Prepare for the Insta-lanche.

Wow, this is better than Modern World History in college. Great writing, by both Safire and yourself, and great analysis.

Scrappleface hit it perfectly sqare when he called Germany & France the Axis of Weasel. I hope Russia doesn't join to make it a true triumverate.

There's a lot to think about here. I'm not surprised either. Bush may have accelerated this with his consistently insulting manner, but the rationale for Nato has been gone for some time and the UN is pretty much a shell. My own feeling is that all power arrangements everywhere will now be readjusted (for example, where do Britain and Japan fit? Pakistan and India?)

This may be what the Rumsfeldt faction wnted -- they've been taunting the cheese-eating surrender monkeys for some time now. (The smaller countries of Europe may not like French and German domination, but as far as I know only Italy, Britain, and maybe Spain support the US on the Iraq issue, and Blair is on thin ice.

Personally, the idea that the US's main ally from here on out will be Russia (and China?) is not comforting to me.

Hawks have been gloating about Europe's backwardness in military technology for years and in that respect Europe's options will be limited.

Russia will join the Axis of Weasel soon enough. Why? Because Russian oil companies just inked new oil contracts with Saddam. France's oil companies are currently drilling in Iraq. When the US takeover of Iraq happens guess what else happens? Those contracts with France and Russia are "up for review". In other words, buh-bye Russian and French oil companies and hello American oil companies.

But...it's not really about oil...is it?

until europe revs up their war machine.. they will continue to be irrelevant. and yes.. that alliance is dead now that the cold war is over and europe downsized their armies. france has a 100,000 man army. and worthless too. they are living under the US's safety umbrella and giving us the finger while they are doing it.

les,
well it is certainly about the oil for france and russia.. but for america.. it is about national security and the prevention of nuclear proliferation.. the oil is a bonus.

Russia has been making a lot of interesting strategic moves of late.

http://counterspin.blogspot.com/2003_01_19_counterspin_archive.html#87957646

Right on! It's time to stop this charade. Lets get the war over with and then both freeze the Krauts and Frogs out of Iraqi oil and expose their illegal dealings with Saddam throughout the 90's.

"Bush ... with his consistently insulting manner"?! Well, thank goodness the Europeans have been so consistently kind and accomodating to the US President.

TO: Agnosti
RE: NATO, France, Germany...

...and NOW Russia.

I thought NATO had outlived it's usefulness in '99 with the bombing of whats left of Yugoslavia. They were desparately looking for a reason d'etre and the blew it, literally.

The Franco-German thing makes sense. They were in position to (1) establish themselves as the guiding light for the EU and (2) are probably afraid of what our tens of thousands of additional inspectors are going to find in Iraq. So they do the pre-emptive thing in Europe, disassemble NATO, in order to deminish our influence there.

[Note: Now they'll have to foot the bill for their own military establishment.]

RE: Russia

Russia's support of this F-G uber Europa makes sense too. They deminish the influence of the US in Europe by promoting it.

With US forces pulled out of Europe and EUs military capabilities nearly nil, they have a window of opportunity, while the EU tries to gear up, militarily.

This is going to be 'interesting'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[May you live in interesting times. -- Ancient Chinese curse]

This recent blustering is just a premptive powerplay for control of future United Europe.

Imagine if California and New York controlled the US, did all the talking (for the best interests of all the other states of course).That's the future United Europe the French/Germans want. The rest would no doubt prefer a true federation where each state has more equal say.

Wes,
Please explain why it is about "national security" and not oil. I have to hear this. It's oil for Europe but "National Security" for the US and prevention of nuclear proliferation?

There is no way to stop nuclear proliferation and it is an act of the shearest stupidity to believe you can second only to thinking you can end terrorism by bombing your enemy.

Yeah, Les, we've been reeling under all the al Qaeda attacks after we bombed Afghanistan...oops, I guess we haven't seen any attacks, have we? The best way to prevent terrorism appears, empirically, to kill the terrorists. Period. What do you propose to stop terrorism, other than surrendering to their demands?

Did we kill the terrorists? Funny, no one seems to know where Omar or Osama are now. You are fooling yourself if you think bombing people will end terrorism.

"Did we kill the terrorists? Funny, no one seems to know where Omar or Osama are now. You are fooling yourself if you think bombing people will end terrorism"

On the other hand,we could send Patty Murry to build daycare centers,put Susan Sontag in a burqua(and fire her from the university) and stone all the gays to death. We know that would help,we have been informed by Omar and Osama.BTW,he also wants Spain back.

Jokes of "surrender monkeys" aside, this is really the end of Europe as a significant geo-political entity. Nato and the UN Security Counsel are both relics of the cold war which was largely, though not completely, focused on Europe. Freed from the fear of Russian dominance, both France and Germany are free to pursue policies largely divergent from the U.S. Although both will remain nominally democratic, neither feels a need to bind themselves to a democratic alliance, particularly one led by the United States. Both the France and Germany operate under the delusion that 1. They can dominate any European Union and 2. ANy European Union dominated by them can compete in a serious way with the U.S. and other rising global powers. A Europe constrained by EU bureacracy will recede further and further from the world stage while nations like India, Japan and China continue their rise. Britain, under the leadership of Tony Blair has wisely chosen to stand with the U.S. There is no other reasonable course for a mid-level power like Britain to take. Eastern Europe will break with a Franco-German dominated EU and I expect ultimately so will most other Europeans who will realize that they can choose between subjugation to an ossified EU or partnership with a dynamic U.S. The U.S. should, in the future take its allies where it can find them and essentially ignore Europe. Security cooperation remains vital with France and Germany but that will no doubt continue. So long as Germany doesn't decide it needs to become militaristic to matter (it still won't) we can safely ignore their antics.

lester,
"Did we kill the terrorists? Funny, no one seems to know where Omar or Osama are now. You are fooling yourself if you think bombing people will end terrorism."

no one said bombing will end terrorism. spoken like a true Chomskyite. by the way, next time you hear from Osama.. let us all know how he is doing.

bottom line les, no matter what i say, you are going to say "america bad.. liberuls good". it is a know fact that because we destroyed AQ's ability to organize.. it has discredited their operations. muslims don't like to be on a losing team and AQ is a loser. is that going to completely stop terrorism? no. but they don't have a play ground for training anymore so their operations are degraded.

about nuclear proliferation/national security:
the best way to stop it, it to threaten anyone that does it to be dispatched with majestic heavenly force. believe it or not.. people understand force. as long as you are praying for peace, using economic sanctions, or pointing and waving fingers.. they will ignore you. a strategic bombing of Libya several years ago sure change their mind about supporting terrorism. the same will be applied to nuclear proliferation. let everyone know that you are serious about stopping it and you will resort to violence.. people will think twice.

also, please note that i said it wasn't just about oil.. i said oil is a bonus.. but not the primary reason.

Wes: They've lived under our protection since 6/6/44, giving us the finger since long before. Nuttin gnu here.

Les: Ironic that you should misspell sheerest, right next to the word stupidity. "...it is an act of the shearest stupidity..."

Aww, I know there's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. That doesn't mean both can't be present in the same person at the same time.

If we wanted Iraq's oil, we could call off the sanctions and buy the damned stuff.

The end of the NATO era would have made me sad just a few years ago. G & F's behavior in those few years, especially since 9/11, makes it kind of ho hum (yawn).

Is there a pool yet for when the total disintegration of the E U will occur? Put me down for 10 years, max.

I'm not as quick to believe that Russia will join the triumvariate. Oh, they wouldn't mind us looking foolish for a bit, but they're more pragmatic than France and Germany (who really believe this crap about them being able to lead Europe).

I'd read awhile back that the US had spoken to Putin about the oil deals, and was willing to guarantee them post-Saddam.

I think that's what all these countries are basically about (what's in it for me?), except Berlin and Paris now think they have a better offer.

I just had a great idea (they bubble up every biannual or so).

Here's how we get Germany on board, and nullify the Chirac maneovre:

Tell Schroeder he's welcome to anything he wants east of Normandy, so long as he takes care of our cemetaries there.

Seems a bit premature to celebrate. America won't want to become irrelevent as it sinks to second rate economic power behind the EU. NATO is the tool the US has used in the past to try and control Europe. America will try to strengthen NATO - well of course we know it is already trying that, especially with countries like Romania, which are entering the EU.

It's a shame that they probably won't refuse to cooperate with America's war because without Europe's bases America simply couldn't do anything militarily.

Larry,
Blame my spell check. I had it right and it changed it. Anyway, it is childish and boring to point out spelling errors.

Didn't France withdraw it's forces from NATO's military command?

Since I'm probably the only person posting here who has actually spent months in the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan recently...I'll give The Agonist a small scoop...drumroll, please: OBL is dead! So bombing works...give war a chance! And the Afghans couldn't be happier with the result. But if he wasn't dead, one could hardly explain what the difference might be to the Afghans...OBL and his Taliban cohorts were/are so hated within the country (to the distress of the ISI and its tiny but ugly faction still operating in the eastern provinces) that the net effect is the same in either case.

