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

Zagreb,

You're saying we should unseat the current government and have an immediate election? Do we get to decide whether the election is fair, or do the Afghans get to follow their own standards? If enough of them support a warlord or a dictator, can we demand that they become a democracy anyway?

"If the West unseats a government that has not been elected or is opposed by the majority of the people in the nation what, morally, is wrong with that?"

How have you determined this already, without having held an election? Public polling?

"Like I have said before, what we expect in the West is what we should allow for the Afghans."

Your plan does not seem to provide for the possibility that the Afghans may not want what the West offers.

I'd be willing to bet that the women of Afganistan would take anything besides what they have. No...I don't think there are any polls to back up my assumption, just common sense on anyones part.

Think about it......

Would you, or anyone you know, want the world they live in?

NM

....Ok a lot to read since I was in here last.
And as usual an intelligent discussion

What has mystified me the last few days is the lack of retaliation from OBL(the Anthrax I suppose, is an internal American problem.So maybe it should have a look in it´s own backyard for once ).If he and AQ is so powerful why haven´t they launced their next attack?I don´t belive they don´t have a backup plan.

It reminds me of old cowboy movies.Any clever cowboy would have a hat on a stick to fool the enemy to shoot at.

Is OBL maybe just that hat on a stick, that someone else placed?
Someone earlier, connected this war to the oilindustry, I think that is not far off the target.Does junior finish what dad started, and is there anyone in America evil enough to stage this kind of evil?
I think these questions are relavant as this war is unfolding in a very unlogic way.WHY NO RETALIATION FROM OBL IF HE IS SO DANGEROUS AND WELLORGANIZED?

And Perium Re: Twain.

Qutations have the advantage that they can be used in any given appropriate situation outside time an space.


"There is no darkness, but ignorance".

William Shakespeare.


T´mershi Duween.

Periu.Re: Saving money on Cipra.

I don´t have a problem with countries saving money.I have a problem with countries such as USA and Canada setting double standards; one for themselves and perhaps the rest of the western world if it serves the interests of USA , and another for the rest of the world especially the truly needy third world countries.I´m sick of countries treating others as they would never accept being treated themselves and then on top of it behave rude, arrogant and obnoxious, my own country (Denmark) included.


T´m.. D...

That´s Perium. Re: ...

Deidzoeb wrote: "It's hard to take all this talk about "those bad terrorists" seriously when you know the kinds of terrorist acts that the US has perpetrated, supported, and continues to support."

While you may not like what the U.S. is doing, to call it terrorism is deceptive and misleading. I will include the official definition of terrorism (according to the DOD) "the unlawful use of - or threatened use of - force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

The terrorist attacks by Al-Queda were to acquire international recognition. To gain it, they engineered a couple of spectacular events. Their aim is to coerce the U.S. to leave the Middle East and leave Afghanistan to the Muslims; this is what one of Osama's statements seemed to indicate. The actions by the U.S. and UN are not to gain attention - they're a misguided attempt to control, divide, and quell uprisings in the Middle East.

"If you look at the actions taken in the recent past by the US, supporting the government of Israel that admittedly uses assassination as a policy, bombing Iraq to protect the Kurds while ignoring the fact that our ally Turkey still attacks and allegedly bombs the Kurds, then there is no reason for the USA to be a pot waging war against kettles for being black."

The closest we have come to terrorism (according to the official definition) is to be a 'passive supporter' of Israel. Any terrorist organization has a charismatic leader, several strong cells, professional mercenaries for the dirty work, and a number of passive supporters for the cause. The Taliban fits into the category of 'passive supporter', because they're harboring Osama and members of Al-Queda. Passive supporters, according to the DOD, don't necessarily condone violence to get things done, but do agree with the motivations of the group that they're supporting. The U.S. doesn't always agree with Israel's actions, so the definition of passive supporter doesn't fit us very well.

