SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Hawkmoon who wrote (114122)9/7/2003 11:21:06 PM
From: Bilow  Respond to of 281500
 
Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Now, of course, you preferred Saddam being in power to quash any fundamentalist movement that dared to rear its head."

That's right. The enemy of your enemy is your friend. The fact is that, at one time, Saddam was our ally. It was only the Kuwaiti invasion that turned us into enemies. We should have forgiven and forgotten and moved on. In contrast, the Islamic Fundamentalists have never been our friend, even in Afghanistan they were mostly a sideline.

Instead, we went into "hope" mode and hoped that Saddam would be deposed. This was a minor foreign policy error. When the rebellion didn't work, we went into "collective punishment" mode and collectively punished the Iraqi people for their crime of failing to overthrow Saddam, (a failure that we had a hand in). This was a medium sized foreign policy error. Then the Moron in Chief decided that the people of Iraq hated Saddam (partly true), and loved himself (mostly untrue), and invaded the country without any more realistic planning than a hope and a prayer. This was a medium sized foreign policy disaster.

If we'd simply left Saddam alone to keep his insane citizens in line with machine guns and grenades, we wouldn't be in Iraq failing at an attempt at keeping his insane citizens in line with machine guns and bombs, and having his sane citizens complain that we're not as good at keeping the trains running on time as Saddam was.

So yeah, I wish Saddam was not only still in power, but that sanctions had never been applied to the country. And to hell with the cowardly nightmares of the lily-livered crowd who quaked in their boots from fears of nonexistent bogeymen. This is a rough planet. There is no 100% safe policy for doing anything on it, certainly there is no foreign policy that will guarantee 100% safety for the American people. So pointing out what MIGHT happen if Saddam were still around doesn't scare me a bit. What worried me is what WAS SURE TO happen when Iraq was invaded, not some unlikely and purely hypothetical situation in the indefinite future.

Re: "And I'm sure you were quite proud of Hafez Al-Assad for what he did in Hama."

It would take a complete moron to believe that I am proud of Assad, so I'm sure you're saying this just to try and pick a fight. But when it comes down to it, I would prefer that we leave Syria alone rather than kick over that anthill also. Fortunately, the fact that we've run out of army precludes any more medium sized foreign policy disasters.

Let me point out that you believed, apparently wrongly, that Iraq had WMDs. Well Syria has them and there is no two ways about it. It's a fact of life. And so if you're so damned scared of terrorists getting a hold of WMDs, then why aren't you raging at Bush for failing to attack Syria? Iran, too, not only has chemical weapons, but used them a few years ago in their war with the Iraqis. God knows what the Koreans have.

Think about it, and then go shiver in fear. Go buy some duct tape and seal your bedroom, LOL. You must live a life completely dominated by fear, LOL. I'd be amazed to discover that you're brave enough to drive an automobile, have you heard the figures for how many Americans are killed in them every month?

-- Carl



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (114122)9/8/2003 9:55:52 AM
From: Sam  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
"you preferred Saddam being in power to quash any fundamentalist movement that dared rear its head. And I'm sure you were quite proud of Hafez al-Assad for what he did in Hama."

Aside from the entirely unnecessary non-sequitar of the Assad reference, may I point out that the US never had any problems with setting up and/or supporting a number of brutal dictatorships during the Cold War? And while some of them may have been necessary (stress the word "may" here), a number of them were entirely unnecessary and counter productive, including but not limited to Vietnam (like virtually all of the regimes set up in the Americas). And of course (this is so often repeated that it is almost embarrassing to repeat it, but...) it was the Reagan administration that used and encouraged Saddam to counter the Iranian revolution.

That isn't in itself an argument against using or overthrowing brutal dictators. But priorities and lesser evils at the moment need to be set in foreign policy. The priority right now and in the past year was not Saddam. It was and is Al Qaeda. Going after Saddam at the expense of unity in the war against Al Qaeda was, as I suppose you know I believe, foolish at best. I repeat what I (and others) have said earlier that removing the guy has both strengthened the enemies who matter most here, has weakened the trust and support of our friends, has cost us money and lives that need not have been spent in this way at this time, and has distracted our attention from the real battle that must, as we agree, be won.

But the latter was, I am sorry to say that I am cynical enough to believe, an important part of the reason for the adventure in the first place. All politics are "local," and this administration is, first and foremost, a political "animal."



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (114122)9/8/2003 6:16:06 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Respond to of 281500
 
And here's one more reason I hate Islamic militant fundamentalism. Alternative titled, "what we're fighting against":

washingtonpost.com

Attacks Beset Afghan Girls' Schools
Officials Say Sabotage Intended to Undermine Progress
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, September 8, 2003; Page A01

ZAHIDABAD, Afghanistan, Sept. 7 -- It was little more than a shed attached to a village mosque. It had no chairs, and no desks. But for the 50 young girls who had studied there since April, the two-room school in this pastoral pocket of Logar province was all that stood between a lifetime of ignorance and a glimmer of knowledge.

Now the doors have been padlocked, the teacher says he is too scared to return, and the former students are back to their customary chores -- pumping water at the village well, weeding onion fields and carrying loads of animal fodder on their heads.

