and your point is...

[Lilly]

Informative. Though, that is not what my teacher was referring to. But that's really good to know. Thanks.

------------------
90% lazy. 10% something else.

flibbertigibbet

You're a victim of your parents.

Judoooooooo Chop!

[martha]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
the War on Terrorism

I love how you say this with a straight face.

------------------


She's a little lightheaded, so check on her in a few minutes -- my podiatrist, about me (again), 2-11-02

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by martha:
I love how you say this with a straight face.

I have no idea what you mean by that. But that's okay. Cuz I'd probably disagree, seeing that we disagree on almost everything.

[martha]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:

I have no idea what you mean by that. But that's okay. Cuz I'd probably disagree, seeing that we disagree on almost everything.

I have difficulty swallowing the whole idea that the Taliban is suddenly evil in the eyes of the Bush Administration, when womens' groups have been talking about it for years. We've supported this government for years when we thought it could serve our purposes; now that its true colors have been seen, it supports terrorism! Wow! Whatta surprise!

Anyway, 80s, I thought your use of the phrase "War on Terrorism" was interesting, rather than calling the Afganistan War. The Bush Administration calls it the "War on Terrorism" I think, so it can get away with more illegal suspensions of rights. If they were to say that our phones needed to be tapped to help the war in Afganistan, fewer people would go for it. Now they can say they need my personal information to "help stop terrorism." I don't buy it.


I do ramble.


------------------


She's a little lightheaded, so check on her in a few minutes -- my podiatrist, about me (again), 2-11-02

[erper]

even if it is rambling, you were proving yer point which i totally agree with

[KhanadaRhodes]

so do i

[Lilly]

Time again for another tale from Lilly's sociology class:
starring: Lilly, an informed and intelligent young woman.
Teacher: an uninformed and ignorant but tries to force her crazy beliefs on her students.
Jerry: class idiot. black sheep of everything.

Teacher: Pakistan is a problem to us, right?
Jerry: No, they're our friends.
Lilly: Except no Jerry, they aren't.
Jerry: They let us use their airspace.
Lilly: They hate America, they hate Afghanistan. What's better than facilitating your enemy fighting your other enemy?
Teacher: Pakistan and Afghanistan get along.
Lilly: Uh, no, they don't.
Teacher: Then why do they let us use their airspace?
Lilly: Did you just answer your OWN question? They don't like Pakistan. They don't like America. By letting America use their airspace, they sided with the power that could beat them in a war, AND they sent their enemy in to fight their enemy.
Teacher: Right, so they're our allies.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH US!!!?! So Jerry I could understand, he's a student, he needs to be TAUGHT the goingson in th world. But my teacher!!! Why do I even go to school?! BAHHHH!!!

------------------
*You're very kind. Most people laugh when they see my googly eye.*

flibbertigibbet

You're a victim of your parents.

Judoooooooo Chop!

[This message has been edited by Lilly (edited 02-16-2002).]

[80sU2isBest]

Actually, before the War on Terrorism, Pakistan and Afghanistan were indeed allies. That's why it was so tough on Pakistan, because the two countries had a mutually beneficial relationship (involving drug smuggling of everything). In fact, amny of teh Pakistani people still supported the Taliban whiel teh war was going on. Pakistan was basically strong-armed by the USA to lt us use their airspace and bases (not that I consider that a BAD thing!)

[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 02-16-2002).]

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by martha:
I have difficulty swallowing the whole idea that the Taliban is suddenly evil in the eyes of the Bush Administration, when womens' groups have been talking about it for years. We've supported this government for years when we thought it could serve our purposes; now that its true colors have been seen, it supports terrorism! Wow! Whatta surprise!

Excellent point. I know people I talk to about politics had been trying to draw attention to the appalling treatment of women in Afghanistan ever since the Taliban came to power but it seemed that governments just didn't consider it a priority. Then as soon as there's another reason to attack the Taliban, the issue of Women's rights is suddenly front page news!

Still, I guess I shouldn't be suprised. Look at Iraq - US support right through the Iran-Iraq war, despite Saddam's use of poison gas on his own citizens during that time. The minute Iraq invades Kuwait, the west is suddenly aware of the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, despite the fact that they'd been going on (and were arguably more serious) during the time that support had been given to that country.

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by martha:
I have difficulty swallowing the whole idea that the Taliban is suddenly evil in the eyes of the Bush Administration, when womens' groups have been talking about it for years.

And I find it amusing that some of the loudest protests against the war in Afghanistan, a war that has done nothing but good for Afghan women, have been from leaders of the SAME womens' groups.

But, of course, NOW's primary concern is women - certainly not liberalism.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 02-17-2002).]

[martha]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:

But, of course, NOW's primary concern is women - certainly not liberalism.

Huh? I never know what to think when "liberalism" is spat out like some dirty word to hide behind.

Anyway,
I'm not protesting the war, myself. I kinda wish that the Taliban hadn't been supported with my taxpayer dollars for so long, that's all.

------------------


She's a little lightheaded, so check on her in a few minutes -- my podiatrist, about me (again), 2-11-02

[Achtung Bubba]

It just seems to me that a lot of groups (NOW, NAACP, PETA, etc.) champion liberalism more than what's probably best for the people or causes they represent. Ultimately, that wouldn't be such a problem if there wasn't the additional hypocrisy.

As leaders of womens' groups, many of those who protested and still protest the war SHOULD have at least recognized that the U.S. was taking actions that were finally beneficial to Afghan women. They didn't, and they should be called on it.

[martha]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
finally

And this is the key word, Bubba. What did it take for the men in charge here to finally notice what was going on there?

------------------


She's a little lightheaded, so check on her in a few minutes -- my podiatrist, about me (again), 2-11-02

[TylerDurden]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Pakistan was basically strong-armed by the USA to lt us use their airspace and bases (not that I consider that a BAD thing!)

