Posted on 10/28/2011 6:37:56 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24
The color photograph below is one of the Army PR pics currently running on the Army Knowledge Online website. Two of our female soldiers who are part of a cultural "Engagement Team" are shown standing with Afghan police women.
The photograph is heartbreaking when contrasted to the black and white photographs showing Afghan females in the 1960s. The location is not in the far flung areas but is "near" the capital according to AKO.
The only “civil right” that NOW is interested in preserving and spreading is the right of a woman to murder her unborn.
Way back in the late 60s I was in the Peace Corps training to go to Afghanistan, we were taught that the modern young women of Kabul often wore sunglasses as a sort of veil. This was under the rule of Mohammed Zahir Shah. We were told in no uncertain terms that talking to an Afghan woman could get us killed. By the way, if you don’t know, Afghan women can be very attractive.
We were also taught that the biggest problem would face would be from the mullahs, who were determined to keep Afghanistan in the 7th century.
When did your conversion happen?
“...talking to an Afghan woman could get us killed...”
Talking to certain attractive Alabama woman can get me killed...by my wife!
Or their men,
I was cutting the rug
Down at a place called The Jug
With a girl named Linda-Lou
When in walked a man
With a gun in his hand
Looking for you-know-who...
China’s investing (as only a fascist state can) in Africa, because it needs an even lower-wage region to supply its own markets. It can’t get shed of its piles of US gov’t paper, and can’t do anything but devalue its currency in order to maintain its trade surplus.
That really does sound like Japan of the 20 or 25 years following the OPEC embargo.
Chinese efforts to develop its own energy sources consists of coal, synfuels made from coal (so far a blip in the face of demand), and militaristic territorial demands in the Spratlys etc. It’s also probably not a coincidence that eastern Russia (a.k.a. eastern Siberia) has been quietly colonized by Chinese emigres’.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2799047/posts
OTOH, US diplomatic correspondence (declass’ed decades after the war) show that the pre-war Third Reich was getting market share in Latin America via its bartering system (German currency being crap at the time), under which raw materials were extracted and shipped to Germany, in exchange for industrial goods. This came at the expense of US industry, to the tune of a couple of billions a year (that was a lot more then than it is now) in lost business.
This appears to be in contrast with the current Chinese strategy, but Africa’s also got loads (and lodes) of rare-earths and other useful minerals, cheap labor, and in countries without Muzzies, surprising levels of political stability (and damned little else except sweat).
New Book: The Reality Is That America Owns China, And China Is Only Just Now Realizing It
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2798413/posts
World Power Swings Back to America- And I Don’t See the Name “Obama” in this Article
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2796892/posts
World power swings back to America
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2796975/posts
World power swings back to America
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2798475/posts
The second one from the left in blue is kinda hot.
Well that’s progress, I suppose.
When I read the Gulag Archapelego.
good on you.
Afghanistan is just another such place. In the end, our efforts in Afghanistan will have been in vain because unless you believe the US EVER had the resolve to stay there for 30 - 50 years we're not getting to the “they deserve better” end. It's a waste of time and right now you simply have a reprieve.
Afghanistan is simply a place where besides poppies, they also grow a crop of assholes which we should go in an harvest from time to time. You don't need to nation build to accomplish this end, costing us billions, hundreds of lives etc. A huge logistical and personnel footprint equates to lots of money and casualties. You deal with this by leaving Special Forces, CIA operators, armed security contractors in country. You give the good guys money, intel, medical, logistical support and weapons. You give the bad guys cruise missiles and drone strikes. You don't totally disengage, but you also don't take on the task of nation building.
Any conflict you engage in, ask yourself, "am I oriented on the enemy or the terrain?" If what brings you there is the enemy, your orientation is on the enemy and you need not take and hold the ground at great cost to achieve the desired end. If the end is the terrain, then a physical presence and holding the ground becomes necessary to achieve the end. Our orientation in Afghanistan is the "enemy" while in Iraq it is "terrain." However, in the US, national security has NO long term or even just coherent strategic vision. Our security policy is decided on during political campaigns and it was decided on a long time ago that Iraq was the evil bad war and Afghanistan the noble good one.
