unfinished business even as we're all fired up about starting trouble in other places

February 13, 2003 10:14 PM

"The United States Congress has stepped in to find nearly $300m in humanitarian and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan after the Bush administration failed to request any money in this latest budget."

So much for rebuilding Afghanistan.
posted by artifex (52 comments total)

Afghani-where?
posted by scarabic at 11:06 PM on February 13, 2003

I try to be as cynical as possible, but they keep raising the bar...
posted by Guy Smiley at 11:31 PM on February 13, 2003

Gee we spent $216 million alone on a baseball stadium around here. Not a lot to rebuild a country, huh?
posted by whirlwind29 at 12:07 AM on February 14, 2003

I'm assuming that the baseball stadium needs of Afghanistan are much, much more reasonable.

Hell... for that price they could build three... four stadiums.

It's a shame they won't get those stadiums.
posted by cadastral at 12:30 AM on February 14, 2003

the last time we neglected to rebuild it, the shit really hit the fan. nice to know no lessons were extracted from that.
posted by donkeyschlong at 12:34 AM on February 14, 2003

This is precisely why I oppose the coming war on Iraq. There seems to be absolutely no sincerity behind any stated American commitment to rebuilding or democratising these countries after "regime change". The plan seems to be: Kick Saddam out, take over oil production, put another dictator in charge who plays ball, then forget about the country, leaving it in a worse state than before.
posted by Bletch at 1:56 AM on February 14, 2003

Bletch, you're giving 'em too much credit. I doubt they have thought much past "kick Saddam out."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:49 AM on February 14, 2003

Robert Fisk recommends: Don't mention the war in Afghanistan. He also reported about the situation on the ground in Afghanistan a few months ago.
But you don't have to believe Fisk, the brave women of RAWA, present a similar picture:
"...Thus, there is no place for any surprise that during the past year we haven't witnessed any significant signs of stability, end of war, security or the reconstruction of life and economy in the country. Quite the contrary, now the world community also has realized that due to the dominance of professional criminals in government, the gruesome examples of human rights violations, assaults on women, the ghastly shadow of religious tyranny, the fanning of religious and ethnic differences, and the rule of the puppet warlords still prevail in Afghanistan..."
posted by talos at 6:36 AM on February 14, 2003

Hehe castral, what I ment is we spent that much on on just just one building. 300 million is a small amount to try and rebuild a country. In fact it's more like playing lipservice than actual aid.
posted by whirlwind29 at 6:46 AM on February 14, 2003

Rebuild Afghanistan? Did we tear it down?

No, I think they rode camels and lived in huts long before they chose to provoke our wrath..
posted by eas98 at 6:46 AM on February 14, 2003

oops sorry make that PAYING lipservice
posted by whirlwind29 at 6:48 AM on February 14, 2003

Rebuild Afghanistan? Did we tear it down?

Yes.
posted by ursus_comiter at 6:57 AM on February 14, 2003

$300 will hardly scratch the surface I'm afraid, even if it does arrive - the total cost of rebuilding was estimated at $15bn

I hope that was a poor attempt at irony eas98
posted by gravelshoes at 7:03 AM on February 14, 2003

Rebuild Afghanistan? Did we tear it down?

Rebuilding's about more than bricks and mortar. Ever heard of infrastructure, government, law, rights?

No, I think they rode camels and lived in huts long before they chose to provoke our wrath..

And how did they do that? The people of Afghanistan that is, rather than the imported Taliban government?
posted by Summer at 7:23 AM on February 14, 2003

No, I think they rode camels and lived in huts long before they chose to provoke our wrath..

misrable - i wonder if you like the man in the whitehouse also a consider yourself a god fearing member of the christian wrong?

ill have to find the scripture - but i believe the bible says something to the effect of: "faith without the practice of helping others - especially your enemy - is empty practice".

how anyone can defend the bush administration on this unbelievable f-up and shafting of the people in afganistan is absolutely beyond me........ fortunately he will be a forgotten blackspot on americas history in less than 2 years.
posted by specialk420 at 7:36 AM on February 14, 2003

According to the newsletter of the House Committee on the Budget, on the cost of the 'War Against Terrorism' (TM), available here, the U.S. govt. budgeted $10.1 billion for war in Afghanistan in FY 2002. It seems a bit of an oversight not to budget anything for reconstruction.{
posted by carter at 7:39 AM on February 14, 2003

I'm not conservative, but I'd consider myself compassionate. It's too bad the prez. only takes after one one these additives.


Gee we spent $216 million alone on a baseball stadium around here. Not a lot to rebuild a country, huh?

As far as I know the federal government is not in the business of funding baseball stadiums. While your sarcasm is somewhat funny, those who spent the money on the stadium you speak of had nothing to do the decision to axe funding for Afghanistan.
posted by Bag Man at 7:42 AM on February 14, 2003

specialK: James 2:14

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

posted by goethean at 7:48 AM on February 14, 2003

Bag Man: Are you sure that those people who managed to appropriate $200 million in public funds for the purchase of a baseball stadium had "nothing to do with the decision to axe funding for Afghanistan"?
posted by grrarrgh00 at 7:58 AM on February 14, 2003

Bag Man - You are right. State and Local governments are in that business. That's how GW Bush got rich - a government seizure of land for the Ranger's stadium through eminent domain (and they sure did seize a lot more land than they needed for the stadium and for parking lots!) and then, consequently, a "gift" by the Texas Rangers owners, of about $20 million in Rangers stock (all this while Bush was a sitting governer! Quid pro what, you said?)

Abandoning Afghanistan is typical modus operandi for Bush and his friends. Paul Krugman of the NYT pegs it:

(chiding Alan Greenspan for ignoring the impact of medicaire and social security committments on the long term fedral debt....)

"...No doubt you're under intense pressure to be a team player. But these guys are users: they persuade other people to squander their hard-won credibility on behalf of bad policies, then discard those people once they are no longer useful. Think of John DiIulio, or your friend Paul O'Neill. It's happening to Colin Powell right now."
posted by troutfishing at 8:00 AM on February 14, 2003

Here's another passage for all the "Christian" wrong who love to kill everyone and everything except fetuses:

Matthew 5:42-44

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[1] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[2] and pray for those who persecute you,

The words of Jesus, do you deny them right winger fundies? Can you join your Axis of Weasels and still call yourself "Christian?" Explain to me how attacking Iraq is such a good Christian thing to do please.
posted by nofundy at 8:24 AM on February 14, 2003

Bag Man: Are you sure that those people who managed to appropriate $200 million in public funds for the purchase of a baseball stadium had "nothing to do with the decision to axe funding for Afghanistan"?

You are right. State and Local governments are in that business. That's how GW Bush got rich - a government seizure of land for the Ranger's stadium through eminent domain (and they sure did seize a lot more land than they needed for the stadium and for parking lots!) and then, consequently, a "gift" by the Texas Rangers owners, of about $20 million in Rangers stock (all this while Bush was a sitting governer! Quid pro what, you said?)

So the Texas State Legislature cut the funding to Afghanistan? Yikes if your claim is correct, I think we have some serious federalism issues in play here. Since when did they get control o the federal budget? I also note that two a fairly typical MIFI things just occurred:

1) Misreading of a post, I don't need to be convinced that Bush is an ass or has just done something as I expressly disagree with (which for the record agrees with the gist of this thread) Evidence:

I'm not conservative, but I'd consider myself compassionate. It's too bad the prez. only takes after one these additives. (sorry for the typo, but it get my point across - You know, Bush claims to be a "compassionate conservative," but is rarely compassionate)

2) A knee-jerk reaction, not to mention connecting two events that are not related at all. More bad arguments for a left that is sadly loosing touch with the very people who support them/us. You’d be surprised how fast one tunes out an argument that makes no sense, even if they agree with the underlying assumption or point.
posted by Bag Man at 8:29 AM on February 14, 2003

no fundy... coming soon to a website near you.

the daily wrong. at christianwrong.com . or more likely .... daily wrong(s).
posted by specialk420 at 8:51 AM on February 14, 2003

I second that, nofundy. For all of you hard-core Christians out there that support killing people in Iraq, how do you square that with the teachings of Jesus?
posted by drstrangelove at 8:59 AM on February 14, 2003

For all of you hard-core Christians out there that support killing people in Iraq, how do you square that with the teachings of Jesus?

Maybe they like his Dad's methods more...
posted by stifford at 9:06 AM on February 14, 2003

Obviously, peeps, you're misinterpreting the bible. When Christ says to "love your neighbour," he means that you should run out and kill ragheads. When he says "love your enemies," he clearly means you should kill ragheads quickly and humanely, not torturously.

You know, I expected so much more from our MetaFilter intellectuals. This bible interpretation stuff is so easy. I mean, even George Bush can do it -- what's the matter with you that you can't?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:09 AM on February 14, 2003

Dear Hurl Insults at Fundamentalists Thread,

I'm sorry. I think I'm lost. Can someone help me find the thread about how our current administration is screwing desperate Afghanis out of much-needed aid?

Thanks ever so,
Hilatron
posted by hilatron at 9:20 AM on February 14, 2003

So the Texas State Legislature cut the funding to Afghanistan? Yikes if your claim is correct, I think we have some serious federalism issues in play here.

Your point is technically completely true, but doesn't address the core issue or the reason the comparison was made: The suffering Afghans don't know or care about the internal structure and tax jurisdictions of our government, and the fact remains -- we'll spend godawful amounts of money on relative frivolities (that serve mainly to enrich already-wealthy businessmen rather than create prosperity for communities, but that's an aside) and we won't spend comparable amounts to ease suffering we very much helped cause, or honor our word.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:25 AM on February 14, 2003

Bag Man:

Statement 1) As far as I know the federal government is not in the business of funding baseball stadiums.

To my knowledge, this statement checks out fine, and I take no issue with it.

Statement 2) Those who spent the money on the stadium you speak of had nothing to do the decision to axe funding for Afghanistan.

Given that we know Bush was a key player in orchestrating a shady, land-grabbing, $200 million deal with the city of Arlington, TX towards the purchase of a baseball stadium, I imagine he must be included in the collective designation "Those who spent the money on the stadium you speak of." I don't know if Mr. whirlwind29 was addressing this particular $200 million stadium, but with your permission, I'll treat that question for the moment as a quibbling technicality.

Now, given that Bush himself is the head of the administration which cut funding for Afghanistan from its budget recommendations, I must find fault with the second part of your second statement, that he "had nothing to do with the decision to cut funding for Afghanistan."

I know how easy it is to tune out an argument that makes no sense, but please do try to listen to yourself a little more closely in the future.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 9:26 AM on February 14, 2003

Hilatron,

Word. This is a *scandal*, y'all, not an excuse to snarkily bash Christians.

I, for one, felt vaguely comforted back in late 2001/early 2002 that, at the very least, the lot of the average Afghani would improve. Seems to me that the President promised something like that might happen.
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:33 AM on February 14, 2003

Obviously, peeps, you're misinterpreting the bible. When Christ says to "love your neighbour," he means that you should run out and kill ragheads. When he says "love your enemies," he clearly means you should kill ragheads quickly and humanely, not torturously.

FFF, thank you for our daily dose of hate and intolerance. FFF, you Bush and those decry proud. FFF, Your irony is great because its very posting contains so much irony too. I also thank you for anti-religion statement, gosh MIFI and our one-sided debate is better off for it.

