babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » A measured response to terror

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: A measured response to terror
Judes
publisher
Babbler # 21

posted 18 September 2001 07:37 PM      Profile for Judes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is my take on recent events. It's caused quite a stir on the CBC site, just wondering what babblers think


To End All Wars


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 September 2001 07:55 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I like it very much, but I fear that for many if not most Canadians, your proposal to

quote:
stand with our neighbours in their grief, but stand up to them in their anger

simply won't fly. Many appear to believe, at least for now, that the first precludes the second.

What sort of stir do you mean?

[ September 18, 2001: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
marty raw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1137

posted 18 September 2001 08:05 PM      Profile for marty raw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think you're an idiot.
Well-meaning, well-intentioned, I can see your heart on your sleeve, I can see it bleeding from way over here.
But you're an idiot.
Sorry. You asked what I think.

From: Toronto, baby | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 September 2001 08:08 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I take it you're defending civilization, marty raw. Well done, especially in the context of your "NUKE 'EM TILL THEY GLOW AND PISS ON THE ASHES" post.

Or perhaps you're trying to get kicked off babble. Why, I can't imagine.

And why append "sorry" to that? Do you imagine anyone will believe it?

[ September 18, 2001: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 18 September 2001 08:22 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sorry. You asked what I think.

She did ask what babblers think. I would assume that would include the psychotics.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 18 September 2001 08:31 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This morning, I read judes' article, An End To All Wars on the CBC website, and now I see this thread under a different title. On both counts, I cannot understand the message.
World War I was dubbed the "War to end all wars." So was WWII. Wars have never stopped. It seems that there always is some dissatisfaction, somewhere, to justify a new war.
No two wars are the same. Just like bolts of lightning, or chess games.
What we have, today, is an emboldened terrorist. What to do about it?
Wanting to eliminate terrorism hardly qualifies as revenge, or giving in to anger. Thus, I find judes' take, "Or we can stand with our neighbours in their grief, but stand up to them in their anger.", as less than neighbourly.
judes' message fails to offer a realistic solution to ending "all wars" because there is no such thing; it's beyond humanity's reach. Furthermore, switching the focus to racism and mentioning the horrible acts committed in various Canadian cities does not, in any way, add to or diminish the tragedy that has happened in NYC and Washington. We do have competent police forces, and it is their job to find out the hooligans who committed these vile acts and prosecute them under our laws.
I ask judes to consider re-writing the article to focus on the current problem and offer a comprehensive plan to wipe out terrorism.

From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 18 September 2001 08:37 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with your statement about standing by them in their grief and standing up to them in their anger. But how does that apply to a person who live in Texas, does not follow world events and thinks it`s good advertising that her website was featured on the Howard Stern show. I know her well enough that she likes the cheerleader of the winning team persona that she gets from goin along with Bush`s rantings.


quote:
Everything is fine here Vaudree.. If I hear anything more on Padre
bridge I will pass it along.. in the words of President Bush, make no
mistake, we will prevail, we will not bow to terriorism, and the
resolve of our nation is being tested, and we will show the world we
will pass this test.

I know that when I even think of opening my mouth there is the smugness that comes with being Canadian that we know more than they do about everything. I remember e-mailing her when Canada beat the US in Women`s hockey - so this just may be a battle between us. How do we know when to speak up and when to leave it be?


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 18 September 2001 08:41 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I`ve got to see how anyone can see that well-written article as controvercial. Back after I check out CBC.ca
From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204

posted 18 September 2001 08:48 PM      Profile for Trespasser   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey editors, could you do something about MR's insults?

...

What an unnecessary distraction

...

Judes if you're still with us tonight, I was going to ask you the same thing as 'lance did: what happened at CBC? What made them so nervous?


From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 18 September 2001 09:46 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting angle.
All through the whole piece a common theme is to get these war hungry Yanks to settle down a little and listen to reason. Absolutly correct. Nowhere did I see mention that someone... anyone should get these war hungry Middle Easterners to settle down and listen to reason. Why is that? Does anyone think that those who backed the attack on the WTC have decided that that was enough and to move on with life?

From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 September 2001 09:55 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Slick, it's only that the US government has the power to, say, turn Afghanistan into a sea of glass (though I doubt they will), but possibly, just now, doesn't have the imagination, or inclination, to take any steps that would actually reduce terrorism.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 18 September 2001 10:11 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Marty, Judes didn't say "what do you think of me?", she said "What do you think of the article?" There is a huge difference. I realize you have very strong feelings about the week's events, but this is not a board that welcomes or supports flame activity. Comments like "nuke 'em all" or "you're an idiot" are conversation enders, not starters. Please. Think twice, post once.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 September 2001 10:51 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think you're an idiot.

In a debate, when you attack the person instead of the argument, that's called LOSING...


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 19 September 2001 01:47 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Judes, as you can probably guess, I agree with your article. I am now going to scare myself by checking the reaction at cbc.ca.

Marty: What Michelle said. Control yourself for crying out loud. Why don't you practice a little self-criticism for a change?


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eddie Lear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 362

posted 19 September 2001 02:02 AM      Profile for Eddie Lear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Americans,by and large don't know what their country has been doing around the world"

Would anyone argue that Ignorance is an excuse?


From: Port Colborne, Ont | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 September 2001 10:01 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Judy, I read your article and enjoyed it. But I knew the kind of responses you would get on the CBC forums (fori?) before I even read them, judging from the kind of right-wing reactionaries that usually post after your articles and in the counterSpin forum. I usually try to avoid them when possible. So I'm glad you post your CBC columns on rabble as well.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 September 2001 10:12 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

An injury at home is a grave violation of a personal sense of safety. Turning grief, fear and anger into a positive force for change in the world will take a lot of courage and determination.

