America the Ignorant

[STING]

Again,
Its not a fact that everything the Rebels in Afghanistan used came from the CIA. It is of course widely reported that the Stinger Anti-Aircraft rocket was provided to the Afghan rebels. Beyond that though, its difficult to name any US weapons that were in the use of Afghan rebels. In nearly all documentary footage, Afghan rebels are shown with AK-47s not M-16s, and RPGs not the Dragon or US grenade launchers. Of course the US helped, but not to the extent that the media suggest.
Also, Bin Laden was primarily a business man who supplied money during the war for the rebels, not a famous military figure that many in the media have claimed him to be. In fact, Bin Laden was only involved in maybe four battles during the entire Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan. He only only played a very minor role.

 

[Klodomir]

BBC is the cream of news coverage and everything else. If you can receive it, I highly recommend it.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Sledgehammer:
But they just don't know. They hadn't even knew where Afhganistan is, until the recent events. Maybe if I was in their position, I wouldn't know it either. I wouldn't really care. The media wouldn't bother me with images of miserable people dying of starvation and poverty.

Hey, I posted a new thread entitled Bush Authorizes Aid For Afghan Refugees.



[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 10-01-2001).]

 

[radiodivision]

Originally posted by STING:
Good one speedracer. Radiodivision, do you have a number as far as financial info, list of weapon systems, agents stationed in Afghanistan, that would support the idea of large US involvement in Afghanistan prior to 1978. Sure the USA was involved in even a small way in nearly every anti-communist movement on the planet at that time. But the massive support for the Afghan rebels during the 1980s, or as you say before 1980, is overblown by the media. It was sure there, but not to the extent that the media suggest. The Afghans deserve far more credit themselves for their resistance to Soviet Ocupation.
The Soviets Invaded Afghanistan because the Communist Government there was fragile and could fall at any time. This would have been the case with or without small amounts of US aid to anti-Communist forces there.

STING,

The purpose of my post was to correct the statement you made regarding US involvement in Afghanistan (you claimed that there was US involvement only AFTER the Soviet attack). I did not say that the involvement was large only that it was there. Specifically, Zbigniew Brzezinski (national security adviser to Jimmy Carter at the time) has admitted in a 1998 interview that the official story that the US provided military aid to the Afghanistan opposition only after the Soviet invasion in 1979 was a lie. What actually happened was that the US began helping the Islamic fundamentalist Moujahedeen six months before the Soviet Union invaded, even though he believed (and told this to Carter) that "this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention." (source is Le Nouvel Observateur (France) Jan. 15-21, 1998, p. 76)

Now, you can argue whether the US aid was THE cause of the invasion or not, but there is no doubt that US involvement was present.

[This message has been edited by radiodivision (edited 10-01-2001).]

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

If a tree fell on Sledgehammer in the woods and no one was there to hear it would anybody care?

MP

 

[speedracer]

If a tree fell on Sledgehammer in the woods and no one was there to hear it would anybody care?

Philosophical reasoning will not resolve this matter. It must be tested experimentally.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 10-01-2001).]

 

[STING]

Radiodivision,
My main point really is that the aid we provided Afghan Rebels before or after the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan did not substantialy alter the conflict. Tensions between Islamic Fundamentalist in rural area's and the government in Kabul existed years before the Soviet Invasion.

 

[Sledgehammer]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
If a tree fell on Sledgehammer in the woods and no one was there to hear it would anybody care?

MP

The American government would care. Echelon would hear it.

------------------
"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." JFK

[This message has been edited by Sledgehammer (edited 10-02-2001).]

 

[MysteryGirl]

Regarding the "dumbing down"...a couple things come to mind :

1."Numb" by U2

2. "1984" -- I forget the author, but it was written in 1948...things aren't to the extreme described in the book, but it's getting there...

------------------
"You're dangerous...'cause you're honest"

[This message has been edited by MysteryGirl (edited 10-04-2001).]

 

[Sledgehammer]

Originally posted by MysteryGirl:

2. "1984" -- I forget the author, but it was written in 1948...things aren't to the extreme described in the book, but it's getting there...

George Orwell.

"I sometimes think that the price of liberty is not so much eternal vigilance as eternal dirt."

 

[Popmartijn]

Originally posted by STING:
Radiodivision,
My main point really is that the aid we provided Afghan Rebels before or after the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan did not substantialy alter the conflict. Tensions between Islamic Fundamentalist in rural area's and the government in Kabul existed years before the Soviet Invasion.

