Malala yousafzai - modern hero

[amateur51]

Ah, so the UN Security Council is "irrelevant", is it? Does everything become "irrelevant" just because some people don't agree with it? That would cover just about everything you care to mention.

And as for this knee-jerk blaming of America, you really need to come up with something more original. And intelligent.

Irrelevant to what people believe Mr Pee. Deal with the reality, not the Games of Thrones world that you seem to inhabit.

Your complete refusal to countenance the suggestion that America may be responsible for (but not accountable to anyone) events in the Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc means you are impossible to argue with. It is because America is perceived to be unaccountable and yet responsible that leads to so much anti-American feeling.

[scottycelt]

The silly thing is that those who decry the American-led invasion of Iraq because it didn't have the full and unanimous authority of the UN Security Council are often the very people who continue to ignore the fact that the American-led invasion of Afghanistan did have that full and unanimous authority.

I'm sure such people are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know that simple fact. It is not even a question of arguing the rights and wrongs of the invasion itself, so why don't they just come clean and acknowledge that indisputable fact? Is it really too much for them to even countenance?

Come on, amsey, never mind about me 'smelling the coffee', just give us all a lovely big surprise ... (I much prefer PG Tips, anyway).

[aeolium]

The silly thing is that those who decry the American-led invasion of Iraq because it didn't have the full and unanimous authority of the UN Security Council are often the very people who continue to ignore the fact that the American-led invasion of Afghanistan did have that full and unanimous authority.

I'm sure such people are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know that simple fact. It is not even a question of arguing the rights and wrongs of the invasion itself, so why don't they just come clean and acknowledge that indisputable fact? Is it really too much for them to even countenance?

But the American-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 did NOT have the full and unanimous authority of the UN Security Council. It was based on the authorisation of the US Congress and the US executive, and also the argument that the invasion was an act of self-defence against the aggression of the 9/11 attacks - even though those attacks were committed by individuals not operating on behalf of the state which the US then invaded.

The UN subsequently authorised the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to provide assistance in maintaining security, and in a Security Council resolution 1378 condemned the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for terrorism. But this was after the US invasion, and indeed after the overthrow of the Taliban. So it is not an "indisputable fact" that the UN Security Council authorised the US invasion before it took place - that is completely untrue. So that's why people like me don't "come clean and acknowledge" it.

[scottycelt]

But the American-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 did NOT have the full and unanimous authority of the UN Security Council. It was based on the authorisation of the US Congress and the US executive, and also the argument that the invasion was an act of self-defence against the aggression of the 9/11 attacks - even though those attacks were committed by individuals not operating on behalf of the state which the US then invaded.

The UN subsequently authorised the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to provide assistance in maintaining security, and in a Security Council resolution 1378 condemned the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for terrorism. But this was after the US invasion, and indeed after the overthrow of the Taliban. So it is not an "indisputable fact" that the UN Security Council authorised the US invasion before it took place - that is completely untrue. So that's why people like me don't "come clean and acknowledge" it.

You are correct. Operation Enduring Freedom didn't have that Security Council support for a few weeks prior to the December 2001 resolution, that is perfectly true.

Before 2001 there was a civil war situation in Afghanistan. The western powers led by the US supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and ultimately invaded in October 2001 due to genuine fears of many more 9/11s, as you, yourself, acknowledge as the main reason for the invasion. (even though you obviously don't accept it as genuine)

Very swiftly, in December 2001, the US and UK took the case for their initial action (self-defence) to the Security Council of the UN where it was decided to set up ISAF, the leadership of which was eventually handed over to NATO (in 2003), and was comprised of the very powers which had invaded Afghanistan in the first place. All this, remember, with the unanimous backing of the Security Council of the UN!

So I've now 'come clean' over the point you make and I willingly accept it as a fact. Will you now do the same and acknowledge that the US and other Coalition forces currently in Afghanistan have their presence backed by the full authority of the UN Security Council?

There can really only be a 'Yes' or 'No' to that question, unless it's a 'Don't Know'?

[aeolium]

Sorry - I don't tend to go for "Yes" or "No" answers any more than you do.

