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

"...perhaps it could be better put that the USA should avoid intervening in other people's fights in a way which makes a bad situation worse, and that in an ideal world they should intervene in a positive way. What is essentially desired is an unselfish, non-isolationist foreign policy - where it often appears in practice to be both selfish and isolationist."

Non-selfish? in who's world??? do you think we exist as a nation to serve others? we are here to live the best life possible with as much freedom that a man can have on earth without encroaching on other people's freedom. As far as international affairs, we look after our own interests, as well as participate in humanitarian missions when it is convenient for us (MEANING THAT SENDING FOOD TO THE AFGHANS IS NOT CONVENIENT SINCE THEY ARE HARBORING TERRORISTS WHO WANT TO KILL US! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T TAKE THAT OUT OF CONTEXT)Also, we protect the constitution.

"The US does provide $70 million worth of aid, including food, to Afghanistan... but then they also require interest on their share of Afghanistan's $5.5 billion of external debt (according to the CIA website). "

Um, should we just give our money away? If you expect us to forgive everyone's debts, especially one that is 5.5 billion dollars, you're crazy. Yeah, we charge interest...but do you see anybody in the world making it a priority to pay us? and if anything gives us the right to be the policemen of the world, it's you and your argument you just made!

"I've not been able to find anything to suggest that rich Afghani's use the USA's banking system - any ideas?"

It's all over the news..and it makes sense, since we have more money than any other country.

"Btw, life expectancy is 46 years in Afghanistan, and 77 years in the US. (according to the "People Facts" website)"

Um, that's what I said...mid 40's...late 70's to early 80's (I was talking about women with the early 80's part...i wonder what women's life expectency really is in Afghanistan...5 minutes past "hey i see your face"?)

I was just providing the life expectancy stats to be a little more detailed, and to give people a reliable source - I came across them when I was looking for info on the banking thing, and I thought I'd share - wasn't meant as an attack. Good little site actually - wish I could give a link... Since you ask, female life expectancy in Afghanistan is 45.10 to male's 46.62 - compare that to the use which has 79.90 female and 74.24 male.

Regarding debt. I should emphasise that the 5.5 billion dollars is a total figure, and the majority of it is not owed to the USA. Much of the west has engaged in the same unethical lending practices as the USA.

You call me crazy to suggest dropping third world debt, but I can at least claim membership of a growing number of similar crazies. If you're interested in the facts surrounding this issue, I suggest you have a search on the web - there are a number of organisations campaigning on the issue: "Drop the Debt", "Jubilee Debt Campaign", "Jubilee Plus", amongst others.

> "do you see anybody in the world making it a priority to pay us?"

I see a number of countries putting meeting their interest payments ahead of such trivial matters as tackling HIV/AIDS; providing food, water, and sanitation for their people; investing in basic public services, and so on. And with good reason - the penalties for failure to meet repayments are extremely harsh.

regards banking - like I say, I've genuinely not heard anything about this. Is there anyway you could suggest where I might be able to read about this for myself? I'd like to know more

regarding selfishness. The only argument I can give for co-operative behaviour is that we are all humans, and therefore we should be acting to further the interests of humnanity as a whole, rather than the narrow visions of groups of human who happen to live next to each other. And that applies equally to all nations, not just the US. But a utopian dream, I'm sure. All the best ones are...

> "SENDING FOOD TO THE AFGHANS IS NOT CONVENIENT SINCE THEY ARE HARBORING TERRORISTS WHO WANT TO KILL US!"

It's perhaps harsh, but I feel I have to point out that you are justifying the deaths of many innocent civilians for the crimes of their leaders - exactly the same reasoning as one presumes was used by whoever was responsible for the WTC attack. It's *never* right to punish people for the sins of their leaders.

--

I hoped that this thread would be a place where people could shed a few tears for the plight of those in Afghanistan, in the same way that other threads have been set up specifically to allow people to sympathise with those who were victims in America. A shame the way it has turned, but them's the breaks...

Who is the acutal debtor if we don't even recognize their government?

If we were to absolve them of their debt to us, would we ever be willing to loan them money again?

It's nice to think about helping out others, but you have to be concenrned about those closest to you first. That's why we form ourselves into communities.

