h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Which was only disbanded in 1975 BTW

Really? I thought that was all finished with in the 50s.

Just because they stop talking about it in the "left-wing biased" media, doesn't mean it isn't still happening.

Why do you think it took so long for a film like "The Front" to be made?

Many people have been saying that we should be sending aid to the people of Afghanistan. My question is, how do we make sure that they get it?

I read an article recently (here, I think!) that mentioned food from Germany was being sold in the black market in Pakistan. Just like with any other country that's suffering from a lack of food and money - unscrupulous individuals (usually lesser govt. officials) manage to intercept the goods and sell them before they can be distributed.

Americans have one fault (at least!), and it's the belief that throwing money at a problem will fix it. Sometimes you actually have to get your hands dirty, and I think that this is one of those times. I believe that what we need is a group of Peace Corps volunteers and Red Cross volunteers to go to Afghanistan. American citizens handing out food and blankets to Afghan men, women and children would be the biggest slap in the face that America could deliver to the Taliban.

We could come out looking very good and the Taliban very bad, if the spin doctors play it just right.

One good thing - and this is just the impression I got from the news today - is that America will be concentrating more on finding Osama and his lively crew rather than bombing the crap out of Afghanistan. Positioning the Red Cross and the Peace Corps in Afghanistan might be a good strategic move, as well as a humanitarian gesture.

Oh yeah... something else I wanted to mention:
We've been talking as if the Taliban are the ones behind the terrorist activity. Osama bin Laden and a secret organization of terrorists are the ones responsible. The Taliban may openly support Osama's activities, but blaming them for Osama's actions might be a bit hasty. I will blame the Taliban for the oppression of the Afghan people, and especially the women. Muslims around the world condemn them for their actions, and are quite vocal in saying that their policies do not reflect the ideals of the Qu'ran. We need to keep our facts as clear as possible... and try to abstain from inflammatory speeches!

One (pedantic) point - it's not the Red Cross, it's the Red Crescent.

But yeah, i do agree. In all aid situations a proportion gets syphoned off for other means, most of the big aid agencies have stats and statements about this on their sites, and most just budget for it. And a good deal of US (and other) humanitarian aid as i said before is a cover for sending military hardware, so any medicines or food are delivered straight to the armed forces, who use what they need and sell the rest. Which then engenders the idea amogst those in positions of authority.

I don't think we can tolerate the Taliban much longer. The most effective way to get rid of them is to shift the balance of power to the Northern Alliance. They seem to be much more tolerable.

I recognize that this is how we've dealt with a lot of problems in the past, and in some ways it has led us to this situation.

How do we change our reaction to this so that we can elimnate the Taliban, alleivate the suffering of the Afghanis and promote pro-western feelings?

Lentilla, you're right. I've been watching stuff about Afghanistan a fair bit lately. There was a very interesting piece on MSNBC on about the nation. I may have gotten a little carried away. There have been several news pieces that show the oppression of the Taliban, and how people have been resisting it.

We may wind up in an odd situation where we're attacking a nation that we have a lot of sympathy for.

I don't know what the answer is and I don't think anyone else does either.

You now have a generation growing up in Afganistan whose whole focus is fighting one enemy or another. More than one generation probably - I'm afraid I don't have a deep knowledge of Afgan history.

Shifting the balance of power does not necessarily help. As I think you may have said earlier we supported the Taliban when the Russians were the enemy. So if we support the Northern Alliance, how long before that becomes a bad idea?

Afganstan is the focus right now because Bin Ladin is or was there. Is Afganistan 'the enemy' or is Bin Ladin?

I for one find it confusing that the whole of Afganistan (other than this Norhtern Alliance that has only emerged in the past day or two)
has been demonised and isolated over one man who may or may not be there.

176645

As I recall, we supported the Taliban against another power in Afghanistan after the Russians left.

Bin Laden and his organization are the true enemy. It's not jus tthe one person, but the whole group. After that group, there may be others.

The Taliban government are the enmey in as much as they have harbored and protected Al Quida. They're also a pretty ugly and represive government.

I'm not really up on the Northern Alliance. Does anyone know that they are going to be any better than the Taleban?
And suddenly, the target is the Taleban. The focus seems to be changing. The behaviour of the Taleban towards women and free thinkers is revolting. But that has nothing to do with the twin towers attrocity.
Mr.Bush has been spoiling for war since he got elected. He tried to pick a fight with China for god's sake. There are a few of things that could do with a closer look.

1. Colin Powell was chosen as Bush's right hand man. He is also the top man for dealing with fights in the Middle East. Coicidence, or, like his dear old daddy, another oilman, did George want a fight with the A-rabs? War, let us not forget, is the greatest boost to an ailing economy you can get.