The creation of ISAF by the UN was by no means a post-hoc authorisation of the invasion but consistent with the UN's obligation to preserve or restore peace and security, ISAF's role being inter alia to restore government and security institutions and also facilitate humanitarian assistance. ISAF consisted from an early stage of troops from a number of nations, unsurprisingly including the two which had been involved in the initial invasion: this was no more than a recognition of a de-facto situation. Since US and other nations' forces currently form part of the now NATO-led ISAF, then the presence of those forces is indeed backed by the UN Security Council. But I am not aware of any UN resolution which gives retrospective authorisation for the invasion. It's interesting also to note international public opinion which at the time of the invasion was predominantly in favour of a legal, non-military response to the 9/11 attacks (except in a few countries). Now there is hardly any country (even the US) in which public opinion is in favour of retaining the troops in Afghanistan.

[This is all rather OT, but I have little to add to what others have said eloquently in praise of Malala]

[amateur51]

You are correct. Operation Enduring Freedom didn't have that Security Council support for a few weeks prior to the December 2001 resolution, that is perfectly true.

Before 2001 there was a civil war situation in Afghanistan. The western powers led by the US supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and ultimately invaded in October 2001 due to genuine fears of many more 9/11s, as you, yourself, acknowledge as the main reason for the invasion. (even though you obviously don't accept it as genuine)

Very swiftly, in December 2001, the US and UK took the case for their initial action (self-defence) to the Security Council of the UN where it was decided to set up ISAF, the leadership of which was eventually handed over to NATO (in 2003), and was comprised of the very powers which had invaded Afghanistan in the first place. All this, remember, with the unanimous backing of the Security Council of the UN!

So I've now 'come clean' over the point you make and I willingly accept it as a fact. Will you now do the same and acknowledge that the US and other Coalition forces currently in Afghanistan have their presence backed by the full authority of the UN Security Council?

There can really only be a 'Yes' or 'No' to that question, unless it's a 'Don't Know'?

I love it when scotty accesses his 'pig parent'-mode

[scottycelt]

Sorry - I don't tend to go for "Yes" or "No" answers any more than you do.

The creation of ISAF by the UN was by no means a post-hoc authorisation of the invasion but consistent with the UN's obligation to preserve or restore peace and security, ISAF's role being inter alia to restore government and security institutions and also facilitate humanitarian assistance. ISAF consisted from an early stage of troops from a number of nations, unsurprisingly including the two which had been involved in the initial invasion: this was no more than a recognition of a de-facto situation. Since US and other nations' forces currently form part of the now NATO-led ISAF, then the presence of those forces is indeed backed by the UN Security Council. But I am not aware of any UN resolution which gives retrospective authorisation for the invasion. It's interesting also to note international public opinion which at the time of the invasion was predominantly in favour of a legal, non-military response to the 9/11 attacks (except in a few countries). Now there is hardly any country (even the US) in which public opinion is in favour of retaining the troops in Afghanistan.

[This is all rather OT, but I have little to add to what others have said eloquently in praise of Malala]

I answered your post directly and acknowledged the point you made.

My own point is not a question of whether the invasion of Afghanistan was right or wrong. That is a matter of opinion, or maybe more realistically political opinion.

My question to you was whether you acknowledge the fact that the Nato forces currently in Afghanistan are there with the full and unanimous backing of the United Nations Security Council.

That is why I asked for a 'Yes' or 'No' answer as any proper answer can only be one of the two.

Now you say you don't tend to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer so I take it that's a roundabout and indirect way of actually saying 'yes'?

[ahinton]

You are correct. Operation Enduring Freedom didn't have that Security Council support for a few weeks prior to the December 2001 resolution, that is perfectly true.

Before 2001 there was a civil war situation in Afghanistan. The western powers led by the US supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and ultimately invaded in October 2001 due to genuine fears of many more 9/11s, as you, yourself, acknowledge as the main reason for the invasion. (even though you obviously don't accept it as genuine)

Very swiftly, in December 2001, the US and UK took the case for their initial action (self-defence) to the Security Council of the UN where it was decided to set up ISAF, the leadership of which was eventually handed over to NATO (in 2003), and was comprised of the very powers which had invaded Afghanistan in the first place. All this, remember, with the unanimous backing of the Security Council of the UN!

