Why so many Anti-American?

[cantdog]

Fag-Ash makes a good point.

I was looking for the felts so I could set up for the snowshoeing season. There it was, in the camping gear, a bag of the Swedish. Not a full bag, just a couple good bowls of it.

As finding gold, it was. Patches, shmatches, says I. Why the fuck did I throw away all the pipes?

Where there's a will! I did manage to smoke the stuff. You don't need to know how, I imagine. Anyway, that set things back enough so I did the two days of two sevens.

Still haven't found the felts. I know where they sell them, so I'll buy new felts and then I will be able to find the old ones, easy.

Back on topic:

I worry, not that the average US citizen doesn't understand how their government's actions are seen in the world, but that the US administration doesn't seem to understand either. That is dangerous to all of the western democracies and is a barrier to winning the war on terror. 'Terrorists' can only be defeated if their power base of hatred is destroyed. At present their power base seems to be enhanced by our actions.

There's the nub of it. Thanks, Og.

 

[Songcatcher]

hacking coughs.

She's a mountain, you know. A big one.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Where there's a will! I did manage to smoke the stuff. You don't need to know how, I imagine.

Found that old bong out in the garage huh? You knew there was a reason not to throw it out.

 

[rgraham666]

Jeez cant. You threw away all your pipes?

Shoulda let me know. I would have taken them off your hands.

 

[cantdog]

Yeah, I chucked them all. Went to my heart to shitcan the meerchaum.

 

[rgraham666]

Yeah, I chucked them all. Went to my heart to shitcan the meerchaum.

Whimper!

 

[cantdog]

Both meerschaums. I had a Rhodesian, fired meerschaum, very rare thing now, since the endless war began over there. And then the Turkish one. Beautiful. Of the shape called "Rhodesian," which is like "Apple" only bent, an amberoid stem, the meerschaum itself worked in a lattice pattern a full centimeter above the surface, so that the lattice colored very slowly but the revealed undersurface had darkened to a Bing Cherry red-brown. And my calabash! All gone.

 

[cantdog]

What can I say?

Tragedy.

Speaking of tragedy, I got this in the email:

Everybody is giving gifts. Big gifts. Little gifts. We give these gifts as tokens of our love. We're sending and receiving cards, cards that express our common yearning for peace on Earth, goodwill to all, tidings of kindness and joy.

And so it is doubly disheartening at this time when the spirit of Christmas is in the air that we open the newspaper to find:

"U.S. Cutting Food Aid Aimed at Self-Sufficiency"
It turns out that while the number of the world's people who go hungry is rising for the first time in years, the Bush administration can find no better way to reduce spending than to cut $600 million from global food aid programs aimed at helping millions of people climb out of poverty.

That belt-tightening of $600 million doesn't make much of a dent in a federal discretionary budget of $965 BILLION (it's 0.0001 percent), but in the developing world it's emergency food to prevent the starvation of millions, and long-term agricultural development to help people feed even more people themselves.

link:
US Cuts Food Aid, etc, etc. Cheeseparing twats.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Yeah, I chucked them all. Went to my heart to shitcan the meerchaum.

i really hope none of them were sherlock holmes type pipes. i always wanted one of those

 

[Lisa Denton]

Lisa,

I included Afghanistan because US (and British and UN) actions in that country have not been wholly benign. In Afghanistan US actions when that country was a thorn in the USSR's side still have consequences today and affect how people across the region think of the US (and the UK as the US's allies).

People have long memories when it comes to hatred. It may take a generation or two before the peoples of Afghanistan can live in peace with each other and democracy takes root. The infrastructure of Afghanistan was destroyed with the Taleban and when, if ever, that country can have a functioning economy is anyone's guess.

There are several countries close to Afghanistan who have watched what happened there with disquiet. Some of them are torn between fundamentalist Islamic groups, pro-US, pro-Russian, tribal loyalties and simple greed. They don't necessarily see the UN, the US, the UK or any foreign power as their saviour but rather as a threat to their existing governmental structures.

The CIA is seen as a destablising force in the region and from the local perspective that may be true. In simplistic terms the locals see the US's interest as being solely concerned with maintaining cheap oil supplies.

I worry, not that the average US citizen doesn't understand how their government's actions are seen in the world, but that the US administration doesn't seem to understand either. That is dangerous to all of the western democracies and is a barrier to winning the war on terror. 'Terrorists' can only be defeated if their power base of hatred is destroyed. At present their power base seems to be enhanced by our actions.

