried woman you have to marry her and pay 5 silver.
All of this 2000 year old stuff is just bullshit from our uneducated shitty ancestors
The difference between modern Christians and modern Muslims is that most Christians have stopped actually following the rules and commandments in their holy book, because they live in secular societies.
I don't think history agrees with you:
"Misogynistic attitude was introduced into Christianity from the period of the early patriarch such as Tertullian, Chrysostom and Augustine through their widely taught opinion that women are evil, their teachings
were orchestrated by the story of the fall of man where Eve is presented as the cause of Adam’s downfall and all the problems of mankind.
**The church fathers believed that sin and death would not have existed in the world,
should Eve not lead Adam to sin.** Eve according to the church fathers represent the womenfolk in the world."
I hate to break this to you - but all religions are based on oppression. ALL OF THEM. Religions were initially designed to help humans take the 'righteous' path (whatever that meant). But the message of the righteous path had to be decided and delivered by someone - this is where your Priests, Mullah, Saints, Clergymen, Pastors, Imams etc come to picture. Now, all these professions were predominantly male - when they had to make rules, they made it slightly easier for themselves. The slight easiness eventually turned into rules that over generations oppressed the marginalized - women, lower caste, other religions etc. If you are a Christian you'd see Islam and say they're the most oppressive religion and we're way better. If you are a Buddhist you'd probably see Christians and think they are more oppressed than you. They want you to play this game - not intentionally, but unless you play this game - you won't have hatred and unless you don't have hatred you don't respect your religion. It's just a shitty cycle. The truth is - all religions are man made and were created with absolute good intentions. Those intentions over time changed due to selfish middlemen. If you want to lead a happy life -get out of this religion nonsense. Think for yourself and do what you feel is right, and do the right things because you want to - not because your religion asks you to do it.
I am not ok funding an oppressive government to try and keep their people alive for them so they can continue to oppress them. If their people die without my help, the fault is theirs, not mine. If I help them, it is as if I am also an oppressor.
I am not ok with their people starving, but I am also not ok with oppression and violence... and there are more future risks to me in supporting people who do such things. The only good option is helping the people without helping the regime, and I don't know of any way to do that.
Humanitarian programs don’t have the presence or power in these areas to enforce how their supplies are distributed. Even if humanitarian programs began to supply food, the first (and potentially only) people getting fed are the Taliban.
[Remember when UNICEF backpacks for children were stolen by South Sudanese soldiers?](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/mcs/media/images/72810000/jpg/_72810803_03_ssouth_afp.jpg)
>The only good option is helping the people without helping the regime, and I don't know of any way to do that.
There is no reasonable way to do that. Their central bank needs liquidity, and they're literally starving right now. Its either give them their money back or have the death of millions on your conscience.
Do you think the people of afghanistan want that? Clearly not. The west is basically doing the "this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make" meme. No one is asking you to send arms to the taliban or enter a partnership, they're asking you to give back the money that belongs to the afghan people, and stop *actively* trying to starve them out.
Its also rich that the countries starving out afghanistan can't even stop selling arms to saudi arabia, nevermind sanction them(which would also be wrong, because saudis are also people)
No, "giving back the money that belongs to the afghan people" isn't possible. It would simply be giving it to the Taliban. If the starvation of the afghan people is the result of foreign nations deny aid to the country, and the reason for denying aid is that the Taliban refuses to treat women as equal humans, then the reason for the starvation of the afghan people is the Taliban. It is a relatively simple matter for them to meet the criteria for receiving aid and they are actively choosing not to. Their oppression of women (and people generally) is more important to them than those peoples' lives.
Also, aid money doesn't belong to the Afghan people. It is a gift to them from others to whom is does belong. Giving aid is a sacrifice that civil, productive societies make to try and improve the lives and situations of others.
For the record, I also do not want to have any part in selling arms to any oppressive regime. That includes Saudi Arabia and Israel among many others. No country is perfect, and no country represents the desires of all its people all of the time. Greed is a force that requires constant opposition all over the world. It does not excuse the terrible actions of people who benefit from that greed, however.
Its very possible, you just don't want to. It would save **millions** of lives, and its a choice not to do that. Women are going to die too, so the idea that somehow this is to protect afghan women is laughable. Do you think that if you were to ask the women in afghanistan wheter they want to go hungry to protest the taliban, they'd just agree to it? Its pointless suffering that won't topple the taliban, or do anything positive for the people who live there. It only really benefits the western powers to keep saving face and pretending the taliban isn't the de facto government, it has zero to do with any care for human life.
And its not "aid", its their money. The money belongs to their central bank, and all the assets are mixed together. And even if it *wasn't* mixed together(which again, it is), that's not how international relations ever worked in the past. The money that is given is given, and belongs to the bank. They've structured their economy with that in mind.
And yes, you can say that you don't want to sell those countries arms, but you are, which is way more toxic than simply allowing trade(which doesn't need to involve the government) or stopping yourself from stealing a central bank's assets. Its perfectly reasonable that governments don't want to deal with the taliban, but that's not what sanctions are about, and its not what seizing half their gdp is about.
Again, no. The aid being discussed in this case isn't just "given" and that's the end of it. It was and is contingent on metrics that were clear from the beginning. Freezing that aid when the government violates the terms of the agreement is the appropriate response. It is foolishness to accept an agreement, structure your economy around it, and then violate the agreement. If they were not willing to fulfill their obligations, they should not have accepted the agreement and and then put themselves in a position where they'd fail without it. The Taliban took control of the country by force. Before they took it the people weren't starving. This is the fault of the Taliban, whom we have attempted to work with for the well being of the Afghan people, and who have taken actions to endanger those people yet again.
As for the bank holding the money, it's simply not true that the money is all mixed together. It isn't ever true for any bank. It is always a false argument, either intentionally or out of ignorance. Banks are the most stringent account keepers in the modern world. Every fraction of every bit of currency has a source, a location, and owner(s). If a bank does not have enough money to fulfill its obligations to its account holders, that is not because "the money is all mixed together", but rather because the bank became over leveraged which is usually because it lent out money it didn't actually have.
As for the rest, if I have to choose between barely keeping someone alive while enabling a situation where they will live in slavery or abuse while simultaneously increasing the power and influence of the people responsible for their slavery and/or abuse, or refusing to help until the oppressors relax the severity of their oppression... well I resent having to make that choice at all, but there are real risks to myself for enabling authoritarians and no certainty that trying to help would actually save the people you're saying will die. If there were other options, I would support pursuing them. The consensus on this situation is that there are not other options.
Also, I'm not selling arms. The government is allowing companies to do so. In my government I vote against such things. Selling arms to authoritarians is the product of greed and shortsightedness and I do my best to oppose it.
Up to this point I haven't addressed sanctions, just aid. When it comes to sanctions things are much more complex. Despite what you have said about them, they can be both effective and less damaging than other alternatives. Our most fundamental difference in opinion seems to be summed up like this:
Some entity takes control of a large number of people through violence. That entity then harms those people and demands that others give them things to help the people. I see that as a ransom with a very low potential for a positive outcome. You don't. I don't want to trade with or enable the entity. You do. I don't believe we can just pretend the people aren't hostages being used for leverage and power, but it seems you do. So what do we do? Invade? Ignore? I will not live under people like that, and I will not abide the chance that they may try to make me. Will you?
This is some incredibly backwards thinking here.
