Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Clinton to Afghan women: 'We will not abandon you'

World May. 14, 2010 - 06:20AM JST ( 15 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

15 Comments

0

graftonMay. 14, 2010 - 08:57AM JST

Get real. This is the same set up that Nixon used in 69, set conditions that cannot be met as an excuse for never getting anywhere and putting the responsibility on the other side. “We tried and they didn’t”. Sorry lady we have seen it all before. Haven’t the Whitehouse learned any new tricks?

As for the poor women of Afghanistan they should start getting ready to be abandoned, because that too is on the cards.
0

goddogMay. 14, 2010 - 09:49AM JST

Taliban will be back in power and all women will lose.
0

pointofviewMay. 14, 2010 - 11:14AM JST

"We will not abandon you." But "We won`t help you much either."
0

jruaustraliaMay. 14, 2010 - 11:31AM JST

"We will not abandon you." But "prepare to do things by yourselves."
0

TumbleDryMay. 14, 2010 - 12:12PM JST

yeah... yeah... in a few months or couple of years "we respect the Taliban culture"
0

SargeMay. 14, 2010 - 01:13PM JST

"mid-level Taliban leaders would have to renounce violence"

But the top Taliban leaders don't have to.
0

SuperLibMay. 14, 2010 - 03:51PM JST

I hope Clinton is being honest, because if the US does bail on these women, who else will help them?
0

LIBERTASMay. 14, 2010 - 04:58PM JST

"Women’s rights will not be sacrificed in any settlement between the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Taliban militants, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday."

Madam Secretary, and I use that term specifically, you haven't a clue! The Taliban are on mayor Karzai's doorstep, within line of sight of his Royal Doulton teacups and lace doilies, and he has as little a clue as you do. You can negotiate all you want with Karzai, and you know it's all a front for propping him up as a US puppet President. The US can barely control 14% of the country, and many of those whose rights you claim to champion already live under Taliban rule in rural areas. When the Taliban are not subjugating them, US drones are killing them wholesale. Karzai has zero control in Kabul, let alone outside of the fast crumbling city limits. Waxing poetic about womens' rights is for inside the beltway consumption.

The US is there for oil and opium. That's the fact Hillary.
0

MistWizardMay. 14, 2010 - 05:53PM JST

Clinton has no clue. I am afraid that violent men in war torn lands have no value for women unless they can and do kill as much as any man. And since most don't, there is that. You have to have peace first, and then you have to wait for that peace to catch up to minds of the stupid violent men before women can have rights and value. That process can take a general peace of decades. EVERYBODIES history proves that.

We will have to abandon the women just like we will the rest of that crazy sandbox.
0

jruaustraliaMay. 14, 2010 - 11:49PM JST

Clinton has no clue. I am afraid that violent men in war torn lands have no value for women unless they can and do kill as much as any man. And since most don't, there is that.

Sigh, unfortunately I have to agree on this one. Reminds me of what the ex-Korean soccer coach Verbeek said about culture. It's all different everywhere so if you want to improve them--as he did with Korea, you yourself have to adapt.

But for someone of Clinton's political stubbornness, it's all about waxing the poetic about women's libs for US consumption. Tu che
0

sfjp330May. 15, 2010 - 03:53AM JST

jruaustralia at 11:49 PM JST - 14th May. Sigh, unfortunately I have to agree on this one. Reminds me of what the ex-Korean soccer coach Verbeek said about culture. It's all different everywhere so if you want to improve them--as he did with Korea, you yourself have to adapt. But for someone of Clinton's political stubbornness, it's all about waxing the poetic about women's libs for US consumption. Tu che

I disgree. You only see from one angle which is common. There is "transparency" on Clintons agenda. If look at carefully, if U.S. did not intervene, there will be no hope for these women. Clinton is right on what she said.
0

HonestDictatorMay. 15, 2010 - 08:15AM JST

An even better idea is for the women to leave the country so that the stupid violent men can no longer reproduce... problem solved.
0

MistWizardMay. 15, 2010 - 08:15AM JST

sfjp330 said: if U.S. did not intervene, there will be no hope for these women.

This way, they do have hope, hope that will be dashed. Women's rights have to come later. Right now, the Afghans we support need to place all their concentration on defeating the Taliban. They won't do that by putting the cart before the horse. Women's rights are a luxury because men are too violent and stupid to see their value in a war zone. You won't find me one conflict that was won by sudden recognition of women's rights.
0

jruaustraliaMay. 15, 2010 - 04:34PM JST

There is "transparency" on Clintons agenda.

So?! The Taliban and the rest of Afghanistan don't. As the poster above me already explained, it's not realistic to support women's lib when you can't even defeat the Talibans.

Perhaps, it's your misuse of transparency that needs adjustment, no?
0

illsayitMay. 23, 2010 - 07:08AM JST

I guess the right to wearing a veil will be upheld? Maybe she should be throwing that line at France.