Hmm, why didn't I check this thread out before. I just saw the thread and I do want to give my opinion on a couple of statements. But first this. I read in a Dutch newspaper about three weeks ago that, when the Sovjets left Afghanistan, the USA reduced military support in two years to $300 million a year, which was a third of its original budget. A few years later (we're talking around 1992 now) they stopped funding altogether. Now, I don't have any military report about the consequences of all this, but I still think $300 million a year is a lot.

C ya!

Marty


------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle

 

[Popmartijn]

Originally posted by STING:
But then the article takes a nose dive and attempts to discredit US Foreign Policy and US Foreign Policy "Elites". This I think Is what the author is really going after. The Author suggest that US support for the regime in Saudi Arabia is why Sept 11 happened. This of course is utter BS. The Hijackers did not do this for democracy in Saudi Arabia!

Well, I disagree with you here Sting. The way I interpreted the original article was that he was showing some anomalies in US policy. They always boast that they stand for freedom and civility, but in the meanwhile they support dictorial and even criminal regimes. Of course the hijackers didn't do this for the democracy in Saudi-Arabia, but they did have other reasons that resulted from (dubious) US actions in the world.

The USA takes a very careful approach to policy in the Middle East and the reason why we support certain regimes that are not democratic is because the alternative would be worse and would definitely not be a democracy. Those that seek to overthrough many of the moderate Arab regimes in the reason, want to, not for democracy, but for radical political reasons.

I strongly disagree with this statement. I think the USA isn't careful at all! I think they often don't take into consideration all the factors/powers influencing a situation in which they want to intervene. And I think they often don't pay enough attention to the long-term effects of their actions.

A current example may be Pakistan, although that isn't an Arab government. A few years ago there was a military coup in Pakistan and the democratic government was overthrown. I believe it was 2 years ago when Pakistan had a successful nuclear test. The USA placed some economic sanctions on Pakistan because of this (the nuclear test that is).
Now, the USA is almost forcing Pakistan to fully cooperate in killing Bin Laden. There is the rhetoric of 'Those who do not support us are against us'. The USA 'asked' Pakistan immediately to cooperate. Of course they complied. What else could they do? When they said no they would have had the wrath of the USA. A large population of Pakistan is of the same ethnic origin as the Afghan population. They also have a large presence in the army. They are against actions against their Afghan people.
The leader of Pakistan is of another ethnic origin. He now has to try to calm that ethnic population who are against US military actions and at the same time he has to support the USA in their military actions. He is a general himself and he needs the support of the army to rule. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
I hope you see the difficulty of the whole situation. I hope you also see that even with the slightest US misstep it could all escalate and the USA would have another enemy in the world.

I just read an interesting article on a (Bruce Springsteen) newsgroup. I was looking in this forum to see if there was a thread I could place it. But considering its size I think I'll post it as a separate thread. It also addresses some of the statements you made. Look for it in a short while.

C ya!

Marty

------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle

 

[Popmartijn]

Originally posted by Henry Rollins:
Most of the world has a stereotypical view of the united states and that is especially true in socialistic countries since their whole media does go against a lot of what the usa is.

I would not say that the view is stereotypical. It's true that many countries are more on the left side of the political centre than the USA, but I wouldn't call them socialistic. The USA has always been quite 'right'. They were always more afraid of the collectivistic view socialism has than the suppressic side fascism has. But this change of perspective does not warrant the statement that the media in those countries goes against anything the USA does. But they often look at both sides and then tell what the ramifications are for both sides.

look at kyoto deal, europe wanted it, but the real reason they wanted a specific version was because it would give the EU (european union) more economic power in the world and of course usa wouldn't do that.

The real reason the EU wanted a specific version was because they wanted real improvements to the environment and not some worthless words. The real reason the USA did not agree on the original version which called for real improvements to the environment was because it meant the USA had to take some real measures. The USA has the lowest energy productivity in the industrialised world (ie. they use the most energy to produce an item). Would they have agreed to the original Kyoto agreement it would have meant that they had to restructure their industry so that it would be more energy efficient (which is cheaper in the end as less oil would be consumed) and less poisonous. The US government thought it was too expensive with regard to the environment (and that there will be an environment no one can live in is not important). The EU has many of these measures already in place (environment is an important subject on the political agenda). So yeah, maybe the USA will be a bit less dominant in the world economy, but does that matter/hurt?

And here i heard over and over again usa was being ignorant to the concerns of the world when it was actually protecting its own ass. usa said it would agree on a different version of a kyoto, just one that didn't give europe more power. Isn't that ignorance too of all the other countries looking at the usa with stereotypical views?

The USA would only agree to a version where the USA would not have to do anything anymore to protect the environment. Maybe giving some cash to Third World countries, but not facing their own problems. I won't call that ignorance of all the other countries, but arrogance of the USA.

C ya!

Marty

------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle

 

[MysteryGirl]

Thanks for the reminder Sledgehammer.