That may be exactly what the unknown assailants had in mind when they broke into the shed late at night 10 days ago, doused the classrooms with fuel and set them afire, leaving behind leaflets in the Dari language warning that girls should not go to school and that teachers should not teach them.

"When I was walking home today, the little girls followed me and asked when they could go back to school. But I am not ready to teach them again because I am afraid for my own safety," confided Fazel Ahmed, 39, the school's only teacher. "I'm very upset. These students will make the future of our community and our country."

The attack was followed two days later by the midnight burning of three tents used as classrooms outside another school in Logar province. According to officials of UNICEF, which is helping to revive the country's long-neglected education system, there have been 18 incidents of school sabotage nationwide in the past 18 months, often accompanied by similar warnings.

The assailants could be from the Taliban, the former Islamic government that opposed girls' education as morally corrupting, and whose armed supporters recently have been regrouping. Or they could be from other conservative Islamic groups who once fought the Taliban but are now plotting a political comeback as guardians of religious purity.

Whoever they are, said school officials in Logar and education experts in Kabul, the capital, their goal is clearly to undermine Afghanistan's successful emergence into the modern world after 25 years of military conflict and religious repression that paralyzed its development in every sphere -- particularly the emancipation of women.

And yet everyone involved in Afghan education -- from village elders to foreign charities -- insists that such tactics cannot slow the extraordinarily swift and widespread revival of girls' education that has taken place since the Taliban was defeated and replaced by a U.S.-backed government under President Hamid Karzai in December 2001.

"We have 4.2 million children in 7,000 schools now, and a 37 percent increase in the number of girls in school since last year," said Sharad Sapra, the UNICEF director for Afghanistan. The increase amounts to 400,000 more girls in school this year. "There is concern that these sporadic incidents should not become a wave, but almost everyone wants their daughters to go to school, and overall, people do not seem to be intimidated."

Indeed, the second Logar province school to be attacked, a primary school in the village of Mogul Khel where girls and boys study in separate shifts and separate areas, has already achieved national fame because of its immediate resistance to the threat. Karzai, speaking at a news conference in Kabul today with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, noted proudly that almost all students and teachers there had returned to class the day after the attack.

On Saturday, classes were in full, noisy swing, if in hastily improvised settings. Groups of boys recited their multiplication tables in unison, sitting on the playground next to the metal skeletons of the canvas classroom tents that were burned last Tuesday night. Groups of girls huddled on straw mats in the front lobby, reading their Pashto language lessons from a portable blackboard.

"We do not know who these saboteurs are, but our school is the cradle of education in Logar, and we will defend it," said Mahmoud Ayub Saber, 50, the principal, who returned home last year after waiting out the Taliban era in Pakistan.

"If some girls were occasionally absent before this happened," he said, "their parents are saying from now on none of their daughters will miss a single day."

Education Ministry officials in Kabul said they are determined to ensure the success of girls' education, but they acknowledged that they have limited resources to physically protect schools, and they noted with alarm that a rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism is challenging the modernizing policies of the Karzai government.

Ashrak Hossaini, the deputy minister of education, noted that opposition to girls' education, as well as to women's participation in work and public life, was a hallmark of the Taliban worldview, and that it remains a volatile issue for Islamic conservatives who oppose Karzai's policies.

"Our society is going through many changes, and there are fundamentalists who want to resist this change," Hossaini said. "We are trying to move to a modern and civilized stage, and girls' schools are attacked because they represent this movement. We must not only provide physical protection, but also prepare the people mentally for these changes."

Indeed, while there seems to be near-universal public support for girls' elementary school education, the idea of female study beyond sixth grade is far more controversial, particularly in traditional, rural areas steeped in social and gender taboos that existed long before the Taliban took power in 1996.

Even in Logar province, a relatively prosperous and progressive agricultural region just south of Kabul, parents and teachers who strongly support girls' primary education take a far more cautious, and even dismissive, approach to secondary-level study for them.

While there are hundreds of schools in the area that teach boys and girls up to sixth grade, there are very few higher-level schools for girls. Coeducation is out of the question in conservative Afghan society, and most parents do not want their adolescent daughters attending even an all-female high school if it is not in or close to their village.

"In our district, there is no opportunity for girls to go beyond the fifth class. After that, most of them get married and have no need to continue their educations," said Saber, the Mogul Khel principal. He said education officials in Kabul had ordered a girls' high school to be built in Logar, but community elders opposed it because students would be required to travel some distance from their homes.

Officials at UNICEF said they are approaching such issues pragmatically, stressing the importance of getting girls into school at a young age so they will be exposed to basic knowledge and social interactions, while leaving the more controversial issue of female higher education for the future.

By turning schools into social service centers where people receive vaccinations, register births and even pump well water, Sapra said, the idea of education can become an integral part of village life. But in villages such as Zahidabad, where the two-room girls' school was built last spring, the most serious obstacle to education today is fear.

"We are all afraid of these bad people. We are Muslims, and we fear for the honor of our daughters," said Shah Agha, 50, a water and power department worker in Zahidabad whose 12-year-old daughter attended the village school until last week.

"We were very happy when this school opened, but one morning we went to pray and we found it was all burned," he said. "Unless the government brings us more security, we cannot let our daughters go back there."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company