102
China should take this opportunity to get Afganistan into their orbit. The US sure as hell won't pay reparations for the damage.
Last October, Afghanistan's acting commerce minister told Reuters the Taliban wanted to formally join Xi's flagship "Belt and Road" infrastructure initiative.
This could be a game changer, as the progress of the BRI in the region (especially China-Pakisthan economic corridor) has been slowed down due to militant activity in the region.
Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires for some reason. Osama bin Ladens idea was to lure the US into a conflict and war inside Afghanistan.
I think the reason why the US left behind alot of modern weapons in Afghanistan is probaly for a war or terrorist attacks against Russia/China from that region.
Recently terrorist attacks on chinese nationals increased in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“Cooperate with Afghanistan in all fields, especially in politics, economy, agriculture and medicine, so that Afghanistan reaches self-sufficiency,” he said.
You don’t treat women as human.
Neither does the US.
And should everyone, including the women, face starvation because they're controlled by misogynists?
Oh, or should they spontaneously develop feminism without the material basis for the formation of a feminist movement?
It's the same situation with North Korea. Either let people starve and hope something will change, or encourage bad leadership by saving their citizens from their bad decisions.
Dprk has been food stable for a decade, and their leadership seems pretty good given they've managed to stave off invasions and us meddling for so long.
The DPRK is pretty food stable? What bad decisions do you think the DPRK has been making?
What bad decisions do you think the DPRK has been making?
The standard one - not shock theraping their population into humanitarian catastrophe to appease the empire and not letting the US oligarchs and their compradors plunder everything there.
The world in general doesn't treat women as human. Your conclusion is treating Afghanistan as if it's unique in that, when it isn't.
Who do you think funded the Taliban in the first place?
Shitlibs don't even support paying reparations for problems they caused.
I still remember when Taliban was marching into Kabul and while US was fleeing out of the country, that there were many people who were desperate to argue for the war and occupation going to keep going, because Taliban would be bad for women's rights. There is no question about Taliban being bad towards women. However the logic of keeping the war going that killed mostly civilians, including women, to guard women's rights is just twisted. This "They don't let girls to go to school. let's keep bombing them" is just slightly worse of the "You won't let girls to go to school even after we bombed you. I hope you stay poor, suffer and starve".
What does motivate this? Neocon butthurth? Racism? A sense of vengeance of those who still believe in liberal universalism and nation building? A just general confusion and mixup in moral priorities?
Realistically what will US aid accomplish? Will those suffering even receive any of it? Won't it just provide the means for Taliban leaders and ideals to remain in power and strengthen? And won't that inevitably lead to them getting comfortable enough to lash out at the world once again?
I understand the problems and suffering caused by our "war on terror". Its not as simple as you make it seem though. its more of a moral dilemma rather than moral priorities.
There is no US aid, there are US sanctions and seizure of afghan funds. Who do you think is going to suffer from those? It's not the men in power with the guns, they will be fine either way. It just means that all the civilians will have even less opportunities.
What do you mean lash out again?
So you want them to remain undeveloped. Do you even know how Afghanistan ended up under Taliban control to begin with?
I was commenting on the quote.
Are you afraid now of standing up for what you meant by your comment?
Interpret it how you want, I don't need you to tell me what I meant.
Everyone has their secret ways, I guess. Yours just show more than others.
So make any aid contingent on human rights improvement
Wow someone should have tried threatening peripheral countries by withholding trade deals, aid, loans from the World Bank and IMF in exchange for political changes. Why didn't anyone think of that already? 🤣
The global financial system does not care about human rights, firms want peripheral countries to remain undeveloped to keep costs down. With improvements in living standards come improvements in civil rights. That is what every single person who studies any society will tell you, except for liberals who want to justify extortion and sanctions, but only to "help" of course.
Nothing like liberals advocating for the death of women from starvation under the excuse of women's rights.
China might help along with Turkey and Iran
in b4 liberals come in complain about how countries they consider backward should not be allowed to develop in any way
"We care about the Afghans, this is why we support violent regime change and strict sanctions. The suffering Afghans would want it this way"
During the withdrawal, the US stole like $2B of Afghanistan's emergency recovery fund, which for anticommuniam heads out there, is the first actual case of a punitive famine being brought on by a vengeful despot named Joe.
claiming they have a moral obligation to help rebuild the country based on the Doha Agreement.
IIRC the Doha Agreement was with the Afghanistan government, not with the Taliban who overthrew them.
- Do you care about people living in destitution or not? If you do, why punish them for their government?
- The puppet government the U.S. propped up had no internal legitimacy, as evidenced by it disintegrating before the U.S. had even fully left the country. You shouldn't skate on terrorizing a country for 20 years because your agreement to help recovery was made with the sham government you assembled, that no one in the country actually wanted.
It seems like giving money to religious fundamentalists who treat women like cattle is probably not the best use of international aid.
So the answer to the first question is "no."
"We had to starve the women in order to save them."
I guess I wasn't expecting an advocate for team america world police on lemmy, wild.
Paying reparations for dropping bombs is not the same as dropping bombs
Actually, those regions of the world are exactly the kinds of places where international aid is needed the most. You aren't going to be giving international aid to a place that has all its chickens in order because such a country will be doing fine on its own.
In the theoretical sense, you are right. But the big question is how do you give aid to those that need it in a country that is run by people who treat women as cattle.
By giving aid to those that need it regardless of whose in charge. And Muslim women aren't cattle, even in extreme regressive versions of Islam. This shows an inherent misunderstanding of why the repressive rules were created, which will lead to failure in understanding how to correct it.
See we tried that too. Problem is the Taliban soaks up all the aid then uses the resources imbalance to reinforce their authority, which is then also blamed on the US.
Muslim women aren't cattle
Can’t speak in public
Can’t be seen in public
Can’t drive
Can’t read
Can’t receive an education
Can’t divorce their ~~husband~~ owner.
This shows an inherent misunderstanding of why the repressive rules were created
The same reason Christians cook up asinine bullshit, because religious is deeply poisonous to a society. Fuck your reasons.
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
102 points (94.7% liked)
World News
32352 readers
419 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS