Newspaper article (by me!)

[Ryanamur]

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

[Magness]

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

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BtS:

This is why I think one of the only countries as a socialist I can learn from is Cuba.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

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....

[Magness]

Ryanamur...

quote:

---

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!

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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".

quote:

---

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!).

---

"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!!!

quote:

---

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).

---

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.

[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.

[Magness]

quote:

---

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.

---

(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.

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

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.

---

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!

[Magness]

Good morning , Ryanamur...

quote:

---

Originally possted by Ryanamur:

All those country are known to have knownfully harboured or supported anti-American terrorists!

---

"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.

quote:

---

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!

---

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.

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

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.

---

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

[Barry the Sprout]

quote:

---

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.

---

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

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.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


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

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.

---

Yo, Bazza. Cheeta say check your PMs.