Human rights and Afghani culture

[Acco40]

On 20/20 two nights ago they were interviewing the coordinators of a woman's camp in Afghanistan which aimed to educate young Afghani girls, etc.

Then of course, they showed file footage of women in head-to-toe flowing gowns, faces covered, being beaten with canes in the streets for speaking, or doing God knows what.

The show made perfectly clear (I'm not taking any of this as fact) that women in Afghanistan:

-may not show their face in public or have identities
-aren't allowed to be educated
-have no role in society outside of bearing and caring for children
-are regularly beaten for straying from these rigid restrictions.

Now, maybe I should know better, but there have got to be some human rights violations going on here. From my Western perspective it seems that these Arab women don't hold many unalienable rights. (If any rights at all.)

So my question becomes:

If we are to help make Afghanistan a stable country capable of extinguishing rogue regimes such as the Taliban, should we not pump a little cultural imperialism in as well?

Or more specifically, should we allow a culture which condones human rights violations (not to mention produce suicide bombing, America-hatemongers) to fester under any regime, crushing or not?

I may just be another "meddling" American who thinks his culture is superior to a woman-repressing one. I can't tell.

Help me understand. I seek the straight dope.

[Guinastasia]

This is not Afghani culture-it is the culture of a bunch of extreme fanatics of Islam.

Think of what it would be like if Fred Phelps controlled our country and our culture.

[Acco40]

Originally posted by Guinastasia:

This is not Afghani culture-it is the culture of a bunch of extreme fanatics of Islam.

No... I'm pretty sure that women were repressed there long before the Taliban came to power. My original question stands.

[Violet]

There is a lot of info. about human rights & Afghanistan, such as:

http://www.derechos.org/saran/afg.html?afghanistan

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/afgan/afgtoc.htm

[Acco40]

Yes, violet, however not much is being spoke or considered about it, that's all.

Oh well, this is a tired old, subject anyway.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by Acco40
If we are to help make Afghanistan a stable country capable of extinguishing rogue regimes such as the Taliban, should we not pump a little cultural imperialism in as well?
[/B]

I'm not much of a philosopher. In fact, I consider most philosophical debates to be bullshit since either side can pretty much justify any course of action. But here it goes:

As an American, I feel that Western culture is superior when it comes to education, tolerance, personal freedom, and human rights. I also feel that it is not our right to force other cultures to become clones of America or Europe. So to answer your question, I believe that the best we can do is educate other cultures in our ways and hope they have the wisdom to embrace the positive aspects.

[Moirai]

Originally posted by Acco40
Originally posted by Guinastasia:

This is not Afghani culture-it is the culture of a bunch of extreme fanatics of Islam.

No... I'm pretty sure that women were repressed there long before the Taliban came to power. My original question stands.

Actually Acco40, I was under the impression that Afghan women had been making great strides before the Taliban took power. Of course, they might not be what western women would consider great strides, but stuff like being allowed to wear trousers, the ability to get an education past age 6, being allowed outdoors without a veil, the ability to work outside of the home, etc.

Now, on the other hand, I hear that women who go out without a veil cannot only expect acid in their faces, but death as their punishment. Lovely.

[xanakis]

I would refer you to a post which I wrote in this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=87907&pagernumber=1) thread.

This is the post:

One thing that many people may not realise. Back in the seventies, before Russia invaded, Afghanistan was a happy, peaceful nation.

I've got a friend who visited there in the mid-seventies. He tells me it was really cool back then. It was on the so called "hippy trail" that led from San Fran through London, Amsterdam, Istanbul, Kabul and on to Katmandhu in Nepal.

The "hippy trail" consisted of a list of towns that were considered peaceful and laid back by the hippies. It was thought that, in order to be a true hippy, you had to do this trail at least once. Kind of like how all muslims are supposed to visit Mecca at least once.

So off they'd go in their "magical mystery buses" or whatever it is they did back then.

What I want to see is Afghanistan go back to how it was back then. All the same people are there.

The Taliban come from hard-line schools in Pakistan. Bin Laden and his mob aren't even Afghani at all. They are mostly Arab, many from Saudi.

I think it's time for the Afghanis to be given a chance to rule themselves for a change.

Basically, before the Russians went in, Afghanistan was a pretty cool place.