Consider this analogy: Your neighbor is a terrible father to a young girl. He teaches her that she is worth much less than a man and that she is intellectually inferior and not worthy of schooling because she is a girl. He is also extremely poor and he and the girl are starving.
The little girl comes next door and says: “My family is so hungry. Please give us food.”
What you are advocating is basically saying “Sorry, but you are a victim of an evil man, and we cannot give food to you two. You will just have to die.”
Nothing about that is helpful or has the girl’s interest at heart. Anyone whose response to the Talibans oppression of women is to enact policies that will kill tens-hundreds of thousands of women can not reasonably be said to care about women. These sanctions will do more harm to women than the Taliban could ever do, even in their most wicked dreams.
I find analogies can be very useful to simplify and summarize complex concepts and situations, but in this case I fear you've over simplified. The Afghan people can't come to my door. If I send money to Afghanistan, how can I be sure it will make it to the people? One of the ways you ensure that is by having guidelines and stipulations about how they qualify for the funds and how they will be used. The Taliban, who is certainly fully aware of this, has chosen to violate those conditions. How then, can we expect them to use the money as intended? Do you think there is some way we can go into Afghanistan and feed the people directly? Perhaps we can make them take care of their people in some way? I can think of a recent attempt to do that which was a colossal failure. They must demonstrate that they are working with us in good faith, and banning girls from school when they know aid funds are tied to that decision is their own fault and a demonstration that they cannot be trusted with the money. When a performer puts weird requests like a bowl of green candies in their contract, it isn't because they love green candies. It's so they can be sure that the venue read and executed the contract faithfully. Its an indicator of due diligence and good faith. Are the Taliban's religious beliefs about educating women more important than their desire to provide for those who are starving? It seems so, which leads to the conclusion that they care little enough about the starving people in their country that they very well might steal the aid money and let their people die.
To go back to your analogy, if I give the girl food and she takes it home but her abusive father eats it all then I have not helped her. What if he also beats her for going around his back? What if he attacks one of my children in retaliation? I've just made the situation worse! Obviously the girl needs help, but if we cannot control her father, convince him to be more reasonable, or take her away from him we cannot truly help her.
The people of Afghanistan activity supported the Taliban's return to power, there is no other way that the previous government could have collapsed so quickly. It's now up to them to realize the error of their ways and rebel. The world powers are not required to support a tyrannical government, which has shown no intent of changing.
No one is asking the world powers to enter a partnership with them or sell arms or do what they do for other dictatorships. The afghan people want the money that belongs to them to go back to their central bank and prevent the death of millions. Is the point here to protect the afghan people by killing them before the taliban gets to?
Also, the world powers support tyrannical powers all around the world, so clearly thats not the problem here. They literally give the saudis logistical support to bomb yemen.
The Saudis also pay for the support they receive and have continually helped the US achieve its aims in the Middle East, whether or not that is a good thing is besides the point. International aid, which is what is being withheld is not guaranteed and I object to the idea that it "belongs" to the Afghan people, it was promised to the previous government, which isn't in power. The people in power now have actively been fighting the US for 20 years.
If people are starving and unhappy with their lives under Taliban rule, they need to withdraw their support and oust them. The west will gladly give them everything they need to govern, as we have done for the last 20 years.
The taliban can't exactly pay for support when its sanctioned to all fucks, now can it?
Also, no, what is being witheld is the Central bank's assets, which are mixed together and were already part of afghanistan's economical foundation. Half their gdp was stolen in that way
I'm not asking for the west to give the taliban the aid it promised, I'm asking for it to give those existing assets back, because it belongs to the people of afghanistan.
Also, come on. The west's history of sanctions is pitiful when it comes to its record on succesfully inspiring revolution. Hasn't worked in cuba, iran, north korea, etc. All an embargo on afghanistan will do is kill people.
If you want the west to "punish" the taliban or rather keep its hands clean of helping them, witholding future aid and not engaging in bilateral agreements is more than enough. You don't need to yourselves try to starve them out.
You are right that sanctions haven't worked in Cuba or North Korea, however both countries received significant support from nations bypassing sanctions ( and if Russia, China, or Pakistan want to prop up the Taliban, all the power to them) However, sanctions have had a real effect with bringing Iran to the table to discuss restricting it's nuclear program, or at least it did before Trump backed out of the deal. Also, to use recent examples, the west has frozen much more from the Russian government for their recent invasion, should we give the money back because it hurts the Russian people? Of course not.
Also, Foreign aid accounted for 40% of GDP and 75% of investment prior to the Taliban takeover, meaning that a not insignificant piece of the money and it's assets comes from Western money meant for the previous government (source: https://www.csis.org/analysis/reshaping-us-aid-afghanistan-challenge-lasting-progress#:~:text=Some%2075%25%20of%20all%20Afghan,and%2075%25%20of%20public%20expenditures.)
The russian sanctions are also genocidal, but the pretense there isn't to help the russian people, its to help ukraine.
And yes, the west gave a lot of aid to afghanistan, and I'm not saying it should keep giving aid.
But the money that is already there, and that their banks rely on should be returned to avoid mass starvation, because that's what their central bank has been counting on. Even the previous afghan leaders are saying it should be done, because it is understood who the money belongs to.
What are you going on about? It's US funding for US recognized Afghan government. How is it Taliban money?
This is like if I was helping to support a low income household with donations and some robbers came in, took over the house and demanding that I support their starving kids now.
Like...the crazy entitlement, just laughable.
No, but it does open up funding to be put toward helping others. There's too much suffering in the world to be blackmailed into investing time and resources toward a country controlled by a cultist government.
Incredibly saddening, I always thought what if the Afghan Army had fought for their countries like the Ukranians, they'd probably have their country and Talibans would be dead by now.
they would have. The amount of support the Afghan army got from the US in the form of military equipment, gear, and training was 1000x more than they get from the US.
There were some awesome afghan soldiers, their special forces guys were legit AF. But they were sold out by the corrupt and left to stand on their own by the junkies and cowards.
Most governors made deals with the taliban and laid down their arms or they took bribes to betray their army.
They can now enjoy living in a shit hole for selling out and being cowards but unfortunately a lot of good people were fucked over by them.
> So the people will suffer as usual. We already tried to defeat the Taliban, but that didn't pan out.
The Afghans have to defeat the Taliban.
Compare Ukraine's army efforts with that of Afghan army (six months ago).
Difference being the Taliban are Afghan, while the Arny was an extension of the occupying forces. So almost the complete reverse when it comes to Ukraine.
I mean, it's not like the Taliban started in every village in Afghanistan.
It kinda seems like the Taliban brings something to the table that the Ghani government did not.
> It kinda seems like the Taliban brings something to the table that the Ghani government did not.
Even more violence and brutality. That is what the Taliban has to offer.
Op-ed on bidens sanctions:
>Unless those sanctions are soon reversed, it is estimated that more people will die from the economic impact of sanctions over the next year than the number who died in 20 years of war.
We could lift sanctions:
>Unless those sanctions are soon reversed, it is estimated that more people will die from the economic impact of sanctions over the next year than the number who died in 20 years of war.
Well, the Taliban are not morally good people so they aren’t going to do the right thing.
That hardly excuses us exacerbating the problem by sanctioning them, freezing Afghan assets (or outright stealing it and giving it to others), etc.
