NYT story about abuse of Afghani children

I don't know, that camera with the bird inside that carves the picture IS pretty cool if you ask me.

 

You can't be serious.

 

Sorry. Forgot the blue font.

 

https://www.somethingawful.com/news/victorian-couple-flintstones/

 

No you didn't.

Blue font would indicate that you were being sarcastic and that we should be trying to impose our values on other countries. Is that what you believe?

 

If "imposing our values" means telling scumbags to stop enslaving and fucking children or you'll be killed, that's something I could get on board with.

 

My sarcasm comes from our history in other countries, when we've tried to impose our values and failed miserably due to a fundamental lack of understanding of the populace and our own selfish motivations.

Now we have a legitimate reason to impose one of our values, as opposed to our usual selfish reasons. Yet, we'll be accused of being infidels and interfering in other cultures, even though we'd be trying to protect children.

 

Are you willing to do that for every country that sponsors, or looks the other way, with that? Even powerful ones?

If China or Russia sponsors child slavery and sexual assault are you willing to go to war with them? If you are, should there be a draft? If not, are you willing to volunteer for the army, to go and fight to end child abuse?

 

Perhaps I should've said "what passed for" 19th century international law... But yeah, although obviously nowhere near as codified or organized as what emerged in the 20th century, I think it's fair to say there's been some loose form of international law ever since foreign entities began entering treaties many centuries ago.

Regardless, the point is it was accepted in the 19th century colonial era that colonizers were entitled to dictate to those living in their colonies the rules and laws they must live by. We don't live in that era any longer. Which, of course, is the glaring flaw in YF's little analogy--Afghanistan is not our possession as India back then was Britain's.

 

Afghanistan was not in US possession but there was enough Western Military presence that something could have been done about it.

We (I include Canada) were over there so a blind eye should not have been turned to it. It is culturally ingrained as was pointed out by Stoney on Page 1. I have a friend high up in the security world who has spent quiet a bit of time in the Middle East and he was shocked that this was not more of a front page story.

Summary execution was too good for these assholes.

 

So we should try to help others in desperate situations, right? Agreed.

Desperate situations include murder and torture by fascist governments, right?

Plenty of those countries directly south of America. Hello, refugees illegal immigrants.

They're not coming across the border for NFL games, ya know ...

 

Times editorial:

The Pentagon’s indulgent, even complicit, attitude toward pedophiles among the Afghan militias that it funded and trained is indefensible, at odds with American values and with international laws Washington has taken the lead in promoting.

Pervasive sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan. It is especially pronounced among armed commanders who control rural regions and hold sway over the population there. The practice is known as bacha bazi, or boy play; powerful Afghan men often surround themselves with young teenagers as a mark of social status.

By instructing American soldiers and Marines not to interfere, even if the incidents occurred on American bases, the Pentagon has chosen — reprehensibly — to sacrifice vulnerable children in order to maintain good relations with the Afghan police and militias it needs to fight the Taliban.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/o...afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur