| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jez" |
| Date: |
08 May 2004 07:15:00 AM |
| Object: |
How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0507-08.htm
Any "practical" approach to the situation in Iraq, any prescription for what
to do now, must start with the understanding that the present US military
occupation is morally unacceptable. Amnesty International, a year after the
invasion, reported: "Scores of unarmed people have been killed due to
excessive or unnecessary use of lethal force by coalition forces during
public demonstrations, at checkpoints and in house raids. Thousands of
people have been detained [estimates range from 8,500 to 15,000, often under
harsh conditions] and subjected to prolonged and often unacknowledged
detention. Many have been tortured or ill-treated and some have died in
custody." The prospect, if the occupation continues, whether by the United
States or by an international force (as John Kerry seems to be proposing),
is of continued suffering and death for both Iraqis and Americans.
The history of military occupations of Third World countries is that they
bring neither democracy nor security. The laments that "we mustn't cut and
run," "we must stay the course," our "reputation" will be imperiled, etc.,
are exactly what we heard when at the start of the Vietnam escalation some
of us called for immediate withdrawal. The result of staying the course was
58,000 Americans and several million Vietnamese dead.
The only rational argument for continuing on the present course is that
things will be worse if we leave. In Vietnam, they promised a bloodbath if
we left. That did not happen. It was said that if we did not drop the bomb
on Hiroshima, we would have to invade Japan and huge casualties would
follow. We know now and knew then that this was not true. The truth is, no
one knows what will happen if the United States withdraws. We face a choice
between the certainty of mayhem if we stay, and the uncertainty of what will
follow if we leave.
What would be a reasonably good scenario to accompany our departure? The UN
should arrange, as US forces leave, for an international group of
peacekeepers and negotiators from the Arab countries to bring together
Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, and work out a solution for self-governance that
would give all three groups a share in political power. Simultaneously, the
UN should arrange for shipments of food and medicine, from the United States
and other countries, as well as engineers to help rebuild the country.
The one thing to be avoided is for the United States, which destroyed Iraq
and caused perhaps a million deaths through two invasions and ten years of
sanctions, to play any leading role in the future of that country. In that
case, terrorism would surely flourish. It is for the United States to
withdraw from Iraq. It is for the international community, particularly the
Arab world, to try to reconstruct a nation at peace. That gives the Iraqi
people a chance. Continued US occupation gives them no chance.
Howard Zinn is the author, in 1967, of' Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawa'l,
and, later, 'A People's History of the United States'.
The Nation asked a range of writers, both regular and new contributors to
the magazine, for their ideas on America's way out of Iraq.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 11:38:08 AM |
|
|
<snip>
<cue music>
"Well, you can leave by an aeroplane...
you can leave on a speeding train...
I don't care how you get out,
just get out when you can..."
<I'm sure you know the rest>
Seriously, I don't see too many of the clerics and their constituents
"grateful" to us or anything. So fine, the people won't resist their
own oppressors any more then I say let the warlords have at 'em.
Maybe they don't feel "oppressed", maybe that was just our
misperception. Let the warlords back in, release Saddam back into the
country and just turn a blind eye. That's what they seem to want, so
why not? It's buhbye from Bubba and they're Bathist fodder once more.
Sorry, it's just too many Americans dying for people who don't seem to
appreciate it - who in fact seem eager to see _more_ Americans die -
and so I just don't understand why we're even there any more. The two
or three that haven't cheered at Americans being car bombed and shot
in the head and whatnot, fine, give 'em refuge in America or elsewhere
if they want it. The rest? Screw 'em.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 09:10:37 AM |
|
|
--
Seriously, I don't see too many of the clerics and their
constituents "grateful" to us or anything. So fine, the
people won't resist their own oppressors any more then I say
let the warlords have at 'em.
The US army should give up trying to hand over to democracy.
The soil is clearly infertile. Hand over to the less
unacceptable warlords.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
/XqpPS8rEEFStUmu9vUcaMDUgGuKi/oVUfgIrRk3
4d4E6Igy/7y17T2Lm4MoM/kkqCF8gOi9qZudu9hV4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 09:25:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 May 2004 07:10:37 -0700, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
--
Seriously, I don't see too many of the clerics and their
constituents "grateful" to us or anything. So fine, the
people won't resist their own oppressors any more then I say
let the warlords have at 'em.
The US army should give up trying to hand over to democracy.
The soil is clearly infertile. Hand over to the less
unacceptable warlords.
That would create civil war.
It has to be handed over to the United Nations, with peacekeepers who
are sensitive to local culture. The US has to have nothing to do with
it except pay to repair all the damage they caused. The UN will treat
the country as belonging to its population and prepare for
self-government again.
That's the only thing that will work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 10:23:57 AM |
|
|
--
James A. Donald
The US army should give up trying to hand over to
democracy. The soil is clearly infertile. Hand over to the
less unacceptable warlords.
Christopher A. Lee
That would create civil war.
And what we have now is peace?
It has to be handed over to the United Nations
The UN representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, is in bed with Al
Quaeda. The guys he wants in power are even less acceptable to
Iraqi population than our troops are. Recollect how the
Somalis reacted to UN rule - and rightly so. The UN
representative wants escalated war in Iraq as stepping stone to
war with Israel, and if you give the UN a free hand, that is
what we are going to get -- Iraq will be turned into a
terrorist platform. We don't really mind so long as it is only
terrorists of local scope - Sunnis whacking kurds, etc, but
Lakhdar Brahimi wants a global crusade which in practice is apt
to mean terrorism of global scope.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
ypaqKrxm/NxRWnTVoONZHiMk2iiccEXD7anh1zRX
4oAo5A4lX43jziOL45ct9oi8CtbynISLDEiQTdUYm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 10:47:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 May 2004 08:23:57 -0700, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
--
James A. Donald
The US army should give up trying to hand over to
democracy. The soil is clearly infertile. Hand over to the
less unacceptable warlords.
Christopher A. Lee
That would create civil war.
And what we have now is peace?
Where did I say that?
It has to be handed over to the United Nations
The UN representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, is in bed with Al
Quaeda. The guys he wants in power are even less acceptable to
Iraqi population than our troops are. Recollect how the
Somalis reacted to UN rule - and rightly so. The UN
representative wants escalated war in Iraq as stepping stone to
war with Israel, and if you give the UN a free hand, that is
what we are going to get -- Iraq will be turned into a
terrorist platform. We don't really mind so long as it is only
terrorists of local scope - Sunnis whacking kurds, etc, but
Lakhdar Brahimi wants a global crusade which in practice is apt
to mean terrorism of global scope.
So in the mean time we are going to continue the with what we are
doing now. They hate us for exactly the same reason occupied Europe in
WW2 hated the occupiers, and you don't seem to understand why.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 11:32:26 AM |
|
|
--
James A. Donald
The UN representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, is in bed with Al
Quaeda.
Christopher A. Lee
So in the mean time we are going to continue the with what we
are doing now
What we are doing now is trying to install western style
democracy. We should abandon this nonsense right away, and go
for an Afghan style solution, based on warlords who may want to
put bags over the heads of their women, but have no interest in
putting bags over the heads of our women.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
aTcG0GZuGvEn8/xoY8Qa9OdMFIo/Xa5OjqJQaaeg
4jGNtHKRhbK6hA+hsdI9c5LgyPeCz+VV8lbacWDUt
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 10:23:21 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:9brp90pac6b4mhsk1qn29voail60gugkrk@4ax.com...
On Sat, 08 May 2004 07:10:37 -0700, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
--
Seriously, I don't see too many of the clerics and their
constituents "grateful" to us or anything. So fine, the
people won't resist their own oppressors any more then I say
let the warlords have at 'em.
The US army should give up trying to hand over to democracy.
The soil is clearly infertile. Hand over to the less
unacceptable warlords.
That would create civil war.
It has to be handed over to the United Nations, with peacekeepers who
are sensitive to local culture. The US has to have nothing to do with
it except pay to repair all the damage they caused. The UN will treat
the country as belonging to its population and prepare for
self-government again.
That's the only thing that will work.
Two problems with that: the UN is impotent and
the Iraqis don't want the UN either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 10:45:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:23:21 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:9brp90pac6b4mhsk1qn29voail60gugkrk@4ax.com...
On Sat, 08 May 2004 07:10:37 -0700, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
--
Seriously, I don't see too many of the clerics and their
constituents "grateful" to us or anything. So fine, the
people won't resist their own oppressors any more then I say
let the warlords have at 'em.
The US army should give up trying to hand over to democracy.
The soil is clearly infertile. Hand over to the less
unacceptable warlords.
That would create civil war.
It has to be handed over to the United Nations, with peacekeepers who
are sensitive to local culture. The US has to have nothing to do with
it except pay to repair all the damage they caused. The UN will treat
the country as belonging to its population and prepare for
self-government again.
That's the only thing that will work.
Two problems with that: the UN is impotent and
the Iraqis don't want the UN either.
It is only impotent because of the way the US behaved towards it. And
why do you imagine I said the peace-keepers should be local Muslim
nations who understand the local culture, mores etc.?
I take it you don't have a problem with our paying to undo all the
damage we did in our illegal war?
The Iraqis hate us for what we did and are continuing to do.
Nothing we do as long as we try to run things, is going to change
that.
Do you have a better solution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 11:28:39 AM |
|
|
--
"Ron Baker"
Two problems with that: the UN is impotent and the Iraqis
don't want the UN either.
Christopher A. Lee
It is only impotent because of the way the US behaved towards
it.
Let us look at past UN interventions: Cambodia, Rwanda,
Somalia, etc. The UN is ineffectual because it is corrupt,
violent. tyrannical, exploitative (for example the infamous oil
for food program) and oppressive.
UN interventions only work when they are completely dominated
by a local power that has the knowledge and the will to make
them work, for example the nominally UN intervention in East
Timor - which worked solely because the ANZAC nations made it
work, and the ANZAC troops completely ignored all UN
directives, and because ANZAC spies had been as thick as flies
in the province for many years.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
hdjhpB9is5gQywCNI0Sl8Y1pptyxehuBaX4Cy0el
4eNBasHBSF2w129EEHnSaaxflKrgVJ8buWx6KfmYO
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 11:34:45 AM |
|
|
--
On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:45:10 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
why do you imagine I said the peace-keepers should be local
Muslim nations who understand the local culture, mores etc.?
Uh, because you want peacekeeping by the nations that have
fostered terrorism against us?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
IO/wMsjGbKSFo7J+XTiraf+nLwxbei1gjqO2Dh4r
4WDmxC/Ra4BHNFzOfGVKCtqSVr4VJhSaMs6B5078q
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 12:33:07 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:vtvp90l17ketngov7i152pjqajdltn6cal@4ax.com...
On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:23:21 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:9brp90pac6b4mhsk1qn29voail60gugkrk@4ax.com...
On Sat, 08 May 2004 07:10:37 -0700, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
--
Seriously, I don't see too many of the clerics and their
constituents "grateful" to us or anything. So fine, the
people won't resist their own oppressors any more then I say
let the warlords have at 'em.
The US army should give up trying to hand over to democracy.
The soil is clearly infertile. Hand over to the less
unacceptable warlords.
That would create civil war.
It has to be handed over to the United Nations, with peacekeepers who
are sensitive to local culture. The US has to have nothing to do with
it except pay to repair all the damage they caused. The UN will treat
the country as belonging to its population and prepare for
self-government again.
That's the only thing that will work.
Two problems with that: the UN is impotent and
the Iraqis don't want the UN either.
It is only impotent because of the way the US behaved towards it.
Chicken or egg? That demonstrates the UN's impotence.
The UN is impotent because it is impotent.
And the US is not going to change.
And
why do you imagine I said the peace-keepers should be local Muslim
nations who understand the local culture, mores etc.?
The local culture and mores are tribal and fractious.
When we're not around they fight with each other.
I take it you don't have a problem with our paying to undo all the
damage we did in our illegal war?
It seems appropriate for us to take responsibility
for much (most?) of the damage.
(And while I view the war as unjustified, unethical, and
a major error, I don't know that you can say that
it was illegal.)
The Iraqis hate us for what we did and are continuing to do.
Nothing we do as long as we try to run things, is going to change
that.
Do you have a better solution?
Realistically, I see no good solution.
Idealistically, if I had the power, I would reinstate
the Iraqi army (including all but the worst Baathist
leaders). Take away their AK47s and anything
bigger and give them .22 rifles or maybe 9mm pistols.
Shuffle up the upper management. Reassign and
relocate some of the upper level commander in order
to prevent rogue alliances. Make the army go to every
house in the country to collect weapons.
Put the Iraqis to work. With all the reconstruction that
needs to be done they shouldn't have time to make
bombs. The Iraqis built Iraq, they can rebuild it.
The presence of Halliburton appears not to be
just corrupt government spending but a corupting
influence on the morale of the Iraqis.
Fix the problem in Israel/Palestine. I seem to be
in a minority that sees or is willing to see that
situation as being key to Arab/Western relations.
Build the wall _on the Green Line_.
Remove any authority Israel may have over the
settlements in the occupied territories (if
the settlements themselves are not removed).
Remove the Israeli army from the occupied
territories. Then we'll talk about compensation
for lost property.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AnimaMinima" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 03:33:13 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<9brp90pac6b4mhsk1qn29voail60gugkrk@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 08 May 2004 07:10:37 -0700, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
--
Seriously, I don't see too many of the clerics and their
constituents "grateful" to us or anything. So fine, the
people won't resist their own oppressors any more then I say
let the warlords have at 'em.
The US army should give up trying to hand over to democracy.
The soil is clearly infertile. Hand over to the less
unacceptable warlords.
That would create civil war.
It has to be handed over to the United Nations, with peacekeepers who
are sensitive to local culture. The US has to have nothing to do with
it except pay to repair all the damage they caused. The UN will treat
the country as belonging to its population and prepare for
self-government again.
That's the only thing that will work.
Work for who? "Work" means to accomplish something somebody
wants. The Iraqis mostly want foreigners to get out of their
country. The U.S. government wants to secure bases and control
the oil. Israel wants to keep the Arabs down. The jihadis of
the Middle East no doubt like having their targets brought
right to them. Russia has oil to sell -- while the Arabs are
blowing up their pipelines and refineries, Russian oil will
sell at a higher price. Iran and probably many other countries
like having the U.S. bogged down and bleeding in Iraq because
then they're safer. George W. Bush likes having the U.S. in
Iraq because then he won't have to admit he's wrong. Kerry
doesn't want the U.S. to leave either. And most Americans like
being ignorant and having their leaders act nasty, arrogant,
thuggy and brutal. It turns them on (as you can tell from
those pictures!)
Nobody wants the dreary old U.N.!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "anne marie hovgaard" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 01:41:18 PM |
|
|
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<409f0ba8.57158948@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
<snip>
<cue music>
"Well, you can leave by an aeroplane...
you can leave on a speeding train...
I don't care how you get out,
just get out when you can..."
<I'm sure you know the rest>
Seriously, I don't see too many of the clerics and their constituents
"grateful" to us or anything.
I've never understood how people in the US could think that they
_would_ be grateful to be occupied by the US. When the US invaded Iraq
and noone here (Norway) agreed or even understood why (since Osama &
friends considered the secular Iraq regime evil, and the only real
connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was that they were both former
friends of the US), several commentators told us we had to understand
"American exceptionalism" - that is, that strange phenomenon that
makes Americans convinced they are always right (so it doesn't matter
if everyone else disagrees) and the rules don't apply to them (so they
can ignore the UN but punish others for doing the same) and that
democracy equals doing what the US wants... Just like Christians can't
believe atheists _really_ don't believe in their God, Americans
couldn't believe the rest of the world _really_ disagreed with them -
they just thought we lacked moral fiber or something! I thought they
were exaggerating, noone could be that naive, but the surprised,
confused reaction when Iraqis refuse to understand that it's all for
their own good makes me wonder...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
09 May 2004 10:43:01 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 8 May 2004 11:41:18 -0700, (anne
marie hovgaard) wrote:
UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<409f0ba8.57158948@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
<snip>
<cue music>
"Well, you can leave by an aeroplane...
you can leave on a speeding train...
I don't care how you get out,
just get out when you can..."
<I'm sure you know the rest>
Seriously, I don't see too many of the clerics and their constituents
"grateful" to us or anything.
I've never understood how people in the US could think that they
_would_ be grateful to be occupied by the US.
Primarily because people in the U.S. tend not to think of it as an
"occupation", but rather "peace keeping" and "liberating". I'm not
necessarily defending that view, mind you, but it is my understanding
of the general U.S. perception of the matter.
When the US invaded Iraq
and noone here (Norway) agreed or even understood why (since Osama &
friends considered the secular Iraq regime evil, and the only real
connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was that they were both former
friends of the US), several commentators told us we had to understand
"American exceptionalism" - that is, that strange phenomenon that
makes Americans convinced they are always right (so it doesn't matter
if everyone else disagrees) and the rules don't apply to them (so they
can ignore the UN but punish others for doing the same) and that
democracy equals doing what the US wants...
I've lived in the U.S. all my life and I know exactly what you're
talking about, and it sickens me probably about as much as it sickens
any non-U.S.-er. In fact, a good many Americans strongly disagree
with that sort of behavior - when we realize it's occurring. The
problem isn't so much the American people thinking these things, it's
the politicians making it _sound_ like that's the way it is. This is
where Christianity's enmeshment into the American political system
causes the most damage - in Christianity as it's generally preached,
you're taught not to question, to obey, to have the faith of a child
in your god. This "faith of a child" transfers so easily, so that
soon you're having faith in your church elders, preachers, parents and
any politician that may get up and claim to be speaking the truth.
Faith in these people is a good thing if it's warranted, but far too
often, it's not warranted, but one is expected to have faith in those
people anyway.
That, to me, is why we went to Iraq, and why we've been there so long.
