Readers’ Responses to Our Question (107)

Managed Hosting, Colocation and Data Center Services by victoryushchenkonashpresudent ...

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

noabtlh pbgysvw yelh xjvz dhjqgi strhnquvp nvuoph

Tom, Tom, Tom,

My statement concerning freedom fighters vs. terrorists stands on it's own merit. If you poll the American population the majority would say Al Quaeda are terrorists. If you poll the Afghans the majority would say they are freedom fighters.

You said, "Islamic terrorists openly kill, torture.....targeting civilians is what makes them unique." Excuse me, but that statement is doogie do. The United States has targeted and killed more civilians then the Taliban even dream about. It has only been in the past 15 years our weapon systems allow us to make an attempt at avoiding civilian populations. Prior to these weapon systems carpet bombing was normal. In WWII General LeMay, the head of the Army/Aircorps in the Pacific stated he hoped the US won because if they didn't he would be charged as a war criminal for the fire bombings of Japanese cities. We also burned German cities from the air as well. Oh, and just a side note. Do you really think the 2 nukes we dropped in the middle of two Japanese cities were designed to take out military targets? There is nothing unique about groups targeting civilians when they don't have the weapons to try to limit civilian casualties. Here's an idea; let's give Al Quaeda a couple of Aircraft carrier groups armed with the latest and best ordiance so they can fight nicely with us. (Please note the sarcasm) This was a very poor point you made because it was not backed up by any historical data.

Torture separates the terrorists from us? Have you read the papers lately? Not only does Bush want to legalize torture (since that nasty supreme court ruled against him) he wants the bill retroactive so the torture we've committed in the last 5 years illegally will be made legal.

You go on to state, "They terrorize the populace........" Here we go again with the Commie and Facist analogies. History question of the day: What do 2 legitimate heads of state with large military complexes have in common with a cave dwelling piece of dung like Bin Laden? Ding, ding, ding.....nothing. Outside of the fact Stalin, Hitler and Bin Laden are all men and they all had facial hair there are no similarities or comparisons to be made. Just becuase an adminstration wants to equate the threat we face to past threats doesn't make it so.

Your rebuttal of my point on democracies having to develop from within I'm going to pass on. Not because I agree with your rebuttal, but because the response would be too long.

Ah ha! my personal favorite on this post. Trumped up charges. I sure do believe Bush lied. I believe he lied through his teeth and he knew he was lying when he did it. He manipulated the intelligence available. He selectively used intelligence and he left out every contrary opinion concerning the issue. Yup, get over it, he lied. Not believing Bush lied about WMD's in Iraqi is like believing Bill clinton didn't have sex with that woman.

Now, GW wouldn't be the first president to lie about getting us into a conflict. Go all the way back to the sinking of the Maine. There is nothing original or even creative about a president lying to start a conflict and/or war. Johnson had his Gulf of Tonkin incident to escalate Vietnam, etc. etc...

forget for a second the republican talking points you wrote back to me. Just for a second think about this. Could it be that GW really wanted to do something no other modern day president has been able to do? Do you think he saw 9/11 as a way to topple the evil Saddam (who everybody already hated and thought he was nuts) and affect a democratic regime change? That this action would lead to increased stability and ultimately peace in the ME? See, just when you thought I was a card carrying member of the ACLU I give your guy noble motives. Can you see he was willing to lie, torture, throw the Geneva Convention away and yes kill for this concept? Bush knew if he succeeded he would go down in history as one of the great presidents. He also knew if he failed he would go down in history as a goat. Well, don't be shocked when you see pictures of Bush grazing on the white house lawn over the next two years.

NATO does not have to be in Afghanistan, however, they are doing its own share of trying to keep the country secure & stable etc. The US went to Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban & deny AlQaeda a territory where they can train terrorists. Bush should not have taken most of the US forces & invade Iraq. The best way to combat Afghan insurgency is to have the Afghans, Afghan Army, to fight these "rebels". In many Asian countries where there was insurgency, ie Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia etc., their own military succeeded in eliminating the insurgents/rebels. It takes one of your own to know the mindset, tactics, motivations of your own.

Dan Tanzey, Blackpool, England September 19, 2006 06:05 AM

I agree with your comments about 'failed state'. Our efforts in Afghanistan, five years ago, should have concentrated on those who attacked us. Instead we did half the job there, picked 'favorites', and are trying to impose our desire on a population that has no tradition for what we like to do.

Tom Wonacott, Boise, Idaho September 18, 2006 09:37 PM

A couple of points:

It is true that "One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter". In Iraq, the US is the terrorist, having invaded with no justification; but not in Afghanistan which harbored and protected those who attacked us.

Unfortunately in Iraq there is resistance against us (and however much we may dislike them, they are not terrorists), and terrorism by outsiders (besides us). The non-Iraqis are practicing terrorism since their attacks are designed to stir a civil war; they do that by attacking civilians and non-military targets.

I also believe that "Democratic reform can only take place from within a society and not forced from the outside." I do not believe that the examples of Germany, Italy, and Japan are relevant: they are relatively homogeneous societies, and did nt have the internal tensions that could lead to civil war.

Oh, lastly, by now we all know that Bush did lie about WMD (it is his problem with Iran now).

Wow. Just read my way through most of the preceeding messages - I ignored the monster re Blair & Isreal - and there seem to be two answers.

First of all: "Is NATO's mission in Afghanistan failing?" You bet your life it is. From the outset, all the lessons of history, of the British experience in the days of the Raj, plus the systematic ridiculing of the Soviets - who had vastly more more men and equipment at their disposal than the current force - have been forgotten. To repeat the words of a Victorian British politician, Kabul is very easy to get into, but it is the very devil to get out of. Bite the bullet; leave NOW.

Secondly: "What should the U.S. and NATO do to contain the insurgency before Afghanistan once again becomes a "failed state." This presupposes that what it becomes is "failed". The problem the West has had constantly throughout history is that it keeps trying to re-model and re-define everything and everywhere in terms of what is acceptable to the West - and never mind what anyone else wants. And then it gets all upset and offended when the beneficiaries of Western culture throw it back in their faces! Grow up!! and leave other states to grow and develop as they wish. It's not your world.

A Voice in the Afghan Wilderness

By Bob Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 19, 2006; Page C01

Shortly after the Taliban fell in Afghanistan, NPR correspondent Sarah Chayes found herself reporting a story she was sure had enormous implications for both that country and the United States.

She couldn't get it on the air.

Buy This Photo

In "The Punishment of Virtue," former NPR correspondent Sarah Chayes gives an insider's perspective on Afghanistan after the Taliban's fall. (By Bill O'leary — The Washington Post)

Save & Share
Tag This Article

Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Byline

2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Blurb

3. Tag This Article

Five years later, in her new book, "The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban," Chayes returns to this unheard story. It's a starting point for a detailed, highly personal exploration of the enormous price she believes the United States is paying for a mistake now so widely acknowledged it has become a cliche: intervening militarily with "no concept" of how to "create a working society after the intervention."