The only problem I could discern from my own interviews with Afghans around the country is that the people are disappointed with the small footprint of the US. They'd like to see more of us and I can't blame them...far too many greedy Europeans seeking to cash in on the goodwill created by the US 'invasion.' The OBL death was confirmed in many amusing (for us Yanks) nightly discussions with far left scribes from the Independent, Mirror, et al, on the rooftop of the fabulous Mustafa Hotel in beautiful downtown Kabul (owned by two guys from New Jersey who bravely stayed the course during the Taliban regime.) You could imagine the chagrin of these journalists...they had been assigned to the country to report on the dire consequences of our bombing, OBL on the loose, etc. and all they see everyday is streets filled with very happy Afghans. And the consistent assurance from all that OBL is dead and buried under tons of rocks. Not that this wonderful support and deeply felt gratitude from 95% (plus) of Afghans (to paraphrase Sally Fields...they love us, they really love us!) is the kind of news that even the NYT or WaPo wishes to publish. It's just not the kind of information that conforms to the anti-Bush agenda back here in the States...and I heard that complaint even from leftish reporters who find their best stories squelched and censored by the front office.

BTW, estimates of civilian casualties is set much lower by Afghans themselves than by a certain--now forgotten-- American professor of woman studies in New Hampshire.

Unfortunately, what we have made Afghanistan free for is a little less clear, unless it is to declare the poor country open season for every grief relief worker and European NGO. Not to mention, their top corporations (e.g. Siemens) flying in with contracts in hand from the Axis of Weasels. Funny how fast the continental Europeans got their commercial enterprises--both 'non-profit' and entrepreneurial--up and operating under the safety of American arms. Bloody capitalists! Happily, both the Americans and Brits are far less intrusive and aggressive. But it is shocking how many Swedes, Swiss, French and Germans are firmly planted in Afghanistan, and even more alarming is their unrepentant and tireless anti-Americanism. They are now so practiced in hypocrisy that they see no contradiction in their relentless chasing of the almighty aid dollar while damning the US bombing that gave them the opportunity to cash in...big time. Unfortunately, we'll see the same thing in Iraq; you can count on it. As they publicly decry our 'invasion' from the foreign offices they are doubtlessly sharpening their knives to carve up the country for commerce--and their ubiquitous.sleazy and much-hated NGOs.

"America won't want to become irrelevent as it sinks to second rate economic power behind the EU."

LOL. The EU ascending economically and relegating the US to second rate status? That's the funniest thing I've read all day. As if things weren't bad enough for them now, I'd like to see how they stand in 20 - 30 years with a tiny, barely reproducing workforce struggling to keep the massive army of pensioners living in high style.

LOL. I agree this is all premature but its funny as all hell to see all these Americans panicing like this. Sure boys you can insult the "old" Europeans. They are big enough to take it. Sorry I can't say the same for your boy-king.

The EU countries will have a larger GNP than the US after the recently agreed on additions. Of course the $ just sank against the EU by about 10% since Bush started his war mongering -- so I suppose it's already true: US is second place and sinking.

Nevermind: console yourself with the fact that you're spending gazillions on arms which are totally useless against your real rivals. A trillion here, a trillion there - pretty soon you're talking real money, eh?

No need to comment on the American who stated that people like to be invaded by Americans, beyond this: Bwhahahahaha.

Hmmmm...

The other night I took control of the remote and pretty much forced my brother to watch BBC World with me. He's uninformed on just about everything and frankly, I was tired of explaining things to him only to have him say "I don't have time to read a news paper." The boy is 17. He has plenty of time, but I digress.

He, of course, had no idea why I suddenly sucked in my breath when Rumsfeld bascially told France and Germany they were old dodderheads and Eastern Europe was the happenin' place.

I'm really not the best judge of things, and often I think things will be worse off then they actually occur. But something tells me we shouldn't just write those people off. I kind of think France and Germany, France especially, have more than earned the right to be antiwar. I mean, if your country was invaded 3 times over the space of 60 years by your neighbor, and the invader was beaten back into a bloody pulp. . . you'd be a little wary of war too.

I wish Rumsfeld hadn't insulted Germany like that. Don't they base 100,000 of our troops? I'm with CalPundit. . . let's cool off here.

I love the line about Europeans being big enough to take insults. Was Rumsfeld insulting? Only if you're German or France...mostly what he was, was correct.

And now we've got the French calling us arrogant. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Also, I'm glad the French are anti-war--heck, they've never been pro-war, even when they're in one. Perhaps next time they're attacked we'll show off our new found pacifism.

As for the EU outpacing the US, I say bring it on. We love the competition.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised by the rift within the alliance. Considering how pig-headed and downright insulting our Administration has been, I think the "old Europe" has been more than tolerant.

Referring to the French as, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" may make some people feel better, but it's pointless and stupid, like most insults, and does nothing to change the reality of the situation. Any countries, anywhere in the world, have the right to join together against us. Any countries, anywhere in the world, have, in my eyes, the obligation to stand up and protest against warmongering.

They're right and we're wrong.

And we're probably going to be reduced to a second-rate power, yes, but the way we're behaving, we deserve to be. I'm actually *delighted* to see that "old Europe" is finding its voice and the courage to stand up and tell us we're being jackasses.

Especially since, you know, we're being total jackasses. And nothing, not cutesy nicknames like labeling those who disagree with us as an, "Axis of Weasels" or anything else is going to be able to disguise that fact.

We. Are. Wrong.

A valued and valuable alliance has been seriously damaged, along with the USofA's reputation (such as it was) in the world. The more determined this Administration is to make war on Iraq and 'damn the consequences', the worse we look. Even a grudging acceptance of more time for inspections (time that we're assured will be measured in weeks and not months) cannot hide the basically unjust and unjustifiable nature of this Administration's behavior.

How is the USofA bombing Iraq because we want their oil any different than Iraq invading Kuwait? It's not. In fact, I'll go further and say it's *less* justified since in the Iraq/Kuwait situation there was, at least, some historical justification based on the West previously, and high-handedly, carving up Asia like a big, juicy pie.

And Hussein at least had the decency not to pretend he was doing anything but what he was doing...making war for gain.

The weapons inspectors haven't found anything. That's an indisputable fact. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Oh, yeah, a few empty missiles. I'm sure the entire USofA is shaking in its shoes in fear of the damage that could be done to the world by a starving third-world nation in possession of a few empty warheads.

And yet, we're going to make war on them. We're going to drop the bombs and send in the tanks and shoot the guns and people are going to die.

For oil.

Any fool who thinks that we're going to bring liberation and democracy to the Iraqi people should take a gander at Afghanistan and evaluate just what a lousy job we're doing there.

Any fool who thinks that the civil liberties of the Iraqi people are more important to us than their oil might ask themselves why neither we nor anyone else in the world made a single move against Iraq in the twelve years since the last weapons inspectors left.

And any fool who thinks we could just, "drop the sanctions and buy" the oil is just being naïve. Why buy what you can steal? Why buy what you can get the USofA's taxpayers to pay for the theft of? Why buy when you can get control of the source?

No, we're making war on Iraq at this time for one reason, and one reason only. Because Big Oil owns Cheney's soul.

Okay...leaving now, so I can count to ten.

(Sorry - I had all day to get my thoughts collected on this, and I'm still incoherent.)

About that emerging European East...

I have family in one of the "New Europe" countries, sitting at the gate of Western Europe. It has a conscript army, poorly paid, poorly educated, poorly armed (kinda what Rummy was talking about before he apologized). Their government is not afraid or ashamed to sacrifice its young men to gain economic and political advantage from Uncle Sam. It smacks of desperation when our Secretary of Defense is counting on the army of a poor country, almost destroyed by Communism, to show the world that we have support for our follies. I shake my head in disbelief.

Hmm. Well, as an American I've lived just about exactly half my life here and half in Europe, and I have to say, I thought if I wanted jingoistic and ignorant, the place was Rush. Evidently I was wrong, since this thread has some of the most jingoistic and ignorant nonsense I've read in a long time. Wow. "Cheese-eating monkeys". My goodness.
I'd also like more sources for the France-Germany conspiracy theory. Maybe they were behind 9-11.

davidbyron,
so what if the dollar dropped 10%. it was artificially high against the euro to begin with. when the euro was introduced last year.. as a hedge in case something went wrong with the introduction.. everyone was buying dollars. the dollar soared to a almost twenty year high. did you give bush credit for that? maybe you are just ignorant about how money values ebb and flow. but you want to be a pundit about it because you read DU. great.. buh bye.

Americans like to think their global bullying and terrorism is welcomed. I suppose you have to live with yourselves somehow. But really, to say that of France? That's just showing ignorance. France ranks about 5th place after US, Russia, China and non-nuclear Japan. So which of those countries do you think are going to be attacking France any time soon? Certainly not the US who is too chicken to attack even North Korea. No wonder France withdew their military from NATO command. There is absolutely zero need for any Americans in France.

Possibly you could apply the "they should be grateful" argument to Australia. Unlike France they are non-nuclear, not geographically situated smack in the middle of a bunch of highly militarised allies and Australia has a relatively small population.

Let's face it America as a country is only good at destroying things these days. You don't even have enough money to pay for your own wars. Your economy works like a dot.com -- based mostly on confidence (reserve currency) which is now slipping under the boy-king's diplomatic screw-ups. You don't have the overseas bases without rellying on your allies -- how would America have invaded Afghanistan without Diego Garcia and Pakistan? Always on the scrounge to get other people to pay and contribute peace keeping troops. The only country in NATO to ever need help from the other NATO allies - twice.

Yeah-- thanks, but no thanks. Sling your hook - that's the message from Europe and from Korea, Japan etc etc.

No, it’s not looking good for the military component of the Atlantic Alliance at the moment. A mutual defense pact is most useful for allies with shared enemies, but the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact are gone and the Europeans don’t share the current U.S. administration’s penchant for creating monsters. That the breakdown of NATO may well be inevitable does not in and of itself seem terribly consequential because, after all, military power is not that important in a post-Cold-War world.