The politicians want us to be there, and the American people in
general are either too gullible or too afraid of "rocking the boat" to
seriously demand our own withdrawal. I hadn't quite put it together
that way before, but your response helped me clarify my own stance on
the matter. Thanks. :-)
That said, and having read a few other posts on the matter, I'm
finally starting to see the dilemma as to why we might not want to
just "leave" post haste. What are your thoughts on that? I think we
might generally agree on how & why the U.S. got there, but what do you
think about our prospects of getting out at this late juncture? The
current situation in Iraq is of our own making, and they are quite
bad. Does not our obligation to repair the damage as much as possible
override our obligation to "de-occupy" the country ASAP? The Iraqi
people themselves are not strong people. They've been trampled upon
for so long, I'm not sure they'd recognize a spine if they saw one.
It's the militants among them that have the power, and the militants
among them that would reign in the *next regime of terror if we were
to just pull out.
I have no rock solid opinion on this matter, but your response helped
me iron it out before. So maybe it can again. :-)
Just like Christians can't
believe atheists _really_ don't believe in their God, Americans
couldn't believe the rest of the world _really_ disagreed with them -
they just thought we lacked moral fiber or something! I thought they
were exaggerating, noone could be that naive, but the surprised,
confused reaction when Iraqis refuse to understand that it's all for
their own good makes me wonder...
No, they weren't exaggerating. Not when it comes to those in power,
anyway. As for me, my own tone didn't indicate so much that I thought
the Iraqis should be grateful, but that the lack of gratitude makes
our presence there almost absurd, and our own casualties that much
more inexcusable. I wasn't defending our presence there, though
admittedly I was expressing disbelief as to why the Iraqis might want
to live in the sort of conditions that existed before we went in and
that would exist again if we were to leave right now. This odd desire
to return to the ways of Saddam is just mind-boggling to me, and I
can't believe we're wasting American lives trying to fight this desire
rather than just pulling out and letting them have at it. I know, I
know, it's all they've ever known, but I still don't understand it and
I probably never will. It's not our presence I'm defending, it's
their rather extreme desire to return to those ways that I'm
questioning. One might sound like the other, I s'pose, but there is a
difference.
Thanks again for your quite useful response! :-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "anne marie hovgaard" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
10 May 2004 12:39:44 PM |
|
|
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<409f4da8.3294435@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 8 May 2004 11:41:18 -0700, (anne
marie hovgaard) wrote:
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<409f0ba8.57158948@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
<snip>
<cue music>
"Well, you can leave by an aeroplane...
you can leave on a speeding train...
I don't care how you get out,
just get out when you can..."
<I'm sure you know the rest>
Seriously, I don't see too many of the clerics and their constituents
"grateful" to us or anything.
I've never understood how people in the US could think that they
_would_ be grateful to be occupied by the US.
Primarily because people in the U.S. tend not to think of it as an
"occupation", but rather "peace keeping" and "liberating". I'm not
necessarily defending that view, mind you, but it is my understanding
of the general U.S. perception of the matter.
When the US invaded Iraq
and noone here (Norway) agreed or even understood why (since Osama &
friends considered the secular Iraq regime evil, and the only real
connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was that they were both former
friends of the US), several commentators told us we had to understand
"American exceptionalism" - that is, that strange phenomenon that
makes Americans convinced they are always right (so it doesn't matter
if everyone else disagrees) and the rules don't apply to them (so they
can ignore the UN but punish others for doing the same) and that
democracy equals doing what the US wants...
I've lived in the U.S. all my life and I know exactly what you're
talking about, and it sickens me probably about as much as it sickens
any non-U.S.-er. In fact, a good many Americans strongly disagree
with that sort of behavior - when we realize it's occurring.
I know :) But the impression I get, way over here in Norway, is that
most Americans know very little about the world outside US borders so
it's easy to convince them that the official government view is right.
The
problem isn't so much the American people thinking these things, it's
the politicians making it _sound_ like that's the way it is.
This is
where Christianity's enmeshment into the American political system
causes the most damage - in Christianity as it's generally preached,
you're taught not to question, to obey, to have the faith of a child
in your god. This "faith of a child" transfers so easily, so that
soon you're having faith in your church elders, preachers, parents and
any politician that may get up and claim to be speaking the truth.
Faith in these people is a good thing if it's warranted, but far too
often, it's not warranted, but one is expected to have faith in those
people anyway.
That, to me, is why we went to Iraq, and why we've been there so long.
The politicians want us to be there, and the American people in
general are either too gullible or too afraid of "rocking the boat" to
seriously demand our own withdrawal. I hadn't quite put it together
that way before, but your response helped me clarify my own stance on
the matter. Thanks. :-)
Ingen årsak!
That said, and having read a few other posts on the matter, I'm
finally starting to see the dilemma as to why we might not want to
just "leave" post haste. What are your thoughts on that? I think we
might generally agree on how & why the U.S. got there, but what do you
think about our prospects of getting out at this late juncture? The
current situation in Iraq is of our own making, and they are quite
bad. Does not our obligation to repair the damage as much as possible
override our obligation to "de-occupy" the country ASAP?
I would say it does. But it is obviously very difficult to do when
noone trusts you (and with good reason). I think you need to get help
from someone the Iraqis would be more likely to trust. Unfortunately
I'm afraid that to many, if not most, being "US-friendly" is seen as
incompatible with being "trustworthy".
But the most urgent issue at the moment is to make sure the US, UK and
other military personnel read the Geneva convention :( and start
behaving like decent human beings, showing respect for the Iraqi
people, prisoners and others. As it is, they are making everything
much, much worse. But that's really not because they are "bad people",
it's human nature to behave like that (unnecessarily killing,
torturing and humiliating others) in the situation they are in: they
are frightened and confused, they have been lied to repeatedly, their
orders are conflicting and/or impossible to carry out - they are
fighting/defending themselves not "keeping the peace" as they thought
they would, the locals are attacking them not expressing their
gratitude, so they see them as "the enemy". They feel betrayed, and
since they can't really beat up their generals or shoot the president
and/or all those friends and family members who told them how brave
they were joining the army, they take it out on "the enemy". Of course
the ones directly responsible need to be punished, but the rest need
to know why they are there, what they are supposed to do, and how they
are supposed to do it. I just wish someone knew the answer to that :(
At the moment the US is "en elefant i et glassmagasin", I don't know
how to say that in English - an elephant in a glass shop?? - not just
dangerously clumsy, but also in a situation where there is no way to
get out without causing even more damage.
The Iraqi
people themselves are not strong people. They've been trampled upon
for so long, I'm not sure they'd recognize a spine if they saw one.
It's the militants among them that have the power, and the militants
among them that would reign in the *next regime of terror if we were
to just pull out.
I have no rock solid opinion on this matter, but your response helped
me iron it out before. So maybe it can again. :-)
Just like Christians can't
believe atheists _really_ don't believe in their God, Americans
couldn't believe the rest of the world _really_ disagreed with them -
they just thought we lacked moral fiber or something! I thought they
were exaggerating, noone could be that naive, but the surprised,
confused reaction when Iraqis refuse to understand that it's all for
their own good makes me wonder...
No, they weren't exaggerating. Not when it comes to those in power,
anyway. As for me, my own tone didn't indicate so much that I thought
the Iraqis should be grateful, but that the lack of gratitude makes
our presence there almost absurd, and our own casualties that much
more inexcusable. I wasn't defending our presence there, though
admittedly I was expressing disbelief as to why the Iraqis might want
to live in the sort of conditions that existed before we went in and
that would exist again if we were to leave right now. This odd desire
to return to the ways of Saddam is just mind-boggling to me, and I
can't believe we're wasting American lives trying to fight this desire
rather than just pulling out and letting them have at it. I know, I
know, it's all they've ever known, but I still don't understand it and
I probably never will.
Me neither. I can explain it in terms of psychological mechanisms, but
not _understand_ it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 09:26:11 PM |
|
|
In article <705782b9.0405081041.89e3564@posting.google.com>,
amhovgaard@yahoo.no says...
UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote in message news:<409f0ba8.57158948@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
<snip>
<cue music>
"Well, you can leave by an aeroplane...
you can leave on a speeding train...
I don't care how you get out,
just get out when you can..."
<I'm sure you know the rest>
Seriously, I don't see too many of the clerics and their constituents
"grateful" to us or anything.
I've never understood how people in the US could think that they
_would_ be grateful to be occupied by the US. When the US invaded Iraq
and noone here (Norway) agreed or even understood why (since Osama &
friends considered the secular Iraq regime evil, and the only real
connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was that they were both former
friends of the US), several commentators told us we had to understand
"American exceptionalism" - that is, that strange phenomenon that
makes Americans convinced they are always right (so it doesn't matter
if everyone else disagrees) and the rules don't apply to them (so they
can ignore the UN but punish others for doing the same) and that
democracy equals doing what the US wants... Just like Christians can't
believe atheists _really_ don't believe in their God, Americans
couldn't believe the rest of the world _really_ disagreed with them -
they just thought we lacked moral fiber or something! I thought they
were exaggerating, noone could be that naive, but the surprised,
confused reaction when Iraqis refuse to understand that it's all for
their own good makes me wonder...
I live in San Diego, California, USA. I'm a citizen of the United
States. I will tell you that not all of us think the U. S. is always
right. I opposed the war in Iraq, not because I supported Sadam as the
loonies on the right said, but because I supported a united front
against terrorism in all forms, and against the expansion of weapons no
country ought to possess to countries or people who would use them.
If a war in Iraq was necessary, we could have convinced much of the rest
of the world to go in with us, rather than alienate them with our "with
us or with the terrorists" attitude.
And now we see where unilateralist action has brought us. Our
leadership was wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There
was no link to the terrorists who attacked us. Where there was sympathy
and support from the entire world after September 11, now there is
distrust and hatred. Combine this with the actions of some of our men
in Iraq, and the Arab world will continue to hate us for generations.
--
Enkidu - AA# 2165
"Today is a fine day for reality . . ."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 10:28:02 AM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:409ccf29$0$25323$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0507-08.htm
Any "practical" approach to the situation in Iraq, any prescription for
what
to do now, must start with the understanding that the present US military
occupation is morally unacceptable. Amnesty International, a year after
the
< snip>
What would be a reasonably good scenario to accompany our departure? The
UN
should arrange, as US forces leave, for an international group of
peacekeepers and negotiators from the Arab countries to bring together
Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, and work out a solution for self-governance
that
would give all three groups a share in political power. Simultaneously,
the
UN should arrange for shipments of food and medicine, from the United
States
and other countries, as well as engineers to help rebuild the country.
The one thing to be avoided is for the United States, which destroyed Iraq
and caused perhaps a million deaths through two invasions and ten years of
sanctions, to play any leading role in the future of that country. In that
case, terrorism would surely flourish. It is for the United States to
withdraw from Iraq. It is for the international community, particularly
the
Arab world, to try to reconstruct a nation at peace. That gives the Iraqi
people a chance. Continued US occupation gives them no chance.
Howard Zinn is the author, in 1967, of' Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawa'l,
and, later, 'A People's History of the United States'.
I am very much against this Iraq crusade, but I find
Mr. Zinn's opinions idealistic and naive.
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 10:17:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 8 May 2004 13:15:00 +0100, "Jez"
<iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0507-08.htm
Any "practical" approach to the situation in Iraq, any prescription for what
to do now, must start with the understanding that the present US military
occupation is morally unacceptable. Amnesty International, a year after the
invasion, reported: "Scores of unarmed people have been killed due to
excessive or unnecessary use of lethal force by coalition forces during
public demonstrations, at checkpoints and in house raids. Thousands of
people have been detained [estimates range from 8,500 to 15,000, often under
harsh conditions] and subjected to prolonged and often unacknowledged
detention. Many have been tortured or ill-treated and some have died in
custody." The prospect, if the occupation continues, whether by the United
States or by an international force (as John Kerry seems to be proposing),
is of continued suffering and death for both Iraqis and Americans.
The history of military occupations of Third World countries is that they
bring neither democracy nor security. The laments that "we mustn't cut and
run," "we must stay the course," our "reputation" will be imperiled, etc.,
are exactly what we heard when at the start of the Vietnam escalation some
of us called for immediate withdrawal. The result of staying the course was
58,000 Americans and several million Vietnamese dead.
The only rational argument for continuing on the present course is that
things will be worse if we leave. In Vietnam, they promised a bloodbath if
we left. That did not happen. It was said that if we did not drop the bomb
on Hiroshima, we would have to invade Japan and huge casualties would
follow. We know now and knew then that this was not true. The truth is, no
one knows what will happen if the United States withdraws. We face a choice
between the certainty of mayhem if we stay, and the uncertainty of what will
follow if we leave.
What would be a reasonably good scenario to accompany our departure? The UN
should arrange, as US forces leave, for an international group of
peacekeepers and negotiators from the Arab countries to bring together
Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, and work out a solution for self-governance that
would give all three groups a share in political power. Simultaneously, the
UN should arrange for shipments of food and medicine, from the United States
and other countries, as well as engineers to help rebuild the country.
The one thing to be avoided is for the United States, which destroyed Iraq
and caused perhaps a million deaths through two invasions and ten years of
sanctions, to play any leading role in the future of that country. In that
case, terrorism would surely flourish. It is for the United States to
withdraw from Iraq. It is for the international community, particularly the
Arab world, to try to reconstruct a nation at peace. That gives the Iraqi
people a chance. Continued US occupation gives them no chance.
Howard Zinn is the author, in 1967, of' Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawa'l,
and, later, 'A People's History of the United States'.
The Nation asked a range of writers, both regular and new contributors to
the magazine, for their ideas on America's way out of Iraq.
Unfortunately, this didn't work in Afghanistan and what resulted was a
nation ripe for Bin Laden to set up his terrorist training camps. The
US was criticized there for just 'abandoning' the country to the
warlords and the religous mullahs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 10:38:45 AM |
|
|
--
On 8 May 2004 10:17:12 -0500, (Kate )
wrote:
Unfortunately, this didn't work in Afghanistan and what
resulted was a nation ripe for Bin Laden to set up his
terrorist training camps.
No it was not. It took an immense war effort by outside forces
to impose the taliban on Afghanistan.
Bin Laden did not set up his camps in the conditions of anarchy
that existed in Somalia and much of Afghanistan. He set them
up in the police state order created by the Taliban The core
of terrorism is Saudi Arabia, not Somalia. If Bin Laden showed
his face in Somalia, the locals would snatch him and auction
him off to the highest bidder, as happened to some of his
people in Yemen.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
s4SS/ENPxtD9nL2GDjIPmx/M2PvK1TLx53nfJCCl
42MbaWyGz+btO6kgWk/imnd7P3s6xNZswGxjYYEcb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 12:15:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 May 2004 08:38:45 -0700, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
--
On 8 May 2004 10:17:12 -0500, (Kate )
wrote:
Unfortunately, this didn't work in Afghanistan and what
resulted was a nation ripe for Bin Laden to set up his
terrorist training camps.
No it was not. It took an immense war effort by outside forces
to impose the taliban on Afghanistan.
You will have to expand on that, because that's not what I've been
getting on this.
Bin Laden did not set up his camps in the conditions of anarchy
that existed in Somalia and much of Afghanistan. He set them
up in the police state order created by the Taliban The core
of terrorism is Saudi Arabia, not Somalia. If Bin Laden showed
his face in Somalia, the locals would snatch him and auction
him off to the highest bidder, as happened to some of his
people in Yemen.
what I understood was that the local populace was grateful for the
taliban taking over when the warlords made their lives miserable, so
they put up with the onerous religous rules. Bin Laden took advantage
of the conditions of poverty to set up schools and camps that fed
young boys and men. Where he came from and where the core of
terrorism is not pertinant to the point. That the country was in
chaos which led to misery of the people and left it open to be used by
terrorists. These conditions always will do that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 01:51:27 PM |
|
|
--
James A. Donald
Unfortunately, this didn't work in Afghanistan and what
resulted was a nation ripe for Bin Laden to set up his
terrorist training camps.
James A. Donald:
No it was not. It took an immense war effort by outside
forces to impose the taliban on Afghanistan.
Kate
You will have to expand on that, because that's not what I've
been getting on this.
There are lot of lies going around. Not sure which lie you
heard. The lies are various variations on the theme that the
holy warriors equalled the Taliban, and that the evil US
created the evil Taliban/Holy Warriors in order to thwart the
benevolent plans of the Soviet Union to create a prosperous,
peaceful socialist Afghanistan and liberate the women of
Afghanistan.
So when you say it is not what you heard, I really have no idea
what you did hear. Could you be more specific in what you
think happened? What you think is wrong with my above very
brief, and I would have thought, entirely uncontroversial
statement. In what way does it contradict what you have
heard?
what I understood was that the local populace was grateful
for the taliban taking over when the warlords made their
lives miserable, so they put up with the onerous religous
rules.
Odd then that something like half the population fled to
neigboring countries. The Taliban used genocidal methods of
pacification, similar to those used by the Soviets. They
would burn the crops, bulldoze the houses and irrigation
ditches, cut down the orchards and poison the wells by stuffing
people into them.
The destruction of which you speak was primarily inflicted by
Hekmatyar and the Taliban. Hekmatyar's program, religion, and
foreign supporters were the same as the Taliban, and when
Taliban came into existence, he was their primary ally. For
example the notorious shelling of the capital was done by
Hematyar, so it is ridiculous to suggest that the locals
supported the Taliban because they were so pissed about being
shelled. They submitted the Taliban because the Taliban's ally
shelled them into submission with shells supplied by the same
people who armed the taliban.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
3NAaoGm/7vFg4YTzEbdNrlaS8pXG19AH7u42SUtm
4J2egpTDF3qkJwqxi4jIzLelSckx4Lj4wD7kiUgPB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabrielle Rapagnetta" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 02:49:46 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald
Unfortunately, this didn't work in Afghanistan and what
resulted was a nation ripe for Bin Laden to set up his
terrorist training camps.
James A. Donald:
No it was not. It took an immense war effort by outside
forces to impose the taliban on Afghanistan.
[snip]
Kate
what I understood was that the local populace was grateful
for the taliban taking over when the warlords made their
lives miserable, so they put up with the onerous religous
rules.
James A. Donald:
Odd then that something like half the population fled to
neigboring countries. The Taliban used genocidal methods of
pacification, similar to those used by the Soviets. They
would burn the crops, bulldoze the houses and irrigation
ditches, cut down the orchards and poison the wells by stuffing
people into them.
Allow me to fill in some holes in James' story. (James, you still
haven't answered Kate's question: What was is this "immense war
effort by outside forces" you're talking about?)
Much of the Afghan population had fled before the Taliban took power.
The Taliban themselves were part of this refugee group. Before
Taliban rule there were already 3 million refugees in Pakistan and
another 3 million in Iran.
Most of the Taliban were schooled and trained in Pakistan. Many of
the "holy warriors" James mentions were also trained in Pakistan with
the indirect backing of the US. It is extremely difficult to draw a
fine line between the Taliban and the Mujahideen without knowing what
particular schools they had attended in Pakistan. There is clearly a
significant overlap.
The refugee flight throughout the Taliban's rise to power in the
mid-'90s is minuscule compared to the number of pre-existing refugees
at that time who had fled for entirely different reasons. It is
certainly not "half the population", as James claims. It is an
estimated 170,000. Other factors that explain the flight are the
warlord skirmishes and a severe drought in 1998.
Kate is correct that a large portion Afghanistan welcomed the Taliban.
The Taliban were mostly ethnic Pashtuns, welcomed by the Pashtun
population. The Taliban brought law and reformation to a lawless
country and attempted to end the fighting between warlords.
Common sense tells us that the Taliban was popular, too. How else
could they accomplish in two years what the Soviets could not
accomplish in ten?
The destruction of which you speak was primarily inflicted by
Hekmatyar and the Taliban. Hekmatyar's program, religion, and
foreign supporters were the same as the Taliban, and when
Taliban came into existence, he was their primary ally. For
example the notorious shelling of the capital was done by
Hematyar, so it is ridiculous to suggest that the locals
supported the Taliban because they were so pissed about being
shelled. They submitted the Taliban because the Taliban's ally
shelled them into submission with shells supplied by the same
people who armed the taliban.
James leaves another hole in this story. Hekmatyar really was funded
by the US. In fact, he was perhaps the number one recipient of
Reagan's hand-outs. (This guy has recently declared a Holy War on the
US and is actively trying to incite civil war in Pakistan).
If James truly believes that there was an "immense war effort by
outside forces" to install the Taliban, and he believes that it was
Hekmatyar who accomplished the war effort, then the "outside forces"
must be the US.
FYI, the FBI currently believes that both Hekmatyar and Osama bin
Laden are working together from the same location. If there ever was
a fine line between the Taliban and Reagan's Holy Warriors it has been
obliterated now. I'd say that's pretty good evidence of Kate's
assertion that conditions of misery are the breeding grounds of
terrorism of any kind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 06:47:06 PM |
|
|
--
Kate
what I understood was that the local populace was grateful
for the taliban taking over when the warlords made their
lives miserable, so they put up with the onerous religous
rules.
James A. Donald:
Odd then that something like half the population fled to
neigboring countries. The Taliban used genocidal methods
of pacification, similar to those used by the Soviets.
They would burn the crops, bulldoze the houses and
irrigation ditches, cut down the orchards and poison the
wells by stuffing people into them.
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
Allow me to fill in some holes in James' story. (James, you
still haven't answered Kate's question: What was is this
"immense war effort by outside forces" you're talking about?)
After Hekmatyar was defeated and driven out, he was rearmed,
re-equipped, and trained new forces in bases *outside*
Afghanistan. The same repeatedly happened with the Taliban.
They were repeatedly pushed back into safe havens in Pakistan,
where they trained their forces, and where they received
military aid.
The primary villains were Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, though
Iran also played a role. The Taliban were a creature of
Pakistan, repeatedly forced out of Afghanistan into Pakistan,
and repeatedly invading from Pakistan. Their final invasion
was successful, because the Afghans were exhaused by the ruin
of the previous intrusions from Pakistan. Swollen with
delusions of their greatness, the Taliban set about sponsoring
a world wide crusade against the infidel, until Bush persuaded
Pakistan (by threats and bribes) to dump them.
Much of the Afghan population had fled before the Taliban
took power.
But who were they fleeing?
The Taliban themselves were part of this refugee group.
Tends to happen when you lose a war in Afghanistan, as the
Taliban did twice.
Before
Taliban rule there were already 3 million refugees in
Pakistan and another 3 million in Iran.
A better measure would be to ask how many there were before the
Taliban attacked.
Most of the Taliban were schooled and trained in Pakistan.
Many of the "holy warriors" James mentions were also trained
in Pakistan with the indirect backing of the US. It is
extremely difficult to draw a fine line between the Taliban
and the Mujahideen without knowing what particular schools
they had attended in Pakistan. There is clearly a
significant overlap.
True enough. The Taliban themselves had trouble distinguishing
friends from enemies. In the end, many people who were
supposedly taliban were radioing in target coordinates to
Northern alliance commanders, who gave them to special forces,
who called in US bombers. Some of these double agents sold out
for money, some were never sincerely Taliban in the first
place, some saw which way the wind was blowing, switched sides,
and are now US allies in good standing.
The refugee flight throughout the Taliban's rise to power in
the mid-'90s is minuscule compared to the number of
pre-existing refugees
*****.
I don't have any figures for the refugees, but Taliban rule was
not "peace", rather it was an escalation of the long war on the
vast majority of Afghans deemed insufficiently Islamic, or
incorrectly islamic: See for example:
http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/newwave.htm
Kate is correct that a large portion Afghanistan welcomed the
Taliban. The Taliban were mostly ethnic Pashtuns, welcomed by
the Pashtun population. The Taliban brought law and
reformation to a lawless country and attempted to end the
fighting between warlords.
