Re: This makes me proud of my President

> 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.

Agree. Only it is US propaganda that states that aid will be airdropped
and that propaganda panflets are included.

> > 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.

For what I know, the italian humanitary intervention in Etiopia and the
japanese humanitary intervention in Manchuria for instance.
(My source on this is Chomsky on www.zmag.org)
I meant precisely that we often think that nineteenth century propaganda
was that kind of "we must help the savages because they can't help
themselves",
and the impression I've got from that Eça de Queiroz letter was that it
wasn't
all that different from today.

>  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 that type of rediculous and outdated reasoning, which doesn't apply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.

I think you're misinformed here. This war is not meant to improve the lifes
of those living in the area, it is supposed to be a war against terrorism.
(not to mention that unitl now I suspect the lifes of those people has not
improved nor do I think it will after the intervention, as hasn't the life
of
the people in Iraq)
Kosovo was a "humanitarian intervention".

> > 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.

Of course these groups lost all connection with the actions that took place
a century ago (I would shorten the time span to fifty-sixty years for the
French Foreign Legion at least). And of course it is not what troops they
sent that will determine if this is or not an imperialist war.
But I think especially in the case of the burkas that it is an aggravating
fact
because by not sending british ground troops the british government can
easily avoid public criticism that it would otherwise have due to
casualties.
Furthermore I think it is a striking imperialist fact that the main ground
troop used by the United Kingdom in all recent conflicts is from Nepal.
Why is it that it is the nepalese that defend british interests worldwide?

> > 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.

No I can't. My source was that.
If it does not exist, good.

> > 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 am in favor.
But yes I find the court's intentions still doubtful. Mainly because the
prime
accuseds are Milosevic and other Jugoslavian personalities. I feel no
sympathy
for Milosevic. But the existence of the crimes against humanity that were
attributed to him are still to be proved. And even then it is not clear that
they
may be attibuted to him.
For sources on the lack of proof of this crimes see for instance
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/kosovo_killing_fields.htm

> > 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?

I don't know if I share it with you.
I have the problem of being seen by people like those in the middle east
as an enemy because my government and mostly your government acts
in ways I do not approve.

> > 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.

That the US have used impoverished uranium is now more than proved.
Portuguese soldier (corporal I think) Hugo Paulino died from kidney
problems after his comission in Kosovo. Tens of other european
soldiers died from the same problem.
This was attributed to impoverished uranium which formed a very fine
and very hard dust that would end up naturally in the kidneys.
For months after Paulino's death both the portuguese government
and NATO officials speaking directly to the portuguese people
denied the use of impoverished uranium (activists had reports of it being
used since the beginning of the bombings).
Only almost a year after his death NATO recognized having used
impoverished uranium. Thus it had been lying all the time. And the worst
thing is that it probably lyed to the portuguese government too. Not
only that but none of the european troops in Kosovo were warned of
possible dangers of contamination (albeit German troops wore gas masks).
Additionally six italian soldiers died from leukemia. NATO still claims
they died from natural causes. But no one can seriously believe that.
Since impoverished uranium causes little radiation (which could cause
leukemia) it is still to be determined what caused their death.
As to napalm I consider local reports proof enough beacause both
its effects and its stink are easily recognizable. Additionally I feel that
to modern incendiary bombs not based on napalm like the american
Rockeye bombs the same logic should be applied as to napalm.

Attacking civilian targets is also a crime of war, please see the report
from
the spanish pilot Captain Martin de la Hoz,
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/spanishreport.htm.
Naturally, being portuguese, my feeling for this spanish captain is of
great proximity. Perhaps you think spanish pilots are all radical activists
but if you do I don't think you've ever been in Europe...

As to Iraq all we can seriously infer is that chemical weapons were used.
You feel inclined to believe that Iraq used them and also in the propaganda
claims that it will do it again. I think you're wrong and those rumors are
being launched to prepare for new bombing of Iraq (the fleets in the gulf
and in the mediterranean are ready).
I feel inclined to believe that the US used them, I have no proof, I don't
have the CIA working for me. But US officials lied before, lied
shamelessly about the use of impoverished uranium to the european
people (which did not forget it, not even the most moderate). The
possibility is there. And taking tradition into account I feel inclined to
believe that way even without racional proof.

> 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.

And I strongly object to that claim of being insulted. I thought I had
clearly stated that this is not a portuguese versus american issue.
I clearly said that the situation here is no different than from that of the
United States, not only our government totally abides by yours as
we always have a small contingent of soldiers present in most of
your recent interventions worldwide.
Thus I must restate my point. Since the american people has undoubtful
respect for those international organizations and international law the
US government must be doing a good job of convincing most of the
people that it owes nothing to the international community.
I add that disrespect for the UN is not only financially but clearly by
acting in Libya, Panama, Iraq, Jugoslavia and now Afghanistan to name
just a few without consent from the security council is also a disrespect
for international law and an international organization.

>  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?

I don't object that the US have a strong anti-globalization movement.
It certainly is larger and more active than anything in Portugal, but
I don't know if it is one of the largest in the world.
Anyway I don't understand what makes you say that since I'm writing
in an american activist mailing list. As I also could not understand why
did you feel offended above. Please consider me your co-citizen of
the priviledged 15% of the world as I consider you my co-citizen.

As to what democracies the US killed, I can easily and fast remember
two, Chile and East Timor.
In Chile the US supported both politically and militarilly the rise of
General Pinochet against the democratically ellected and widely
supported leader Salvador Allende. Pinochet's first action was to kill
every political activist in Chile, which in those times were numbered
in thousands because Chile was in one of those rare moments in
history in that people get together I try to build something together.
In East Timor it is now more than proved that the US president at
the time and secretary of state Henry Kissinger visisted Jacarta
the night prior to the invasion of East Timor.

What's their excuse? Always the same: communism!
As if in Chile or East Timor something even vaguely resembled to
Stalinism was in the works.

But this is not all. You might say that it wasn't the american that
were responsible for killing the democracy in Chile and East Timor,
ignoring substancial ammount of evidence.

In Portugal the american didn't kill democracy after the revolution
of the 25th of April 1974 by an inch.
The revolution was carried out by a group of mostly captains but
also colonels and two generals who called themselves the movement
of the armed forces (MFA). This group had from the beginning
publicized its objectives as the three Ds, to develop, to descolonize
and to democratize.
As you may know the revolution was carried out in the mainland
in less than one day. There was little shooting and one single man
shot and not fataly.
We were also the only country that I know of that released its colonies
with big hugs among leaders of each side (this after a 23 year deadly war).
Albeit the president during descolonization was right wing and didn't
want to negotiate with the rebels in Mozambique (whose only
representatives were Frelimo, left wing) when Mario Soares (who 10 years
latter became president) went to Mozambique he hugged Frelimo's
leader Samora Machel and when he told what was his orders (from the
right wing president) that he could only negotiate a cease-fire and
could not recognize Frelimo as a legitimate representative of Mozambique's
people, the MFA representative present, Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho,
rushed to say "No, no, the MFA completely agrees with Frelimo..."

To this kind of environment what could the USA say? "Communism!"

So for this and other reasons, by 75 we had an american war ship
in the Tejo (river), in a vantage point for completely destroying the
city of Lisbon. And for an inch it didn't do it. There were also more
means of atack setup nearby.
What held the americans? Well, actually Mario Soares met with
Henry Kissinger and promised him that he and his so-called socialist
party would win the ellections and so he could keep away the
threat of communism.

As if something even vaguely resembled to Stalinism was in the
works.
No what the USA feared could be in the works was resistance
to the entrance of american corporations...
This is one excuse, communism,  that the americans eat more
easily than do europeans. (because of chance or history, I'm not putting
this in an europe versus USA issue)

> 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?

Don't take this as an outside US-inside US issue. In both cases you
mention I intended to include in my comment the portuguese and
european people as much as the american.
I'm not say people don't have real feelings. All I'm saying is that
people are easily satisfied with little convincing propaganda,
which is bad.

> > 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.

I don't think that feeding them (even if we get to be able to feed them,
since the situation was serious before) is enough to compensate
for the bombings.

> > 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.

Mrs. Sales...
If you know spanish take a try.

> 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.

I agree. I wasn't being politically correct. And I wasn't being the
kind of highly documented activist that the world needs.
I'm not even an activist.

Miguel Ramos