Oh, wait, I forgot – a couple of dozen guys with box-cutters changed all that. Darn.

OK, in that case a transatlantic schism – anything resembling the dissolution of NATO –would be a very bad thing. In the short term, for the loss of whatever ability Europe has to check the administration’s utopian fantasy (the kindest possible interpretation of the proposed Mid-East remodeling plan). In the long term, it would be bad because it could damage the cultural and philosophical ties that bind the two continents, and from which both benefit, and also because U.S. hegemony is not a durable product.

The Europeans undoubtedly know that a breakup is a lose-lose proposition. Powell does too. American public opinion says as much when it only supports a war that has allied approval. And since it would probably take quite a while to actually disentangle the alliance, with any luck it won’t actually happen before we get an elected government over here, at which point the grownups may prevail.

Or maybe not. The belligerence and bungling of this administration could well have us in the midst of a disaster that would make changing administrations unthinkable in 2004 - I’m pretty sure that Rove is studying Drunken Master Ariel Sharon’s “bungle and win” strategy right now. In times of trouble people are attracted to the perceived strong horse, as someone once said. I suppose if Bush wins in ’04, we’ll see George Will standing on the dock, waving bye-bye to the U.N., Europe and Western Civilization while welcoming our new best friends, Poland and Kyrghyzstan.

One thing I’m pretty sure of: zizka is no jingoist – he was just satirizing right-speak with his “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” bit. But I'm absolutely certain that he'll correct me if I'm wrong.

TO: Anne
RE: I Pity the Fool

"Any fool who thinks that we're going to bring liberation and democracy to the Iraqi people should take a gander at Afghanistan and evaluate just what a lousy job we're doing there." -- Anne

Yeah...

That's a really lousy job done there in Afghanistan. Look at the mess:

[1] Theaters are open again.
[2] People can play a game of soccer without it being interupted for summary executions in the middle of the field.
[3] Women. Imagine THAT! WOMEN, for cry'n out loud. GOING TO SCHOOL!!!! {The horror! The horror!}

We REALLY should have left the Taliban in power. Women DO NOT belong in SCHOOL.

I agree with you Anne, Afghanistan is a mess. {nudge-nudge, wink-wink}

"Any fool who thinks that the civil liberties of the Iraqi people are more important to us than their oil might ask themselves why neither we nor anyone else in the world made a single move against Iraq in the twelve years since the last weapons inspectors left." -- Anne

On target again, Anne. We need that oil desparately. Why just last month when I drove across the country to go to Disneyworld, passing through Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana...I saw all those miles and miles of oil wells just pumping their hearts out. They must be just about dry by now. Not to mention all those wells I know about in Colorado and Wyoming. And Alaska? Forget it....

When we gain control of the oil fields in Iraq, we'll FLOOD the world in oil. It'll be cheaper than salt by the sea side. That'll do WONDERS for the world economy. Not to mention all those fat-cat oil companies.

Oh yeah...

...about those inspectors. They were last in there in '98. Not twelve years ago.

But I can forgive you that. After all...

...you're a woman. And you don't go to school to learn history.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Education: Replacing an empty mind with an open one.]

Back to school, kiddies. Recess is over...

...Anne, you can go back to the scullery.

TO: Anne
RE: I Pity the Fool

"Any fool who thinks that we're going to bring liberation and democracy to the Iraqi people should take a gander at Afghanistan and evaluate just what a lousy job we're doing there." -- Anne

Yeah...

That's a really lousy job done there in Afghanistan. Look at the mess:

[1] Theaters are open again.
[2] People can play a game of soccer without it being interupted for summary executions in the middle of the field.
[3] Women. Imagine THAT! WOMEN, for cry'n out loud. GOING TO SCHOOL!!!! {The horror! The horror!}

We REALLY should have left the Taliban in power. Women DO NOT belong in SCHOOL.

I agree with you Anne, Afghanistan is a mess. {nudge-nudge, wink-wink}

"Any fool who thinks that the civil liberties of the Iraqi people are more important to us than their oil might ask themselves why neither we nor anyone else in the world made a single move against Iraq in the twelve years since the last weapons inspectors left." -- Anne

On target again, Anne. We need that oil desparately. Why just last month when I drove across the country to go to Disneyworld, passing through Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana...I saw all those miles and miles of oil wells just pumping their hearts out. They must be just about dry by now. Not to mention all those wells I know about in Colorado and Wyoming. And Alaska? Forget it....

When we gain control of the oil fields in Iraq, we'll FLOOD the world in oil. It'll be cheaper than salt by the sea side. That'll do WONDERS for the world economy. Not to mention all those fat-cat oil companies.

Oh yeah...

...about those inspectors. They were last in there in '98. Not twelve years ago.

But I can forgive you that. After all...

...you're a woman. And you don't go to school to learn history.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Education: Replacing an empty mind with an open one.]

Back to school, kiddies. Recess is over...

...Anne, you can go back to the scullery.

Women could go to school in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Many different aid agencies operated schools for girls in Afghanistan with the cooperation (obviously) of the Taliban. It's very easy to do a search and find reports from them all over the internet.

Please stop repeating this piece of war propaganda.

But don't you know David? We need those lies to justify our military actions. We dress our troops up in drag as defenders of freedom and send them to bomb weddings and civilians and at the end of the day they can feel good about it because we protected our "national security" and "we brought freedom" to their country.

Never mind the fact that up until 9/11 we considered the Taliban an ally and even had some of them brought over here to wine and dine them.

No..no..no...let's not mention those things...we brought them freedom...

The Taliban were our allies. Wow, I'd love to see that argument.

Many are now saying we should have discussions with NK no matter how threatening and bizarre they become. I guess they're another ally of ours.

Never underestimate the paranoia and hysteria of the party out of power.

So we see France, Germany and Russia moving together. Guys, this is as natural as the playground when we were in elementary school. If you have a big bully, the other guys will align themselves for defense. It is that simple.

TO: DavidByron
RE: Schools & Afghanistan & 'PROPAGANDA!!!", Oh My....

"Many different aid agencies operated schools for girls in Afghanistan with the cooperation (obviously) of the Taliban." -- DavidByron

Try THIS on for size, compadre....

"Afghan women also defy the Taliban. I visited several underground schools that women were running for girls out of their homes. Operating one-room school houses accommodating students aged six to 24, these dedicated women were breaking the Taliban law on a number of counts, including the one forbidding gatherings of unrelated people."

At...

http://mosaic.echonyc.com/~onissues/su98goodwin.html

That's just one of many sites I've found, supporting the reports I've had about women, schools and the Taliban.

In Saudi Arabia, things may be a bit different. They're more 'Westernesque'. They allow schools for women to attend, but what do those schools teach?

And God help you if you're a 'woman' and your 'school' catches on fire and you have to 'flee' INTO THE STREET, for you life.

Why...

...they'll just have to chase you back into the school to be burned alive.

RE: Your Perspective.

You say that a web-search supports your claim?

Considering my report and the site I provided, would you kindly reciprocate?

Got a url you can share? Hopefully a goodly number of them that support your claim that women could go to school and actually LEARN SOMETHING [we would consider] USEFUL under Taliban rule?

Thanks....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[First God created idiots. That was for practice. Then He created School Boards. -- Mark Twain]

TO: Les Dabney
RE: Uber Allies

"Never mind the fact that up until 9/11 we considered the Taliban an ally..." -- Les Dabney

Gosh!!! An ally? Really? I wonder what stupid, assinine bureaucratic, intern-chasing dim-wit allowed THAT to go unnoticed for eight long years.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Every nation gets the governance it deserves.]

P.S. Until 2001, we got what we 'deserved'. Now we're reaping the 'harvest' of what we 'deserved'.

P.P.S. Les Dabney, if you can identify some supporting reports about women and schools under the Taliban, I'd appreciate it.

TO: JB
RE: NK

"Many are now saying we should have discussions with NK no matter how threatening and bizarre they become. I guess they're another ally of ours." -- JB

I gotta sneaky suspicion that Bush is playing rope-a-dope with Kim Jong-Il. Playing for time in the world venue.

If diplomacy does not succeed in dealing with the NK-thing, we'll be applying the techniques we're about to apply in Iraq.

Here's what I see:

[1] Reports of up to 350,000 troops will be employed in Iraq over the course of the operation. That's twice as many as I thought would be necessary for Iraq.
[2] We fight in Iraq if February because that is the best time to fight, per weather considerations.
[3] After the hands-on, performance-oriented, combined-arms, live-fire exercise in Iraq as a training vehicle, we'll be ready to send the troops back home to California [Disneyland!!!], VIA North Korea.
[4] Weather in North Korea in the late Spring/early Summer should be just about right for a campaign.
[5] The troops will be combat-hardened veterans against the green troops of North Korea.
[6] The battle staffs will have had plenty of practice.
[7] North Korea will have no or only one or two nukes. [Note: We've got LOTS.]

Just some idle thoughts...

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Keep your eyes on their hands. Hands kill. In God we trust. Everybody else, "KEEP YOUR HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM!" -- Marine Corps Rules for Gunfighting]

Joe Baby,

Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

Here ya go and I recommend you expanding your reading past the usual Rush Limbaugh approved websites.

Chuck,
When all else fails, CLINTON'S PENIS!

