http://www.msnbc.com/news/619769.asp
Our ever progressive Taliban friends have added the Internet to their list of "bad things" .
Well there is one bright side... the day a vast Electro Magnetic Pulse covers the Earth and wipes out the worlds technology , Afghanistan may rise as a world power...
There is a very important point to be found in this article.
I was reading the Economist, a British magazine for world economics. In this very recommended magazine, there was an article on the 'border-less' Internet. Or, to put the matter another way, the Internet with borders.
A decade ago, the Internet was prophesied to be the vox populi of the world. The 'rogue states' of the world would be altered economically, socially, and politically by a medium that existed in a virtual state. These changes would usher in a new age of freedom and liberty for oppressed peoples.
Ten years later, the borders between nations are seeping into the Internet. Yahoo.Com lost a court battle with France over the sale of NAZI memoriblia. In other countries, ex. China, access is being limited to certain government sanctioned sites.
The Taliban are doing what other nations have already done. This religious government has chosen to exercise its rights on the Internet.
We don't even need to get into the treatment of the ladies, I think.
quote:
We just let those fanatic mofu's continue their dehumanising practices
What exactly would you propose?
Economic sanctions won't do anything. We could bomb them, but without sending in troops, that wouldn't accomplish much except giving Afghanistan's construction workers a lot of work. And if we were to send in troops, we'd find out why Russia stays the hell clear of the country (you are aware that Afghanistan is to the USSR/Russia what Vietnam is to the US and Algiers is to the French?)
quote:
Meanwhile, the Western 'civilised' world sits back and does nothing. We just let those fanatic mofu's continue their dehumanising practices. This... pisses me off.
This is a tough situation. The US was founded on the promise of mans right to live how they wish and govern themselves how they wish to be governed.
Now the US has stuck their noses in other counties affairs but if you go back they were all judged to be "In the interest of the people" the people being Americans.
The Vietnam conflict occured as a result of the "Red Threat" , the US leadership felt that the rising tide of communism in Asia was a threat to the US and its interests after all whats to stop these new communist governments from doing what the Americans did to the Japanesse before world war 2 and sanction their exports to America ? This among other things helped bring the US leadership into Vietnamesse affairs.
Desert Storm was justified in american eyes because Iraq was a serious threat to the valuable Oil reservers in Kuwait and the rest of the Middle east.
Now Afghanistan is an Islamic state , known to harbor dangerous terrorist organizations , governed by a fundementalist group who imposes their will upon every single citizen within its borders.
So far they havent really directly become a threat to American Citizens.
Whether you believe the United States should take an active role in Afghan affairs is up to you , but always remember , all they are doing is governing their country , now the second they impose they're will on another country the situation changes they become "Aggressive" and they "endanger the stability of the region" giving the US a reason to bring out their soapbox and Tomahawk Missles.
[ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: Obese Penguin ]
However, I don't think that our country views interests this way. For if they did, we wouldn't hear the terrible stories of Americans stranded in foreign countries begging for help from an unsympathetic consulate or embassy. The American government is influenced by its friends, internally and externally. There is very little or no influence by the government's friends to get involved in this desert country.
The American government does get involved for some of the sillest reasons. In 1983, the invasion of Grenada was attempted for several silly reasons. One of the sillest reasons that I heard was the interruption of nutmeg production by communists. This reason was stated by President Reagan in a press conference.
In this case, the American government doesn't believe, with influence from friends, that there exists a reason, serious or silly, to get involved. The government accepts Afghanistan to be Pakistan's issue. For this neighboring country, the Taliban are a worry. Will their reactionary beliefs influence the government of Pakistan, and cause disruption in the country's infrastructure? This is the worry of the Pakstanis. (I hope that I spelled that last word correctly.)
[ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
The European states are much closer to where the action is. Ask one of THEM to handle it.
(and 10 to 1 you'll STILL get "The problems of others are not our concern.")
Jebus H. Cwist on a popsicle stick, you people act as though the US has the only foreign policy department in the Western world...
quote:
The European states are much closer to where the action is. Ask one of THEM to handle it.
To handle what? Or, to be more precise, do you really think that any nation should be going around attacking those who don't have the same morality? And I'm not talking about the little bitching between Europe and the U.S. here: I mean the really super big cultural differences. Should any nation have enough power to go around forcing those who don't see exactly the same -- and, in the case, radically different -- as it to their knees?
Cuba.
Hmmm.....
When does a country/region's internal affairs go from
"Not being the damn imperialist US's business" (Southeast Asia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, etc.)
to "Damn, why isn't the benevolent humanitarian US getting involved?" (Rwanda, Europe 1939, etc)?
What's the death/suffering quotient?