Online debates appear to be biased, extreme, unhelpful...

[E.G. Vandergeld]

A short, loudmouthed, redheaded virus to infect your board! The previous talk of being an 'objector' to the 'war-machine' reminded me of this article. I can think of a few major things he forgot to mention or where his specifics are wonky, but it's nice to read this nonetheless.

This, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing:
************************************
America: The Good Neighbor.

Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a
remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks asprinted in the Congressional Record:

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the
most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.

Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted
out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars
and forgave other billions in debts.  (And a bunch of hard-work on their own - E.V.) None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans
who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the
streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that
hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by
tornadoes. Nobody helped.

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into
discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing
aboutthe decadent, warmongering Americans.

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the
erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any
other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the
Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them?
Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes? (There's Airbus but they stink. -E.V.)

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times - and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the
store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not
pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down
through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other
people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else
raced to the Americans in trouble? (LaFayette? That was some time ago, however. -E.V.) I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned
tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing
with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their
nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

Stand proud, America! Wear it proudly!!"

*********************************
This is one of the best editorials that I have ever read regarding the
United States. It is nice that one person realizes it. I only wish that
the rest of the world would realize it. We are always blamed for
everything, and never even get a thank you for the things we do.

It has become fashionable of late to put down the U.S. even among Americans. I hope, if any good could come out of this war, it's the recognition that the U.S. is one of the best darn countures in the whole wide world!

E.V.

[Abby]

Well you see, Lester,  before the US sunk truckloads of money into Afganistan -- you know, when the dirty stinking commies were in control -- women were granted equal rights. They entered the workforce and were guaranteed an education. It was quite a revolutionary period in the middle east. Then the CIA trained bin Laden to help end it all. He did a great job. The veils and abuse went back into effect.

So I guess since the CIA is pro-Islamic values, I shouldn't stick up for them either.

And Erin: ask a Lebanese person how much they were warmly accepted by Israel.

Also Erin, you might be interested in knowing that Madeleine Albright both admitted and embraced the fact that a half a million children in Iraq died as a result of our sanctions. Her statements were broadcasted all over the middle east -- that a half million dead children was acceptable.

If anyone besides me is still asking "why" instead of "how can we nuke their asses?" the answers are indeed out there. Though I know that "emotionally potent oversimplication" is a whole lot easier than looking for answers.

[E.G. Vandergeld]

FYI: I understand it's from 1974. Hence the draft dodger reference. Neat anyway.

[Erin]

Abby wrote:
>
> Well you see, Lester,  before the US sunk truckloads of
> money into Afganistan -- you know, when the dirty stinking
> commies were in control -- women were granted equal rights.
> They entered the workforce and were guaranteed an education.
> It was quite a revolutionary period in the middle east. Then
> the CIA trained bin Laden to help end it all. He did a great
> job. The veils and abuse went back into effect.

The idea there was to protect a smll, relatively defenseless country's sovereign rights from an invader that that counry hadn't provoked. Maybe it was a mistake; I don't know. I certainly don't think everything the US does is right.

But on a side note: look how Bin Laden has repaid us for our help. Even if he wasn't behind *this* attack (and that's looking less and less likely every day), we know he's been behind other attacks.


> And Erin: ask a Lebanese person how much they were warmly
> accepted by Israel.

Before or after the terorist attacks started? Was the harassment systemic or from individual fanatics? And again, its not as if the Jews don't hav an equally valid ancestral claim to the land.

>
> Also Erin, you might be interested in knowing that Madeleine
> Albright both admitted and embraced the fact that a half a
> million children in Iraq died as a result of our sanctions.
> Her statements were broadcasted all over the middle east --
> that a half million dead children was acceptable.

I never said no civilians were killed, just that we did our best not to kill any more civilians than was necessary. The only way to avoid civilian casualties altogether is to not go to war in the first place. Not that having no wars would be such a bad thing, mind you, but sometimes it's not an option. There are times when there's no "right" thing to do, and the best you can hope for is to choose the lesser of two evils.