It goes like this:

In December 2001, Chayes rushed across the Pakistani border in the company of a young fighter affiliated with the forces of Gul Agha Shirzai, a local warlord. Shirzai's militiamen had just taken control of Kandahar, the fabled southern city that had been a key Taliban and al-Qaeda stronghold. The takeover, Chayes knew, was in defiance of the orders of newly anointed Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who had designated another group to hold Kandahar.

What Chayes didn't know was the role played by American Special Forces troops attached to Shirzai's militia. She imagined the Special Forces guys cursing the renegade warlord, then saying: "They're attacking, we'd better go along with them." But when she asked her militiaman escort, "This kid looked at me and said, 'The Americans? They told us to do it!' "

What a story, she thought: No sooner has the new central government taken power — representing the promise of a better life for the long-suffering Afghan people — than its authority is undermined by "American soldiers egging on a warlord to snatch Kandahar away from President Karzai."

For whatever reasons, her editors saw it differently. They told her it was nothing but "squabbling among the Afghans" and cut it from her "All Things Considered" report................................

for the rest of the Washington Post Book article see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801402.html

First of all, using guns, airplanes and tanks are not the solutions and Taliban should not be considered a group of 100 or 1000 fighters in Afghanistan, but now, as a result of the triangular actors?(US, NATO and the Afghan Government) mistakes, they are converted to an ideology. As a result of this, the public supports them as guardians of their ideology. Taliban's are getting stronger and stronger because international community is using the military strategy as a solution to the problem. I strongly believe that it is not wise to fight terror with guns. The capital cities even the Kabul center is lacking the basic infrastructure. If Kabul where all the developmental actors, ISAF, NATO, UN, Central Government and foreign missions are stationed and a half kilometer way from their headquarters people are ?begging for getting a penny?. How about the thousands and hundreds kilometers far stationed populations of the country?

Having said that the most important work for the triangular actors is to fight ?corruption? at all levels and ?deliver the services to the people?. Since the government of Afghanistan as per one of the high ranking government officials ?is converted to a mafia government? and this gave Taliban an opportunity to grab people?s trust and confidence. People are deprived of the basic needs, they need food, water and shelter and these were promised by the ?triangular actors? but no tangible results on the ground. Therefore, people support for the Taliban is increasing day by day even within the government circles. Taliban are like fishes and fishes can not service without water. This water and pond has been provided by the triangular actors by not addressing the increased corruption and basic needs of the people. A brigadier general of the police told me that ?I am very frustrated and hopeless, since the ministry is selling the posts, and appointments are taking place in the exchange of USD 50,000 up to USD 30000 per post.?

I would say, even if the Taliban are fully defeated and there is no bullet to be fired on the triangular actors, the hatred, frustration and depression of the innocent people and false promises will one day lead to ?mass public revolution against the triangular actors?.

Suicide bombers are killing themselves, because they are highly depressed and have no opportunity to feed their family and they don?t want to see their children dying in front of them. Here the Taliban steps in and provide them whatever they need and encourage them to do a suicide bombs so they can go to the ?paradise?. This illiterate Afghan believes it and kills himself and blows up the convoys.

Military should be the final step, but not a solution and the foremost and urgent strategy for the triangular actors must be ?the satisfaction of the people? by ?addressing their basic needs? and ?focusing on development efforts?, followed by ?true and practical peace and reconciliation efforts?. If this has not happened, the country, the region and the world would fail.

bush cherry picked information about Iraq, that's in a report from the CIA......and was a concern for Powell. And how did that British Agent die with a memo saying that there were no WMD? That's not very nice. It's also a known fact that bush was trying to link Saddam and Al Quearda, that the CIA trained in Afghanistan, but Saddam was having none of it.

It's a known fact that all of the WTC bombers were from allies Saudi principally, with a UAE or two and one Lebanese.......someone left a full list of bombers in a suitcase in Maine with photos, ID's, and a video of Osama shaking hands with bush and laughing as they filmed clips of the bombers farting.......I made up the last part. Wikipedia has a list of bombers.

It's also a known fact that April Glaspie invited Saddam to attack Kuwiat on George H.W. Bush's orders. Google it.

Why? So we could defeat, destroy and place Iraq on ice until we needed that oil.

Ever read PNAC Tom Wonna Cot?

are you paid to be a pundit of neo conartist thoughts? or is it a genetic definciency?

a yout?

sorry for the digression people, your discussion is lively, thoughtful and interesting.

keep up the good work.

BobL:

You and I may be in the minority, but that is what this great country needs to go around. I must admit that I used be archconservative and pugnacious with very little (if any, at all) patience; now, I am just an "independent," or "not affiliated." I suppose that I get more open-minded with age!

Tom Wonacott, Boise, ID:

I take it that you meant Chechen rebels in Russia. Also, BobL meant nuclear weapons, when he said WMD. (Am I correct?) Yes, Saddam did gas his own people. Who did not? Everyone did in World War I. Also, we killed our brethren during the Civil War. The resaon for the slaughter was that Lincoln HAD to keep the Union intact. I can undertsand why Saddam Hussein gassed his own (Kurdish minorities) people. Would we let Puerto Rico get its independence? Also, we provided the WMD (chemical weapons) technology to Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, we cannot have the cake and eat it, too, in this day and age. (We cannot sell the technology and expect that dictators and other thugs will not use it. This is exactly what happended in Afghanistan - stinger missiles.) I am afraid that we are opening Pandora's box by trying Saddam Hussein for Crimes Against Humanity. What is the guarantee that our leaders will not face the same thing? (I am NOT saying what Saddam did was acceptable.)

To BobL-VA | Permalink

Well, I agreed with point number three you made in the first response to my comments. Natural resources belong in the country they reside in.

Thats about it though. Your last comment deserves the first reply. "One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter". The statement suggest you believe the US military, and presumeably, the US government are the terrorist in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Islamic terrorist openly kill, torture, behead, crash airplanes into buildings, throw cripples overboard, target school children(Chechnya) etc., etc., etc. to force their political will on dissent. Targeting civilians is what makes the Islamic terrorist unique. Let me spell this out for you. THEY TERRORIZE THE POPULACE TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS OF POWER MUCH THE SAME WAY AS STALIN AND HITLER (AND SADDAM). PLease explain to me how they are freedom fighters!

"Democratic reform can only take place from within a society and not forced from the outside." That statement is completely false. We occuppied one of the most fanatical countries in the world and they became a thriving democracy (Japan). We also occupied Germany and Italy both of which became great democracies. We saved South Korea from the North, and today it is another great democracy. Think we are the terrorist?