That retort has become so common place from the right. The sexually repressed sheeple on the right haven't figured out yet that their leaders don't follow the "keep it in your pants" code that they preach to the flock.

Bush 41 was a serial adulterer but the wimpy Democrats didn't make a big deal about it when it was exposed during Iran-Contra. Maybe the Republicans won't be so lucky next time.

TO: Les
RE: Retort

Now THERE's a 'cogent' retort.

RE: url Please

But I'm STILL waiting for you to put up the proof that you and whathisname were claiming was all over the web about Girl's Schools under the Taliban.

Or are you more interested in someone else's anatomy than you are in factual discussion?

Something about some kinda 'envy', perhaps?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: Les Dabney
RE: Thats the Problem!

"The sexually repressed sheeple on the right..." -- Les Dabney

Too much suppression!

Well...

...unlike a lot of people I can think of...

We don't need titulation on the screen, like a lot of other people apparently do.

Must be something to do with our vivid imaginations and creativity. Topped off by our love for each other.

Trust me...

...you don't want to go there, compadre. You'll be embarrassed. And then you'll only get angry(er).

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. If you want to get a good 'picture' of her. Watch Life Force. She's the spitting image of the female lead. Then READ the last part of Proverbs 31. That's her personality.

I concur that the BBC article linked above reports that a delegation from the Taliban met with Unocal to discuss a pipeline. In 1997.

That doesn't exactly jibe with your assertion that they were our allies before 9/11. That was my point about NK--if the bar is so low that an occasional visiting delegation constitutes "an ally," then every country is our "ally."

That simply isn't the case.

Chuck:
You're sort of trying to prove a negative aren't you? I mean it doesn't matter how many articles you find claiming there were no schools for girls, or that they were banned, if I can find one that obviously says the opposite.

A more interesting question is to what extent feminists and jingoists have deliberately lied, and to what extent they simply parroted each others lies.

I don't have a specific URl because the sites are so damn easy to find. I usually get a different one each time. On one ocassion I was lucky and found an article with a photograph of one girls school in Taliban Afghanistan.

I've posted URL's on this on Stand Down several times now.

One of the charities, the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, mentioned here by the Taliban ambassador:

http://www.albalagh.net/current_affairs/syed_hashmi.shtml

has been operating girls schools in Afghanistan with the cooperation of the Taliban for many years. Just do a search for their name and "girls schools".

Here's an example I came across with a quick Google that is actually a UNICEF school for girls -- this is in Western Afghanistan under the Taliban (2001).

"The Shaidayee IDP camp school has current enrollment of 950 students (450 boys, 400 girls). Boys attend classes in the morning, while girls do so in the afternoon. A national NGO is managing the facility, designed for grade-one students (aged 7-9 years)."

(srcoll to the very bottom)
http://www.unicef.org/emerg/Country/Afghanistan/Afghanistan010806.htm

Now it's your turn. Given that major charities were issuing reports like this on schools for girls in Afghanistan for years and years, how do you account for the massive disinformation campaign by feminists and the US government to say girls had no schools iunder the Taliban?

This, from a NYT article (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/howthe.htm):

In its most recent policy statement on Afghanistan, the State Department
called on other nations to "engage" with the Taliban in hopes of
moderating their policies.

But the statement came as the Taliban were tightening still further their
Islamic social code, particularly the taboos that have banned women from
working, closed girls' schools, and required all women beyond puberty to
cloak themselves head-to-toe in garments called burqas that are the
traditional garb of Afghan village women.

From Human Rights Watch, 1998 (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k/Asia.htm#Afghanistan):

Taliban officials continued to beat women on the streets of Kabul for dress code violations and for venturing outside the home without the company of a close male relative. In Kabul, girls were not permitted to attend school, although primary schools for girls were permitted in other parts of the country. Women's employment remained severely restricted and was generally limited to health care. To ensure that religious practices were strictly enforced, Taliban police continued to arrest men for having beards that were too short, for not attending prayers, and for having shops open during scheduled prayer times.

From CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/taliban.html):

Under the Taliban's strict interpretation of Islamic law – a controversial interpretation some Islamic scholars call a gross distortion – women cannot work or attend school and must be covered from head to toe when outside of their homes. Since female doctors generally cannot practise and male doctors can not see or touch their female patients' bodies, access to medical care for women is severely restricted.

TO: DavidByron
RE: Prove the Negative

"You're sort of trying to prove a negative aren't you? I mean it doesn't matter how many articles you find claiming there were no schools for girls, or that they were banned, if I can find one that obviously says the opposite." -- DavidByron

Nope. You claimed there were a lot of girls schools in Taliban-Afghanistan. And, they were operated with the Taliban's tacit approval.

You even claimed such schools were readily findable with a simple web-search.

I did a search and I came up with what I posted, including a URL.

I asked you to provide a URL that supported your claim.

NOW...

....you come around here with THIS bogus argument? I'm asking you to prove a negative.

As if....

RE: A URL? And Obfuscation

"http://www.albalagh.net/current_affairs/syed_hashmi.shtml"

That article mentions that they opened some school for medicine. And that there were more girls than boys at the school.

"Recently we reopened the faculty of medical science in all major cities of Afghanistan and in Kandahar. There are more girls students studying in the faculty of medical sciences than boys are. But they are segregated. And the Swedish committees have also established schools for girls. I know they are not enough, but that is what we have been able to do."

I did a search on Google...

+"girls school"+taliban+Swedish

I found this...

"http://www.afghan-schools.org/school1.html"

"* History: The Girls School 1 in Taloqan was built in 1992 by the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan with donations of roofing materials from the City of Taloqan. Destroyed in 1999 by the Taliban, and rebuilt by Relief International, the school officially reopened in January 2002."

So....where it may be that your URL's report WAS accurate, at one time, the impression of the other URL's report, the Swedish report from Relief International says...

The Taliban destroyed the school and in 2002, after the liberation of Afghanistan, the school was reoponed.

What do you think that means?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: DavidByron
RE: UNICEF Reports

You accept reports from the UN?

The UN is dead. It killed itself over the last 5 years. And I'll bet you trust Blix.

Well...

...if you're trying to gain sancutary from he and his crowd, don't expect much. He just arranged for the torture and murder of probably two families today....

...turning the poor saps who trusted in the UN over to the Iraqi 'authorities'.

Hope you enjoy washing THAT blood off your hands.

In other words...

...you can take your immam and UN reports and toss them. They have low credibility for accuracy and reliability.

They're sorta 'biased'. As opposed to reports from Relief International, CBC and Human Rights Watch, which don't have such a vested interest.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Chuck,
I didn't make a claim that the Taliban allowed women to attend school. As far as I know they didn't.

Nice try changing the subject.

Ok Chuckles. I provided a URL where an aid agency was mentioning one of the many schools for girls run under the Taliban. I've done my part. Previously when you repeated the lie about girls schools you were a dupe; now you know your lying.

I posted some links where normally reliable sources detail the Taliban's efforts to deny schooling to females.

So reasonable people could reach the conclusion that the Taliban were doing all they could to strip the rights of females.

And to be honest, I have a hard time understanding the conspiracy theory that includes feminists and the Bush Administration--talk about unlikely allies.

TO: DavidByron
RE: Liars

"...now you know your lying." -- DavidByron

Yeah. Right. [Note to Self: All those URLs showing that the Taliban closed girls schools wherever they found them are lies. Only what DavidByron posts is the truth.]

TO: Les Dabney
RE: Those Changes...They Keep Coming Down

Speaking of changing subjects...

...good of you to take my advice and not go where you were attempting to lead this.

Can we now get back on topic?

RE: On Topic

"I didn't make a claim that the Taliban allowed women to attend school. As far as I know they didn't." -- Les Dabney at January 25, 2003 09:44 PM

Pardon me if I got you confused with the guy who posted THIS...

"But don't you know David? We need those lies to justify our military actions. We dress our troops up in drag as defenders of freedom and send them to bomb weddings and civilians and at the end of the day they can feel good about it because we protected our "national security" and "we brought freedom" to their country.

Never mind the fact that up until 9/11 we considered the Taliban an ally and even had some of them brought over here to wine and dine them.

No..no..no...let's not mention those things...we brought them freedom..." -- Les Dabney at January 25, 2003 02:33 PM

It must have been either your evil twin or that other guy who lives between your ears at different times of the day.

I apologize....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Who are we talking to now, Cybill...er....Dabney?]

To: Chuck
Re: Non Sequitor

This:
"But don't you know David? We need those lies to justify our military actions. We dress our troops up in drag as defenders of freedom and send them to bomb weddings and civilians and at the end of the day they can feel good about it because we protected our "national security" and "we brought freedom" to their country.

Never mind the fact that up until 9/11 we considered the Taliban an ally and even had some of them brought over here to wine and dine them.

No..no..no...let's not mention those things...we brought them freedom..." -- Les Dabney at January 25, 2003 02:33 PM

Does not equal:

Me making a claim that the Taliban allowed women to attend school.

Ergo:
Non Sequitor

Is that the best you can do? I never made the claim and as best that I know women have little to no rights under the Taliban's Islamic law so don't go and put words in my mouth.

TO: Les Dabney(II)
RE: Non Sequitor?

"[my statement supporting DavidByron's statement about there being lots of girls schools the Taliban approved of]...

Does not equal:

Me making a claim that the Taliban allowed women to attend school." -- Les Dabney

Well then...

...what was the purpose of your earlier statement?

Were you being 'sarcastic' to DavidByron?