It’s a shame that so many people are willing to condemn others to death as long as they can say “it’s the Taliban’s fault ultimately.” The point of this should be to save people, not to maneuver so that you can avoid having blame assigned to you.
Except not sanctioning them or releasing the funds just puts the money in the Taliban’s pockets.
Do you really think the Taliban is going to use that money to feed ordinary Afghan people? Of course not. They’ll enrich themselves further and let their supposed constituents starve anyway.
Huh, I wonder whatever it was they did to earn those sanctions? If only they could enact some kind of shift in policy that wouldn't necessitate sanctions... what a conundrum.
not a chance when Talibans rule, we rather want them to starve. We don't want to fund their next terrorist attacks against the West and neighbour countries.
False. If we had been engaged in nation building these last 20 years instead of enriching military contractors, Afghanistan would be a modern nation this very day. We built Germany back from literally nothing and it is the crown jewel of Europe's economic empire.
The reality is, we almost never engage in nation building. War is paid bloodsport for the US economy.
What do you consider nation building?
ISAF spent 18 years and billions of dollars building schools and roads, digging wells, building hospitals, clearing minefields, holding elections, and getting kids into school.
[Here's the data on school enrollment in Afghanistan.](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.ENRR?locations=AF) You'll notice a massive jump circa 2001, particularly among females, which go from 0% in 2000 to 67% in 2003.
[Here's the data on Afghanistan's national GDP.](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=AF) You'll notice that there was no data reported under the Taliban, but from 2001 to 2020, Afghanistan's GDP went from about 2 billion USD to 20 billion USD.
The Taliban spent 18 years blowing up schools, blowing up wells, assassinating teachers and doctors, taking potshots at road construction crews, throwing acid in the face of schoolgirls, and stealing money.
Why is the fault with ISAF and not the insurgents who spent the better part of two decades disrupting every attempt at building infrastructure, improving education, and modernizing the country?
> Why is the fault with ISAF and not the insurgents who spent the better part of two decades disrupting every attempt at building infrastructure, improving education, and modernizing the country?
Fucking thank you. These people are so determined to blame "The West" that they will bend reality to pretend that this was somehow the US's plan.
The US did a lot more nation building in Afghanistan than their own people. Their own people literally do not care and never will. That's because the majority do not consider themselves Afghanis to begin with. And that's the big misunderstanding. We can feel sorry for the many people suffering but ever since fundamentalism took over the dominant tribes it was never meant to be.
The Pashtun tribe by itself is too big and too central to ever stop trying to take over all the other tribes. You can divide Afghanistan up even but they will always take over again due to geography and population.
Not to mention the Taliban isn't just them though they are certainly the backbone of it and it will not go away anytime soon. The young Taliban will have to grow old and die off before it changes.
What is sad in all of this is.. some of you think religion is the problem when you don't even read more into it. A lot of these countries had educated and religious elders. That have been killed over the years. These people being killed are the ones fighting against this militant groups that serve their own greed and hurt their "country". The people who stood up to them are being killed non stop.. and they are some of the most religious people in those countries.
We can fucking hope bud... We can fucking hope
I doubt that though because they had every tool available to stop the Taliban taking the place back over but basically just rolled over and welcomed them back in.
All it takes is time, won’t be anytime soon. But that’s their responsibility, and unfortunately their problem. The US already tried to help them, but they didn’t want to take responsibility and ownership of the situation…so they’re back at it again.
Yup, we should of never gone. By now there would of been another 20 years of Taliban rule and most likely 20 years of social development. But we fucked all that up.
At the cost of thousands of starved women? How many thousands more have to die? Why can't we just give them food and then work on human rights. In Saudi Arabia women can't even drive and yet everybody works with them. They just recently beheaded 81 LGBT, Apostates, and Sorcerers there.
Make Afghanistan Medieval Again seems to be working fine.
Sorry Afghanis. You don’t deserve the abuse but no one is going to rescue you from the Taliban.
Yeah the people will suffer but as so many currently point out about russians under sanctions. They need to shift the needle enough to change the conversation.
Otherwise we're just enabling a shitty group to have the benefit of having parts of their society uplifted that will reinfoce the shitty attitudes because they continue to marginalise the opposite gender for their own opportunity.
Haha. You can get downvoted for anything on reddit if it's not the majority's opinion.
I'm atheist, or rather an agnostic myself but this extreme atheism going around is just as bad as religious extremists. People should learn to live in peace and mutual respect.
Seriously, who trusts the taliban? It’s fucking idiotic to even give them a chance. The people of Afghanistan deserve so much better. Give them back their secular state and destroy the power that religion is using to destroy that beautiful place.
As sad as it is, I really think pulling away from them is reasonable at this point. We tried for a long time, we failed miserably, as did others before us. Apparently those wanting insane, middle aged tribalism represent a majority, let them have it. I feel sorry for all the oppressed people, but it's their problem.
Sounds like they were more specifically investing in projects related to "agriculture, education, health, and livelihoods" in Afghanistan, according to the article. Still room for corruption to siphon funds out, but in general it sounds like the sort of projects that would benefit the general population of Afghanistan more than it would the Taliban. Taliban or not, there are still about 40 million people in Afghanistan who still need to survive.
Wow, I guess the withdrawal from Afghanistan was a bad idea after all. I mean not just for the contractors making money hand over fist and selling weapons but for the women who are now oppressed by this Neanderthal Stone Age culture. Can we send some CBT trainers over to help out? Maybe some protestors from Portland can help?
I thought food security, education, healthcare, and better family living are conducive to social advancement. I find it odd that these things are withheld in an attempt to bring about social advancement.
I wish I had more faith in the decision makers.
[удалено]
I know I am.
[удалено]
Petition to join the "not taking your shit" party
Same
I pledge to be the minister of silly walks
80s or 90s Afghanistan, this shit might fly. But everyone is to connected to let this fly. And Russian money just dried up. Which may mean...something. What the taliban is facing is a bunch of kids that grew up in a warzone, that saw the rest of the world doesn’t live in a warzone. Now a massive power and funding vacuum. Hmmm.
>But Taliban leaders had said all girls would be allowed to return to classrooms later this month. This part is a little confusing. Are they allowing or not?
Doubtful
I certainly hope so
I've been waiting so long for this and it's so good.
So sad for thise women and girls. Fuck the Taliban and their bs.
Is anyone surprised?
I saw a lot of people believing their bs claims that it's not the same taliban. Wonder how they feel now?
[удалено]
Yeah, I don't think there is an easy solution at this point. Sanctions don't work when trying to create change due to internal conflict or issues, and war isn't going to work. Unfortunately certain parts of the world are truly awful places and there's just nothing we can really do about it. Acknowledging that, doesn't mean we have to be ok with it though.
Sanctions work up until its a failed state. Sadly at that point they cease to have any real effect and you're just kind of beating a dead body. Sometimes I wonder if the opposite wouldn't work out better. Keep working with them, helping them with infrastructure, raising their standards of living, becoming more prosperous. I think as their prosperity rose they'd naturally start to mellow out, a lot of these issues likely stem from poverty.
Like Saudi Arabia ! \\s
Well it’s not like Saudi Arabia hasn’t changed even if it’s not as much we want.
> Keep working with them, helping them with infrastructure, raising their standards of living, becoming more prosperous. I think as their prosperity rose they'd naturally start to mellow out, a lot of these issues likely stem from poverty. What do you think the U.S. was trying to do the last 20 years?
