Which is why we should leave a couple of military bases open in Afghanistan and keep the country under close watch.
I found this article to be quite informative..... Till deaths us do part PAKISTAN’S deeply troubled relationship with America has survived so many intense provocations this year, it will probably also get over the latest bloody incident. Yet there is no guarantee. At 2am on November 26th helicopters—and perhaps other aircraft—from NATO attacked a Pakistani border position in a remote corner of the Afghan frontier. The bloodiest single strike by NATO (read Americans) on the Pakistani army, it killed 24 soldiers and injured another 13. A host of leaders from NATO and the United States were quick to admit to the attack, apologise for it and call it a dreadful accident. That was just as well. But for Pakistanis, especially, it will be hard to accept it was a mere blunder. In the past, firing in Pakistan by American forces inside Afghanistan, against Taliban or other forces fleeing there for sanctuary, has killed one or two soldiers on the border. This time, say the Pakistanis, two different buildings, 300 metres apart on two outcrops, were destroyed. The soldiers in each one, many of whom were said to have been sleeping, were 2.5km inside Pakistani territory, and the Americans reportedly had grid-references for these long-established army posts. The two sides dispute whether there was much activity by Taliban fighters in the area which could have confused (or possibly helped to provoke) the forces which struck inside Pakistan. NATO described enemy activity on the ground, talked of a Taliban training camp in the area, and said the assault took place with permission from up the chain of command. That suggests the nature of the accident was merely (though still unforgivably) technical: to have mistaken the known Pakistani posts for Taliban positions. A darker possibility is that the NATO officers who made the decision to attack, perhaps deeply frustrated by many years of active Pakistani support for Taliban and other fighters who kill Western forces in Afghanistan, were negligent or deliberate in striking the Pakistani armed forces along with their Taliban targets. What matters now is how the bloody episode is handled, especially by Pakistan’s armed forces and politicians. The immediate outrage expressed by every Pakistani leader is natural enough. Anti-Americanism—more precisely a hatred of their own country’s long involvement in what is seen as “America’s war” against Islamist extremist groups—is intense and widespread. Many in Pakistan have long been fiercely resentful of America’s role in their territory, angry at drone attacks against terrorist leaders that kill civilians too, and, for example, at the case of a CIA man who shot dead two would-be robbers in Lahore, in January. Even the discovery and killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, in May, drew public anger (fanned by the media, which does much of the bidding of the armed forces) over America’s humiliating disregard for Pakistan's sovereignty. If the latest killings stir up yet more intense public opposition to America—a big rally on November 27th in Karachi suggested it might—that could suit Pakistan’s various leaders. For a start it makes it easier for them to demand more American aid and assistance to justify prolonging a deeply unpopular working relationship. Just as useful, for Pakistan’s army, is that public anger against the Americans gives it an excuse to put off, yet again, a long-sought military intervention in North Waziristan against the Haqqani network (a violent force that has a sanctuary there, but is active in Afghanistan). Being seen to do the bidding of the Americans, Pakistani leaders can easily say, would be to court an unacceptable level of internal instability. Pakistan’s leaders know the Americans are still deeply dependant on them. In the past few months NATO—and especially the Americans—have done an impressive job of reducing their reliance on land transport corridors through Pakistan to supply Western soldiers in Afghanistan. Over the past 120 days, for example, of the materiel received by the Americans in Afghanistan, around 30% was flown in and 40% was driven over Afghanistan’s northern borders from Central Asia, leaving just 30% to come via Pakistan's roads. That is a sharp reduction on previous years. Thus the immediate and predictable closing of the Pakistan route, in response to the deaths on the border, should prove less disruptive than it once would have been. But America relies on Pakistan in other ways. A military base, Shamsi, used by America inside Pakistan, apparently to launch drones, has been ordered closed within 15 days. That may be smoke and mirrors (it was quite possibly no longer used by the Americans anyway, after a previous clash), but is a sign of the sort of co-operation the Americans have quietly enjoyed on Pakistan's account as they hunted al-Qaeda and other extremist leaders whom Pakistan does not regard as allies. Intelligence co-operation (however flawed) from Pakistan, against individuals plotting attacks on the West will also continue to be crucial in the coming years. Keeping close tabs on Pakistan’s large (perhaps 100-warhead strong) and fast-growing nuclear arsenal is also a long-term priority for the Americans. Yet America and Pakistan could decide it is better to wind down their relationship to something minimal. A strong cohort within the Pentagon—especially