This made me think, first, of an issue of Life magazine that ran, one week late in the Viet Nam war, and without comment, small pictures of every American soldier killed in Viet Nam that week. It went on for pages and pages -- silent, eloquent. It had an instant and profound effect on American public opinion -- I think there was broad agreement on its impact at the time.

On the surface of things, that roll-call seems almost the opposite of the one that New York officials have been drawing up this past week, and if a similar gallery were to be published right now of the innocents who died at the WTC and the Pentagon, its impact on public opinion would surely fuel calls for revenge rather than peace.

But there is a history of American wounds to be unpacked and understood here. How has public opinion there been touched before -- what does it take to arouse it? what form has public understanding taken when it has suddenly coalesced? what gaps have there been between popular feelings and their interpretation/use/exploitation by political elites? How far did that moment in the early 1970s -- again, late in a long war -- take ordinary Americans towards understanding a larger world of grief, beyond their own?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 September 2001 11:29 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But there is a history of American wounds to be unpacked and understood here. How has public opinion there been touched before -- what does it take to arouse it? what form has public understanding taken when it has suddenly coalesced? what gaps have there been between popular feelings and their interpretation/use/exploitation by political elites? How far did that moment in the early 1970s -- again, late in a long war -- take ordinary Americans towards understanding a larger world of grief, beyond their own?

Judging by what people like Todd Gitlin have written, an important change in the movement against the Vietnam war came when significant numbers of veterans began protesting it -- walking, hobbling or wheeling their way up the Washington Mall, throwing the medals onto the Capitol steps, and so on.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Judes
publisher
Babbler # 21

posted 19 September 2001 11:48 AM      Profile for Judes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wrote the column to cover a few different aspects of the situation. I wanted to deal with the war mongering, the different view of people who come from countries that have suffered from wars and the danger of racism.
It was probably too much to try and cover in one column.


I used the headline "to end all wars" because I saw a film at the film festival about a Scottish regiment in Japanese prisoner of war camps that set up a school to study Plato, Shakespeare and music as a way to survive the brutality and deprevation of the POW camp. I cut the story from the column but used the headline which was the title of the film.

My point, which I think Naomi Klein, makes very well in her column in today's Globe and Mail is that these terrorists were born and bred in war and it is war that feeds their rage.

As to how to combat terrorism...the best way is to deal with the root cause of terrorism. In this case, the ongoing imperialist intervention in the Middle East and terrible desparation of the people there. In most of the world corporate globalization is the major force creating poverty and despair, in the Middle East it is still old fashioned imperialism that props up despotic regimes.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 September 2001 12:15 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have always found it amusing that the United States government has de facto nationalized the oil companies by speaking for them and intervening in the Middle East on their behalf, and sending diplomats shuttling all over when oil prices go the 'wrong' way.

Why not just create Petroleum USA and end the fiction of competing privately-owned oil companies?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 19 September 2001 12:37 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pollsters Don't Make Good Generals

- Naomi Klein's column, posted on rabble news.

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: judym ]


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 19 September 2001 01:34 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anybody know if Lewis Mackenzie has written anything yet about the events of the past week and what an appropriate response might be? He often writes with great wisdom on military matters, with a minimum of sabre-rattling.
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 September 2001 01:35 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why not just create Petroleum USA and end the fiction of competing privately-owned oil companies?

But Doc, that'd be... socialism! And socialism is... un-American!!


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eddie Lear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 362

posted 19 September 2001 02:50 PM      Profile for Eddie Lear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the fact that Naomi stated she thought the Afaganis see themselves as invincible is bullshit.True they did defeat the russians but take into account that the russians had the worst morale disaster that any modern army has ever experinced.

The average four general has more years of formal training than a brain surgeon.

"Bin Laden recieved his training and taste for war while fighting the Soviet invasion of Afganistan."

For the record Osama was already an expert in DEMOLITIONS much before the Afghan war.

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: Eddie Lear ]


From: Port Colborne, Ont | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 19 September 2001 03:03 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"We are ready to defend ourselves if the Americans attack us. We have already defeated and taught a lesson to their British grandfathers and their Russian brothers."

Mawlawi Abdul Zahir

Quoted in "Clerics talk tough on bin Laden"
by John Stackhouse
Globe and Mail
September 19, 2001

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: judym ]


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 September 2001 03:13 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
take into account that the russians had the worst morale disaster that any modern army has ever experinced.

You're forgetting the Americans in Vietnam. Such disasters are commonplace when a classically-trained foreign army encounters a local or guerilla force which knows the territory much better.

quote:
The average four general has more years of formal training than a brain surgeon.

Exactly.

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 19 September 2001 03:15 PM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In Canada, the United States and elsewhere around the world, we have an important choice that will profoundly affect the course of human history. We can support the U.S. government in whatever they decide to do. We can join what will no doubt be a senseless war that will increase civilian casualties on a massive scale, strengthen Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East and foment even more hatred and racism around the world. Or we can stand with our neighbours in their grief, buIn Canada, the United States and elsewhere around the world, we have an important choice that will profoundly affect the course of human history. We can support the U.S. government in whatever they decide to do. We can join what will no doubt be a senseless war that will increase civilian casualties on a massive scale, strengthen Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East and foment even more hatred and racism around the world. Or we can stand with our neighbours in their grief, but stand up to them in their anger.
quote:

Interesting. A senseless war. This article should be aimed at terrorists and their organizations, not the US or any other nation. The attacks of the WTC and the Pentagon, plus the killings of people in the jetliners was caused by hatred and with attempts to strengthen Islamic fundamentalism. There were civilian casualties. 5500 still missing in NYC. As for racism, well, it's indiscriminate. Take a look at CNN's site with a section of all the photos of those missing. People of all cultures are pictured in there.

Why is the US being castigated? They want retribution. They want justice. They want the person(s) behind it. Will they smoke Afghanistan off the map? No, they won't. Would they take the mastermind to trial? I doubt it. They'd want him or the people behind it to suffer the same fate their victims did. The US does not have a beef with the Afghanistan people or Islamics. Their fight is against the people who planned this.

As for the attacks on Muslims in the US and Canada, that is wrong and people should know better. Actions by people threatening or vandalizing property belong to Hindus and Arabs is uncalled for. But as the saying goes, one bad apple spoils the lot.

As for the anti-globilization movement, I think Rebick is over-exaggerating the strength and numbers. If 50,000 people showed up in Quebec City, there were various student groups, unions, social groups there. They do not represent the whole of society. But there were other people from other countries there as well. So on a whole, I think it represents a very small number of people who share the same sentiment about globilization.

The US war on terrorism will not turn out anti-war demonstrations like Vietnam did. I agree with the demonstrators from that era. It was a pointless war for the US to be involved in the first place.

My question is this, if the US ceased to exist, would the world become safer? I don't think it would. I think it'd become even more dangerous. Why? Well, look back at WWII. Europe was on the brink of being conquered by the Nazis. If Japan didn't attack the US at Pearl Harbour, thereby turning the US from an isolationist nation into a global superpower, kids in Europe would be goose stepping their way to school and back and Japan would rule most of Asia. Like it or not, the US prevents such things like that happening again. Speaking for myself, I'm glad the US is alive and well, although hurting from the WTC attacks, they'll make our world just a little more safer, regardless who is in office in the White House.

Another thing Rebick insinuates that Americans are idiots and have no idea what the US is doing around the world. Sure they know what's going on. The truth is, just like Canadians, a large part really don't care what's going on around the world because they're busy with their own lives to pay bills, live, and feed themselves or their families. It's not stupidity, it's called a list of priorities. There is also the press that reports on whatever is happening on the local, national and international level. Oh that's right. Americans have no idea what's going on in the world. Then I suppose all those mass anti-Vietnam War demonstrations and music was just to look hip and not really care what was going on in Vietnam at the time since she said Americans don't know what the US id doing around the world. Great writing Rebick, no wonder you're not a household name.


From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 19 September 2001 03:23 PM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oops. Still trying to get a hang of this posting and quoting and stuff.

I also forgot to mention at the top of my post was I was commenting on Judy Rebick's article "An End to All Wars."
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=2492


From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eddie Lear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 362

posted 19 September 2001 03:25 PM      Profile for Eddie Lear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lance "formal training" includes special operations.I have not overlooked the lessons of vietnam.I am not "forgeting" vietnam at all. I don't know why you would say that,I am simply telling you that the russian experience for morale was even worse.

Judym that quote was one voice and doesn't support the the generalization which i was criticizing.
I think you should consider the way civilians are massing around the borders and trying to leave.

Basic rule in Guerilla warfare,A guerilla force has little chance of being successfull without support from non-combatants. If many Afghani's are trying to leave I don't think they will be supporting the Taliban who oppreses them anyway.

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: Eddie Lear ]


From: Port Colborne, Ont | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204

posted 19 September 2001 04:51 PM      Profile for Trespasser   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's an interview with Barbara Lee, Congresswoman who cast the only vote opposing President Bush's War resolution. Thanks to people like her, words "justice", "peace", "no more wars", "internationalism" and "hope" are kept alive and more relevant than ever.

Barbara Lee: A Lone Voice of Dissent


quote:
We must be vigilant right now, because under the cloak of national security, many of our civil liberties could be just wiped off the floor. There are those of us who are going to fight to make sure that's not going to happen, but we're also going to fight to make sure justice is served by making sure that the people and organizations who did this are brought to justice. We also have to begin to look at our foreign policy, our diplomatic efforts, and some of the reasons why we don't engage in dialogue with certain countries and individuals and organizations. This is a very complex issue in the US, and we should be right now leading the world in showing our children how in the face of adversity we respond and minimize the loss of life. We don't want to see any more people lose their lives. We cannot tolerate another terrorist attack, and we certainly cannot tolerate any loss of life any more in our country, and anywhere in the world.


From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 September 2001 08:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
True they did defeat the russians but take into account that the russians had the worst morale disaster that any modern army has ever experinced.

Also, they had US backing when they did that. Everyone forgets that the reason Afghanistan withstood a superpower is because they had another superpower backing them! Who have they got backing them now against the only superpower?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mick1000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 721

posted 19 September 2001 09:28 PM      Profile for mick1000     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with what you say; however, you have to remember a little country called Viet Nam. In my way of thinking you can nuke the crap out of the hills & mountains of Afganistan and you'll still end up sending young ladies & gentlemen to their senseless deaths because we don't understand their mentality.
From: Picton, Ontario | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 September 2001 09:47 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I think you're absolutely right about that too. However, there are people saying that we're going to lose on the ground because they beat other superpowers before.

I don't think we'll lose on the ground in Afghanistan. I think we're going to lose the "war against terrorism", and the way we're going to lose it is by going in there with guns blazing, giving them more reason to hate us (and they have enough reasons already), less to lose when it comes to suicide missions, and more incentive to come at us on our own turf. THAT'S where we're going to lose on this.

Just as importantly, Afghan citizens are going to lose as well. All they have left is life, and a lot of them are going to lose even that. What a shame. And you're right - it's all because we're unwilling to try and understand their mentality and their point of view.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 September 2001 10:31 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Incidentally Vietnam's success was partly due to Soviet and Chinese supplies. That's not to say that Afghanistan would be a walk in the park, as the key factor is "can they keep the supply chain coming?"
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 19 September 2001 11:46 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think the fact that Naomi stated she thought the Afaganis see themselves as invincible is bullshit.

It’s not bullshit. When former fighters from Afghanistan went to Somalia, they found a super power that fled after a couple soldiers died. They thought of the U.S. as a “paper tiger”. While it's different stating the enemy is feeble as opposed to we are invincible, it amounts to the same thing.

From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 20 September 2001 12:46 AM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The US will be getting help from inside Afghanistan, namely the Northern Alliance which has been fighting the Taliban for a few years now. One report said they have 15,000 troops. If the US wants to get Bin Laden, they'll need help from the Northern Alliance to fight on Afghani turf. Should be interesting. I doubt any Afghani troops helped the Russians to fight on their turf.
From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 September 2001 12:54 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In fact they did. One tribe, the one representing the Afghan puppet government of the time, fought along side Soviet troops.
The Taliban is mostly unconcerned with the so-called Norther Alliance because they represent ethnic and religios minorities. The vast majority of Afghans are represented by a single ethnic and religious group. Thge Taliban fought the Soviets out of Afghanistan and their oppenents into an artea representing roughly 10% of Afghan's territory.

Over confidence was the Soviets' downfall.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 20 September 2001 02:08 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wingy, I'm afraid it's more complicated than that... Ahmed Shah Masoud, late leader of the Northern Alliance, was the military leader of the mujahideen when they fought the Soviets. After the Soviets were driven out, it's very hard to keep track of who was in power when, but the names Hekmatyar, Rabbani, General Dostum, all figure in. It's true that what's left of the Northern Alliance, which is the recognized government (of Rabbani), is a diverse assortment of ethnic minorities, with the largest being the Tajiks. The Taleban themselves are unequivocally identified with a single ethnic group, the Pashtuns, though much of the country is Tajik or Uzbek. The Taleban, who, while taking their US-sponsored ideology of jihad from their mujahideen predecessors, have refined it into the most extreme form of Wahabbi puritanism, have their origin in the mid-90's as an organized force that was backed by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the US government as a way of establishing a "docile" client state in Afghanistan. With the support of the Pakistani Army, which supplied arms, intelligence, logistical support, and plenty of its troops, the Taliban reduced most of Afghanistan's cities, which had survived the war with the Soviets, to rubble, and swept the Government forces into a small corner of the country.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 September 2001 02:27 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Incidentally, while we're on spelling, the Soviets used to transliterate Tajik as Tadzhik.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Judes
publisher
Babbler # 21

posted 20 September 2001 02:09 PM      Profile for Judes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
>
Here is an excellent statement from one of the U.S. groups that has changed the anti-IMF/World Bank demos this week end into anti-racist, anti-war demos.

>> Anti-Capitalist Convergence Issues New Call to Action
>>
>> The Anti-Capitalist Convergence is continuing our mobilization in Washington
DC September 24 through October 1. We are calling for a march against the growing capitalist war on Saturday morning September 29th and invite all those interested in creating a world free from terror, hate, racism, poverty and war to demonstrate our unity and vision for a better world.
>>
>> For the past 5 months we have been organizing a mass mobilization
against the fall meetings of the IMF and World Bank because of their role in
enforcing global capitalism. In the process of this organizing we hav been working to strengthen our community by making the connections between capitalism and issues local to dc. We had been planning a large, diverse and beautiful protest and were optimistic that these demonstrations would be a groundbreaking step for the Anti-Capitalist movement.
>>
>> Like most people we were shocked by the events of September 11th and stopped mid-action, mid-thought, our lives interrupted and forever changed.
>> The enormity of this crisis has affected us all. The IMF and World have cancelled their meetings and many groups have called off their events.
>> The political climate in the United States has severely changed, emotion are running high and the country is extremely tense. In recent days we have seen the militarization of our city, increasingly blatant racist attacks and blind patriotism.

Media hysteria and government rhetoric are pushing people to unite through religious bigotry and nationalism. Security, particularly here in Washington, DC, has been heightened as the country prepares to go to war.
>>
>> The US government has failed to recognize the interconnectedness of all the forms of violence. Bombing, encouragement of dictatorships, sweatshops for
>> benefit of US corporations, third world debt, world hunger or lack of
>> shelter and healthcare are all forms of violence. The fear and desperation
>> that grows from poverty and oppression is crucial to any understanding
>> of
>> violence throughout the world. 35,000 people die from starvation each
>> day
>> even though there is enough food to feed all. Terror is still terror
>> whether it is from death from starvation, fear of enslavement by
>> corporations or fear of bombs or airplanes falling. Until we understand the violence of our economic, military and foreign policies, we will continue to foster the conditions that make this kind of terrorism possible.
>>
>> We demand that no more terror or violence be perpetrated in our name. We are a movement devoted to social justice. There is no justice to be found in retribution, war, racism, corporate globalization or capitalism itself.
>> We condemn any and all retaliation and religious persecution of Arab, Arab American and Muslim peoples and we oppose any attack on our constitutional rights. We will not hand over our civil liberties to the greater good of the State.
>>
>> We strongly see the need to come together and act on our visions of the world we want to create and not on our fears. Though we came together against the Bank and Fund what we came together for is even more important now. We want to continue to mobilize, though we are all uncomfortable carrying forth in the way we planned. The tactics that were ideal to the original situation will not have the same effects at this time. We are no longer calling militant blocs or actions.

We will take action to inspire, motivate and demonstrate that a world based on needs not profit; a world of mutual support; a world free from oppression is possible. This is a time to come together in true solidarity, in a way that supports all those working for a better world.

Our plans include a convergence week starting with the opening of the Anti-Capitalist Convergence Welcome Center on Monday, September 24. All week long we will engage in skill shares , art, organizing meetings and outreach. At a time when many people think that war is the answer to violence talking to our neighbors will be a revolutionary act. We plan a Community Dialogue with people about what is happening in the world by asking them Why? We will continue to make connection between critical local issues like the lack of housing and healthcare and global capitalism.


On Saturday morning we will hold Anti-Capitalist March Against Hate.
>> That afternoon we will establish our Temporary Autonomous Zone to support and
>> provide for ourselves in a caring and inclusive way. It will be a hate free
zone, a war free zone, and a capitalist free zone. We encourage everyone to
>> make a contribution whether it be a class for the free school, offering
>> basic medical support, drumming, clothing swap, skill shares, performance,
>> strategic discussions, food and more!
>>
>> Saturday evening we are extending an invitation to friends and neighbors
>> to join together in a "Food Not Bombs" Community Dinner. When the state's
>> pro-war rhetoric claims that "America takes care of it's own" yet spends
>> billions on a war when many of its people go to sleep hungry and homeless it's time for a change. We want to model that change.
>>
>> We urge people to take action together in Washington DC. Taking action
>> at
>> home is equally important, however. If you cannot come to Washington,
>> organize an action, talk to people in your neighborhood or set up your
>> own
>> autonomous zone. People are rising up everywhere saying no to hate and
>> no
>> to war. Join with anti-capitalists and other around the world as we take action for justice!
>>
>> Website:
>>
>> >> their web site

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Judes ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 03:12 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
we're going to lose it is by going in there with guns blazing, giving them more reason to hate us

What do you think they would do if they had more reason to hate us? I doubt they would act any differently than their acting now so its an irrelevent argument.

They will continue to try to kill innocent civilians regardless of if they hate us more or if their hate stays the same as it is now.

Didn't chamberlain ever prove anything to anyone?

P.S. the link immediately above didn't work.

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 20 September 2001 03:39 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo - the argument that Michelle forwarded was about the escalation the US is proposing in this situation, it's entirely relevant.

Will killing someone, or blowing something up in Afganistan, REDUCE terrorism? That may not be an irrelevant argument, but as a reasoned argument it is sorely lacking. Perhaps you might illuminate an example when this strategy has worked in the past.

quote:
Didn't chamberlain ever prove anything to anyone?

Assuming that you're refering to apeasement prior to WWII I would volunteer that this is, in fact, an irrelevant argument. We're not talking about letting Nazi tanks role across Europe, so give it up. I haven't heard many people saying there should be no response at all. But some intelligent people, on this Board and elsewhere, are suggesting that it would be wise to think before we act.

Already, in response to this attack, the US has pressured an unstable regime to take a position that may result in a coup. Pakistan is a largely Muslim state, in which a majority of the military are islamic, and no one can guarantee that they will listen to their leader.

The first steps in any action are the most important and we're already on an unsustainable path in this one. Great. Let's all just cover our eyes with one hand and our hearts with the other and take the next step. Maybe it will all turn out for the best.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 03:55 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Will killing someone, or blowing something up in Afganistan, REDUCE terrorism?

If we end the control of a oppressive terrorist supporting organization like the Taliban, yes we will reduce terrorism.

quote:
Assuming that you're refering to apeasement prior to WWII I would volunteer that this is, in fact, an irrelevant argument. We're not talking about letting Nazi tanks role across Europe, so give it up

Your right this is worse than the Nazi's the Nazi's only reached Europe. These terrorists have spread across the world.

Again, I support non violent methods to fight terrorism. I just do not want to stop there. If we end the control of the Taliban of Afghanistan, the world will be a better place. If we can limit the deaths to only the Taliban then so much the better.

There is no redeeming quality of the Taliban. They are an oppressive group whose treatment of women and non islamic people is an atrocity worthy of military action in itself.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 20 September 2001 04:51 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your right this is worse than the Nazi's the Nazi's only reached Europe. These terrorists have spread across the world.

Well, I disagree with you, but I'm not going to get into the "Which awful violence is worse than the other" game.

quote:
If we end the control of a oppressive terrorist supporting organization like the Taliban, yes we will reduce terrorism.
What evidence suggests this?

quote:
Again, I support non violent methods to fight terrorism.
Please direct me to the first instance in which you supprted non-violent means of fighting terrorism.

quote:
I just do not want to stop there. If we end the control of the Taliban of Afghanistan, the world will be a better place. If we can limit the deaths to only the Taliban then so much the better. . . . There is no redeeming quality of the Taliban. They are an oppressive group whose treatment of women and non islamic people is an atrocity worthy of military action in itself.
We ignore human rights violations against women and minorities all over the globe, including our backyard, but because the guy "we" want is in Afganistan we should bomb them . . . I think that's weak. The West helped put the Taliban in place (directly or indirectly) and now we don't like it. We cannot keep doing this over and over. BLOWBACK, my friend, is going to get worse the longer we keep up the act-react cycle.

"We" say we want "infinite justice," but where do we see the principles of justice in the current path we're on? No trial, no evidence, arbitrary judgement, and a punishment that doesn't fit the crime because we're going to meet it out on whoever is under the bombs. Doesn't sound just to me, sounds like a lynching.

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: NDB ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 September 2001 05:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's like the gulf war - it was all about oil, but the US tried to camoflauge their self-interest by talking about human rights that are violated by Iraqi colonization (apparently colonization is only okay when the US does it).

This time, Dubya wants to shed blood indiscriminately because it will satisfy Americans and make him seem like a strong president (and quell questions of his illegitimacy as president), kick-start an economy with war-spending when it is arguably at the point of going into a recession, and put the public in the mood for repressive policies like anti-demonstration and anti-immigration, at home. Not to mention that they have a great new whipping-boy (now that commies are by the wayside) everytime anyone disagrees with them - what are you, a terrorist? But to cover up this self-interest, we'll use the moral argument of the Taliban as an excuse.

