Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The Military Hides Under the Skirts of Women to Justify War in Afghanistan

By Jodie Evans, AlterNet. Posted May 21, 2009.


The Pentagon portrays Afghanistan as a moral battle to "protect" its women. Afghan women tell another story: more war equals suffering.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

For eight years, many Americans have justified the war in Afghanistan as a moral battle to "protect" Afghan women. But Afghan women tell another story: more U.S. war will bear them more suffering.

Three decades of foreign occupation -- with little sign of ending -- have led to the complete collapse of more than a century of progress in Afghanistan for women's rights, which reached their peak in the 1970s. Occupation destroyed Afghan public services and created incredible poverty, a perfect void of power ready to be filled by the Taliban (encouraged by the U.S. to counter Soviet influence). Many Afghan women say the collapse poses a greater threat to women's lives: 87 percent are illiterate, 1,600 out of every 100,000 mothers die while giving birth or of related complications, and 1 and 3 women experience psychological, emotional or physical abuse.

Since the 2001 invasion, despite rhetoric of "saving" Afghan women, U.S. policies put in place did not do so. Meanwhile, this week, Congress is debating a $84.2 billion war funding bill that designates only 10 percent of the funds for development assistance -- the rest goes to military efforts. If the United States really cared about the women and children of Afghanistan, it would fund real needs-health care, education, food security- and minimize spending on weapons systems and combat troops. Gen. Petraeus himself outlined a counter-insurgency doctrine of 80 percent non-military and 20 percent military, and told the Associated Press earlier this year that "you don't kill or capture your way out of an industrial-strength insurgency."

But in the "save the women" argument, many say more troops will protect Afghan women from the Taliban. Not so -- increased troop presence will raise the risk as it further incites the Taliban and al-Qaeda and inspires more of their propaganda; as they strengthen, they further destabilize the country, spark many more to live in constant fear or to join the insurgency. Troops cannot defeat an ideology: a RAND Corporation study last year found that only seven percent of terrorist organizations gave up their violent activities as a result of military defeat.

In addition, more troops has led to more civilian deaths through raids, drone attacks and general violence. A 2009 United Nations report found more than 2,100 civilians were killed in Afghanistan last year, a 40 percent rise from 2007; about 700 were killed by international forces. Hundreds of Afghans, in student, women's and human rights' groups, have protested these conditions and called for their end (these protests were largely unreported, however). Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently warned that "we cannot succeed ... in Afghanistan by killing Afghan civilians."

The United States must quit hiding behind the skirts of Afghan women and come forward in support of real and sustained peace. Drone attacks, midnight home raids, and increased U.S. military presence only serves to alienate Afghans and fuel support for the Taliban's armed resistance. Afghan women are calling on the Obama administration and Congress for a surge in doctors, teachers, and economic development for food security, job training and infrastructure. If only they would listen.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: women, afghanistan, codepink

Jodie Evans is a co-founder of Codepink: Women For Peace. She has been a community, social and political organizer for the last 30 years.

CODEPINK is launching a new multimedia campaign, "Women Under War Speak Out," a series of video, audio and written interviews with leading international women activists and policymakers to highlight the affects of war on women, and the promote the voices of women from countries under occupations.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Proto-Taliban...
Posted by: adp3d on May 22, 2009 2:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...sentiment began when the Russians actually had the nerve to build and support schools for Afghan girls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Proto-Taliban... Posted by: redstarwraith
Women were the SECOND reason for going to war. 9/11 was the first and is even more phoney. Right?
Posted by: pfgetty on May 22, 2009 2:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, now you've told us that the SECOND reason for going to war in Afghanistan is phoney.
Now tell us how phoney the FIRST and most important reason for being in Afghanistan is.

Remember? The men under bin Laden who attacked us organized and trained in Afghanistan, with the blessings of the Taliban. What a great story! Living in caves, these guys have brought down and empire.

Except NOTHING in the story can be backed by evidence..........the story doesn't make sense. The evidence is clear and overwhelming: the official story is a bag of crap. Only a cursory look at the great work of people like Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin and others will tell you that our own government was complicit in the planning, the attacks, and the coverup. And so the whole reason for being in Afghanistan, besides the women thing, is bogus. Tell the real story of 9/11, and the American people would demand that we leave there.

