[geeks] Re: [rescue] The war begins....

[Ken Hansen]

Sambo,

Thanks for the infomred, reasoned response - by way of explaining a few of
the outstanding questions from our exchange... See below:

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: <s at avoidant.org>
To: <geeks at sunhelp.org>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [geeks] Re: [rescue] The war begins....


> Your statement above seems to assume that the populace approve of the
> Taliban. They don't. They don't "allow" the Taliban to do anything, they
> shut their mouths or die. And even if they keep their mouths shut, they
> likely die anyway, either of starvation or for some infraction of the
> Taliban's interpretation of the laws of Islam.

I didn't mean they "approve" of the Taliban, but their inaction is a form of
tacit approval. I appreciate their plight, and I was not trying to make
light of it, but I fear I did in my simplification.

> Yes, there are some who fight. We call them the Northern Alliance.

Right- hold on to that thought...

> >     The goal of Operation "Infinite Justice"(?) is to provoke the
majority
> >     os "innocents" into rising up and overthrowing the 10% ruling the
> >     country.
>
> Wrong. The goal is to assist the Northern Alliance to achieve their
> goals. The general populace cannot and will not revolt.

I meant the goal was to get a home-grown revolution started, via the
Northern Alliance and other efforts (I understand there were several popular
uprisings yesterday). I did not mean that everyone of the 90% had to pick up
a stick and have at the Taliban.

> >     (The US is not so good at picking leaders to Install - think
> >     about the Marcos, Noriega, and the Shah or Iran - they are usually
> >     dramatic failures).
>
> Agreed, though I'm not sure why the Shah is on your list there... The
> U.S. had nothing to do with him ruling Iran.

The Shah was *kept* in place by the US/CIA - he was percieved as friendly
leader, much more so than the alternatives (Ayatollah was kicked out/left
Iran, then led a revolution in Iran that ousted the Shah). (Please read the
preceeding with a *huge* helping of IIRC.

> >     I would be hard-pressed to look at a region like Afganastan or
> >     Pakistan where people have lived *for ever* and consider it a
> >     region not financially viable... Who air lifted food to them 500
years
> >     ago? How have they lived there for so long?
>
> You seem to have been otherwise occupied during the time of the
> Soviet/Afghan conflict. Just to catch you up... The Soviet Union

<snip>

> All of this coming on top of the Soviet desolation left the country
> unable to support it's own population. It's pitifull.

My thinking was that, at one time (mid '60s?) they were a very viable,
prosperous country, and it is my hope they can be again. That they are
suffering now is not in dispute, but, being a "glass half full" kind of
fellow, I think of it as temporary.

> > There are those pundits that feel by attacking the Taliban, the
"coalition"
> > is helping to form a clear line between the "rightous" and the
> > "unrightous"
>
> Oooh, that's a hard one. By their rules, they *are* the righteous ones.

And by our rules, *we* are ;^) BTW, the *we* in the previous sentence
includes those who follow th teachings of the bible, talmut, Koran, and
others - nearly everyone *except* the Taliban and thier extremist views...




_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com