It's desperately sad. There are no easy answers. The title of this message board is 'thoughts for the peoples of Afganistan'. I have just seen a news report from that country. Women, children, walking months to find food. And there is none. I have never been hungry, not really hungry, in my whole life. I live in a house with electricity, gas, a clean water supply. I am so lucky. My two year old son is well fed, and he is asleep now in his own bed. I don't know what we should do. I don't think anyone really does. I am sure America is doing the best it can in an impossible situation.

Jude

I just read a report that seems to indicate that th the Taliban is on shaky ground. If they collapse, what should we do? Could we go in and help them set up a modern state? Who would we send?

In some ways I'd like to help the Afghans set up a modern state. In other ways I'd like to leave them to it, because the record of people being sent across borders to set up governments isn't a good one. They need food, whatever happens, because of the drought and the fighting, but that should go via the UN or some regional coalition. If they can see money going in with no strings attached, they might be convinced that "the West" isn't out to control them.

I guess that's fine.

I don't believe in sending money with no strings attached to anyone. The suffering of the people of Afghanistan is terrible. However, my main interest is in having a country whose citizens don't want to kill us. If the UN can do it, it's less money that the US has to spend. If a reginoal coalition were to do it, I don't think they'd be any better. The nations in that area are not always friendly towards us.

But that's the point. Can you/we/anyone wander into a country and construct a government that will be friendly? People are too complicated and there are too many of them.

Two Bit... says "If the UN can do it, it's less money that the US has to spend." The UN would have more money to deal with these problems if the US had paid the subscriptions it signed up for.

I think we bear too much of the burden for a corrupt organization that tries to steal our sovereignty. Its committees that monitor human rights abuses are made up of some of the worst abusers in the world. It sponsors commissions to address racism where nations that condone slavery are accepted while we're attacked for not giving repatriations to people who were never slaves.

However, the Bush administration has been planning to pay the back dues.

Two Bit... I fing myself agreeing with you about some of the details while still quarrelling over the bigger picture. Let me think a little longer.

It seems likely that US (and other) special forces may be in Afghanistan as we type. This is definitely illegal, but will be widely understood and supported.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people are on the move. The total of dislocated, dispossessed, diseased and starving will be in the millions. "We", through the UN, will attempt to get food to them and will fail in many cases.

A call has gone out in the UK to build a humanitarian coalition alongside the "war on terrorism". More succinct has been the demand that "we" should bomb Afghanistan... with food.

Lucinda - I'll shed tears for the plight of the Afghans. Lots of tears. Even if I'm on my own.

Mund, Two Bit - I'm way concerned about the idea of constructing a government. At least partly because through history, our friend (or at least our enemy's enemy) has become our own enemy. I'm at a loss. I see the following solutions as strikes against Human Rights: We can't just go in and construct a government; we can't go in and "keep the peace"; we can't go in to "control" them. We can, of course, but my conscience tears me apart every time I think of these solutions.

Can we think of a better way to avoid a ten-year war? Is there a way to leave them without endangering ourselves (their Government's enemies)?

x x Fenny (Bemused and hoping for Zero Intolerance

I don't like it, but I suspect the "best" solution is to wander through Afghanistan, illegally kidnapping the odd terrorist, while piling money into intelligently selected redevelopment funds, pulling at least some of the forces out of Saudi Arabia (which may then fall to some force which is more fundamentalist but also more democratic) and telling the Israelis that they still have selective support but they have to stop s..tting on the Palestinians from such a great height (and the Palestinians that they have to respond in kind).

"The only argument I can give for co-operative behavior is that we are all humans, and therefore we should be acting to further the interests of humanity as a whole, rather than the narrow visions of groups of human who happen to live next to each other"