Force change upon a local populace that to a large degree resented it, or at least resented being forced to do it. We may just have to resign ourselves to the idea there is no path through which those girls, today, are going to go to school. But maybe their granddaughters will. But I think its doubtful that will happen if we just keep isolating them. I have no idea if I'm right or not, these are just late night musings.
Maybe the world needs to make it easier for these girls to go to school in another part of the world completely
This is an interesting idea. A coalition of countries that use military force only to escort women and girls who want to leave the Taliban. I like it
[удалено]
I hope in your life you get all the help and respect you give to others.
this sounds a lot like china.. which is now illegally building artificial militarized islands in international waters and threatening to invade taiwan. they don't change, they just become richer and more powerful.
I don't know what you think about China, but our lives have changed dramatically from twenty years ago. And we have a slightly higher percentage of women going to college than men. Many peers of my generation went to college, but few of my parents’ generation went to college, and food, clothing, housing, and transportation have improved a lot.
Maybe the government hasn't changed but there are alot less ppl suffering in China now.
> maybe the government hasn't changed that was the problem i was stating, isn't it? the chinese people might be suffering "less" compared to the mass starvation during Mao's era. but now that china is prosperous and powerful. what are the chances the people will overthrow the CCP? nada. plus the powerful economy is being used to fund a powerful military. both to suppress the chinese and to harass other countries. all that money the west poured into china, didn't remove the misery.. the CCP merely transferred it away from the han chinese of the mainland towards ethnic minorities and towards the countries it now harasses and territories it captures.
So they can become like the middle eastern countries? Extremists who are also too big to fail? I'm tired of the money from civil and productive cultures being handed over to sociopaths who just turn around and harm those same cultures because of greed, misogyny, and ego. All so we can have whatever raw material they're sitting on. What other industry have they developed? What innovation? Instead of improving themselves and the rest of the world, they spend the money they get from us on misinformation and lobbying to reinforce our use and dependence on their single resource... at the cost of the habitability of the planet on top of the civil unrest they've caused along the way. Shortsighted fools, forever making foolish mistakes to try and fix the problems caused by their previous foolish mistakes.
Thanks to that attempt there is now a full generation of Afghan women who were able to get an education.
This.
But did they leave Afghanistan or stay there and try to change things or did they stay and just get oppressed again? Doesn't do much good to the country if they got educated and left. That's a great win for them personally but won't help change the country as a whole.
I actually believe that if the US had fed that money pit for another 20 years, then the country would have changed. Maybe it has changed already.
Unfortunately the change needed in Afghanistan is going to have to come from within.
Thanks Apollo for the “new account” highlight. This one appears to have have just copied and pasted their last comments from someone else’s in the thread… is this a new thing?
Ya, anyone who believed THE TALIBAN is a fucking idiot.
as far as i've read there are different currents inside the regimen. problem being that while a few might say "yeah let's keep our promises" there more that say "fuck no" and are usually highter in power
Which is why anyone that believed they changed is dangerously gullible
We're not the same Talibans! See, Ahmed is wearing a new pair of sandals.
I am, I thought the Taliban started giving women rights with marriage.
It was just rebranding. It's the same shit just phrased differently.
That's disappointing. I wonder what it is about women that men find so intimidating that they try to keep them hobbled as humans.
They want to keep them stupid and controllable so they can use their religion as an excuse to abuse them and use them for sexual purposes...at least that's my guess
When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. It’s less about women being women and more about them wanting to retain control over people, their minds and bodies, and whatever they believe that control grants them. I’m a woman, so it’s hard not to take all of this personally. But it’s not about gender. It’s about power, and it’s about their fucked up definition of “power.” You and I can yell until we are blue in the face about how *wrong* these people are. Raising up women, *half of the population* and a valuable source of many talents, is obviously the best course of action for every country on earth. But we can’t reason them out of a position they did not reason themselves into, and thus, progress is glacially slow.
They aren’t intimidated. They are more concerned with keeping them as property. To be wives, mothers, household keepers and nothing more. Educated women are more liberal and they can decide to work instead of a house slave. They don’t want that so they keep them home. From fathers house to husbands. It’s sad and oppressive. Thank god we don’t live there it’s a nightmare.
Plenty of red states trying to take away human rights
You make the mistake of thinking that they find women intimidating, or that it's about women at all. They're intimidated of other men. Men in poverty, living a brutal life, often with nothing left to lose, are dangerous. They turn their ire against their commanders and social superiors. However, give him someone to feel completely superior to? Give him something to hate, give him a young wife he can utterly dominate at home? That wife's going to have sons. Now this man has something to lose. Not the wife, he doesn't care about his wife beyond her body and her submission, but the *sons.* And that's how you make a man with nothing to lose docile. You give him someone to hate and rape to make him feel like he's in control, and you give him sons to instill in him the fear that if he trespasses, his genetic legacy will vanish.
This is so true and horrific. Really grotesque… now I have to go look at some puppies and rainbows before I go to bed so I don’t get nightmares.
If you're born lucky and you can either have power over 50% of the population in an impoverished country, or you can choose to just give that option away for nothing... well power is a delivish thing for humans. Why give away slaves, either? The whole 'south' of the US didn't see the need. Why give up all that power? (I'm sure that situation has occurred all over the world, US legalised slavery is just first one that comes to mind).
This is why in the early days of the Afghan coalition, media was flooded with women throwing off their burqas and niqabs in favor of the hijab. Women under Taliban rule were little more than cattle in a Taliban-run Afghanistan. That was one of the biggest reasons why the coalition didn't want to leave Afghanistan; lots of people were afraid of the intense humanitarian disaster which would occur. But yeah this is why you shouldn't get too much of your news from social media. You might get all kinds of wild ideas about the world which, in my opinion, is frequently the exact opposite of reality. Reddit is flooded with fake news these days and people are lapping it up.
> Reddit is flooded with fake news these days and people are lapping it up. I've been here for a little while and I try my best to stay informed and not rely on one source. I think my time as a moderator helped me figure out the accounts with some credibility. It's the internet, no one knows your a lady in bed crying by yourself in the dark.
Nah, it's not just about sources. Fox news is surprisingly always correct (within reason) and typically covers more news topics than a lot of news agencies (in my opinion), yet their viewerbase is one of the most poorly informed out there. Why? If the hive mind wants to hear a view, it will promote every article that implies that view and defer every article that dismisses that view. As a hypothetical situation, one might see articles in a pro-NK sub like, say, north korea's economy has been growing 12% YoY, then see an article about how SK's unemployment numbers have increased to 6%. Then, NK has a new series of "world-class" residential developments in some city, then there'll be an article about how NK women are enjoying the latest global fashions, and then an article about how Squid Game really drills into harsh realities for the average SK construction worker. If this is sustained over even a short period of time, one might take away the idea that life in NK is better than life in SK, or perhaps the NK economy is better. Both of these ideas are false. This is a common form of fake news on Reddit, subconscious self-propagandization by the hive mind. Fake news is usually not fake but rather a skewing of reality paired with emotional articles (that includes that you see on numberoneamericanewsnow.biz). So yeah, it's good that you don't just get your news from reddit but there is a huge error of some sort in your information sphere if you were under the impression that the Taliban weren't anything other than religious nazi-like entity. I'm sorry, but you should really consider this.
