[Cheryl H]

OK, so damned if you do, damned if you don't.  It took 3,000 Americans to 
die for the US Government to respond to the Taliban.  We didn't do anything 
about it before.  What would you be saying now if we HAD gotten involved 
sooner, perhaps to prevent such a tragedy if we had seen it coming?

You wrote:
I certainly would be the last person to defend the barbaric acts of the 
British Empire

Let's try to forget about the past, right?

You also wrote:
Indeed as we have seen so many times the US were happy to help religious 
fanatics as long as the weren't pointing their guns at other Americans.

Please clarify - are you saying that our Government finances and supports 
terrorists, as long as Americans don't get hurt in the process?

Cheryl


From: "Julian Shaw" <julian@monkeyfamily.freeserve.co.uk>
Reply-To: "Julian Shaw" <julian@jlshaw.co.uk>
To: <powderworks@cs.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: [Powderworks] Nazis and Taliban
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 23:48:10 +0100

Yes you have a point. All countries do to a large degree act only in their 
own best interest. But there are some things which just are not right. I 
certainly would be the last person to defend the barbaric acts of the 
British Empire, that is something we all want to move away from. But I think 
that in Europe now there is definitely a move towards thinking more 
progressively, a development of a social conscience.

I presume with your question you mean as a response to 9/11. I think some 
people might have got the impression that I was against intervention in 
Afghanistan. Far from it. The Taliban needed removing. I was all for the US 
and the UK doing something about it and I'm sure much misery has been spared 
for the people of Afghanistan (although it is always sad when innocent 
people die - estimates of 5,000 civilians died in Afghanistan during the 
bombing!). My point would be why did it take 3000 Americans to die before 
the US saw how evil the Taliban was? How many thousands were the Taliban 
killing every year? Did the American President lose sleep over that? Indeed 
as we have seen so many times the US were happy to help religious fanatics 
as long as the weren't pointing their guns at other Americans. Sad but true.

And now there is a war on terror. Well of course a war on terror is a good 
idea. But is the US making things better or worse? The war on terror in many 
countries has turned into a war on freedom. The amount of times I have heard 
in the last 9 months that Governments all around the world are changing laws 
to suppress "terrorists" who are probably mostly legitimate political 
groups. Anyone who disagrees with the Government can be classed as a 
terrorist. Does the US (or any western government) care about this? And will 
it make friends with Saudi Arabia, a country with one of the most 
oppressive, hard line regimes imaginable, just so that it is better placed 
to attack Iraq.

Something to chew on...

Julian Lewis Shaw
Man, Myth or Monkey? Find out:
http://www.jlshaw.co.uk
-----Original Message -----
From: "Cheryl H" <ooiiilllss@hotmail.com>
To: <julian@jlshaw.co.uk>; <powderworks@cs.colorado.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Powderworks] Nazis and Taliban



What countries don't act in their own best interests??  ie, Apartheid - was 
that done on behalf of the people of South Africa?  Were the Conquistadors 
acting in the best interests of Native Americans (North AND South)by raping, 
pillaging and stripping the land of its precious metals silver and gold?  
The Europeans came to this country to benefit whom?  Are we expected to 
follow the examples lead by the British Empire?

We are ALL accountable for our actions.  Instead of criticizing us for what 
we've done wrong, I'd like to second Scott Williams and ask how you would 
handle it.

Cheryl

From: "Julian Shaw" <julian@monkeyfamily.freeserve.co.uk>
Reply-To: "Julian Shaw" <julian@jlshaw.co.uk>
To: "'powderworks'" <powderworks@cs.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: [Powderworks] Nazis and Taliban
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 19:44:40 +0100

I think the term Nazi is a particularly offensive one to use and I certainly 
wouldn't use it as the US has often stood up for minority groups and the 
oppressed. But the truth is that the US as a world player always acts in 
it's best interest and very rarely in the interest of others. Does the US 
give a toss about climate change? No of course not as long as the money 
keeps pouring in so America can get richer and the economy can keep on 
growing! Another example - International Criminal Court. Why wouldn't the US 
sign up? Because it's not in it's best interest. Well of course not - though 
many other countries could see that people need to be accountable! But the 
US seems to have got away with it anyway and got in with the proviso that 
it's troops on peace keeping missions can't ever be charged with anything.  
Errr very magnanimous of the US indeed! Just a couple of big examples -there 
are many others.

I think it's sad that the US gets singled out so much - there are many 
hundreds of worse governments in the world. The problem is they are usually 
run by dictators. As the leader of the free world the US should be setting 
an example and I think that is why the US gets bashed so much - because 
people think of  the US government as hypocrites when it talks of "Freedom" 
and is at the same time pushing it's weight around so it can get things it's 
own way.

Julian Lewis Shaw





_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com