Or were you being 'sarcastic' to me?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Joe Baby,
"reasonable people could reach the conclusion that the Taliban were doing all they could to strip the rights of females."

Only if a reasonable person couldn't think for themselves. Ok Joe explain this to me will you? If the Taliban were "doing everything in their power" to stop women going to school then why were the Taliban actively involved in many schools for girls across the country as per the links?

Wouldn't they have shut down those schools instead of helping them?

FACT: The Taliban had schools for girls
FACT: Feminists and the US government lied their asses off about this issue

Go ahead and explain to me why the Taliban supported schools if they had a law saying nio schools for girls. You're resorting to UTTER NONSENSE just so as to avoid concluding you've been sold a line.

So you have a link saying one girls school was closed for whatever reason. Terrific. Want to guess how many schools were closed in the US that same year for whatever reasons?

Try THINKING for yourself is all I ask.

THINK about the entire racist premise that people in Afghanistan are actually against their daughters being educated. Feminists get out of these lies the idea that women are universally oppressed by evil men. Bush get's another racist exuse for his imperialist war.

Meanwhile UNICEF and the SCA as well as other charities continue funding the same schools with girls that they had under the Taliban only now whenever the reporters mention them it's "Oh now because of American imperialism girls can go to school again".

The feminists got sold out which is why you never hear from RAWA any more.

As with all propaganda the truth is VERY EASY to find out so quit being LAZY and think for yourself.

David,

And my point was that if people went to the links I provided, none of which were far right loony sites (far from it), they would reach the conclusion that the Taliban were denying education to females (note the Human Rights Watch text--no females in school in Kabul, and that was '98).

Human Rights Watch has not been co-opted by feminists nor the Bush Administration, and is a reliable source on these matters. Hence my "reasonable people could conclude" argument.

TO: Chuck:
Re: Freedom, Afghanistan, and Oil

Faulty reasoning, Chuck. I never said there weren't significant improvements in the lives of some of the Afghanistan people since the USofA started hammering at the Taliban. What I said was that we were not still in there, working to bring democracy and freedom to those people.

Have you missed the DoD's well-publicized complaints that the Administration isn't paying enough attention to the forces left in Afghanistan, that they aren't given the support they need to finish the job they started?

Further, look at these, garnered in a split-second search on Google. (I doubt that this comments function accepts hotlinks, so forgive the messy look of these.)

Quote about Iraqi refugees fleeing to Iran:

"Nearly two million refugees from Afghanistan already live in Iran."
(http://www.irna.com/en/head/030126194940.ehe.shtml)

I'm thinking, if the people from Afghanistan thought everything was peachy at home, they'd be headed that direction. They're not. Is anyone wondering why?

Quote about consequences of war on Iraq:

"U.N. diplomats hear rumblings from Afghanistan that al-Qaeda will strike there when the U.S. strikes Iraq; the terrorists could just as easily retaliate in Europe or the U.S."
(http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901030203-411381,00.html)

I don't know about you, Chuck, but if the rest of the world is still looking over its shoulder for al-Qaeda, then I'm thinking that maybe Afghanistan might not be quite free of their repressive, terrorist influence yet, hmmm? Maybe we didn't quite finish the job?

Take a look at this:

"A series of edicts and statements this week by the chief justice of Afghanistan’s Supreme Court has led some to fear that restrictive codes from the Taliban era are being resurrected."
(http://news.google.com/news?q=afghanistan+-%22Afghan+Kuwaitis%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&start=10&sa=N&filter=0)

Doesn't look to *me* like we've brought an amazing amount of freedome to Afghanistan.

The bottom line is that we have *not* brought democracy and freedom to Afghanistan.

There have been multiple news reports over the past couple of months about schools that allow girls to attend being burned down. There have been reports that Taliban or pro-Taliban elements are still moving around the country, planning to take back power.

All we did was to scatter some of the al-Qaeda forces and drive them under cover. Then the Bushleaguer and his cronies got tired of playing war with rocks and decided to play with oil fields.

Chuck says"
"On target again, Anne. We need that oil desparately. Why just last month when I drove across the country to go to Disneyworld, passing through Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana...I saw all those miles and miles of oil wells just pumping their hearts out. They must be just about dry by now. Not to mention all those wells I know about in Colorado and Wyoming. And Alaska? Forget it...."

You're assuming that a huge, multi-national oil conglomerate comprehends "enough." They don't. You look around and see that there's enough oil for your journey, for the rest of your life.

They look around and wonder how they're going to keep their power and influence for the next one or two hundred years. They don't care that there's oil here. There's oil in other places, too, and a lot more of it. They don't want, "enough", Chuck. They want as much as they can control.

Chuck says:
"When we gain control of the oil fields in Iraq, we'll FLOOD the world in oil. It'll be cheaper than salt by the sea side. That'll do WONDERS for the world economy. Not to mention all those fat-cat oil companies."

This is a mistake I frequently see people making. Assuming that *if* our oil companies got control of Iraq, they'd provide cheap oil.

My response is, "don't be naïve, kids." They don’t want the oil to be cheaper. That cuts into their profits. They're just tired of sharing the profits with the current producers.

Chuck says:
"...Anne, you can go back to the scullery."

I'm a lousy cook and a worse dish-washer, I promise you. ;)

Here's a link that mentions Save The Children's involvement in funding schools in Afghanistan under the Taliban:

http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/know_sharing/grassroots_stories/afghanistan.shtml

It also notes that the Taliban's own state run schools had some girls attending (that is to say they had some girls schools). Please explain to me exactly how the Taliban were doing everything in their power to stop girls going to school if they were running girls schools themselves and cooperating with NGOs doing the same?

(The edict mentioned is presumably the ban on mixed sex schools for kids over a certain age.)

Here's yet another NGO funding schols under the Taliban:

http://www.pcpafg.org/news/weeklyupdate/2001_Issues/update2001_08_01_423.shtml

"Since beginning of June 2001, the Swiss Foundation of TDH is supporting the salaries of teachers for five primary schools and two high schools in the town of Rustaq, Takhar Province.

All seven schools fully operational and covering the needs of 1,963 pupils and 105 teachers. A ratio of 64 % enrolment of boys and 36 % enrolment of girls within the framework of TDH support is recorded."

Are all these groups LYING? Lying about the existance of schools for girls and supporting the Taliban presumably? Is that your opinion?

And yes I wouldn't trust the HRW. They are heavily influenced by feminists although to their credit they did later retract the propaganda claims about the "rape camps" in Yugoslavia. HRW is also very cagey about criticising the US government.

Oh and here's yet another organisation funding girls schools in Afghanistan under the Taliban: the World Food Program. (say what?)

http://www.pcpafg.org/news/weeklyupdate/2001_Issues/update2001_03_15_403.shtml

"Last year, WFP Afghanistan started implementing a pilot Food for Education project in the north-eastern province of Badakhshan, where girls can still go to formal schools.

WFP has been giving a monthly ration of 12.5 kg of wheat for both boys and girls, with an additional 5 litre can of oil for every girl pupil.

Overall, girls’ enrolment in the 50 schools participating in the project has increased to 40%, from 32% the year before and in the first grade, 45% of all new enrolments are now girls."

Again I remind you that the Afghan ambassador didn't condemn these projects but bragged about them. The Taliban obviously knew about and supported these projects. This is all public knowledge. How do you explain the fact that feminists spread the lie of no schools for girls in Afghanistan?

TO: Anne
RE: Fault!

"Faulty reasoning, Chuck. I never said there weren't significant improvements in the lives of some of the Afghanistan people since the USofA started hammering at the Taliban." -- Anne

Are you and Les Dabney 'related'?

Or are you 'a' manifestation of his feminine side?

More later...

...gotta do some code for the distaff.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

As for HRW being cagey about criticizing the US, there's 15 items on this page alone where they do just that.

http://www.hrw.org/us/index.php

Would you prefer stuff from Amnesty? There's this from the 2000 report:

Women and children
As in previous years, women were forced to comply with the discriminatory policies of the Taleban who imposed severe restrictions on their education, employment and freedom of movement. Tens of thousands of women effectively remained prisoners in their homes, with no scope to seek the removal of these restrictions. Women who defied them were subjected to systematic ill-treatment. Reports that a number of local Taleban officials had agreed to education for young girls based on a strict religious curriculum, or to employment for a small number of women, were not backed by official statements from the Taleban leader.
The Taleban reportedly recruited Afghan children and deployed them as guards at checkpoints, as patrols in the streets, and as security guards in stadiums during the execution of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments. Eyewitnesses testified to the presence of child combatants in Taleban military ranks.

And as for an Afghani Ambassador under the Taleban asserting anything, I find that funny. It wouldn't be a great stretch in logic for him to say one thing while the country does exactly the opposite.

To sum up: I'm not asserting that there were absolutely no schools in AFG under the Taleban...but human rights groups have given some evidence that that was the case, feminist conspiracy theories aside.

Sorry...forgot the link for the Amnesty info I posted:

http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2000web.nsf/countries/f45d4bd4ae8ee428802568f200552988?OpenDocument

Joe? Your Amnesty source failed to say there were no schools for girls. In fact it said there were schools. And finally you end up reversing your position 180 degrees yet continuing to pretend that you were saying girls could go to school just fine all along. LOL.

As for Chuckles' story about a girls school being closed down (a link he got from me anyway) -- what an idiot. If someone says that they don't beleive trees exist then a story about a tree being chopped down is evidence AGAINST their theory not for.

