How's afghanistan doing these days?

Balfa

Anyone heard much before and after stories or the impact of the US actions there?

Dinner

My uncle was out there for 6 months last year, They still had to carry a weapon everywhere they went just in case, he never needed it though. When he came home for leave there was a rocket attack on a couple of the camps, no injuries just a little damage.

Its still there, just quiet enough compared to Iraq

Balfa

Arabel wrote:

Its still there

What is "it"?

AmenToThat

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1428288,00.html

true

At least the taliban are gone, and Bin Laden has less scope / freedom to run his terrorist training camps there. THINGS ARE IMPROVING.

AmenToThat

true wrote:

At least the taliban are gone,

For now.

true wrote:

and Bin Laden has less scope / freedom to run his terrorist training camps there.

No need, Zarqawi is doing a bang up job in Iraq.

true wrote:

THINGS ARE IMPROVING.

Just because yuou write it in capital letters doesnt make it so.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

true wrote:

At least the taliban are gone,

No they aren't. They are still there, and attacks still go on. They still have power in some parts of Afganistan.

and Bin Laden has less scope / freedom to run his terrorist training camps there. THINGS ARE IMPROVING.

The capital is run by a puppet president who has not real power outside the capital city. The real power is in the warlords who have a track record similar to the taliban on how they treat people.

You have reports of torture and murders of detained prisoners (by US forces there). The poppy industry has reached new records in supplying the rest of the world in illegal drugs.

Womens rights are still pretty crap there (granted better then Taliban rule but not much). For examples, less then 50% of children go to school, or that 34% are female and the drop out rate is exceptionally high. Only 9% go onto secondary school. Woman are still denied in most places the right to travel and they are still often used to be sold/swapped off to others to repay debts/settle feuds or forced marriages.

Here is somewhere to start you off...
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/afghan9827.htm

ionapaul

But isn't it very clear that yes, conditions for the average person have improved there, compared to pre-invasion / Northern Alliance victory? Not only that, but things are continuing to improve, year-on-year, and we have more reasons to expect continued improvement in living standards and future prospects than a regression back to life under the Taliban?

An interesting exercise on the Politics board would be to survey those who think that the outlook for Iraq is becoming more positive and those who think the outlook for Iraq is becoming more negative. Then ask the same people if the outlook for Afganistan is becoming more positive or negative. What is the bet that most who choose positive for one will choose positive for the other, and vice versa? I think it has a lot to do with the whole 'glass half empty, half full' outlook on life, though of course some people are so heavily emotionally invested in seeing a) the military actions succeed or b) George Dubya fail that they will blind themselves to any negative or positive possibilities, respectively. Sorry for going off-topic, but maybe it is a reason we find politics so interesting - people really do get emotionally involved!

Hobbes

ionapaul wrote:

But isn't it very clear that yes, conditions for the average person have improved there, compared to pre-invasion / Northern Alliance victory?

What part of what posted didn't you read? It isn't improving marginally. Regression back to the life under the taliban? o_O a lot of the areas are still using those living standards and some areas are still contolled by the Taliban.

The only place reasonably improved is the capital city and even that isn't great. I gave you a starting point to do research, as you clearly have no clue on what is going on over there.

Not only that, but things are continuing to improve, year-on-year, and we have more reasons to expect continued improvement in living standards and future prospects than a regression back to life under the Taliban?

Please cite those reasons with actual factual backups.

Sorry for going off-topic, but maybe it is a reason we find politics so interesting - people really do get emotionally involved!

Or that some people live in thier own reality.

dearg_doom

true wrote:

At least the taliban are gone, and Bin Laden has less scope / freedom to run his terrorist training camps there. THINGS ARE IMPROVING.

Funniest post I've seen in a while...

1) NO THEY AREN'T

2) BIN LADEN RAN FECK ALL. All he did was provide money in exchange for a safe haven, his 'role' in the overall scheme of Afghanistan as a country was very exageratted.

He probably has more real influence now, thanks to three years of US military publicity!

Re. Karzai: Wasn't he meant to be president for 6 months only and then he was to step down and not seek election in the fair election that was supposed to happen?

