I have not really come back as such. I still think I am better off lurking at present but here is an article I wouldn't mind some feedback from. It is an article I have written for my student newspaper. Just wondered what you guys thought of it really:
(Note - the Stop the War week was a week of speaker events, e.g. Tony Benn and Yvonne Ridley, that me and some friends organised to try and raise awareness about the war and let people know who we are)


This is an article primarily about the Stop the War week and the coalition that organised it. Before, during, and after the week we have been slandered and our words have been twisted. This article sums up my thoughts on the matter, and many other people’s as well.
Often we have been described as not looking to the future, seeing only the bad in the present situation and not recognising the good that may come out of it. I would point out that one of the central reasons for my opposition to the war is that it will probably create another hundred Bin Ladens in its wake. This action, even from the point of view of UK and US citizens is likely to make the world a much more dangerous place for years to come. The generation of terrorists being created in Afghanistan is not going to become apparent in Blair’s time in office. Western foreign policy has always been marked by its short-term gains, in this case electoral ones. So who is not looking to the future?
Also we are often accused of anti-American sentiment. There are those who say that the world’s problems do not stem entirely from America and I would wholeheartedly agree with them. Whilst I believe that this is an Imperialist war I do not believe that America is the only Imperialist country. Just ask any Irish Catholic or Chechen rebel. Opposition from the left has a habit of being labelled “anti-American”, something I find particularly ironic in this case as the editor of the STW newsletter is an American himself.
So I move to the idea that the STW coalition shows no feeling for the victims in America. I feel that whilst the attacks of 11th September were horrible they cannot be the justification for more death. The action being taken now will not bring justice or safety to America. It will likely instead bring a spiral of hate and violence simply killing more innocents. We are constantly asked to “Never Forget” but we must remember that people on the other side of the world will be saying the same thing after we have destroyed their homes. No one in the STW coalition wants to simply ignore the attacks, but this is not the best way out of the problem. We must remember what created this problem if we wish to solve it.
Another criticism often made is that suddenly everyone seems to be an expert on the Taliban when no one cared before the 11th September. I think there is some truth in this. I for one will freely admit that I knew nothing about Afghanistan before then. But I honestly think that this criticism can be made of the pro-war camp as well. Now that we almost control the country and have little to show for it our leaders are starting to emphasise more and more the new-found freedom of Afghanistan without the Taliban.
But I would ask if the Taliban needed removing this badly, why didn’t we do it earlier? I might almost go so far as to say that we shouldn’t have put them in power. Yes, I know it is said a lot at present but you have to admit that it is a tricky question for our current world leaders. It would appear that the only gain of the war so far is to have removed a regime with a terrible human rights record, which we put into power in the first place.
So what do we replace it with? The Northern Alliance, who have an even worse human rights record and whose leaders hate each other (although admittedly this appears to be in vogue for governments at present). The sad fact is that if we put the Northern Alliance in power life will go on just the same for the majority of people in Afghanistan (except for those considered Taliban sympathisers, for whom life will not go on at all).
This brings me back full circle, to the point that we are stuck in the past. I point to the history of the area because if we ignore it then we will not learn from it. If the Northern Alliance are put into government then history has a very good chance of repeating itself.
So what are the other options Blair and Bush are left with? Noises are being made about an all-inclusive government. The most worrying thing about this is that if it is truly to be all-inclusive and have popular support then it must include either the Taliban or the Northern Alliance. I think most people would agree that the chances of the Taliban being let back into government are slim. So we are left with the possibility of a government with a worse human rights record than before, or a government with no popular support: one that will face heavy resistance and probably have to be backed up by a US/UK peacekeeping force.
So the prospects for Afghanistan look bleak. We are at present creating a large guerrilla force with a hatred of the west merely fuelled by our seeming occupation of their country. As I am “stuck in the past” I think this is blindingly obvious. As Bush and Blair seem content on ignoring the past we can expect a lot more bloodshed to come.

Barry, I think it's a very good article. Just like your posts in this forum. Intelligent, well thought out, and a legitimate opinion which is not inflammatory and is based on your idea of the greater good.

I don't agree with it [img]smile.gif[/img] , but it is a very good article. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Even if I disagreed with your viewpoint, I would say it is well put.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Even if I disagreed with your viewpoint, I would say it is well put.<hr></blockquote>


Indeed!

Very good article Barry (and I DO agree with pretty much all you said) [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Excellent article. Though I can't say I agree with all of your points, I will say that I agree with, and respect, your stance. Namely, we must all put our heads and hearts together to ensure that tragic events as 9/11 do not happen again. You may have a different idea as to how to ensure this from myself (or others) but no one can doubt your desire for (as Ronn said quite well) a greater good.

good article, but im affraid its a BIT wrong, at least in my perspective. i dont see it causing any more bin hidens. the taliban is all but finished at this point, and a new system of government is being built as we speak. as far as im concerned, you have NO clue what you are saying, for you arent from this country, so you havent seen what it has done. good, hard-working citizens like myself, have lost our jobs over this travesty. i may have to rejoin the military, just to make ends-meat. try having a familiy member in one of those towers, or planes, and then say we should do nothing. i suppose we could have said" ok bin hiden, that was a nice one, but we would apprieciate it if you would keep your suicide cowards to yourself", and then just forget the whole thing. it doesnt work that way. America didnt get where it is today because it backed down. just be glad that kabul isnt a smoking, glowing in the dark, CRATER!!!

like i said, its a good article, and a good argument to my opinions. i just love this type of debate stuff is all, [img]smile.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/ninja.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/ninja.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/ninja.gif[/img]

Well put and well written. I agree with most of what you say.

The big problem of disagreeing with the war is being called a terrorist, or attracting violence. This is because this is seen like a battle between good and evil, black and white. Sadly, the leaders of the countries involved in the war do nothing and even encourage this. We are ruled by fanatics, different, but also the same as Bin Laden.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Morgan_Corbesant:
America didnt get where it is today because it backed down.


<hr></blockquote>

I couldnt help answering back at this one [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Yes America didnt get where it is today because it backed down, instead it trod roughshod over the bodies of lands of native indians.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AzureWolf:


I couldnt help answering back at this one [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Yes America didnt get where it is today because it backed down, instead it trod roughshod over the bodies of lands of native indians.<hr></blockquote>

Nicely put Azure.

Brief update. The article is published tomorrow in the newspaper. The only editorial changes are that they have removed the word "slander" from the opening paragraph for legal reasons and have changed some of the paragraph openers. I had a tendancy to start every paragraph with "So..." which gets a little repetitive.

I'm quite proud. Can you tell?

But seriously. Thanks very much guys. The editor said it was a good article because it doesn't try and ram the opinion down the readers throat. That is a habit I think I have picked up entirely because of IW. So thanks very much to all of you.

Barry the Sprout,

I think that your article was well-written. And while I think that it's probably obvious that I would disagree with you, I cannot honestly say that I think the acticle was well-thought out.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
I would point out that one of the central reasons for my opposition to the war is that it will probably create another hundred Bin Ladens in its wake. This action, even from the point of view of UK and US citizens is likely to make the world a much more dangerous place for years to come.
<hr></blockquote>

1. If the enemy's propoganda is to be believed on this point, there are already plenty of nutjobs ready to step in and replace Bin Laden. Hopefully, the war is eliminating large numbers of these wackos.

2. The world became a more dangerous place after the jets were flown into the buildings, NOT because we (the US, et.al.) are responding. Do you and your ilk seriously think for a nanosecond that had we not responded that the bad guys would stop their attacks on the West?


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Whilst I believe that this is an Imperialist war ...
<hr></blockquote>


GIVE ME A ***bleeping*** BREAK!!! Hey, comrade, the West doesn't give a rat's behind about conquering Afghanistan! We aren't even forcing a government of our design on them. Yes, we (the West) are booting out the Taliban and hunting down Al-Queada, but we're letting the various factions get together and hammer out their own government. I'm sure that we're probably letting them know what we think. I'm sure that we're pushing them to some degree to not dilly-daddle.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
But I would ask if the Taliban needed removing this badly, why didn't we do it earlier? I might almost go so far as to say that we shouldn't have put them in power. ... It would appear that the only gain of the war so far is to have removed a regime with a terrible human rights record, which we put into power in the first place.
So what do we replace it with?
<hr></blockquote>

1. And on what grounds would be have booted the Taliban out earlier??? We cannot go running around the world attacking any country whose government wasn't treating their population "properly". If the US or the West in general were to follow such a policy, the level of anti-US and/or anti-West sentiment would probably go ballistic!!! And no doubt the anti-US, anti-Imperialists such as yourself would simply have been able to start complaining about Western Imperialism that much earlier.


2. We did NOT place the Taliban in power. No country in the West even recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Only 3 countries world-wide recognized the Taliban. "So what do we replace it with?" Whose this "we"? "We" are letting the various Afghan factions (Taliban excluded) form their own gov't.

3. Hopefully, the non-Taliban Afghans will be able to form a successful coalition government.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
We are at present creating a large guerrilla force with a hatred of the west merely fuelled by our seeming occupation of their country.
<hr></blockquote>

And I suppose that we should have let that self-same "large guerrilla force with a hatred of the west" continue to run Afghanistan and protect Al-Queada and its training camps? Not an option.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Opposition from the left has a habit of being labelled "anti-American", something I find particularly ironic in this case as the editor of the STW newsletter is an American himself.
<hr></blockquote>

Barry, plenty of Americans inside the USA have been called "anti-American" for their left-wing opposition.

I know that my comments are most unlikely to change your mind. I do hope that you'll think about your views a little more deeply. While you may not think of yourself as anti-West, your language and many of your written thoughts says otherwise to those that disagree with you.

If you're appealing to an audience that basically already agreeing with you, then I suppose that what you've written doesn't really matter. BUT if you're attempting to appeal to a wider audience, you need to use language that doesn't alienate (i.e. the use of the word "Imperialistic", for example) and make arguments that appear to be better thought out and have a better chance to appeal to the wider audience.


I'm sorry if you don't like or appreciate my comments, but you did ask for some feedback.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:
I'm sorry if you don't like or appreciate my comments, but you did ask for some feedback.<hr></blockquote>

I always appreciate feedback Magness. I have thought about all those points and I am sorry if it appears that I am anti-American. Pretty much the whole article was dedicated to trying to stop people thinking that. This is definately not intended simply for people who agree with me as the majority of the University do not. It was also not intended to persuade people to my viewpoint. As the first paragraph said: it was intended to iron out the misconceptions that people at the University have about the beleifs of the Stop the War coalition.

As for the "I" word. Sorry I included it but I would be lying if I didn't. The article is supposed to convey my ideas and they do include that. The US has no strategic interest in Afghanistan? Just like the Gulf War I assume, or the support of Isreal. The list goes on. That is not anti American as lots of other countries do it as well. It is mostly anti capitalist as I think that is the reason for these kind of aggresive policies.

Now do you see what you've done? I'm supposed to be keeping out of here! :D

Barry,

I disagree with your first post. The focus of the U.S is primarily on getting Al Quaeda (for which the news media is gleefully criticizing the U.S.), NOT the Taliban. We have good reason, but I'll get to that. As for what kind of government gets put in place, let's not forget that what they're working on here in Europe is an INTERIM government, and that the Afganis presumably will call an assembly to decide a more permanent government, unless the press is grossly misrepresenting the situation again. Here's the catch, as has been reported IN THE MEDIA, the Afganis themselves (outside of the cities) do NOT think of themselves as a NATION. Everytime I switch on the TV, it's Pashtun this, Uzbek that, and let's not forget the "foreign" Taliban. Let's not forget the reports by CNN (way to go, CNN) about how surrendering Taliban ask to keep their weapons to defend themselves from rival tribes. Hm, I'll fall over in amazement if the Afganis pull this off (of course, we'll get blamed when everything falls apart).

As for the reason for going after Al Qaeda, here's an excerpt from a fatwa issued by OB himself in 1998:

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson. Go here for the full translation. We didn't take it seriously then, but are doing so now.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sojourner:
I disagree with your first post. The focus of the U.S is primarily on getting Al Quaeda (for which the news media is gleefully criticizing the U.S.), NOT the Taliban. We have good reason, but I'll get to that. As for what kind of government gets put in place, let's not forget that what they're working on here in Europe is an INTERIM government, and that the Afganis presumably will call an assembly to decide a more permanent government, unless the press is grossly misrepresenting the situation again. Here's the catch, as has been reported IN THE MEDIA, the Afganis themselves (outside of the cities) do NOT think of themselves as a NATION. Everytime I switch on the TV, it's Pashtun this, Uzbek that, and let's not forget the "foreign" Taliban. Let's not forget the reports by CNN (way to go, CNN) about how surrendering Taliban ask to keep their weapons to defend themselves from rival tribes. Hm, I'll fall over in amazement if the Afganis pull this off (of course, we'll get blamed when everything falls apart).<hr></blockquote>

You missed my point but thanks for responding. What I meant with my emphasis on the taliban is this:

We have been at war for quite some time considering the weapons we have used. For all the death (which may be a minimum, but is still too much IMO) we have not killed OB. We have nothing concrete to show for it with regards Al-Queda. Ok so we have destroyed a couple of bases but because of the way Al-Queda is formed that makes very little difference.

The real problem of this level of fanatiscm is that a member of the organisation can be completely unknown to the police as a radical. He can have no apparrent contact with the group at all. And then he can walk onto a bus and blow himself to pieces along with all the passengers. We can't find this man before it happens, we have no way of stopping him being able to produce the bomb (the IRA taught us that with explosives made from fertiliser). So this method of bombing can't damage Al-Queda all that much.

So a new gain has to be offered up to the dual-god that is the media and the electorate. The leaders of the coalition scratched their heads for a few weeks and then suddenly all the emphasis of the press reports was on the new found freedom of the Afghanis without the Taliban. It wasn't me that put the emphasis there. I just decided to play with the serve I was given so to speak.

Also when you talk about the blame for the inevitable government collapse after the war falling on America I agree with you. I think it will probably work like that. But frankly I think the US and the UK deserve it. First my country ("my" said with extreme reluctance) used Afghanistan as a colonial outpost for years. Then the Russians decided they wanted a go. America and Britain realised that that couldn't be allowed so they financed one group against the other. No thought for the future of the country - it just suited us at the time to do so. Now once again we are intervening with little regard for the future of the nation in question (the last few paragraphs of the article go into more depth on this). When are we going to admit that as a western world we have gone wherever we liked and done whatever we liked. And then complained when the blame gets apportioned to us.

Frankly "Hands off Afghanistan" (the slogan of the British Stop the War coalitino) is a brilliant slogan IMO. For the last 200 years someone has been in that country. Its time we gave it back to the people who actually live there.

I don't think we can do this with an interim government and then an assembly. If we truly do leave the people to decide on their own government then it will most likely include a fair portion of the Taliban. After the recent fuss (see above) that would no way be allowed. So we will once again intervene and enforce a government. And then it will be unpopular so we will have to prop it up with our own military. And so the Afghan people will not have peace or a government of their choosing. And yes we will get the blame. But only because we deserve it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Frankly "Hands off Afghanistan" (the slogan of the British Stop the War coalitino) is a brilliant slogan IMO. For the last 200 years someone has been in that country. Its time we gave it back to the people who actually live there.

I don't think we can do this with an interim government and then an assembly. If we truly do leave the people to decide on their own government then it will most likely include a fair portion of the Taliban. After the recent fuss (see above) that would no way be allowed. So we will once again intervene and enforce a government. And then it will be unpopular so we will have to prop it up with our own military. And so the Afghan people will not have peace or a government of their choosing. And yes we will get the blame. But only because we deserve it.<hr></blockquote>

Those we supported in Afghanistan in the 80s ended up fighting on different sides after the Soviets left. We left them alone, and they broke into factions. The Northern Alliance had power first, without our support, and then were over thrown by the Taliban, without our support.

As to the interim government, leaving them to decide who should be included in the new government would not result in a large amount of Taliban in the government. 25,000 Taliban ruled this country of 25,000,000. Were their Afghan's who shared the beliefs of the Taliban? Yes, about 100,000 out of the 25,000,000. It's not only the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban, it's also the many tribal factions in the south who suffered under the Taliban. The small number of Taliban, foreign Taliban, and Al Queta are fighting the rest of their countrymen.

The Taliban were favored in the beginning because they restored order to the country after years of Civil War. They were welcomed, at first, but soon the welcome began to wear out. The Taliban were less interested in the country's well being than enforcing their own radical religious beliefs on the population. The Taliban leaders also took huge cash bribes from Osama, according to former Taliban leaders. Nothing was done to feed the hungry, nor address human suffering except through the actions of other nations(UN). At least see that that problem can now be addressed, and the Afghans can begin to help themselves with our help.

The Taliban were an illegal, unrecognized government in the eyes of the world, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and UAE, from the time they took control of the country until a few weeks ago. Now they are recognized by no one.

The UN will support this effort and that has never been done before in Afghanistan. Yes, they were sent aid, but they were never empowered to help themselves. With the world behind them, this is the best chance for peace these people have had in generations.

Barry because bad things happened before doesn't mean they will always continue to happen. The world view is not completely static, but it is slow to change. The world can learn from it's mistakes. Inaction is not the only way to help people decide their own destiny.

I am on the opposite side of the arguments from you frequently in this forum, but I will admit it is possible that this situation may not work. I believe it can, if done properly, but I don't completely disregard the fact that it may fail. I don't believe my way is the only true way or the complete truth, should you? ;)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AzureWolf:


I couldnt help answering back at this one [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Yes America didnt get where it is today because it backed down, instead it trod roughshod over the bodies of lands of native indians.<hr></blockquote>


Yep...peace through superior firepower...how every major international conflict has been solved throughout history. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

BTW...Where are you from Az? I'm sure that whereever it is, it has a few nasty skeletons in its closet too. So dont shake the finger *too* hard.

EDIT: Sorry...meant to post this too. Excellent article Barry. Although, you probably know that I, too, disagree with many of your points, the article itself is excellent. If I have more time on my next break, I will post something a bit mroe substantial.

Laters

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AzureWolf:
Yes America didnt get where it is today because it backed down, instead it trod roughshod over the bodies of lands of native indians.<hr></blockquote>

American history is sad when it comes to native Americans. My wife is native American and her paternal grandfather lived on a reservation in SD. Many of her other relatives live there today.

I don't dispute that greed for land caused the US government (in it's desire to please the population) to break every promise it ever made to the native Americans, except the one to take their land, but that situation doesn't relate to the one in Afghanistan. We don't want their land. We don't want to "settle" Afghanistan.

Our only interest in Afghanistan in the 80s was to keep the Soviets out. We weren't interested in the conditions of the Afghan people. Today I think it's different. It is for me anyway. I want Osama captured, I no longer want their country to be used by terrorist, and I want peace and food for the Afghan people.

In the 80s, the American public thought things would be "OK" for the Afghan people if the Soviets were ousted. It obviously wasn't that simple. It will take more, and I think most Americans feel this now and are committed to it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Nachtrafe:



Yep...peace through superior firepower...how every major international conflict has been solved throughout history. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

BTW...Where are you from Az? I'm sure that whereever it is, it has a few nasty skeletons in its closet too. So dont shake the finger *too* hard.