Never mind that the Taliban has all the money and all the food and all the resources to fight back, or at least hide, and that it will be the starving people who get slaughtered. Because the point really isn't to get the Taliban anyhow - that's just the cover moral justification, just like in the gulf war the cover moral justification was the unfairness of colonizing Kuwait.

You don't have to be pro-Taliban to be against military action in Afghanistan.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 20 September 2001 05:26 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I'm not sure where exactly to post this, but the USA Today is reporting that Iran is refusing use of its airspace if the US attacks from the Gulf.

USA Today - Iranian Airspace


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 September 2001 05:33 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good for them. I don't blame them in the least. I guess it doesn't pay to alienate countries like Iran, huh?

I also think Iran is right in this case because there is no way I would allow them to use the airspace when they haven't proven that bin Laden did it. And even if they DID prove it, air attacks on Afghanistan won't get the guy anyhow. If I were an Iranian, I would not want to help an old enemy attack my fellow Persians in Afghanistan, especially without proof of their involvement. No way.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 05:47 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What evidence suggests this?

The vast documented evidence of the government sanctioned terrorist training camps.

quote:

Please direct me to the first instance in which you supprted non-violent means of fighting terrorism.

Probably on other threads. I think all means to fight terrorism, violent and non violent should be deployed. Pacifists also have a very important role in this struggle.

quote:
We ignore human rights violations against women and minorities all over the globe, including our backyard, but because the guy "we" want is in Afganistan we should bomb them . . . I think that's weak.

It just adds to the fact that the Taliban have no redeeming quality, they are not recognized as legitimate and their removal from power is guaranteed to make the lives of the people of afghanistan better and the rest of the world a better place to live.

quote:
The West helped put the Taliban in place (directly or indirectly) and now we don't like it.

Are you implying that we are now stuck with living with more attacks. I don't think the mistake lies with supporting Afghanistan against the russians. Remember the vast majority of Afghanistan deserved our support in fighting against an opposing force. I think it lies with the Clinton administrations passive response to the Taliban gaining power. Remember the Taliban are a small fraction of the population of Afghanistan.

quote:

No trial, no evidence, arbitrary judgement, and a punishment that doesn't fit the crime

what punishment fits the crime of mass murdering 6000 innocent civilians?

Why do we need a trial. We didn't need to have trials before we fought world war II. This isn't some isolated crime. This is an act of War, even if you don't agree with that. We have every right to prevent it from happening again.

You don't know what military action the U.S. will take. Its looking more like some special forces teams will unstabilize the Taliban control allowing some other probably ,more reasonable and more importantly afghanistan supported government to take control. The Taliban does not have the support of the Afghanistan people. Why would you support their continued oppression by the Taliban?

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 06:10 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry for the double post but this is a great excerpt from an article from slate

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The practical point made by these consequentialists is that we can't stop terrorism without addressing its causes. A diagnostic approach, they argue, is wiser than simply lashing out in anger. They're right about that. But their wisdom falls short of the next insight: Consequentialism is a two-way street. It's true that terrorists can impose consequences on us. But it's just as true that we can impose consequences on terrorists.
Superficially, it's empowering to analyze every situation in terms of the consequences of our own acts. Understanding how we can change the enemy's behavior by changing our own appears to put control in our hands. It also gratifies our egos by preserving our sense of free will while interpreting the enemy's conduct as causally determined. We're the subjects; they're the objects. But the empowerment and the ego gratification are illusory. By accepting as a mechanical fact the enemy's aggressive response to our offending behavior, we surrender control of the most important part of the sequence.

This is the problem with the consequentialist argument for revising U.S. policy in the Middle East. Maybe it's true, for other reasons, that we should rethink our position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia, or ease sanctions on Iraq. But if we do these things to avoid further attacks on our cities, we're granting terrorists the power to dictate our acts by dictating the consequences

The consequentialists present themselves as humanitarians and idealists. They purport to speak up for the plights, principles, and aspirations of people who are driven to commit acts of terror. But their mechanistic analysis dehumanizes these people. Terrorists aren't animals. No law of nature compels them to blow up buildings when they're angry. We don't have to accept their violent reactions to our policies. We can break that causal chain.

How? By turning consequentialism on its head. We can dictate what happens to people who attack us. Suicidal terrorists may be impervious to this logic, but their commanders and sponsors aren't. Launder money for a man who destroys the World Trade Center, and your assets will be confiscated. Shelter an organization that crashes a plane into the Pentagon, and your government buildings will be leveled. Expel terrorists from your country, freeze their bank accounts, and you'll be liberated from sanctions and debt.

Will this approach succeed? We don't know how each would-be terrorist or sponsor will respond. It's an open question. But that's the point. As long as we view it the other way around—ourselves as the actors, and our enemies as the imposers of consequences—the question is closed. Our enemies' reactions, and therefore our options, are rigidly defined. We can have troops in Saudi Arabia, or we can have peace at home, but we can't have both.

Challenging the false objectivity of these dilemmas doesn't require us to ignore the potential consequences of our acts. Some of our Middle East policies do anger many Arabs or Muslims. We ought to worry when others don't like our behavior. But just as surely, they ought to worry when we don't like theirs.



From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 20 September 2001 06:14 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you implying that we are now stuck with living with more attacks?


No, I am speaking to a pattern of Western influence around the world. The fallout of "our" fight against communism in many places is that the regimes put in place and supported by the West have come back to haunt us. We need to stop the cycle.

quote:
What punishment fits the crime of mass murdering 6000 innocent civilians?