[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 02-16-2002).]

That, and that Pakistan want the US to at least be closer to them then to India.

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by martha:
Huh? I never know what to think when "liberalism" is spat out like some dirty word to hide behind.

Anyway,
I'm not protesting the war, myself. I kinda wish that the Taliban hadn't been supported with my taxpayer dollars for so long, that's all.

Umm, when did our tax money support the Taliban?

[martha]

I may be wrong, but I believe that the Taliban received some 40 million dollars for the "War on Drugs" sometime last spring. I'll see if I can find some confirmation on this.

------------------


She's a little lightheaded, so check on her in a few minutes -- my podiatrist, about me (again), 2-11-02

[martha]

Here ya go:
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcol...mns/052201.htm

Enjoy the truth.

------------------


She's a little lightheaded, so check on her in a few minutes -- my podiatrist, about me (again), 2-11-02

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by martha:
We've supported this government for years when we thought it could serve our purposes

such is the way of the hegemon. it's inevitable yet unacceptable at the same time.

the only way to avoid is to change MINDSETs and ATTITUDEs about our style of life->we can all talk the talk but what we really need to do is walk the walk.

------------------
don't.

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
It just seems to me that a lot of groups (NOW, NAACP, PETA, etc.) champion liberalism more than what's probably best for the people or causes they represent.

that's a good point. call it absolutism or extremism or whatever, sticking to your ideal against all others is never benefiical in the end-->this is why many NGO's and even governments fail to properly function in my opinion.

------------------
don't.

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by martha:
Here ya go:
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcol...mns/052201.htm
Enjoy the truth.

Now it's time for you to enjoy the truth, Marth:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n1715.a03.html

DID THE WHITE HOUSE GIVE THE TALIBAN $43 MILLION?

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, a little-noticed decision by the Bush administration last May has emerged as a powerful symbol of US fecklessness.

According to commentators of all ideological stripes -- from the Nation's Christopher Hitchens on the left to the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg in the center to the Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly on the right -- the US gave $43 million to Afghanistan's Taliban government as a reward for its efforts to stamp out opium-poppy cultivation. That would have been a shockingly inappropriate gift to a government that had been sanctioned by the United Nations for its refusal to hand over international terrorist Osama bin Laden.

Would have been, that is, if it had really happened. It didn't.

The truth is contained in the transcript of a briefing given by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who on May 17 announced the $43 million grant; it was aimed at alleviating a famine that threatened the lives of four million Afghans. Far from handing the money over to the Taliban, Powell went out of his way to criticize them, and to explain the steps the United States was taking to keep the money out of their hands.

" We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, " Powell said. " We provide our relief to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's ruling factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. "

Powell did say one favorable thing about the Taliban: "We will continue to look for ways to provide more assistance for Afghans, including those farmers who have felt the impact of the ban on poppy cultivation, a decision by the Taliban that we welcome." The bottom line, though, was -- or should have been -- easy enough to comprehend: humanitarian aid for Afghans, yes; money for the Taliban, no. ( On Tuesday, the Taliban reversed themselves, announcing that opium production will resume if the US attacks. ) Most media reports of Powell's announcement got it right. Within days, though, the commentators began making hash of it. Among the first was Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer, who on May 22 criticized the Bush administration for its "recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today." Scheer did not respond to my requests for comment, so I can't be sure where he got his information. But his Web site credits a New York Times article of May 18 that, though accurate, glosses over the matter of who precisely would receive the $43 million. Scheer apparently drew the wrong conclusion.

A computer search for "Taliban" and "$43 million" since September 11 shows that Scheer's error has become accepted wisdom. News organizations from Salon to the Denver Post have all repeated it as proof that the US has been coddling terrorists. Locally, Jay Severin, a talk-show host on WTKK Radio ( 96.9 FM ), has been eviscerating the Bush White House. Asked where he got his information, Severin cited a column by the New York Post's Michelle Malkin. Now, I'll concede that Malkin got it more right than most. She noted that the money was intended to relieve Afghan suffering, but went on to say, "It's money the Taliban don't have to spend feeding their people, buying them medicine or building them houses," thus freeing them to buy "guns and bombs ... missiles and aircraft" and "pilot training and living expenses for bin Laden's followers in the US." But that's a specious argument, given that the Taliban have never shown the slightest inclination to feed, clothe, or otherwise care for the people of Afghanistan.

Eli Lake, who covers the State Department for UPI and who wrote an accurate report about the $43 million grant last May, calls the notion that the White House gave the money to the Taliban as a reward for their anti-drug efforts "just absurd" He notes that one of the Bush administration's first actions upon taking office was to shut down the Taliban's mission in New York, in compliance with UN sanctions.

Lake recalls a conversation he had with Andrew Natsios, the former Massachusetts politico who is now the White House's point man for foreign aid, around the time that the $43 million grant was announced."

He explained that the Bush administration, as a matter of policy, did not want to link needed aid to political considerations, " Lake says -- whether it be in Afghanistan or in other rogue states with starving, suffering populations, such as Sudan and North Korea.

It's too bad, but not surprising, that some elements of the media couldn't get it right. After all, no good deed, as they say, goes unpunished.

Note: After this item was posted, I heard from Brendan Nyhan, of the Web site Spinsanity.org, letting me know that he had reported on Scheer's error last June - and that he, in turn, had picked up on this from the Web site LeftWatch.com, which got the goods on Scheer way back on May 22, the very day his column appeared in the Los Angeles Times. Nyhan's Spinsanity piece can be found at http://www.spinsanity.org/posts/200106-3.html, and that, in turn, includes a link to the original LeftWatch.com report. Obviously I'm going to have to start reading both Web sites more regularly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------