Laters<hr></blockquote>

Originally New Zealand and now Australia. Both countries are no exception to the rule as the euro settlers when they came slaughtered Maoris and Aboriginies in much the same fashion as the native indians were.
Nowdays New Zealand and Australia in a lesser respect have started to give large chunks of land, money back. New Zealand now is one of the most advanced moralistic countries in the world. I would say more than America or Australia [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


American history is sad when it comes to native Americans. My wife is native American and her paternal grandfather lived on a reservation in SD. Many of her other relatives live there today.

I don't dispute that greed for land caused the US government (in it's desire to please the population) to break every promise it ever made to the native Americans, except the one to take their land, but that situation doesn't relate to the one in Afghanistan. We don't want their land. We don't want to "settle" Afghanistan.
.<hr></blockquote>

I know my statement above wasnt directed at the Afghan situation so much as replying to the statement that America never backs down. Its not always a bad thing to back down.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
I am on the opposite side of the arguments from you frequently in this forum, but I will admit it is possible that this situation may not work. I believe it can, if done properly, but I don't completely disregard the fact that it may fail. I don't believe my way is the only true way or the complete truth, should you? ;) <hr></blockquote>

Point taken Mr Bman. I do always admire your openmindedness. I admit that I will have egg all over my face if my predictions are wrong. I just think we can wait and see on that score, I'd be smug were it not for what that entails.

As for the Taliban they are recognised by most Pashtun as their leaders. That is about 60% of the population. You are right - they have lost a lot of support from their policies. But they have also gained it in some areas. And they were also put into power due to the horribleness of the Northern Alliance, not just the civil war. There was a reactionary movement against the people we now consider friends.

But yeah. It could work if people are happy without the Taliban. But from what I have read about the area that is unlikely. There is the possibility of peace, I will give you that Ronn!

BTW Thanks Nachtrafe!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


You missed my point but thanks for responding. What I meant with my emphasis on the taliban is this:

We have been at war for quite some time considering the weapons we have used. For all the death (which may be a minimum, but is still too much IMO) we have not killed OB. We have nothing concrete to show for it with regards Al-Queda. Ok so we have destroyed a couple of bases but because of the way Al-Queda is formed that makes very little difference.

The real problem of this level of fanatiscm is that a member of the organisation can be completely unknown to the police as a radical. He can have no apparrent contact with the group at all. And then he can walk onto a bus and blow himself to pieces along with all the passengers. We can't find this man before it happens, we have no way of stopping him being able to produce the bomb (the IRA taught us that with explosives made from fertiliser). So this method of bombing can't damage Al-Queda all that much.

So a new gain has to be offered up to the dual-god that is the media and the electorate. The leaders of the coalition scratched their heads for a few weeks and then suddenly all the emphasis of the press reports was on the new found freedom of the Afghanis without the Taliban. It wasn't me that put the emphasis there. I just decided to play with the serve I was given so to speak.

Also when you talk about the blame for the inevitable government collapse after the war falling on America I agree with you. I think it will probably work like that. But frankly I think the US and the UK deserve it. First my country ("my" said with extreme reluctance) used Afghanistan as a colonial outpost for years. Then the Russians decided they wanted a go. America and Britain realised that that couldn't be allowed so they financed one group against the other. No thought for the future of the country - it just suited us at the time to do so. Now once again we are intervening with little regard for the future of the nation in question (the last few paragraphs of the article go into more depth on this). When are we going to admit that as a western world we have gone wherever we liked and done whatever we liked. And then complained when the blame gets apportioned to us.

Frankly "Hands off Afghanistan" (the slogan of the British Stop the War coalitino) is a brilliant slogan IMO. For the last 200 years someone has been in that country. Its time we gave it back to the people who actually live there.

I don't think we can do this with an interim government and then an assembly. If we truly do leave the people to decide on their own government then it will most likely include a fair portion of the Taliban. After the recent fuss (see above) that would no way be allowed. So we will once again intervene and enforce a government. And then it will be unpopular so we will have to prop it up with our own military. And so the Afghan people will not have peace or a government of their choosing. And yes we will get the blame. But only because we deserve it.<hr></blockquote>

Again, well said. I agree with all except the idea that the US and UK deserved it. No country or citizen who lived in a country deserved what happenned on 9-11. "Should it come as a surprised that those countries hate the West?" is a different question that doesn't glorify the attack such as the idea of deserving. And no, it should come as a surprise. But I would not limit this hatred to the US and the UK, but rather to the all of Western Civilization who has a tendency to become imperialistic in the conduct of foreign policy. We are now getting the product of our years of narrow minded policies. We thought that enforcing our policies because they were in our best interest was the way to go (and it was until the Third World clued in that they do have the fire power to fight us... in fact, we don't have the capability to efficiently fight them).

I'm a little confused by this...

"No country or citizen who lived in a country deserved what happenned on 9-11. "Did they have it coming?" is a different question that doesn't glorify the attack such as the idea of deserving. And yes, they did deserve it.

We didn't deserve it, but yes, we deserved it? Am I reading it wrong? [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:
"Did they have it coming?" <hr></blockquote>


In all honesty, this is no better.

Was the hatred forseeable? Did people have reason to resent the US? I think these statements are much more accurate.

"Have it coming", and "deserved it" are pretty much the same thing. I think both "glorify" the event equally. They imply that it should have happened. That is why I find them so offensive, it's like saying, "you needed that". ;)

I know they are just words and most people don't mean them that way, but it is the way it "feels". That why the reaction to those statements can get so heated.

I think an important distinction to make is between expecting it and deserving it. They didn't deserve it because no one deserves something like that, but they should have seen that something like it was on the cards (and has been for a while).

But that wasn't really what I was reffering to when I talked about the US and UK deserving it. I meant they deserved the blame for Afghanistan being in the situation it is now. And you are also right, Ryanumar, about not restricting this to the US and UK. It is a Western capitalism thing as far as I am concerned. I tend to write Us and UK only occasionally and then only because they are most visible in this current manifestation of it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

But that wasn't really what I was reffering to when I talked about
the US and UK deserving it. I meant they deserved the blame for
Afghanistan being in the situation it is now. And you are also
right, Ryanumar, about not restricting this to the US and UK.
It is a Western capitalism thing as far as I am concerned.
<hr></blockquote>

Major sigh!!!! It's all the fault of "Western capitalism". Jeeeeez.
Give it up, Barry. Communism is dead!!!


Furthermore, The US/UK are not to blame for the current ugly situation
in Afghanistan. It was your precious worker's paradise, the Soviet Union,
that installed a communist puppet government in the late 1970's or early
1980's which was then followed by the full blown Soviet invasion. This
was the beginning of a Soviet power play to create a beachhead to the
Indian Ocean.