They had support among Wahabi Pashtuns. Most Pashtuns are not
Wahabi, and suffered the religion to be imposed on them at
gunpoint. The substantial minority that were reluctant to
accept superficial compliance with Wahabism were subjected to
various kinds of mistreatment.
Common sense tells us that the Taliban was popular, too. How
else could they accomplish in two years what the Soviets
could not accomplish in ten?
They did not accomplish it. The resistance against the Taliban
did not end, even though the Taliban had foreign assistance,
and their opponents did not. Their position was akin to that
of the Soviets -- they held the towns and terrorized the
countryside. The terror was successful in stopping opponents
from moving or organizing in most of the countryside, but far
from all of it. Sounds quite familiar.
Your claim is that the Taliban brought peace, but the Taliban
did not bring peace. They faced continual warfare from the
non Wahabi, non Pashtun majority, and answered that resistance
with terror.
James leaves another hole in this story. Hekmatyar really
was funded by the US. In fact, he was perhaps the number one
recipient of Reagan's hand-outs. (This guy has recently
declared a Holy War on the US and is actively trying to
incite civil war in Pakistan).
If James truly believes that there was an "immense war effort
by outside forces" to install the Taliban, and he believes
that it was Hekmatyar who accomplished the war effort, then
the "outside forces" must be the US.
The US was wrong to support Hekmatyar, but the Taliban did not
exist back when Hekmatyar received funding from the US, and the
Taliban was brought into existence by hostile foreign forces,
in large part because Hekmatyar was a spent force who had been
discredited and repeatedly defeated
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
WV1Ag19IefjeppvBgiTGKT7OBUupz8NgE8SiV6LO
47rpmzc6oZupWxuiYz6lsIFLtj7uYyyqZtrPSRUcj
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabrielle Rapagnetta" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 07:06:57 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald:
Your claim is that the Taliban brought peace, but the Taliban
did not bring peace. They faced continual warfare from the
non Wahabi, non Pashtun majority, and answered that resistance
with terror.
Hell no, I don't claim that. It was believed by many Afghans that
they would bring peace, or at least stop the fighting between
warlords. They failed miserably. Fundamentalists always fail to
bring peace.
The US was wrong to support Hekmatyar, but the Taliban did not
exist back when Hekmatyar received funding from the US, and the
Taliban was brought into existence by hostile foreign forces,
in large part because Hekmatyar was a spent force who had been
discredited and repeatedly defeated
I really hope you are right that he is discredited. It seems he still
believes he's a major player. And his goal is probably nothing short
of Pakistan's nuclear program.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
09 May 2004 12:24:36 AM |
|
|
--
James A. Donald:
Your claim is that the Taliban brought peace, but the
Taliban did not bring peace. They faced continual warfare
from the non Wahabi, non Pashtun majority, and answered that
resistance with terror.
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
Hell no, I don't claim that. It was believed by many Afghans
that they would bring peace, or at least stop the fighting
between warlords.
There is an obvious flaw in your story: The Taliban were twice
largely driven out of Afghanistan, and only succeeded on the
third invasion.
So it was not fighting between the warlords that exhausted the
Afghans. It was fighting the Taliban. They surrendered not
for peace from the warlords attacking, but for peace from the
Taliban attacking.
For the most part, the conflict after the Soviets fled was not
warlord strife, but religious warfare -- Wahabis, striving to
impose Wahabism on all the various other muslims - and
eventually on the west.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
BsNqCG95Fw81Vs9x3dFEjO3Pq/hZvM1JMi/OuxVU
4f4bmgB8pbv7q6kaWacWfehmoZuarrxdAVaCM//zx
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Dougherty" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 02:37:20 PM |
|
|
Kate,
If you're going to attempt to follow James Donald's accounting of history,
try not to be too picky when comparing it to actual events. There's often
little or no relation. Just be sure to strap yourself in. It could get
bumpy.
Josh
"Kate " <> wrote in message
news:40b313a3.270116718@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sat, 08 May 2004 08:38:45 -0700, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
--
On 8 May 2004 10:17:12 -0500, (Kate )
wrote:
Unfortunately, this didn't work in Afghanistan and what
resulted was a nation ripe for Bin Laden to set up his
terrorist training camps.
No it was not. It took an immense war effort by outside forces
to impose the taliban on Afghanistan.
You will have to expand on that, because that's not what I've been
getting on this.
Bin Laden did not set up his camps in the conditions of anarchy
that existed in Somalia and much of Afghanistan. He set them
up in the police state order created by the Taliban The core
of terrorism is Saudi Arabia, not Somalia. If Bin Laden showed
his face in Somalia, the locals would snatch him and auction
him off to the highest bidder, as happened to some of his
people in Yemen.
what I understood was that the local populace was grateful for the
taliban taking over when the warlords made their lives miserable, so
they put up with the onerous religous rules. Bin Laden took advantage
of the conditions of poverty to set up schools and camps that fed
young boys and men. Where he came from and where the core of
terrorism is not pertinant to the point. That the country was in
chaos which led to misery of the people and left it open to be used by
terrorists. These conditions always will do that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The World Wide Wade" |
|
| Title: Re: How to Get Out of Iraq,by Howard Zinn |
08 May 2004 05:14:48 PM |
|
|
In article <40aef8fb.263293453@news-west.newscene.com>,
(Kate ) wrote:
Unfortunately, this didn't work in Afghanistan and what resulted was a
nation ripe for Bin Laden to set up his terrorist training camps. The
US was criticized there for just 'abandoning' the country to the
warlords and the religous mullahs.
The problem with the above is the word "this". In the case of Afghanistan,
"this" meant total abandonment by the major forces (US, USSR) with no
provision for governance, rebuilding, ... Zinn is proposing no such thing
in the case of Iraq.
PS: James Donald is in my kill-file, but I see his "shadow" in the posts of
others, including yours. It will be a huge waste of your time trying to
reason with him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