If we were as anxious to blast any civilian who crosses our path as the rest of the world likes to believe, then why didn't we bomb Saddam Hussein when he was lining up *his own people* to act as human shields for his own sorry ass?

>
> If anyone besides me is still asking "why" instead of "how
> can we nuke their asses?" the answers are indeed out there.
> Though I know that "emotionally potent oversimplication" is a
> whole lot easier than looking for answers.

I believe the ongoing FBI and CIA investigations are all about asking "who" and "why"? You'll notice we haven't made a single offensive move so far. That's because the investigation isn't finished. Nor do the majority of Americans condone attacking anyone because of their ancestry. Unfortunately, it only takes a few morons to do a lot of damage, but that's not the fault of the rest of us who are getting unfairly lumped in with the lunatics.

[Lester1/2Jr.]

I was always opposed to the sanctions in Cuba as well.  They never accomplish anything except hurting the people.  Not that you should care, Abby, but your arguements don't amount to a hill of beans. You're just naming things that happened in the past, none of which has much to do with the present.  You'd make a good politician.  and it's Mr. 1/2jr. to you.

[Abby]

"You're just naming things that happened in the past, none of which has much to do with the present. "

Whoa. Holy crap. That is quite possibly the most disturbing and thoughtless sentence I've read all week. We are doomed.

Erin, I assume you know that you can't be a citizen of Israel if you're not Jewish. I also assume you know that both the UN and the Red Cross (the same folks we've been giving blood to) have declared that Israel is in violation of human rights in respect to their treatment of the Palestinians ... the same was said of their occupation of Lebanon.

Also, have you ever read this:

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?"

That was uttered by Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding prime minister.

As for the Gulf, George Bush Sr. says the reason we didn't kill Saddam was because that would have left US in charge, which we were not prepared for. HE said that. So we left all the Iraq rebels whom we asked to rise against their leader to fend for themselves, and they were promptly slayed by the army we didn't defeat. If you ask me, that's why he was not re-elected.

[E.G. Vandergeld]

Abby implications that women enjoyed equal rights under the Soviet puppet regime are, I suppose, correct in the sense that women were equally empowered to be ruthlessly butchered by the invading Soviet troopers. They stood shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts as they were burned alive, shot, stabbed, and starved.

I guess women were singled out for special treatment in that they were raped before being murdered by the Soviet bastards and their vile puppet allies. Is this the enlightened regime of which you speak, Abby? The one that murdered tens of thousands of rural Afghans in the '80's? The ones that you trumpet for their equal rights?

'Boatloads' of money? This is an overstatement. We sent them small arms, particularly shoulder-mounted stingers, in the '80s. As for arming the Taliban, I  have heard of no such thing. Perhaps you can reveal your sources.

The assertation that the CIA, that favorite boogeyman of lefty paranoids, is "pro-Islamic values" is just tripe.
 
But the best slice of nonsense is the implication that a million children have died in Iraq because of the sanctions. This is a baldfaced lie. If Albright said it, and I want to see the source of this idiotic quote, then she is a bigger dunce than even I thought possible. The duress that the common people in Iraq face is a direct result of Saddam and Saddam alone. And any children who died, died at Saddam hands.

Nothing angers me more than apologists for Saddam who instead try and put the blame for his murder and insanity on the U.S.

"I know that "emotionally potent oversimplication" is a whole lot easier than looking for answers."

You, Abby, would be Exhibit A of this, except the word "oversimplication" would have to be replaced with "outright daydreaming."

E.V.

[Abby]

Taliban -- Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia By Ahmed Rashid: Gives a great history on the rise of the Taliban, and the wars in Afganistan. Also goes into great detail how the CIA trained and brought together Islamic extremists -- notably bin Laden. The American government has never denied its role in pitting Islamics against Muslims against commies.