The fact that the US worked with Afghan rebels to oppose the Soviet invasion does not make the current messy political situation in Afghanistan our fault. The Soviet's created the mess. Should the imperialist, capitalist West have allowed the worker's paradise to annex Afghanistan??? If your answer is "no", then you cannot place the blame on the West for the results of the Soviet invasion. (I suppose if your answer is ""yes", then I suppose it's our fault for opposing the great and wonderful people of the Soviet Union in their altruistic efforts to spread the great joy of world communism.)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Ryanamur:

But I would not limit this to the US and the UK, but rather to the all
of Western Civilization who has a tendency to become imperialistic in
the conduct of foreign policy. We are now getting the product of our
years of narrow minded policies. We thought that enforcing our policies
because they were in our best interest was the way to go ...
<hr></blockquote>


C'mon, Ryanamur. ALL countries have ALWAYS acted in the OWN best interests!!! And they ALWAYS will!!! It doesn't matter if the country is Western or not, capitalist or communist. The Soviet Union always acted in what their leaders perceived to be the USSR's self-interest. The USA always acts in what our leaders perceived to be USA's self-interest. That doesn't mean that those leaders are perfect in their judgements. They do the best they can. It's easy to say after the fact that the US should not have left Afghanistan after booting out the Soviets. Indeed, I think that it most likely that it would have been a good idea to stay engaged in the area. But there's really not point to crying over spilt milk. Regardless, the true blame for the last 20+ years of ugliness in Afghanistan lies with those that committed the "original sin", the Soviet Union.

Oooops... Sorry about the ugly formatting in the previous posting. I wrote out my reply in a Windows Notepad and then did a cut & paste.

When I do this, I usually remember to fix any formatting problems, but I forgot this time.

Oh well...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AzureWolf:


Originally New Zealand and now Australia. Both countries are no exception to the rule as the euro settlers when they came slaughtered Maoris and Aboriginies in much the same fashion as the native indians were.
Nowdays New Zealand and Australia in a lesser respect have started to give large chunks of land, money back. New Zealand now is one of the most advanced moralistic countries in the world. I would say more than America or Australia [img]tongue.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

I thought you were from Australia Az, but I have a terrible memory for stuff like that. [img]smile.gif[/img] And yeah, when the English marched in to conquer both countries, they didn't really give a fig about the then natives. Being a bit of a student of history, I have noted that both countries have done quite a bit for the original inhabitants. That's good. The US could take a lesson there in dealing with the original inhabitants of North America.

*Not*, mind you, that I have this great churning load of guilt, as some in my country do. But yes, some of the things we did to various tribes was dishonourable, and I think that *some* amends should be made.

BTW...on a side note. I *HATE* the term 'Native American' as applied to the original inhabitants of this continent. I was born in Oakdale California. That makes me a Native American!!! I dont give a damn how politically correct the term may be, its WRONG! Same goes for the terms Asian-American, African-American, Mexican-American, etc. Anyone born in the United States of America is a Native bloody American!

Err...sorry...stepping down from the soap box, rant over. Its just one of those little things that REALLY get on my nerves. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Nachtrafe:
I *HATE* the term 'Native American' as applied to the original inhabitants of this continent. <hr></blockquote>


It's actually much more accurate than "Indian". I guess we could call them Indigenous Americans. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:



It's actually much more accurate than "Indian". I guess we could call them Indigenous Americans. [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

True...Cherokee, Navajo, Algonquin, Mohawk, etc are proper terms.
I usually go with Original Inhabitants of North America(kind of long, but more accurate) [img]smile.gif[/img]

Ummm, Magness? Where did I say I supported the Soviet Union? Most Marxist will tell you that even Marx would have had severe problems supporting them ideologically, let alone justifying the purges. Lenin had some good ideas, but I think he was wide of the mark myself. And as for Stalin... don't even get me started.

I did mean the Soviets are to blame as well, sorry if that didn't come across. I beleive I mentioned them earlier for their involvement. But what I was driving at is that all of us (the US, the UK, and the Soviets) used Afghanistan to play our poer struggles. And then we left it. The Soviets went in and we responded. But before that my country had had its turn at buggering the regions infrastructure. And now we are going to do it again.

Communism is dead? I think Fukuyama is fundamentally wrong on that one to be honest. One nation socialism as tried in Russia has failed. I think everyone knew it would and I would never argue differently. Read the Communist Manifesto, it is completely different from how you imagined it I would bet. The whole idea of Communism is that it has to happen globally and it has to happen when people are ready for it. That was blatantly not the case in Russia, or China. This is why I think one of the only countries as a socialist I can learn from is Cuba. They have done remarkably well considering what they ahd to start off with. But that is another argument.

Ronn, Thanks for the clarification, I guess I missed a subtility of the English language. My idea was not to glorify the events but rather to point out that this should come as a surprise. I've fixed my post.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:



C'mon, Ryanamur. ALL countries have ALWAYS acted in the OWN best interests!!! And they ALWAYS will!!! It doesn't matter if the country is Western or not, capitalist or communist.

Indeed, I think that it most likely that it would have been a good idea to stay engaged in the area. But there's really not point to crying over spilt milk. Regardless, the true blame for the last 20+ years of ugliness in Afghanistan lies with those that committed the "original sin", the Soviet Union.<hr></blockquote>

First, you don't have to convince me that all countries have and always will base their foreign policy on the best interest of the state. That's been my line for almost 3 months on this forum.

However, what leaders fails to recognize is that it's that ideology of always looking for the best interest that always puts us in trouble!

Now, about the 9-11 attacks, you must understand that Al-Queada (a muslim terrorist organisation) and the Taliban (once a rightfull government of a country) are two separate things mixed togheter by the Bush administration to help the American public see that the US is making progress in this war on terrorism.

About Al-Queada, they hate the West, particularly the US, for their capitalistic involvement in middle-east affairs for over 40years. The are also mighty pissed off at the US for having put military bases on the sacred grounds of Saudi Arabia and for not vacating those bases after the Gulf War. For those reasons, they will make the US and Western civilization pay. The problem with Al-Queada is that many muslims in that part of the world do agree with both Al-Queada's ideas, methods and goal!

Now, to the Taliban. They were the rightfull government of Afghanistan and were not recongnized as such by most countries in the world. No, they are not angels and far from it. However, their human right record is actually better than that of the current N-A (the former-former government of Afghanistan).

Putting the blame on solelly the USSR for this mess in Afghanistan is wrong. The Soviet-Afghan war lasted for many year only because of the US involvement. That's why the US got involved and supplied the Mujahidin with weapons and money. The US is also to blame for what happenned. But the blame also rest with the rest of Western Civilization because they backed the US in this event (and thank God they did!).

If you're still not sure, look around the battle ield in Afghanistan, you will find something very interesting. The US are fighting against anticated US equipement and their allies are using anticated Soviet equipment! So really, who gave the Taliban (former Mujahidin) their power: the US!

Funny thing is that the media do not show the equipment the Taliban are fighting with... they only show N-A equipment and stuff that was left around following the Soviet withdrawl.

Good morning Barry (although I suppose it's actually the afternoon in the UK)....

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

Read the Communist Manifesto, it is completely different from how you imagined it I would bet. The whole idea of Communism is that it has to happen globally and it has to happen when people are ready for it.
<hr></blockquote>

Actually Barry, I have read the Communist Manifesto, but it was many years ago in a college Political Ideologies class. I thought that it was evil philosophy then have seen nothing to change my mind in the meantime.

Just to "prove" (for whatever its worth to you) that I did listen in class, I remember that it was believed that the first communist revolution would occur in a European industialized country or the USA first, rather than the agrarian Imperial Russia. I also remember that Lenin, while hardly an angel, seemed to be a relatively decent enough sort, as revolutionary leaders go (also seen thru the lens of looking back many decades into the past). Having said that, I still believe that the philosophy that he was supporting was still evil.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by BtS:

This is why I think one of the only countries as a socialist I can learn from is Cuba.
<hr></blockquote>

Cuba is an evil repressive communist dictatorship and, once Castro is pushing up daisies, Cuba will be the better for it.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by BtS:

I did mean the Soviets are to blame as well, sorry if that didn't come across. I beleive I mentioned them earlier for their involvement. But what I was driving at is that all of us (the US, the UK, and the Soviets) used Afghanistan to play our poer struggles. And then we left it. The Soviets went in and we responded. But before that my country had had its turn at buggering the regions infrastructure. And now we are going to do it again.
<hr></blockquote>


The Soviets are primarily to blame for the long term mess in Afghanistan. Theirs was the original sin. That must never be forgotten. The fact that the US responded to their invasion does not mean that the US got tagged "it" and took over blame for the mess. Indeed, perhaps Russia should be paying reparations to Afghanistan. (I do realize that Russia is not really in any monetary position to do so.) "We", the US, didn't do it the first time, as you stated in the final sentence above. And the US is not responsible for the situation in Afghanistan this time. Long-term, the Russians are. Short-term, the Taliban is.

Don't take this too personally, but this is one of the reasons that people of my philosophical bent believe that people on the far left are Anti-American. The far left always seems unable to look at a situation with clear and pure logic and place the blame accurately. It's always easier for the left to blame the USA, capitalism, western cultural imperialism, etc. The fact that the USA did not clean up the USSR's mess in Afghanistan doesn't make the Afghani situation the USA's responsibility. The USSR created the mess. It was their responsibility.

The US and the West are engaged in a legitimate act of self-defense against what was the acting (if not recognized) government of a country that was openly harboring a group that attacked the US, specifically, and the West, in general.


Catch ya later.... ;)

Ryanamur...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Ryanamur:

First, you don't have to convince me that all countries have and always will base their foreign policy on the best interest of the state. That's been my line for almost 3 months on this forum.

However, what leaders fails to recognize is that it's that ideology of always looking for the best interest that always puts us in trouble!
<hr></blockquote>

Ryanamur, without trying to sound trite, it sounds like I do need to (at least) try to convince you. A country acting in its own self interest is not "ideological". It's human nature.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Ryanamur:

Now, about the 9-11 attacks, you must understand that Al-Queada (a muslim terrorist organisation) and the Taliban (once a rightfull government of a country) are two separate things mixed togheter by the Bush administration to help the American public see that the US is making progress in this war on terrorism.
<hr></blockquote>

While the Taliban and Al-Queada are two separate organizations, Bush did NOT mix them together in the way that you describe. C'mon!!! They mixed themselves together when the Taliban allowed Al-Queada safe harbor in the country. The Taliban mixed themselves to A.Q. when they refused to hand A.Q. over to the USA. Only 3 countries recognized the Taliban as the "rightful" government of Afghanistan. They were the acting gov't of the country, but that doesn't necessarily equate to being the "rightful" government.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Ryanamur:

About Al-Queada, they hate the West, particularly the US, for their capitalistic involvement in middle-east affairs for over 40 years.
<hr></blockquote>

Gee... "they [Al-Queada] hate the West ... for their capitalistic involvement in middle-east affairs for over 40 years. " It's news to me that they hate us for our "capitalistic" involvement. I though that they just hated us for our involvement generally. Hmmm.... Capitalistic involvement??? This turn of the phrase sounds might suspicous to me.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Ryanamur:

Funny thing is that the media do not show the equipment the Taliban are fighting with... they only show N-A equipment and stuff that was left around following the Soviet withdrawl.
<hr></blockquote>

I suspect that the US media are not showing Taliban equipment for considerably less suspicious reasons that you seem to imply. One, perhaps that Taliban do not want to show any Western media what they have. Two, Western media does not want to get near the Taliban these days, given that many have been killed, at least one journalist is/was being held hostage, etc. Heck, just yesterday or the day before, a Taliban sniper took a shot at Geraldo Rivera! The Taliban does not seem to have much respect for "Western journalism".


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Ryanamur:

Putting the blame on solelly the USSR for this mess in Afghanistan is wrong. The Soviet-Afghan war lasted for many year only because of the US involvement. That's why the US got involved and supplied the Mujahidin with weapons and money. The US is also to blame for what happenned. But the blame also rest with the rest of Western Civilization because they backed the US in this event (and thank God they did!).
<hr></blockquote>

"The Soviet-Afghan war lasted for many year only because of the US involvement." Yeah, had we not gotten involved. Afghanistan would have probably been annexed by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union may not have collapsed. The Soviet Union may have destablized and invaded Iran and/or Pakistan. The Soviet goal was to gain direct land access to the Indian Ocean.

The fact that the USA opposed Soviet Imperialism and supported the Afghani rebels does not make the blame for the post-Soviet-Afghan War ours. The original sin belongs to the Soviet Union!!! Period!!!


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Ryanamur:

Now, to the Taliban. They were the rightfull government of Afghanistan and were not recongnized as such by most countries in the world. No, they are not angels and far from it. However, their human right record is actually better than that of the current N-A (the former-former government of Afghanistan).
<hr></blockquote>

C'mon, Ryanamur. This is like saying that Stalin was a nice guy because he wasn't Hitler!!!