Og

Gosh Og, the infrastructure of Afghanistan was destroyed along with the Taliban because the Taliban was the infrastructure. The economy is great, without the Taliban everyone can grow all the opium they want and have a luxury car parked in the donkey stables.

O.k., super exaggeration and poverty is still widespread but that is nothing the UN or US brought in. It was there.

My sister-in-law got a message not long after the Taliban were taken out of power from an old friend of hers. The woman had been trapped in Afganistan because she was a teacher, unmarried and with no male relatives. According to the Taliban she was worse than worthless, an educated worthless woman. While begging for food in the streets she was often beaten because she was not accompanied by a husband or male relative. She could not leave the country without being accompanied by a male.

I am the average US citizen who knows little, and have no idea where that country was heading under the Taliban. I will even admit that since I know so little perhaps what they had was right for them, and the world, the US, and the UN had no right to interfere. But the world had the right to remove the Taliban, and the UN had the right, and the US had the right.

Wherever they go now may not be better in the local male's eyes, but perhaps some women will now be educated and not sold into marraige for a couple of camels. How wrong can that be?

Yes Og, you and I are capitalist pigs and have no right to say what we think about the internal and unimportant things which go on in other countries.

However, taking out the terrorist infrastructure of that country was not only the right of the US, it was THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE WORLD.

What they choose to do now is up to them, and they may go back to the old ways. It will not be the old terrorist supporting ways.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

My sister-in-law got a message not long after the Taliban were taken out of power from an old friend of hers. The woman had been trapped in Afganistan because she was a teacher, unmarried and with no male relatives. According to the Taliban she was worse than worthless, an educated worthless woman. While begging for food in the streets she was often beaten because she was not accompanied by a husband or male relative. She could not leave the country without being accompanied by a male.

Actually, isn't this how it is everywhere in the Middle East? I was of the impression that this was due not to the Taliban, but to the entire area, a way of life there. Not saying I agree with it, but I don't think the Taliban is solely responsible for this type thing.
The Taliban was involved with Bin Laden, which was our reason for going over. Their treatment of women, to my knowledge at least, had nothing to do with it.

Wherever they go now may not be better in the local male's eyes, but perhaps some women will now be educated and not sold into marraige for a couple of camels. How wrong can that be?

Again, if it had nothing to do with the Taliban, then chances are, nothing will change. If the woman was allowed to leave, it most likely was due to outside presence there, not a new way of life for those who live there.

*shrugs*

There's nothing to say I'm right (or even sure about these things) but I'm pretty sure I read something (a link from this board I believe) not long ago about a woman not being allowed to fly because her legal male guardian (or some title to that affect) wasn't present with her. I think it was... Saudi Arabia? Maybe I remember wrong. It's been while.

Sorry to ramble,

Q_C

 

[oggbashan]

There's nothing to say I'm right (or even sure about these things) but I'm pretty sure I read something (a link from this board I believe) not long ago about a woman not being allowed to fly because her legal male guardian (or some title to that affect) wasn't present with her. I think it was... Saudi Arabia? Maybe I remember wrong. It's been while.

Sorry to ramble,

Q_C [/B]

This is a link about women driving in Saudi Arabia:

Discussion of restrictions on women

Their official government line is that there is no legal bar to women driving in Saudi Arabia and indeed some women actually have driving licences. It is against Saudi custom (and the police would not necessarily protect a woman from harassment if she were to drive alone).

My concern about Afghanistan is still that the impact of military action there has had repercussions throughout the Islamic world even among countries and bodies that would never have approved of the actions of the Taleban. Almost all Islamic countries and Islamic minorities in non-Islamic countries feel threatened by the actions of the UN (and US, UK and others).

Hatred of 'The West' was already present and encouraged by irresponsible leaders. That hatred has been fanned by events in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unless that is recognised and attempts made to distinguish between moderate and reasonable Islamic peoples and fanatical organisations who have nothing in common with most of Islam - then the hatred will spread and threaten all of us, including the moderates who are Islamic.

Og

 

[SugerWhite]

This is a link about women driving in Saudi Arabia:

Discussion of restrictions on women

Their official government line is that there is no legal bar to women driving in Saudi Arabia and indeed some women actually have driving licences. It is against Saudi custom (and the police would not necessarily protect a woman from harassment if she were to drive alone).

My concern about Afghanistan is still that the impact of military action there has had repercussions throughout the Islamic world even among countries and bodies that would never have approved of the actions of the Taleban. Almost all Islamic countries and Islamic minorities in non-Islamic countries feel threatened by the actions of the UN (and US, UK and others).