Don't get the U.S. and the UN confused. The bombs are from the U.S. with UN approval, while the economic sanctions are imposed by the UN. I believe that bombing Iraq is a waste of time and bombs, and does nothing for our public image. It's an attempt to intimidate Saddam, but it isn't terrorism. (we can discuss the semantics of that further if you'd like!) We allow Turkey to bomb the Kurds because they're a member of NATO. This makes the UN's position difficult - do they interfere, or not? Right now they're not, and the Kurds are getting the brunt. The economic sanctions are because Iraq refuses to let the UN inspect the country to make sure it's free of 'major weapons of destruction' (like nukes!) Because of the sanctions, this means that we don't know what's going on inside Iraq. The sanctions have not prevented them from shipping oil to their customers, and smuggled oil has no UN tax! As usual, the government isn't having any trouble, while the civilians suffer.

The U.S. can't win, really - it's getting in trouble either because it's interfered in something, or because it didn't interfere with something. Ever since I've heard of the UN's existence, I've wondered why the U.S. has attempted to police the world - isn't that what the UN's for? No man is an island, and certainly no government is an island unto itself; if we're going to be making international policy decisions, they need to be made with the advice of other nations. We couldn't be calling it 'international' otherwise.

Deidzoeb: Out of curiosity, are you by any chance a Socialist or Marxist? During my quest for information, I encountered many essays by individuals from both organizations that expressed many of the same ideas you have here in this forum. If so, that's cool - I like the fact that we have so many different thoughts going on!

Re: Cowboy Hat Stick-Trick...

Does anybody read Pratchett around here? I presume ya'll do; you seem like an enlightened crowd.

I can't remember the book I read it in, but one of the characters decides to test to see whether the coast is clear. He takes a stick and puts his hat on it, then is about to raise it above the windowsill in the classic cowboy tradition. Then he reconsiders, finds a longer pole, gets in the corner, and raises the hat from the corner. A bullet hole (Maybe this was Men At Arms, but I don't think so - maybe it was an arrow bolt) appears below the windowsill, at the exact angle where a person holding a stick with a hat on it would be.

Just read Feet of Clay... What will I do when I run out of books?

re: what the Afghans want...

It's entirely guesswork, really. One thing they clearly want above *all* else is peace - that's why the Taliban swept so dramatically to power back in '94 - they offered peace, swift action on lawlessness, and maybe even stability. Unlike their rivals, they didn't go in for mass rape and plunder every time they took control of a city, which improved their popularity further.

People mention that women are technically not allowed education under the Taliban rule, and it's true, but its not enforced. Compare the UK laws against blasphemy, or soft drugs, or homosexuality, none of which are really enforced. In any case, education in Afghanistan is currently at the 4-5% level anyway, so the loss isn't exactly huge. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_727000/727874.stm

Social aspects are likewise less important than people in the west may imagine. I've seen interviews with people who used to live under Taliban rule, who now live under Northern Alliance rule... they are asked whether, for example, they still need to cover their faces in public. And they said that no, they don't *need* to any more, but they do so anyway because it is part of their culture and religion.

Don't get me wrong: the Taliban are clearly a barbaric regime (they have the death penalty for starters). But they're no worse than any of the alternatives, and are better than many. Continuing to bomb in the hope that a better alternative will magically appear out of the rubble is a pretty huge gamble to be playing with other people's lives.

> "Passive supporters ... don't necessarily condone violence to get things done, but do agree with the motivations of the group that they're supporting. The U.S. doesn't always agree with Israel's actions, so the definition of passive supporter doesn't fit us very well."

Umm - you sure? Israel's stated motivation has been to ensure the safety of Isreali citizens and the Israeli state. I'm fairly sure that while the USA doesn't always condone violence to get that done, they certainly do agree with the basic motivation of Israel.

And, for what its worth, I also agree with the motivation of Israel - there's little to disagree with a desire for safety - while I utterly disagree with the methods they use. So it goes.

"While you may not like what the U.S. is doing, to call it terrorism is deceptive and misleading."

How is it deceptive? Our excuse for making war on the Taliban is that they have given support to Al-Qaeda, a group which uses force in a way that breaks international law for political purposes. The US supports Israel, a nation which breaks internatonal laws and uses helicopters to shoot missiles into the homes of their opponents.

If you look at the recent past actions of the US, who we have supported and who we have unseated, it's easy to see many cases when US broke international law, subverted democracy, even broke US laws by supporting the Contras. Guatemala, Nicaragua, Bay of Pigs, these are not secrets, and they are not exceptional actions. They're totally in character, the kinds of action that the US can still be expected to follow when they can get away with it.