None. The closest we can come to is to find those who orchestrated and executed it and bring them to justice based on the principles we espouse publically. That does not include but a fraction of the Afgani people. This is vigilantism.

quote:
Why do we need a trial. We didn't need to have trials before we fought world war II. This isn't some isolated crime.

This is quite different from a war where a state attacks another state. We don't treat all acts of terrorism the same. Was McVeigh an isoltated agent with no supporters? No, but there were no bombs dropped in the US. He was tried and convicted.

quote:
We have every right to prevent it from happening again. You don't know what military action the U.S. will take. Its looking more like some special forces teams will unstabilize the Taliban control . . . The Taliban does not have the support of the Afghanistan people. Why would you support their continued oppression by the Taliban?
You're right we shouldn't accept this as the norm and should prevent it from happening again, but IMHO military action will not only not stop terrorism, it will increase it. I don't know what the US will do and neither do you, but you seem pretty accepting of the idea that large scale military action is a solution. I'm not, we disagree.

Second, my feeling that war is not the answer has nothing to do with my feelings about the Taliban regime. My feelings about their "government" are coloured by much more than Tuesday's tragedy. I thought they sucked long before that, how about you? Again, let me reiterate, I don't think the solution is a new non-Afgan supported regime imposed by the West. That is what we have a pattern of doing and it doens't seem to work.

I am still waiting for evidence of past Western military operations that have reduced terrorism. Also, I've been following these threads closely, so please do point out the instances in which you advocated any non-military response, I must have missed them.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 06:31 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I thought they sucked long before that, how about you?

Coincidentally, just before this happened I was vigilantly arguing about the oppressiveness of Sharia law on babble. Afghanistan was a constant reference for their oppression of women.

quote:
Again, let me reiterate, I don't think the solution is a new non-Afgan supported regime imposed by the West

What about the northern alliance which is supported by the majority of Afghanistan and recognized as the legitimate government by all nations but 3 as well as the U.N.

P.S. I would like to hear your response to the article I quoted.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 September 2001 06:35 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Will this approach succeed? We don't know how each would-be terrorist or sponsor will respond. It's an open question. But that's the point.

That's the point? A grand gamble with the lives of all people here and across the sea as the ante?

quote:
Some of our Middle East policies do anger many Arabs or Muslims. We ought to worry when others don't like our behavior. But just as surely, they ought to worry when we don't like theirs.

The humanitarianism creeps in. No solutions, just cause for worry. We should worry. They should worry. Everyone should worry.

But what sound logic throughout. Our policies might cause their reaction. But we do not change our policies as this would be consequentialsim. Instead we attack them (who we don't know but why should that matter? to turn consequentialsim on its head. Now they must change their behaviour. But what if they don't? What if they decide to turn consequentialism on its head? What if they attack nuclear or other sensitive facilities? No problem. Don't change our behaviour or the initial offending behaviour. Rather, turn consequentialism on its head. Nuke half the planet. Then they will worry. But what if that doesn't work either. What if they decide to turn consequentialism on its head ... Will this approach succeed? We don't know.

If this is the source of your inspiration Markbo, no wonder.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 07:39 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So give in to their unjust demands that in themselves will cause many deaths and hope that they never make another demand on us?

Far better logic.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 September 2001 08:10 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, Markbo. A far better logic is to consider the possible consequences of any given action prior to taking it. The U.S. funded and armed the bin Laden and the Taliban, willy-nilly to borrow a term you used, without regard for the consequences. The Taliban and bin Laden never hid their hatred for western culture and values. But so long as the Soviets were taking a beating, what did the U.S. care?
Now, having learned that lesson, maybe they will be the wiser for it? Apparently not.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 08:20 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't believe you are fully correct. I believe the U.S. funded all Afghanistan but recognized and supported the government formed by the Northern Alliance. Just as this is the Only government the U.N. recognizes.

The U.S. can support Afghanistan and eliminate the Taliban. In fact eliminating the Taliban would be the salvation of the People of Afghanistan. This is a truth that existed before tuesdays attack.

Supporting Afghanistan against the Soviet Union is very different than saying they supported the Taliban against the Soviet. The Soviet Union would have also imposed a dictatorial government that Afghanistan people didn't want. Instead they got the Taliban which they don't want. To me it is consistent to help the People of Afghanistan rid themselves of the Taliban just as we helped rid them of the Communism of the Soviet Union.

Remember our fight is not with the people of Afghanistan, I believe they want our help. Especially the female population which makes up the majority in itself.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 September 2001 08:26 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Americans knew exactly who bin Laden was when they enlisted him. They knew the funds and arms they provided him were being funded to the Taliban. In the wake of last Tuesday's events, this information is widely available over the Internet from various sources. That the Americans now refuse to recognize the government does nothing to alleviate the suffering they have casued by helping this movement to consume a nation. This hypocrisy is further belied by U.S. withdrawl from Afghanistan. They have not assisted the Norther Alliance. Although my might now. But the Norther Alliance might want to carefully consider U.S. assistance. They may first wish to study the experience of the Kurds in Iraq. Exploited to destabilize the region, abandoned to face the wrath and gas of Saddam when no longer required.
These are the actions that bring about consequences.

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 08:55 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That the Americans now refuse to recognize the government does nothing to alleviate the suffering they have casued by helping this movement to consume a nation.

The Americans never recognized the Taleban as a legitimate government.

quote:
This hypocrisy is further belied by U.S. withdrawl from Afghanistan. They have not assisted the Norther Alliance

I completely agree with you here. The Clinton administration is far more guilty of creating this monster than anyone else. They knew what was happening in Afghanistan and did nothing.

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 September 2001 09:08 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah, Clinton. Not the Reagan administration who allowed the CIA to fund bin Laden or the Taliban or the Bush administrsation who held office when the Taliban defeated their opposition. No, it was Clinton. Because he did nothing.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 September 2001 11:57 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Advice from Soviet veterans of Afghanistan.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 12:07 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good article. I'm sure the U.S. military has studied that war very carefully.

