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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (214838)	1/13/2005 10:32:04 AM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 1571864

Ballots and Boycotts By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN nytimes.com Published: January 13, 2005 In trying to think through whether we should press ahead with elections in Iraq or not, I have found it useful to go back and dig out my basic rules for Middle East reporting, which I have developed and adapted over 25 years of writing from that region. Rule 1 Never lead your story out of Lebanon, Gaza or Iraq with a cease-fire; it will always be over by the time the next morning's paper is out. Rule 2 Never take a concession, except out of the mouth of the person who is supposed to be doing the conceding. If I had a dime for every time someone agreed to recognize Israel on behalf of Yasir Arafat, I would be a wealthy man today. Rule 3 The Israelis will always win, and the Palestinians will always make sure that they never enjoy it. Everything else is just commentary. Rule 4 In the Middle East, if you can't explain something with a conspiracy theory, then don't try to explain it at all - people there won't believe it. Rule 5 In the Middle East, the extremists go all the way, and the moderates tend to just go away - unless the coast is completely clear. Rule 6 The most oft-used phrase of Mideast moderates is: "We were just about to stand up to the bad guys when you stupid Americans did that stupid thing. Had you stupid Americans not done that stupid thing, we would have stood up, but now it's too late. It's all your fault for being so stupid." Rule 7 In Middle East politics there is rarely a happy medium. When one side is weak, it will tell you, "How can I compromise?" And the minute it becomes strong, it will tell you, "Why should I compromise?" Rule 8 What people tell you in private in the Middle East is irrelevant. All that matters is what they will defend in public in Arabic, in Hebrew or in any other local language. Anything said in English doesn't count. It is on the basis of these rules that I totally disagree with those who argue that the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections should be postponed. Their main argument is that an Iraqi election that ensconces the Shiite majority in power, without any participation of the Sunni minority, will sow the seeds of civil war. That is probably true - but we are already in a civil war in Iraq. That civil war was started by the Sunni Baathists, and their Islamist fascist allies from around the region, the minute the U.S. toppled Saddam. And they started that war not because they felt the Iraqi elections were going to be rigged, but because they knew they weren't going to be rigged. They started the war not to get their fair share of Iraqi power, but in hopes of retaining their unfair share. Under Saddam, Iraq's Sunni minority, with only 20 percent of the population, ruled everyone. These fascist insurgents have never given politics a chance to work in Iraq because they don't want it to work. That's why they have never issued a list of demands. They don't want people to see what they are really after, which is continued minority rule, Saddamism without Saddam. If that was my politics, I'd be wearing a ski mask over my head, too. The notion that delaying the elections for a few months would somehow give time for the "Sunni moderates" to persuade the extremists to come around is dead wrong - literally. Any delay would simply embolden the guys with the guns to kill more Iraqi police officers and to intimidate more Sunnis. It could only convince them that with just a little more violence, they could scuttle the whole project of rebuilding Iraq. There is only one thing that will enable the Sunni moderates in Iraq to win the debate, and that is when the fascist insurgents are forced to confront the fact that their tactics have not only failed to prevent the elections, but have also dug the Sunnis of Iraq into an even deeper hole. By boycotting the elections, not only will they lose their unfair share of the old Iraq, they will also have failed to claim even their fair share of the new Iraq. The moderate argument among the Sunnis can prevail only when the tactics of their extremists have proved utterly bankrupt. For all these reasons, the least bad option right now for the U.S. is to forge ahead with the elections - unless the Iraqi Shiites ask for a postponement - and focus all of America's energies not on appeasing the fascist insurgents, but on moderating the Shiites and Kurds, who are sure to dominate the voting. Despite my seventh rule, we have a much greater chance of producing a decent outcome in Iraq by appealing to the self-interest of the Kurds and the Shiites to be magnanimous in victory, than we do of getting the fascist insurgents to be magnanimous in defeat.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (214838)	1/13/2005 2:21:42 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1571864

CHRISTIAN AID WORKERS More on the Reckless Stupidity of the Arrested Christian Aid Workers in Taliban Afghanistan September 6, 2001 Yesterday I wrote that the prize for the stupidest people in the world could very well go to the eight foreign aid workers associated with Shelter Now, a German-based Christian organization, who apparently were caught in Afghanistan trying to convert people from Islam to Christianity. Many readers agreed with my assessment. A few readers, however, felt that these aid workers were akin to Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King and others protesting unjust situations. Along those lines, some other readers felt that the aid workers should be commended for risking their lives for their beliefs. One person even accused me of Christian-bashing. Regarding this allegation, I think it was obvious to most everybody else that I was criticizing the location and manner of the proselytizing, not what these aid workers were proselytizing about. As to the other points raised: First: these Shelter Now aid workers were allowed entry into Afghanistan to feed starving people. You don't proselytize hungry people you are feeding. That's an inherently coercive situation. If these aid workers were doing that, they should be ashamed. Second: it's not their own lives they were risking. As Westerners, they will be treated far more leniently than the 16 Afghan staff members who also were arrested. It's the Afghans who face torture and death. The foreign aid workers at last word face only expulsion from Afghanistan. Third: the aid workers didn't go to Afghanistan to protest or change an unjust situation, nor, by their own words, to risk their lives for their beliefs. According to statements made by some of them, they claim not to have known what they were doing was really wrong, and have apologized. The two Americans admit showing a video CD about Jesus. But ''we did not think it would cause so much trouble,'' because Jesus is also regarded as a prophet by Muslims, reads a statement signed by both Ms. Curry and Ms. Mercer. ''We again are very sorry.'' [New York Times, April 27, 2001] Hardly in the same league as "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." Fourth: the actions of these aid workers threaten the entire Afghan aid program, since the Taliban could expel all outside agencies, and hundreds of thousands of people could starve as the result. Christian Aid Workers: Condemned by Colleagues Don't take my word for it. Here's what their fellow aid workers have said about the eight people arrested: "These laws were well-known to everyone," said Fayaz Shah, head of the United Nations World Food Program in Kabul. "It's like walking in a minefield, and when one blows, you yell, 'Why did this happen?' But you should know. You were in a minefield." ...The potential of more arrests has left the aid agencies in fear. People say the Shelter Now episode could eventually lead to a huge withdrawal — or expulsion — of the agencies. That would be catastrophic for the needy. That dreadful prospect complicates the moral judgments of aid workers who would ordinarily ache with sympathy for their jailed colleagues. As it is, commiseration often is coupled with anger. Many people here presume that the arrested foreigners were guilty of reckless proselytizing; however well-intentioned the preaching, that forbidden endeavor to save a few dozen souls has imperiled thousands of lives. "Why did they break the law, especially this law?" asked an American who insisted on anonymity. "Worse yet, they dragged their Afghan workers into this. After some political games, the foreigners will probably be kicked out of the country as their punishment. But the Afghans, I am afraid they are going to be killed." Just like I concluded yesterday before having read the above comments: these eight foreign aid workers acted in an incredibly stupid and reckless manner. therationalradical.com