Before the Taliban came to power, woman were not oppressed. They could work, receive an education, didn't have to completely cover up etc.

American cultural imperialism is most definitely not required.

All thats required is that the Afghanis get an opportunity to rule themselves without all the outside interference.

[lee]

Originally posted by Acco40
Originally posted by Guinastasia:

This is not Afghani culture-it is the culture of a bunch of extreme fanatics of Islam.

No... I'm pretty sure that women were repressed there long before the Taliban came to power. My original question stands.

http://www.phrusa.org/research/health_effects/exec.html

You are wrong. Although they might not have enjoyed all the freedoms that women in America do, Afghan women before the Taliban did take an active role in their society and culture. The Taliban's edict against women working outside the home threw thousands of women out of jobs. Access to education for both sexes was a right under a previous Afghan government. When the Taliban said that there were not enough government resources to educate both girls and boys, hundreds of private schools were formed. Privately funded, they taught girls who no longer could learn in public schools. The Taliban then outlawed these private schools. To say that the oppressive rules of the Taliban are just a part of Afghan culture is to slander the Afghan people.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by msmith537
As an American, I feel that Western culture is superior when it comes to education, tolerance, personal freedom, and human rights. I also feel that it is not our right to force other cultures to become clones of America or Europe. So to answer your question, I believe that the best we can do is educate other cultures in our ways and hope they have the wisdom to embrace the positive aspects.
No, that is not the best we can do.

We can send the clear and unmistakable message that any group of people who decide to set up a regime as brutally cruel and inhumane as the Taleban that the people of the civilized world will not tolerate such forms of governance. "Cultural diversity" does not mean that we, as a world, have to accept a so-called "culture" which arbitrarily denies personhood to half of it population. The Taleban is at least as evil as Nazi Germany. The only difference is that they lack Germany's industrial might. We destroyed Nazi Germany because they were evil. We should do the same to the Taleban. If that means making some aspect of this so-called "culture" illegal, so be it.

[HairyPotter]

Western countries have no right to impose their culture, values, or beliefs on sovereign nations. The customs of other cultures may strike us as aphorrent, but that doesn't give us the right to force our values on another culture. We can and should attempt to educate foreigners regarding human rights abuses. We can also justify imposing sanctions against countries for more extreme abuses. But we have no right to impose our will on other countries unless extreme abuses, such as genocide, are occurring. Why do I feel this is so? Because I don't think we have the wisdom or the foresight to serve as the moral police of the world, except in cases where extreme and obvious abuses are taking place.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by HairyPotter
except in cases where extreme and obvious abuses are taking place.

I'd say what's happening to women in Afganistan falls into this category.

[Zenster]

Originally posted by KellyM
No, that is not the best we can do.

We can send the clear and unmistakable message that any group of people who decide to set up a regime as brutally cruel and inhumane as the Taleban that the people of the civilized world will not tolerate such forms of governance. "Cultural diversity" does not mean that we, as a world, have to accept a so-called "culture" which arbitrarily denies personhood to half of it population. The Taleban is at least as evil as Nazi Germany. The only difference is that they lack Germany's industrial might. We destroyed Nazi Germany because they were evil. We should do the same to the Taleban. If that means making some aspect of this so-called "culture" illegal, so be it. [/B]I reprint this post in its entirety because it needs to be read and seen much more often at these boards.

Few people are addressing the fundamental question of the outright invalidity of the Taleban and all that they entail. The Taleban must not only be deposed they must be eliminated from society as a whole. Their misogyney and violent perversion of Islam rip the mask off of their pseudo-religious claptrap. Extermination or imprisonment remains the only viable solutions for these murderous thugs. Anything less will merely assure another round of the same from these filthy slime.

Thanks for calling a spade a spade, KellyM.

[Zenster]

Originally posted by HairyPotter
...But we have no right to impose our will on other countries unless extreme abuses, such as genocide, are occurring...And you think that what is happening to women in Afghanistan does not fall under this definition?

A woman is prohibited from seeing a male doctor.

Women are not allowed to be educated as doctors.

A huge number of women will most certainly die needlessly from easily prevented diseases and curable (if detected early) cancers (breast and cervical).


