Bush's Deal With The Devil

Great Debates
21

Zenster, you’ve not only stuck your foot in it, but you keep pushing further with each post, and I fear it will soon exit out your a…

Please, I’ve seen you post some excellent stuff on this board, even though I disagree on almost all issues politically with you, I’d like to see you hang around. Take a careful read of your posts in this thread and see just how badly you are trying to twist things to make some sort of case for your stance.

You’ve takem a lousy opportunity to try to push your political point of view - you now know full well there is no there there.

Please apoligize and let it sink. Complete retraction is due, no twisty-tricky-slippery language.

22

refugees.org reports that over 3.5 million Afghani refugees had been given haven in Iran and Pakistan by January of this year. The figure 3.5 million represents an increase of 900,000 in just the past 12 months.

During the past 11 years the number of Afghanis harbored by these neighbors has varied greatly. From a high of 5.9 million in 1990 to a low of 2.6 million in 1995. The figure 2.6 million remained fairly constant until a year ago when nearly a million fled Afghanistan.

The U.S. policy of sending food is feeding those Afghanis that the Taliban is not.
Nam

23

Treason? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

24

Still sick of you, Zenster. I do not get the logic of blaming and punishing the entire nation of Afghanistan for what happened last week.

25

Nigeria vis-a-vis Biafra. Nigerians used starvation as a legitimate weapon of war against their own people.

Zenster, do you really want to be in the same camp as Nigeria?

26

Please do not try to tell me that the United States has never used foreign aid as a political tool. This is a time if ever there was one where it seemed in our own best interest to do so.

I have great difficulties with both parties involved. My distaste for the current administration is well known. Anyone familiar with my views on choice and domestic violence also know that I am a keen supporter of women’s rights. The denial of basic rights to women (voting, speech or what have you) is a fundamental violation of human rights. I also believe that women should have reproductive freedom of choice. I feel it seeks to violate a woman’s rights by wishing to limit choice.

The extreme level of misogyny in Afghanistan and my detestation for it is an established fact. I find the anti-choice stance of the current administration to be consonant with other fundamentalist views which have exaggerated sway in our own government’s orientation. The willingness to tamper with the separation of church and state is a serious malfeasance considering the intrinsically polytheistic doctrine of our constitution. I see this introduction of theocracy into our own government as seditious and am concerned when this administration shows no great compunction in dealing with a more intensely theocratic regime. The willingness to overlook fundamental human rights violations while pursuing puritanical objectives
is mirrored dangerously in their effort to undermine women’s rights domestically so as to appease an often fundamentalist religious faction whose vote is contingent upon them doing so. To seek such a divisive goal after being given such an equivocal mandate smacks of blind adherence and questionable motives.

However minor any of you may see the issue, I do not view it as such. The sheer factor of them harboring bin Laden should have given this administration pause in dealing with these swine. Quite obviously it did not. And just as obviously there was a tremendous price paid for that oversight. The drug war blinkering of this administration allowed them to leave in place supporters of one of the most evil entities to walk the earth. I apologize, but I must give you a simple if not sickening illustration of just how evil bin Laden is. His latest rate of killing, if applied continuously, could accomplish slaughter on the scale of Hitler in a few months. Turning a blind eye to a known threat in a situation where we held all of the cards was incompetence on a grand scale. Willfully turning a blind eye to the suffering of women on such a vast scale is just plain evil.

27

Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban have profited from the opium market for quite some time. Typical of right-wing fundamentalist zealots–they rant and rave all the time about moral purity and the Procrustean bed they want to fit for everyone, then they don’t live up to their own standard, and cash in on their own hypocrisy.

28

Think about this Zenster. We can rightfully claim that we are not attacking the people of Afghanistan when we go to get bin Laden, and can point to the fact that we give the Afghanistan people more humanitarian aid than any other country as proof. What better way to show that we don’t want to harm the innocents of Afghanistan than by feeding them?

Maybe we should identify the food as being “American” more aggresively, just to put a point on it.

Please take your blinders off Zenster. You know full and well that it is NOT only “this administration” that is responsible for the drug war.

29

Zenster:

Give it up. You’ve been shot down in flames.

30

I’m not saying that this is the only administration to suffer from such blinkering, I just think there is an element of the zealot in Bush such as with his blurring of church and state. It has allowed him to make a tremendous and avoidable blunder that may have clumsily cost the lives of thousands.

Feeding Afghanistan would be wonderful. Please provide it as part of a cohesive plan over in my “What is the Price of Perception” thread in this same forum. I just think that there are a lot of nasty little intermediate steps (like wiping out bin Laden and the Taleban) that you have omitted in your description.

PS: Wow! A drive-by post that makes no contribution. Thanks panzerman.

31

Of course it’s been done before. It was wrong. It would have been wrong now.

