Not.

So there's *so* much reason to believe that Dubya can do the same for Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Afghan-Development.html?hp&ex=1109048400&en=14f521d3527260e7&ei=5094&partner=homepage


U.N. Report Paints Dismal Picture of Afghanistan
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: February 21, 2005

Filed at 2:42 p.m. ET

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Afghanistan remains one of the world's least-developed countries, the United Nations said Monday, warning that the nation which harbored al-Qaida terrorists until 2001 could fail again unless more is done to lift it from poverty.

In a new report examining Afghans' security, welfare and ability to control their own lives, the world body ranked the country 173rd out of 178 surveyed, with only five states in sub-Saharan Africa faring worse.
[...]
On the plus side, Afghanistan's economy is booming, growing at least 25 percent annually since then and expected to expand by at least 10 percent a year in the next decade. Some 4 million children have enrolled in school -- more than ever before -- and more than 3 million people forced from their homes have returned, most from Pakistan and Iran.

However, it still has the worst education system in the world, according to the U.N. calculations, which points out that nearly three-quarters of all adult Afghans are illiterate and few girls go to school at all in many provinces.

Moreover, most of the country's income is being mopped up by warlords with strong political and military connections, creating a dangerous gap between rich and poor and between the cities and the countryside. Half of all Afghans are poor, it said.

As a result, the average life expectancy for an Afghan is 44.5 years, 20 years less than in neighboring countries; one Afghan woman dies in pregnancy every 30 minutes and the country is the world leader in infant deaths caused by contaminated water.

``Our team found the overwhelming majority of people hold a sense of pessimism and fear that reconstruction is bypassing them,'' said Daud Saba, one of the report's authors.

The report was also critical of the U.S.-led military engagement in Afghanistan, saying it helped produce a climate of ``fear, intimidation, terror and lawlessness'' and neglected the longer-term threat to security posed by inequality and injustice.

It also described reconstruction projects sponsored by the U.S. military as ``inadequate and dangerous,'' echoing concern from some relief groups that they have blurred the lines between soldiers and civilians, and made aid workers into militant targets.

Just heard a news piece on swedish radio regarding specifically girls education in afghanistan. Girls schools had been specifically targeted by former taliban and thier allies with over 600 schools being destroyed in 2003, that number dropped dramatically in 2004 and now more girls are being educated than ever. The literacy rate in 2002 was 10% so if that article you posted has true figures then literacy has increased by 150% in the last 2 years. Things aren't all bad and seem to be getting better but the aid has to keep on flowing.

path I agree with you, one thing came to my attention... your avatar really really pisses me off... I think it reminds me of some childhood fear or somthing.. really annoying .. please change it man :(

Just heard a news piece on swedish radio regarding specifically girls education in afghanistan. Girls schools had been specifically targeted by former taliban and thier allies with over 600 schools being destroyed in 2003, that number dropped dramatically in 2004 and now more girls are being educated than ever. The literacy rate in 2002 was 10% so if that article you posted has true figures then literacy has increased by 150% in the last 2 years. Things aren't all bad and seem to be getting better but the aid has to keep on flowing.

This only demonstrates that you don't understand statistics. If one person can read in Afghanistan in 2004, and one more person can read in 2005, then there has been a 100% increase in literacy.

Sound impressive? Yet only 2 people can read. Need any more hints?

As for how bad it is for women now, after Bush's invasion, see:
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/afghanistan/facts.htm

This only demonstrates that you don't understand statistics. If one person can read in Afghanistan in 2004, and one more person can read in 2005, then there has been a 100% increase in literacy.

Sound impressive? Yet only 2 people can read. Need any more hints?

As for how bad it is for women now, after Bush's invasion, see:
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/afghanistan/facts.htm

10% of the population was literate under the taliban 25% are literate today simple enough. Women weren't supposed to leave the house alone under the taliban let alone get an education and one of the main points of the afghan woman interviewed in the piece I mentioned was that as bad as things are they are none the less immeasurably better than they were.

Odinizm sorry but harpo is "da bomb" :p

oh well :(

10% of the population was literate under the taliban 25% are literate today simple enough.

No, not "simple enough." Let's see your source for the 10% claim.


Women weren't supposed to leave the house alone under the taliban let alone get an education

Guess what - the Taliban and the warlords are re-instituting this policy. Why? Because the Bush administration's attention span isn't long enough to stay and do the job properly.


and one of the main points of the afghan woman interviewed in the piece I mentioned was that as bad as things are they are none the less immeasurably better than they were.

