>The problem is precisely that. This clearly does not signal the
> beginning of
> such
> new engagement.
> By passing the illusion that we are taking care of the victims of this
> conflict, the
> public simply feels more comfortable with his conscience, and
> doesn't feel
> that
> something must change in US foreign policy. That is why we must
> stress that
> this is an ilusion.
This is improper reasoning, the only reason to stress that it is an
illusion is if it really is an illusion. I have not yet seen evidence
either way as to wether the aid is or will actually be airdropped and
thus do not know if it is illusory yet. I am sure you are in a similar
situation, unless you happen to have a security clearence which i
lack. As far as any of us know this IS a real effort by the much
revieled government of the united states to help teh people of
Afgahnistan, something it should have done long ago. If it is not,
then you can proclaim it an illusion, but just because you think it
will ease people conciences is not a reason to assume it is false.
> Although I am a little impressed with many people's reactions to this
> crisis,
> and I have the feeling that much more people now are criticizing
> what is
> going
> on in the middle east (Palestine, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc...), I don't
> really think
> we're anywhere near some such re-examination. How many imperialist
> warshave throughout the time been called "humanitary
> interventions" ?
> I would see some improvement if I felt that the need that
> governments now
> have of reassuring people's minds of the justice of their acts,
> was new.
> I see indeed improvement in comparison with other recent crisis,
> perhapswe're
> entering a less intelectually lazy decade, but not more than that.
> I found a letter of a portuguese writer (I am portuguese, how do
> you do...),
> Eça de Queiroz (reading one of his works is mandatory in high school),
> precisely
> criticizing the english invasion of Afghanistan in 1880, saying
> how it
> resembled
> another english invasion of Afghanistan in 1847, and all the
> propagandaaspects
> are there, both for internal and external consumption (things like
> Kandaharis free!,
> etc.).
I don't know, how many? Are you comparing this war to a "we must help
the savages becasue they can't help themselves" situation. Other then
that type of rediculous and outdated reasoning, which doesn't apply
here i might add, i can't think of any imperialist war that was based
on the idea of a humanitarian intervantion. (to improve the lives of
those in the area.) Also, by definition, an imperialist war is aimed
at conquesring and controlling a territory, something that even the
most hawkish do not want to happen.
> There is another striking aspect of the imperialist nature of this
> invasionthat I
> would like to mention. Did you see what British troops are there?
> Naturallythe burkas! Great-Britains faithful dogs, ready to serve
> as meat for canons
> at any time. And from France there is the famous Foreign Legion.
> I guess the burkas must also have been there in 1847 and 1880...
If they had sent in a different army group that would make it a non-
imperialist war? Are you trying to criticize Britain and France because
they haven't changed the names of the army groups that were involved in
imperialist times? it is unfair and improper to attempt to discern the
motives of these countries based on nothing more then the names of the
groups that they have deplpoyed. Especially when these groups have
lost all connection with the actions they took a century ago.
> Another thing I would like to add is something I think I haven't seen
> mentioned
> here, take a look at
> http://www.fidh.org/communiq/2001/ij0310a.htm, a yet to
> be law entitled "American Service member Protection Act"....
I was intrigued that my government might propose something as radical
as you outlined here, and that it would be given credence by high
ranking officials. How ever when i searched for its full text to
analyze further i was surporised to find that as for as the government
is concerned it does not exist. There is no record of it available in
the online searches of bills proposed to congress, so i had no way of
assessing who proposed it and how much support it had. Perhaps iof you
could find a bill number it would facilitate this discussion.
> Mind you, my slimy parliament is changing the constitution to
> allow Portugal
> to
> adhere to the International Criminal Court. You see we have a
> problem, the
> constitution forbids extraditation of accused criminals who may me
> subjectto punishments that are considered inhumane, like the death
> penalty and life
> imprisionment. Since the International Criminal Court allows the
> latter,Portugal
> could not ratify its inconditional adhesion.
> Portugal was the second country to abolish capital punishment,
> next to
> Venezuela
> (naturally because of sheer luck, nothing else) and is now giving
> away its
> principles,
> moving backwards, to adhere to some International Criminal Court which
> intentions
> are still doubtful (but who knows, may not be in the future) and
> meanwhilethe
> US is saying that International Court yes but it is only for
> others ?
this is not quite clear to me. What is doubtful about the court's
intentions? and are you opposed to increased international law or in
favor of it?
> I begin to see a pattern of disrespect of international laws and
> treaties...This is no nationalistic bullshit. My government
> completely abides by yours
> (as do
> every european governments) and I have the same problem that you have.
again, what is the problem taht we share?
> To be realistic I must consider that the american government is
> also mine,
> except I'm a second rate citizen who can only vote for local
> authorities.
> But we have:
> 1- Disrespect for the UN, by not carrying finantial obligations in
> full. Not
> to
> mention blocking any measure that might be disagreable to the US
> in the
> security
> council.
> 2- Disrespect for the Genebra conventions in warfare. The using of
> chemicalweapons
> in Iraq and Kosovo as well as other weapons like napalm, etc. This
> is a
> crime of
> war but only for others.
> 3- Now this with the International Criminal Court.
I agree that not paying the UN is appalling and a blemish on The United
States. I was not aware of the use of chemical weapons by our forces
in either Kosovo or Iraq, although i have heard rumors that Iraq used
chemical weapons, and have recently heard a rumor that he threatened
the US gov that he had a failsafe system to launch a ring of anthrax
carrying SCUDs at tel aviv if bahgdad was invaded and he was deposed.
> Clearly, since those international institutions have the respect
> of the
> american people,
> the US government is doing a very good job at convincing the
> public that it
> owes
> nothing to the international comunity. Instead it is everyone else
> thatshould thank
> the US for their liberty, democracy, etc, etc. Except that it is
> not so. The
> US does
> no more than to clear the world from every possible obstacle to
> its giant
> multinational
> corporations. And in the process has killed many democracies and
> taken away
> the
> liberty of millions of people.
First of all, i am personally insulted by the your assumption that we
in the UNited States are a lazy and inactive people that trust
everything our government tells us and assume that our nation is the
most morale and the source of all good in the world. Many, if not most
of us here in the states are well aware of the increaseing
interconnectedness of the world, and that in order to be a just nation
we must begin to act like an equal member of the world community, not
as though we are its king. As for the idea that we sell our soulds for
our multinational corporations, i would point out that we have one of
the strongest anti-globilization movements in the world right here in
the united states. I would also like to ask what democracies we have
killed in order to help these companies?
> Therefore we must be carefull not to mistake the public's
> conformist concern
> for
> the victims health with a true change.
So people from the US don's have real feelings, just "conformist
concerns" for the downtrodden of afgahnistan? didn't you say earlier
we were improving and becomeing less "intellectually lazy"? Which is
it? Do you have any evidence to support eitehr side?
>The former will always be
> easilysatisfied by
> some propaganda, which is not even very convincing.
not even very convincing to you. The rest of us are waiting to see if
they follow through.
> Finally, to answer,
> > And if it prevents a popular uprising against the US in
> Afghanistan (where
> > we are surely going), Pakistan (who is likely helping us), and
> elsewhere --
> > I'm all for it.
> I don't think so. If we, who have comfortable lifes in Europe and
> the US,
> who
> are well fed, who watch CNN, are not easily convinced...
> Do you think that this pale pseudo-help and propaganda is going to
> appeasethem who never watch CNN, who do not benefit from this
> situation like we do,
> indeed they are some of the victims ?
once again, if it actually helps people, then they will be convinced,
if it does not, then myself and my intellectually lazy conformist
bretheren will try to get them to do something thaty will.
> That is the problem. And you and I are part of the 15% of the world
> population
> (according to brasilian photographer Sebastião Salgado) that
> benefits from
> this
> situation, we'll remain being enemies for the other 85%. Even if we
> truthfully liked
> to change this.
> As said Francineide Sales of the brasilian Worker's Democratic
> Party in
> reaction
> to 9/11 (in www.pdt.org.br) "One thing is for sure: in this world of
> abysses, where
> the practice of injustice and disrespect is common, no one is safe!".
> (if you know portuguese do read that passionate article, which is
> also full
> of hope)
that is a brilliant quote, and it is heartwarming to hear that he Mr.
Sales is full of hope, though i can not read Portugeuse. But the
solution is not to deride all attempts at bridging these gaps without
evidence or a counter plan. that kind of tactic only makes the devide
deeper and more perilous to try to cross.
Monte Frenkel
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.