Post #9,436
9/17/01 11:03:16 AM
|
Most Terrible Enemy.
I am ashamed to say that I was among the chorus calling for "bombing hell out of Afghanistan". I held that view until I spoke with my daughters. In my defense, up front I said I was "irrational" about this. Too many factors affected me, personally. My father's mugging by Afghan diplomats, my mother being raped by Arab emigrants, being a student pilot and feeling an unjustified, crude sort of kinship with the airline pilots who perished, the reports of phone calls from parents aboard the ill-fated aircraft to their spouses and children.
As I explained to my daughters that we had, in fact, made it possible for the Taliban to exist, that we had, in fact, trained and supported Osama Bin Laden and that he, most likely, was the man behind the tragedies of last week, I began to see something with a clarity I rarely possess.
During the 1980's I protested vehemently against US support of the Mujahadeen and people like Bin Laden. Why were we supporting these villains? I now know the answer: because then, as now, we had a "most terrible" enemy. At the time we had a right-wing President who possessed a single-minded devotion to destroy the "Evil Empire". This narrowness of vision caused the US to align itself with some of the most inhuman entities in the world. Reagan didn't care about anything save the destruction of his "Evil Empire" and the elimination of any Left-Leaning nation. Atrocities committed against "Godless Communists" were no vice at all to Uncle Ronnie or his supporters.
Reagan had the benefit of being easily able to discern his enemy: anyone who supported Marxist ideals or had alliances with the Soviet Union. Today, we are on the cusp of defining a new "Evil Empire". This one is less well-defined than the old Soviet villain, but that won't stop us from creating the image of a single villain against which to wage war. We are therefore at a very dangerous time once again in our history. Will we repeat the errors of the past and in our determination to "rid the world of this villain" align ourselves with parties even more corrupt, even more dangerous and yes, even more evil than those we are trying to erradicate?
I suspect that we will and in the process willingly abandon many of the freedoms so many have given so much for us to have. More is the pity.
|
Post #9,445
9/17/01 12:25:55 PM
|
Polarization
In the last 150 years, almost all of the large wars that have been fought have been escalated through polarization.
This is where everyone "polarizes" around a single issue, making everyone an enemy or a friend based on that issue.
The Civil War polarization issue was "state's rights" vs. a strong central government. In political science, we learned that when a country gets polarized around a single issue, evil, or ethnic group that armed conflict is inevitable. The Civil War was the deadliest war ever fought in the U.S. using deaths as a percentage of the total U.S. population. It is much easier to "get things done" when a single "evil" is identified. But, those "things" have consequences.
WW II sprung out of "evil England/France" and the "punishment" inflicted on Germany after WW I. The Germans became destined to rebuilt themselve into a great nation and destroy their enemies after the beating they took. Hitler was the right man for the time, getting the Germans to hate their enemy and think of them one dimensionally as the "true cause" of Germany's misery.
With Reagan, it was the commies. With us, if we don't stop ourselves, it will be those evil "Muslims". When we start talking about IWE and THEY as "US" and "THEM", then wars will be started. That is why I LOVE the name of this forum. It gets me thinking that we should be looking at IWETHEY and walking in another person's moccasins. I get to hear a lot of diverse points of view from the WE of this forum, and that makes the I (gdaustin) that much better.
The U.S. probably did help create this terrorism monster in the 1980's, and now we have to deal with it. How we deal with really does determine our character, and how many people we will kill in the next conflict.
In church on Sunday, the pastor quoted Luke 13, where the pharisees were asking Jesus if the people who were in the Tower of Siloam? when it fell were "evil". Jesus answered, "No more wicked than you are. Repent of your sins." Before we can beat our breasts in righteous anger over the death of 5000 Americans, perhaps we do need to find out how much Reagan helped Osama bin Laden come to power in our fight against communism. Maybe we really caused this problem.
Glen Austin
|
Post #9,452
9/17/01 12:58:14 PM
|
The enemy of our enemy is not our friend.
He may have his uses, but we must never forget what he is.
We allied with the Soviets in World War II. If we hadn't, what would have been the outcome?
We were a bit too slow in cutting the Soviets off in World War II. If we'd been more prompt, what would have been the outcome?
It's all too obvious in hindsight that we gave the Mujaheddin way too much aid back in Cold War I. It was probably obvious to a lot of people then, but nobody listened. What we should have aimed for was for them to run out of ammo five minutes after the Soviets gave up. No, we need a better margin of error. Make it half an hour.
And then there's Noriega, the Shah of Iran, etc. Our aid to them should have been very conditional indeed. And we should've cultivated alternatives, to move these countries toward democracy.
I'm not troubled by the basic idea of allying with such people, per se. But we do tend to screw it up. We need to cut them off sooner, immediately after they've served our purpose.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #9,458
9/17/01 1:21:43 PM
|
The gravest mistake of the '60s peace movement . .
. . was the presumption that if one side was wrong, the other must be right.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #9,464
9/17/01 1:44:41 PM
|
I came of age in the immediate aftermath of that.
And in the middle of the Boston busing crisis. Perhaps because of all this, I generally presume the worst of both sides, and try to invent a third side to stand on.
If I can't manage that, I throw my support behind the lesser evil. Beggars can't be choosers.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #9,503
9/17/01 3:51:38 PM
|
But we must all remember...
that we cannot overcome and adversary by becoming just like him.
|
Post #9,535
9/17/01 7:09:30 PM
|
Why just the sixties?
The digitization of thought - and calling that 'Reason' is the very crucible of the "world of duality", the fiction lived by many. Ever to postulate Right --> just-One Right --> that 'Righteousness' which lies behind every atrocity committed in the name of a (Loving God) or ___.
Ditto Wrong. Digital thought makes for black&white without gray. I don't believe the '60s was other than typical, though most of the slogans were orthogonal to "the enemy of my enemy" = 'The One' creating the many 'opposites'.
Still, behind that expected confusion did lie a certain and IME unprecedented.. Hopefulness that we actually could change some of the more egregious attitudes du jour. Now, in the wreckage, and in the sell-outs to that which many came to *know they despised* (for they had indeed 'identified' some of that, within and without) --
Came the cynicism. The succesion of assassinations through '68 demonstrated just how dead was the dream, and how resilient was 'business as usual' - culminating in the war-crimes of Vietnam. All this nailed that small hope.. tightly in a hermetically sealed coffin. The morphing into a $-besotted me-me-me culture followed as inexorably as the plumber's Principle, shit flows downhill.
It will take much of a shock, perhaps more than Tuesday's even (?) to see again that Hopefulness which many of the '60s - part-'70s experienced. (Of course, should we generally.. cease to hope - we're already dead).
A.
|
Post #9,652
9/18/01 9:17:23 PM
|
It was all a lie, Ashton.
Virtually all movements in the 60's were drug-induced. You get stoned, you can love veryone. Come Down, and your lovers don't seem so sweet anymore.
bcnu,
Mikem
|
Post #9,655
9/18/01 10:00:44 PM
|
Exaggeration.
A quite small group was all-stoned all the time - the usual Gaussian. There are probably dozens of stat PhD's with an attempt at guesstimating drug(s) usage and frequency. I'd estimate that the plurality were less stoned than the standard booze folk, so the generalization fails IMhO. And.. I was there (if only in a tiny % of all the there, there is). And the Berkeley area surely represents a larger average usage than most any other place I can think of.
Nobody I hung out with could have been called a 'habitual' user - some never - there were better highs; still are. (Coke is still the preferred toy of the Yuppie me-me class and it's so Murican: instant gratification. And you can brag about the cost with your $-obsessed friends. Buy a gram today - buy some plane tickets for bin Laden et al. Our drug 'war' funds their war.)
Many more than I believe you realize, were in fact working rather diligently on a number of "issues" (however fated) - and drugs would have obviously interfered, except as an occasional weekend recreation. Urban legends we create right after TLAs - no?
The President's Analyst was still a gas..
A.
|
Post #9,656
9/18/01 10:09:34 PM
|
I remain dubious.
Are you *that* much older than I?
Admittedly, I was really a child of the 60's (born 9/9/59), but my father was a high school teacher and his students "baby-sat" my brother and me. This was in Southern California. Still, I wonder how much social progress was owed to the "heightened since of awareness" (apologies to Leary) generated from an artificially generated state of euphoria? Perhaps it was simply that the almost imperceivable minority of clearer minds were given greater voice owing to those of the drug-induced state of awareness? Did the progressives have a go only because a significant portion of the great, mindless American public was too stoned to notice? I think so.
|
Post #9,659
9/18/01 11:14:41 PM
|
Many were very serious - and some still are.
The era was not nearly so drug sodden as the Hollywood image that has been built for it. The drugs were also very weak compared to what they are now. You could puff happily all night for what a couple of hits will do you for now.
Yes, there were "events" that were drugged out, but they were few enough to be legendary.
Yes, there were "drug abusers", and I knew some, but just about all of them have died of heart ailments, and at the time they weren't peace freaks, they were paranoid as hell.
It was drugs that did in the "flower children" - the influx of heavy druggies was dark and criminal and the "children" pulled back out of the line of fire.
Yes, I was there, at the peak, in the Fairfax (which was soon returned to the Jewish community), hob-knobing with the likes of Ronnie Cobb (once famous political cartoonist, later designer of Alien).
It was a very fun time, and I miss it lots, but I know a few pockets that remain, and I intend to return there from this computer crap - soon I hope.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #9,661
9/18/01 11:27:40 PM
|
An original explanation! and maybe, pretty good :-\ufffd
Heh - got a couple decades on ya.. not that I believe my take on the local scene has any statistical validity, though I think I noticed the Berkeley and Bay area milieu pretty alertly..
As with your Moscow story - we're all creatures of the accidents of (WTF, it's a clear idea) 'peak experiences' - the ones that create permanent memory of the smells, sounds - virtually everything. So that night with the KGB and "actually helping a father!" must remain pretty vivid today (?).
Hardly comparable in adrenalin; by accident I met the Maharishi (Mahesh Yogi; also a physicist) in late '60s at lab. Being main honcho of the day, I got to stick next to him as we checked out our fancy machines. And actually looking him in the eyes from a couple feet away proved an 'odd' experience. I knew zippo about his gig, at the time (well - a few hints). But my impression became, after a half-hour of wandering about ~ "whatever this guy is, he isn't a phony.." (Meaning nothing re followers or their versions - then or later, of course). Anyway, that started for me an investigation of sorts, then other angles and self-experiments. Next throw in the RFK assassination (he Would have won) and...
So - we're such creatures. (Whenever someone tells me about their 'organizer' and how planned is their ascent up the corp. grey ladder to inanity yada yada - it is to laugh.) I deemed we were in for it when Nixon got back in power (after humiliation in CA gov. race in early '60s). I had a friend "hosed down" the city hall steps in SF - protesting a planned *HUAC "investigation" of local teachers, also early '60s. Began to actually pay attention to how Murican matters were manipulated ~ from those times.
* - We won! - chased the bastards outta town: that was the *last* scheduled HUAC witch hunt ever! Bill Mandel opening remarks, "Honorable beaters of children..". It was Glorious. This event began.. Murica's growth from political infancy. We almost reached adolescence.
Your explanation might be close - there were indeed some fine minds, undulled by the temptations to just play; there was dedication and a lot of it selfless - as we haven't seen around - til a week ago, IMhO. And there was lots of noise - a *rejection* of the dull, grey Eisenhower years, at last! And for some -- acid indeed opened minds; it wasn't meant for recreation, though always are the excessive around.
(A friend, Ian Underwood - went practically from a Mozart piano recital at Hertz Hall ---> to play with Frank Zappa! so I later got to meet the Mothers..) They were (I think all, then) prof. musicians - could transpose, play classical as well - and on a shrug from FZ, could do so in mid-selection. Not your kid players from a garage..
Accidents. Unexpected events. I'm grateful for some quite unMurican experiences - it isn't our style to question the daily 'reality' in this culture, or to turn off the noise.
I see today a hint of that 'danger + opportunity' of the RFK time; he was a rich kid who actually, finally Got it. We'll have to do with less, next. Might make it.. Believe we underestimate the brilliant few among us, via these stupid 'Xers' labels; here's a chance for some growing-up fast, to next occur.
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be,
A.
|
Post #9,531
9/17/01 6:43:46 PM
|
perhaps it worked
>> At the time we had a right-wing President who possessed a single-minded devotion to destroy the "Evil Empire". This narrowness of vision caused the US to align itself with some of the most inhuman entities in the world. Reagan didn't care about anything save the destruction of his "Evil Empire" and the elimination of any Left-Leaning nation. Atrocities committed against "Godless Communists" were no vice at all to Uncle Ronnie or his supporters. <<
One school of thot is that what Reagan did WORKED. He made (or tricked) the Soviets into realizing that their cause was lost and they started doubting themselves.
Of course, the complexities of the downfall of the Soviet Union can have a jillion interpretations, and I suggest one make it a different thread in a different topic if they want to discuss it more.
At least the Soviets would probably not destroy the entire planet to acheive their goal. In that sense, they were more civalized than this new breed of Forced Idealism followers.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #9,534
9/17/01 6:59:36 PM
|
It Worked
But there were side effects to making the deals that we made that are now coming back to haunt us.
I would much rather have this situation we have now (as scary as it might seem), than a strong Russia having destroyed Afghanistan, flexing it's military muscle into Pakistan, Western Europe, Turkey, and Alaska.
Everything we do has intended AND unintended consequences (that we cannot foresee). Sometimes those unintended consequences are a nit, sometimes they are profound.
Remember the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
Glen Austin
|
Post #9,653
9/18/01 9:21:12 PM
|
Time's Man of the Century.
I voted for Reagan as Time Magazine's Man of the Century. From where I sit, he virtually single-handedly destroyed two super-powers by spending them out of existence.
|
Post #9,688
9/19/01 9:53:45 AM
|
Remember our discussions - but I forget: Who finally got it?
Hitler?
For better or worse (definitely worse!), he probably influenced the 20th century more than any other single man, AFAICS...
And that says something not only about him, but perhaps above all, about the last century: To have its greatest personal influence be such a bad one, it must have been a pretty bad century, on the whole.
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #9,556
9/17/01 10:05:09 PM
|
dont equate taliban and bin laden
The Taliban's refusal to hand over bin laden is very in character for the Afgans, it would be a major detriment to hand over someone who asked for your protection to live in your home(country). Remember to the story of Job who stayed in a house and strangers demanded he be given up. The owners of tthe house he was staying in refused. (the rest of the story is immaterial.) These folks are old testament +. Let us not equate their refusal to hand him over with agreement to his actions. You might very well have to kill all the taliban to get bin laden, as it is a matter of honor for them.
Hey Mike I have an inkling of how you must feel but if those Afgani's did that and you went to the taliban at this date, gave them the police report, they would be stoned to death I kid you not. I have spent time among some of these folks in my yout
and their view of the world is not a whole lot different from the ancient Jewish Patriarchs with the concept of mercy conveniently overlooked.
thanx,
bill
why did god give us a talleywhacker and a trigger finger if he didnt want us to use them?
Randy Wayne White
|
Post #9,654
9/18/01 9:30:17 PM
|
I am ignorant.
The mugging I mentioned absolutely could not have been at the hands of anyone associated with the Taliban. It happened when I was 9 and my family and I were in Moscow. 3 Afghan diplomats befriended my dad. My dad told my mom, brother and me to wait for him and the 3 Afghanis at the restaurant inside the hotel. When it took longer than expected for my dad and his 'guests' to show up, I ran up the stairs to our room to look for him. Finding only the empty hotel room, I went - purely by chance - another way. I heard my dad screaming, "You gonna take my watch, you bastards? Like hell you are!" and some scuffling behind another room's door (aparently the Afghani's door). I banged on the door to no avail, then ran downstairs and hollered (in almost perfect Russian, mind you) to the KGB agents assigned to follow us, "Help! My father is an American and he is in trouble! Follow me!" (Aside: I'd tried to convince my mom at the restaurant of my dad's plight, but she insisted I must have misunderstood. That's when I jumped up on the table and began yelling at the KGB agents - they followed us everywhere and stuck out like a sore thumb). The KGB followed me and rescued my dad. All this happened in 1969, well before Osama, or the Taliban existed. I mentioned it in my original post only to underscore that my judgement was completely clouded with personal andecdotes of real or perceived wrongs.
Thanks Bill,
Mikem
|
Post #9,664
9/18/01 11:52:33 PM
|
As soon as the Taliban hand over bin Laden...
the equation will be greatly altered in their favor.
They really should be more choosy about the company they keep.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #9,666
9/19/01 12:06:04 AM
|
You've heard what the custom is re 'guests'
Especially a 'guest' who almost single-handedly paid for your move from Pakistan, (they came from there!) to take over the "government" of Afghanistan.
As to friends they keep - they are as amenable to your suggestion as is Jerry Foulwell amenable to say, 'ceasing the Jihad on gays', the sub-rosa message: They are evil. Kill 'em. God would. And I speak for Her.
I doubt that it would be possible for a Westerner to get the time of day from this group of young ignorant Nazis, more sadistic than most Nazis: they've already decided: Bomb us. It's part of the plan.
I think.. we're already too smart to make the existing rubble bounce one more time. I don't think we'll see bin L. handed over to anyone. Best get used to frustration - beats stupidity.
A.
|
Post #9,687
9/19/01 9:51:45 AM
|
A plausible scenario
They get their big Islamic cleric get-together. They mull things over for a few days. Then they say, "Okay, we'll hand him over. OOOPS! We can't find him, he must have left the country."
They've done that ploy before in 1998. Now whether or not he actually does leave the country is almost immaterial - all they have to do is claim they don't know where he is. And (strictly speaking) they'd probably be telling the literal truth, even if they did know he was still in the country somewhere.
Rest in peace, Jeremy, Mark, Thomas, and whoever else who helped overpower the hijackers on Flight 93.
|
Post #9,732
9/19/01 4:34:54 PM
|
The don't-know-where-he-is dodge only works if we let it.
Tell `em they'd damn well better find him fast. Make it their problem.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #9,739
9/19/01 5:19:18 PM
|
Who cares where 'he' is
Like a weed, lopping of just the top is not much good. If you want to get rid of thr problem you have to burn it down to the roots. You burn the roots, eventually you'll get the head as course
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #9,747
9/19/01 6:01:14 PM
|
Yes, 'Fundament-al' problem with such an obsession is:
Suppose he's the epitome of psychologist - especially about Murican repetitive behavior. Suppose he takes his 'Beliefs' reeel Fundament-ally, as so many do, there AND here:
Goes to secret cave alone. Kills self (goes directly to the seraglio of 70, in the Sky). Taleban et all run around frantically.. *Really Trying* to find him (say). Can't. Say they can't!
We say: Suuuure you "Can't.."
Well... ???
A.
|