But Alternet won't tell us that story. Neither will Democracy Now! or antiwar.com or Counterpunch or Noam Chomsky or MotherJones or the Nation or even Sy Hersch........in fact, all of our left wing press has decided that the truth about Afghanistan is going to be censored, forever. They know best. We are better off not knowing the truth. How nice!

And yet they all yap about the war, and the rest of the consequences of 9/11. But all of those consequences would stop and even be reversed if the truth were told. Isn't it odd? The only reasons I can think of for this censorship is that they are threatened or pressured by a group that would be hurt by the truth of 9/11...........certain parts of the government..........or maybe some special interest group, like the AIPAC crowd. Maybe some others reading this could give other reasons.

We need a few really brave journalists to come forward and stand up for truth. There are thousands who have from other professions: go to www.patriotsquestion911.org to see. Physicists and military officials and architects and former CIA people and clergy and more, but no journalists.

One journalist, or a few, who have the ear of the people, could change the world.
C'mon......step up the plate. Time is running out. We need to bring awareness of the truth to all Americans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Speak for yourself, conspiranoid. Posted by: GuitarBill
» More 911 "truth" SPAM? Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: More 911 "truth" SPAM? Posted by: login@bugmenot.com
» RE: More 911 Truth! Posted by: Sister_Lauren
What's that Biblical proverb about removing the plank from your own eye ...
Posted by: harryf200 on May 22, 2009 4:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... before taking the splinter out of someone elses? Shouldn't the US be sorting out its own problems before they sort of those in Afghanistan? Don't those politicians read the bible they claim to follow?

And anyway - who asked the USA to be the "moral guardians" and police of the World? It is just this kind of arrogance, not to mention hypocrisy, that gives the US such a bad name abroad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Providing another excuse to Abuse Women- Historically Typical
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 22, 2009 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The claim we are there to protect the women on give justification for the Males to abuse them more "See what you have Caused?". Yeah let those SOB's blame the Women for the Invasion, the devastation, the endless fighting, the lack of resources....Yet another Brilliant propaganda campaign resulting in more human suffering- Heckova Job!
How many women will be dragged out into the village square to be stoned to death because some other guys son was killed in battle?
Typical males wage Wars and blame women for their Blood lust.Hell they started with blaming Eve for all humanities Woes, moved on to Helen of Troy and now the 9 yr old Afghani school Girls.
Heres a Reality check- reason God didn't grant men the ability to bring forth life- you couldn't make the Grade!Reason he had to take a second stab at it- to create a more perfect nurturer and Steward for humanity and Eden.The 'Seed' is useless unless it has a garden and a gardener to tend to it.
And why is it when it comes to discussions about Reproduction the Uterus is always on the table but never the testicles? Why is it when it comes to birth control it is only the females responsiblity- insinuating we can't keep our legs together? We aren't out Raping men! and who's problem is it that a lock of hair can cause such weakness and uncontrollable urges. It's not womens fault men are unable to control their own behavior.Don't blame Us for your failings and self indulgences.
Women did not create war,cause wars, facilitate war or even participate fully now in War.The Amazons were only defending their realm, much like any female of any species- they were not out trying to conquer new terrain. The male obsession with Possession is the Root of all Evil.The World is NOT YOUR Oyster- Get over it!
Women are over half of the population and needed to continue the species,and the need for males is far less dire- perhaps we should select those with the most desireable traits and Geld the Rest! by the Way why does a Priest need balls anyway? By cutting them off we could , while managing population growth- don't ya think? Mean Mr Testosterone has a hold of you boys- I got a pair of Burdozzi's in my pocket that could relieve you of that pesky problem (LOL)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» bear in mind... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» No ... Posted by: harryf200
So keep your mouth shut when you read headlines like this
Posted by: sausage on May 22, 2009 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taliban execute two Afghan women, posted at the Web site of RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan.

The subhead reads:Taliban militants say they have executed two women in central Afghanistan after accusing them of working as prostitutes on a US army base.