Hatred of 'The West' was already present and encouraged by irresponsible leaders. That hatred has been fanned by events in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unless that is recognised and attempts made to distinguish between moderate and reasonable Islamic peoples and fanatical organisations who have nothing in common with most of Islam - then the hatred will spread and threaten all of us, including the moderates who are Islamic.

Og

ogibasham, can i have your phone number, please?

 

[Lisa Denton]

Actually, isn't this how it is everywhere in the Middle East? I was of the impression that this was due not to the Taliban, but to the entire area, a way of life there. Not saying I agree with it, but I don't think the Taliban is solely responsible for this type thing.
The Taliban was involved with Bin Laden, which was our reason for going over. Their treatment of women, to my knowledge at least, had nothing to do with it.

Again, if it had nothing to do with the Taliban, then chances are, nothing will change. If the woman was allowed to leave, it most likely was due to outside presence there, not a new way of life for those who live there.

*shrugs*

There's nothing to say I'm right (or even sure about these things) but I'm pretty sure I read something (a link from this board I believe) not long ago about a woman not being allowed to fly because her legal male guardian (or some title to that affect) wasn't present with her. I think it was... Saudi Arabia? Maybe I remember wrong. It's been while.

Sorry to ramble,

Q_C [/B]

Uh, yea, and since the post was concerning our removing the terrorists and terrorism supporters from power your taking portions of the post and acting as if the last two sentences did not exist had me a little confused, but oh well, address what you think is important and ignore whatever you choose. See ya.

 

[Lisa Denton]

This is a link about women driving in Saudi Arabia:

Discussion of restrictions on women

Their official government line is that there is no legal bar to women driving in Saudi Arabia and indeed some women actually have driving licences. It is against Saudi custom (and the police would not necessarily protect a woman from harassment if she were to drive alone).

My concern about Afghanistan is still that the impact of military action there has had repercussions throughout the Islamic world even among countries and bodies that would never have approved of the actions of the Taleban. Almost all Islamic countries and Islamic minorities in non-Islamic countries feel threatened by the actions of the UN (and US, UK and others).

Hatred of 'The West' was already present and encouraged by irresponsible leaders. That hatred has been fanned by events in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unless that is recognised and attempts made to distinguish between moderate and reasonable Islamic peoples and fanatical organisations who have nothing in common with most of Islam - then the hatred will spread and threaten all of us, including the moderates who are Islamic.

Og

Yes Og, but that was not the case pre-Iraq invasion. All I was saying was that Afghanistan and Iraq were not only two seperate things to the US and UN but also those other countries.

Sure they didn't like the world protecting themselves from the terrorism which existed and was encouraged in Afghanistan but they knew it was just.

Iraq was the fuel to the fire that the pro-west world was un-just and anti-islam.

Maybe its just me but I cannot see anyone comparing the two, Afghanistan and Iraq, as being anywhere near the same thing pre-war. Except Bush and crew. After the Afghan action began most moderates believed it was just. When Iraq began those moderates joined the lunatic fringe with some justification, but it was due to Iraq, not Afghanistan.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I was entirely behind the invasion of Afghanistan too. They'd been making trouble for years. The Taliban openly sponsored and aided terrorists, and furthermore were not entirely in control of the country. There was still a war going on for control of Afghanistan, and basically what we did is give massive aid to the Northern Alliance in the form of men and military military might. We were also looking for Osama, remember?

I think most of the world sided with us on that one, and whether the invasion was right or wrong, it was at least justifiable and understandable.

Iraq is something else entirely, and in fact it's the invasion of Iraq that's put the future of Afghanistan at risk, because we had to shift attention away from Afghanistan before the job was done.

---dr.M.

 

[NoJo]

As a long-time opium smoker I can only laud the wresting of Afghanistan from the Taliban. My sinkings into purple infinitely ramified oblivion are no longer marred by a vague guilt that I'm funding terrorism. And the stuff seems to be a lot cheaper and easier to get hold of nowadays too.

 

[SlickTony]

I was in favor of the war in Afghanistan, too. I remember thinking, when I heard that allofasudden we were going to invade Iraq, "Huh? WTF? I thought that that Osama was in Afghanistan! I thought the guy who was behind 911 was in Afghanistan!" But when I heard about the supposed WMDs and Condi Rice going on about mushroom clouds, I wanted to believe--after all, who wants to believe that their government is leading them off on a snipe-hunt, after we once swore we wouldn't get fooled again?

I feel like the adminstration has exhausted its resources and its cred to address any other international issues that need addressing, and what's more, I'm worried that they're in the process of whomping up a case to invade Iraq, which would be infinitely worse.

