horns, I don't know much about the situation in Afghanistan, I've seen claims that outside of Kabul all is chaos, but I don't know. According to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...7949-2003Feb20.html the US is still fighting Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. I don't know how much rebuilding is happening yet, not that the country was in great shape when the US went in.

As for the zero dollars for reconstruction, I found a reference (http://epic-usa.org/action/alert.php?n=49) to a NY Times article on 2/21/03, but I haven't found the article itself. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...B8EDDAB0894DB404482 and http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...28EDDAB0894DB404482 are abstracts of articles that might be related.

good lord, reading all the typos in there you'd think i was typing that post on a calculator-watch keypad. i have skinny fingers but bad aim.

good post QrazyQat. I shall then resteate the real problem here and that is the current inability of the UN to do anything as long as France uses it as a counterbalance to a more powerful USA rather than getting on board(i had a string of posts dsomewhere else in here about this). The fact of the matter is that Francce signed off on 1441 like every other country and then stated that they would NEVER use force against Iraq. So irrational. So counterproductive.

An article in the NYTimes yesterday had a detailed history of the meetings between the USA and France and appartently Powell told Villupin(sp?) NOIT to sing onto 1441 unless he could guarantee they would support the use of force that is cited in paragraph #9. Powell was counting on Iraq not complying unless unilateraLl force was threatened - he has been dealing with Saddam for 12 long years. France assured us they would use force if Iraq did not comply and then... they left us out to dry.

Iraq did NOT comply. Scientists were NOT available for interviews and that, in and of itself is an admission of guilt - and a breach of the UN.
so whats the big beef? looks to me like the UN is flawed and ineffective. I question whether it is rational for one country to be able to sink a move against an unelected vicious tyrant. Add to this the fact that Libya is heading the colitee on human rights and you can see that acting without the UN is necessary when they have become such a joke.

jleader, i never read that a zero dollar aid package was approved for Afghanistan. I think Karzai was here before they approved anything. We have commited aoid to Afghanistan. Life IS better there than it was before in contradiction to Noam Chomsky's ridiculous "silent genocide" porediction so many anti war activists believed in. Fatc is, i don't hear much of any of the anti war activists saying anything about Afghanistan because it was a successful militaryt campaign all around. civillian casualties were extraordinarily low, refugees are returning, rebuilding is occuring, and they are slowly but surely reentering the modern world.


but Iraq will be different! the sky is falling!!

Hey, horns, you say:

"What exactly is so terrible about the fact that President Karzai was assured that US aid and support would not disapear and he would not have to worry about being abandoned."

So how much aid did the Bush administration budget for him this year? I read that it was ZERO dollars. Fortunately Congress was (for once) ashamed to be so two-faced, and budgeted some money for aid and support to Afghanistan.

So what's so terrible about lying to your allies, leaving them in the lurch, and then getting upset when other countries don't trust you to follow through and do the job right instead of just making things worse?

Edited by author 03-18-2003 01:29 PM
Your example of the cold war ending communism is interesting -- assume it did. I personally think it had a lot to do with it, and it was probably necessary given all the circumstances. But just when did the cold war involve invading the USSR or Eastern Europe? I must have been sick that week. Your example then is a wonderful example of how not having am all-out war but just wearing them down is an effective tool to promote freedom.

Your example of East Timor is also problematic for your position. (BTW, you seem to be under the impression that I am anti- any war or military action. Like most people who are against the present war in Iraq, I am for intevention in some instances. Now back to E.Timor.) East Timor is also a good example of how to do it (and how it could likely have been unnecessary) -- those were UN troops. Where are the UN troops, or even backing, in Iraq? But the situation in East Timor had gone on for many years, with Indonesian-backed militias messing up people's lives. The US turned a blind eye -- something to do with US submarine bases in Indonesia which patrol the strategic areas around there. If the US had put pressure on Suharto, and they had plenty of ways to do that, they could have prevented the East Timor situation from happening.

Now the Korean war was probably necessary; one of very few in the past century.

So you have one case (Korea) where military action (suported by a number of countries -- the US wasn't alone) was probably necessary; one (East Timor) where UN troops ended a conflict that probably could've been ended by US pressure a decade earlier; and two cases (Eastern Europe and the USSR) where continued pressure instead of war did the deed and brought freedom to millions. Not really a good case for war, much less going to war without UN and/or broad international support.

is that to say that the cold war didn't end communism? I would argue (and so would many) that America's efforts to curb dictatorships and tyrants has saved amny many lives and is responsible for the way the world is today - meaning it would be a lot worse. Eastern Europe would not be free, South Koreans would be digging ditches for food like their northern counterparts, Russia would be in miserable shape.

There is a lot of facts some anti war activists refuse to admit. The use of force is justified when a people are oppressed. protestors ask for peace, but peace at whose cost? I believe it was a diplomat from East timor who wrote an Op Ed in the NYTimes questioning the antwar cause and the people who support it. War ended the suffereing his family and country endured and he stated Iraq is an open and shut case for military action. He said a friend of his from the Balkans commented on military action there by saying "you know, when the bombs started falling i felt liberated".

The Iraqi people will let the world know how they feel about the US when this is all over. Do you really think they will al be murdered by a carpet bombing campaign? I think not. I think they will be very happy the US dethroned Saddam Hussein. I just can't wait to hear what they have to say about the French.

It has gotten off the original track. However, I'm a little baffled about your sentence -- are those supposed to be two different options? They are the same thing, directing or managing. Neither is really possible for one country to do, although with enough power, you can make a facsimile of having done so for a short time. Then it falls apart and you have hell to pay.

well, we're both WAAAAAY off topic here anyway, so i'm just going to sum up these world issues as it being a difference of opinion about the role of America.

To direct the world or to manage it.

Edited by author 03-17-2003 11:50 PM
I just added a bit to the bottom of my previous post right at the time you were writing yours, about the specific question of attacking the Taliban before 9/11.

Islamic fundamentalism or Christian fundamentalism -- they're making our world a very scary and unfriendly place. Either type alone would be bad enough, but we have the two together now making war and that's really bad news.

On Kay Hymowitz's article, I've read it before -- it's been the subject of a great many blog entries by feminists pointing out that it's complete bullshit. Feminist organizations and leaders have been pointing these things out and trying to get people -- us people -- to listen for years. I was just trying to find some links for these quickly, but I think those are on my other computer. But Hymowitz is out to lunch on that subject for sure -- what she says there is BS.

Here's one link (I've seen many more with more info) concerning yet another Hymowitz BS article.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7414

well, those are really a problem with Islamic fundamentalism - and i could rant and rant all day about that . my mouth would foam and i would be typing in ALL CAPS like that.

but suffice to say, there is massive improvement in Afghanistan from what i've read. It stands to reason that the military campaign in Afghanistan was very calculated, precise and hamstrung by our efforts to prevent collateral damage(civillian casualties). Yess, there was the unfortunate incident where a wedding was fired upon because they were shooting guns in the air, but many many Qaeda and Taliban soldiers slipped through the border into Pakistan because all force by troops had to be approved by intelligence.


And feminists commenting on Islamic fundamentalist's treatment of women? Here's a link regarding that:
 http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_1_why_feminism.html

Edited by author 03-17-2003 11:55 PM
Not too much time right now, so I can't dig out the links to blog entries and news about the situation in Afghanistan, esp. that of women. Mind you, in many ways it has improved, but, well, this story (one of many) demonstrates one example of a big problem. This woman didn't want to marry the man she was promised to in an arranged marriage. Now, mind you, she's happy she isn't under the Taliban, when she would have been stoned to death, but being thrown in prison -- while a definite improvement over stoning -- isn't exactly something to crow about. I know this is just one news story -- it's here because it's an example of one of the major problems still going on in Afghanistan, and judging from your post, one that isn't familiar even to someone like you who seems to try to keep up on the situation there. As I said, I've seen many other links to news stories, many in feminist blogs; this one link is just one I could get my hands on quickly.

http://www.laptopservice.com/laptops/earia...72F51E?OpenDocument

Here's another from last August: "In just the past two months, a total of 12 girls’ schools outside of Kabul have been violently attacked by extremists. In most cases, the schools were bombed or burned. In some instances, the distribution of leaflets, containing threats against women working and taking off the burqa and against girls attending school, preceded the attack."

Another from March 6, 2003:
"Despite some measures of progress following the Taliban’s fall from power in late 2001, Afghan women and girls continue to suffer brutal acts of violence and inequality, according to a United Nations (UN) report released today. The 18-page document, entitled “The Situation of Women and Girls in Afghanistan” stated, “In the absence of an effective national force, the lack of security across the country continues to impede progress in the rehabilitation of Afghanistan and the advancement of women,” according to the Associated Press. Dire conditions exacerbated by drought and decades of warfare are driving the sale of young girls as brides. While statistics on the practice are unavailable, many non-governmental organizations working in the country report its growing prevalence—despite existing prohibitions under civil codes and Islamic law. Marzia Basel, a former Afghan judge and founder of the Kabul Afghan Women Judges Association, told the Washington Post, “there are laws, and then there is custom and there is great poverty.”

Now, as to moving on the Taliban before 9/11, that gets into the same thing we're facing in Iraq -- to what extent should one country be allowed to attack a country which hasn't attacked it? I suggest that for a country which wants to be a world leader, this probably should not happen at all. Otherwise, what moral authority does the country have? In the specific case of the Taliban there is the added complication that we conspired with the Pakistani secret police to put the Taliban in power there. Whether or not it was a right thing to do at the time (and that was a problematic time, with the Russians' attitude) it hardly makes look good to attack not only a government that hadn't attacked us, but one we had actually put in power.

Edited by author 03-17-2003 08:54 PM
"the post-war situation we see in Afghanistan..... still isn't good...is largely hidden"

QrazyQat - i'm sorry but that statement upsets me. What EXACTLY isn't good about people not being executed during halftimes of soccer games? How about children playing in the streets or girls FINALLY being able to go to school? Whats terrible about thousands of refugees crossing the borders and returning to their hometowns to start their lives again and live in peace.

just what in the whole wide world are you talking about?

and what is hidden? I read two or three articles about the rebuilding of Iraq a week(NYTimes has a "Kabul notebook" article that appears frequently) and although i want more, i am encouraged by what i read from various news sources.

What exaclty is so terrible about the fact that President Karzai was assurted that US aid and support would not disapear and he would not have to worry about being abandoned.

Yes, the Taliban attacked the United States, but it is a TERRIBLE thing that it took an attack for the world to take notice of the hate and aggression that was being bred in that country. In hindsight - don't you think it would have been prudent to move against the Taliban BEFORE 9/11?? I think it would have been a good idea and so did a lot of people at the time. But they were being called "warmongers" by a certain slice of the population who desire peace at the cost of oppressed and slaughtered people. A descpicable position to take in the world.


"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth fighting for is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

My point on Afghanistan was that Bush's approach was considered and involved getting widespread support among nations, and that Tony Blair probably thought that was what was going to happen with Iraq. It didn't, and Blair is stuck with an ally who doesn't care how many nations he alienates. I doubt Blair shares that lack of concern about alienating most of Europe, for instance. Of course Afghanistan was different too in that they were actually involved in attacking the US, while Iraq isn't.

Iraq is also a bit more central in people's minds than Afghanistan, which means that the post-war situation we see in Afghanistan, which still isn't good, is largely hidden, while the equivalent (or worse) situation we would no doubt see in Iraq will be quite visible. The destruction of Baghdad will also be more noticeable than the destruction in Kabul, both due to the country's visibility on the world stage and the before/after difference, which will be more extreme in Baghdad.

So while I wasn't using Afghanistan as an example of a noble effort in my post -- just as an example of good political judgement vs. bad -- it is true that there was some moral justification for attacking a country which had attacked us. That justification is lacking in regard to Iraq. Others will see that even if Bush can't. As Joseph Fouché said of Napoleon's execution of the Duc d’Enghien, "It is worse than a crime: it is a mistake."
(quote often incorrectly attributed to Talleyrand).

Just for the record, it passed the NM House, it is now on its way to the Senate.

horns sez: "Ashcroft is flat out evil."

An unelected tyrant, ya might say.

QrazyQat you kind of paint yourself in a corner when you bring up Afgahnistan as a noble effort in the same post you decry action on Iraq. Now, stay with me- IF military action in Iraq is a quick and concisely executed victory( by that i mean, much of the Iraq military surrenders to the US eagerly awaiting the dismantling of the brutal Baath party, like in Afghanistan our troops put forth a MASSIVE effort to avoid civillian casualties and utilize our ability to fight entirely at night), there will be an entire nation dancing in the streets much like they did in Afghanistan. We all hope for that(even the generals) except for the "No War" crowd. I just think you have to be objective about removing an unelected tyrant who kills his own people on a massive scale(humanrightswatch.org).

Okay - sorry. That was off topic. So inregards to Arizona i want to comment that what they have done is the most patriotic thing i have read in the news this last year. Ashcroft is flat out evil.

AFAIK, New Mexico has trouble money-wise due to a fair amount of territory and not all that many people, so services get spread pretty thin. I think this is not something that they could simply go it alone on, but it can be helpful because it could spawn legal cases. I doubt the feds really want legal cases on this stuff, cause they would likely lose on most of it. So even one state can put some pressure on the feds with a move like this. And of course they encourage other states to do similar things.

I'm not a super-strong states rights guy -- I figure there's a good balance somewhere, and I feel that states rights too often gets used to knock down educational standards and things like that. But I'm glad that people on both sides of that issue, as well as of various political stripes, are starting to realise they need to be able to work together on some issues. We've had far too much lack of cooperation and interaction in the US -- what we've had is failure to communicate. And that's not cool.

Uh, this is kind of interesting, as a gesture, but not much else. The Federal government has done a good job of making states reliant on the giant federal money hose for things like education grants, highway grants, subsidies for this and that, etc. They tend to use the money as both a carrot and a stick to make the states do extra-constitutional things. The biggest example of this is the speed limit laws. Nothing in the constitution gives congress the power to set speed limits on state roads - but if the states don't play, they don't get the highway cash. When you are a state governor, try telling your wife that her worthless brother won't be getting any juicy road contracts - and see how long you last.

I don't know New Mexico's financial situation - did they spend like drunken sailors during the bubble? Most states are screwed now, since the can't shrink spending back to reasonable levels without losing their jobs - the big states like CA are begging for fed bailout. So if NM has the balls to back this up, and not take the cash, then god bless em.

Live in a real state - soon:
http://www.freestateproject.org

-Donut

ps. Speaking as a libertarian - states rights always! Education, guns, health, law enforcement to the states, everything but defense, money printing, and federal courts.

I believe I was the one who sent this info to boingboing -
if someone else did, then that's great....I don't know if this bill has been PASSED, but at least the grassroots organizing committees in several NM communities have gotten this far, with a strategy of UPHOLDING the Bill of Rights,
rather than as an ANTI-Patriot Act ...

See my tiny little BLOG - yes, it is brand-new, and I can't get theimages to post as of yet...and how do you get it to show html links??? I am frustrated by this....

http://chickenlil.blogspot.com

thanks - see ya at the candle-light vigil, somewhere...

PS The Bush "deer in the headlights " look is because
he is LISTENING to an earpiece, a la Wag the Dog - not
reading the teleprompter -remember? He is trying to communicate what they are telling him..."stern gestures, here...that was INVESTIGATE, not INCINERATE, George..."

Just about everybody sounds smarter than Bush Jr., ex-colonial or no.

Re criticism, there've been a lot of interesting blog entries showing the same people who are now saying that it's wrong (at best) to protest or even much criticise the prez, and their previous, and exactly opposite, actions re Clinton and Kosovo, as well as other flip-flops of that sort -- ie. George Will on the appropriateness of holding up judicial appointments, then and now; and many commentators on the subject of boycotts, which they support when it's their boycott, but decry as unAmerican and anti-capitalistic when it's against them.

I don't approve of the war, but I'd much rather have to listen to Blair speak than Bush. Maybe it's a byproduct of being a former colony, but Blair just sounds smarter. Listening to Bush this morning I could easily visualize the "deer in the headlights" look on his face as he answered questions.

re: malleable principles--Real patriots don't criticize the president--unless he's a democrat!