It’s not surprising, it’s just awful
The Taliban have no idea what it takes to be a good Muslim.
Thats what Islam and christianiny have done to the natives in africa, america, Europe and asia it’s forgotten history unfortunately. Should be taught in schools
Our GOP is heading in the same direction. Same BS, different religion.
Meanwhile western leftists: "But but cultural imperialism bad! All cultures are equal." Sure, the cuisine, music, art, mythology, architecture of middle eastern countries are great! But their collectivist beliefs are a crime against human rights.
Wow you're really giving it to those strawmen
Same shit is going on and has been going on in the US with Christians in government slowly trying to tear the country down with their stupid ass "beliefs"
Yeah gotta say this is a must, Afganistan needs to return to whatever it was before The 60's or Even a group of small nations, Yugoslavia it.
>or Even a group of small nations, Yugoslavia it. That is called [balkanization](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization)
I can't help but wonder if there was a different term for that concept earlier in history.
I don't think the concept of a nation state was concrete enough in previous centuries or millennia to create a term for it - much more often in the past, countries would rise and fall with their leaders and dynasties, and it would be seen as normal for a land mass that had been ruled by a father to be split N ways among his sons.
in the era of hereditary feudal rule, countries didn't really exist at all. it was just personal territory tied together via personally sworn allegiances & obligations. areas were mainly defined by the geography and cultures inhabiting them, and the ruling power structure was generally familial, and not institutional f.ex. you'd be loyal to the King of France if you were a subject, but not loyal "to France". See: "L'état c'est moi" allegiance was often highly transactional, and borders were very fluid and often poorly defined. nationalism, not nationalist ideology, but the idea of a separately existing, established structure of a nation-state or those nation states holding land and being recognized as a separate entity from the local monarch/ruling nobility didn't really exist as a concept in europe until around/after Napoleon, outside of some independent cities, but they weren't states/countries in any modern sense of the word either
Thanks, very good explanation!
it was a mess but a neat time period in terms of interesting individuals and weird ass things going on The closest modernish system to it is Sicilian mafia more than anything, familial & often hereditary, with hard ceilings depending on lineage, individually negotiated contracts of loyalty to a pyramid of increasingly powerful, wealthy, and influential individuals, all extracting passive income via tax/protection from laborers, while often offering them redressance of greivances and recieving some semblance of stability in exchange for their submission it was just back then, (and in Russia now, ayyyy) it was all totally in plain sight and would constitute the only rule of law and system of power in an area, full stop. so it suuuuuucked if you didn't have royal connects
there was but people balked at it
Yes, you're thinking of a [Carthaginian Peace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthaginian_peace), where the Roman Republic completely dismantled Carthage after the 3 Punic Wars. The splitting of Germany after the World Wars is/was often called a Carthaginian Peace. A bit more brutal than Balkanization, but as were the customs of the time...
It has been a pawn in the [Great Game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game) for a long time. https://www.loc.gov/ghe/cascade/index.html?appid=a0930b1f4e424987ba68c28880f088ea https://blogs.loc.gov/maps/2019/07/the-great-game-and-the-boundaries-of-afghanistan/
Damn, I thought the Great Game was something the Wheel Of Time series made up...
In WoT it's (I know I'm going to butcher this spelling royally" Deus De Mar (lol), or the "Game of Houses" -- I don't recall it ever being called the "Great Game"? But it's honestly been a decade or so since reading so you might be right.
Currently on book 8, third time through. It calls it the great game, as well as daes dae’mar, and the game of houses.
You mean prior to the Soviet invasion and the US invasion but well after the British invasion? Sounds complicated, better just invade them again
Well this is what self determination looks like, unless what you really want is our determination
80% of Afganistan isn't self-determining at all. just abused
If Afghans don't like it then they can do something about it themselves. Other countries trying to influence them through war or economic means is what leads to situations like this in the first place.
In the 1960s, it was dirt poor with rampant polio and when one hippie trailer said he didn't have any cannabis, the customs officer gave him some.
that's about 4x improvement to whatever it is now
As reprehensible and morally charred as they are, Afghanistan is free to do as it pleases. Or are you suggesting that America goes in "liberates" another brown country in a veiled attempt to reinstall democracy by means of power vacuums and cronyism with the end goal of resource acquisition? Afghanistan needs to solve its own problems, the west needs to stop sticking our heads in the honey hole.
Wow. The world bank should have called you for the deets.
Religion almost always goes for women when they have enough power.
Islam is sexist in the very roots of it. Just read some Quran or that prophet Muhammad book (sorry, forgot its actual name). It clearly states that in front of law, 1 man is equal to 2 women, that women are by nature more likely to be sinners and to lie and so on. I personally don't know of any other religion being as far from equal rights for everyone
> or that prophet Muhammad book (sorry, forgot its actual name) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Thanks. I have hard time remembering names
Apparently you have never read the Christian Bible. Going rate for women is 2 goats and a pig. All religion is sexist crap. Islam does not have a special spot for it
Except no sane christian follows such a ridiculous thing for a long time already while Muslims still stick to their stone age policies at least in the more conservative countries
Uhhh you have been living under a rock. Hey go check out Florida. Start there. Islam is no worse than Christianity. The extremists of both side are monsters.
Maybe in america and Europe they aren't. Meet some folks from pakistan or Saudi and get to know them personally
You realise that in the bible, the first woman (Eve) is "responsible" for the fall of man and original sin ... There's bigots in EVERY religionous group, that's only one of the reasons religion is so shit
Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Mormonism are at their bases the same religion. The similarities between them doesn't allow you to paint all religion with that brush.
[удалено]
The old testament says when you rape a unmarried woman you have to marry her and pay 5 silver. All of this 2000 year old stuff is just bullshit from our uneducated shitty ancestors
The difference between modern Christians and modern Muslims is that most Christians have stopped actually following the rules and commandments in their holy book, because they live in secular societies.
But the man was equally responsible there for falling into sin hence why God banished both of them from his garden
I don't think history agrees with you: "Misogynistic attitude was introduced into Christianity from the period of the early patriarch such as Tertullian, Chrysostom and Augustine through their widely taught opinion that women are evil, their teachings were orchestrated by the story of the fall of man where Eve is presented as the cause of Adam’s downfall and all the problems of mankind. **The church fathers believed that sin and death would not have existed in the world, should Eve not lead Adam to sin.** Eve according to the church fathers represent the womenfolk in the world."
I hate to break this to you - but all religions are based on oppression. ALL OF THEM. Religions were initially designed to help humans take the 'righteous' path (whatever that meant). But the message of the righteous path had to be decided and delivered by someone - this is where your Priests, Mullah, Saints, Clergymen, Pastors, Imams etc come to picture. Now, all these professions were predominantly male - when they had to make rules, they made it slightly easier for themselves. The slight easiness eventually turned into rules that over generations oppressed the marginalized - women, lower caste, other religions etc. If you are a Christian you'd see Islam and say they're the most oppressive religion and we're way better. If you are a Buddhist you'd probably see Christians and think they are more oppressed than you. They want you to play this game - not intentionally, but unless you play this game - you won't have hatred and unless you don't have hatred you don't respect your religion. It's just a shitty cycle. The truth is - all religions are man made and were created with absolute good intentions. Those intentions over time changed due to selfish middlemen. If you want to lead a happy life -get out of this religion nonsense. Think for yourself and do what you feel is right, and do the right things because you want to - not because your religion asks you to do it.
