Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (60902)	12/10/2002 12:45:34 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Ah, you are in fine, familiar form this morning, Nadine. Let's see where I can respond. Bush talking about freedom as an index of his support for human rights. Why do I not think he means that? In the Bush speeches, the term freedom is only pure political rhetoric. It has no more meaning than that. It's a way not to communicate rather than a means of communication. Oh, how did Carter get into this conversation? Oh, yes, his reception of the Nobel Peace Prize is on the tube this morning. Folk can't just let him have his much delayed prize; they have to keep beating up on him. As to whether Bush is a convert to the "human rights" issue for realpolitik reasons or any other reasons, we'll just have to wait and see. They apparently did a good thing in the Egyptian academic's case. Most likely some good diplomacy out of the State Dept. But that's the only evidence I see. I do, however, expect to see a lot of political manipulation using this language. Wolfowitz on establishing democracy in Iraq is a piece of evidence. Whether they are serious about it will wait for the aftermath. Their track record is abysmal. . . . . is hardly what the anti-war types mean by "it's all about ooooiiiiillll!", and you know it perfectly well. Ah, a bit of snideness. Well, who knows what the anti-war types mean by "it's all about oil." That sentence of mine was about what I meant by the phrase. I see you are still trying to paint with the broad stroke. If folk disagree with you they must be on the "left" and if they are on the "left" they must be infected with all sorts of political diseases.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (60902)	12/10/2002 1:04:18 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>>unlike Carter, he is likely to achieve some significant human rights improvements<< I see Afghanistan as a significant improvement in human rights. Zonder and her friends see dead Afghanis, and what -- wish we had left the Taliban in place? They never killed anyone, of course. They were the paragon defenders of human rights. I see hundreds of thousands (millions, actually) of exiled or refugee Afghanis returning to help re-establish a humane government and civil society in Afghanistan, millions (billions) in aid, roads being rebuilt, schools being built, girls able to attend school for the first time in their lives, hospitals being built. Obviously it's not over, there is much more good work to be done. The Taliban and the warlords aren't done yet, and given the history of Afghanistan, may never be done. The good work isn't being done by nay-sayers who sit in front of their computers and whine and fret. No, it's being done by brave people who are willing to put their feet on the ground, turn their hands to the task, and accomplish something. Hamid Karzai has a lot of courage. He's a marked man, and if the Taliban and the rival warlords can get to him he'll be a dead man. I'll be very surprised if he survives two years. I give him five, tops. Take a look at this photo - Afhani women marching in a political demonstration in Islamabad, sans burquas, complaining that things have not improved in Afghanistan for women. The irony. irinnews.org CB@ninetenthsfull.pov