Maybe they'll just insert some Army Rangers in some of the passes and wait for the Taliban to come try to move around or attack them. While other teams actually seal up or empty caves. Thats what I figure they will do. The soviets already destroyed their infrastructure and communication. As long as the U.S. keeps showing the restraint and patience it already has they won't repeat the mistakes of the Soviets or of Vietnam.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 21 September 2001 10:17 AM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo - Sorry I didn't see the article from yesterday before logging off for the day. What can I say, it doesn't change my mind. My quarel is with the proposed solution to this problem not with the analysis that terrorrism is complex and needs to be curbed and stopped. The author says, so called, consequentialists oversimplify the situation and that we can break the cycle of violence. I agree, but I feel it is militarists (or some other inadequate label like consequentialists) that propose a simplistic answer. In fact the author's one words give him/her away in terms of looking at this very simply . . .
quote:
We can have troops in Saudi Arabia, or we can have peace at home, but we can't have both.
I don't think that anyone has ever suggested it's just that simple.

Let me re-iterate again, the solution to this problem (both in this instance and for the future) can be nuanced and complex and involve many fronts, but I don't think that massive military action will accomplish much toward a long term peaceful solution.

As for the dabate about US support/ acceptance of the Taliban, well, I think it's been tacit even if it hasn't been overt. My impression from pieces I've read this week (I'll try to find hte URL's that left me with the impression) is that the US funneled money through the Pakistani ISI (ISS?) knowing that it was going to the Taliban in the Afgani civil war that followed Russia's withdrawal. BLOWBACK. UN recognition or action has almost never been a bellweather of US foreign policy.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 10:31 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I still think that past aid is irrelevent. So what that they now have "blowback". You can argue back and forth all day long as to whether they helped create them.

I think the point is they want to be very clear about getting rid of them.

They also helped other oppressive governments. In fact I believe they gave China Most favored nation trading status. Doesn't mean they support their human rights record.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 21 September 2001 10:51 AM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tacit versus Active acceptance. Canada has the same problem in some countries. Difference - the US won't go marching into China to relieve the people of their oppressive regime as some are suggesting they should do in Afganistan. Why? China can fight back, they're a big trading partner, they're on the UN Security Council . . .

I see a lot of hipocrasy in US foreign policy. The US is far more willing to use peaceful methods of dealing with countries they see as equals (or as close as they can be to equal).

I feel that "Blowback," if nothing else, is symptomatic of a myopic shorterm vision of the world - getting what you need at that moment not something that can be sustained for a long time. It also demonstrates to me a callous disregard for the lives of ones own citiznes as the "Blowback" often affects Joe or Jane Public, NEVER the hawks who approved the mission. To me it calls into question a lot of the ideals that the US (and other western nations) shoot from the rooftops: justice, freedom, democracy . . .


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 11:11 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No they are finally realizing that some things you can change and some things you cant. They're asking for the wisdom to know the difference and the will to act.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 21 September 2001 11:19 AM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, that makes no sense to me, we've just agreed to disagree. Let me know if I'm wrong?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 11:27 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No your exactly right.
Many times it's not about agreeing, its about understanding where the other persons arguments are coming from. Sometimes thats enough for us to become more tolerent of others.

[ September 21, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 21 September 2001 11:48 AM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, my last post didn't come out of my fingers properly, but I'm glad the message got across.

A friend of mine reminded me of a proverb, "May you live in interesting times." How true. But I would retreat to less interesting times in an instant if last Tuesday could be erased.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 12:13 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I couldn't agree more NBD.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
graemesharsel
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1079

posted 21 September 2001 12:42 PM      Profile for graemesharsel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I liked the article Judes, but I have to say that men like Bin Ladin must be stopped. His belief is that Muslims must kill all Americans and other Westerners in a great Jihad. He and his followers believe this because our Western governments, particularly the American, have persistently oppressed and exploited people all over the third world. And I must say I don't blame him for wanting us dead, if I were in the same position I think I would have the same feelings. Our goal should be peace with these people and the that isn't going to happen by landing troops in Afganistan. If anything the Afghani's will do the same thing to us they did to the Russians and after a few years it will be Vietnam all over again. To send fat pampered American boys against battle-hardened Afghani troops with nothing to lose is suicide no matter how much technology we have. If we want to end terrorism, we must end the oppression and suffering that gives these people the impetus for such attacks.
From: Hamilton | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 21 September 2001 01:32 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thought these were interesting . . .

Common Dreams - Regan - Citizens of the World

Common Dreams - Wisechild - Searching for Justice . . .


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
marty raw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1137

posted 23 September 2001 08:28 PM      Profile for marty raw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
First off, may I apologize. Mea culpa and all that.
I meant to say it was idiotic. One cannot negotiate with terrorists. Our place right now is not to criticize our allies & create or promote dissention in the alliance. That's the French's job.
The "root causes" argument, while compelling & attractive, is misguided, in my opinion. We should NOT give aid & comfort under duress. That is equivalent to blackmail.
For the record, I am not psychotic. Perhaps I don't agree that we can all hold hands and be friends in a shiny-happy-c'mon-people-now-smile-on-yer-brother kind of way. Perhaps I make extreme statements in the heat of the moment. I was aiming at pithy sarcasm, which is hard to translate to the 'Net and even harder to get across to a humorless bunch of pedants who delight in splitting hairs and smiling smugly, secure in the knowledge of their own politically correct opinions.
Enh. Whatever. This whole thing is like starting an argument and then leaving the room...

From: Toronto, baby | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 September 2001 08:46 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, you don't have to get pithy, marty raw...
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca