The Taliban

[Kaylara]

Taleban A Monument to Western Folly
by Rosie DiManno DON'T BOTHER crying over limestone Buddha statues if you've no tears for living - and dying - Afghan children.
It must say something about us, both in the West and in Islamic Arab nations, that more outrage has been expressed over the demolition of two monolithic monuments - which only students of antiquity had heard of a fortnight ago - than 2 million Afghans on the verge of starvation.
It's indeed hideous that the one-eyed Mullah Mohammed Omar, spiritual leader of the ultra-orthodox version of Islam at the heart of the ruling Taleban movement, issued the obliteration order against the historic twin Buddhas, carved from an isolated mountainside 1,500 years ago. The Buddhas were doing no harm and had few worshippers in a country where Buddhism died out a millennium ago. Even if Afghanistan were a nation that encouraged tourism, it's doubtful whether many would make the arduous journey to Bamiyan at the southwestern juncture of the nearly untraversable Hindu Kush.
What public indignation exists towards the Taleban, particularly in the sophisticated West, has been aimed - and with good reason, I don't disagree - at the theocracy's crushing decrees against its own population, specifically the denial of basic human rights to females. This is a country which, since the Taleban seized power by overrunning the capital Kabul in 1996, has forced women into a rigid form of house arrest. Females must wear the traditional burqah, the head-to-toe blue (not black) covering that hides even their eyes, whenever they step outside their homes, which they can do only in the company of male family members, a husband or a brother. Girls may not attend school, although a recent loosening of the law has permitted, or at least tolerated, girl-children attending privately run classrooms. But even boys receive an education that teaches them little beyond the recitation of the Koran and other approved Islamic texts. Women may not hold jobs, except for female doctors working in all-female hospital wings. Not that the career prospects are all that much better for male doctors, who earn about $4.50 a month working under appalling conditions in government-run hospitals.
The Taleban does not allow photographs of any human image, which they consider sinful by their reading of the Koran, just as they forbid all graven images of artwork - the basis upon which the Bamiyan Buddhas were ordered dynamited. Everyone must pray five times a day - a customary practice for Muslims, except in Afghanistan those found to be neglecting their religious duties are flayed on the spot by the roving ``soldier-monks'' of the Taleban. Music is forbidden. TV is forbidden. Videotapes and cassettes are forbidden. Only the proscription against kite-flying - an expertise elevated to an artform in Afghanistan - has been quietly dropped by the government, which is now also allowing its citizens to keep pet birds, another avid pursuit of Afghans.
What's happened is that Afghanistan's educated class, or at least those who can afford the $20,000 to $25,000 required for forged documents and exit papers, have fled their homeland. But what must be remembered by those of us in the West who can't even imagine such a strict existence is this: For the majority of Afghans, having come through two decades of horrendous civil war and Russian occupation verging on genocide, the Taleban's edicts are not so insupportable. What the Taleban gave Afghans was a measure of peace and security that many had never before known, so decimated had this country become by violence and inter-tribal warfare.
And the only reason the Taleban was able to assume power is because the West permitted it.
It was the West, specifically the United States, that propelled the Taleban to ascendancy in the first place. Only a decade ago, the U.S. funnelled arms and military expertise to the mujahideen guerrillas because it was strategically imperative to thwart Russian imperialism and Moscow's lust for the rugged jewel that is Afghanistan, with all its economic riches and its geographic situation in the heart of Central Asia.
The mujahideen, in rather spectacular fashion, pushed the Russians back over the border. When the Russians turned tail, the Americans lost their keen interest in Afghanistan and the glorious mujahideen fell into a decade of factional, tribal and ethnic warfare, Sunni versus Shiite, fundamentalist versus secular. Now the most fierce of all the mujahideen military commanders, Ahmad Shah Massoud, is isolated in a small corner of Afghanistan while the Taleban, enjoying the endless military and political succour of Pakistan, controls 90 per cent of the country and official recognition from only two other nations.
The Americans, who had encouraged Islamic militancy when it meant thwarting Russia, allowed Pakistan to take the lead of political influence in Afghanistan. Strategically, the U.S. is more preoccupied with bringing oil out of neighbouring Turkmenistan via a pipeline that would go through Afghanistan and Pakistan, but at all costs not Iran. Meanwhile, the Taleban - which cannot feed its own people - reaps the stupendous profit from its newfound distinction as the world's largest producer and exporter of opium poppies and heroin.
For those of us who love Afghanistan - a magnificent nation that gets in your blood, with a proud people whose likes may never be seen again - there is an abiding faith that the country will endure and survive the ravages of the Taleban, if merely by its sheer obstinacy, just as it has always endured and survived - on its own. Politically, the Taleban will go into eclipse, eventually. There are many who believe if foreign aid was shut off, the Taleban would be ousted from power by an enraged citizenry, most of whom practise a form of Islam that takes its lifeblood from tribal and regional cultural affiliations.
But three consecutive years of devastating drought have left the Afghan citizenry weak and dying. Hundreds of thousands are starving and freezing in camps. Foreign aid is a slim lifeline, but all they've got. I've no idea what's to be done, except that the West, the U.S., should hold itself accountable for what it has wrought.
By comparison, why all the wailing about two stone Buddhas reduced to rubble?
Copyright 1996-2001. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
From: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0316-01.htm

Kaylara

[bluecat]

Are we going to see the rise of our own version of the Taliban in his country? It appears that the Right Wing and the Fundies are happily in bed with each other and big business.

Hail to the Thief!

[Dextra]

Originally posted by bluecat
Are we going to see the rise of our own version of the Taliban in his country? It appears that the Right Wing and the Fundies are happily in bed with each other and big business.

Hail to the Thief!

AMEN!

If that good ol' boy that's occupying the White House had it his way, this country would be a Christian country exclusively. If I'm not mistaken, isn't religious oppresion part of the reason why so many settlers fled England to come here in the first place?! I think all that cocaine went to Dumbya's head! :bad:

[Earth Walker]

Patriarchy won't go easy. :rolleyes: :mad:



If the answer isn't violence,
then neither is your silence. :cool:

[Ayla]

Thanks for posting this Kaylara, I'm going to send it to other friends of mine for discussion. The Taliban is, shall we say, an interest of mine, and I don't mean the "happy hobbies" kind of interest, if you know what I'm saying... Anything I can do, to ensure their swift dispatch to the annals of history, will be done...

Love & Hugs,
http://ayla.brinkster.net/ayla/images/signatureT.gif

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Kaylara
But three consecutive years of devastating drought have left the Afghan citizenry weak and dying. Hundreds of thousands are starving and freezing in camps. Foreign aid is a slim lifeline, but all they've got. I've no idea what's to be done, except that the West, the U.S., should hold itself accountable for what it has wrought.
By comparison, why all the wailing about two stone Buddhas reduced to rubble?
Copyright 1996-2001. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
From: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0316-01.htm

Kaylara


Kaylara, the US gave military aid to a group that was coherent and able to push the Russians out--and why no harsh words for the Russians? Once that was done, we had no further mandate, if you will. It is disturbing to see that 'we' should have done something. Setting up a government that 'we' feel is correct and meddling in the internal affairs of other countries is exactly what gets the US in trouble. We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. By your own post, it seems that PAKISTAN is the country on which pressure should be brought to bear, since that's the one who is propping up the Taliban, along with other countries in the region, particularly the Muslim countries since I've heard that the Taliban's interpretation of Islam is considered incorrect. Can you imagine the outcry AGAINST the US if we interfered with that? The Great Satan all over again.......

By the way, here's a site concerned with Afghan women......

http://www.rawa.org


Regards,

Maggie

[Kaylara]

Maggie~
I have been a member of Amnesty International for years now, and understand what is going on in Afghanistan. I do not agree at all with what is going on there. The US government also put Fidel Castro power in Cuba, and then put an embargo against them after he didn't do what he asked them. (We even tried to assassinate him.)
The US government has a less than wonderful reputation with foreign affairs. We ignore the atrocities that the Chinese government commits against their people because we want the money that China gives us.

I think that the US government needs to practice what they preach. In this country we need to make some social changes that would send a message to the government that this BS will not stand.
Along the same line of thought though, I think that we should help those who need it, and who want it. The women in Afghanistan had more freedom than they had ever had up until this group got into power. Now the men have the power of life and death over the women in their country. This has to stop, no one should have to live like that, and I am sure that many of the women there do not agree with what is going on, but cannot speak out because they would be killed or seriously harmed. I think that the point of this article was to show that there has been no real outcry against the other things that have been going on in those muslim countries, but when they want to destroy a few statues all hell breaks loose.

Just my take on things.

Kaylara

[Wyrdsister]

Thanks so much for posting this. When I first saw the topic, I was afraid that it might be that petition thing that's been going around for years (in which all the details are accurate, but the email address is non-existant). But again thank you for this Kaylara.

Mystique: May Patriarchy Fall. :smash: ;)

Wyrdsister

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Kaylara
Maggie~
I have been a member of Amnesty International for years now, and understand what is going on in Afghanistan. I do not agree at all with what is going on there. The US government also put Fidel Castro power in Cuba, and then put an embargo against them after he didn't do what he asked them. (We even tried to assassinate him.)
The US government has a less than wonderful reputation with foreign affairs. We ignore the atrocities that the Chinese government commits against their people because we want the money that China gives us.

Just my take on things.

Kaylara

Kaylara, I think you mentioned in another post that you were 19. You sound like an eminently clear headed, responsible person. HOWEVER, this does make a difference in how we *view* this topic, BIG difference, simply because of the number of years each of us has been around. I am nearly 49 years old; this means that I have lived through the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War and its aftermath, the Reagan Years, Desert Storm, etc etc etc. All of those things began with the US trying to live the ideals this country espouses. Even Castro was helped because Batista was so bad--that was an effort to change things for the better! AND the embargo situation is a little more complicated than 'he didn't do what we asked'........and frankly, I didn't care for the missles being so close either--no one likes *ours* close to them, why should we be any happier about that situation? It's left me pretty cynical about everybody demanding the US 'do something'......

I've noticed that many groups like Amnesty International do keep track of human rights violations, but they are pretty short on what to do about them. These days I'm more impressed by practical action than I am by rhetoric. Assasination is one tactic (ask the KGB, they have more practice)--do you think anything less would work on the leaders of the Taliban? Whether I approve or not is immaterial, the Taliban is as much about power as it is about religion and/or self determination, and human beings hold on to power very tightly indeed. What you are espousing is pretty much what a whole lot of people now call "The US Acting as the World's Policeman." Guess what? These days that is considered A Bad Thing. And, there is a great deal of disagreement about trading with countries that violate human rights. I've heard about as many Amnesty International types stating that we shouldn't isolate these countries because then we won't have a way to influence them as I have heard the same types aguing against any trade with them. And trade sanctions sometimes simply give those in power a scapegoat and let them avoid the blame. Check out the sweet deal Saddam has going.....

And yes, perhaps we should help those who need it, and want it. BUT--then again, who decides who needs it and who wants it, or more importantly, how to give it? As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to run a UN peacekeepers force around Northern Ireland, and then station a squad on every corner until they all stop shooting/bombing each other, and send a contingent from every UN country into the Balkans the same way so that the ordinary people who have no say can get on with their lives. Would this solve anything? No, because the people who are doing the fighting don't want to stop yet. North Korea was left alone, the Korean government ran the country into the ground, and only asked for (limited) help when the whole population nearly starved to death. Should the US have gone in forcibly with aid on behalf of those who had no control? That's what several nations (not just us) did in Somalia--those not involved in the fighting did need and want aid, those in power used food as a weapon, and look what happened when allied forces took aid in. The US has learned the very hard way that we cannot simply go in and make people in other countries behave the way we want them to--we don't have that right, no matter what we think of what they are doing. We can help (when asked), we lead by example, we can try to persuade (and there is NO agreement on what tools to use to persuade), we can refuse to deal.....but we can't force anyone to do things our way. Trying to do so because of good intentions (remember where they lead?) is why we have such a reputation for being arrogant--and when you come right down to it, what else would you call it? Additionally, there are other countries in this world who do have a lot of ideals in common with us AND the means to act. From MY aged perspective it's really popular to condem the US for not 'doing something' while they sit back safely out of range. Why no outcry for others to help too--like Pakistan? They might be even more effective, since there is such a backlash against the US these days......


Regards,

Maggie

[Kaylara]

Maggie~
Let me just say that I didn't write that article, and posted it because I thought that some people might be interested in it. I never said if I supported it or not until prompted. We see things a bit differently, I know that helps people who need it, and does take action. Just sitting back and letting it happen does nothing.

Kaylara

I'll write more when I have the time as I am at work right now.

[Cadarn]

Maggie

perhaps its an age ( I'm 42) thing but I aggree with every word you have said

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Cadarn
Maggie

perhaps its an age ( I'm 42) thing but I aggree with every word you have said

<gurgle> I'm quite sure some of the difference in viewpoint is because of age--not necessarily wisdom--;) but if a person sticks around long enough it feels like the same things happen again! :D

Regards,

Maggie

[BrightStar]

Hi all!
Cool article.Very interesting.
I'm a 40 year old member of Amnesty International.
I think US foreign policy is pretty atrocious.We backed the Taliban,now we don't like them.We backed Castro,then pulled out when he tried to give land to peasants instead of US Fruit.So he became Communist to spit in our eye.Russia put missiles there to counter US missiles on their border with Turkey.We moved ours,they moved theirs.In 1953 we overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatamala because the President there took land from US Fruit and gave it to peasants,helping start a Central American Civil War that's still not totally over.It later spread to Honduras,El Salvador,and Nicaragua.To back our side in these Civil wars we allowed planes to land in Panama,dump the arms and then fill up the planes with drugs to sell in the US to raise money for the "contras"in Nicaragua.Then when we got mad at Noriega,we used that former partnership to paint him as a drug baron and kidnapped the leader of another country.In Iran in the early 1950s we overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because the Prime Minister was throwing out foreign oil companies so Iran would have control over its own resources.We called them commies and put in the Shah who instituted a dictatorship,suppressed personal freedoms,but let US oil stick around.We're still living with that backlash.In 1972 we overthrew the democratically elected Communist President Allende in Chile and look what our buddy Pinochet did to the place.Lots of human rights violations.I thought we were doing slightly better with Clinton,but the old cold warriors are back with the Shrub.So we can expect more trouble as we bully the world.It just seems our foreign policy is mostly based on money.
Now,that being said.It would have been nice of the Taliban to let foreigners purchase these statues,not just the Buddhas but the thousands of other antique statues that were destroyed.
Peace and Love
Rain BrightStar

[Maggie]

Originally posted by BrightStar
Hi all!
Cool article.Very interesting.
I'm a 40 year old member of Amnesty International.
I think US foreign policy is pretty atrocious.We backed the Taliban,now we don't like them.
Peace and Love
Rain BrightStar

Kaylara is also a member of AI--and she thinks we SHOULD 'do something'. And so?

Sure we backed the Taliban--back then they were the brave freedom fighters who hadn't shown their true colors. They started all the 'reforms' AFTER they were firmly in power. Think we should have gone back in and removed THEM from power?

All the history you cited has another side...........

Regards,

Maggie

[BrightStar]

Hi all!
Actually,my point is that when we back criminals we shouldn't expect much in return.Instead of backing terrorists we should have been pushing for democratic reforms.We just assumed since they were "our" criminals/terrorists/freedom fighters they would work for US interests when they attained power.We failed to look at the basic ideological underpinnings of these groups.As long as they opposed Russia we gave them arms.We shouldn't be in any of these countries removing people from power.We should work on the peacekeeping forces that work to stop things like ethnic cleansing in places such as the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda/Burundi.I really don't see the other side of the Guatemalan andChilean interventions/assassinations,or the reinstatement of the Shah in Iran.These were just foreign policy mistakes based on the Almighty Dollar.The CIA creating coups by a moneyed minority that is pliable,owned by the USA.These people don't help their people,they just line their own pockets.
What we can do,as our former President Carter has shown time and again, is provide ways for people to sit down,look at one another and talk.When people of the differing groups spend time together they begin to see that the other side is just people,as they are.They see the other side is not Satan or Hitler but just people.When this happens,dialogue can begin.Our foreign policy should be about trying to promote peace by encouraging dialogue.One of the things that impressed me about Clinton was that he finally got the Ulster Unionists(Protestants)to sit at the same table with Sinn Fein.Up until then the voice of Catholic Northern Ireland had not been allowed at the negotiating table.Carter brings lower level public officials from different sides of a conflict to live together and work together here,away from the conflict,so they are more able to see each other as human beings.These people move up aqnd dialogue begins.This is something we will not see from Shrub and the boys.
Treating people as pariahs only hardens their resolve,as we have recently seen with the Taliban.
Peace and Love
Rain BrightStar

[gunner]

i'm a bit further along than you maggie, 64, and i've seen the same and more, even helped to make some of that history and i have to agree with you. nor do i think its up to us to play "policeman to the world" a role i saw the late unlamented sax fiend trying to fill, i'd suggest our best move would be to pull our troops out of the balkans and so on and let the europeans try to settle their own quarrels for a change. that's a bit somplistic i suppose but it would make a good starting point. just one tired old soldier's thought.

[Maggie]

Originally posted by BrightStar
.We failed to look at the basic ideological underpinnings of these groups.As long as they opposed Russia we gave them arms.We shouldn't be in any of these countries removing people from power.We should work on the peacekeeping forces that work to stop things like ethnic cleansing in places such as the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda/Burundi.I really don't see the other side of the Guatemalan andChilean interventions/assassinations,or the reinstatement of the Shah in Iran.These were just foreign policy mistakes based on the Almighty Dollar.The CIA creating coups by a moneyed minority that is pliable,owned by the USA.These people don't help their people,they just line their own pockets.
What we can do,as our former President Carter has shown time and again, is provide ways for people to sit down,look at one another and talk.When people of the differing groups spend time together they begin to see that the other side is just people,as they are.They see the other side is not Satan or Hitler but just people.When this happens,dialogue can begin.Our foreign policy should be about trying to promote peace by encouraging dialogue.One of the things that impressed me about Clinton was that he finally got the Ulster Unionists(Protestants)to sit at the same table with Sinn Fein.Up until then the voice of Catholic Northern Ireland had not been allowed at the negotiating table.Carter brings lower level public officials from different sides of a conflict to live together and work together here,away from the conflict,so they are more able to see each other as human beings.These people move up aqnd dialogue begins.This is something we will not see from Shrub and the boys.
Treating people as pariahs only hardens their resolve,as we have recently seen with the Taliban.
Peace and Love
Rain BrightStar


Pretty much ALL foreign policy by everyone is about the dollar--or as it's dressed up, national interests. Even going really far back, the French king helped the rebel colonies NOT because the king believed in the ideals of the colonies but because helping the colonies would piss off the the English king and reduce the English holdings vis a vis the French holdings.

Providing a neutral place to talk for warring parties READY to talk is a pretty good face-saving function. Carter and Reagan and Clinton have all provided the same function for warring parties in the Middle East, didn't work for them. It's too early to assume that Bush cannot do the same thing...when he took office in Texas the Dems and Repubs were having literal fist fights on the Capitol steps and now they work together. Forget world peace for the moment, I'll be happy if he can do the same thing for the fed government.

Regards,

Maggie

[Maggie]

Originally posted by gunner
i'm a bit further along than you maggie, 64, and i've seen the same and more, even helped to make some of that history and i have to agree with you. nor do i think its up to us to play "policeman to the world" a role i saw the late unlamented sax fiend trying to fill, i'd suggest our best move would be to pull our troops out of the balkans and so on and let the europeans try to settle their own quarrels for a change. that's a bit somplistic i suppose but it would make a good starting point. just one tired old soldier's thought.

<giggle> Ya wanna know my favorite fantasy at the moment? That the US goes to absolute isolationism for oh, say five years? Pulls out of Norad, Nato, Seato, and all those other letters, everything. AND the UN is relocated to Jerusalem, my runner ups are Baghdad and Sarajevo. When the Balkan mess started, we did ask if they wanted help and got a sniffy no this is a EU matter and the EU will take care of it. Huh.

There was and still is quite a few military sprinkled around my family, and if we've signed this internationl war crimes thing, I want ALL of our military home. I don't trust it to be used as intended, it's too good a thing to be used as a political tool against the US.

Regards,

Maggie

[Maggie]

Originally posted by BrightStar
Hi all!
We backed Castro,then pulled out when he tried to give land to peasants instead of US Fruit.Rain BrightStar

Another thought---Castro nationalized the holdings of US Fruit without compensation, and the land didn't end up in the peasants hands, it became collective farms. If nationalization without compensation is acceptable, then why not do it here and give the money to poor Americans? It also puts a chill on US investments in other countries, which argues against those who think we shouldn't isolate countries we disagree with.

And I've never understood the sympathy for Castro. He is power mad, the same way Saddam is, he doesn't care about the people of Cuba. According to Human Rights Watch he runs a 'highly effective machinery of repression". Freedom House rates Cuba as slightly more repressive than China. If anything, I would think that members of Amnesty International would be castigating the US for not doing something, instead of for criticizing Castro.

Regards,

Maggie

[BrightStar]

Hi all!
I'm trying to give a point of view of our foreign policy that isn't based on a US world view.And doing rather poorly I guess.
Many people in Latin American view Castro as a George washington type hero.He stood up against the Norte Americanos and kept his country free of their influence,so to some,he's a great patriot.
The Taliban is an extension of the same thing.It's a huge backlash against European imperialism.Some of this was Russian Communist Imperialism,and some was Western capitalist imperialism,each which belittled their religious ideals.By arming the more radical elements of Afghanistan,we helped create the problems there today.By yelling at them for following their beliefs,we sometimes entrench the more radical groups.It becomes an us against the world mentality.
On US Fruit's influence on US foreign policy during the 1950s and earlier.During the Eisenhower administration he had the Dulles brothers as his Secretary of State and his head of the CIA.Both of these men were on the Board of Directors of US Fruit.Ike's personal secretary was married to the President of US Fruit at the time.They hired more people from US Fruit until it had a huge amount of influence.So decisions were based on the influence of this company.Many of these same people served Nixon,Reagan,Bush,and now work for the Shrub.
Did these countries try to nationalize land without paying US Fruit?You betcha!During the administration of Teddy Roosevelt almost every country in Central and South America was overthrown.Puppet dictators were installed who were friendly to US companies.As a result,in places like Guatemala for example,US Fruit was able to obtain agreements where it gained ownership of 80% of the land.Many people in these countries feel this land was stolen and don't wish to pay the greedy capitalists for what they feel is their land in their country.
I don't think Reagan encouraged dialogue between opposing sides in world conflicts.He very much saw life in a Christian way.Us v them.Black and White.Right v wrong.Many of these problems have so many shades of grey.He'd say one side was evil terrorists and the others were lily white freedom fighters.Shrub seems very similar.
I don't think isolationism is a good idea.The world is too small today.
I do a lot of work with indigenous groups throughout the world,including the US.A lot of times,our government seems to have created the problems faced by these people.So I apologize for my anti-american sentiments.I just get really angry at our government in this area.I hope I didn't veer too far off topic.
Am I making any sense?I do apologize if I've offended anyone.
Peace and love
Rain BrightStar

[Maggie]

Originally posted by BrightStar
Hi all!
I'm trying to give a point of view of our foreign policy that isn't based on a US world view.And doing rather poorly I guess.
Many people in Latin American view Castro as a George washington type hero.He stood up against the Norte Americanos and kept his country free of their influence,so to some,he's a great patriot.
The Taliban is an extension of the same thing.It's a huge backlash against European imperialism.Some of this was Russian Communist Imperialism,and some was Western capitalist imperialism,each which belittled their religious ideals.By arming the more radical elements of Afghanistan,we helped create the problems there today.By yelling at them for following their beliefs,we sometimes entrench the more radical groups.It becomes an us against the world mentality.
On US Fruit's influence on US foreign policy during the 1950s and earlier.During the Eisenhower administration he had the Dulles brothers as his Secretary of State and his head of the CIA.Both of these men were on the Board of Directors of US Fruit.Ike's personal secretary was married to the President of US Fruit at the time.They hired more people from US Fruit until it had a huge amount of influence.So decisions were based on the influence of this company.Many of these same people served Nixon,Reagan,Bush,and now work for the Shrub.
Did these countries try to nationalize land without paying US Fruit?You betcha!During the administration of Teddy Roosevelt almost every country in Central and South America was overthrown.Puppet dictators were installed who were friendly to US companies.As a result,in places like Guatemala for example,US Fruit was able to obtain agreements where it gained ownership of 80% of the land.Many people in these countries feel this land was stolen and don't wish to pay the greedy capitalists for what they feel is their land in their country.
I don't think Reagan encouraged dialogue between opposing sides in world conflicts.He very much saw life in a Christian way.Us v them.Black and White.Right v wrong.Many of these problems have so many shades of grey.He'd say one side was evil terrorists and the others were lily white freedom fighters.Shrub seems very similar.
I don't think isolationism is a good idea.The world is too small today.
Am I making any sense?I do apologize if I've offended anyone.
Peace and love
Rain BrightStar

It isn't so much offense as irritation, I tend to watch behaviour rather than labels--and foreign views are not automatically better or less biased than ours *just* because they're foreign--I've been overseas lots of times AND read local papers. They are just as prone to self-serving rationalizations and national rationizations as ours are--as I said, HUMAN behaviour. And at this point I'm really, really, tired of the US as Great Satan POV, too much of what we've been involved in has been started by the past colonial powers, and we've taken the heat for the results. And, groups have been calling for the US to do something, with no agreement on what to do, so that no matter what happens, somebody objects vociferously. *Most* of our involvement has been to try and help and people being people, it usually doesn't do a damn thing unless those causing the problem want to stop.

I disagree on the Taliban. At the time, they were the one coherent group who was resisting the Russians, and we aided them just as popular opinion demanded. AFTER they won they showed their true colors, and it's not a reaction to western anything, but a building of a religious theocracy. In the last two days I've read in the Washington Post how those in power are now turning their agression on remnants of Islamic sects within their own country--it appears that it's their way or the highway, or actually the grave. They have openly declared that their intended goal is to build a Koran based, pure Islamic society (their version)--and they're going to eliminate anyone who stands in their way.

Certainly the industry was involved in foreign policy. MY POINT is that it's not an *American* trait, but an international one. You know what started the mess in the Middle East--in this century at least? British Petroleum, and the Brits simply added more problems as they went along. Now all of a sudden it's OUR responsibility even though we had nothing to do with the situation until after the Brits pulled out.........Until this century western imperialism in South and Central America meant colonies belonging to Spain, Britain, The Netherlands, France, Portegual.......the very same countries now shaking fingers at us as we try to cope with their messes along with our own. We're pikers compared to the European countries (while we shouldn't have Hawaii that's been about the only colony we have--and before you say capitalism, just about all colonies, including the US itself were founded for the mother country to rip off resources).