Finally, your statement "...Trumped up charges..." implies Bush lied about the WMD's. Everyone in the world thought Iraq had weapons of mass distruction including Russia, France, Great Britain, Clinton, Kerry etc. Saddam used them on his own people, and against Iran. Saddam loved to play hide and seek with the inspectors. All he had to do was allow uninhibited access for the UN sanctioed inspectors, and war could have been avoided. It's fair to argue that going to war in Iraq was a mistake, but not based on your BELIEF that Bush lied because there is no evidence to suggest he was the only world leader that knew Iraq had no WMD's.

Lauren-Costa Rica

Thank you and for the record I agree with you as well.

Srikanth-

I know exactly what you mean when you talk of not getting the point across in a concise way. I read the thread and type out a response. I know what I want to say, I know what I think I said when I wrote it and then a while later I'll reread it and say to myself that's not what I really meant. I could have said it better. My guess is that's just par this type of forum. I really enjoy this forum. As a 56 year old banking exec most of the people I work with are right of Athiest. You can probably guess I'm a political minority of one in my profession. This gives me an outlet and I'm grateful.

BobL:

I must say that your points are well-taken. I agree with you 100% on Iraq. What a waste! What a shame!

I agree that the countries in the Middle-East should try to resolve, rationally, the conflict among themselves. If they choose to involve us (the U. S.), then we MUST play HONEST brokers. (This is what I meant. Sorry for confusing you.) Unfortunately, we MUST convey to everyone involved in the "constructive" dialogue that we ARE prepared to use extreme force (as a last resort), while we WILL try to resolve these issues peaceably.

I undertsand that we certainly have lost credibility in the world community. That is why I suggested empoering the U. N. (without our interefernce, of course) to do the nedful. Can the U. N. accomplish this? I do not know. (It is as corrupt as any other country on earth!)

Lastly, at least we (the posters on this website) are discussing and exploring "possible" solutions without resorting to violencve and mayhem. I am thankful for that!

Srikanth-

Winning wars is an antiquated concept we had better come to understand so we can adjust our policies regarding the use of military force accordingly. The days of a country and it's people giving up and turning over their destiny to a foreign power who beat them on the battlefield are gone forever. A minority of the losing population with well armed forces will continue the fight down to the last man to repel the invaders. I believe it's called nationalism. They view the invaders as parasites on their land and they make it very personal. You would have thought we learned that lesson in Vietnam, but unfortunately some of the leaders in this country like GW never served a day in vietnam or apparently learned any history. Occupations can only lead to failure. I don't care if it's Afghanistan or Iraq. Occupations will always have bad endings. It's just a question of time. We're watching this process everyday in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan.

We never should have invaded Iraq. At best it was a stupid and morally bankrupt act. At worst it bordered on criminal. (no, I'm not calling for a Bush impeachment) The results have been disasterous. Now we're hanging around hoping beyond hope we can make it better when in fact all we can do by our mere presence there is make it worse.

You talk of peace in the ME and our acting as honest brokers of such a peace. I'm sorry this isn't realistic. First, it's up to the nations of the ME to sort through their own political, economic and religous issues while at the same time trying to come to terms Israel. Until both of these actions are relatively accomplished you will not see peace in the ME. Interference in this process by the US or any other power just gets in the way of the countries of the ME working out their own problems. (I'm not saying this will be a pretty thing to watch, but I believe it is an inevitable ugly part of nations growing up)

On one hand you say you understand we can not talk about peace with bombers circling over head and then go on to say it's unfortunate, but necessary? I'm confused. Do you believe honest dialogues can take place with circling bombers or not? Personally, I don't think any dialogue that is tainted with the real threat of violence is worth having and the results of any such conference won't last if it was conducted under those circumstances.

THE UNITED STATES IS NO POSITION TO BROKER AN HONEST PEACE IN THE ME.
In the last 5 years alone we've invaded and occupied 2 of their countries and killed and injured well over 100,000 of their people. We've destroyed great parts of their infrastructure. We've de-stabilized their governments and started civil war. This is not the resume of an honest peace broker.
OUR ACTIONS, THREATS AND OBVIOUS BIASES PRECLUDE US FROM MEDIATING ANYTHING IN THE ME.

Lauren, Costa Rica:

My sentiments, exactly!

I am with Bobl. We can not tell 1.2 billion Muslims how to live. We need to reevalute our Middle-eastern policies. If we REALLY cared about democracy in the Middle-east would we be remaining silent about Saudi Arabia's governmental system? Of course not. I recommend that anyone who wants to understand what is going on read: Imperial Hubris. I really hope some politicians read it, because I think WWIII is getting too close for comfort, and we have to change our policies toward the Middle-east soon. Is there an enlightened politician, or is this an oxymoron? Tell me in our wonderful country we have some thinking individuals in power (somewhere).

MikeB:

Corrution is not limited to any party (Republican, Democrat, Liberal); it is just pervasive. So, we cannot blame the Bush adminsitration for everything. As regards the fanatics, I understand exactly where you are coming from. However, every religion (and country, for that matter) has its share of evil fanatics. Let me give you an example that parallels the Middle-East's rejoicing the WTC bombing and the concomitant suffering. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) did also do exactly that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries right after they lynched innocent minorities, primarily African-Americans. Did we (the U. S.) do nothing, but wring our hands. As a matter of fact, we did, until the Kennedy Administration too a firm, hardline approach. (However, I must say that the process of integration of African-Americans into the "mainstream" started with Eleanor Roosevelt, who basically "cudgeled" the military into doing so.) It seems to me that we are ashamed of those days, as we should be. (I know that I am of those days, but it is a part of the history from which we, hopefully, have learned WHAT NOT to do.)

Hence, we cannot leave the fanatics to their own devices. (You may want to read my resposne to daniel's commets, below, also.)

daniel:

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your addressing some of the concerns that we all have. Also, thanks for breaking the post into paragraphs.

May I clarify one thing? I am neither a liberal, nor a conservative. I am just trying to a pragmatist, perhaps doing a terrible job at that. At least, nobody could tell me that I did not try!

This is what I suggest that we try in Afghanistan: we have reasonably democratic government; we must support that government in rooting out the fanatics - first by dialogue, then by SWIFT, EXTREME, OVERWHELMING force. We should NOT play nicey-nice, i. e., pull a punch, or hold back our hand, if they refuse meaningful measures. (Meaningful measures are something that have yet to be determined. I know that it is a cop-out, but that is all I have, at this time. Perhaps, the U. N. could define it, "collectively.") We must go all the way. You see, then the world will be with us. (We just cannot antagonize the world, at large. It has indeed become a global village. One of the posters here mentioned that what we do has worldwide repercussions, and correctly so.)

BobL:

I understand that we cannot talk peace with bombers circling overhead. However, I am afarid that we have to do just that with these fanatics (or any fanatic, for that matter). That is why I amm harping on the need to discuss the fundamental issues - economic, terriroria, etc. - without favoring one faction, over another. We MUST be HONEST BROKERS. A credible threat of force is exactly what is sometimes (terribly unfortunately) needed. Jimmy Carter, for all his negatives (whoe does not?) accomplished a significant milestone with the Camp David ACcord. Bill Clinton tried to emulate that, but failed, for many reasons.