"To sum up: I'm not asserting that there were absolutely no schools in AFG under the Taleban...but human rights groups have given some evidence that that was the case, feminist conspiracy theories aside."

Bullshit. HRW flat out lied. So did every other source you found repeating this propaganda. The fact is Amnesty was the only one with the balls to not back up the feminist/imperialist propaganda. Even Amnesty were highly deceptive in what they said but at least they didn't outright lie.

Come on Joe tell me what you think. Were there schools for girls? What evidence did HRW present that there were none? I didn't see any evidence. How could they present any evidence since we know they were lying? I just saw a bald statement that there were none. A blatant lie that was very easy to see as a lie by anyone with a web search engine.

Do you want me to find more NGOs with more schools fo girls under the Taliban or are those examples enough?

is UNICEF lying Joe? Is Save The Children lying to make the Taliban look good? Is the WFP and the SCA lying about the existance of their schols too? Are all the UN reports on education in Afghnaitsan fabricated by Taliban sympathisers? Is Amnesty (with an obviously anti-Taliban bias) lying too?

Or is HRW lying?

This argument has gotten rather silly hasn't it? When pressed to back up their assertions the folks from the right have stooped to back tracking, reversing their earlier comments and putting words in our mouths.

Sad. Maybe Sean-Paul can invite some seasoned debaters to this argument clinic next time. :)

So HRW lies but UNICEF speaks absolute truth? Okay, we're taking some rather large leaps here...

My point--for the third time--is that there was plenty of information from institutions that were not far-right tools (although you now assert they were tools of leftist feminists) that detailed how the Taliban were going to great lengths to strip the rights of females.

When someone can go to the website of Human Rights Watch or Amnesty and find evidence of this, it's a shrill cry to claim that anyone who says so is lying.

So now the feminists and the imperialists are working together. Will wonders ever cease?

Another brief point, and you can refer to my previous points to verify it:

I've never asserted that there were NO girls in school under the Taleban. I simply responded to your theory that 'anyone who says so is lying.'

The comments I found were from left-leaning organizations and news organizations, so the size of the conspiracy of liars is rather amazing.

But perhaps that was your point all along.

I guess Arundhati Roy wasn't being ironic when she poked fun at the nonsense of the Afghan war being a feminist operation? David, you're a simplistic, dreck-spewing moron as always. Afghanistan is/was run by different tribes and warlords, from about four ethnic groups. NGOs have set up camps in and around the country, and those groups have provided schools and other necessities under their aegis.

But the country has been in a state of perpetual war for two decades now. When the Taliban 'controlled' the country, that means that they held Kabul and the Pashtun areas, and were fighting like hell for the portions where they hadn't allied with the local strongmen. And in Kabul and Qandahar where their control was the strongest, girls' schools were forbidden. But they never had the sort of even, central control held by established governments. Therefore, an ability to absolutely rule the whole of the country never existed.

They did continue to *say* that they wanted to set up equal facilities for women, but the fact is that they so persecuted women with any education that in practical terms it was impossible. There was simply no one to run such facilities. And they did, in the run up to the bombing, forbid female NGO workers from distributing food in Kabul. Which effectively forbid Afghan women from taking food from male aid workers.

And they were vaguely better than the Northern Alliance, in that they forbid the wholesale rape and looting occuring under that rival faction. But it doesn't say much to be better than a group of pillaging thugs. Not exactly a standard to aim for.

And all that being true, it doesn't make it even a little bit better that no one gave a goddamn about the people in that country before the war. It makes it not one little bit better that world opinion (and donation money) was more captured by stone carvings than by starving humans.

Chuck - ""Never mind the fact that up until 9/11 we considered the Taliban an ally..." -- Les Dabney

Gosh!!! An ally? Really? I wonder what stupid, assinine bureaucratic, intern-chasing dim-wit allowed THAT to go unnoticed for eight long years."

If you recall, Clinton was perpetually hampered in his pursuit of Bin Laden by a Republican legislature that put it around that he was making stuff up. He actually fired missiles into Afghanistan, and was accused of engaging in 'Wag the Dog' politics.

Sean-Paul - So this is what happens when Instapundit notices you? Jesus. What a drag.

Chuck - I'm not Les Dabney, at least my mother assures me I'm not, but thanks for the tip that led me to a new blog well worth reading. :)

See? Even Natasha admits the feminists simply lied when they said that girls couldn't go to school under the Taliban.

This is a very interesting "argument" since my "opponents" are now so convinced that I have caught them out that they are actually pretending they never did beleive that girls couldn't go to school in Taliban Afghanistan.

It was all a misunderstanding see? Joe says he never did beleive those stories --- he was just saying some other people - really stupid people I guess - OTHER people might beleive it but not him. No sir!

Well that's an interesting point Joe. Please tell me how you think that HRW could come to the conclusion that there were no schools in Taliban Afghanistan -- which certainly did extend over 90% of the country covering the schools mentioned above despite Natasha's attempt to cover up.

Not that Natasha says there were no schools either. No sir! That would be a big mistake to think she ever said that. Funny thing is I'm pretty sure she has said that at Stand Down. Hmm. Must be gettn' old.

"David, you're a simplistic, dreck-spewing moron as always".

Thanks Natasha. Is that insult one of Hesiod's btw? That was a pretty good summary of Afghanistan up there. I mean apart from the self-serving part where you tried to exaplain that the Taliban only controlled Kandahar and Kabul. I guess if that was true then any statement by feminists about what the Taliban did to women in Afghanistan would be false -- since according to you they didn't have enough influence nationally to get anything done.

But the rest was very good. You know following me around like this -- it doesn't make you look good. I know, I know -- you don't care. Anything to try and protect the blogoshphere from my evil influence and all that. I just wish you wouldn't. I mean I'm honoured and everything -- actually rather flattered by your attention.

Nice to chat with you as always -- but if you want to make a habit of it perhaps you should open up your own site for that purpose once again?

David - In case you hadn't known, this site was on my blogroll before I even knew you existed. The fact that you keep showing up at sites that I frequent is most unfortunate. If it weren't for the fact that you keep going around sites that I like saying the most appalling things, I would have long since forgotten your worthless, serial-trolling hide. I don't want to allow you a forum on my site, but what other site owners do is up to them.

And it's so refreshing to see that you've taken the wholly original tactic of assuming that someone who despises you is secretly attracted. There's this whole femme fatale gist to your accusation which is both revolting and unbecoming. Is that supposed to intimidate me into not revealing you for the miserable, lying scumbag that you are?

If the Taliban had had their way, there would have been no schools, as was their edict in the areas they controlled. There are several reported cases of secret girls' schools being closed, and the teachers punished. The mere fact that there are now publicly recognized schools in areas where they weren't available before would seem to indicate that some mysterious factor has changed.

Your argument is functionally identical to saying that because pot-smoking occurs within US borders, the US government encourages pot-smoking. And your assessment that because, in theory, they want schools doesn't hold up. It's the same as saying that anti-choicers who regulate family planning clinics out of existence with expensive and unnecessary rules favor allowing abortion. If you actually want something, you will allow it under realistic conditions.

David,

I think I've done a decent job of countering your "everyone is lying" assertion about education under the Taleban. You're either failing to grasp my basic argument, or you're willfully ignoring it--either way, that's not a great recommendation to continue the dialogue.

You may continue to make this a personal issue as much as you so desire--but that's not really the point, is it? HRW and Amnesty have both basically said that the Taleban strove to wipe out female education, and did so in Kabul.

If those two organizations are part of the big evil Bush cabal, or whatever conspiracy you're seeing, I guess I can't satisfy your curiosity enough to continue.

And when you try to ascribe motives or assumptions about me while ignoring the point, I don't really care to. Ya dig?

Anne,
I guess Chuck is trying to change the subject by accusing me of pulling a Lott, what name did he use? Mary Rosh? When you can't beat'em, try to smear'em is the righty creed.

LOL

Hey Natasha!

"I don't want to allow you a forum on my site"

But you have an entire special page for me!

"There are several reported cases of secret girls' schools being closed"

Because they were run by communist RAWA you mean?

Secret schools closed yet schools openly run by well known international NGOs are bragged about -- and you interpret this as doing everything in their power to close schools? C'mon Natasha, I know you'd do anything to disagree with me but this is a little silly. It's very obvious from any one of the sources I provided (let alone all five) that what you are saying about the Taliban simply isn't true.

"Your argument is functionally identical to saying that because pot-smoking occurs within US borders, the US government encourages pot-smoking"

Can you find at least five sources saying that the US government helps to provide schools for pot smoking? LOL, if you can do that I guess it would be true that the US government encourages pot smoking. Ooops. Facts - those troubling little things eh Natasha? Are you claiming that UNICEF, Save The Children and the rest are all lying?

"If you actually want something, you will allow it under realistic conditions."

You've not presented any evidence to suggest that conditions were any different for boys than for girls.

Oh -- good luck with your exams.

LES

I don't mind at all. I'm working my way through your recent blog entries and I'd be proud to be your sock-puppet. Heh.

Interesting series of posts here - if anyone's still reading, it's probably worth pointing out that 2 of the specific instances cited by DavidByron of girls'education under the Taliban - the TdH school in Rustaq (Takhar province) and the WFP school(s) in Badakhshan - were operating in the zone controlled by the Northern Alliance. Not under the Taliban. I have no idea why anyone would want to deny the hostility of the Taliban to female education.