------------------
"You're dangerous...'cause you're honest"

 

[Hitman]

I don't think American school children are any less ignorant of geography than other nations......

Ask a child in Hungary where Colorado is...

Ask a child in Greece where Oklahoma is....

Ask a child in Iran where Michigan is....

These are all states that are the size of some countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, etc...

America always gets a bad rap. Why? Because we are the leaders of the world.

------------------
You Just Can't Get Enough Of That Lovey Dovey Stuff...

 

[Marko]

Hitman: I think that you are wrong! Ask those kids and they will know at least 20 US states (but they all know the country - US as the whole with all the details - Alaska, Hawaii...), and they also know all major countries in S.America, Africa, Asia etc - at least. And ask your friends if they know to show you Italy, France Spain on the map. And thatn ask them if they ever heard for Croatia. I talked with many americans, and I liked them as people, but I had to, 9 out of 10 cases, explain to them where Croatia is. They never get it so I just say Europe to end my worthless explenation.
One thing that I find right in this article is the way that US government (and public) tells other countries in the world to solve their problems. When you said to former Yugoslavia to just get along - and all thet without finding out why we don't get along in the first place. Like a week age when three were a terorist atack in Israel and you told them to keep calm, not to revenge to plaestinians, to solve everything with dialog - and on the other hand you pride yourselves in NOT talking with terorists, and you don't have dialog with pakistan, you just tell them what they have to do to not get under your attack - you are making yourself another big enemy n the world. Did you see on the news that when Blair was there to get pakistan support there were big protest against it - but their government has to do what the US tells them - it's too complicated and you don't take that in account.

 

[dream wanderer]

I have personally run across ignorance of not only US geography among Europeans...but of the geography of the entire Western Hemisphere...

People putting states in New England that aren't there...getting Washington State and Washington DC mixed up...getting Mexico and New Mexico mixed up...not knowing West Virginia is a separate state...and on and on.

But the thing is...we don't care! I could care less if you can name all the 50 states and their capitals...or if you know all the Canadian provinces or not...or where Costa Rica is....if you know..fine..if you don't...we'll tell you and we won't make a big deal of it and call you ignorant. Why can't you extend the same courtesy?????

dream wanderer

 

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by dream wanderer:
But the thing is...we don't care! I could care less if you can name all the 50 states and their capitals...or if you know all the Canadian provinces or not...or where Costa Rica is....if you know..fine..if you don't...we'll tell you and we won't make a big deal of it and call you ignorant. Why can't you extend the same courtesy?????

Because political correctness and multiculturalism don't require them to extend the same courtesy.

 

[TheU2]

Originally posted by melon:
Well, you missed one point, Matt...

Most don't watch the news anymore. The average age of people watching the news is around age 60. Hence, all these commercials for Depends and Geritol during the news. And, yes, this does cover CNN, along with NBC, CBS, and ABC.

So how could the news media contribute to an "ignorant American public" when that same public doesn't even watch the news?

Melon

Give me support for this assertion!

CK



------------------
I will give you 2 GA's for 2 GC's!! Email or IM me or respond to the multiple threads I have concerning this. Help a desparate man out!!
Email:U2_Kennedy@yahoo.com
AIM: ckennedy77

 

[melon]

Well, I wrote that before the current war hysteria. But look back at before September 11th. How much television news did you watch? How much television news did your friends watch? How much television news did your family watch? And I'm not talking about special reports. I'm talking about the 6:30 pm national news.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[TheU2]

When you come with hard numbers, ie, "The average age of people watching the news is 60", you should support that number and not just grab it out of your ass. Or, you should say, "I believe that the average age of people watching the news is 60."

CK

------------------
I will give you 2 GA's for 2 GC's!! Email or IM me or respond to the multiple threads I have concerning this. Help a desparate man out!!
Email:U2_Kennedy@yahoo.com
AIM: ckennedy77

 

[melon]

I didn't "grab it from my ass." Check the Nielsen ratings for yourself. I'm not everyone's mother.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[MrBrau1]

This is great. America is the stupidist, laziest, most careless nation on earth, yet somehow America is the richest and most powerful nation in history. Somebody wanna explain how that happened? I'm curious.



------------------
Fuck, the cooler's empty!

 

[Not George Lucas]

Originally posted by Hitman:
America always gets a bad rap. Why? Because we are the leaders of the world.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

God, you're funny!

America, leader of the world...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[StarsnStripes]

Originally posted by Not George Lucas:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

God, you're funny!

America, leader of the world...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

If not America, then who?


------------------
Sometimes the most powerful thing you can do for someone is to just tell them to fuck off. I am told to fuck off rather a lot by these three gentlemen.