What you’re saying is that we should have let innocent civilians STARVE TO DEATH in the hope that the Taliban might eventually see all the shriveled corpses and spontaneously decide to rethink their entire worldview?

That’s sick. You make Kissinger look like Mother Theresa.

Guess what. I’ve got a wild-ass guess that if we did a poll, the women of Afghanistan would put “food for self and children” a notch or two higher than “abortion” on their priority list. After all, you can’t get an abortion if you’re already dead.

[quote]

Show me the thread from before 9/11 where you said that it must be an overriding priority of this administration to immediately get ObL, by military force if necessary, despite the expense and the extensive damage to US/arab relations. If there isn’t one, then this is exactly 20/20 hindsight.

[quote]

Still waiting for this.

[quote]
The phrase you’re looking for was “My post was completely wrong on the facts. Thank you for correcting me. I will now continue to give my partisan opinions anyway, regardless of said facts.”

[quote]

This, too.

32

Of course it’s been done before. It was wrong. It would have been wrong now.

What you’re saying is that we should have let innocent civilians STARVE TO DEATH in the hope that the Taliban might eventually see all the shriveled corpses and spontaneously decide to rethink their entire worldview?

That’s sick. You make Kissinger look like Mother Theresa.

Guess what. I’ve got a wild-ass guess that if we did a poll, the women of Afghanistan would put “food for self and children” a notch or two higher than abortion on their priority list. After all, you can’t get an abortion if you’re already dead.

Still waiting for this.

This too.

33

Can you please outline for all of us exactly what domestic measures, in his eight months in office, Bush has taken vis a vis the War on Drugs? Be as specific as possible. Thank you.

34

Perhaps the Mods should change the title of this thread to:

{Insert Presidential Name Here}'s Deal With The Devil.

Seems to me that Clinton was doing the same thing as Bush is now so what’s your big problem? I mean, of course, besides the fact that you feel the unavoidable need to push your political agenda in everyone’s face.

Also, PLD, while I don’t usually agree with your views on many things, your rebuttal was perfectly on point.

Thank you.

35

And of course this aid is so secret that Bush specifically mentioned it in his speech yesterday. If he really were supporting the Taliban in exchange for support of the Drug War, don’t you think he’d be a bit more discreet?

36

“If you do not unseat yourselves from the government of Afghanistan, we will not send humanitarian aid to feed your people!”

“Um, like we care.”

:rolleyes:

37

Did you bother to read my post? Where did I say to let the Afghani people starve? Where do I suggest that we should have demanded that the Taleban government abdicate? If you’re going to attack me, please do it for something that I actually posted. These misrepresentations of what I post are stupid and ridiculous.

38

OK, you don’t want them to starve. You merely want them to not recieve food.

You did say:

I suppose that’s not the same as a demand to abdicate, but seems about as likely to succeed.

Your general thesis seems to be that by feeding people in Afghanistan, we are freeing the Taliban of the responsibility of feeding them. I counter that this depends on assuming that the Taliban would feed the people of Afghanistan on its own. I see no reason to assume this. As a matter of fact, I see it as entirely likely that the Taliban would simply allow them to starve, and perhaps steal what little food there is for themselves.

You would have a point if the Taliban fed the people of Afghanistan. In that case, by doing it for them, we would indeed be freeing up resources for the Taliban to do evil with. However, unless I see some sort of compelling evidence, I’m going to assume that the Taliban is no greater of a welfare provider than the US government. And I know that the US government does not feed me.

I would go even further and say that the Taliban’s control would be increased if the people depended upon them for food. As it is, the people can get nourishment due to the US’s aid, rather than having to kowtow to the Taliban for their sustinence.

Basically, group A is doing all manner of evil things to group B. Group B is also comprised of poor, starving people, largely due to the efforts of group A. Group C provides aid to group B, so they don’t simply die of starvation. You maintain that this helps group A, and if group C stopped, group A would supply group B with sustinence.

This is absurd.

Also, you have simply pretended that the article you quoted originally was basically correct, when it was outright lying in several aspects. The US does not give cash to the Taliban, it gives humanitarian aid to the victims of the Taliban. You claim that between these two is a distinction without a difference. There is a world of difference between the two, even if you think that the humanitarian aid helps the Taliban. Explaining away the gross errors in the OP without admitting that you were simply wrong is intellectually dishonest.

39

Also, tying the aid package to anything the Taliban does implies you are prepared to let people starve if the Taliban says no. Are you?

40

manhattan wrote:

Hey, don’t knock it, it worked in medieval castle sieges.

Plus, there’s always the old addage: “Every government on Earth is only 3 meals away from revolution.” I mean, sure, starving the Afghani people would have been a pretty horrible thing to do, but would it have also resulted in the ousting of the Taliban rulership?