Re: a little something worth noting . . .

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 06:48:57AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> I did not make the point about anything being alarming.  This particular thread
> dates back some time, but the context was, someone made a claim that the US
> never decreases freedom anywhere, or some similar trite propaganda, and so I
> have just culled two recent examples re: Canada that have come up in the last
> week or so.

So make your point already and show how Canada's freedom has been
decreased.

> Interesting, I have heard there have been sporadic areas controlled by Taliban
> but generally outside Kabul it is the warlords again (you know, the ones which
> were so terrible that the Taliban were an improvement, which is a pretty damning
> indictment), who were f/k/a the "Northern Alliance".

So blame Germany and the Netherlands. They have been in control of the
UNSCO/ISAF forces in Afghanistan for the past months, not the US. NATO took
over since 4/16. Before NL and DE, Turkey was in charge. Before that,
England.

> AFAICT the war on drugs is a tactic to increase the profitability of the
> illicit drug trade.  As to who trades them, well, let's just say the
> supposed "war on drugs" has not made the slightest dent in the drug trade
> - or shall we just be frank and say, covert op organizations and certain
> families - try reading an unofficial Bush biography to learn about the
> illicit drug trade and who profits from it.

AFAICT the war on drugs was ongoing during the Clinton administration. How
do you explain that?

> > The only way this could have been prevented (short of leaving the
> > Taliban in place) would be to put the entire country under prolonged US
> > control, but last time I checked not many were in favor of that.
> 
> You assume the people in charge wanted to prevent it; the evidence is to the
> contrary.

Why would Germany and the Netherlands want to prevent a stable Afghanistan?
*And* Turkey? *And* England? *And* the US?

> Right, since all the other alleged reasons for invading Iraq have been exposed
> as lies, I suppose it's only a matter of time before the subjects learn that the
> "democracy" excuse was bull as well, but probably it will be relegated to page
> D23, column 5 of the New York Times and by that time, hell, there will be many
> other wars going on so who has the time to care?

Lies? Are you saying Iraq did not break a single UN resolution dating back
to 1991? Compliance to these resolutions were a key part of the cease-fire.

To answer your question: you.

Rob
-- 
Rob Kaper     | "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
[email protected] | temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
www.capsi.com | - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+t626tppIl2G1SjcRAuKWAJ9w5GrKp5rn+TktUM82gxHzMCnhWgCdHgZY
s87Oi0fBDZVH4fwhnN3O0jU=
=wORh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----