AM-Vienna-

I never said I liked the idea. What I said was I haven't heard a better one and as long as we have boots on the ground we're promoting what we term as terrorist acts and the continued rise in radical Islam. It's incumbent on us to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible. No matter how this accomplished we're going to leave a mess behind. However, staying there and enflaming the Arab World against us isn't a good option. We don't belong in Iraq. We don't belong in Afghanistan. We weren't invited. We invaded them both. Staying there can only make matters worse in the long run. We need to let the Iraqis work out there differences. We need to let the Iranians do the same and ditto for the Afghans. Could it get real bloody? More then likely. We can't stop that.

I beg to differ with Srikanth. A constructive dialogue assumes the parties engaged in the dialogue are willing to compromise to meet a mutually benefical result. Here we go again trying to mix centuries of religous hatred with modern day political processes. It doesn't work. I have a better chance of hitting the lottery then witnessing a tri-party constructive dialogue taking place in Iraq.

Sorry Srikanth, I'm not picking on you, but I also have to disagree with your use of military force. You can't even attempt a constructive dialogue with bombers circling over your head. This is coercion and/or duress, plain and simple. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against the selective use of military force as we have talked about before. However, the constant threat of military interventions forces the weaker side not to negotiate in good faith. You have to take the military option off the table in order to be able to negotiate in good faith.

To Srikanth from Daniel and then to Walt in Switzerland.

First, to Srikanth: thank you Srikanth for feedback concerning my writing skills. Obviously I am not communicating clearly as you are not the first to wonder what the hell I mean. By writing in longhand I meant that I write essays in such a manner, but here I am posting by typing. I believe I have difficulty writing in general because not only am I a deficient writer, I always try to grapple with difficult and dangerous thoughts which requires flexibility of mind and courage, and I believe especially the more dangerous the thought the more one becomes anxious and loses fluency in writing (much in the same way as one's voice falters when stating something controversial in company). I will try to write more clearly from now on and break things down into manageable paragraphs.

Moving on to NATO in Afghanistan, and still addressed to Srikanth, (although this bears reference to Walt in Switzerland as well), I have a problem with recommendations you have Srikanth such as "Walk softly and carry a big stick"—in fact images of this sort have always annoyed me. I am not averse to metaphor, but how exactly in a world of asymmetric warfare are we to know when to stop walking softly, and what do you mean by a big stick, and how is a big stick supposed to work when the world moves so asymmetrically? How this bears on Walt in Switzerland as well is that I wonder in general about people who have (and if you will permit me an image in turn) a "farm tractor" view of the world in that society to such people seems something of a rather easily controlled mass—in fact so easy that it is controlled by merely a few levers (education, raise or lower taxes, etc. etc.).

Is society really that easy Srikanth? And Walt, is Switzerland that easy to run? If so, then we can deduce in such a world (among other things) that 1) the media—even the most reliable journalism—is nothing but entertainment precisely because there is nothing really which is dangerous to society (one television station for all political parties in Switzerland Walt?). 2) that education is not only a very simplistic affair (precisely because so few levers are required to run society) we can ask if education at all is really occuring. 3) Consciousness cannot expand except in such a way that the few levers are not compromised, which means of course that trivialities will be the order of the day in society...

I hope I have been relatively clear. I am not at all right wing in the sense of being overly religious or endorsing business predation—in fact there is no way any Republican in America would trust me with anything—but the left wing view of the world as espoused by you Srikanth and Walt seems something of a mathematical system where you count up to only one through eight rather than one through ten (in other words your worldview depends on leaving much out). Actually perhaps I have been unfair to you Srikanth by calling you left wing, but I doubt it...

In general it always troubles me to see people reduce things to a simple set of images (or that their views seem easily reducable to such). Perhaps the people who anger me most are those who speak of creativity as "thinking outside the box". Any genuinely creative person knows that he never thinks outside the box unless actually being in a box—in other words he never brings anything to a problem except that which might solve it. He does not reduce his creative process at all to even keeping such simplistic images as thinking outside the box in his mind for fear that he will fail to solve the problem at hand. You can add people who chatter on and on about "elegant solutions" to the list of useless fools as well (and I speak thus despite being a great lover of the arts).

Why do I carry on such? Because I believe nothing will be solved before us without a total revolution in how we conceive the world. You want education to deal with the world? I would expect boys to be brought up with something of a combination of special forces training, advanced Indian and Japanese meditative techniques, psychedelic drug use, a stiff training in math and reading and writing skills, a love of the classics—a supreme rigor and clarity of mind.

What I find most ironic concerning the last question on postglobal concerning torture and the Bush administration twisting the Geneva Conventions is that an argument can be made that at least in some people torture can actually drive a person to realize his most sublime depths...In other words, you want nurture over nature? It can be argued going by the historical record (the lives of artists, action heroes, etc.) that bringing a persons's life to the point that he feels anguish is perhaps the best thing that could ever happen to him. What would religion be without extreme suffering? How much has extreme suffering been culture creating?

Why do I ask these questions when we are supposed to be talking about NATO and Afghanistan? The answer is obvious. Most people bring nothing at all to the conversation except what anyone at any time can read in any newspaper or hear from the simplest fool on the street. I believe thinking once again will make an appearance in the world, even if the world has once and for all decided to leave thinking behind....

Srikanth Raghunathan - No, I do not think the U.S. is free of corruption. Not only is the Bush Administration corrupt and rotten to the core, so are the industrialistist and corporate managers and investors who support them. They are the very people who take advantage of the porr, preying on them with their payday loan scams, prey on the Middle Class with their banruptcy laws and credit skemes that cost them their homes and sometimes their families and lives. All of these are evil. So are the racists, the Nazi's, the Mormon polygomists, and the like. Still, we KNOW, we UNDERSTAND, right from wrong. We know the face of evil when we see it and we ought not tolerate it anywhere. One thing you do not mention, however, is the previlence of evil in Islam. The eonazi's in northern Idaho, the Nazi's in Germany, the polygamists, are all know as evil, twisted movements and they are shunned by every decent person. In the Islamic world, however, people have bought into worshipping the evil one and cannot tell the difference between good and evil. Islam and all of the evils accompanying it are noit just a religion, it is a goivernment, a way of life...or death. Islam and the evil it perpetuates permiate the Middle East. When the people were dying after the attacks of 9-11, when human beings were jumping from the 102 floor of the World Trade Center building because that death was easier than burining alive, it was shown in Arabic television and millions of Abars, practitioners of Islam, were celebrating. Old women with bright eyes were dancing in the streets. Children were cheering. This was not because of some unjustice they thought was being righted. It was because WE WERE SUFFERING, because the people of America were harmed. That soccer stadium in Afghanistan built with U.N. aide money used for executions and maing people? The stands filled to over capacity! Not because the people were forced there, but people they liked to watch their fellow human beings being harmed. These are NOT a people I feel any humanity for and they are certainly not a people I wish to help. Let them kill one another. Let them wallow in the filth of their "faith" until the dead bodies and hate fill up the walled enclave we enclose them in until they drown...or until they learn humanity and love and turn from worhsipping evil.

BobL-VA September 18, 2006 11:26 AM

I am afraid that I discgree with you about splitting Iraq. I believe that it will be the worse of a number of, admittedly extremely, poor alternatives. If Iraq is split,

(1) Turkey will invade the Kurdish dominated north (actually under the best circumstances preventing this will require active US participation);
(2) The Shia dominated part will be much closer to Iran than we should accept, especially after the past few weeks (unfortunately Iraq will grow close to Iran regardless of policy);
(3) The Christians of Iraq (before our invasion they were 5 - 10 % of the population) will be eliminated (but their numbers are fast dwindling under our guidance - but the difference is one between migration now and executions with a split);

As I said earlier, we have left ourselves a very poor collection of choices.

MikeB:

Yes, they (fundamental Islamists) do all those despicable things. However, so do other "fundamentalists" (e. g. some Mormons practice polygamy, which is degrading to women, in my opinion; some Hindus still practice self-immolation; some Neo Nazis forcibly preach Anglo-Saxon culture and Christianity; etc.) It goes to show that every faith has its problematic evil (skeletons in the closet). What better way is there than to educate these people? I, for one, truly believe that with a sound global economic and foreign policy, we CAN overcome these obstacles. I understand that some WILL NOT change; but we must win the hearts and minds of the moderates.

I agree that Islam DOES seem to have greater proprrtion of these fanatics, or fundamentalists (to be politically correct). We cannot give up on one (I would say major) segment of humanity, because there is greater prevalence of fundamentalism, or fanaticism. Look, we MUST idenitify the underlying reasons for the discontent and address them, however long and torturous the solution may be. That is what make our country (the good old USA) great in everyone's eyes.

Speaking of corruption, let me pose this question: do you think that we (the U. S.) are free of corruption? You yourself gave us examples of nepotism, cronyism, favoritsm in the Coalition Provisional Authority. What about all the congresspeople (and the greasers - the lobbyists) who have been on the take? Corruption (in one shape, or form, or another) is present in EVERY country, without exception.

(By following statements, I DO NOT CONDONE corruption.) Sometimes, I feel that corruption is like gun oil. You need the oil for the gun to function smoothly; but if and when you overdo it, then gun misfires. Perhaps, this is a bad analogy, but is the only one that I can think of at this time! Having said that, our country (the U. S.), with all its flaws and all, is still the greatest country on earth. Period! Unfortunately, we are losing that moral, economic, and technological edge precipitously, lately! Ordinary people like us can indeed change this downward spiral toward the black hole.

For Afghanistan and for Iraq and for the entire Middle East and such hell holes as Somalia, that means having nom truck with them whatsoever. It means walling them off and letting them kill each other in their petty squabbles. It means letting them know that the wall *is* a wall and if they cross it, will will ruthlessly and utterly destroy them. If they attack Israel again, it means a conflageration of the Lenanese border that will render the land incapable of supporting any kind of life. It mean, if another terrorist attack takes place against a Christian chrurch, we lauch a cruise missile against an Islamic "holy" site and reduce it to rubble, it means in the event of another 9-11, we take out Mecca or Medina or another Muslem site. It means we spray or boomb the poppy fields in Afghanistan and destroy their crops totally if they attempt to exprt them and visit their plague upon the West. It means retribution metted out on a scale that they dare not cross that wall. It also means that we achieve complete and total independence of them and their oil immediately, something we certainly can do, but do not because it deposits too much money into the hands of our own evil men and women who run the oil industry (a group, I note, that is morally no better than the Taliban or Al Quaida).

Tom Wonacott-

There were 3 points to your post I wanted to address separately.

First you wrote, "what affects the US Economy can have a devastating affect on the World Economy..." While this is an obviously true statement as written it should be finished with, "Therefore, the United States has a duty to the rest of the world to act in a responsible manner." The concept of what is good for America is good for the world should never be used as a justification for taking any type of military or political action we want without regard for our partners well being.

Second, you invoked the threat posed by WMD. Especially, Iran and the UN's recent dealings over this issue. NewsFlash: The IAEA, the UN's own agency, designed to monitor this exact issue has come out in criticism of the Bush Administration and accused them of seriously overstating Irans capabilities. The IAEA has stated Iran currently has the ability to enrich Uranium to around 3%. A number way to low to develop nuclear weapons. They went on to say it would be many years down the road for Iran to reach an enrichment level consistent with developing a nuclear device. The Bush Administration responded the same way they did with Iraq and Saddam. The shot back the IAEA was a partisan group (which it is not) and didn't know what they're talking about (which they do). Sorry, Bushie may have fooled us the first time with Iraq, but his credibility is nonexistent when it comes to this issue any longer. SEE WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU LIE? NOBODY BELIEVES YOU ANYMORE.

I think I loved your final paragraph to me the best. You accused me of putting my head in the sand, not understanding the lessons of WWII and expousing a doctrine of appeasement in the ME. I was duly impressed. All of that in one short paragraph. Well, I hate to break it to you but I'm not an Isolationist and I'm not trying to run away from what I believe is a serious world problem. WWII was a terrible analogy to use because the two conflicts have absolutely nothing in common.

First, both Japan and Germany invaded multiple countries. Who has Iraq invaded? Iran and Kuwaitt. Who has Iran invaded? Parts of Iraq maybe. Who has Saudi Arabia invaded? 5th Avenue in New York so the royal family could go on shopping sprees with their petrodollars? ME countries haven't been invading countries outside of their own sphere in over a century. Who've we've invaded in the last 5 years? Iraq and Afghanistan. We're much more guilty of expansionism then Iraq or Iran are.

Second, both Japan and Germany built large Armies, Navies and Air Forces for the purposes of expansion. I don't think Al Quaeda or Hezbollah approaches anything near the German or Japanese war machines.

So, let's see. The ME doesn't have a modern history of expansionism supported by a military complex capable of being able to carry one out. Now what does WWII and the ME have in common? Just about nothing. (PS on this subject. Slightly over 50 million people died in WWII with about half that number being Russians)

Last, my personal favorite: appeasement. I could care less about appeasing the ME. I'm not in the apeasement business. I'm in the business of treating all people with respect and dignity until they prove to me otherwise. We've never treated the ME with respect and/or dignity and we expect them to give it to us anyway? Life doesn't work they way. Simply put we've been trampling through the ME for the last 60 years kicking the Arabs around and now we're all up in arms because some of them kicked back. So what do we do? We run right back over there and kick them harder. Yup, this is just a bad foreign policy. Changing bad foreign policy isn't appeasement it's rational thought.