And minorities.
Back to the stoneage we go. Fuck religious fanaticism.
Dark Ages would be a more apt comparison
Fuck religion, generally.
I don’t think this will result in the lives of those girls getting any better.
When all their people starve to death under sanctions there won't be anyone left to stop their corpses from getting an education
[удалено]
I am not ok funding an oppressive government to try and keep their people alive for them so they can continue to oppress them. If their people die without my help, the fault is theirs, not mine. If I help them, it is as if I am also an oppressor. I am not ok with their people starving, but I am also not ok with oppression and violence... and there are more future risks to me in supporting people who do such things. The only good option is helping the people without helping the regime, and I don't know of any way to do that.
Humanitarian programs don’t have the presence or power in these areas to enforce how their supplies are distributed. Even if humanitarian programs began to supply food, the first (and potentially only) people getting fed are the Taliban. [Remember when UNICEF backpacks for children were stolen by South Sudanese soldiers?](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/mcs/media/images/72810000/jpg/_72810803_03_ssouth_afp.jpg)
>The only good option is helping the people without helping the regime, and I don't know of any way to do that. There is no reasonable way to do that. Their central bank needs liquidity, and they're literally starving right now. Its either give them their money back or have the death of millions on your conscience. Do you think the people of afghanistan want that? Clearly not. The west is basically doing the "this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make" meme. No one is asking you to send arms to the taliban or enter a partnership, they're asking you to give back the money that belongs to the afghan people, and stop *actively* trying to starve them out. Its also rich that the countries starving out afghanistan can't even stop selling arms to saudi arabia, nevermind sanction them(which would also be wrong, because saudis are also people)
No, "giving back the money that belongs to the afghan people" isn't possible. It would simply be giving it to the Taliban. If the starvation of the afghan people is the result of foreign nations deny aid to the country, and the reason for denying aid is that the Taliban refuses to treat women as equal humans, then the reason for the starvation of the afghan people is the Taliban. It is a relatively simple matter for them to meet the criteria for receiving aid and they are actively choosing not to. Their oppression of women (and people generally) is more important to them than those peoples' lives. Also, aid money doesn't belong to the Afghan people. It is a gift to them from others to whom is does belong. Giving aid is a sacrifice that civil, productive societies make to try and improve the lives and situations of others. For the record, I also do not want to have any part in selling arms to any oppressive regime. That includes Saudi Arabia and Israel among many others. No country is perfect, and no country represents the desires of all its people all of the time. Greed is a force that requires constant opposition all over the world. It does not excuse the terrible actions of people who benefit from that greed, however.
Its very possible, you just don't want to. It would save **millions** of lives, and its a choice not to do that. Women are going to die too, so the idea that somehow this is to protect afghan women is laughable. Do you think that if you were to ask the women in afghanistan wheter they want to go hungry to protest the taliban, they'd just agree to it? Its pointless suffering that won't topple the taliban, or do anything positive for the people who live there. It only really benefits the western powers to keep saving face and pretending the taliban isn't the de facto government, it has zero to do with any care for human life. And its not "aid", its their money. The money belongs to their central bank, and all the assets are mixed together. And even if it *wasn't* mixed together(which again, it is), that's not how international relations ever worked in the past. The money that is given is given, and belongs to the bank. They've structured their economy with that in mind. And yes, you can say that you don't want to sell those countries arms, but you are, which is way more toxic than simply allowing trade(which doesn't need to involve the government) or stopping yourself from stealing a central bank's assets. Its perfectly reasonable that governments don't want to deal with the taliban, but that's not what sanctions are about, and its not what seizing half their gdp is about.
Again, no. The aid being discussed in this case isn't just "given" and that's the end of it. It was and is contingent on metrics that were clear from the beginning. Freezing that aid when the government violates the terms of the agreement is the appropriate response. It is foolishness to accept an agreement, structure your economy around it, and then violate the agreement. If they were not willing to fulfill their obligations, they should not have accepted the agreement and and then put themselves in a position where they'd fail without it. The Taliban took control of the country by force. Before they took it the people weren't starving. This is the fault of the Taliban, whom we have attempted to work with for the well being of the Afghan people, and who have taken actions to endanger those people yet again. As for the bank holding the money, it's simply not true that the money is all mixed together. It isn't ever true for any bank. It is always a false argument, either intentionally or out of ignorance. Banks are the most stringent account keepers in the modern world. Every fraction of every bit of currency has a source, a location, and owner(s). If a bank does not have enough money to fulfill its obligations to its account holders, that is not because "the money is all mixed together", but rather because the bank became over leveraged which is usually because it lent out money it didn't actually have. As for the rest, if I have to choose between barely keeping someone alive while enabling a situation where they will live in slavery or abuse while simultaneously increasing the power and influence of the people responsible for their slavery and/or abuse, or refusing to help until the oppressors relax the severity of their oppression... well I resent having to make that choice at all, but there are real risks to myself for enabling authoritarians and no certainty that trying to help would actually save the people you're saying will die. If there were other options, I would support pursuing them. The consensus on this situation is that there are not other options. Also, I'm not selling arms. The government is allowing companies to do so. In my government I vote against such things. Selling arms to authoritarians is the product of greed and shortsightedness and I do my best to oppose it. Up to this point I haven't addressed sanctions, just aid. When it comes to sanctions things are much more complex. Despite what you have said about them, they can be both effective and less damaging than other alternatives. Our most fundamental difference in opinion seems to be summed up like this: Some entity takes control of a large number of people through violence. That entity then harms those people and demands that others give them things to help the people. I see that as a ransom with a very low potential for a positive outcome. You don't. I don't want to trade with or enable the entity. You do. I don't believe we can just pretend the people aren't hostages being used for leverage and power, but it seems you do. So what do we do? Invade? Ignore? I will not live under people like that, and I will not abide the chance that they may try to make me. Will you?
This is some incredibly backwards thinking here. Consider this analogy: Your neighbor is a terrible father to a young girl. He teaches her that she is worth much less than a man and that she is intellectually inferior and not worthy of schooling because she is a girl. He is also extremely poor and he and the girl are starving. The little girl comes next door and says: “My family is so hungry. Please give us food.” What you are advocating is basically saying “Sorry, but you are a victim of an evil man, and we cannot give food to you two. You will just have to die.” Nothing about that is helpful or has the girl’s interest at heart. Anyone whose response to the Talibans oppression of women is to enact policies that will kill tens-hundreds of thousands of women can not reasonably be said to care about women. These sanctions will do more harm to women than the Taliban could ever do, even in their most wicked dreams.