In more recent years, US and UK jets have patrolled the Northern "No-Fly Zone" of Iraq, an area supposedly set-up to prevent Saddam from attacking the Kurds. Meanwhile, UK pilots have reported that they were pulled back from patrol when Turkish fighters loaded with bombs flew into the same territory and came back without bombs. Where is our rage over Turkish attacks on Kurds? It's suppressed because Turkey is a US ally.

How is it misleading or deceptive to point out the many, many times the US has broken international laws or supported groups or regimes who broke international laws?

"Any terrorist organization has a charismatic leader, several strong cells, professional mercenaries for the dirty work, and a number of passive supporters for the cause."

If that is true, then where are these details mentioned in your DOD definition of terrorism? I know the word carries a lot of other connotations, usually that "terrorists" must be a small group, not a recognized nation. Why is it so hard to see that even large nations and superpowers have often supported or used unlawful force for political purposes?

"The U.S. doesn't always agree with Israel's actions, so the definition of passive supporter doesn't fit us very well."

We supply the helicopters Israel uses to assassinate political opponents in the street or in their homes, but we're not supporting them? Maybe you're right about "the definition of passive supporter" -- we give them too many millions of dollar for our support to qualify as merely "passive."

"We allow Turkey to bomb the Kurds because they're a member of NATO. This makes the UN's position difficult - do they interfere, or not? Right now they're not, and the Kurds are getting the brunt."

Doesn't this seem inconsistent to you? Can you see why some of us fail to believe Bush or Blair when they claim that this war is all about preserving freedom and justice and helping the citizens of Afghanistan? Shouldn't we be bombing Turkey, to be consistent with our actions against Iraq?

"Continuing to bomb in the hope that a better alternative will magically appear out of the rubble is a pretty huge gamble to be playing with other people's lives."

But Lu, there's no magic involved. We're going to put the King back in power! Hurrah for democracy!

"Umm - you sure? Israel's stated motivation has been to ensure the safety of Isreali citizens and the Israeli state. I'm fairly sure that while the USA doesn't always condone violence to get that done, they certainly do agree with the basic motivation of Israel."

Do the motivations really matter? Do we need to discuss the motivations if the crimes are clear enough? I suppose international law is different, and visualizing these matters on the scale of individual law-breakers is probably silly or useless, but can you imagine a citizen shooting his neighbor and being acquitted of murder because he was only trying to preserve his security?

> "can you imagine a citizen shooting his neighbor and being acquitted of murder because he was only trying to preserve his security?"

Self-defence is a legitimate defence against murder in many countries. You do, however, have to prove that the amount of force was justifiable, appropriate to the threat, and that it was taken as a last resort. (depending on the country, of course).

As ever, IANAL

"Your plan does not seem to provide for the possibility that the Afghans may not want what the West offers."

I didn't say what the west *offers* I said what we *expect* in the West, that is the right to choose our leaders and the right to some form of democratic political system and debate. This has never been known or encouraged in the Middle East and I think now is the time to end the horsesh*t and all the "these muslims just aren't ready for democracy" rubbish and treat them with a little respect. This may lead to some anti-western governments but that will force the west to examine it's standing in the middle-east and cut the "we are not enemies of the (insert muslim nation here) people" stuff we hear from leaders. If these countries democratically elect an anti-US government, the US will have to deal with the problems it has created directly and not be able to fall back on the "evil dictator" stuff.

"Ever since I've heard of the UN's existence, I've wondered why the U.S. has attempted to police the world - isn't that what the UN's for?"
Lentilla - see, I did it, or rather, Jimmy did.. Ever since I saw TIME magazine proudly call the USA the world's policeman, I too, have wondered why you/they have attempted to police the world. Maybe we (the world) would prefer you not to, but maybe you think we're not capable of running our own lives? Thank you Americans, for all your warm-hearted help! BTW, don't take that seriously...

"The US supports Israel, a nation which breaks internatonal laws and uses helicopters to shoot missiles into the homes of their opponents."

Deidzoeb, while I've heard the Taliban support the actions of Al-Queda, I've never heard the U.S. government praise Israel for its continuing military activities. That's what I refer to when I say that passive supporters support the goals, but may not always condone violence.