And this does not constitute genocide to you?!? It sure as Hades does to me and the Taleban are nothing more than a bunch of viscious misogynistic thugs for it. Please take your supposedly non-imperialistic culturally holier than thou attitude and cram it with walnuts.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by HairyPotter
Western countries have no right to impose their culture, values, or beliefs on sovereign nations. The customs of other cultures may strike us as aphorrent, but that doesn't give us the right to force our values on another culture. We can and should attempt to educate foreigners regarding human rights abuses.
I agree, we have no right to impose our culture on other sovereign nations. On the other hand, we do have a right to impose universally accepted minimal standards of civilized governance upon those who fail to live up to them. And, yes, there is a universal standard (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) that we can hold nations to. It's high time we started taking these "lofty words" seriously, as a nation and as a world.

We can also justify imposing sanctions against countries for more extreme abuses. But we have no right to impose our will on other countries unless extreme abuses, such as genocide, are occurring.
I don't see how the imposition of sanctions by economic force is any less "imposing our will" than imposing them by military force. Economic war is still war, and people still suffer from it. Death by starvation is arguably more unpleasant than death by explosives.

Because I don't think we have the wisdom or the foresight to serve as the moral police of the world, except in cases where extreme and obvious abuses are taking place.I could not disagree more. Wisdom lies in recognizing that there are times to act and times not to act, not in deciding that there is never a time to act.

I'm sick of "cultural relativism". Human rights are absolute. A "culture" that ignores basic human rights is defective. A government that reinforces a defective culture needs adjustment. When the government provides no effective internal mechanism for self-correction, it is incumbent on the world community, and especially on the United States as the most powerful member of that community, to correct that government on behalf of and for the benefit of those that government pretends to govern, or to drive it from power and replace it with one more able to fulfill its duty to those it governs and to humanity as a whole.

The United States is not inept at guiding nations into appropriate forms of governance. We assisted the German and Japanese people in crafting lasting democratic governments that respected the inherent rights of their people and their respective cultures without the wholesale imposition of American "culture" on these nations. Why can we not be expected to do the same with Afghanistan?

[pennylane]

Originally posted by Acco40
Now, maybe I should know better, but there have got to be some human rights violations going on here. From my Western perspective it seems that these Arab women don't hold many unalienable rights.
Acco40, Afghani women are not Arabs.

Originally posted by Acco40
Or more specifically, should we allow a culture which condones human rights violations (not to mention produce suicide bombing, America-hatemongers) to fester under any regime, crushing or not?
Before the Taliban took over, 40% of Afghani doctors and 70% of Afghani teachers were female. Of course women probably played second fiddle to men even in those days - as is the case in many Asian, Middle Eastern, African and South American countries. I have no problem with cultural imperialism, but what form should it take and are you going to advise that it be used in all of the countries in which women and men are not seen as equals? Keeping in mind, of course, that probably more than half of the world's population lives this way?

I'm not being facetious, this is a genuine question. I am all in favour of ousting the Taliban. But I'm not sure exactly what you mean by allowing Afghani culture "to fester under any regime".

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by KellyM

Note: extensive editing of text. Please consult original post, so as not to read this edited text out of context.
I agree, we have no right to impose our culture on other sovereign nations. On the other hand, we do have a right to impose universally accepted minimal standards of civilized governance upon those who fail to live up to them. And, yes, there is a universal standard (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) that we can hold nations to. It's high time we started taking these "lofty words" seriously, as a nation and as a world.[quote]

I agree with you completely that the U.S. and other nations should take the words of the "U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights". It sickens me the way the U.S. routinely ignores or refuses to sign onto U.N. resolutions regarding violence against women and children and land mines. Furthermore, the U.S. should stop supporting repressive regimes that serve as convenient U.S. foreign policy puppets.

[quote]I don't see how the imposition of sanctions by economic force is any less "imposing our will" than imposing them by military force. Economic war is still war, and people still suffer from it. Death by starvation is arguably more unpleasant than death by explosives.

Economic war does not involve the direct invasion of a sovereign nation or the overthrow of a government. Sanctions can be planned so as to motivate governments to change policies that violate basic human rights. Direct humanitarian aid to the people of a country, for example, might greatly reduce any suffering that sanctions might otherwise impose on the general population. I believe the U.S. should vigorously fight humanitarian injustices, but I don't believe it is practical or ethical for the U.S. to overthrow every government it regards as being guilty of human rights abuses. Besides, I rather doubt that we could overthrow the governments of China, India, Indonesia, the Middle East, and the former Soviet Republics, all of which have been guilty of heinous human rights abuses.