2.This link between George and Salem. Salem bin Laden is Osim's brother. In the 70's George and Salem set up an oil company together. Is this whole debacle more personal than we are ever going to realise? Has George dragged the whole world into war because of a youthful buisness mistake that the Afghanis are now going to pay for?

3.Trepidation about releasing evidence that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. Evidence cannot be released, George now says, because a lot of it is classified, or at least very sensitive. Classified stuff usually has a 50 year hide period. This is often done to protect the reputations of people who have been up to things that any right-minded person would want them imprisoned for. If George and his cronies are innocent, what are they hiding?

Frogbit

You should stop again... you are pretending to know the intentions of American domestic politics when you have never been outside of UK. I have traveled extensively in Europe, USA and Asia. I would never try to fully understand why for example Tony Blair makes the choices that he does. I would sound like a blathering university freshman who just discovered the world is not fair and is looking for a boogyman to blame it on.

You should also know there are 250+ Brits in the death toll so did they deserve it as well?

Frogbit, the Taliban are under no obligation to be targeted by America, they could simply comply with their obligations as specified by the UN if they had wished to avoid this.

Everything could do with a closer look, but that doesn't mean there's anything there to be found.

This is a great idea except that now there are reports that the Taliban are threatening to kill (have killed?) volunterrs from the Red Cross and other relief organizations in Afghanistan.

Listener - stop telling me to stop. We have free speach here. Again, you know nothing about me and assume too much. By which arcane ritual have you gleaned the fact that I have never left the shores of the UK?
How dare you suggest I have ever said anyone deserved to die? Stop Listening and start reading my postings correctly. I am anti-violence and anti-hate, as I have made plain.
I have known for a long time that the world is not a fair place, and that there is no 'boogy-man' to blame this fact upon.
Perhaps you could inform your President of the same.
If all you can add to this forum is protestations of a fabricated nature when someone's opinion differs from yours, then perhaps you are in the wrong place.

I had the impression from the Brit press that Colin Powell was moderating Bushs rhetoric and climbing down from the all-out war idea. In fact it appeared that some people are dismayed at his moderation, whilst others are pleased that someone is sitting on Bush.

Is this the way it really is?

Also, in regard to Bushs quotes, when Blair was shown a picture of a missing husband by the wife/widow, he said 'I don't know know what to say to you'. Just how useful is that?

As political quotes go, it at least has the merit of being refreshingly honest.

I feel that Colin Powell is moderating Bush and most of his crowd. He is a respected moderate in the cabinet. In fact if he pushed for, he could have won the last election for the presidency. He in fact turned down the offer to run and he had great support to run.

It is usually someone who has some character defect to run for president. A well balanced wouldn't want the job. It is a powerful job but one is hounded to death by every decision by some members o the opposing party

Just to change the subject a little, and maybe cool things down a little. Has anyone else noticed that one of the major problems in the Middle East might not be Afghanistan.

If US troops start using Pakistan as a base of operations, which the Pakistani government has agreed to in principal, it seems more and more likely that the whole country would erupt into civil war. The government seems to have, at best, a very tenuous grip on the religious leaders in the country.

If a civil war starts, the US troops would be right in the middle.
India on the southern border would, possibly, start making a lot of noise and then you'd have India v Pakistan, two fairly unstable NUCLEAR powers, with the US in the middle.

Doesn't this sound even more scary to you than the possibility of Aussie Bin Liner launching more attacks?

Any thoughts?

I like the look of Colin Powell and the way he has behaved, although I didn't know much of him before this.

I agree with your assessment of anyone running for pres, Listener! Thats probably why we feel safer with someone like Powell behind the helm. If he refused to run, then he must have some sense!

1. As someone else posted, Secretary Powell could have been president if he wanted it. He's widely respected and very popular. Any administration would be pleased to have him on board. Our economy has not been that bad this year.

2. I don't see how this can really be a personal thing. I think the news reports have been saying that these people have been planning this for a year, longer than President Bush has been in office. The bin Laden family has disowned bin Laden, and they try to distance themselves from him at every opportunity. Many of the Osama bin Laden's siblings lived in the United States before the attack, but most have returned to Saudi Arabia to avoid any problems.

3. Sometimes information is too sensitive to be released for fear of harming the people that gave it to you. You have to protect your sources, particularly at the outset of a war. I'm willing to believe the administration that they have classified information that ties bin Laden into this. The press seems to be making some connections on its own without classified information. Later on down the road, we'll be able to see this information, particularly if there are going to be any trials, then its all going to come out.