From what I've heard in the various news reports and documentaries, Afghanistan was actually a pretty decent place before the Soviet invasion. But 20 years of war has turned it into a real hellhole. And it's probably gonna take quite a while for Afghanistan to return to where it was 25-30 years ago. It just won't happen overnight.

First Magness, Cuba is the only evil repressive dictatorship that has an elected parliament and president. Or at least the only one that I can think of. Why do you consider it evil? Why do you consider Marxism evil? Just curious really.

And I do think most of the worlds problems are capitalism's fault. But the US is just as much a victim in my eyes as any other country. The US has the concentration of capitalists that many other countries don't, but that doesn't make them my enemy. If you have read the CM then you will remember that communism is an international force, so we can't pick on one country. Marx said that communism would work better in an industrial democracy like England or the US, that is why IMO Russia failed so badly so quickly. The country was just not ready for revolution, the majority didn't support it like they did in Cuba. That is why in Cuba communism has survived without oppression, whereas in Russia it only kept going with extremely oppressive measures. Measures it was better off without from a humanitarian point of view.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

First Magness, Cuba is the only evil repressive dictatorship that has an elected parliament and president. Or at least the only one that I can think of. Why do you consider it evil? Why do you consider Marxism evil? Just curious really.

And I do think most of the worlds problems are capitalism's fault. But the US is just as much a victim in my eyes as any other country. The US has the concentration of capitalists that many other countries don't, but that doesn't make them my enemy. If you have read the CM then you will remember that communism is an international force, so we can't pick on one country. Marx said that communism would work better in an industrial democracy like England or the US, that is why IMO Russia failed so badly so quickly. The country was just not ready for revolution, the majority didn't support it like they did in Cuba. That is why in Cuba communism has survived without oppression, whereas in Russia it only kept going with extremely oppressive measures. Measures it was better off without from a humanitarian point of view.
<hr></blockquote>


(Magness is rolling on the floor in extreme laughter.....)

Cuba not respresssive ....

(Magness once again rolls on the floor in laughter....)

C'mon Barry. Cuba is as much a democratic country as the Soviet Union was. The USSR's elections were a staged joke, and I have absolutely no doubt that the same is true of Cuba.

Cuba not repressive??? Any country that shoots at people who attempt to leave is definitely repressive.

IMHO, Fascism and Communism are different sides of the same evil coin.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:
Ryanamur...



C'mon, Ryanamur. This is like saying that Stalin was a nice guy because he wasn't Hitler!!!

From what I've heard in the various news reports and documentaries, Afghanistan was actually a pretty decent place before the Soviet invasion. But 20 years of war has turned it into a real hellhole. And it's probably gonna take quite a while for Afghanistan to return to where it was 25-30 years ago. It just won't happen overnight.<hr></blockquote>

I won't put the whole post here. I know about human nature and if you had been reading my posts for the last three months, again, you would know about it.

I'll just touch 3 points: 1- rightful government, 2- capitalistic involvement and 3- the link Taliban-Al-Queada.

Starting with a rightful government. What is it? Is the government that is recongnized by the inhabitant of a Country as the leader of that country. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, IT'S AN INTERNAL POLITIC PROCESS. If only 3 countries in the world recongnized the Taliban as the rightful government of Afghanistan it has nothing to do with with the reality of their rightfulness status. The question is did the majority of the population recognize them as such? And yes, they did. To follow up on your Stalin comparisson (which is preposterous BTW), yes, Stalin and the Communist party were the rightful government of the USSR. Were they nice guys? No, they were not! In this line, I got a question for you, which is the rightful government of China, the mainland chinese government or the Taiwanese government?

Now, to the "capitalistic involvement". Yes, that's why they hate us. You put it as "our involvement in the Middle-East", but what is "our involvement in the Middle-East"? It's a set of policies designed to better our strategic position within that region and to give us access to valuable ressources that we are dependant on and that we cannot exploit ourselves because they cannot be found in sufficient quantity in North America or Europe. US (us, not just the USA) coming in and trying to shape the region to ideal model so that it could serve us better was indeed our capitalistic involvement. By taking that position (which is I agree human nature), we are trempelling on core Muslim values (wether we do or not is irrelevant, what matters is that Bin thinks that we do) and so, he wants us out of there!

The third and final point I want to talk about is the link between Al-Queada and the Talibans. Yes, the Talibans and Al-Queada are linked, I won't dispute that. However, to hold a country responsible for the action of a rogue terrorist group is an idiotic notion. But, when you have pressure at home and your home population cries martyr (afterall, when we are attacked, it's never our fault... it's always the other guys that started it... again, human nature) and demands results, you need to give them results that they can see. Bush and his administration knew that Bin Ladden would be very hard to get. They knew that it would take time and that he could slip trought the net undetected. That is not an easily identifiable result. It's an objective that could entail failure and failure is unacceptable for a political career. Instead, we identified a visible target and went after it. The population is content because the military is moving and visible progress is being made. Funny, but since this whole mess started, all we hear about is that this will be a long campaign (because they know that the actual objective is ellusive, very clever and on the run) and that the next target would be Iraq (preparing the grounds for another campaign). Sorry, this is a very well thought out propaganda campaign, not an anti-terrorism campaing, because if it was, we'd also be goint after Azerbajan, Turjikistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, AE, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Palestine, Lybia, Jordania, Moroco, Algeria, the USA, Canada, Cuba, France, UK, Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Poland, Russia and most of the other ex-USSR provinces, India, South Africa, Nigeria, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Australia and the Philippines (I probably missed a few). All those country are known to have knownfully harboured or supported anti-American terrorists!

Good morning , Ryanamur...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally possted by Ryanamur:

All those country are known to have knownfully harboured or supported anti-American terrorists!
<hr></blockquote>

"Harboring" terrorists is simply more than having a terrorist group hiding in the depths of a country. I tend to believe that most of the countries in your rather substantial list are countries in which the terrorist groups are hiding. "Harboring" a person or a group also means to protect them.

Ryanamur, I know that harboring a criminal is a criminal offense in the USA and I tend to think that it is in Canada as well. On the much higher level of internation politics, harboring a criminal organization (i.e. a terrorist group) is a "crime". It is PERFECTLY justified to hold such a country responsible for such a "crime".