I'm sick of "cultural relativism". Human rights are absolute. A "culture" that ignores basic human rights is defective. A government that reinforces a defective culture needs adjustment. When the government provides no effective internal mechanism for self-correction, it is incumbent on the world community, and especially on the United States as the most powerful member of that community, to correct that government on behalf of and for the benefit of those that government pretends to govern, or to drive it from power and replace it with one more able to fulfill its duty to those it governs and to humanity as a whole.

The United States is not inept at guiding nations into appropriate forms of governance. We assisted the German and Japanese people in crafting lasting democratic governments that respected the inherent rights of their people and their respective cultures without the wholesale imposition of American "culture" on these nations. Why can we not be expected to do the same with Afghanistan?

On an idealistic level, I agree with you completely. Cultural practices such as the enslavement of children, female genital mutilation, caste systems, and genocide disgust me. The world community should actively work to eliminate such practices. I believe, however, that the U.S. should work in collaboration with the world community in addressing these issues. If we unilaterally decide which governments do and do not have a right to continue their existence, we will have the entire world opposing our efforts. Organizations, such as the U.N., can be painstakingly slow or ineffective at dealing with such problems. But I believe that the only ethical and practical way for the U.S. to work against human rights abuses is through an international collaborative organization, such as the U.N.

Please understand that I believe that the U.S. should do everything in its power to fight human rights abuses around the world, provided that U.S. actions do not violate international law. I don't believe that toppling governments we regard as abusive is a wise or stable policy. I believe that the U.S., in collaboration with other nations, can either motivate abusive governments to change or force change to take place in victim countries.

[Hazel]

If the Taliban is removed from power, who will take over? The Northern Alliance? Would they be any improvement?

[Acco40]

Pennylane:

Originally posted by Hazel:

If the Taliban is removed from power, who will take over? The Northern Alliance? Would they be any improvement?

This is the crux of what I was talking about, and the basis of the question I raised. I'm afraid that the Hippie-friendly Afghanistan of yesteryear mentioned by xanakis is gone forever. What if the Northern Alliance takes over Afghanistan and ends up turning into another Taliban?

The "festering" I was referring to was the ability of radicals to set up shop in Afghanistan unchallenged. What gov't can be established in Afghanistan (without our help) which would be capable of this??? I'm afraid that none can. Not only that, but there exists a minority within Afghanistan who sympathize with the Taliban, and will continue to. What becomes of them?

[Acco40]

Originally posted by Acco40:

What gov't can be established in Afghanistan (without our help) which would be capable of this???

This being the ability to oust/prevent radicals from settling and prospering.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by HairyPotter
Please understand that I believe that the U.S. should do everything in its power to fight human rights abuses around the world, provided that U.S. actions do not violate international law.
Under international law, the United States is entitled to carpet-bomb Afghanistan if it so wants. The Taleban invaded and set fire to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, which is, under the law of nations, an act of war to which the United States is entitled to respond with military force if it so chooses. So, according to your own thesis stated above, the United States is justified in conducting an out-right war against the Taleban for the purpose of ending its practices of human rights abuses, if such a war would be useful toward that purpose.

Do you believe that it is possible to put an end to the human rights violations in Afghanistan without toppling the Taleban? How many more women must die before you are convinced that military action is necessary?

Originally posted by Hazel
If the Taliban is removed from power, who will take over? The Northern Alliance? Would they be any improvement?
We can't predict with any certainty that the Northern Alliance would rule any more fairly than the Taleban, but it is difficult to imagine how they could be much worse. In any case, it is imperative that the United States and its allies take all necessary steps to ensure that, whoever is left in power in Afghanistan, that government is committed to the restoration of human rights in Afghanistan.

It is important to note that most of the people who sympathize with the Taleban are in Pakistan. The Taleban is not of Afghan origin and is not representative of Afghan culture.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Hazel
If the Taliban is removed from power, who will take over? The Northern Alliance? Would they be any improvement?
Probably not -- the Bush administration isn't getting too cozy (officially) with the Northern Alliance right now because they're not a savory bunch of folks (I mean the NA, not the Bush administration :) ). The Alliance is held together only by their mutual dislike of the Taliban; take that away, and odds are good that they'll just turn on each other. This infighting is part of the reason the Alliance hasn't been effective against the Taliban so far.

