Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Purdy (2383)

Purdy
  jasonNO@SPAMpurdy.info
http://purdy.info/
AOL IM: EmeraldWarp (Add Buddy, Send Message)
Yahoo! ID: jpurdy2 (Add User, Send Message)
Bleh - not feeling creative right now. You can check me out on PerlMonks [perlmonks.org].

Journal of Purdy (2383)

Tuesday March 18, 2003
09:24 PM

Newsweek Article

[ #11104 ]

I thought this was a really good article by Newsweek (tho biased at points) ... on IRC, someone scoffed when I said the US was currently a lone superpower. Take a good read at the article and then tell me if you still disagree. Some highlights:

  • A few months later [after 9/11] it [the US] toppled a regime [Afghanistan] 6,000 miles away - almost entirely from the air - in Afghanistan, a country where the British and Soviet empires were bogged down at the peak of their power.
  • The US will spend as much next year on defense as the rest of the world put together (yes, all 191 countries). And it will do so devoting 4 percent of its GDP, a low level by postwar standards.
  • The US economy is as large as the next three - Japan, Germany and Britain - put together.

There's more, but I leave it to an exercise to the reader to both see for themselves and save me from what is probably already a copyright violation. ;)

Peace,

Jason


List all Journal entries
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Newsweek Article 13 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.

  • Argh! People are so afraid of violating copyright. You were simply quoting facts. Which aren't copyrightable.

    The large publishing interests want you to think that any use of their material is somehow controlled by them; that copyright gives them that power. It doesn't. Don't concede the point to them!

    • You are probably right (IANAL and not knowledgable about copyright), but I conceded the point because I pretty much copied those points/facts straight from the article. I didn't want to paraprase the points/facts and be accused of adding my own bias. So re-typing those "snippets" from the article got me thinking about copyright - there were more "snippets" that I could have added, but I got to the point where I would have just been re-posting the whole article, and that got me to thinking about copyright.
    • Is it okay for me to quote you on this? Would you send me the contract so that I can review your comment?

      Please don't lawyer me for replying...! *whimper*

      --

      ------------------------------
      You are what you think.
  • From my reading, the writer is fairly right-wing, what with the underlying assumption that American foreign interventions are generally a good thing, but they need to be done right. I'd strongly disagree with that, but ...

    The fact that someone who is relatively right is still saying that the Bush administration is completely fscking things up ought to a big alarm to anyone, no matter their political leanings.
    • Yes, I would have to agree - our actions will have international ramifications for decades to come.

      Last two paragraphs of the 1st section:


                      In one respect, I believe that the Bush administration is right: this war will look better when it is over. The military campaign will probably be less difficult than many of Washington’s opponents think. Most important, it will reveal the nature of Saddam’s barbarous regime. Prisoners and political d

      • [Iraq, like Afghanistan, will be a better place after this is all done with]

        What the hell are you talking about? The US has completely abandoned Afghanistan, and things there are about as bad as they were under the Taliban! Have you actually ready anything about Afghanistan recently? I doubt it, since the mainstream US media hasn't really covered it for quite a while. So did you just make your assertion up? You must have, because it doesn't really coincide with reality.

        The RAWA (Revolutionary Women [fancymarketing.net]
        • The US has NOT "completely abandoned Afghanistan" (what do you call the presence of troops (helping to rebuild the country and train the fledgling Afghan army), including Special Forces to continue to protect Karzai? Or what do you call the millions (billions?) of dollars of aid that the US has already provided Afghanistan?) and your statement or assertion (and dare I say ignorance or bias) almost prompts me to ignore the rest of this rant... almost.

          I took a look at the Web site you linked to and there ar
          • I didn't say Afghanistan was worse, I simply disagreed with your assertion that it will be a better place. Right now, over a year after the US "intervention", it is not meaningfully better. The articles I linked to suggest to me that it's unlikely to be better any time soon. Yes, there are historical reasons for this beyond the recent US bombing. One historical reason I'd point out is US funding of the Taliban (including Osama bin Laden) back when they were the mujahadin (sp?).

            We will see if the countr
              • One historical reason I'd point out is US funding of the Taliban (including Osama bin Laden) back when they were the mujahadin (sp?).

              You need to get your players straight. First, Osama Bin Laden was never a member of the Taliban. The Taliban, which only really coalesced in 1994, was made up of Talibes, mostly Pashtun religious zealots who overran Afghanistan with Pakistani support.

              Now, many of the Taliban had been mujahedeen, but it's hard to see where we ever funding the Taliban, except perhaps tha

              • You need to get your players straight. First, Osama Bin Laden was never a member of the Taliban. The Taliban, which only really coalesced in 1994, was made up of Talibes, mostly Pashtun religious zealots who overran Afghanistan with Pakistani support.

                Now, many of the Taliban had been mujahedeen, but it's hard to see where we ever funding the Taliban, except perhaps that foreign aid we sent them for destroying the Poppy crop one year.

                Fair enough, I wasn't trying to imply that the US had directly funded th
                  • Was there no legitimate democratic opposition to the Soviet occupation?

                  AFAIK, there was no opposition except for the Mujahideen. They were a very mixed bag, but there are legitimate Democratic elements, like Karzai (father was a Mujahideen leader) and Dr. Muhammed (new foreign minister, former Mujahideen).

                  • Or did those people just not look likely to provide the economic access the US would want?

                  Sheesh, where do you get your world view? The Worker's World Daily? Our support of the Afghani oppositi

            • autarch - First, I want to apologize for my previous response. I responded too quickly after reading your post and let my emotions get the better of me. I appreciate your input and your perspective - it at least pointed me to some insights on what's going on in Afghanistan (you're right - I don't get much news in terms of what's going on in Afghanistan).

              I read your linked article and it disgusts me that monetary aid goes towards new buildings, air-conditioned jeeps, but not towards the people of Afghanis
        • Facts - $900M already [usaid.gov], with another $2B ($820M from the US) on the way [foxnews.com], with international support.
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.