"Why is it so hard to see that even large nations and superpowers have often supported or used unlawful force for political purposes?"

That's fine, but it's not terrorism.

"Where is our rage over Turkish attacks on Kurds? It's suppressed because Turkey is a US ally."

Turkey isn't a U.S. ally, it's a member of NATO. And both U.S. and British pilots are having serious problems with the very situation that you mention - being sent out of the no-fly zone because the Turks want to bomb, them coming back to find flaming villages.

I can't give you a big juicy reply right now because I have this horrible brain-eating headache... more Monday.

Lucinda,

Let me clarify the overly simplistic. John shoots his neighbor Bill. Bill has done nothing illegal to John, except maybe frowning a lot. John doesn't claim self-defense, because there was no attack under progress or overtly threatened by Bill. John simply maintains that he was preserving his security, eliminating the possibility of this frowning neighbor from attacking him. Does a jury acquit him? Does Johnnie Cochran get him off by saying, "If the security fits, you must acquit"?

Sorry, this has gone way past the point of reflecting anything like the current situation. But my point is that an individual or nation can't just kill people and claim "I was only preserving my security."

(What's "IANAL"? Sounds IKINKY.)

above should read: "Let me clarify the overly simplistic analogy I made..."

'[Some form of democratic political system and debate] has never been known or encouraged in the Middle East and I think now is the time to end the horsesh*t and all the "these muslims just aren't ready for democracy" rubbish and treat them with a little respect.'

I didn't say, "These muslims just aren't ready for democracy." I said, "the Afghans may not want what the West offers."

The best way to "treat them with a little respect" would be to invade their country and install the kind of government that we feel they should have?

"...I've never heard the U.S. government praise Israel for its continuing military activities. That's what I refer to when I say that passive supporters support the goals, but may not always condone violence."

Israel assassinates enemies. The US condemns the policy of assassination, but continues to supply weapons such as attack choppers. It's not passive support by any stretch of the imagination. It's direct financial and military support of unlawful use of force against civilians for purposes of political coercion. The US is guilty of harboring and aiding terrorists on a greater scale than the Taliban could ever hope to achieve.

DEIDZOEB: "Why is it so hard to see that even large nations and superpowers have often supported or used unlawful force for political purposes?"

LENTILLA: "That's fine, but it's not terrorism."

DEIDZOEB: Where in your DOD definition of the word "terrorism" does it specify the limits on size of a terrorist group? The version I see in your post #966 of this thread said, "the unlawful use of - or threatened use of - force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

"Turkey isn't a U.S. ally, it's a member of NATO."

?????????????????????????????

Would it be wrong of me to guess that members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization consider each other allies? Does the DOD have a better definition of "ally" of which I am not aware? You try to correct me on something that is at face-value clearly true, then you agree that what Turkey does is wrong, but you again divert attention from my question about consistenct US foreign policy. How can we bomb Afghanistan and Iraq, but fail to bomb Turkey? How can anyone take Bush (or Clinton) seriously when they claim to be waging War on Terror, fighting for freedom and justice, but ignoring or even supporting the terror created by our pals Turkey or Israel?

(Let me guess. You're going to respond, "Turkey isn't our pal, it's a member of NATO.")

Terrorism is a word forst used to describe the actions of governments, these tactics were only adopted by guerrilla groups, freedom fighters etc long after states had worked out the ground rules.

As for unseating unelected powers...

This week Bush has refued to turn over Regans presidential papers to the American public in acordance with the 12 year rule. This is of course the period when the Regan government tried to unseat the democratic Sandansta government in Nicaragua, the US, their contras and the CIA finally achieved this about ten years ago, and this weekend the Nicaraguan people go to the poles again. And what do we see? Election rigging by the US, in the form of the US prompted withdrawal of the conservative candidate providing a united opposition, and veiled threats in the press from Jeb Bush stating in full page adverts that Ortega the Sandanista leader was (like bin Laden) "an enemy of everying the US stands for". God Bless America.

The period covered by the Regan papers would of course also feature the US involvment in Afganistan during the 1979-88 Soviet occupation and their backing and training of the Mudjahadin, including those who now run Al-Qida. And who was vice president during this period?