Yeah, okay, here I go again with the dissent angle, but I found this article interesting. As I read on this forum some posts blaming all "towel-heads" for the attacks on the WTC/Pentagon, I, like the author, is reminded of Germany during the Holocaust. "The Jews are responsible", the regime said at the time, and the populace hooted and howled for death to all Jews. That theme got extended to gays, gypsies, and everyone else that came to mind as a group some folks like to hate. Where's that little story about, "I didn't speak up when the Jews were taken because I wasn't a Jew..."

Without dissent, I see the US falling into the same trap in which Germans found themselves. "If you're not FOR us, you're against us." If only life were so black and white.

War and dissent

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001

Answers

Heh. Okay...I AM reminded. Can I just chalk that one up to a "Bushism"?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001.

Cheerist, even The Nation is not Left enough for you Anita?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 21, 2001.

Lars: I'm confused by your comment. Is this article from a "leftist" publication, IYHO? Is The Nation?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001.

Anita, if your primary concern is the welfare of the Afghani people (9 separate tribes as I understand it), then you should support our war on the Taliban. The Taliban has oppressed and impoverished the Afghani people, especially the women.

Is Znet leftist? Is bin Laden a reactionary Muslim?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 21, 2001.

Anita:

You have raised a conundrum with this narrowly focused article. Yes, if the war continues, many of the folks in Afghanistan will starve. I just got back from a meeting where they estimated [conservatively] that 1/3 of all of the people in sub-Saharan Africa would die from AIDS in the next decade unless there was a massive intervention by the US.

Question, should we let the terrorists [including the Afghan government] interfere with our economy to the extent that we can’t help the people in Africa.

No, all people aren’t equal. Those that have the technology to solve problems for the rest of humanity are indeed more important. What do you think? Do 10 Africans count less than one person in Afghanistan. It really is a numbers game you are playing. Nothing nationalistic about this. That is just the way it is. Waiting for your answer. Remember, you can't divide the world into little engagements. You need to look at the whole picture.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 21, 2001.

Lars: This is the first time that Znet has shown up in the "all liberal all the time" reading list. I would think that if they were as liberal as you purport, I would have seen their offerings more often. Besides, they're not listed in the "liberal handbook" as one of us. Perhaps we need to get a handle on what publications you honor? I just read the articles, ya know, and if I see something that I think might encourage discussion, I toss up the link.

Oh...about the war with the Taliban, they seem to be living high off the hog from this war while the average "towel-head" is deprived of food aid being delivered from OTHER countries due to the bombing. Z: This is my point on this one. I'm NOT suggesting that the US send aid to Afghanistan [or even Africa]. I'm NOT suggesting that the US intervene in the AIDS crisis in Africa. All I'm suggesting is that we're all sitting by WATCHING while children, women, and "towel- heads" that had absolutely NOTHING to do with 911 are starved to death solely because the US is after one guy and even the Taliban, in SOME cases rooting for this because "They're all alike, or they'll all grow up to be another bin Laden." You tell me how this is different than turning a blind eye to the extermination of millions of Jews in Germany, and we might have a basis for discussion. This is ONE case where doing NOTHING is preferable to doing SOMETHING, IMO.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001.

Anita:

You missed the whole point of my post. Ahh well.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 21, 2001.

Z: I don't think I missed your point at all. In the one case [Africa], my tax dollars aren't being used to save people. It's a different kind of "fuck you" being used than the situation in Afghanistan, where my tax dollars are being used to KILL people. I admit that it's still a "fuck you" on Africa, but I don't think that the US should be EXPECTED to save the world. It just can't. OTOH, if by doing NOTHING, a more positive result occurs, I'm all for that.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001.

Anita:

Yep, you missed the whole point. The appeal was from Africans. The intervention is medical. Without assistance, Africa will pretty much disappear. Maybe that is what you want [I don't know; it would seem out of character for you]. But hey, you are on a one track rant, without looking at the whole picture. It isn't just Afgans; it is a lot of people. I have to leave. Have fun with your rant.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 21, 2001.

I hate it when you do that, Z.

OF COURSE I care if Africa gets decimated. However, I understand that the current administration has already eliminated AIDS funding and I also understand that my liberal whining about it ain't gonna go anywhere. YOU know that, as well, so don't even try and make ME out to be the bad guy on Africa.

On the Afghanistan thing, we're talking about NO money spent to help the people. If you can't see the difference, I don't think I can help you see it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001.

I am not aware that the present administration planned to cut medical aid to Africa [remember, I haven't been a Bush supporter].

I am looking out of the window. I have a huge pin oak in view. It is bright red. The sun is out but there is a storm moving in. With it comes wind. As the leaves fall off and blow away, I am reminded of the fact that one child in Zimbabwe dies from AIDS for every leaf. You have failed to answer the question. Should we be spending our time and fortune saving a people who are trying to kill us or spend it helping those in greater need and aren't trying to kill us. Once again, are 10 Africans worth less than 1 Afgan. You seem to avoid this question. It is, of course, the question that faces us.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 21, 2001.

Z: I don't think it's MY problem that you haven't kept up with what the current administration has already done. AIDS funding was, basically, abolished. Do I think this was a correct choice? Well, like I said above, I don't think that the US can protect the whole world from what comes its way.

Now, you ask if I think our time and fortune should be spent on a "people" who are trying to kill us versus one that is not. Afghanis are NOT trying to kill us. The majority of the "towel- heads" in Afghanistan hate the Taliban as much as the US hates it. Don't even ask me how the women there feel about the Taliban. Your argument falls on its face, Z. In one case we spend our "time and fortune" to decimate a population, and in the other case we don't.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001.

Anita:

I said nothing about AIDS funding. I mentioned medical assistance to Africa. You must get off of the rant and listen to the facts.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 21, 2001.

Anita:

You said:

The majority of the "towel- heads" in Afghanistan hate the Taliban as much as the US hates it.

I can't say. I don't actually know all of the people in Afghanistan. Evidently, you do. I do know that their support of the terrorists has led to the use of resources on things that diverted them from greater needs. Indeed, it may lead to a isolationism which will result in the death of millions. Then that is your call.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 21, 2001.

Z: You don't seem to see that AIDS and medical assistance FOR AIDS is part of the same package. The US has already said, "Fuck you." How could you have missed all the articles claiming that Africans didn't know how to tell time and couldn't take the medication at the prescribed time? As I recall, it was a twice/daily thing [as in when the sun rises and the sun sets], but the Administration said, "No."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001.

Z: NOW you're engaging in the old Flint routine of arguing for argument's sake. That may be how YOU get your rocks off, but it isn't how I do. I'm done with you on this.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001.

By-the-by Anita:

I am waiting for an answer to this question?

Once again, are 10 Africans worth less than 1 Afgan. You seem to avoid this question.

Just wondered.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 21, 2001.

The answer is "NO", Z, but nobody in the Administration has asked me my feelings on this. Jeez...you even needed to ask?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001.

Anita:

Z: NOW you're engaging in the old Flint routine

I take that to mean that you are admitting defeat. You have nothing to support your argument. :).

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 21, 2001.

Take it anyway you like, Z. If I wanted to scream into a megaphone, I could have called my mom [and gotten the same results].

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001.

Anita:

This is not a great philosphical discussion. This is pure bean counting. There is a certain amount of money to be spent. According to the economic wizards I just listened to, we will be spending more than we take in for the next decade. [What a difference an election can make].

The formula is simple: if we have to rid the world of the present crop of terrorists; the money we spend will not be available to the truly needy in the world. Who do you blame? It really makes little difference. Once you are dead; you are dead. Sort of a final thing.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 21, 2001.

Anita:

Z: You don't seem to see that AIDS and medical assistance FOR AIDS is part of the same package

I know what the funding lines are and they are different. Not even part of the same bills. You should look into this more closely.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 21, 2001.

Z:

The issue of resource allocation is quite a bit wider than you imply, by my reading. First, total available resources is not a constant, and past allocation policy strongly influences the total pot of current resources to be allocated. Second, resources allocated by individuals are still resources, and still allocated, even if they are not collected by government to be allocated (VERY differently) in the *name* of those individuals.

I think I agree with Anita that dissent and debate are always of some value, and in a democracy unanimity is more frightening than nearly anything else. But if Anita is recommending dissent for its own sake, she is admitting guilt to exactly what she falsely accuses ME of. Like you, I don't argue for the sake of argument, but I can easily see how it might look that way to someone determined not to credit any genuine disagreement as being in good faith.

What strikes me about the current situation is that, as always, the powerful are easy to reward and difficult to punish. This is, after all, one of the key uses of power in the first place. So if we try to feed "the people" (as we often have), the aid is confiscated by those in power for their own uses. Happens every time. On the other hand, if we try to embargo a power structure to starve it into submission, we succeed only in starving everyone *except* the target population.

And I have my doubts about alliances with competing local interests. Those local interests are typically interested only in the power, and NOT interested in applying that power to any very different goals. All too often, the only real reward we can offer such allies is to replace the individuals who will perpetuate the same practices.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced it's best to shrug our national shoulders and ignore these insults on the grounds that we have lots of tall buildings still, and can build more, so no big deal...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 21, 2001.

Anita--

I just got home and missed all the fun. I must admit I've never heard of Znet until now but any publication with Chomsky contributing is certainly a gauche. The Nation has been breathing that rarefied air for decades.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 21, 2001.

Flint: I agree with everything you just said. On that "arguing for argument's sake" comment I made, I have to look at the Evolution threads in which you continue to engage in a "debate" that's going absolutely nowhere. My little brother, Z, and I were speaking right past each other on this one. Same thing, IMO, and I'm quite willing to be the first to bail when this happens.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 22, 2001.

Anita,

You have fallen into the same trap that all these "pacifist" writers have hoped you and other readers would - namely that the American military is 'carpet-bombing' Afghanistan, and starving out the country. The U.S. military is no more carpet-bombing Afghanistan than it was carpet-bombing the Sudan when the aspirin factory was bombed.

So, your choice is really between 1.) no bombing whatsoever [which leads to a choice of much greater numbers of American ground troops with much greater numbers of U.S. casualties; or to rely on the always-to-be-non-existent and hypothetical U.N. "arrest" of Osama Bin Laden and associated henchmen by the nice folks in blue berets (oh how I'm sure that would happen, ha ha ha ha ha)] or 2.) bombing and eventual capture of decimation of the Taliban and Osama.

By your logic we should not have bombed German or Japan (now THERE was REAL carpet-bombing!!) in WWII as the innocents would be starved or injured, and hence we should have.....!!!??????? Remember, 3 times as many died in this attack as died in Pearl Harbor, and yet the whole country was mobilized against Japan (and at least Japan attacked a military target). I guess we could all just learn to "get along" and let bygones be bygones huh Anita?

Seeing as the planning for this attack started when Clinton was "getting along" with everyone, I propose that this course of action is ineffective against those that hate Americans for being Americans.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), October 22, 2001.

Anita:

OK, then I misunderstood your intention. To me, arguing for its own sake means taking a position opposing some opinion, *whether you agree with that opinion or not*, just to see what sort of response you can provoke. I don't believe I do this.

But to hear you tell it now, we should only present different opinions if we sincerely feel there's a chance of changing someone's mind, high enough to justify the effort of posting. And that if we don't expect others to change their minds, then we are "arguing for argument's sake".

And while I think this viewpoint is valid, I should hardly need to point out that few (if any) minds ever change, rendering ALL internet discussion a sterile exercise. This certainly describes what *you* are doing here as well. But on reflection, maybe your point is that it's only "argument for argument's sake" if YOU aren't interested in the topic. Otherwise, it's worthwhile, yes? On the evolution threads, I argue for the same reason you do here -- because I consider my position correct, and my opponents clearly in error.

Also, where's the fun of just writing to agree with people?

libs:

I agree about what does NOT work. As we learned in Vietnam, a combination of carpet bombing and ground troops (committed for *years*) does not work. Trying to win hearts and minds with psyops programs does not work. Trying to plunk down democracies in lands where the people have never seen it before does not work. Backing the local opposition is what has bought us the Taliban and other dubious regimes around the world, when it has any effect at all.

Finally, trying to track down individual terrorists (who didn't already kill themselves) is hopeless. Even if we could find them (not very probable), they tend to replicate themselves. ISTS are much easier to kill than ISMS, know what I mean?

So I support the bombing, NOT because it's going to accomplish any direct goals, but because it lets politicians (who are similar everywhere) that if they assist terrorists, their reigns will be unpleasant. Remember, even *defining* "victory" is beyond our current abilities in this situation.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 22, 2001.

LAI: I don't think it matters if the US is carpet-bombing or engaging in some other sort of bombing. The UN and all the other humanitarian aid sources across the world have stated that they can't get the food through before winter while bombs are flying. I'm not the one that recommended a humanitarian effort in Afghanistan. The Administration recommended that.

So, as *I* see it, there are two forces here working against the clock. The US wants to wrap up the bombing before winter sets in and the humanitarian efforts want to get the food in before winter sets in. Since the Administration has already stated that it could take a year or two to get bin Laden, what would be the harm in stopping the bombing for now and taking it up later? Again, *I*'m not the one claiming that the US has a humanitarian goal here as well as a military one. I'm just someone who doesn't like to spend money on hypocrisy. If the goal of the US is to decimate the Afghanistan population, state that up front instead of stating that the US is there to help the people while engaging in behavior that does anything but.

Flint: I certainly don't believe that we should only present different opinions if we feel there's a chance of changing someone's mind. I DO, however, believe that we should at least make an effort to be reading from the same page. You can ignore responses that have absolutely NOTHING to do with your post. Well, I can, as well, but once I've noticed that the reader has gone off on a subject totally irrelevant to MY post, and all attempts to draw the reader back to the subject at hand have failed, I give up on the discourse.

I dunno. Maybe we need to ask once in a while if the reader has understood a post before continuing. At that time the reader can ask for clarity or state that yes, he/she understood, but didn't agree. Disagreement is certainly acceptable and even desirable, but if I'm talking about jelly and you're talking about peanut butter, and neither of us can combine the two into a sandwich, we're BOTH blowing in the wind.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 23, 2001.

I'm going to give this one a bump, not because it's necessarily a worthy topic, but because I don't feel satisfied with the feedback yet and hope for more.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 26, 2001.

Flint:

The issue of resource allocation is quite a bit wider than you imply, by my reading. First, total available resources is not a constant, and past allocation policy strongly influences the total pot of current resources to be allocated. Second, resources allocated by individuals are still resources, and still allocated, even if they are not collected by government to be allocated (VERY differently) in the *name* of those individuals.

I am willing to look at your numbers [and compare them with the ones that I have]. Just present them.

Individual resources are much too limited for this problem. It will require government funds.

Still it looks to me that sub-Saharan Africa lives too close to a 7 Eleven in these times; if you know what I mean. Just got an email from a friend in Zimbabwe. Food shortage there hasn't hit the news yet but will in the future. And remember, that should be one of the bright spots.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 26, 2001.

Z:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by numbers in this case, but you seem quite adept at embedding assumptions in your statements, apparently without realizing it.

OK, then, I said that resource allocation is something everyone does, and is thus NOT a function of who does it. I wrote (and you quoted) that governments allocate resources in the names of the individual taxpayers in a very different pattern than those individuals choose for themselves.

You seem to agree. The problem is, you characterize the problems that bother you as *requiring* that my labor be taxed to ameliorate them. Let's change your phrasing a bit here, so that it doesn't imply that sub-Saharan Africa's problems can ONLY be solved by the US government taking my money and spending it in Africa, and that THEREFORE this is what the US government MUST do, because we as individuals would never choose to allocate our resources this way (any more than anyone in ANY foreign country has EVER decided to allocate any of THEIR resources to subsidize MY lifestyle. It's always strictly one-way).

Maybe I just can't understand the frame of mind that believes that AIDS and its avoidance is a collective matter. If there were anything clearly a matter of individual responsibility, this is it. The idea that it's the responsibility of a *foreign government* to come in and try to modify high-risk lifestyles is absurd to me. Would you want the government of Zimbabwe to attempt to impose THEIR preferences on YOU, so long as the Zimbabwes think it's for your own good? Even if you *knew* you were behaving stupidly, would you consider it the responsibility of a foreign government to clean up the mess?

Anita:

I think I already made the point you want to see emphasized. I seriously doubt that our goal is to decimate the population of Afghanistan, but rather to overthrow a terrorist (and apparently not- well-supported) government. We are taking steps to minimize the side effects as well as we can, targeting Taliban strongholds, encouraging out migration, providing some food and supplies, etc.

I agree that sometimes these are conflicting goals, and you have to make a choice. We can emphasize either the humanitarian or the military goal. And in that case, I'm happy with the idea of equitable reciprocation. How much humanitarian aid did our attackers provide us, and how much did they focus on killing noncombatants? Well, WE didn't set the rules of this conflict, now did we? And this is NOT a humanitarian conflict by those selfsame rules.

I'm sorry if our effort to help those we do not directly intend to hurt looks like hypocrisy in your eyes. Maybe the money doing so is truly wasted. If so, it would make us BOTH happier to drop the food business and get back to the precedent THEY set, as clearly as possible.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 26, 2001.

Flint:

I am talking about budget projections for the out years. My question is a little unfair, since what I have isn't public information and I can't post it. Still, you sounded like you know more about this than me and must have alternative budget numbers. I would be particularly interested in your estimation of the cost of [what appears to be] a developing TB epidemic in immuno-compromised individuals in Africa. You know the folks that are HIV infected. The numbers that I have seen outstrip the resources of those countries and, if true, could cause health problems world-wide.

Just wondered.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 26, 2001.

Z:

I really can't address your question until I have some definition of what you mean by "cost". Are you talking about dollars? Dollars to do what? When? To whom?

By my reading, sub-Saharan Africa is suffering from catastrophic health problems, mostly of their own doing. As we saw in the US, when high-risk populations decided to place a high priority on health, AIDS incidences decreased dramatically. Recently they've decided to de-emphasize health, and the rates are climbing right back up. If ever there were a clear indication that this is a matter of *effective* individual choice, we're looking at it.

Now, you may have inside information as to exactly how many dollars the American do-gooders have extorted from innocent taxpayers in order to subsidize those who have only experienced exactly what they were asking for. That's nice, but that's not the question. The question is, how much SHOULD you or I pay to support sub-Saharan Africans, and WHY?

I don't know how to make this clear to you, you know? The dollar cost of any policy is considered AFTER the selection of a policy to begin with. Where are your "numbers" as to why I should pay for this?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 26, 2001.

how insensitive

-- (lars@indy.net), October 26, 2001.

Flint:

Why should you do it? Good question. The answer that will satisfy you is that it is in your long term interest to do it. This is beyond moral considerations.

I take it you don't have a budget or cost estimates to support your argument. That is OK. I just wanted to find out.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 26, 2001.

Z:

However could *anyone* have a budget or cost estimate to support the argument that this issue, tragic as it is, is none of our business? Does it make sense to ask how much is "none of our business" really worth? If you were to claim that it was not your position to meddle in your neighbor's life, what would you make of a demand for a "budget" for this philosophy?

You seem absolutely determined to presume that many Africans' self- inflicted misfortunes REQUIRE a US budget. They do not. We may, after some debate, decide that it is *cost-effective* to allocate some resources to their problems, on the grounds that if we do not, their problems may spread in our direction, and the cost of dealing with that later may exceed the cost of preventing that today.

But I know of no conceivable quantitative model that might reliably make this determination, *especially* since such a model would be *qualitatively* based on a whole string of assumptions dwarfing the chain reaction of assumptions that had y2k disabling the whole world.

Basically, you feel sorry for a bunch of people who, by refusing to modify traditional sexual practices, have *voluntarily* wiped out whole populations, or soon will. That's very touching (unless you stand to derive worthwhile income from a US government program to apply a pound of cure, in which case it's less touching).

At the risk of sounding illiberal, I encourage you to gather like- minded people and go to Africa to spend YOUR money looking altruistic. Bully for you. Leave my money out of it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 26, 2001.

The numbers that I have seen outstrip the resources of those countries

This is pure bean counting. There is a certain amount of money to be spent. According to the economic wizards I just listened to, we will be spending more than we take in for the next decade. [What a difference an election can make].

It looks to ME, Z, like your own words indicate that the resources of the US are outstripped as well, and since domestic programs for health and welfare have been cut, do you not see health issues mushrooming in the US without any help from health problems in other continents? I'm kindof a charity begins at home kindof person, myself, so I'd be more inclined to ensure that MY kids had food and medical treatment before I'd begin to concern myself with the neighbor's kids.

Flint: Maybe the money doing so is truly wasted. If so, it would make us BOTH happier to drop the food business and get back to the precedent THEY set, as clearly as possible.

I could probably live with that, although, as I said earlier, it's not my belief that the Afghan people established this precedent, so I'd be happier with a "feed now, bomb later" campaign if BOTH are on the agenda. This multi-tasking just doesn't seem to be working.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 27, 2001.

Actually, it seems that little of it seems to be working, even if the humanitarian effort is eliminated.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 27, 2001.