Now I don't know how reliable RAWA is but I can't say I fully trust a study by the RAND Corporation either. I mean after all, RAND was originally a creature of the U.S Air Force back in 1946 and proudly counts Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Lewis "Scooter" Libby among its associates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No it didn't Posted by: brunowe
HYPOCRITICAL AND INSINCERE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 22, 2009 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also not true. The U.S. is not all that concerned with its own women much less the Afgans. We are the country that voted down an Equal Rights Ammendment. It's not the reason why we're there. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are in it to win it!
Posted by: AJR Journal on May 22, 2009 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We won't come back until it's over, over there"
Stick it out.
We are the good guys!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not so sure about that! Posted by: harryf200
Mainstream "Feminist" Organizations Complicit
Posted by: Ladydog on May 22, 2009 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mainstream feminist orgs and spokeswomen (largely very privileged, white women) were complicit in pushing for war in Afghanistan to "liberate" its women, and actively bought into the PR lies that this war was at least partly about freeing the Afghan women from Taliban oppression.

These groups also remain largely supportive or silent, at best, about how conflict, patriarchy, and militarism are affecting women in Israel/Palestine, essentially throwing their Israeli and Palestinian counterparts under the bus. Or use the very real oppressive conditions of many Arab and Muslim women merely as a tool to bash all Arabs and Muslims and Islam, and to justify our policies in the region (Phyllis Chessler is an extreme example, but there are others).

I wish Alternet would feature a piece on how mainstream feminist organizations have aided and abetted our neo-colonial policies in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and our unconditional support for Israeli policies that have been devastating and detrimental to the women and children on both sides.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE U.S. HIDES UNDER FEMALES' SKIRTS IN ALL OPERATIONS
Posted by: Malcus Garvey on May 22, 2009 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hiding behind female's skirts is used domestically as well as internationally, by the reproductively and religously insecure U.S.

Take Welfare-To-Work for example and all other laws passed in the U.S., are [supposedly] for the sake of protecting females. W2W was really instituted to not hire and eliminate [Black] male hirings: consequently, Whorefare-to-Work was implemented.? When the Government hires races from other countries, look at how many women they hire, compared to the men of the same races.

In all overseas ads and campaigns, CARE, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, etc., all only show pictures of female sufferings to influence the gullible, while the boys and men actually die at far more alarming rates. Females are raped or controlled, while males are forced to fight and receive life-threatenting and debilitating injuries, or die.

How it backfires on females of all race is, the more "freedoms" they acquire, the more they resort to drugs, prostitution, abortion, murder, lesbianism, incarceration, stressors, diseases, ailments, depession, obesity, earlier deaths. Females are made to care for the young, men for the family; freedom is a privilege--not a female right. Men have no rights. We're all obligated to care for our race and family. Our desires/wishes don't count.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Selective amnesia - we created Taliban
Posted by: MeyravLevine on May 22, 2009 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
US created Taliban working in tandem with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is a fact that is acknowledged by all serious American scholars and politicians, including Hillary Clinton.

American oil companies had cozied up to the Taliban from the time it took over Kabul in 1996. In 1996, the U.S. oil company Unocal (Union Oil of California) reached an agreement with the Taliban to build a pipeline, but the continuing Afghan civil war prevented that project from getting started. According to Ahmed Rashid, a Central Asia specialist and author of Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, “Between 1994-96 the U.S. supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia, and pro-Western.” From 1995 to 1997, Rashid says, “U.S. support was driven by the UNOCAL oil/gas pipeline project.” Private companies conducted the actual negotiating, but their actions were “encouraged by the U.S. government.”

In May 1997 the New York Times wrote: “The Clinton Administration has taken the view that a Taliban victory … would act as a counterweight to Iran … and would offer the possibility of new trade routes that could weaken Russian and Iranian influence in the region.

Selig Harrison, the South Asia expert at Woodrow Wilson International Centre, had this to say about Taliban back in 2001:
“The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the “monster” that is today Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban”

Professor Chalmers Johnson, another CIA consultant and expert has voiced similar opinions.

However, the worst part is that the Jihadi indoctrination material wasn’t indigenous as reported by Washington Post in 2002.

Washington Post investigators reported in 2002 that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

“The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then [ i.e., since the violent destruction of the Afghan secular government in the early 1990s] as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books…” — Washington Post, 23 March 2002

Further “Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.” — Washington Post, March 23, 2002.

The current mess in AF-PAK is the direct result of US instigations going back to Soviet invasion, as admitted by Brzezinski.

Under the pretext that the Afghan government was a Soviet puppet, which was false, the then Carter Administration authorised the covert funding of opposition tribal groups, whose traditional feudal existence had come under attack with these reforms. An initial $500 million was allocated, money used to arm and train the rebels in the art in secret camps set up specifically for the task across the border in Pakistan.