So I've now 'come clean' over the point you make and I willingly accept it as a fact. Will you now do the same and acknowledge that the US and other Coalition forces currently in Afghanistan have their presence backed by the full authority of the UN Security Council?

There can really only be a 'Yes' or 'No' to that question, unless it's a 'Don't Know'?

No, because that does not allow any possibility that the UN might not have been right in what it did; whilst I do genuinely appreciate your "coming clean", that's quite simply not the whole story. The flack that will continue to fall out from various uninvited foreign actions in Afghanistan is hardly likely to die away in the foreseeable future, nor indeed should it do so if any useful lessons are ever to be learned.

[aeolium]

I answered your post directly and acknowledged the point you made.

My own point is not a question of whether the invasion of Afghanistan was right or wrong. That is a matter of opinion, or maybe more realistically political opinion.

My question to you was whether you acknowledge the fact that the Nato forces currently in Afghanistan are there with the full and unanimous backing of the United Nations Security Council.

That is why I asked for a 'Yes' or 'No' answer as any proper answer can only be one of the two.

Now you say you don't tend to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer so I take it that's a roundabout and indirect way of actually saying 'yes'?

The reason I don't wish to be confined to 'yes' or 'no' answers is that the context frequently requires a more nuanced explanation than that. That is why my acknowledgment that the presence of US and UK forces is currently backed by the UN Security Council was qualified by the point I wished to make, which was that that authorisation was not a retrospective authorisation of the invasion.

Thank you by the way for acknowledging that your statement that the American-led invasion of Afghanistan had the full and unanimous authority of the UN Security Council was incorrect.

[amateur51]

A slightly windy speech but hey! I filled up anyway

http://digg.com/video/malala-yousafzai-nobel-speech-full-video-peace-prize

[Richard Barrett]

The West is of course very happy to provide a platform for Malala Yousafzai to speak out about education and the antediluvian attitudes she and many others are struggling against.

She is not so often quoted in the "free world" on subjects like this (in a statement following her meeting with Barack Obama): I thanked President Obama for the United States' work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan and for Syrian refugees," she said in the statement. "I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people.

... or this (to the 32nd congress of Pakistani Marxists): I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion. Only this will free us from the chains of bigotry and exploitation.

[P. G. Tipps]

Like I assume all of us, I have boundless admiration for this young woman. I have this distinct feeling she may well lead her country one day.

Her first point inevitably has a lot more than a grain of truth in it, in the same way as civilian causalities in bombed-out Nazi Germany no doubt fuelled anger against the Allies?

However, as far as I'm aware, it wasn't Pakistani Marxists who saved her life, but dedicated doctors and nurses in a dirty rotten capitalist country!

I'm sure Malala Yousafzai like all young people (or at least most!) will mellow politically with further age and experience and realise that enforced and freedom-curtailing "solutions" are not the 'answer' after all.

(I suspect this thread will now be moved to the despised 'dungeon' where it now truly belongs!)

[teamsaint]

Like I assume all of us, I have boundless admiration for this young woman. I have this distinct feeling she may well lead her country one day.

Her first point inevitably has a lot more than a grain of truth in it, in the same way as civilian causalities in bombed-out Nazi Germany no doubt fuelled anger against the Allies?

However, as far as I'm aware, it wasn't Pakistani Marxists who saved her life, but dedicated doctors and nurses in a dirty rotten capitalist country!

I'm sure Malala Yousafzai like all young people (or at least most!) will mellow politically with further age and experience and realise that enforced and freedom-curtailing "solutions" are not the 'answer' after all.

(I suspect this thread will now be moved to the despised 'dungeon' where it now truly belongs!)

Can you help with my ITV 7 this weekend as well,please?

[P. G. Tipps]

Can you help with my ITV 7 this weekend as well,please?

[teamsaint]

No? Shame.

You seem confident in your predictions !!