It's available at most larger bookstores.

A Female Afgan's Perspective -- Posted Last Week

I cannot find any news feeds detailing the $40-$50 million Bush gave to the Taliban this past May (2001) to "combat drugs," but it did happen. It was mentioned in numerous artucles last week as an afterthought. I don't know about you, but handing even $1 million to an oppressive government constitutes support.

I'll post more links tomorrow. I'm off to watch some Hammer flicks.

[E.G. Vandergeld]

Just for starters...

"The American government has never denied its role in pitting Islamics against Muslims against commies"

Did they have any difficulty telling the Islamics from the Muslims? LOL!

Why should America not support a group combating invading commies like we did in the '80s in Afghanistan.

"I cannot find any news feeds detailing the $40-$50 million Bush gave to the Taliban this past May (2001) to "combat drugs," but it did happen."

I can't find any articles detailing the martians that  landed in my backyard last night. But it happened. Seriously, if it happened in May, what budget was it under, last year's or this year's? I'll need to read more.

The "Female Afghan's Perspective" is interesting. I like the "thousands of schools" the CIA set up. That's a lot of schools. And to think the CIA specifically set them up to teach religion.

Frankly, I don't believe this. They'll have to do better.

Outside of that, I think this RAWA site makes me support military involvement EVEN MORE. Apparently, this group of heroic women stand up to the loathsome Taliban. Here they (correctly) plea for the US to consider carefully who they retaliate against. I suspect we will. I think the target is clear: the Taliban. Did you read the whole RAWA site? Their first leader was murdered by KGB-backed thugs. Don't you feel the opponents of those thugs should have been supported at the time? I do. And the CIA thought so too. God bless 'em.

(An aside: here's one of the greatest problems I see in debates on the internet: the urge to post half-baked, unverfified blather and claim it's TRUTH. I see it everywhere. People latch on to any old thing they find on the internet that supports their shady arguments.)

Bottom line: idiotic foreign aid is a hallmark of American foreign policy. It's been going on for 100 years. The Americans who invaded Russia in 1918 found themselves being shot at by Reds with American rifles. I'm against much of it. But it does have its uses. Leverage, for example, as we are seeing now with Pakistan.

"I'll post more links tomorrow."

I look forward to it. This is too easy. While you're at it, post some links that show the Kurds Saddam gassed. Or maybe a montage of the murdered Afghans the Soviets slew--Soviets that the U.S., apparently unjustly in your eyes, fought by arming the native Muslims to defend themselves. Oh, don't forget, I'd like to read about the million children the sanctions have apparently killed.

"I'm off to watch some Hammer flicks."

I'm off for a midnight ride under the stars!

Eva

[Abby]

Pardon me: "RADICAL Islamics against muslims against commies."

My bad. But that IS what happened.

$43 Million To The Taliban in 2001

It's all I can find at the moment. Newsfeeds expire rather quickly though. I'll snuff out the BBC tomorrow.

About US-Funded Afgan "Schools"

Laugh it up.

I'll one-up you on the Kurds ... just not tonight.

Back to Saddam for a moment: I mentioned Madeline's remarks because, like the dancing Palestinians from last Tuesday, they were broadcasted over and OVER again in the middle east. While some might see it as a leftist agenda, the Arab world saw it as something much more.

Lesley Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?" Madeline Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

[Eva]

Got time for only one counterpunch this morning, but it's a doozy:

"$43 Million To The Taliban in 2001! It's all I can find at the moment. Newsfeeds expire rather quickly though. I'll snuff out the BBC tomorrow."