It is Iraq that is the gem! (Value) They are the center of gravity more so than Afghanistan in the Islamic struggle with the Western world, they have significance because of their location on the Persian Gulf, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and because they are between our best pals Iran and Syria. They have oil. If Iran were to develop a nuke and long range missile, they would be significant in the realm of missile defense. They are close to the Caucasus. (Probability of success) Iraq's adult population is 60% literate, probably 3-4 times that of Afghanistan. It is less tribal and more secular. Especially prior to 1991 much of her people have traveled to Europe or even the US, they are more world open and there are more preexisting trade links. They have infrastructure: roads, schools, electricity, water etc. They had even under Saddam a functioning bureaucracy that can run a country. The people are also use to being under the authority of a central government. They have oil which can sustain the economy. There is a greater national identity, albeit not great either. Contrary to popular belief, there are very large area's of Iraq that have been fairly stable for a long time, i.e. Kurds up North.
This isn't complicated:
High value + high probability of success = We're leaving and quiting (Iraq).
Low value + low probability of success = We're pouring massive resources into and sticking around (Afghanistan).
The only way to clean the place out is for all the women to kill all the males of puberty age and above on the same night as they sleep.
Islam is Cancer.
In Afghanistan if we withdraw most our troops, even if this “so called” nation implodes we could still operate out of there and nothing really adverse happens for us.
If and when Iraq implodes you're looking at a power gain by Iran, which will most likely happen even if Iraq doesn't implode but we leave soon, as we are. Other Arab/Middle East nations look at this as our disengagement but they also realize Iran stays, we come and go (As in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia), who would you bet your money on if you're Qatar? This diminishes our influence in this region as a whole, while it empowers the Iranians.
The reemergence of a despot strong arm in Iraq could be an issue in the future once again. Because Iraq is on the Gulf, because they are an OPEC and oil producing (a strategic resource we depend on) nation that has some money to afford weapons (F16s, M1A1 etc now) they can do things as invade Kuwait in 1991 or threaten water ways by mining them as Iran did in the mid-late 80s... They have the means to be a pain in the @ss.
You also have to look at not only the value they have and probability of success, but also what it means if they fail.
A failed Iraq will be a disaster for us, even though that flies completely under the radar right now.
Get rejected by the Air Force did you? You seem to hold them in low esteem...You know the story of Air Force Combat Controllers and JTAC guys conducting joint ops with Spec Ops teams to give them critical CAS? Or Pararescue getting guys out during the worst conditions, and saving their lives while risking their own? Or Security Forces conducting exterior patrols and convoy security? Or those “non-military” pilots giving critical close air support? 20 year veteran of the “non-military” force still in Baghdad after 7 years!
Iraq should be the modern Germany (1948 - 1989). A buttress in what will be a struggle spanning decades, may we speak this truth or not. We ALL know the Middle East, North Africa and Caucasus will be the new center of gravity. We knew that since before the 2003 Iraq invasion. Like Germany in the Cold War, Iraq today is the “ideal” forward hub to wage this conflict from. Unlike all other places where we don't own the real estate (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar), in Iraq we do/did and that means we can land what we want, fly over whatever border nation we feel like, base whatever missile defense or eavesdropping we care, do maneuvers/exercises in any scale using live ammo... whatever. It is Iraq that long term because of her infrastructure and economy could have easily supported our presence and even acted to support our mission (local labor, local purchases of stuff)...
With the surrender of Iraq, we have given away a prize lottery ticket or surrendered the high ground, whatever analogy one wants to use. Our surrendering of Iraq makes absolutely no sense other than it's politically expedient for certain politicians.
Now I'm confused. On this thread, you said such treatment of women would be a good thing....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.