This appalls me. Gordon Brown says, 'We must and will make Britain safer by making Afghanistan more stable'.
Afghanistan has quietly passed a law permitting Shia men to deny their wives food and substance if they refuse sex, despite international outrage over an earlier version of the legislation which President Hamid Karzai had promised to review. Not only are women being starved in this way, they cannot go to work to provide for themselves without their husband's permission.
How can out troops break through a culture which is so embedded in such values? The answer is it's impossible, so what are our troops fighting for? I still haven't heard plausible reasons for our military to be in action in Afghanistan.
The Prime Minister trots out the excuse that 'fighting in Afghanistan is necessary to keep Britain safe'. Quite the reverse. While the presence of our forces in Afghanistan continues, Britain becomes more and more of a target for future revenge attacks from those who support the Taliban. These people are not going to vanish into the sunset - they never have for generations or after the Russian left and I am sure they do not intend to do so now. They will remember and take revenge against those who were the prime movers along with the US. That means Britain.
If they can pass such laws against women while other countries' military are losing personnel in the cause of helping them 'stabilise', then that is another good reason for us to withdraw. We cannot condone this barbaric treatment of women.
We must withdraw our troops now and let the Afghanis decide what is best for themselves. The terrorist threat to Britain is already here so I suggest the Westminster government concentrate on making Britain safe from within and then consider the threat from outwith our shores.
I note there is no comment on this article from any UK government representative.
Posts
13 comments:
As a rider to this, I have seen on another site a piece on the huge amount of oil needed to support the American presence in Afghanistan, and the expense and complexity of the logistics. The UK effort has to be at least proportionate. Then there are the losses, it was always going to be a bad summer, but this was kept from the media. I can understand why many of us might want to see a different culture there, but I doubt our ability to enforce it by the use of the armed services.
I read about the oil issue too Demetrius and I've also just read DotR where it's said the Uk forces are exhausted and the US ones are taking over.
Why should we inflict our form of democracy on others? To me these people are barbaric but you can't change religious or any other beliefs using a gun.
G Brown -
1."to make Britain safer by making Afghanistan more stable" - more stable?? What are the criteria that will indicate that this has been achieved? Whose cultural, political or commercial criteria and values - the USA's or the Afghans?
2."honour and support those killed and wounded" - the public certainly does but the MoD seem unwilling and incapable. As our beleaguered NHS, suffocated and robbed by incompetent hordes of unnecessary management and illogical EU directives, already struggles to cope with the general population's needs - the armed forces critical, potential and on-going needs may be reaching a clinical tipping-point?
3."give those who fight on all the support that they need to succeed" - define "support" Mr Brown, or at least your version. Does it include the coalition forces supporting us and the Russian Elastic Band Helicopter outfit we rent to supply our troops?......and the best way to achieve all this is to "see the commitment through"? A fine lesson in weasel words at best.
Yesterday Professor Rory Stewart, who has a remarkable intellect and direct experience of Iraq and Afghanistan, in reference to the ground war said that "there can be no moral obligation to achieve that which is unachievable" - the applause from the audience to all he had to say on the matter of Afghanistan was deafening.
Mr Brown, Labour has inflicted incalculable damage on the UK and on countless hundreds of thousands in 'wars' - I wonder if some nation may invade us to rid us of such an incompetent and harmful regime?
It is kinda tempting to see womans rights as some sort of extreme election issue. If this is the case, the Afghani's don't really deserve our continued presence.
Still at least there's no oil in Afghanistan, just a big pipeline going through the country.
I rather liked;
Alexander Lebed
On the Soviet-Afghan War) "We began the war with lofty aims but ended up with a war against the people."
Dear Subrosa
I suspect that the west will not take the required action to sort this.
Our "ally" just legalised rape!
And we are defending this by blood and bullet.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Clarinda, what more can I say than you've already said. Nothing really except why are the UK giving billions in aid to Afghanistan, thus debilitating the people from making their own decisions?
Indeed Allan but do look to see why we're really there. Yes we're helping build the biggest oil pipeline in the world but there is so much more.
As for the propaganda about preserving the safety of the Uk that's just nonsense and thankfully more people realise that.
Yes OR, but it's the Afghani government which is against the people, or at least half of them. When will these people realise that making their female population reduces their culture rather than enhances it.
We should get out now George, but I think the damage to the UK has already been done sadly.
Our streets will never be safe while we are interfering in other countries' affairs. If we drive Al Quaeda out of Afghanistan then they will move (to a certain extent probably already have moved) elsewhere. Pakistan and Somalia immedately come to mind, but Mali, Moritania and Algeria are all vast countries and camps could easiy be hidden there.
As long as the West is poking its nose in Islamic countries there will be people who are prpared to take their revenge on the West.
I agree that it is the height of hypocracy and utterly sickening to hear the idiot Brown supporting this (looking pale and careworn and very sad) whilst the government that he supports passes laws like the one you mention.
It is their business how they regulate their affairs (barbaric though they may be). It is not our place to be supporting them with our troops' lives.
I suspect that if there were no oil pipeline from the North we would not be. London seems remarkably unconcerned about lack of democracy in many other parts of the world where there is no oil to be had.
The CIA backed the Islamists against Nasser in Egypt. The CIA backed the Islamists against Suharto in Indonesia. The CIA backed the Islamists in Pakistan. Why? Because Islamists keep countries backward, feudal, anti-Russia, and easy to control. The CIA also backs the Christian and Hindu fundamentalists.
- Aangirfan
Thank you Aangirfan, I know you have much knowledge about this subject.
Do hope other readers visit your blog.
Post a Comment