after attacks on America’s embassy in Kabul, in September, by fighters seen as allied with Pakistan—has been demanding direct American military intervention in North Waziristan, possibly including American soldiers on the ground, even if Pakistan’s government opposes the idea. Pakistan is blamed for NATO and Afghan army forces’ failure to defeat the Taliban and other insurgents in Afghanistan, and for the Taliban’s refusal to consider peace talks. American lawmakers have also grown increasingly hostile over civilian and military aid to Pakistan, especially once it appeared that bin Laden had been harboured in Pakistan. Within Pakistan, a breaking point could be near. One factor may be the rise of Imran Khan, a populist figure who makes a big deal of his opposition to America's role in the ongoing fighting. As important may be the rise of younger, more religious army officers who are instinctively more anti-American than previous generals. After a year of crises and confrontations, the relationship, though troubled, survives. But the moment when one side or the other decides it is better to cut aid, reduce military co-operation and weaken diplomatic ties is growing nearer. http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/11/pakistan-and-america
Here's what I'd do: Get out. Get out of Iraq. Get out of Pakistan. Get out of Afghanistan. Here's what we will do: Pay an additional obscene amount of money and make an apology to Pakistan so we can stay around and kill some more local mountain dwellers
Would you like a couple of Afghan military bases here in the US? I think it's time to go now as staying only makes them hate us more. But I would give the warning. You do that again and I turn your homeland into a sea of glass (I know they don't have that much sand).
Not right now they ain't, not until the big annexation.... I don't want any part of cultures like those in the middle east that think it is ok to have sex with young boys - Afgan elders etc. Got to clean the rest of the world up first, get them to have higher moral standards....or at least common ground....first. DD
What culture in the Middle East thinks it is ok to have sex with young boys? I must have missed that story.
It is pretty sick stuff..... http://www.salon.com/2010/08/30/afghanistan_women/ As though we needed more reason to feel uneasy about the situation in Afghanistan, a piece in Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle detailed the shocking prevalence of child sexual abuse in the southern part of the country. Joel Brinkley, a journalism professor at Stanford University, explains that, according to a report commissioned by the Defense Department, many Pashtun men (half of the tribal members in Kandahar, according to some accounts) develop sexual relationships with boys as young as 9. The technical term for these men is “bacha baz,” which translates to “boy player” (although “pedophile” works just as well). In popular weekly events, “young boys dress up as girls, wearing makeup and bells on their feet, and dance for a dozen or more leering middle-aged men who throw money at them and then take them home,” writes Brinkley. I could spill several hundred more words relaying fascinating details about this centuries-old cultural phenomenon — but for our purposes on this here lady blog, the most interesting element of the story is the theory of why and how this practice came to be. Brinkley explains: Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan men cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can’t even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle. It isn’t just that women’s bodies are kept under lock and key. Men are also taught that women, what with their monthly curse, are “‘unclean’ and therefore distasteful.” Brinkley writes: ”That helps explain why women are hidden away — and stoned to death if they are perceived to have misbehaved.” It also helps explain why boys are dressed up as girls for men’s sexual entertainment: it allows for titillation without the female threat of contamination and corruption. “Even after marriage, many men keep their boys, suggesting a loveless life at home,” Brinkley explains. The man-boy relationships are seen as an exception to the Islamic ban on homosexuality, since there isn’t “love” involved. As a local saying goes: “Women are for children, boys are for pleasure.” There lies the justification for a cycle of sexual abuse spanning several generations. There are no easy words of wisdom here, but I will say that this seems an especially powerful reminder that women’s inequality hurts more than just women. ------------------------------- And there was another story about the US military having parties for the hook ups.... DD
Afghanistan is not in the Middle East. You would think that after 10 years of war you would know that by now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi More info on it, the acceptance or blind eye of it because of the sexual repression based upon women's inequality is just backwards assed crap. We care about the kids in our country, why not those that are getting abused in other countries? DD
And possibly Syracuse, though it is much more accepted in the Afghan culture, as well as others in the middle east region. DD
Nah, it is a longer play than that, first you put McDonalds and KFC over there, then you get them hooked on the internet and they get to see how the rest of the world lives, a couple of revolts later, they are assimilated. DD