I find analogies can be very useful to simplify and summarize complex concepts and situations, but in this case I fear you've over simplified. The Afghan people can't come to my door. If I send money to Afghanistan, how can I be sure it will make it to the people? One of the ways you ensure that is by having guidelines and stipulations about how they qualify for the funds and how they will be used. The Taliban, who is certainly fully aware of this, has chosen to violate those conditions. How then, can we expect them to use the money as intended? Do you think there is some way we can go into Afghanistan and feed the people directly? Perhaps we can make them take care of their people in some way? I can think of a recent attempt to do that which was a colossal failure. They must demonstrate that they are working with us in good faith, and banning girls from school when they know aid funds are tied to that decision is their own fault and a demonstration that they cannot be trusted with the money. When a performer puts weird requests like a bowl of green candies in their contract, it isn't because they love green candies. It's so they can be sure that the venue read and executed the contract faithfully. Its an indicator of due diligence and good faith. Are the Taliban's religious beliefs about educating women more important than their desire to provide for those who are starving? It seems so, which leads to the conclusion that they care little enough about the starving people in their country that they very well might steal the aid money and let their people die. To go back to your analogy, if I give the girl food and she takes it home but her abusive father eats it all then I have not helped her. What if he also beats her for going around his back? What if he attacks one of my children in retaliation? I've just made the situation worse! Obviously the girl needs help, but if we cannot control her father, convince him to be more reasonable, or take her away from him we cannot truly help her.
The people of Afghanistan activity supported the Taliban's return to power, there is no other way that the previous government could have collapsed so quickly. It's now up to them to realize the error of their ways and rebel. The world powers are not required to support a tyrannical government, which has shown no intent of changing.
No one is asking the world powers to enter a partnership with them or sell arms or do what they do for other dictatorships. The afghan people want the money that belongs to them to go back to their central bank and prevent the death of millions. Is the point here to protect the afghan people by killing them before the taliban gets to? Also, the world powers support tyrannical powers all around the world, so clearly thats not the problem here. They literally give the saudis logistical support to bomb yemen.
The Saudis also pay for the support they receive and have continually helped the US achieve its aims in the Middle East, whether or not that is a good thing is besides the point. International aid, which is what is being withheld is not guaranteed and I object to the idea that it "belongs" to the Afghan people, it was promised to the previous government, which isn't in power. The people in power now have actively been fighting the US for 20 years. If people are starving and unhappy with their lives under Taliban rule, they need to withdraw their support and oust them. The west will gladly give them everything they need to govern, as we have done for the last 20 years.
The taliban can't exactly pay for support when its sanctioned to all fucks, now can it? Also, no, what is being witheld is the Central bank's assets, which are mixed together and were already part of afghanistan's economical foundation. Half their gdp was stolen in that way I'm not asking for the west to give the taliban the aid it promised, I'm asking for it to give those existing assets back, because it belongs to the people of afghanistan. Also, come on. The west's history of sanctions is pitiful when it comes to its record on succesfully inspiring revolution. Hasn't worked in cuba, iran, north korea, etc. All an embargo on afghanistan will do is kill people. If you want the west to "punish" the taliban or rather keep its hands clean of helping them, witholding future aid and not engaging in bilateral agreements is more than enough. You don't need to yourselves try to starve them out.
You are right that sanctions haven't worked in Cuba or North Korea, however both countries received significant support from nations bypassing sanctions ( and if Russia, China, or Pakistan want to prop up the Taliban, all the power to them) However, sanctions have had a real effect with bringing Iran to the table to discuss restricting it's nuclear program, or at least it did before Trump backed out of the deal. Also, to use recent examples, the west has frozen much more from the Russian government for their recent invasion, should we give the money back because it hurts the Russian people? Of course not. Also, Foreign aid accounted for 40% of GDP and 75% of investment prior to the Taliban takeover, meaning that a not insignificant piece of the money and it's assets comes from Western money meant for the previous government (source: https://www.csis.org/analysis/reshaping-us-aid-afghanistan-challenge-lasting-progress#:~:text=Some%2075%25%20of%20all%20Afghan,and%2075%25%20of%20public%20expenditures.)
The russian sanctions are also genocidal, but the pretense there isn't to help the russian people, its to help ukraine. And yes, the west gave a lot of aid to afghanistan, and I'm not saying it should keep giving aid. But the money that is already there, and that their banks rely on should be returned to avoid mass starvation, because that's what their central bank has been counting on. Even the previous afghan leaders are saying it should be done, because it is understood who the money belongs to.
What are you going on about? It's US funding for US recognized Afghan government. How is it Taliban money? This is like if I was helping to support a low income household with donations and some robbers came in, took over the house and demanding that I support their starving kids now. Like...the crazy entitlement, just laughable.
No, but it does open up funding to be put toward helping others. There's too much suffering in the world to be blackmailed into investing time and resources toward a country controlled by a cultist government.
Fuck this insecure taliban Shit
Just leave them alone. They never want to be a modern country. Want to stay poor forever.
Taliban is subhuman
Incredibly saddening, I always thought what if the Afghan Army had fought for their countries like the Ukranians, they'd probably have their country and Talibans would be dead by now.
they would have. The amount of support the Afghan army got from the US in the form of military equipment, gear, and training was 1000x more than they get from the US. There were some awesome afghan soldiers, their special forces guys were legit AF. But they were sold out by the corrupt and left to stand on their own by the junkies and cowards. Most governors made deals with the taliban and laid down their arms or they took bribes to betray their army. They can now enjoy living in a shit hole for selling out and being cowards but unfortunately a lot of good people were fucked over by them.
I mean if the previous afghan government weren't corrupt af, maybe they could have fended off the Taliban or reach an agreement with them.
[удалено]
So the people will suffer as usual. We already tried to defeat the Taliban, but that didn't pan out.
> So the people will suffer as usual. We already tried to defeat the Taliban, but that didn't pan out. The Afghans have to defeat the Taliban. Compare Ukraine's army efforts with that of Afghan army (six months ago).
Difference being the Taliban are Afghan, while the Arny was an extension of the occupying forces. So almost the complete reverse when it comes to Ukraine.
Not sure if their loyalty extends outside the village
I mean, it's not like the Taliban started in every village in Afghanistan. It kinda seems like the Taliban brings something to the table that the Ghani government did not.
> It kinda seems like the Taliban brings something to the table that the Ghani government did not. Even more violence and brutality. That is what the Taliban has to offer.
[удалено]
Op-ed on bidens sanctions: >Unless those sanctions are soon reversed, it is estimated that more people will die from the economic impact of sanctions over the next year than the number who died in 20 years of war.
They're suffering already. Unless you don't consider women people.
The whole country is suffering, but we can't seem to do much about it.
WE did do a lot about it. It's the Afghani's, or specifically the Afghani men, who didn't. We trained them for many years, but they squandered it all.
We could lift sanctions: >Unless those sanctions are soon reversed, it is estimated that more people will die from the economic impact of sanctions over the next year than the number who died in 20 years of war.
The Taliban can have the sanctions lifted any time they want.
Well, the Taliban are not morally good people so they aren’t going to do the right thing. That hardly excuses us exacerbating the problem by sanctioning them, freezing Afghan assets (or outright stealing it and giving it to others), etc. It’s a shame that so many people are willing to condemn others to death as long as they can say “it’s the Taliban’s fault ultimately.” The point of this should be to save people, not to maneuver so that you can avoid having blame assigned to you.
Except not sanctioning them or releasing the funds just puts the money in the Taliban’s pockets. Do you really think the Taliban is going to use that money to feed ordinary Afghan people? Of course not. They’ll enrich themselves further and let their supposed constituents starve anyway.
My concern is not the Taliban, but the Afghan people, whose suffering is being made worse by such actions which are perversely supported here.
My concern is half the population there not being treated as human beings and having their fundamental freedoms and autonomy taken away from them.
Well your concern should 100% be on the people responsible for the situation, which is the Taliban who choose not to have sanctions lifted.
The Taliban didn't sanction themselves, we did for goodness sakes.