Otherwise things seem pretty jolly AFAIK:)

ionapaul

Thank you for your rapid reply. Yes, I read your earlierposting. Here is how I would view it:

The capital is run by a puppet president who has not real power outside the capital city. The real power is in the warlords who have a track record similar to the taliban on how they treat people.

A puppet he may be, but in comparison to their previous rulers, the Afgan people actually had a nominal say in his election - an obvious positive step, I don't think anyone who has a grasp of comparative analysis can begin to argue with this. The warlords may be as bad as the Taliban, but efforts are underway to limit, then reduce their influence, and extend the power of the central government. This is more open to argument, but again IMHO a positive step.

You have reports of torture and murders of detained prisoners (by US forces there). The poppy industry has reached new records in supplying the rest of the world in illegal drugs.

I am no fan of torture, the US military or in particular the Bush administration (though can state I am not as emotionally invested in seeing them fail as many others here), but as long as the level of torture and murder has decreased in comparison to the Taliban, that is a positive step, correct? Unless you blindly hold that because all murder and torture is wrong, one murder is as wrong in absolute terms as one million! I suppose we cannot accurately estimate are less tortured or murdered under the US-backed government than under the Taliban, we may have to agree to disagree on this one. Yes, the growth in poppy cultivation is a negative step (yes, I can even admit that! How big of me ) but I both hope and expect that the US-backed government, if not the US itself, will move to limit this in the future, a positive step that contributes to the overall positive outlook for Afganistan IMHO.

Womens rights are still pretty crap there (granted better then Taliban rule but not much...

Here we agree on the positive moves so far, and IMHO I have a positive outlook for the future of womens' rights in Afganistan.

So in conclusion, yes, IMHO things are improving. I can even write that in capitals for those who care: IMHO THINGS ARE IMPROVING IN AFGANISTAN. As for posting reasons with factual backups, please. We are discussing prospects for the future - I can post a graph of Elan's stock movement from June 2004 to January 2005 if you want and speculate what will happen in February / March 2005...:) You know that we can both source different facts that can be used (however loosely) to base our opinions for the future on, but all they will even be is opinions, and only time will prove who is right and who is wrong.

Frank Grimes

Hobbes wrote:

The real power is in the warlords who have a track record similar to the taliban on how they treat people.

One example being Rashid Dostum who was recently appointed chief of staff in the armed forces there (link).
This is the same guy who killed people by strapping them to the threads of a tank and crushing them literally to pulp (one link) and who's militias were apparently responsible for things like this.
He was also responsible for numerous atrocities during the civil war too (example), but as usual these things are glossed over.

bonkey

ionapaul wrote:

But isn't it very clear that yes, conditions for the average person have improved there, compared to pre-invasion / Northern Alliance victory?

Realistically - thats mostly only true inside the government-controlled zone, not the whole country, and even then not necessarily so.

Are some better off? Unquestionably. Are some worse off? Almost certainly.

Not only that, but things are continuing to improve, year-on-year, and we have more reasons to expect continued improvement in living standards and future prospects than a regression back to life under the Taliban?

Is that so? I keep seeing stuff on CNN where Karzai is at yet another "please give us some of the money you promised you would" meeting, whilst also pointing out in interviews that the amount pledged - were it delivered - would only meet approximately 1/3 of the necessary costs.

What is the bet that most who choose positive for one will choose positive for the other, and vice versa?

I'd guess you'll also find that there's a strong correlation between those who choose positive to both and those who said that the whole thing was a good idea from the start as well.

If you apply a simple, binary-answer question to such a complex situation with polarised opinion, you're inevitably going to end up simply highlighting the polarised factions.

Frank Grimes

ionapaul wrote:

A puppet he may be, but in comparison to their previous rulers, the Afgan people actually had a nominal say in his election - an obvious positive step, I don't think anyone who has a grasp of comparative analysis can begin to argue with this.

Just a point, the Afghans had elections in the 60s, check section 43 here and check out here for some info about the elections.

ionapaul

Frank Grimes wrote:

Just a point, the Afghans had elections in the 60s, check section 43 here and check out here for some info about the elections.