Malcom does that mean that -- just like everyone else who's disagreed with me -- you agree with me? Am I missing something Malcom? 5 - 2 = 3 doesn't it? I'll take your word for it without bothering to check, but only because it's such a supremely useless "point".

That's right isn't it Malcom? You, like everyone else here "disagreeing" with me, are not going to be brave enough to repeat the actual lie being contested here are you? You are not saying that under the Taliban girls couldn't go to school are you?

Tell me Malcom why are you supporting a lie that your too much of a coward to actually repeat? Go ahead and try to provide evidence that the Taliban were hostile to education for girls if you care to.

Malcom:
You got confused. In the page in question there were a lot of schools mentioned. the one I was thinking of was the one in Western Afghanistan not the North. As you know the West was a Taliban stronghold. In any case the school mentioned in the North had no details about whether it was a boys or a girls school.

I'm not sure if Badakhshan was under Taliban control in March 2001. They appeared to be gaining control of the province:

http://www.pcpafg.org/news/Afghan_News/Year2000/2000_09_25/Taliban_capture_three_towns_on_Tajik_border.shtm

"I have no idea why anyone would want to deny the hostility of the Taliban to female education."

Because in David's sick little mind, western imperialism is secretly a feminst plot. Which is why he hates western imperialism so passionately.

To him, there is no oppression of women anywhere in the world. In fact, they are often the favored oppressor class. Anytime the western press talks about such oppression, it's a lie crafted to further the agenda of the all-powerful Mary Daly who wants to commit genocide against all men.

TO: Les Dabney
RE: Guessing Games, Anyone?

"I guess Chuck is trying to change the subject by accusing me of pulling a Lott, what name did he use? Mary Rosh? When you can't beat'em, try to smear'em is the righty creed." -- Les Dabney

You, sir, 'project'.

And I state my evidence in your own words....

"...pulling a Lott..."

Back at you...

"When you can't beat'em, smear'em."

Or do you consider being a 'Lott', a 'good' thing?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
Target! Cease fire...

Loader. Load sabot.

Gunner. Stop tracking Target ANNE. Begin tracking Target NATASHA. We'll save the best, most verbose, if not necessarily 'articulate' for last.

Driver. Hold position.

P.S. Les...

...what the HECK does any of this tripe have to do with the 'topic'?

CORRECTION! Gunner. Stop tracking Target LES. Begin tracking Target NATASHA. Blast these new headset controls....

....sorry. We're saving ANNE for last.

Hey Natasha!
I don't think imperialism is a "secret feminist plot". By the way it's usually considered pretty desperate to put words in people's mouths when they're right there. You should go and put those words in my mouth somewhere where I can't respons -- like on the "secret" hate-David-Byron page of your site.

Imperialists and feminists have certain goals in common and are able to work together. That's pretty clear. Not really a very exciting comment at all except that feminists like to present themselves as reactionary when they are usually pretty establishment.

"Which is why he hates western imperialism so passionately."

No, that would because of all the people the imperialist kill Natasha. Oh no. My bad. It's because I'm jealous of their freedoms and democracy.

"To him, there is no oppression of women anywhere in the world"

I don't split the world into deserving and non-deserving sexes like you do Natasha. I don't see people as oppressed only by sex. Plenty of people are oppressed and their sex usually has nothing to do with it. I certainly don't identify with a movement that only concerns itself with the oppression of one sex for example. That would be you wouldn't it?

"Anytime the western press talks about such oppression, it's a lie"

Are you saying that Afghanistan did not have schools for girls after all Natasha?

TO: Natasha
RE: Trrrrry to Remeeeeember...

"If you recall, Clinton was perpetually hampered in his pursuit of Bin Laden by a Republican legislature that put it around that he was making stuff up. He actually fired missiles into Afghanistan, and was accused of engaging in 'Wag the Dog' politics." -- natasha

Yeah....right....

I was there, watching it all, very intently. I remember being on a conference call when the news of the 'mightly missile' strikes came across. I blurted out, "Oh my God! It's wag-the-dog. On the day that Monica testifies and all." [Note: Ya gotta love the internet.]

Your lack of understanding of politics/media/history is really quite 'remarkable'. Are you a 20-something?

By the by...

...those missiles, which cost about a million a 'pop', were wasted. And indeed, did more harm then good. Or do you remember the Taliban response, a la Sept. 11, 2001?

Well, babe, the 'games' have begun in earnest. And Clinton is to blame. And his 'use' of NATO vis-a-vis Kosovo is just prima faecia evidence.

If you can't put 2 and 2 together to come up with "he shot the missiles" to "reduce the impact of Monica's testimony"...

...well...

...I guess you're just another example of the vaunted Amercian Puclic Education systems failure or a Eurocrat.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Target! Cease fire.

Loader. Load HEAT.
Gunner. Stop tracking Target NATASHA...she's a hopeless wreck. Begin tracking Target ANNE.

Driver. Move to Firing Position TWIT-STOP. Move out!

Foxtrot Xray 7 Bravo. This is Foxtrot Uniform 8 Echo. Fire Target NATASHA.

Roger FU8E....pause...rounds complete.

Roger FX7B. Wait. Over.

[Multiple impacts vicinity Target NATASHA.]

The Republicans couldn't stop Clinton from acting 'rashly' against bin Laden.

Clinton was invoking the War Powers Act.

The War Powers Act was instigated by the Democrat-controlled Congress under Nixon.

FX7B. FU8E. Direct hit. Multiple casualties; credibility, ego, persona. All crippled. Good shooting. More targets later. Be patient. Out.

DAVID: "Imperialists and feminists have certain goals in common and are able to work together. That's pretty clear. Not really a very exciting comment at all except that feminists like to present themselves as reactionary when they are usually pretty establishment."

David, that's a pretty weak argument. Imperialists and anarchists have certain goals in common. Feminists and the gay and lesbian community have certain goals in common. Feminists have certain goals in common with Bush's agenda.

If you paint with a wide enough brush, there are very few groups who don't contain members who have goals in common with groups of seemingly opposing aims.

I do dislike it when people use such sweeping generalizations. Feminism isn't "one size fits all" any more than right-wing warmongers all fit one, precise pattern.

I would not, for instance, say that all right-wing warmongers are anti-feminist, just because I've seen signs of anti-feminism, or at least deep distrust of feminism, in this discussion.

Also:
"Stop tracking Target ANNE. Begin tracking Target NATASHA. We'll save the best, most verbose, if not necessarily 'articulate' for last.?"

As soon as I figure out whether or not I'm being insulted, I'll be back with repartee on the subject.

I know consecutive posting is in bad taste but I am, as hinted elsewhere, inclined to talk a lot.

DAVID:
"I don't split the world into deserving and non-deserving sexes like you do Natasha. I don't see people as oppressed only by sex. Plenty of people are oppressed and their sex usually has nothing to do with it. I certainly don't identify with a movement that only concerns itself with the oppression of one sex for example."

The reason oppression is classified by race, age, gender, or nationality, David, is because it's necessary in order to take action against oppression.

It's futile to stand in the middle of the road, screaming that people shouldn't be oppressed. You have to identify the oppression and identify the population being subjected to that oppression. Then people, not government, but people, have to mobilise to fight the oppression. (Goverment action is and should be a reflection of the people's desires.)

No one person can fight all oppression, so different people get behind different causes. It's not strange or scary or exclusionary. It's human nature.

If we all stopped to consider the total volume of oppression and injustice in this world today, we'd be paralyzed by the sheer weight of inhumanity* being displayed. We wouldn't know where to start combating it. Identifying populations and "causes," as I said before, is what allows us to move from anger to action.

*I dislike using that word but lacked a better one at the moment. "Humanity" has a long history of brutal oppression, so it's a purely philosophical construct to speak of "inhumanity" when discussing the kind of behavior humanity has demonstrated for millenia.

Shutting up now. (For the time being.)

Hey Anne.
It's probably just you and me left so don't worry about the consecutive posting. I've been meaning to check out your site for a while.

re. The imperilaism / feminism thing, it's a weak argument because it's really much of an argument at all. I am not saying anything terribly interesting like "Hitler was a feminist" or... whatever. Just that feminists often present their movement as radical and against the interests of the elites and I happen to think they have a lot in common. A lot of very bad and deeply sexist feminist laws get passed with bipartisan support. I just don't see feminism as at all progressive.

That's about it really except that (and this is how we got on this topic in the first place) I mentioned that on Afghanistan and more broadly the war against Islam feminists and imperilists have a lot in common in promoting a faked pattern of oppressed womanhood. But then who doesn't do that, right? Nazis the KKK everyone goes on about women's rights. It's about as controversial as flag waving or kissing babies

"The reason oppression is classified by race, age, gender, or nationality, David, is because it's necessary in order to take action against oppression."

Well very rarely it is, yes, for a single issue, but how does that excuse joining a movement that specifically only campaigns for women? Feminism is obviously sexist in it's very concept. Not only is it sexist but because it claims to be against sexism feminism is inherently hypocritical and fake.

"It's futile to stand in the middle of the road, screaming that people shouldn't be oppressed. You have to identify the oppression and identify the population being subjected to that oppression."

But feminists always identify women are the oppressed regardless of the facts. It's bigotry. For example although research says men constitute between 30 and 50% of domestic violence victims in America feminist hate laws have managed to eliminate funding for men's shelters -- there are almost none in the entire country. So here's an example where the problem applies to both sexes and feminist hate means that the issue is framed in law in terms of only one sex. It's unconstitutional discrimination. Well what do you expect from a sexist movement that pretends to be against sexism. In short feminism is part of the problem of sexism -- and a very big part of it.

