It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by pacifier2012
To me the photos of early Afghanistan show the gradual westernization of that country. Now it looks more like the way the Taliban would want it.
Originally posted by pacifier2012
To me the photos of early Afghanistan show the gradual westernization of that country. Now it looks more like the way the Taliban would want it.
Originally posted by fluff007
Just wow...
I truly feel for the people of Afghanistan. Their country has been absolutely obliterated..
A man in the 1960s left his job and home in Arizona and left to work in Kabul. He took his daughters and wife with him. Whilst he was there he took photos. And the contrast from then and now is astonishing.. But not in a good way.
Before the U.S. invasion, before the Russian war, before the Marxist revolution, Afghanistan used to be a pretty nice place.
Amateur photographer, and college professor, Dr. William Podlich took a leave of absence from his job at Arizona State to work with UNESCO in Kabul, bringing his wife and daughters with him.
Girls and boys in western style universities and schools were encouraged to talk to each other freely.
Kids grew up in a safe environment, unafraid of extremist influence.
Elementary education, even out in the rural areas, was standard. Kids and citizens alike felt opportunity hinged on education.
Women weren't required to wear burqas, but some would still cover up by choice.
While urban Afghanistan became modern, rural Afghanistan contained these quaint scenes.
Afghanistan had a national identity, and national style, despite all the 'western' influence.
www.businessinsider.com...
peace
Originally posted by fluff007
reply to post by Telos
I've always been of the opinion that the actual situation in countries like Afghanistan, Iran etc are a product of continuous experiments conducted by some western countries like France, England, USA.
Lol you might well be right.. It would not surprise me in the least.
It really is very disturbing and sad..
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by mideast
Try 30 years too late. Don't forget Russia got em first.
Originally posted by Twix404
reply to post by 35Foxtrot
Simply put, staying out of other peoples business unless it directly involves expressed concern from the Senate and its peoples. Or really, going to war only when necessary.
The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect, his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces.; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies – all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.