Sorry for the confusion - in that post I was trying to draw a comparison to life under the Taliban and life since the invasion, and the 'previous rulers' in my posting referred solely to the Taliban. I can see how that was not clear, my mistake, I normally proof-read my posts to eliminate the unclear sections!

bonkey

ionapaul wrote:

A puppet he may be, but in comparison to their previous rulers, the Afgan people actually had a nominal say in his election - an obvious positive step,

Here we agree on the positive moves so far, and IMHO I have a positive outlook for the future of womens' rights in Afganistan.[\quote]

Ah...I see.

Because there were initial improvements - small, but across the board - you see this as a continuing trend, indicating that things will move forward?

But is that so?

Karzai started an interim government and carried out the promise to hold elections....a positive step.
Karzai, however, undermined this, by running for a post he wasn't supposed to be eligible to.....a negative step.

So, rather than being a positive trend, isn't that really an initial (allied-imposed) step forward, followed by a step backwards. This could just as easily be a slide backwards as a trend forwards. Its honestly too early to tell.

The same with women's rights. Under allied influence, there were some expansive freedoms grants. Since then, many restrictions have crept back in.

The same with money. Billions were promised. Millions were delivered.

Jump forward whilst the world is high on exuberance and still watching....then slide slightly backwards once the spotlight is elsewhere.

You're dead right that its for many a half-full/half-empty situation. I would prefer to see it as being a case where we have a chance to really get this one right, but we're very possibly letting it slowly slip through our fingers.

jc

ionapaul

Our analysis of the past and present (which are disputed in themselves) to predict the future is such a personal exercise and imprecise, no wonder we all need to frequently repeat the mantra: IMHO! With regards the past and present of Afganistan, I have made my understanding known, I think there have been positive steps so far, but if people want to argue this, fire away and let's try to educate one another! With regards the future, my opinion is that things will improve - this personal opinion is based both on the facts as I see them and my gut-feelings / life experience / knowledge bank and will not change unless my understanding of the past and present of Afganistan changes - so there is little point arguing with me on that opinion.

As usual, a good post bonkey!

Horsefumbler

ionapaul wrote:

Yes, the growth in poppy cultivation is a negative step (yes, I can even admit that! How big of me ) but I both hope and expect that the US-backed government, if not the US itself, will move to limit this in the future, a positive step that contributes to the overall positive outlook for Afganistan IMHO.

I'm not particularly well read on this matter but as far as i know a lot of people in afganistan are completely dependant on the money they make from selling this for their livelyhood. So. IYHO what would you suggest they do to make money after they stop producing it? You'd have a nation of poor people even poorer.

I'm not saying i think its a good thing that selling it of course but I'm just pointing out you have to look at the consequences of things like this.

ionapaul

My knowledge of the agriculture of Afganistan is sadly lacking - I know much of the land is poor by agricultural standards - so I am not in a position to recommend an decent substitute for the growth of poppies. It may well be the case that the cultivation of poppy fields is ultimately the most economically viable option for the farmers there - however the world community (led by the US) in the past has subsidised efforts to limit the area under cultiviation, and I hope / expect that they will continue to do so in the future. Perhaps combining a carrot with a stick by offering incentives to grow ??? while simultaneously punishing those who continue with poppy cultivation.

In short, I can't offer any educated suggestion on what these farmers should do instead!

Hobbes

ionapaul wrote:

he warlords may be as bad as the Taliban, but efforts are underway to limit, then reduce their influence, and extend the power of the central government. This is more open to argument, but again IMHO a positive step.

Please quotes sources of where you are getting these facts from? Some of the warlords are actually part of the government to my knowledge. You seem to suggest that the warlords are loosing power. Where are you getting that factoid from?

but as long as the level of torture and murder has decreased in comparison to the Taliban, that is a positive step, correct? Unless you blindly hold that because all murder and torture is wrong,

How much torture is acceptable then? 1, 10, 50, 100? Or how about the torture involved? Running people over with tank tracks acceptable? How about leaving people to starve to death in cattle train cabs?

Please tell me what is an acceptable level of torture. You do know by the way that the Northern Alliance have a worse human rights track record then the taliban.

but I both hope and expect that the US-backed government, if not the US itself, will move to limit this in the future, a positive step that contributes to the overall positive outlook for Afganistan IMHO.