Nationalization sounds good--except in practice the profits and land go to those in power. Simon Bolivar would be a far better George Washington than Fidel Castro. Do you really believe that any of those in power actually gave the land to the peasants? What happened in practice is that the peasants still got shafted, just look at what happened in Cuba and Mexico and the other countries. Mexico has just had to cope with a peasant uprising in the last couple of years in one of its provinces for just that reason--the rich landowners kept the land, the only difference was that the landowners were upper class Mexican instead of North American. Turning the blame on outsiders (like Norte Americanos) is a time-honoured method of turning the heat away from themselves--by now Castro has it down to a fine art. AND for those who advocate trade with countries that we want to influence it's a bad practice--why should US businesses sign contracts with another power that might not be honored without warning at any time? A negotiated withdrawal would have been better, but in the end once the foreign investments were gone, what happened was the responsibilty of that government.

And that's where I'm arguing from. The US may meddle, it may buy, it may influence, but ultimately what happens in each country is the responsibility of the leaders and people in each country. It is both arrogant and patronizing to argue otherwise--who are we to decide what's good for them and to thereby remove their own self-determination and responsibilty for same? Blaming the problem on the US, a variant of 'the Devil made me do it', is a cop out that gets the leaders of a country off the hook and turns attention away from their failures. You are absolutely right in saying that these problems are shades of gray rather than black and white, but blaming the US all the time for everything IS reducing them to black and white and removing responsibility from those in power in foreign countries. And you're also right in what happens when a group is yelled at all the time for following their beliefs--I do have the beginnings of an us vs the world belief right now, it's why I fantasize wistfully about total isolationism. Why isn't it a good idea? Judging from a lot of the rhetoric these days, the US SHOULD bow out of world affairs........what do *you* envision as the correct course of action for the US to take?

Regards,

Maggie

[Dextra]

Y'know, all this discussion about whether the US should take some kind of responsibility for the Taliban or other foreign matters reminds me of something.....

A comedian by the name of Bill Hicks (rest his soul) once said:

"I got asked the other day, 'Are you proud to be an American?' And I said, 'Well, I don't know.... my parents f***ed here, that's about it.'"

I'm starting to agree with that statement more and more everyday. I don't know what should be done about the Taliban. I don't know whether the US should go over there and do something about it. I feel for those who are being oppressed and in pain. But, and this is just my opinion, I feel that the US goverment should concentrate more on the problems here at home. When we have a low crime rate, and when there are less homeless people on the streets, when we can honestly and truly claim to be the best country in the world, and it really be the truth, then we can go around and help out everyone else. But only when we become the utopia that our government wants us to believe we have. And you know what? It's never gonna happen. This country is WAY too screwed up, and it's going to take way too long for that to ever happen. Especially when we keep electing shrubbery to run it. There's my 2 cents.

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Dextra
Y'know, all this discussion about whether the US should take some kind of responsibility for the Taliban or other foreign matters reminds me of something.....

A comedian by the name of Bill Hicks (rest his soul) once said:

"I got asked the other day, 'Are you proud to be an American?' And I said, 'Well, I don't know.... my parents f***ed here, that's about it.'"

I'm starting to agree with that statement more and more everyday. I don't know what should be done about the Taliban. I don't know whether the US should go over there and do something about it. I feel for those who are being oppressed and in pain. But, and this is just my opinion, I feel that the US goverment should concentrate more on the problems here at home. When we have a low crime rate, and when there are less homeless people on the streets, when we can honestly and truly claim to be the best country in the world, and it really be the truth, then we can go around and help out everyone else. But only when we become the utopia that our government wants us to believe we have. And you know what? It's never gonna happen. This country is WAY too screwed up, and it's going to take way too long for that to ever happen. Especially when we keep electing shrubbery to run it. There's my 2 cents.

Who says we have to be the best? What is the best? Who decides when we reach that goal? I don't think 'the best' is either attainable or desireable not just because Utopias are unattainable but because once people achieve 'the best' they stop trying. It isn't necessarily just the government that thinks we have something worthwhile to offer others. You want to stop medical/emergency/money/support to anyone until we are 'the best'? Your attitude (and you're certainly not alone in it, it's become quite popular) that we're so screwed we're worthless is the best reason I've heard so far to stop trying to do anything for anybody and to return to isolationism.

Regards,

maggie

[Dextra]

Maggie,

I was just trying to say that there is no real solution to any of this mayhem. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I was just using the utopia analogy to try to get my point across, but I guess that didn't work too well. Sorry if I came off the wrong way. But as far as the "proud to be and American" quote went, I stand by that one. But then, I can't think of very many countries that I would be proud to be a citizen of.

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Dextra
Maggie,

I was just trying to say that there is no real solution to any of this mayhem. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I was just using the utopia analogy to try to get my point across, but I guess that didn't work too well. Sorry if I came off the wrong way. But as far as the "proud to be and American" quote went, I stand by that one. But then, I can't think of very many countries that I would be proud to be a citizen of.


"Damned if we do and damned if we don't." :D--said that very same thing a few posts back.....

The thing is there are some things we can be proud of, along with all the bad. Measured patriotism is not a bad thing, as with all things carried to an extreme it does become a vice. Twenty five years ago I was in a Russian class, taught by a Czech. He had escaped the '68 uprising in then Czechoslovakia and waited in Canada a year before being able to enter the US, and even as a low paid grad assistant was very, very glad to be here. He was absolutely horrified when one of my classmates announced that the American flag didn't mean anything to her, that we could run up a purple grape and it would mean the same thing. He was so horrified he couldn't even say anything for a moment. (I was horrified too, but for different reasons. I had to take out loans and work part time to be in grad school, and she wasn't paying for anything, Daddy auto industry was, pretty slick to diss the system paying her bills). I had a lot of contact with foreign nationals in those years, one of my co-workers was a concentration camp survivor. I suspect at least some of the self-criticism and self-loathing comes from the fact that very many Americans have no yardstick except ours to measure against, and we are very well aware how far short we fall sometimes against our ideals. For instance, yes we do have racial/ethnic/cultural problems, and sometimes they seem intractable. On the other hand, we are attempting to work these things out with a population literally made up of the rest of the world (in my school district there are over 100 languages spoken in the home). The rest of the world can't seem to manage just two or three. Check out Canada--they keep teetering on the edge of fracture over English vs. French. Are we handling it better than most? Yes, I think so. Have we worked it out perfectly yet? No, of course not. But there needs to be a reason to keep trying, or why bother? I do happen to believe that we are doing something valuable and worthwhile here, but acknowledging that we aren't there yet doesn't mean we should give up and throw everything out. And I do think that this country does deserve some loyalty, if not pride, simply for making the attempt that many others do not.

I call it 'pragmatic idealism'......... :sunny:

[BrightStar]

Hi all!
What I envision as the correct course for US foreign policy is the promotion of dialogue between opposing groups.
BrightStar

[Maggie]

Originally posted by BrightStar
Hi all!
What I envision as the correct course for US foreign policy is the promotion of dialogue between opposing groups.
BrightStar

That's great and I'm all for it, and no I'm not being sarcastic. The problem is getting the opposing groups to agree to dialogue. It's taken years for the Unionists to agree to talking with the Sinn Fein in Ireland, the Israelis and the Palestinians are too busy throwing rocks at each other, and for a long time in the Balkans no one wanted to talk with each other, the Somalis stopped fighting each other just long enough to unite and drive those offering aid out of Somalia, then went back to the civil war. HOW is the US supposed to promote dialogue with opposing groups?

Regards,

Maggie

[BrightStar]

Hi!
We got Sinn Fein to the table by letting Gerry Adams come to visit the US and the White House.This gave him credibility.Within a year Sinn Fein was at the table.
Pres. Carter was able to get Sadat and Begin to the table. because he jumped on it when he saw Sadat wanted peace.Israel and Egypt haven't gone to war since.
Pres. Clinton was able to at least get the Israelis and Palestinians to the same table.Not a lasting peace but an attempt was made that could be ongoing if our current administration had the political will.
In the former Yugoslavia,we made no attempt there for a few years.The Bush administration apparently felt we needed to stay out.When Clinton became President he got the parties to sit at a table and talk.The Dayton Peace Accords came out of it and Sarajevo became a bit quieter.Now we should do the same with the Albanians in Kosovo and Macedonia..They were left out of Dayton and feel the reason was because they didn't shoot anyone.We should have invited ALL the groups,and maybe it would be better there.
In Africa we're really ignorant foreign policywise.Our foreign policy experts should be more knowledgeable about areas in which they serve.Our presidents hand out ambassadorships for financial support of their campaigns.So we get people who know nothing about the countries where they serve.This should be stopped and ambassadors should have to have foreign policy expertise in the area they serve.
Clinton even had North and South Korea sitting at the same table.
As I said earlier,we should look to the model of the Carter institute,which does a lot for easing tensions throughout the world by taking lower and mid level public officials from conflicting countries and letting them work together for 3-6 months on one problem.It can be something as simple as who pays for a streetlight on a certain corner.It's amazing the solutions people can find by spending time together.He gets Serbs and Bosnian Muslims,or Arabs and Israelis,groups from hot spots throughout the world.They find the other side is not Satan.it puts a human face on the enemy.If we backed something like this at higher levels the results would be more tangible.
These solutions aren't instant.But they can ease tension a bit.This gives room to do more,have more negotiations.It's a long tedious process,but most foreign policy problems have root causes that go back years and years.Negotiations aren't as dramatic as war,nor as profitable as selling arms to both sides,but they're a cheap practical solution.We should be a mediator,not a combatant.Try to help the sides find a win win solution.Not point and say you are wrong.Let both sides feel they were heard and let them each bring something back to their peoples.
The US has a lot of political capital throughout the world.We should use it for peace.
Peace and love
Rain BrightStar

[Maggie]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BrightStar
[B]Hi!
We got Sinn Fein to the table by letting Gerry Adams come to visit the US and the White House.This gave him credibility.Within a year Sinn Fein was at the table.
Pres.

M:Yes and no. The basic point was that both sides wanted a face-saving way to talk. By letting him in we gave him a bit of leverage, but it wouldn't have worked unless Sinn Fein AND the Unionists were looking for it. The head of the 'other side' was also a strong man able to keep pushing his guys to the table, and if I remember correctly it cost him his career in the end.


B:Carter was able to get Sadat and Begin to the table. because he jumped on it when he saw Sadat wanted peace.Israel and Egypt haven't gone to war since.

M:Again, both sides wanted peace--and Sadat paid with his life for doing so. Again, a neutral place wouldn't have done any good unless the people involved wanted it.


B:Pres. Clinton was able to at least get the Israelis and Palestinians to the same table. Not a lasting peace but an attempt was made that could be ongoing if our current administration had the political will.

M:Our political will has little or nothing to do with it, it all depends on whether or not the warring parties have the political will--Carter also got the two sides to the table too, and it didn't last. Bush hasn't been in office long enough to know whether or not he can perform the same function.



B:In the former Yugoslavia,we made no attempt there for a few years.The Bush administration apparently felt we needed to stay out.[QUOTE][i]


M:If we had, we would have been accused of meddling--as usual. Help had been offered to the EU and the EU told us that it was a European problem and the EU would handle it, we weren't wanted.

B:When Clinton became President he got the parties to sit at a table and talk. The Dayton Peace Accords came out of it and Sarajevo became a bit quieter.

M:Sarajevo couldn't help but become quieter, it had already been pretty much destroyed by then. The Dayton Peace Accords barely lasted the year.



B:Now we should do the same with the Albanians in Kosovo and Macedonia..They were left out of Dayton and feel the reason was because they didn't shoot anyone.We should have invited ALL the groups,and maybe it would be better there.


M:Maybe, maybe not. The reason for the conference was to stop the shooting--the parties needed there were the ones doing the shooting and it was difficult enough to get THEM there.


B:In Africa we're really ignorant foreign policywise. Our foreign policy experts should be more knowledgeable about areas in which they serve.Our presidents hand out ambassadorships for financial support of their campaigns.So we get people who know nothing about the countries where they serve.This should be stopped and ambassadors should have to have foreign policy expertise in the area they serve.
Clinton even had North and South Korea sitting at the same table.

M:Most ambassadorships in many countries are rewards, and what they need most is an ability to get along with people--they're the flag, not the flagship. The staff is who needs to be knowledgable. And I think you're doing quite a few ambassadors an injustice--many of them do know about the countries in which they serve. And Clinton was simply able to take advantage of circumstances--North Korea was open to negotiations for the first time since the Korean War simply because the population there was quite literally starving to death.


B:As I said earlier,we should look to the model of the Carter institute,which does a lot for easing tensions throughout the world by taking lower and mid level public officials from conflicting countries and letting them work together for 3-6 months on one problem.It can be something as simple as who pays for a streetlight on a certain corner.It's amazing the solutions people can find by spending time together.He gets Serbs and Bosnian Muslims,or Arabs and Israelis,groups from hot spots throughout the world.They find the other side is not Satan.it puts a human face on the enemy.If we backed something like this at higher levels the results would be more tangible.

M:This example too depends on the people involved being willing to do this AND the higher levels being amenable to change, we simply provide a place for the people involved to meet, we cannot force them to do this. And even this is harder than it sounds--there is a group called Seeds of Peace that gets Arab and Jewish teens together. One of the most popular Arab kids was killed accidently by Israeli forces during a riot, and it left the kids devastated and questioning the value of what they were doing. Groups like this are not a sure answer.





B:These solutions aren't instant.But they can ease tension a bit.This gives room to do more,have more negotiations.It's a long tedious process,but most foreign policy problems have root causes that go back years and years.Negotiations aren't as dramatic as war,nor as profitable as selling arms to both sides,but they're a cheap practical solution.We should be a mediator,not a combatant.Try to help the sides find a win win solution.Not point and say you are wrong.Let both sides feel they were heard and let them each bring something back to their peoples.


M:No, they're not instant, and I know very well that it's a long tedious process, and that foreign policy problems have root causes that go back years. The Balkans are still fighting wars that go back to the Middle Ages and every year a riot breaks out in Northern Ireland because the Orangeman insist on a victory parade in the Catholic neighborhood for a battle fought in the 1600's. A mediator, however, is useful only when both sides are ready to mediate--and that's the real problem , what to do to get both sides to the table. I think everyone understands that it's better to negotiate than fight. What should we do about the fighting BEFORE the mediation is the question--should we try to stop the fighting (and killing) before both sides are exhausted and bleeding, or let them slug it out until they can't do anything except negotiate?


B: The US has a lot of political capital throughout the world.We should use it for peace.
Peace and love
Rain BrightStar

M:Judging by the sentiments already expressed by people in this thread, I would say that's questionable--at least some believe we don't have any. It's very true that we should use it, if we have any, for peace. The whole question hinges on the methods, and that's where the disagreements lie.


Regards,

Maggie

[BrightStar]

Hi!
Why did circumstances always play out for Carter and Clinton,but not for Reagan and Bush?.People were ready to talk with Clinton and Carter but not with the others?I disagree.Carter and Clinton believed in sitting people down,the others didn't.Reagan and Bush use the Republican principle that the best thing for government to do is stay out and let things take care of themselves unless oil is involved.
This is basically the same principle the Republicans use regarding the environment.Look at how much money can be made under various scenarios and go with the one that makes the most dollars.Health and suffering don't enter the equation.
In '92 I was taking a class on International Human Rights.At the time(Bush Sr. was Pres) the Europeans had asked us to help broker an agreement in the Balkans.It being the flashpoint that ignited World War One.Bush,not they,insisted it was a European problem and we should stay out.Our visiting professor(she was French and attached to the EU)asked the class why we felt we should stay out,given our rhetoric about human rights.She was shocked by the answer she received by more than a few members of the class.The answer was,they had nothing we wanted.If it was about oil,we'd have been over there in a second, going after the Serbs in the same way we did with Iraq.She couldn't believe that with all the talk Bush Sr did about Human rights,he didn't apply standards equally.But it's true.
I just finished reading an article in the New York Times about the political appointees in ambassadorships.These are political plums.One of the men appointed aknowledged he knew nothing about the area where he was going.His only foreign policy expertise was none.He had been a state senator at one time but his main qualification was the ability to raise campaign funds.The ambassador has the ability to pick and choose his staff.He's going to get people he(or she)likes,and demote people he(she) disagrees with.It's how we do it.I think a sterling example of this is when Reagan appointed Shirley Temple Black(yes,that Shirley Temple)as an ambassador in Africa.She knew nothing about Africa,did nothing about Africa.
Peace and Love
BrightStar

[Maggie]

Brightstar, we are coming from entirely different POV's. That example you gave about your French teacher was illuminating, to me anyway. The French refused to join NATO for years and years and years--they didn't want to be involved so I'm not real impressed by lectures on involvement from them. I was in Europe in '90 and '91, and from what I saw in the British, French and German newspapers (and news programs) the last thing the EU wanted was American involvment in European affairs. Your visiting professor may have felt differently, but there most assuredly were differing viewpoints within the EU. And your class was a skewed sample--do you really believe that your class speaks for everyone? Besides, that same reason is often given as a legitamite reason *against* involvment, depending on what the issue is. No security interests? It's not our problem/or we have no right to interfere/we have no right to impose our values on another culture...... And I even view the oil issue differently. Economic war/blackmail can be as devastating as any other kind--and it wasn't really our oil we were protecting. Japan, for instance, gets 100% of its oil from the Middle East. Just what do you think it would do to that country and its people if their supply was cut off? Would the results be any less devastating than a shooting war?

Bush and Reagan, and now Bush again are Republicans, one belief (or used to be anyway) of that party is that countries have the right to self-determination, and we step in only if asked. It could be argued that the Democratic attitude that we have the responsibility to make everyone behave is the arrogant one. Then the Repub view was seen as a virtue, and now we've swung back again and it's seen as a vice. During that Desert Storm business that is now dismissed as blood for oil, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia both asked for US help. There were 37 countries involved, oil is vital to every country's functioning. Bush was able to keep 37 countries together, AND even more surprising, keep Israel out even after it had been hit by Scuds, he was no slouch at persuading by words. The Middle Eastern countries used us as an outsider so that it didn't get turned into another general MidEast war between the countries there--another useful function of a mediator, that's actually the thinking behind UN peacekeeping functions.


It's interesting that you picked Black as your example--I've noticed before that while people in other professions are allowed to change, actors are always actors and slightly unsavory at that. A leftover prejudice from the last century? I might point out that her career in movies ended before she reached 18, do you think she sat around watching her old movies until she was tapped as an ambassador? And, her terms as ambassador are generally given good marks.......

Regards,

Maggie

[BrightStar]

Hi,
We do come from fundamentally different viewpoints.That's what makes life interesting.(:You're much more in line with the Republicans I argue with daily.I'm not saying that's a bad thing.I have many Republican friends and we go round and round for hours.At first it just seemed we yelled at one another constantly.But we have become good friends.Occasionally we even arrive at a solution.Sometimes the solutions are even implemented.Because we sit and talk,promote dialogue and discussion.Even though it seemed at first there was no common ground.
The people in the class I mentioned.They were on the staffs of Senator Don Nickles,Republican,Oklahoma and Sen. Bob Dole,Republican,Kansas.I don't think they spoke for everybody.Certainly not me.They did speak about the pervading sentiments of their bosses.
I really don't think it's arrogant to ask people to quit shooting each other and talk for a while.
I realize I represent a minority viewpoint,especially here in Oklahoma.Witch,Spirited Progressive,Radical environmentalist,Pacifist,Native American,African,and Brit-Irish,that's me.Although during my time as a staffer in DC I found people with views very similar to mine.I'm a tiger for the left,can't help it.
I promise,I'll quit now!(:
I enjoyed the discussion.
Peace and Love
Rain BrightStar

P.S.Go check out today's New York Times.There's an article on US foreign policy that kind of ties in with our discussion.Colin Powell,Sec of State prefers a moderate approach,using discussion and talks,multilateral and bilateral,using allies to help.While Sec of defense Rumsfeld takes a more conservative,isolationist,unilateral approach of imposing sanctions,dropping bombs,or just waiting for problems to go away..So we're not just yelling down a well,Maggie!

[Maggie]

Originally posted by BrightStar
Hi,
We do come from fundamentally different viewpoints.That's what makes life interesting.(:You're much more in line with the Republicans I argue with daily.I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

I tend to fall between Dems and Repubs, although I do come from a Democratic family. I also tend to be a hawkish dove.........

Negotiations are good, preferable even. I happen to believe a lot of the things people fight about are pretty stupid. WWI is a good example.....

However, my point all along has been that negotiations are good--but only the people doing the fighting can decide to negotiate and/or solve the problem. My own 'solution' for Somalia for instance, would have been to take a couple of divisions of UN peacekeepers in and round up the warlords, lock them in a compound so that the rest of the country could eat in peace. However, all that would have done is unite the warlords until the UN was driven out and then the fighting would have started again. The UN did go in without the ability to even protect themselves and it turned into a disaster. Somalians are still fighting.



have many Republican friends and we go round and round for hours.At first it just seemed we yelled at one another constantly.But we have become good friends.Occasionally we even arrive at a solution.Sometimes the solutions are even implemented.Because we sit and talk,promote dialogue and discussion.Even though it seemed at first there was no common ground.


Sure, but then again all of you kept going, you wanted to find a solutionn, and to keep going until you did. What if any of you had decided that the negotiations weren't worth continuing? Or if some outsider had decided for you that you had to find a solution and locked you in the room until you did? Would everyone have been as willing to find one then?
The people in the class I mentioned.They were on the staffs of Senator Don Nickles,Republican,Oklahoma and Sen. Bob Dole,Republican,Kansas.I don't think they spoke for everybody.Certainly not me.They did speak about the pervading sentiments of their bosses.
I really don't think it's arrogant to ask people to quit shooting each other and talk for a while.
I realize I represent a minority viewpoint,especially here in Oklahoma.Witch,Spirited Progressive,Radical environmentalist,Pacifist,Native American,African,and Brit-Irish,that's me.Although during my time as a staffer in DC I found people with views very similar to mine.I'm a tiger for the left,can't help it.
I promise,I'll quit now!(:
I enjoyed the discussion.
Peace and Love
Rain BrightStar

P.S.Go check out today's New York Times.There's an article on US foreign policy that kind of ties in with our discussion.Colin Powell,Sec of State prefers a moderate approach,using discussion and talks,multilateral and bilateral,using allies to help.While Sec of defense Rumsfeld takes a more conservative,isolationist,unilateral approach of imposing sanctions,dropping bombs,or just waiting for problems to go away..So we're not just yelling down a well,Maggie!

[/B][/QUOTE]

[Maggie]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Maggie


HIT the Wrong Button



I tend to fall between Dems and Repubs, although I do come from a Democratic family. I also tend to be a hawkish dove.........

Negotiations are good, preferable even. I happen to believe a lot of the things people fight about are pretty stupid. WWI is a good example.....

However, my point all along has been that negotiations are good--but only the people doing the fighting can decide to negotiate and/or solve the problem. My own 'solution' for Somalia for instance, would have been to take a couple of divisions of UN peacekeepers in and round up the warlords, lock them in a compound so that the rest of the country could eat in peace. However, all that would have done is unite the warlords until the UN was driven out and then the fighting would have started again. The UN did go in without the right to even protect themselves and it turned into a disaster. Somalians are still fighting.



[B] have many Republican friends and we go round and round for hours.At first it just seemed we yelled at one another constantly.But we have become good friends.Occasionally we even arrive at a solution.Sometimes the solutions are even implemented.Because we sit and talk,promote dialogue and discussion.Even though it seemed at first there was no common ground.


Sure, but then again all of you kept going, you wanted to find a solutionn, and to keep going until you did. What if any of you had decided that the negotiations weren't worth continuing? Or if some outsider had decided for you that you had to find a solution and locked you in the room until you did? Would everyone have been as willing to find one then?




The people in the class I mentioned.They were on the staffs of Senator Don Nickles,Republican,Oklahoma and Sen. Bob Dole,Republican,Kansas.I don't think they spoke for everybody.Certainly not me.They did speak about the pervading sentiments of their bosses.


I suspect that the people in the class simplified the views just a bit. Dole, for instance, is a WWII vet, and we didn't get into that one for what we could get.....I don't know Nickles, but that phrase is certainly an oversimplification of something.




I really don't think it's arrogant to ask people to quit shooting each other and talk for a while.

No, it's not, if that's all that said. The problem is that usually it isn't--and all too often when the US says it officially we're told we don't understand the situation. And just asking usually doesn't get anywhere, that also doesn't cover the humanitarian concerns--and I think that's where the real disagreement lies.

What happens when people don't want to talk? Does the US have a responsibility to help/intervene? What kinds of tools are permissible to 'convince' the warring factions to stop fighting and talk?



I realize I represent a minority viewpoint,especially here in Oklahoma.Witch,Spirited Progressive,Radical environmentalist,Pacifist,Native American,African,and Brit-Irish,that's me.Although during my time as a staffer in DC I found people with views very similar to mine.I'm a tiger for the left,can't help it.
I promise,I'll quit now!(:



<shrug> Don't have to quit, I'm not mad, trying to convert you or change your views. Some of them I agree with :) It's just that there are more sides to this question that need to be considered by everyone--in my opinion there is too little consideration of what the people actually doing the fighting are likely to do when these discussions start, and not enough responsibility for stopping is laid on them.



I am English-Welsh-Scots-German-Norwegian-Swedish, and that's one reason I'm glad I'm here. Back 'home' I wouldn't exist, none of these nationalities would have stopped fighting each other long enough to make love not war. ;) I am a botanist, but don't go with radical environmental tactics because they tend to provoke extreme reaction and the original goal gets lost. Nor am I a pacifist, although I consider very few things worth a war rather than negotiations.

There's an article on US foreign policy that kind of ties in with our discussion.Colin Powell,Sec of State prefers a moderate approach,using discussion and talks,multilateral and bilateral,using allies to help.While Sec of defense Rumsfeld takes a more conservative,isolationist,unilateral approach of imposing sanctions,dropping bombs,or just waiting for problems to go away..So we're not just yelling down a well,Maggie!

I would hope that Powell would take a more conservative approach, given his position--and I happen to admire him, by the way. I don't care for Rumsfeld, but on the other hand, sanctions anyway are a traditional non-violent tool to force negotiations. What do you find wrong with them? And sometimes leaving a fight alone lets people find their own solution. The problem is knowing what to do when.........

Regards,

Maggie

[treefae]

Does anybody have any updated thoughts?

[nannymouse]

It's sad that the noble and ancient cultures of that area are not allowed to come to their full fruition. Afganistan had probably the most progressive culture in that reigon, but the force that was able to defeat the Russians was the Taliban. The Afgans traded freedom for security.

I talked to a man who returned from over there, and he said that whoever could build clinics and repair roads would have the support of the people.

Unfortunately, we are affected by people who hide out in the mountains on the other side of the world. I would be far happier if we could leave them alone, but they will not stand for that.

If the governments and religous leaders would let the peoples of the world get along in peace, we probably would! I personally have not pissed off anyone in Tora Bora lately...