I don't see that much has changed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3721932.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3715616.stm
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghanistan1004/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3582493.stm

Why? Because the Bush administration's attention span isn't long enough to stay and do the job properly.

I dont think they care .

10% of the population was literate under the taliban 25% are literate today simple enough. Women weren't supposed to leave the house alone under the taliban let alone get an education and one of the main points of the afghan woman interviewed in the piece I mentioned was that as bad as things are they are none the less immeasurably better than they were.

Where are you getting these numbers from???

15 percent increase in literacy in only three years....and when the US only occupies Kabul??? This sounds like Neocon propaganda.

its one thing to hate america's foreign policy its another to let that hate influence everything you say. the taliban (are the warlords) incase you thought there were 2 strands, and the taliban were not a happy bunch of guys, nor were they exactly good people, to say that the afghan people were better off under their con trol shows you yourself really dont care. another thing I noticed is , dont think that america is responsable for things supposedly getting better in afghanistan (getting better is questionable), now that the people are rid of the control from the warlords they can structure themselves, no need for foreign envolvment.w What THEY choose is what THEY want.

Where are you getting these numbers from???

15 percent increase in literacy in only three years....and when the US only occupies Kabul??? This sounds like Neocon propaganda.

I got the 10% firgure from a piece on swedish riks nytt I will try and find something on the internet if there is, and the swedes are definitively anti neocon :)

this stuff about women not leaving their homes unaided is to protect them, sure they could have freedom to go ut whenever, but with the amount of crime around them it would be like going to chicago without 3 big black guys paid to protect you

Chicago wasn't all that bad if you could keep from looking like a tourist. I spent enough time there.

Safety might be understandable... if they didn't get killed or get beaten bloody on those rare ocasions where they tried to go out. By their own families. And what about the taboo on talking in front of unrelated men?

Liberals hate it that the Taliban and Saddam are gone.

That is why they kept predicting diaster.

Liberal elites are the most racist people of earth. They think people in under-developed countries are incapable of rising above tyranny and poverty.

The Taliban aren't gone. And the Afganis have not risen above poverty, hundreds of children died recently of cold weather.

Liberals certainly don't hate that the Taliban are in disarray, and Saddam is gone, but the ends don't always justify the means. These are symbolic, and Republicans seem to think symbols are more important than reality.

The ends always justify the means. They just have to be damn good ends to make the means worthwhile. Afganastan is royally screwed up... but it has always been royally screwed up. At least it has some hint of hope now where there was none before.

The ends always justify the means. They just have to be damn good ends to make the means worthwhile.

So if I told you to kill your mother to save 100 people from death...you would do it?

The end goal, by the way, was not getting rid of the Taliban, or bringing freedom or democracy to the Iraqis. Remember Bush's ultimatum?

No, not "simple enough." Let's see your source for the 10% claim.


Guess what - the Taliban and the warlords are re-instituting this policy. Why? Because the Bush administration's attention span isn't long enough to stay and do the job properly.


I don't see that much has changed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3721932.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3715616.stm
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghanistan1004/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3582493.stm

After reading your linked articles I am even less sure of what your point is things are bad but every article you linked says things have improved. For example from your first linked article


Forty per cent of the registered voters for Saturday's presidential election in Afghanistan are women

and

I'm totally alone. I have no support and I have six children, with no one to help me. All I have is this ration card from Care. Sometimes I feel like killing myself."

But Care is trying to find ways for these widows to earn an income - with chickens.

They are each given a brood of 30 chicks, poultry feed and advice. Zermina is now making about $30 a month from selling the eggs from her grown hens.

"It has made life a lot easier," she says.

"I can get food now for all my children. And I have eight children, four of them blind."

From the human rights watch report you linked


Women’s and girls’ lives have improved since the overthrow of the Taliban in late 2001. Once confined to their homes, over one million girls are enrolled in school. Women and girls no longer confront Taliban-era restrictions to gain access to health care services. The Afghan government and NGOs have initiated several programs targeted at improving women’s status and public participation. Improvements in women’s and girls’ rights can especially be seen in urban centers such as Kabul, where security is stronger, infrastructure has improved, and the central government exercises firm control

From the last article

With almost no private investment, the economic future of Afghanistan is in the hands of international aid donors.

Already they contribute $67 per Afghan person (compared to $258 a head in Bosnia), one third of the total economy.

Is the US supposed to force business' to invest in afghanistan? As regarding womens place in afghan society are you advocating forcing changes in afghan mores and society militarily? In the areas where you are complaining that the former taliban are reinstituting restrictive laws are you advocating more military action against them?
Just trying to get a handle on what exactly you are saying.