Subject:
|
Re: Special Identification for Arab Americans?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Sep 2001 22:23:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
358 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > Sorry for picking on this one point that in general I agree with. I just
> > wanted to get your (and others) opinions on a hypothetical situation.
> >
> > Lets say the Taliban is evil (I think Larry and I agree that it is) and a clear
> > connection between them and the terrorists is found to exist. The consequences
> > of that could be that they become a target of the war on terrorism. That means
> > at some point Afganistan is without a government (no matter how evil a
> > government is anarchy doesn't do anyone any good either).
> >
> > What do we do then to avoid interventionist meddling and fix the problem?
>
> Any right that the ruling powers of Afganistan had to accuse us of being
> interventionist and meddling have been forfieted by commiting an act of war
> against this country. They may have a problem with our support of Israel, they
> may have a problem with our military presence in Saudi Arabia, but killing (or
> supporting those who killed) 7,000 of our people is not viable "diplomacy."
Important clarification: The link, however strongly we feel about
it, is only equivalent to the Taliban "committing an act of war" by
the US definition of that term. The link is still under dispute.
You can't say that the Taliban committed an act of war against the
US; that's just not supportable, even if they *are* providing safe
harbor for al-Qaeda. If we had evidence that the Taliban was
involved with the planning or indeed knew anything significant about
it, then we'd already have stated so, and we would have gone to an
*actual* declaration of war by the United States. Making the link
"criminal's country of residence = liable for the criminal's actions"
is a difficult one to maintain, which is the source of pretty much
*all* of the restraint exhibited thus far.
I see a lot of goading of the Taliban in Bush's actions and words,
though, so they may yet commit an act of war themselves. And if
they do that, the gloves will be off before the smoke's cleared.
> > Do we just leave Afganistan to figure it out for themselves? I don't think
> > thats a good idea.
>
> The burden of this problem shouldn't rest on the shoulders of the U.S. and the
> West alone. The world - including, notably the shirkers amongst us such as
> virtually the whole Middle East and in particularRussia need to help Afganistan
> become a better place.. America has historically had a small part in the
> tangled mess of affairs in that country.
Define "historically." In the post-1945 period, we've had a
rather large part. Definitely after 1979, at the very latest.
I wouldn't project the current wave of millenarian Islam too
far back; by pretending that a region's problems are "ancient"
and "timeless" (or, at the very least, that we took a small
part in the past) we absolve ourselves of any responsibility
for the damage we may do, and we deny any power to make the
situation better at the same time.
> It's time that all of the responsible
> parties do their fair share of whatever humanitarian and political work needs to
> be done for the innocent people of that country.
Who are "all the responsible parties?"
> > Do we let the Northern Alliance have power? I don't know if thats a good idea
> > either.
>
> If they are committed to reasonable principles of fair government, then I'd say
> yes, that is a viable alternative.
Provided they also won't start squabbling among themselves
once the immediate foe is defeated, which is what happened
to the mujaheddin in the first place.
> > Do we "force" democratic elections on the people? That might be seen as
> > forcing our systems on Afganistan.
>
> No, but we can insist that any prerequisites for rulership are a commitment to
> honoring human rights.
Based on which standard of human rights?
> > Do we leave and have a coalition of Arab States pick up the pieces? Maybe
> > thats the best idea I don't know but we could look really bad.
>
> Frankly, I think that we *all* should pick up the pieces, for the sake of the
> innocent sufferers.
I can definitely agree with this.
> > So what do we do? Is it a no win situation?
>
> Few wars truly are "win" scenarios, even for the victors.
That's for certain.
best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Special Identification for Arab Americans?
|
| (...) Any right that the ruling powers of Afganistan had to accuse us of being interventionist and meddling have been forfieted by commiting an act of war against this country. They may have a problem with our support of Israel, they may have a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