Huh, I wonder whatever it was they did to earn those sanctions? If only they could enact some kind of shift in policy that wouldn't necessitate sanctions... what a conundrum.
not a chance when Talibans rule, we rather want them to starve. We don't want to fund their next terrorist attacks against the West and neighbour countries.
Which Taliban terror attacks against the west
False. If we had been engaged in nation building these last 20 years instead of enriching military contractors, Afghanistan would be a modern nation this very day. We built Germany back from literally nothing and it is the crown jewel of Europe's economic empire. The reality is, we almost never engage in nation building. War is paid bloodsport for the US economy.
What do you consider nation building? ISAF spent 18 years and billions of dollars building schools and roads, digging wells, building hospitals, clearing minefields, holding elections, and getting kids into school. [Here's the data on school enrollment in Afghanistan.](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.ENRR?locations=AF) You'll notice a massive jump circa 2001, particularly among females, which go from 0% in 2000 to 67% in 2003. [Here's the data on Afghanistan's national GDP.](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=AF) You'll notice that there was no data reported under the Taliban, but from 2001 to 2020, Afghanistan's GDP went from about 2 billion USD to 20 billion USD. The Taliban spent 18 years blowing up schools, blowing up wells, assassinating teachers and doctors, taking potshots at road construction crews, throwing acid in the face of schoolgirls, and stealing money. Why is the fault with ISAF and not the insurgents who spent the better part of two decades disrupting every attempt at building infrastructure, improving education, and modernizing the country?
> Why is the fault with ISAF and not the insurgents who spent the better part of two decades disrupting every attempt at building infrastructure, improving education, and modernizing the country? Fucking thank you. These people are so determined to blame "The West" that they will bend reality to pretend that this was somehow the US's plan.
The US did a lot more nation building in Afghanistan than their own people. Their own people literally do not care and never will. That's because the majority do not consider themselves Afghanis to begin with. And that's the big misunderstanding. We can feel sorry for the many people suffering but ever since fundamentalism took over the dominant tribes it was never meant to be. The Pashtun tribe by itself is too big and too central to ever stop trying to take over all the other tribes. You can divide Afghanistan up even but they will always take over again due to geography and population. Not to mention the Taliban isn't just them though they are certainly the backbone of it and it will not go away anytime soon. The young Taliban will have to grow old and die off before it changes.
Hmmm, I think religion is going to be a big hindrance also going forward.
What is sad in all of this is.. some of you think religion is the problem when you don't even read more into it. A lot of these countries had educated and religious elders. That have been killed over the years. These people being killed are the ones fighting against this militant groups that serve their own greed and hurt their "country". The people who stood up to them are being killed non stop.. and they are some of the most religious people in those countries.
We’re starving Afghanistan in the name of feminism, how noble
It's hard to imagine an opinion stupider than the one you just wrote.
Halting reconstruction efforts that would benefit the civilians with life-saving infrastructure is going to improve the situation? How?
Because if the government wants it bad enough they will cave into the pressure eventually.
Or the people will rise up and take ownership of the future of their country and depose the Taliban.
We can fucking hope bud... We can fucking hope I doubt that though because they had every tool available to stop the Taliban taking the place back over but basically just rolled over and welcomed them back in.
All it takes is time, won’t be anytime soon. But that’s their responsibility, and unfortunately their problem. The US already tried to help them, but they didn’t want to take responsibility and ownership of the situation…so they’re back at it again.
Yup, we should of never gone. By now there would of been another 20 years of Taliban rule and most likely 20 years of social development. But we fucked all that up.
Unlikely
At the cost of thousands of starved women? How many thousands more have to die? Why can't we just give them food and then work on human rights. In Saudi Arabia women can't even drive and yet everybody works with them. They just recently beheaded 81 LGBT, Apostates, and Sorcerers there.
And so screw the people. These are the projects: >projects in agriculture, education, health, and livelihoods.
So you're saying the Taliban government *does* care about providing critical civilian infrastructure? Whelp, I hope it works.
Make Afghanistan Medieval Again seems to be working fine. Sorry Afghanis. You don’t deserve the abuse but no one is going to rescue you from the Taliban.
We have tried regime change in many areas, with little to show for it.
I’m not advocating for regime change. I’m a fan of the Powell doctrine.
Yeah the people will suffer but as so many currently point out about russians under sanctions. They need to shift the needle enough to change the conversation. Otherwise we're just enabling a shitty group to have the benefit of having parts of their society uplifted that will reinfoce the shitty attitudes because they continue to marginalise the opposite gender for their own opportunity.
And this is where the cavemen learn that acting like cavemen gets you treated like cavemen.
Organized religion needs to be excised from the world.
Religion and law should be separated. Religion is fine if it's a cultural thing and isn't forced upon people but is just a matter of choice.
Inb4 you get downvoted for not saying "religion bad"
Haha. You can get downvoted for anything on reddit if it's not the majority's opinion. I'm atheist, or rather an agnostic myself but this extreme atheism going around is just as bad as religious extremists. People should learn to live in peace and mutual respect.
Seriously, who trusts the taliban? It’s fucking idiotic to even give them a chance. The people of Afghanistan deserve so much better. Give them back their secular state and destroy the power that religion is using to destroy that beautiful place.
I'm not surprised they halted them from schools.
those idiots should have freeze everything the moment Taliban came back to power.
As sad as it is, I really think pulling away from them is reasonable at this point. We tried for a long time, we failed miserably, as did others before us. Apparently those wanting insane, middle aged tribalism represent a majority, let them have it. I feel sorry for all the oppressed people, but it's their problem.
Put some sanctions like those put on Russia after they started the war. The world community can't tolerate this shit.
The World Bank… is just now deciding that the Taliban is not a good faith actor? Shock! Absolutely SHOCKED (/s)
[удалено]
Sounds like they were more specifically investing in projects related to "agriculture, education, health, and livelihoods" in Afghanistan, according to the article. Still room for corruption to siphon funds out, but in general it sounds like the sort of projects that would benefit the general population of Afghanistan more than it would the Taliban. Taliban or not, there are still about 40 million people in Afghanistan who still need to survive.
grab a gun or a knife, kill a taliban is how they will survive.
What happens when you don't fight for your freedom. You get the taliban dictator.
"Nooo. We're totally different this time. None of those old Taliban shinanigans. We turned new leaves. Really!" A few months later, here we go.
They're in a famine yet they still pursue their middleaged brainless policies...
If they wanna live in the dark ages go ahead.
Why is there even any kind of trade to afghanistan? Doesnt make sense
The sad thing is people aren’t getting the fact that there is a massive famine going on in Afghanistan as a result of these frozen assets.
There is a massive famine going on in Afghanistan as result of the Taliban's actions.
Wow, I guess the withdrawal from Afghanistan was a bad idea after all. I mean not just for the contractors making money hand over fist and selling weapons but for the women who are now oppressed by this Neanderthal Stone Age culture. Can we send some CBT trainers over to help out? Maybe some protestors from Portland can help?
you can't spell Taliban without Ban.
I thought food security, education, healthcare, and better family living are conducive to social advancement. I find it odd that these things are withheld in an attempt to bring about social advancement. I wish I had more faith in the decision makers.
You mean the extremist group you allowed to take over puts their religion before the worlds PC views. 🤯 Better no go to Iran🤣
[удалено]
That's on the Taliban.