Don't bother. You didn't dig enough. This whole "story" is bosh.  I wish you've had looked closer, maybe you would come across a factual news source instead of taking the third-hand word of "womensenews." The Taliban did not get one penny of this money.  As a matter of fact most of it was not money.  To be specific,  it's $28 million worth of wheat, $5 million worth of other food, and $10 millionin "livelihood and food security" programs. The aid was administered and distributed by the UN, bypassing the Taliban government. I'm shocked that, so long after proof was presented that this article was BS, people still think it's news.  Really. It's sad how much people on the internet are so eager to believe something so scandalous because a feminist version of the Maoist Sojoiner lied about it, yet they continue to either ignore or not bother to seek out a multitude of legitimate news sources that would give the truth. The story that the Bush
administration gave money to the Taliban simply is not true. Here are some actual NEWS sources that discuss this aid factually and in
the proper context:

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010518/world/04afghanistan.shtml
http://english.sohu.com/20010518/file/0887,244,100016.html
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200105/18/eng20010518_70346.html
http://asia.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/

Please note that this from a variety of news sources from all over the
world, none of which (for example the Communist Chinese People's Daily)
have any interest in making Bush look good.

Oh and by the way this aid was not just supported by the Bush
administration, but also by the Foundation for a Feminist Majority:

http://capwiz.com/fmf1/issues/alert/?alertid=18374

Why would these people support it?  Because it's NOT money for the
Taliban.  It's emergency food aid for starving refugees in Afghanistan.
It's aid for the VICTIMS of the Taliban, not for the Taliban dammit! And
it has nothing to do with the drug war.

Eva

[Chadzilla]

Something of interest to those debating American-Israel relations, peace agreements, accords, etc.

http://english.hk.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/world/afp/article.html?s=hke/headlines/010917/world/afp/US_push_for_terror_coalition_sparks_rift_with_Israel.html


I now return to the Swiss Sidelines and being quite neutral.

Thank you and God bless (even those atheists out there).

[Flangepart]

This has to be the longest post response i've ever seen! Corse, after 9/11/01, what else could have fired us up so much? Man....hope no one goes postal. Figurativly, i mean.......

[Lester1/2Jr.]

You really have to learn to communicate more directly.  Your  passive agressive insults bounce off me.  I 'm guessing you're a little older than me.  in your time, knee jerk liberalism was considered a sign of intelligence.  Come to where I live Boston, you can buy an authentic looking poncho and live in Cambridge, listen to peter gabriel and study tai chi in a half assed manner.   I can see you in WWII " Oh what if our bombs miss Hitler and hit innocent brownshirts." "I f I was German, I might resent America as well"

[Abby]

Sorry I dropped out of this -- I, uh, hand my hands full on other fronts.

To Eva: I found this sa day or two after I posted:

http://www.spinsanity.org/

It rails on LA Times columnist Robert Scheer for birthing the false Taliban info. It has a few links to other sources who misquoted the deal as well. I believe the quotation I saw came from Salon, a source I don't usually trust, but had been turning to since the attacks. While I feel like a tool for believing everything I read in this case, I'm also greatly relieved to know we aren't financing the Taliban. That bit really ate at me when all of this first went down.

Though even the conservatives have been complaining about the aid, as linked from spinsanity:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20010914.shtml

To Lester: you'd do well to NOT pigeonhole me as a liberal. Or as a pacifist. I don't know tai-chi, nor do I own a Peter Gabriel CD. I do smoke and own a gun, though.

Right now, we (the US) haven't done anything brash, for which I am thankful. Bush has calmed down on the raging war talk, and we seem as if we are strategizing our attacks. As I stated, my main concern is twofold -- I don't want to see an "all-hell" attack that ends up hurting more of those who don't support extremist than it hurts the guilty parties, nor do I want us to create a new generation of terrorists from our actions. The other side is that I don't want us to approach foreign policy from a 'business as usual' stance. I want someone to yell to Sharon and Arafat, "OK you two: down to the principal's office NOW!!!" If that's "bleeding heart," so be it. To me, avoiding the foreign policy issue fails to address what motivated these attacks.

Never did get around to watching that Hammer flick -- my boyfriend and I ended up talking about the attacks instead.