Brzezinski confirms: “Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How US ruined Afghanistan and Afghan women to win the Cold War and
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on May 22, 2009 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As John Wright reported: "There was a point in Afghanistan's tortured history when the future looked bright, when a determined effort to lift the country and its people out of backward agrarian feudalism almost succeeded.

It began with the formation of the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) back in the sixties, which opposed the autocratic rule of King Zahir Shar. The growth in popularity of the PDPA eventually led to them taking control of the country in 1978, after a coup removed the former Kings' cousin, Mohammed Daud, from power.

The coup enjoyed popular support in the towns and cities, evidenced in reports carried in US newspapers. The Wall Street Journal, no friend of revolutionary movements, reported at the time that '150,000 persons marched to honour the new flagthe participants appeared genuinely enthusiastic.' The Washington Post reported that 'Afghan loyalty to the government can scarcely be questioned.

Upon taking power, the new government introduced a program of reforms designed to abolish feudal power in the countryside, guarantee freedom of religion, along with equal rights for women and ethnic minorities. Thousands of prisoners under the old regime were set free and police files burned in a gesture designed to emphasise an end to repression. In the poorest parts of Afghanistan, where life expectancy was 35 years, where infant mortality was one in three, free medical care was provided. In addition, a mass literacy campaign was undertaken, desperately needed in a society in which ninety percent of the population could neither read nor write.

The resulting rate of progress was staggering. By the late 1980s half of all university students in Afghanistan were women, and women made up 40 percent of the country's doctors, 70 percent of its teachers, and 30 percent of its civil servants. In John Pilger's 'New Rulers Of The World' (Verso, 2002), he relates the memory of the period through the eyes of an Afghan woman, Saira Noorani, a female surgeon who escaped the Taliban in 2001. She said: "Every girl could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked. We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian movies. It all started to go wrong when the mujaheddin started winning. They used to kill teachers and burn schools. It was sad to think that these were the people the West had supported."

Of course, US instigated terrorist activities against the pro-Soviet government in Kabul by arming tribal insurgents.

US instigated a civil war in order to draw in the Soviet in the conflict. This is exactly what happened and today we are reaping what we sowed.

And now to pretend we are acting in defense of Afghan women is beyond hypocrisy: it is a blatant lie!

We don't (Pentagon) give a shit about innocent civilians. As evidence look at My Lai, death/rape squads we created and supported in Nicaragua, Mujaheedins/Taliban in Afghanistan, etc etc etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lets discuss Oxycotin/PurduePharma & the Sacklers
Posted by: weathered on May 22, 2009 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
now suddenly women's rights are but a PR door prize.

Opium on the streets or in a 24hr. release tablet is nothing more than 3 degrees of seperation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The more things change...........
Posted by: ava1984 on May 22, 2009 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the more they remain the same; and, I do not get it!

Harry Reid is such a pussy, he makes Nancy Pelosi look like Abraham Lincoln. During these last years, the one thing made in America, privatized prisons have taken over small towns and rural areas; making the people dependant on these warehouses for employment!

The disgrace of this aside; there is no reason that the prisoners at Gitmo, yet to be charged, cannot be housed in the US penal system. There is no telling how many innocent scape goats have been held in filthy limbo; and, we will never know as long as they remain ghost prisoners. All they have asked for is a fair trial; that is the least we can do. Finally!

Were not the Rapepublicans beaten soundly in the past two election cycles?! So, if they are no longer to be feared, then the Dems must be way more complicit in their crimes than we thought!

It's like living in the Twilight Zone; with 'we the people' always waiting for the next shoe to drop. I'm so sick of this! Aren't you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The more things change........... Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Picture of soldiers on patrol through an opium poppy field
Posted by: PaulK on May 22, 2009 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent picture on truthout.org showing two British soldiers walking through our world's leading source of heroin, Afghanistan's opium poppies. They seem oblivious to the vast human misery and addiction this one huge field causes.

I guess that mistreatment of Afghani women is a photo-op argument for the war. It sells well for one news cycle, but you don't want anyone asking deeper questions.

We never performed a post-mortem of Cambodia after its collapse. In the end, almost all of the leadership within the Khmer Rouge had been killed off. The dumb cadres ran the remnants of the Khmer Rouge, and they knew only that they had defeated their enemy. So they killed many, many people.