Which still leaves the interesting question of who should rule in Afghanistan if the US manages to depower the Taliban. Can we import some moderate Afghanis from Pakistan or Egypt or whatever and put them in charge?

[KellyM]

Originally posted by rjung
Which still leaves the interesting question of who should rule in Afghanistan if the US manages to depower the Taliban. Can we import some moderate Afghanis from Pakistan or Egypt or whatever and put them in charge?
There is apparently an effort to reinstate Zahir Shah (http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/aerodrome/1193/id35.htm), the former king of Afghanistan deposed in 1973. Zahir Shah has lived in Italy since being deposed and is apparently participating in talks with the United States, United Nations, and representatives of the Northern Alliance and others toward this possibility. It is likely, given Zahir Shah's decades of living in the west, that he is more inclined to lead a moderate, humanitarian government, especially with the likelihood of UN oversight of any such regime.

Zahir Shah is a Pashtun, as are the majority of Afghans, and is thus more likely to be acceptable to the populace as a leader than the Uzbek and Tajik clans that make up the Northern Alliance.

[SpoilerVirgin]

Led by Tranquilis and Eve, the SDMB was taking the Taliban to task and looking for solutions to the problem of human rights in Afghanistan long before September 11. I read all of the threads linked below and found them painfully frustrating because it did seem as though there was little we could do to stop the erosion of basic freedoms.

Back in February, 2001, the Taliban ordered Buddhist statues to be destroyed.

Why Afghanistan is Not my Favorite Country (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=61445)

In May, 2001, they required Hindus to wear identifying labels.

That Wacky Taliban Does It Again! (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=71708)

In July, 2001, they banned the Internet.

TaliBAN: The Next Chapter. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=77964)

In August, 2001, they arrested aid workers.

Another in the continuing Taliban series (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=80748)

And in September, 2001, they finally gave us an excuse to go in and use our military to do something about the ongoing oppression.

Not for the first time, I agree with you, Acco. We do have a moral responsibility to do something to prevent the kinds of atrocities being perpetrated by the Taliban. But as the linked threads show, even the great minds of the SDMB had a hard time coming up with a workable solution.

[Zenster]

Originally posted by HairyPotter
...Organizations, such as the U.N., can be painstakingly slow or ineffective at dealing with such problems. But I believe that the only ethical and practical way for the U.S. to work against human rights abuses is through an international collaborative organization, such as the U.N...[/B]First you say that the UN is "painstakingly slow" or "ineffective," (I say both). Then you turn around say that we should nonetheless work with organizations "such as the UN" In other words, according to you, we should administer such improvements in a painstakingly slow or ineffectual manner. You want to have your political cake and eat it too. Although the USA should not act unilaterally, neither should it allow itself to be fettered by such a self-negating and impotent organization as the UN. Many more thousands of innocent people could easily be slaughtered while the UN argues over how many terrorists can dance on the head of a pin. Sitting on our hands waiting for a meaningless and on-paper-only consensus while more lives are lost hardly seems either ethical or practical.

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by SpoilerVirgin
Not for the first time, I agree with you, Acco. We do have a moral responsibility to do something to prevent the kinds of atrocities being perpetrated by the Taliban. But as the linked threads show, even the great minds of the SDMB had a hard time coming up with a workable solution.

It's damned hard to build anything out of anarchy. My understanding is that Afghanistan is largely comprised of coalitions of war lords.

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by Zenster
Originally posted by HairyPotter
...Organizations, such as the U.N., can be painstakingly slow or ineffective at dealing with such problems. But I believe that the only ethical and practical way for the U.S. to work against human rights abuses is through an international collaborative organization, such as the U.N...First you say that the UN is "painstakingly slow" or "ineffective," (I say both). Then you turn around say that we should nonetheless work with organizations "such as the UN" In other words, according to you, we should administer such improvements in a painstakingly slow or ineffectual manner. You want to have your political cake and eat it too. Although the USA should not act unilaterally, neither should it allow itself to be fettered by such a self-negating and impotent organization as the UN. Many more thousands of innocent people could easily be slaughtered while the UN argues over how many terrorists can dance on the head of a pin. Sitting on our hands waiting for a meaningless and on-paper-only consensus while more lives are lost hardly seems either ethical or practical. [/B]

I agree with your assertion that if the U.N. cannot be motivated to respond to a human rights autrocity that other avenues need to be followed to prevent needless suffering or loss of life. It would be nice if the U.N. could be reformed/revised to render it more effective in responding to potential disasters. I don't know if this is possible. A possible alternative would be for the U.S. to collaborate with other nations in a fashion similar to the collaboration leading up to the present Afghani situation. If such an ad hoc alliance is the only vehicle for responding to crises in a timely, effective fashion, then I am all for such an approach. What I am not for is for the U.S. to unilaterally decide on a course of action in dealing with a foreign government.

I agree that the U.S. has a responsibility to utilize its strength to discourage and eliminate human rights abuses throughout the world. I feel, however, that it is essential that the U.S. collaborates with other nations, particularly with the neighbor nations around trouble spots, before reacting with force. I believe that we must build and sustain a collaborative network in the world community in order to promote stability while pursuing human rights.

[Zenster]

Thank you for responding Hairy Potter.

I do not agree with your assessment of how autonomously the Taleban should be able to operate or their cultural validity. However, I will largely agree with the foregoing. Few other countries have demonstrated the USA's devotion to humanitarian aide. Acting in concert with the other global partners, we should be able to craft a functional and far more effective form of alliance than the UN represents today. The fact that terrorist-harboring Syria is being considered for a seat on the UN security council is enough to invalidate much of the UN's doctrine.

[Beagle]

I think there may be some precedent for "crimes against humanity" being one reason countries can get involved in another's affairs, regardless of what the U.N. thinks. Nuremburg (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm) comes to mind. The Hindu ID, ethnic "cleansing," and the Taliban's treatment of women is on point if you ask me. Do we really want to try to get China, Sudan, and Iraq on board before we do something regarding "crimes against humanity?" Seems pointless.
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated."

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by Zenster
Thank you for responding Hairy Potter.

I do not agree with your assessment of how autonomously the Taleban should be able to operate or their cultural validity. However, I will largely agree with the foregoing. Few other countries have demonstrated the USA's devotion to humanitarian aide. Acting in concert with the other global partners, we should be able to craft a functional and far more effective form of alliance than the UN represents today. The fact that terrorist-harboring Syria is being considered for a seat on the UN security council is enough to invalidate much of the UN's doctrine.

Zenster,
I failed to make myself clear. I am completely opposed to the Taleban rule of Afghanistan. The Taleban represent a tiny minority of the Afghan population, they rule by force, they completely disregard human rights, and they harbor terrorists and promote terrorism. I wish to see the Taleban removed from power as quickly as possible and replaced with a truly government representative government. My only concern was that the U.S. collaborate with other nations, which the U.S. has been doing commendably.

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by Zenster
Thank you for responding Hairy Potter.

I do not agree with your assessment of how autonomously the Taleban should be able to operate or their cultural validity. However, I will largely agree with the foregoing. Few other countries have demonstrated the USA's devotion to humanitarian aide. Acting in concert with the other global partners, we should be able to craft a functional and far more effective form of alliance than the UN represents today. The fact that terrorist-harboring Syria is being considered for a seat on the UN security council is enough to invalidate much of the UN's doctrine.

Zenster,
I failed to make myself clear. I am completely opposed to the Taleban rule of Afghanistan. The Taleban represent a tiny minority of the Afghan population, they rule by force, they completely disregard human rights, and they harbor terrorists and promote terrorism. I wish to see the Taleban removed from power as quickly as possible and replaced with a truly representative government. My only concern was that the U.S. collaborate with other nations, which the U.S. has been doing commendably.

[HairyPotter]

Sorry about the redundant posts. Blame it on the "Department of Reduncancey Department".

[Zenster]

Originally posted by HairyPotter
Zenster,
I failed to make myself clear. I am completely opposed to the Taleban rule of Afghanistan. The Taleban represent a tiny minority of the Afghan population, they rule by force, they completely disregard human rights, and they harbor terrorists and promote terrorism. I wish to see the Taleban removed from power as quickly as possible and replaced with a truly representative government. My only concern was that the U.S. collaborate with other nations, which the U.S. has been doing commendably. [/B]Originally posted by HairyPotter
Western countries have no right to impose their culture, values, or beliefs on sovereign nations. The customs of other cultures may strike us as aphorrent, but that doesn't give us the right to force our values on another culture. We can and should attempt to educate foreigners regarding human rights abuses. We can also justify imposing sanctions against countries for more extreme abuses. But we have no right to impose our will on other countries unless extreme abuses, such as genocide, are occurring. Why do I feel this is so? Because I don't think we have the wisdom or the foresight to serve as the moral police of the world, except in cases where extreme and obvious abuses are taking place. [/B]I see a rather conspicuous reorientation of your stance here HP. I'll leave it that for now, but I am very curious as to how you reconcile the two quotes shown above.

At least you get a Kewpie doll for mentioning the Firesign Theater.

[Zenster]

Originally posted by HairyPotter
Sorry about the redundant posts. Blame it on the "Department of Reduncancey Department". "Reduncancey Department"? What in Hades is that? Some office where they serve you leftover layer cakes? A Scottish repatriation organization? A yo-yo repair clinic?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by Zenster
I see a rather conspicuous reorientation of your stance here HP. I'll leave it that for now, but I am very curious as to how you reconcile the two quotes shown above.

At least you get a Kewpie doll for mentioning the Firesign Theater.

I don't regard the Taleban as a legitimate government of a sovereign nation. They do not represent the majority of the people of Afghanistan, but rule by force. Also, by imposing tremendously harsh policies that infringe on the human rights of their citizens and by promoting terrorism, the Taleban meet my criteria of "extreme and obvious abuses are taking place". I believe that the world community has an obligation to curtail extreme abuses of human rights. I believe, however, that great care must be taken to allow for cultural differences, so as not to infringe on the autonomy of a country unless substantial human rights abuses are taking place.

I adore the Firesign Theater series. "Nice Paisley Horsey"

[Zenster]

I'm obliged to say that the offenses of the Taleban are so blatant that your initial objections and admonitions seemed (and still seem) entirely out of place.

Originally posted by HairyPotter
"Nice Paisley Horsey"
[Tiny Doctor Tim]

Give the nice paisley horsey a sugar cube!

[/Tiny Doctor Tim]

::horse's neigh tranforms into the trumpeting of a stampeding elephant::

[even sven]

The Taliban sucks.

That said, lots of things suck. The treatment of women in Saudi Arabis (our great Arab ally) is comperable to the Taliban. Read Princess about what it is like to be a Saudi Arabian princess where you can legally be drown in your family's swimming pool if you have the mistfortune of being raped (it only takes three witnesses to day you "seduced" them, and only men can be witnesses).

And the Taliban did stop the war. People had a few years without their houses being blown up. They could reasonably expect food. Sure, it was a horrible existance, but it was better than perpetual war.

As much as I don't like what happens in the Taliban, or in many other governments, I don't think it is my right to go about toppling them as I see fit, especially when I have no real plan for picking up the pieces. We don't have a decent idea about what to do with Afghanistan even if we did get rid of the Taliban. We havn't really thought through how we could very well plundge a very scary region into chaos. None of this is going to be clean and easy, and I certainly don't want to make people endure more years of war.

[Zenster]

Originally posted by even sven
...And the Taliban did stop the war. People had a few years without their houses being blown up. They could reasonably expect food. Sure, it was a horrible existance, but it was better than perpetual war...[/B]And for all of the Afghan women it is still is a horrible existence. It's only nice (if you can call it that) if you're a man in that chauvinist hell-hole. And dying a premature and slow death of cervical cancer or breast cancer doesn't sound like much of what you call an improvement over perpetual war. (The only difference is that now the war is being carried out against women.) Nor does having to live in a home with blacked out windows, not being able to laugh loudly, sing non-religious songs, view television or the Internet, walk the streets freely, show even so much as a bare ankle (or even one clad in a white stocking), get an education or talk to a male friend in public.

Being an apologist for the Taleban ranks as pretty stupid in my book.

PS: even sven, please preview or learn how to spell.