While I agree with the USA population wants to see results and it would be much easier to produce visible results against the Taliban military than a small and hidden AL-Qeada., I absolutely do not believe that the Taliban were attacked to provide such a calming effect. The Taliban WERE guilty of harboring a terrorist group. The Taliban WERE offered a chance to turn over Bin Laden and Al-Qeada, but they refused. The Taliban made their own bed. We are simply making pay for their crimes.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originall posted by Ryanamur:

By taking that position (which is I agree human nature), we are trempelling on core Muslim values (wether we do or not is irrelevant, what matters is that Bin thinks that we do) and so, he wants us out of there!
<hr></blockquote>

Ryanamur, I do understand that there's a difference between what we believe and what Bin Laden agrees. On that, WE agree.

Onto the overall Middle East situation, I think that Arab society needs to stop whining, grow up (societally), and drag themselves into the 21st century. I suppose that this represents a form of "societal imperialism". So be it.

I remember hearing that many of the Taliban clerics, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, seem to think that everything developed since Mohammed is sinful. Is it "religous intolerence" to say that this is just plain stupid?

I also remember hearing in a recent TV report the following line of thought:

Between the time of about 700 AD to 1800 AD that European and Arab culture and society were at about the same general level of development. However, the Industrial Revolution has rocketed forward European culture and society (as well as technology). Once again, Arab culture and society needs to catch up with the forces of history. We didn't leave them behind. They seem to have left themselves behind.


Ryan, I think you missed the point regardiing my minor discussion/comparison of Hitler and Stalin. It had nothing to do with the rightfulness (or lack thereof) of the Taliban gov't. It had to do with how you implied that the Taliban was "better" than the previous government because they had a better human rights record. I won't argue those facts with you. The point is that both were most likely very bad. And when both are very bad, I don't much care which one is a tiny bit less bad than the other. That was the point of the Hitler/Stalin analogy.

Got lots of snow yet up there in Saskatchewan? We're supposed to get out first snow of the winter tonight.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:
Good morning , Ryanamur...



Ryanamur, I do understand that there's a difference between what we believe and what Bin Laden agrees. On that, WE agree.

Onto the overall Middle East situation, I think that Arab society needs to stop whining, grow up (societally), and drag themselves into the 21st century. I suppose that this represents a form of "societal imperialism". So be it.

I remember hearing that many of the Taliban clerics, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, seem to think that everything developed since Mohammed is sinful. Is it "religous intolerence" to say that this is just plain stupid?

I also remember hearing in a recent TV report the following line of thought:

Between the time of about 700 AD to 1800 AD that European and Arab culture and society were at about the same general level of development. However, the Industrial Revolution has rocketed forward European culture and society (as well as technology). Once again, Arab culture and society needs to catch up with the forces of history. We didn't leave them behind. They seem to have left themselves behind.


Ryan, I think you missed the point regardiing my minor discussion/comparison of Hitler and Stalin. It had nothing to do with the rightfulness (or lack thereof) of the Taliban gov't. It had to do with how you implied that the Taliban was "better" than the previous government because they had a better human rights record. I won't argue those facts with you. The point is that both were most likely very bad. And when both are very bad, I don't much care which one is a tiny bit less bad than the other. That was the point of the Hitler/Stalin analogy.

Got lots of snow yet up there in Saskatchewan? We're supposed to get out first snow of the winter tonight.<hr></blockquote>

Well, Good evening Magness [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'm glad that we can agree [img]smile.gif[/img] . However, I don't think that the Muslims (living in the Middle East) need to grow up and make their way into the XXIst Century. I believe that every civilization will evolve at its own pace and that if we try to force others to evolve, we will only face a brick wall that might just fall appart on us... and that would be very bad for us! Ironically, that's what we are doing (trying to force them to evolve!) and it blew up in our faces :(

I don't believe that our system or our way of life would be good for all civilizations. Yet, I certainly don't think that the Middle East way of live is for me. If they are happy, let them be!

I also don't believe that a democracy is appropriate for all culture or civilization. I'm really reluctant to force my set of cultural beliefs and values on others!

You are right, I missed the point of your Hitler/Stalin analogy. However, to debate the clarification, if I have the choice between two evils, I would pick the lesser of the two... in this case, the Taliban!

As far as the weather up here, not much snow (less than an inch) but the temperature has been a bummer for the last week or so. It's been about 0F all week (-25F with the windchill). Today's been nice, a warm front just swept by and brought the temps back to about 20F with windchill of 10F... it's almost like summer :D

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:



(Magness is rolling on the floor in extreme laughter.....)

Cuba not respresssive ....

(Magness once again rolls on the floor in laughter....)

C'mon Barry. Cuba is as much a democratic country as the Soviet Union was. The USSR's elections were a staged joke, and I have absolutely no doubt that the same is true of Cuba.

Cuba not repressive??? Any country that shoots at people who attempt to leave is definitely repressive.

IMHO, Fascism and Communism are different sides of the same evil coin.<hr></blockquote>

Magness, once again I am not picking on you in a very specific way :D .

Its all well and good just saying the above. Do you have any proof that Cuba is repressive. Having studied Cuba a bit and tried to find out about the constitution I know that there are a lot of misconceptions floating around. It is no way as bad as the USSR. Where do they shoot people who attempt to leave? I disagree with their immagration policies - if people want to leave they should be able, and if people want to enter they should be able. At present there are a lot more people who want to go in than out, that is why they have immagration control. That is the reason, and I don't agree with it personally.

I also don't agree with the cult of personality surrounding Castro. Or with the amount of prostitutes (caused by the influx of tourists in recent years). But I do agree with the literacy programs and the brilliant health service. I also agree with the fact that homeless people don't exist in Cuba, and that they have a clear foreign policy of forget and forgive. They are not perfect but they have done a lot better out of communism than comparible Latin American countries have done out of capitalism.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


Magness, once again I am not picking on you in a very specific way :D .

Its all well and good just saying the above. Do you have any proof that Cuba is repressive. Having studied Cuba a bit and tried to find out about the constitution I know that there are a lot of misconceptions floating around. It is no way as bad as the USSR. Where do they shoot people who attempt to leave? I disagree with their immagration policies - if people want to leave they should be able, and if people want to enter they should be able. At present there are a lot more people who want to go in than out, that is why they have immagration control. That is the reason, and I don't agree with it personally.

I also don't agree with the cult of personality surrounding Castro. Or with the amount of prostitutes (caused by the influx of tourists in recent years). But I do agree with the literacy programs and the brilliant health service. I also agree with the fact that homeless people don't exist in Cuba, and that they have a clear foreign policy of forget and forgive. They are not perfect but they have done a lot better out of communism than comparible Latin American countries have done out of capitalism.<hr></blockquote>

Yo, Bazza. Cheeta say check your PMs.