They are unable to do it now. What makes you think they do it in the future? You do know the poppy output has increased x20 since after the war. Four years after the war.

Here we agree on the positive moves so far, and IMHO I have a positive outlook for the future of womens' rights in Afganistan.

Agree on what? I just told you for the most part it is still the exact same as when the taliban were in power and you are telling me it is better? Where are you basing you facts on?

IMHO THINGS ARE IMPROVING IN AFGANISTAN. As for posting reasons with factual backups, please.

Then you are only basing it on opinion.. an opinion which you can't even back up which means its not much of an opinion. But keep living that dream.

You know that we can both source different facts

Really? Then please do it. At I can figure out where you are getting this wonderful world view from. Until you do I think we can safely assume that you have no clue whats going on there.

My knowledge of the agriculture of Afganistan is sadly lacking

You can learn more here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

It may well be the case that the cultivation of poppy fields is ultimately the most economically viable option for the farmers there

About the only thing you have said right so far.

Did you know that the EU gave Afghanistan $25 million in 2002 to help combat the drug trade*. Since then the output has actually grown. At that time the farmers were being offered $350 an acre to destroy the crops*. Yet a farmer can earn $10,000 from several kilograms of raw opium*.

Balfa

Thankyou everyone for helping me find info about how afghanistan, in particular hobbes for reminding me of hrw.org. I'd been there before but had since forgotten about it.

Ionapaul, other people have shown credible sources of information on the situation. You have merely given your "humble opinion", which seems to be based on nothing at all. And good luck with the gamecube

Hobbes

I heard on the news that Afganistan elections have been delayed 4-5 months. Anyone know why?

ionapaul

Karzai blamed it on 'technical matters', whatever that might mean.

Balfa, I'll keep my opinions on Afganistan to myself in future, if that pleases you

jman0

"Afghan Crime Wave Breeds Nostalgia for Taliban
Child Abductions in Kandahar Crystallize Discontent With Governing Ex-Warlords"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45302-2005Mar17.html

ionapaul

Funny what people can be nostalgic for!
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050317/ap_on_re_eu/spain_franco_statue_1

Edit: I know I earlier promised NEVER to give my opinion again but I can't resist. I hope that the American / NATO forces and American-trainied government army can eventually ease out the warlords over the next few years. Obviously overcoming a tribal (seems almost pre-feudal) system of 'big men' is no easy task.

Frank Grimes

Hobbes wrote:

I heard on the news that Afganistan elections have been delayed 4-5 months. Anyone know why?

Only what's been said on BBC's site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4356759.stm

There's an interesting article in today's Guardian talks about some of the "improvements" the Americans have been making in Afghanistan, link.

sovtek

Frank Grimes wrote:

Only what's been said on BBC's site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4356759.stm

I really laughed at Condi's Jedi mind trick on Karzai.

Condi: the parlimentary elections will be in the fall

Karzai: Yes the parlimentary elections will be delayed until the fall.


*cough* PUPPET *cough*

humbleCounty

hmmm maybe they should start spraying the crops, like they are doing in South America, "The War on Drugs" seems to be working remarkably well there and truly increasing the quality of life of the average person. :mad:

as a note, Snapple sponsor the war on drugs,

sovtek

Frank Grimes wrote:

Only what's been said on BBC's site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4356759.stm

There's an interesting article in today's Guardian talks about some of the "improvements" the Americans have been making in Afghanistan, link.

That Guardian link is truly terrifying.
It really makes a lie out of this crap that even "liberals" are spouting now that "Bush may have been right...look at Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt now"...
If this isn't what is popularly reffered to as fascism then I honestly don't know what more people need to hear.

Balfa

Wow, the US Secretary of State admitting that the US was responsible for the September 11th attacks. Impressive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4356759.stm wrote:

"We learned the hard way what it meant to not have a long-term commitment after the Soviet Union left. I think it is well understood that we did not remain committed," she said.

She said the September 11 2001 attacks on the US were "a joint tragedy of the Afghan and American people" resulting from the chaos that followed the Soviet withdrawal.