Is that what we're now setting up in Afghanistan? We kill all the leaders, get people really homicidal, then the nation runs out of cash and we split? Then we blame everything on the pacifists? Is that the entire plan? Whoop-tie doo!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is safety a cover for motive of Cheney and neocons?
Posted by: danielet on May 22, 2009 4:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who is safe in America? My 91y/o mother in Queens NY for three weeks now has had a Latino guy sitting on her stoop every night. I'm far away and even so I can't start up with him or call the cops because he might come back when I'm not there and get even with her. Crime and drugs are so high that NONE OF US are safe; to argue that we are not safe from terror-- GIVEN HOW UNSAFE WE ARE FROM CRIME-- is schizophrenic. So why the anti-Arab debate? Recall that the debate is run by neocons and Cheney. Both have argued for: 1) supporting Israeli dominance of the Mideast and 2) we bullying Arabs into lower oil prices than the market will bear. The case for Gitmo is made so that the case against Israeli imprisonment of Palestinians can't be made. Until 9/11 the only thing neocons could come back at us with is that we can't say anything about how Israeli settlers steal the land form Arabs because of how we stole it from Indians. A lot of Jihadis are idiots and the Arab Govs we keep in power are criminal, but we forced Nuremberg Tribunal down Europe's throat and it is shoving it down our throats and that of the Israelis now. That SOME Arabs are terrorists and their regimes corrupt does not justify our abuse of human being, period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So Sister_Lauren Are You Coming To England
Posted by: tony_opmoc on May 22, 2009 4:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sister_Lauren,

I have invited you again.

See the Torture Thread

You have a Choice of Locations

1. The Very North of England - in an Old English Farmhouse on the Banks of a River That has Lots of Trout Jumping Out Of The Water
2. Near London - Where we Live in an Old English Village With a Couple of Brilliant Pubs Where The Live Music Is Usually Better Than at Wembley Stadium - and Some of The Same Musicians Play
3. A Tent at One of The 3 Festivals We Are Going To - All in Rural Locations in England

Or You can stay at home in California if you like.

You will have to pay your own air fare and the cost of any tickets to any events

But we will pick you up from the airport and make you feel welcome - and give you food and stuff

The attic where my wife and I have been sleeping for the last few nights cos we are redocarting our bedroom has got Stars and Suns and Moons on the Ceiling

They Light Up When You Turn The Lights Out

And Half of an Exhaust System That My Lad Bought For His Sports Car

But He will have sold that by the time you arrive - or otherwise moved it

Julie and My Son Peter and My Daughter Katy are Really Nice and Will Make You Feel Really Welcome

And So will I

You only have to say when you want to come.

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Don't Do Politics And We Don't Do Religion We Don't Do Rich And We Don't Do Poor
Posted by: tony_opmoc on May 22, 2009 4:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just turn up as you are

No one knows how rich or porr you are no one knows if you are a fascist or a socialist or a communist or a tory or a liberal or even a nu-laburite or an old labourite or posh or can hardly speak a word of spanish or black or white or spanish or welsch or chinese or indian or even australian

The pub is open to all and it is free to enter

And if you have absolutely no money at all

You can Dance to The Band

And the Pub Will Give You Free Pints of Water Without Any Embarrassment Whatsoever

It is English Law

Any Traveller Will be Given FREE Water

And a Warm Welcome

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

like yoko ono said...
Posted by: avabird on May 22, 2009 9:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WOMEN are the worlds niggers!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Professor Noam Chomsky
Posted by: login@bugmenot.com on May 22, 2009 11:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has explained this in his article a few days ago.

In Afghanistan's case it was women, but throughout history, invaders have always justified their actions by claiming to bring "civilization" to the "uncivilized".

The causes of most armed conflicts around the globe today can be traced back to colonial and imperial intervention, from the British Empire to the French, the Dutch, the Spanish and the American.

That model doesn't change, only the actors do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cultural OCCUPATIONS are FEMINIST MISSIONS!!
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on May 23, 2009 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
typical AmeriKKKan rhetoric:

if we take you OVER in an occupation & prop up a totalitarian regime to support our corporate thievery: we're doing it IN YOUR BEST INTERESTS!!"

ask Latin America, Asia or Africa about the 'joy' of American interventionism & Balkanization...

"oh, if you STRUGGLE in any way... that simply justifies a collective beating to purge your 'terrorist' leanings..."




perspective, people.


Perspective.

The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEDT

FREE podcast

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement