NEWS: Screw Poland; Don't Forget Afghanistan

CULTURE: Screw Poland; Don't Forget Afghanistan

Remember how we were going to war in Afghanistan to catch Osama bin Laden, to overturn the Taliban, and to ensure women's rights?

Well, bin Laden's still free, the Taliban are still around, and women's rights in Afghanistan are pretty much as shitty as they ever were. For instance, Afghanistan has the second highest rate of death in childbirth in the world (first is Sierra Leone, which is still recovering from ten years of civil war).

Training midwives is one of the top priorities of the World Health Organization right now. But of course, the Bush administration has been holding WHO funding hostage for years now because of right-wing anti-abortion assholes--and the U.S. is the biggest contributor to the WHO, so our assholery makes a real difference.

So much for our commitment to Afghan women. Luckily, along with the Afghan Midwives Association, there are a few other international or private organizations that have stepped up: Johns Hopkins for one, Sweden for another, and International Midwife Assistance for a third. And of course the Afghan Women's Mission, which seems to be closely allied with RAWA (The Revolutionary Association of Women in Afghanistan), which was around long before Laura Bush had ever heard of Afghanistan, and will doubtless be around long after her husband's reign is only a bad memory.

The situation of Afghan women wlll be a central concern at the upcoming international conference Women Deliver in London.

Even money says it won't get covered in the mainstream U.S. media.

Bitch_PhD is tempted to go, even though the conference falls on her kid's birthday. Hmmm.

Cross-posted at Bitch Ph.D.

it's astonishing the lengths that George will go to to spread the word of the lord...and by that I mean he makes everyone go...WHAT? Jesus didn't say that, did he....<flip flip flip> nope, the bible doesn't say a damn thing about that...funny...

how on earth could Christ give this guy the time of day, let alone tell him he's meant to be the president...

Jebus will be mad if you help the weemenz!

You make some pretty tenuous connections. Women's rights being as shitty as they ever were, and your evidence of that being high death rate in child birth? Then you go on to say that Sierra Leone is first in that category because they're recovering from ten years of civil war. Strangely, I remember reading something about Afghanistan being the victim of something like 20 years of conflict followed by one of the most backwards regimes in history. Does that not count? You imply Sierra Leone gets a pass for being shitty because of war and then ignore the same in Afghanistan. Interestingly enough, I was in Afghanistan in 2003 and women seemed to have it a lot better than they did in 2000. I saw more women without burqa's than with. I saw them driving cars. I saw them go to school. A lot of them even vote. Surely not all women have/had it great in all of Afghanistan, but I'd say that based on my observations, things have improved a fair amount. Something like a death rate in child birth takes a little time to improve drastically.

Maybe it's of n real relevance, but I do not recall "women's right" as a specific, motivating factor of our going to Afghanistan either.

Now before you all fly off the handle, I'm not saying that women in Afghanistan have it perfect. Nor am I saying I agree with our government's hard-on for pro-religious shit policies. I'm just saying that as noble as your argument is, it lacks merit because you try to connect unrelated events, and poorly at that.

Bitch PhD said...

Better than even money it won't be an issue in the '08 elections...

Wow you can always tell when someone hasnt been anywhere near the country they are talking about. Maybe you should adress the problem with other cultures. I see little girls at school. I see women driving. I see women wearing jeans and walking freely. Wasnt like that 5 years ago. As for the election issues..... I think our country is a little more worried about wether or not to even stay in the region and stopping the killing and deterioration of another new democracy.

That's interesting because I see a nation that is totally devastated and utterly chaotic where U.S. troops aren't stationed on an average of 1 per square yard... but, wait, we're talking Afghanistan here - not Bakersfield, right?

I actually think that if our country wasn't sold bogus wars on "moralistic" grounds and not given reasons to withdraw circling around issues of failure and deteriorating goals... rather than the other way around... either we would never be in messes like that, or we'd at least be in them for the right reasons.

But then, we are allowed to disagree, right? Whole point of democracy... fighting for freedom and all, right?

Not to take away from the article but can someone help me out on the title of this article? "Screw Poland; Don't Forget Afghanistan" This is a serious question, honestly.

I'd have to agree with the Red & luke above….there is lack of correlation, or support there of, to state that women's rights in Afghanistan are shitty and this is the reason why there is a high death rate in childbirth. Yes, I'm sure women's rights are still in a crap-hole there since it is a predominantly Muslim country and it seems to me that those darn Muslims aren't the type to tend to give a crap about women's right, or even share the same cultural point of view as that that is held in the USA (which even you Bitch Ph.D. would have to say has improved). The child death rate during pregnancy is a healthcare issue, not a women's rights issue…unless the Afghan men are killing female babies right after birth, in front of the woman and saying, "Ha! This will show you, you woman! I'm not only taking your child's life but I'm also taking you women's rights! Double Ha Ha!"

Now, if we're in Afghanistan to set up social programs, which we're not, so I won't continue on that path.

You almost seem proud.

... yes, the U.S is the biggest aid giver (in terms of cash)
... no, the U.S is the LOWEST aid giver in the western world (as a percentage of G.D.P).

A bit like a billionaire giving a waitress a 10% tip.

Wow. I think this is the first Bitch_Phd post without hyperbole and wacky logic.

You need to target Africa next - the AIDS / HIV denial and the tribal practices that are increasing it's spread.

oh. afhganistan has been at war with someone or itself since the times of the khans and their hordes. strange that a place with one major highway(hwy 1, that gets blown up all the time), that is a host to numerous locations acccessible only by days of arduous travel or helicopter that the rural populace(ignored my most ruling govts in afghanistan for-damned-near-ever), and the last major govt, before hamid karzai's rule, damned killed the concept of reading(so as to keep people from edeucationg themselves against their ideals and fanaticism), has a high deathrate. whoops. oh and tribal factionism occasioanlly had roles to play.

but lets just say your pregnant, and you live in the panjshir valley. lets say your due, but it's winter. where do you go to have your baby? the nearest hut or cave, cus a hospital is out of question, unless say and coalition forces patrol is their, and a helicopter is flying in that godforsaken snowy wet cold soup that has a habit of ruining helicopters and killing crews cus high altitude plus bad weather equals crashes. and well, folks in the hard to reach places, well they might not exactly be on time with the cities and their development. but you are dealing with a predominantly muslim country. and while some muslim countries give their women lots fo freedom, some dont. blame the leaders of the country, not the aiding country. okay i am done. for now.

And your point with the Lowest in terms of GDP? A tip is a tip. Are you saying that someone who makes $40,000 a year can tip 10% but a Billionaire should tip more just because she/he is a Billionaire? Crap logic. Maybe crap example too.

Well ..... yes, they can. The global target for aid is 0.5 or 0.7% of GDP.
The bigger the GDP, the more money given.
USA - lots of money, small percentage - you can afford much more.
If my logic is crap, so are the governments of the western world.

Of the aid given, huge swathes of it go to Israel (hmm....they need it don't they?) and Egypt - for military purposes.

The point I'm making is that the USA "thinks" it such a great aid giver, when in fact it is not. My source is the Economist magazine.

We pay aid to improve education etc. so we don't end up where we are today. The Arab/Persian world is young, dumb and unemployed.
(for 7 years I lived in the Middle East and Sub continent, Pakistan, Iran and Libya)

Much cheaper to educate them and develop proper jobs than bomb the shit out of them.

Oh....and this was worked out by some of your members of Congress - I think they calculated that for $90 million, they could have set up a decent program in Iraq.

Hindsight.

Definitely. An extra $30 - or $300 - makes zero difference to a billionaire's worth (bear in mind, a billion is $1000000000). (It does give something in bragging rights, if you care about those.)

Or you could just try looking cheap. Your call.

But then they might be competitors... much cheaper, in the medium term, to bomb their infrastructure and kill lots of them so the survivors hate everything Western and reject all the ways they might break the economic mould. They'll still have to buy all their computers and weapons from us, though; which will fund the next round of bombing.

It makes a crippled, vicious sort of sense.