I remember the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqis thought that, with things all in disarray in Iran, invading the country would be a snap. They found out that it wasn't. Not only has Iran even more wrinkles and folds to hide in, its army had no compunction about sending Iranian kiddies ahead of itself to trip mines.

 

[fifty5]

It will probably take decades for the U.S. to rebuild its reputation with rest of the world, however. That's ok. We're young, we're strong, we're brash, and as a nation, we're quite full of shit.

And that's a US that I'm very happy to support - and argue with - in friendship.

Keep on being yourself, sweetsubsarahh.

 

[thebullet]

Originally posted by sweetsubsarahh
It will probably take decades for the U.S. to rebuild its reputation with rest of the world, however. That's ok. We're young, we're strong, we're brash, and as a nation, we're quite full of shit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's a US that I'm very happy to support - and argue with - in friendship.

Keep on being yourself, sweetsubsarahh.

I second that, Fifty5.

 

[Guest]

And that's a US that I'm very happy to support - and argue with - in friendship.

Keep on being yourself, sweetsubsarahh.

Right back at ya, f5.

(and you too, bullet!)

 

[oggbashan]

I was and still am in favour of the action in Afghanistan.

I was in favour of the removal of Saddam Hussein until the reasons for the war became less and less believable.

The title of this thread was my theme. People in that region hated the US before Afghanistan and Iraq. Now that hatred is much stronger because of the way regime change was conducted.

Not all Middle Eastern countries are the same. What is not allowed to women in Saudi Arabia and the even more intolerant oppression of women in Afghanistan under the Taleban is not mirrored in Egypt, Dubai, Oman and certainly not in Turkey. Pakistan has significant differences between regions. Yet the US government seems to treat all as if they are equal, supporting them when it suits US interests, opposing them when it doesn't.

What is good for the US (and/or the West in general) isn't necessarily good for other individual countries. There needs to be understanding of the differences of culture and history. 'Know your enemy' has always been good advice. Not knowing a friend or a neutral from an enemy is dangerous and risks turning friends and neutrals into enemies too.

The war on terror can only be defeated by removing the causes of hatred so that the terrorists are no longer accepted and supported by their own communities. I don't think we (and I include the UK) are scratching the surface of lessening the hatred that exists against us in Iraq. Even when we have made some progress on that, lessening the hatred between the various factions in Iraq is needed before that country can have peace.

Og

 

[mtnman2003]

Confused giant

I understand frustration with the US regarding our swagger.

What I don't understand is the out and out abuse we take.

And yet, with the tsunami destruction of yesterday, the world runs to the US, with hands out, EXPECTING our assistance.

We could ask the governments around the world to rethink their expectations. Why assist them? Let France or Germany pay for it!

Won't happen! We respond quickly to crisis. I wish the others would as well to our need of assistance.

Mtn

 

[oggbashan]

Re: Confused giant

I understand frustration with the US regarding our swagger.

What I don't understand is the out and out abuse we take.

And yet, with the tsunami destruction of yesterday, the world runs to the US, with hands out, EXPECTING our assistance.

We could ask the governments around the world to rethink their expectations. Why assist them? Let France or Germany pay for it!

Won't happen! We respond quickly to crisis. I wish the others would as well to our need of assistance.

Mtn

France, Germany, the UK and other European countries have already responded with cash and aid. Planes have already left the UK with medical supplies and teams of medical staff. Many more will be on the way over the next few days. I expect to have sleepless nights as planes continually leave my local airport day and night loaded with aid equipment. That airport specialises in disaster relief.

Medicins sans Frontiers (a French organisation) goes to places even the Red Cross won't go.

Please don't assume because you don't hear about it that other countries don't respond to a disaster such as this. A Japanese construction company working in Thailand has already diverted all its men and equipment to clearing roads to the disaster area. They haven't asked 'Who will pay?'.

My local fire brigade will be stretched to cover us over the next few weeks. They will have sent a team of experts to help trace people trapped in collapsed buildings. That team has been to many parts of the world and is always ready to leave at 24 hours notice.

As always the greatest assistance will come from the people of the affected countries themselves and their relations around the world. Churches, Mosques, Temples etc. in the UK are organising collections of money, food, camping equipment - voluntarily and totally separate from any government aid.

Retailers are going to see fewer people in the New Year sales because the money that would have been spent in the shops is diverted to disaster relief.

Og

 

[fifty5]

You said it, Og.

But that doesn't mean the US won't be generous - just that the idea that ONLY the US helps (or is expected to help) is wrong.