Srikanth Raghunathan, I will respectfully disagree with you. Of course we can leave Afghanistan to it's own devices. From a purely moral perspective, Islam, at least fundimentalist Islam and Islam as it is practiced in the Middle East, is an evil and dispicable practice. The mullah's and government murder people for practicing their faith, they treat women like cattle, and practice mass murder of minorities like the Kurd's (witness the **recent** poison gas attacks of Kurdish villages by Turkish military and paramilitary group, the machine gunning of an entire town by Iranian irrelgulars, etc.). The historical remarks of the Pope were purposefully taken pout of context by every Muslem leader. The result was the burning down of several Christian chruches, the murder of a nun in Simalia, the shooting death of a priest in Turkey, and worse. Islam is barbaric and evil and twisted and perverted system ill used by every Islamic leader I have ever heard of. It is way past time for eople to cease with the "political correct" game and simply call something evil when we see it. It is NOT LIBERAL to accept murder and torture and mayhem and corruption and perversion and bigotry and unimaginable evil by any group. All of that is applicable to Islam in general, both historically and currently, and to fundimentalist Islam in particular. That it is also applicable to the Bush administration ought to give us and genuine conservative both pause. Why ought we tolerate evil at all? We ought not! We need to stomp it out wherever it occurs. People can and will live together in peace, but only when they learn to recognize moral degeneracy, evil, and do everything within their power to rid the earth of it.

Tintin, Winchester, MA:

Atheist fails to understand the difference between Taliban and al Qaeda (sometimes known as the "Foreign Fighters"). The only people who conquered Afghanistan were the Mughals (in the 13th century from a loose federation ruled by kings of all types of faiths, but mostly derivatives of "Hinduism") specifically Mahmud of Ghazni, who was of Mongolian (Genghiz Khan) descent. It was not easy for him, either; he tried it at least a dozen times, before he succeeded. I know that even the term "Hindu" is a misnomer; it originated from the river "Sindhu" and the Mughals could not pronounce it! In fact, the name "Kandhahar," or Ghandhara as it was known, is a "Hindu" name and the city was named after a Hindu princess of yore! I am surprised that the Taliban had not changed its name, especially after they destroyed the Buddhist rock statues by shelling them!

These carvings were built by Kushanas in the 5th century. What a shame!

Myron Fuller, Las Vegas, NV:

You are asking some of the most relevant questions. (I raised many of those questions, myself.) I do not know why we (the U. S.) fail to see the historical relevance in this region.

BobL:

Thanks for the response. However, I still feel that partitioning is not the right way, but constructive dialogue (followed by force, if necessary, as much as I hate to do it) is the only way to a long-term solution. You see. the British did exactly the same thing, and where has that left us?

Bottom line:

We cannot leave Afghanistan to its own devices; we must engage in dialogue with its peoples (backed up with a very "credible" threat of force, IF and ONLY IF all else fails); we cannot seek expediency. Once you undertake a job, you must finish it to its end, whatever the cost may be. (I am not advocating taking responsibility blindly for all the ills of the world.) You start it, you finish it. If we do this, I firmly believe that world will stick with us.

The lack of an Afghan voice in this conversatiion is sad but familiar; it is symptomatic of almost every Western undertaking in the third world. Foreigners talk among themselves; while the natives of the country which is supposed to be helped are treated as expiremental rabits who are forced to sit silent and take whatever medicine they are given.

Why this lack of participation by the natives? The reason lies in the pattern of behavior shown by the Western masters. The natives have learned that Westerners are in their country to do their own business and implement their own ideas and projects; the natives have learned that foreigners have no interest to hear what the people of a country say, think or want, because the natives are comsidered by foreigners to be too stupid and uncivilized to be able to offer any reasoable ideas or solutions. Thus, the natives sit on the fence and watch what the foreigners do, because they are affraid that foreigners will one day leave and leave them alone to their enemies and their own fate. Of course, a few (mostly foreign-raised and foreign-educated)natives are allowed to work with (as a matter of fact under) foreigners. But this group is supposed to function only as translators and facilitators, not as independent decision makers, who would make decisions based on threir knowledge of the local cultural conditions and sensitivities...

The same old story is currently being repeated in Afghanistan. Platoons of foreign advisers, military personnel, NGOs, diplomats, and their hired warlords and warlord cronies are busy making decisions for Afghanistan (actually they are busy making decisions to further their own businesses and career interetsts), while the Afghan people keeps watching, and wondering why failed ideas are so persistent among Western "experts" and never die.

The result of the difficult journey along this one-way street, filled with ditches and potholes, is the destruction of hope in the future. Lack of hope for the future, makes life today worthless, chaotic, and brutish, and thus breeds suicide bobmers.

Had someone ever heard of suicide-killing in the history of Afghanistan?

Now, Thanks to the failed advise and false generosity of the Western aid, Afghanistan has become the hot bed of suicide bombing.

Thank You Master Sir!

The way the question is phrased answers the question. If the Karzai government is not even considered part of the equation, Afghanistan is already a ëfailed state.í Read the first chapter of Brian Farwellís "Queen Victoriaís Little Wars" to see how the First Afghan War turned out for the British 170 years ago, and ask if history will repeat itself.

In fact, the book refers repeatedly to the Northwest Territories as a source of trouble for the Raj throughout its history, and the area is no more compliant with Pakistani rule than it was with British. Even now Pakistan is ëredeployingí its troops in the area, which most likely means hunkering down in the population centers and ceding the Afghan-Pakistan border areas to the tribesÖand the TalibanÖand al Qaeda.

The only way to contain the insurgency on the Afghan side is for NATO and Afghan forces to apply the lessons of Iraq and take and hold the areas that are producing the Taliban fighters. This of course will take more than the 22,000 or so NATO troops already incountry, but if weíve learned anything we know by now that it takes more troops to win the peace than the war, and that war on the cheap is too expensive.

On the Pakistan side, if Musharraf is unwilling/unable to patrol his border, Bush should pressure him to allow NATO forces to pursue the enemy into what is nominally Pakistani territory. This may even work to his long term advantage: if the tribes find that the border no longer protects them from NATO strikes, they may become more amenable to the presence of Pakistani troops which can then take and hold on that side of the border.

That might define mission success, but weíre a long, and likely bloody, way from thereÖ

Why has no one raised the issues of (1) USA policies in the oil-rich Gulf Region since the 1950s and beyond,(2) support of Israel in a biased way to exclude Palestine, and (3) USA military occupation in various Arab/Muslim counties, as the core causes of Islamic extremism and terrorism. Before May, 1948 and USA corporate control (as well as the United Kingdom) on oil contracts in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other surrounding/relevant Middle East countries, as well as the presence of USA military in the Gulf Region, the world did not have a problem with terrorism from the Islamic extremists. What is so wrong with admitting that the USA and the UK acted in an imperialistic manner to ensure cheap energy for the past 50+ years at the expense of the indigenous occupants and used Israel and military to ensure continued presence. The terrorists leaders have made it very clear over and over that the above three issues are at the heart of their hatred of Western leaders. Why have American leaders ignored this?

Srikanth-

I did agree with Athiest on only one point he made. That was breaking Iraq up into 3 states. It shocked me as well. I really expected him to say, "Stay the course, kill'em all."

It's not that I'm overly fond of the idea, but I don't see another way out without just up and leaving. We've certainly created a mess in Iraq and you already know my feelings about occupying other countries. We need to find a way out of Iraq and hopefully avoid a full blown civil war. (that is not to say a civil war isn't going on now, but it could get much worse). Once we de-stabilized the country we created a situation where secretarian violence (nice phrase for civil war) was ripe. It surely isn't an idlyllic solution breaking the country up, but I haven't heard of a better idea yet. The rest of Athiests arguments were typical neocon war mongering dribble. Will the idea of breaking Iraq up into 3 states that hopefully form a loose confederacy for national security purposes work? I don't know, but I want our boots off Iraqi soil as soon as possible and maybe this will be a means to that end.

To Tom Wonacott-

1. That we do have a global economy today is exactly the point. As the largest player in the global economy the US has a responsibility to play fairly with the other sovreign states that make up this community. Trumping up charges against other nations, invading them, forcing regime changes via military will and occupying other nations while telling them they are too stupid to govern themselves isn't acting in a responsible manner.

2. I am not an isolationist in any sense of the term. In essence I believe we should do more at home to secure our borders and ports. Immigration, as well as visitation, to this country needs to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner to make us a safer nation. At the same time I believe we should promote democracy and free trade around the globe. (There is big difference between promoting these concepts and shoving it down their throat at the end of a gun) We also need to come to the conclusion that not every nation will embrace democratic reform in our life times and that's OK. Democratic reform can only take place from within a society and not forced from the outside. It is a process that takes time. It is not an event that happens overnight.

3. Natural resources belong to the countries that possess them. Saudi oil belongs to Saudi Arabia. Iraqi and Iranian oil belong to them. Just because this country put itself in a position to be dependent on foreign oil has nothing to do with the ME countries. We do not have the right to tell them how much to produce or how much to sell. It's their oil and not ours. The price of almost all oil is dictated by the world oil market and not by the individual country. Price obviously can be effected by production. Supply and demand. Considering most ME countries have very little else to sell on the world market except oil I wouldn't be looking for them to curtail their sales any time soon.

As alluded to above, the United States through its unwaivering support of Israel, combined with military, economic and political actions in the ME that are contrary to their way of life has led to a rise in radical Muslim groups that are now even being supported by the moderate Muslims. If we don't get our military out of there and start respecting their social, cultural, religous and political processes we're going to be mired down in a war on terror until we see the light. By the way, one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. It all depends on which side you're coming from.

What is this "once again" stuff? Do you guys by your question suggest that Afganistan was a "failed" state — that after the u.s. invaded it became a "successfull" state — and now it is in danger of returning to "failed".

Hilarious

Afghanistan will never be the UK, Australia, Germany, Holland, and/or the USA,

Attempts to control as well as change Aghanistan into an image of what NATO, Te USSR, the Blairs, the Bushes want it to be are doomed to failure. This is the first reality. Judging Afghanistan by so called Western standards is hypocritical. Interest in changing/improving Afghanistan is a cover for purely economic interests.

The propaganda about Darfur is along similar lines. For thousands of years no one gave a sh.t about the goiings on Africa whether by colonial powers or the locales. Now all of a sudden Darfur is on the front page as Afghanistan and Iraq were a few years ago.

Hysteria about what Islamfascism is doing to Europe, and what it proposes to do the US is just BS.

Unless one is on an alien planet. Its hard to detect any, at the present, Afghan troops in London, Melbourne, New York or Washington in the same number of American, British, Australian and other European troops in Kabul. And if there were would not the Australians, English and Americans resist and want those Afghan troops [and those from Iraq, Syria and or Iran] to get out and leave them alone.

To keep things in perspective just imagine what YOU would do if you were the one that have were under miltary occupation by foreigners that dictate to you how to live.

Live and let live. You have as much right not to want to have to wear a burka as an Afghan has a right not wear Victoria Secret lingerie unless of course you are.....

Daniel, thanks for paying attention to my remarks. It may surprise you to hear that I lived in USA for ten years till 2001. And I lived there with open eyes and ears, watching left and right.
To be honest: I felt in paradise in the small middle-class community we lived in USA, same as we do in our small mountain village. And I feel the same in various locations in Southern Germany, in Scandinavia, etc. But whereever I am, I am always connected to the real world and to the people. My remarks are based on real life experience. And my opinion to the Middle East is shared by the majority of my country. If you want to improve things, put high goals, believe in them and work for them. Believe in the positive part sitting in every human being, even in a freedom fighter (Americans call them terrorists). But you have to talk to the people, not fight them. Thanks again.

Afghanistan has never not been a failed state, it has been a "state" that has been picked over by its neighbors for a long time. It's basically the moon. It's sad, I wish it weren't so, the people there live neolithic lives, but there just isn't much to save there, we're just there to stabilize the periphery of our quasi-british empire. Respect for people's regional, trans-national life situation over a long period of time is what's needed.

Without flooding Afghanistan with soldiers, "boots on the ground", it will be impossible to control that country. Russia might have been able to do that and at the same time might have been able to liberate Afghan women and put Afghan children into secular schools, but the CIA and Wahabi, Saudi money kept that from happening... and in passing gave birth to Al Qaida. The Russians were committed enough to use draftees, which at least gave them the numbers to have done the job.

Are we going to bring back the draft? No. Are the Europeans going to bring back the draft? No. History will probably show that Afhanistan broke two empires, the USSR-Warsaw Pact and the USA-NATO

Not so interested in joining the flaming here but just wanted to say that I've missed you guys at the Post since NYT took over the IHT entirely. Any way to receive a print copy of WP editorials over here in Europe?

lower lifeforms, that is how they make adeprogress, are you an _illegal_ immigrant too? Certainly your edumication is som wat lakcing...must be one a them disadvantaged youts.

oil, and making a few elitists wealthier.

and if the world and the United States Citizenship figure out what's going on.......

there _will_ be war trials. and hopefully confiscation of wealth and properties that are ill gotten gains.

as well as making crackerism a crime, oh, I'm sorry it already is, it's called

a hate crime.

oh, what a surprise, these people are hate full.

.

Atheist, Boston, USA , writes:

"Once the Taliban fighers knows the Soviet-style ferocity with which we will kill them, they will exit Afghanistan — pronto."

The only problem is that it was the Soviets who left Afghanistan — pronto, in spite of their "Soviet-style ferocity." :~( By such a statement, "Atheist" shows his total lack of knowledge about Afghanistan and its people. Afghanistan has NEVER been conquered by anyone, Tzarist Russia, the English, the Bolsheviks, and now it still wont be by the Americans and its NATO mercenaries.

Atheist:

Do you ever read history? The Middle East is where it is today, precisely because of the expediency sought by the Colonial Powers - the British, the French, at al. What you are saying is tantamount to doing the same. It does not pay, in the long run, to divide a region into splinters, based on religion, or ideology, for the sake of expediency.

You are equating the Taliban with al Qaeda. I suggest that you read the history of nexus between Taliban and al Qaeda, specifically Osama bin Laden. We should have just eliminated (i. e., tried and convicted) Osama bin Laden, before he joined forces with Taliban.

BobL:

I am shocked to read that you were in agreement with Atheist's comments.

Tom Wonacott, Boise, Idaho

I agree with you certain points (that we cannot leave the Middle East to its own devices, primarily because we have been responsible, at least, partially. Furthermore, radical anything is not good anywhere. Our goals are noble, but the approach is fundamentally flawed. However, I have to differ with you on alternative energy sources. We must invest in those energy sources, ASAP; just talking about and propagandizing are not enough.

MikeB:

Thanks for the link. Washington Post also has this book review (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193.html)

daniel:

First, let me say that I am impressed at your sincerity - you must really take these issues to heart for you to write in longhand and typing it in. I have request to ask of you: could you break your posting into paragraphs so that it is more easily readable? PostGlobal is, I believe (Amar Bakshi and David Ignatius - the hosts of this forum - can correct me, if I am wrong), precisely designed to elicit response from people of all caliber, not just geniuses, dullards, conservatives, liberals, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, at al. I must admit that I have not read all the websites, such as Shankar Vedantum (science writer for the Post), Blake Gopnik (art critic), and Tim Page (music critic). (I will attempt to do so in the near future.) My contention is that if only geniuses were to write columns, then this world will be a pretty dull place!

(I also take it that you have genius-level IQ.) Regarding Bill Gates' claim to fame, he was sufficiently smart to know where, when, and on what to place his bets.

Lastly, call me an irrepressible optimist and irresponsibly firm believer in the fundamental goodness of human nature ? I strongly believe that our views will be heard, at long last. So, do not give up hope!

one thing that Bill Gates helped to precipitate is the:

Who are you? I suppose that Bill gates did all those "inhumane" things that you say that he did; but is that not what capitalism is all about? Maximize the wealth? Remember that I also mentioned that no single system is capable of addressing all of the ills of the Civilization. Let me give an example: our country (the U. S.) has more social programs than do Russia, China, Cuba, and India COMBINED. Does that make our country socialist? No, we are just a country going through various experiments to seek out the "ideal" system, whatever that may be.

I also realize that Seattle Computer (a "gentleman," whose name escapes me right now, associated with the insurance industry) was the first one to come up with the DOS. You must realize that that "gentleman" was so short-sighted that he sold his rights to Bill gates, et al for a pittance. You must give Bill gates credit for licensing the DOS to IBM, instead of selling it outright. (Chalk this one up to Bill Gates' smarts.) The point that I was trying to make in citing Bill Gates was that he did not HAVE to share his wealth, but is doing it, anyway. That is the quality I admire the most. Hey, it is one thing to make lots of money, but entirely another thing to be beneficent. History is replete with such examples: Andrew Carnegie, the Rockefellers, the Hillmans, to name just a few. They all became wealthy by certain means, which some would consider disgusting. It is one thing to make mistake, but another thing to realize one?s mistakes and try to rectify those mistakes, although sometimes belatedly (You know, they did not say, "to err is human, and to forgive, is divine," lightly.)

Likewise, our country (the U. S.) needs to admit its past mistakes (and not continue to repeat the same mistakes) and make amends. It takes a big man - er, a big country - to admit the mistakes and do the right thing.

Hey, Dorothy - the Mideast ain't Kansas. What Europe learned from WWII was that war is bad and peace is good. Don't attack other countries that don't attack you. If you do - you can expect resistance. No European country will send troops to die for the drug growing oligarchy we have established in Afghanistan. At least in the numbers required to 'win'. And in the long run, neither will the U.S. It would take a draft -and American mothers (and fathers) won't stand for it. A thousand Poles and 20 Latvians just aint' gonna cut it. (And who's paying for those Latvians, anyway). The smart thing would be to talk to the Taliban and try to get a deal. The second best thing would be to pull out and declare victory. The worst thing is to fool ourselves into thinking 20 or even 40 thousand Nato troops (who are mostly in it for the money) will ever be able to pacify Afghanistan.

To Walt in Switzerland from Daniel. You seem like a decent, pleasant person Walt, but as an independently thinking American—furthermore one who grew up travelling with his parents—I have a problem with your view of the world. Quite simply it seems everything is effortless to you, that you just breezily provide financial services, education, etc. You claim that we are being manipulated by the media here in the U.S.—and I would agree to that although it is incredibly hard to get a fix on things like that—but it seems your all purpose state television (the one for all parties) is essentially telling you life is a quite simple affair. Are you sure you are not superimposing your Swiss paradise view on the rest of the world? Are you sure you are not confusing the ease of your home with life everywhere else? Actually I hope you are correct, but how do we determine exactly what the state of the world is? (I mean the dangers, projected effects of education, etc.). I of course mean how do we get a view to everyone's satisfaction? —-At least a view which reconciles Europe to America? As an American it seems you live in a world where nothing really happens. Is that the truth (that the world in general is like this) or even paradise? I guarantee you to a thinking American it seems as if you live in a world which takes hardly anything into consideration (no real past or future, just a bland sameness). Just trying to see who is the blind man here. It could be myself—please enlighten me.

Zathras, what better way to be true to your opinion than to defeat it!

Your lament about others getting off the topic was followed by having to say nothing on Afghanistan yourself.

An excellent article posted on MSNBC about how the Bush Whitehouse controlled and is controlling apppintments for *all* government jobs and the best explanation I have seen in print as to the reason for that failure:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14868608/

It seems, candidates are hired for posts based, not on their qualifications, but on their loyalty to the Bush Whitehouse. Questions like - "Did you vote for Bush in 2004?", "Do you support the Bush tax cuts?", and "What is your opinion of Roe v. Wade?" - are the ONLY consideration for hiring! This Whitehouse is a mess, a corrupt dispicable, and dangerous mess, that needs to be checked if we are to survive. Forget Afghanistan, think about your own precious hide.

said:
"
Radical Islam has reared its ugly head all over the world and would not hesitate to use WMD's.
"

I reply:

probably not if they had them, neither would the United States. The United States would love it if IRAN had a nuclear device.

Couple of nuetron bomb strikes and the region belongs to them and their friends.....

your crackerism, pot-bellied, testosterone driven, no brain response fits in perferctly with their little.............Allah will protect us because we are in the right! thought processes

there is no difference between you and the people you villanize, you are what is in your pants.

but not everyone is _that_ primitive, and there are solutions besides genocide.......

IF I were in control of the United States, I would be making real efforts at having a country that is safe _regardless_ of what happens overseas..........and we do have the resources to do that.....

then I