Am with you 100%
. This is what is the cause of all of these problems, GREED....
I am very saddened by the tone of some people here, there are Millions facing death, been in hunger and wars for over 25yrs, and they STILL think about their own INTEREST only

maybe you heard this argument before,
but do you know why so many MidEast gvmnts/people are always mistrust US' intentions??
Because of the US'unconditional support for Israel, whom their current Prime Minister intentially went to visit a Muslim hold site exactly 1yr ago to show that the Palestinines/Muslems have no claim in that land, the Holy site btw sits on an occupied land (occupied by the Israelis since 1967 for those who don't know) this action ignited the Intifada, the uprising, in which Israel managed to Kill 800 ppl many of whom were stone throwers rising against an enemy who is occupying their land, and who continues to install settlements in this occupied territories,.......what do you call this ?? and oh btw, just few days Israeli tanks in the occupied terroteries just leveled about 18 Palestinie houses, 8 of em with the people INSIDE them!! did you hear about that? I bet you didn't
People do not mistrust others for no reason, At the end we MUST have justice and have high morals to win against those who raise the voices of hate and oppression. I know that this is not a perfect world, but one should be very careful if we are only guided by our "interest"

Peace & Justice for ALL

thoughts for the afghans...

I have mixed views on the afghans. But of course, I have to pick and choose who I'm talking about when I say "afghans". Let's start with the Taliban. We all know they are a bunch of dirty rotten scoundrels who really need to be removed from, uh, office? Do they even have offices in afghanistan? jk. Here are the reasons I believe Bush is doing the right thing. First of all, I'm not a pacifist, which has to be said as a fundamental part of my argument. In my opinion, pacifists hate freedom. Second of all, unlike here and in great britain, the taliban government does not represent the people. I mean, obviously the people would gladly give us bin laden since we are going to go over there and regulate. But the Taliban does not care about human lives, and it seems that it especially doesn't care about the lives of its own people. Now, who's problem is that? It is the taliban's problem, and it is the problem of the people of Afghanistan. I'm really sorry, but the US government is not responsible for the Afghani people. All their leaders have to do is turn over ossama bin laden (who, even if he wasn't responsible for Sep. 11th, has done many things to us in the past, and has been on the FBI's most wanted list for years!) and their people will be OK.

That having been said, I'd like to share thoughts on other Afghani's, the women of Afghanistan. These are truly pathetic creatures. Oppressing women is the most cowardly thing a man can do. Real men don't hit women or make them feel less than human. If I could, I'd load up all the women and children of Afghanistan and take them to someplace worth living. The men can take care of themselves. Afghani men disgust me. I don't care what your religion says, you don't treat women that way.

Now as far as the other Afghans, the Afghani men, I feel no compassion for them whatsoever. It should be their duty to rise against a government who is suppressing their women and killing so many people in the streets and in soccer fields (have you seen the women shot point blank in the soccer fields by the hundreds?? the images are horrifying.) I'd really like to see the good afghani men (are there any??) make an underground railroad of sorts and move their women to saudi arabia. Sorry if these thoughts are kind of sporadic, I just woke up and I have a powerful headache.

I don't know whether Iain M Banks is an author anyone here has read, but there is one concept in many of his books that I feel is worth re-iterating - how a 'civilised' society should judge a 'barbaric' one.

That we are where we are in our society's evolution, while those in Afghanistan are at the stage they are in their society's evolution, is an accident of history and geography. Had the gulf stream not existed, or had Columbus sunk before crossing the atlantic, and it might have been them writing messages on the internet about how barbaric we are. It is not that long ago since there was slavery in the US, or since women in the UK could not vote.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be outraged - I'm not saying you shouldn't want to change the situation - I'm just saying that perhaps you judge unfairly. Maybe even you would do the same, in the same society. And, incidentally, not all Afghani men oppress women - and not all to the same extent. As with all things.

By requiring that the Afghan men 'rise against their government' without requiring the same of the Afghan women, you too are guilty of sex discrimination. To a vastly lesser extent, to be sure, but it is there. A product of the society you grew up in, perhaps?

Even so, many of the men (and some of the women, I believe) have indeed risen so - they have even recently been gaining ground against the Taleban. Those that do not, I do not judge harshly - when you are suffering in the way that many in Afghanistan are, rebellion is most likely the last thing on your mind. I suspect that I would choose to put keeping myself and my family fed, rather than being overly concerned about such abstract ideas as justice or equality. What use is either if you are dead?

> "obviously the people would gladly give us bin laden since we are going to go over there and regulate"

I like that choice of word - 'regulate'. Amusing...
Seems to me that there is no great love for the USA in the area, and in Afghanistan in general. Seems far from obvious, in fact - I expect that many blame in part the USA for their current woes. But all is speculation, I guess...