I think Blair painted himself into a corner. He may have been encouraged by Bush's method of going into Afghanistan, which was fairly considered and involved consulting with a wide number of countries and getting their approval or backing. I suspect Blair has been surprised by the Bush administration's method vis a vis Iraq, which started out with the same approach but when the approval and support wasn't forthcoming, simply ignoring everyone -- well, along with pretty childish insults. Now Blair is no doubt feeling stuck -- he can stick to his guns and probably go down to defeat in his next election, or he can back down and get slammed by Bush and crew. And he's left it so long, and been so ineffective at getting Bush to listen to anyone else's ideas, that he's likely to go down to defeat anyway. He might be hoping that somehow there can be a quick miracle that will make everybody happy -- mighty slim hope, but what does he have? He's made himself look like a toady, whereas in similar teaming before (Bush in Afghanistan and Clinton before) he got to look like a partner with a very powerful country. I think he was figuring he would have more of the same, and was bushwhacked -- so to speak -- by the Bush team's, well, wacky way of doing business.

DaveW: Seeing who did vote against it would indeed be interesting...that's the sort of vote that needs to be public and require explanation from the voter.

Bravo New Mexico. You gotta hand it to them, they've got guts and moral direction. I wonder how appreciative the people there are of what their government this instant.

However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Blair has as little spine as the other states, though. Given the sheer pressure he's under to oppose the war from his party and people, I'd say he's got a lot of guts to support the war, regardless of you believe he's right or wrong. Call him misguided or arrogant, but spineless? I don't think so.

Qrazy, amen. It would be interesting to see who supported it, and how many votes it got, but I can't find that stuff yet.

Anyway, in case anybody hasn't had a look at the whole bill, it's must reading. To see a state legislature actually come out and say in a legal document that "federal policies adopted since September 11, 2001, including provisions in Public Law 107-56, known as the USA Patriot Act, and related executive orders, regulations and actions threaten fundamental rights and liberties" is like looking at another, and better planet.

I'll be emailing my congressperson here in Illinois a copy with a demand that she go and do likewise, but won't be holding my breath.

Edited by author 03-16-2003 03:12 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the NM law is supported by a broad spectrum politically. Many conservatives are starting to realise that the things they railed about for years (like the ACLU) have a reason to be. My point was that State's Rights is indeed a big deal with the right wing federally. Their supposed support for it comes up virtually whenever they cut some federal program -- they say they want local control in government. But whenever the states start doing something they don't like they come down hard on them -- as we've seen with the local states marijuana initiatives, as we've seen in the recent overriding of states rights in control of tort law. My point is the rather obvious one that they're huge hypocrites. I am happy to see that on some levels and on some issues, the liberterians and other right wing folks are lining up with the left wing and providing support in a stand against some of these massive abuses of federal power.

It's a good move...dumb though. I expect them to lose some Federal Funds for it...

Go NM! True, they won't be able to enforce it unless they're willing to take it all the way and try to arrest some feds, or at least take them to court. But it's a powerful statement, especially when the rest of the states have all the gumption and feistiness of Tony Blair.

Qrazy, I don't get the connection between your minirant and the NM news. I imagine the NM law is supported, and probably initiated, by libertarian types. So in a way, it seems like two sides of the right wing going after each other. Anybody know what flavor of legislators were selling this law?

"State's Rights" is a mantra with the right wing in America unless it's something they don't like, like the marijuana laws or tort law. They have principles so malleable they're flexible enough to do gymnastics at the next Olympics.

Actually, it's only passed the House (53-11), though it is a joint bill and will with any luck sail through the Senate. Take a look at http://legis.state.nm.us/legreports.asp and click on #8, "Passed House." It's below the SBs.

Edited by author 03-16-2003 01:15 PM
Nonetheless, as with the medical marijuana laws the several states have passed, the Gov't of the US doesn't give a rat's ass what the state legislatures or the people think. Making the world safe for megacorps, sure. What we want? Don't hold your breath.

Isn't it nice that states' rights only applies to Southern states?

Not to say that it isn't a gutsy, good thing the NM legislature did, but if I read it right this is an "affirmation" with no force of law. Basically, they are just saying "please be nice in NM, Mr. Gov't Agent."
Still, it's a step in the right direction.
Nonetheless, as with the medical marijuana laws the several states have passed, the Gov't of the US doesn't give a rat's ass what the state legislatures or the people think. Making the world safe for megacorps, sure. What we want? Don't hold your breath.

New Mexico has proven itself a rational place. Now if only Arizona would try to keep up with its next-door neighbor, I might be living in a free country again.

My homeland comes through again. Good job, you desert-flowers!

Woohoo!
Go NM!

They're obviously hiding weapons of mass destruction.

Go New Mexico!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!