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

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

Newsweek Article 8 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • 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 that foreign aid we sent them for destroying the Poppy crop one year.

              The instability of Afghanistan after the Soviets were ousted was largely because the Tajik, Uzbeki, Pashtun and Persian groups were jockeying for power. It appears that all sides are working together now with the King having returned to lend stability.

              Pakistan funded the Taliban to gain trade stability. It certainly appears that Pakistan will support the current Karzai government for much the same reason.

              The US never funded one group, the Taliban, over another at the expense of Afghan stability as you seem to be claiming.

              Well, unless you claim that the Soviet puppet government was stable and our support of the Mujahideen broke that up.

              Things may well be bleak in Afghanistan for some time to come. By far, the largest cash industry has been the opium trade for some time and it's hard to see how we would support a government that would countenance that.

              • 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

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.