"Identifying populations and "causes," as I said before, is what allows us to move from anger to action."

Causes yes, populations no. How would you feel about a movement that was only interested in promoting the interests of white people? Including asking for legislation that removed black people's rights and discriminated against them? if you oppose that sort of thing then logically you should oppose it when feminists do the same thing on the basis of sex not race.

Before I start posting, yes, I know I went on and on and I'm ashamed of myself but you know how I am.

DAVID:

"...feminists often present their movement as radical and against the interests of the elites and I happen to think they have a lot in common. A lot of very bad and deeply sexist feminist laws get passed with bipartisan support. I just don't see feminism as at all progressive. "

I'm still seeing sweeping generalizations. Define "elites." Which feminists are you referring to? The ones who might be member of that same "elites" or the "feminists" who spend their lives lobbying local and state governments for money and aid for the poor and disadvantaged of all genders, races, and religions?

**Removed: long and bitter rant about today's version of "feminism." and political "movements" in general, as members of the voting public.**

As far as the bad laws, "feminists" don't have a monopoly on bad laws, so that's another sweeping generalization. As long as there are human beings, there will be venial and corrupt human beings and we'll have bad laws. As long as there is perceived injustice, there will be instances of over-reaction and over-compensation.

"That's about it really except that (and this is how we got on this topic in the first place) I mentioned that on Afghanistan and more broadly the war against Islam feminists and imperilists have a lot in common in promoting a faked pattern of oppressed womanhood. But then who doesn't do that, right? Nazis the KKK everyone goes on about women's rights. It's about as controversial as flag waving or kissing babies"

I'd be interested in seeing pro-feminism propaganda from the KKK. (Or, maybe not. The mind boggles.... )

(And the fact that many peoples around the world are oppressed does not make it better that some of that oppression is specifically directed at subjecting women, okay? You don't get a lot of societies where men are required to drape themselves in layers of cloth for fear someone should look at them. You don't get a lot of societies where groups band together to stone a man to death because they're mad at his sister. You don't get a lot of men whose sexual organs are ritually excised to prevent sexual pleasure and don't even mention circumcision which, while wrong, is hardly in the same league.

Women are physically smaller and weaker than men. In the past, that was used as an excuse to treat women as property instead of people. In this world today, women are still treated as adjuncts of the men who essentially "own" them. Slavery isn't acceptable, under any circumstances. These are not issues of an isolated, totalitarian ruler oppressing his people. These are systematic, cultural injustices.)

(Also. Have you been watching the furor about which flag they're going to be waving in Florida? I'd say that's pretty controversial. I'm just saying. Sweeping generalizations. Hard to defend.)

"Well very rarely it is, yes, for a single issue, but how does that excuse joining a movement that specifically only campaigns for women? Feminism is obviously sexist in it's very concept. Not only is it sexist but because it claims to be against sexism feminism is inherently hypocritical and fake."

This is what started me off on the rant I removed earlier. I could make the case that it's impossible to improve the lot of, for instance, poor women, without improving the lot of their children, male and female. It's impossible to force the field of medicine to fully open to female doctors without getting patients who benefit from the occasional brilliant female surgeon. The root motivation of feminism is (or used to be) that it was an injustice to waste the potential of one-half of the population, that making women equal to men would improve the world for everyone.

As so often happens, now that the original problems are being addressed, the means for addressing them are starting to look more like "preferential treatment" to some than a guarantee of equal treatment.

Personally, I think it's a mistake to assume that without legal enforcement, women and minorities would, even today, be given fair treatment by our society. It's just not true. Not while people like Trent Lott (and his hundreds of thousands of peers) are still walking around, the victims of bigotries and prejudices they absorbed at such a young age that they themselves don't know how deeply they've been influenced by those beliefs. Not while Pat Robertson is out there, preaching hellfire against "sinners" who, in the end, turn out to be all those people who aren't pretty much just like him.

"research says men constitute between 30 and 50% of domestic violence victims in America...."

Please provide documentation for these numbers.

"....feminist hate laws have managed to eliminate funding for men's shelters -- there are almost none in the entire country. So here's an example where the problem applies to both sexes and feminist hate means that the issue is framed in law in terms of only one sex. It's unconstitutional discrimination. Well what do you expect from a sexist movement that pretends to be against sexism. In short feminism is part of the problem of sexism -- and a very big part of it."

**Removed – 750 angry words. I'm posting the removed material at http://peevish.blogspot.com (when I get time).

I do not ask or expect that you will read or comment on it in that forum. Stay here and let's fight about things that don't make me quite so insane. :)

"Causes yes, populations no. How would you feel about a movement that was only interested in promoting the interests of white people? Including asking for legislation that removed black people's rights and discriminated against them? if you oppose that sort of thing then logically you should oppose it when feminists do the same thing on the basis of sex not race."

Wow. That was quite a leap. :) Hope you didn't hurt yourself there.

I'd be very upset if you found, in anything I've said, any indication that I think passing laws to remove anyone's rights and discriminate against them was acceptable. (Understand, at the moment we're referring only to the average, more-or-less sane, non-criminal individual.)

I see your point, though, and I've heard it before, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

Let's just get to the nub. You're dancing around saying that white men are being discriminated against is my understanding. (That's me. Anne, Diplomacy and Tact, Inc.)

I don't think that affirmative action "discriminates" against white men or "removes rights" from them, for instance, which is a claim I've specifically heard. (Unless, of course, you're referring to the "right" to be considered first, hired first, and fired last.)

I don't think that government regulations requiring that a certain number of government contracts be awarded to minority or women-owned businesses "discriminates" against non-minority or men-owned businesses. Non-minority and men-owned businesses are still free to compete for 90 percent* of the government's contract money. All this regulation does is carve out a tiny percentage for "non-traditional" businesses. It gives a helping hand, promotes equality, and serves the needs of this portion of the population.

(*Exact percentage escapes me at the moment. This is an estimate.)

I don't think affirmative action programs in universities discriminate against me just because I'm not a minority. I don't think they discriminate against men who aren't minorities, either.

I think it's right and fair that business and institutions who would not, on their own, accept some people into their halls are forced to do so. I think it's right and fair that someone is born, looks in the mirror one day and sees that their skin is brown, and is still assured that the society they live in isn't allowed to kick them aside as unimportant or unworthy.

I don't think these laws are legislating "discrimination" against white men. I think they're a sincere and laudable attempt to solve a very complicated problem – how to provide access to educational and business opportunities for law-abiding *citizens* in this country who will not, otherwise, be able to cross that invisible barrier.

In the same vein, I don't think "small business set-asides" discriminate against large corporations. It's still difficult and used to be impossible for small companies to get the attention of the government when bidding on contracts. Consequently, the multi-billion dollar government contracting field was dominated by an ever-shrinking number of big corporations. Competition was scarce, innovation was rare, and costs kept going up. Today those huge corporations so beloved by politicians for big donation checks still dominate but there's a small and growing pool of "alternate" contractors who are both experienced and frequently more cost-effective.

My point, and I do have one, is that there are a lot of mechanisms in place all over this country that are attempts to legislate equality and justice for all. Some are better laws than others. I doubt if the vast majority of them were enacted "against" anyone.

And now, I swear, I'm shutting up.

Let me answer the "white man" accusation first. I say 'accusation" because I didn't say "white man" -- you did -- and you made that accusation because you figured it was easy to beat me with. And it it is, or would be if I believed it.

I said nothing about race. Nothing at all. It is feminists that use race as an illegitimate method of stealing the sympathy due to genuinely disadvantaged minority groups.

It goes, "Women are disadvantaged. Want proof/ look, i can mention women and blacks in the same sentence so they must be the same. Now i quote all sorts of stuff to show blacks are disadvantaged . hey presto - that prroves women are disadvantaged!"

More soon.

Just continuing the race thing.....

I do happen to be against AA in general but that has nothing to do with my view of feminism because (in my opinion) women are not disadvantaged. In fact the question of AA as applied to sex is whether men should get affirmative action to make up for their second class status. This is being considered in some areas (college entrance places for example).

Putting together the phrase "white men" is just as much a verbal trick as "women and minorities". The fact is it is men who are in the minority and men who are the disadvantaged sex. If you had to choose a sex which was the equivalent of "black" it would be men. White women are the most privleged birth group in the world and in America black men are the most disadvantaged.

You talk about AA for government contracts to "minority or women-owned businesses" as if they were the same. Are they? Most small businesses are women owned. Women are the majority, men and blacks are minorities. So unless you think affirmative action is designed to help those who are already doing best I question your assumption that AA would apply to women. Extending even more privileges to the most elitist group is not equality in anyone's terms.

You mention AA in university placements. Women have about 45% more chance of a university placement than men. The number of men going is now so small it amounts to a crisis iespecially in liberal faculties. Once again women are the elite, the majority, men and blacks are the under-represented minorities.

You say you support forcing businesses to employ women and minorities. Well that is the law already of course (with exceptions for tiny employers). But what about men? What about gynacology for example? This is a field where men are blatantly disciminated against. Female only practises are common and they advertise explicitly for female only applicants and get away with it despite it being against the law. Do you think those female only practises should be taken down for their sexism? Most feminists say "no". Feminists support discrimination against men.

"I think it's right and fair that someone is born, looks in the mirror one day and sees that their skin is brown, and is still assured that the society they live in isn't allowed to kick them aside as unimportant or unworthy."

I agree. This happens to men all to of