Newspaper article (by me!)

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

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.

---

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).

[Ronn_Bman]

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]

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryanamur:
"Did they have it coming?"

---

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.

[Barry the Sprout]

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.

[Magness]

quote:

---

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.

---

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.)

quote:

---

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 ...

---

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.

[Magness]

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...

[Nachtrafe]

quote:

---

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]

---

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]

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nachtrafe:
I *HATE* the term 'Native American' as applied to the original inhabitants of this continent.

---

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

[Nachtrafe]

quote:

---

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]

---

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]

[Barry the Sprout]

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.