(I would have sent e-mail, but you list none)

Now, given that Bush himself is the head of the administration which cut funding for Afghanistan from its budget recommendations, I must find fault with the second part of your second statement, that he "had nothing to do with the decision to cut funding for Afghanistan."

There is no causal connection between the two events, unless you have facts to suggest otherwise. Without such a causal connection I find the two events separate (i.e. the people of Afghanistan are not being screwed to enrich the Bush or the Texas Rangers). Besides other countries are giving far grater sums of money and its not like the US has spent nothing on helping the people of Afghanistan defeat the Taliban or police the region.

I know how easy it is to tune out an argument that makes no sense, but please do try to listen to yourself a little more closely in the future.

And, grrarrgh00 don't you know sarcasm when you hear it?

Hey, I think its fucked up, but why bash just to bash? Or troll just to troll? Is this what we want the left to stand for? We're better than that.
posted by Bag Man at 9:43 AM on February 14, 2003

Let me try another tack on this conversation.

My apologies for the near-derail earlier but my thinking was this Bush person claims to be a "born-again Christian" and a "compassionate conservative."

Now can someone tell me how the Bush can make promises of compassion time and again when he then always does the opposite.
Where's the accountability?
Where's the compassion?
Where's the Christian (also interpreted as "Christ-like") actions of this man?
Bush PROMISED help for the Afghanis but promptly reneged.
The only people I've ever seen him have compasion for don't need his help.
Where's the accountability for his outright lies and contradictory behavior?
Is it acceptable behavior to use the "compassionate Christian" moniker only when it's politically advantageous?

[Looking at Bush from the end of a dusty western town street]
"I'm calling you out cowboy. It's time to put up or shut up and I'm tired of your lies."
posted by nofundy at 10:02 AM on February 14, 2003

nofundy, that's what I've been saying all along. Good point. So, where is the debate?
posted by Bag Man at 10:12 AM on February 14, 2003

nofundy et al,

I'm so on your side a good 90% of the time; it just worries me when it seems like even the left is only using Afghanistan to score political points.

Oft-asked question a while back: Why does everyone hate us? The bait-and-switch going on in Afghanistan right now is exhibit freaking Z. You'd think that even the Powers Wot Be would realize that this is an incredibly poor way to rally the world to their next cause.

Solution? Let your reps know that Afghanistan still matters to you. At the very least.
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:16 AM on February 14, 2003

I seem to remember the Bush line was "We're not into nation building" at the time. I thought they explicitly left the funding of post-war reconstruction to the international community.
posted by dydecker at 10:47 AM on February 14, 2003

[Momentary Derail] Bag Man, after this I'm done with this piddling, pointless little thread-derailing debate we've got going on, but hell, I've got time to burn and I'm not above responding to your implications that I "bash just to bash, or troll just to troll." To paraphrase, you indicated above that George Bush had nothing to do with the decision to cut funding for Afghanistan. I pointed out how that statement is wrong. You may well have meant something different, but don't confuse what you meant with what you said. If we great confreres of the left fail in our constant vigilance regarding what we say, we leave ourselves open to accusations of deceit. After all, is this what we want the left to stand for? We're better than that![/Derail]

The bottom line is that we claim we're in this whole thing to bring some stability to the region. No one denies that we have a great self-interest in bringing a stable democratic government to the people of Iraq. But seeing as how the Bush administration has apparently seen fit to abandon the bulk of our efforts in Afghanistan now that the initial, hasty cleanup is over, why do any of us continue to imagine he has any more far-reaching purposes in Iraq?

To recap: We were attacked by a radical terrorist faction headquartered in Afghanistan. We brought war upon the country of Afghanistan, ostensibly with the aim of making it a place where suicidal, anti-American thought would no longer have reason to flourish. We would liberate the people of Afghanistan from a lifestyle of violence, poverty and abuse, so that in ten years' time, they would come to realize that we are not the Great Satan, and all thoughts of inflicting harm on us would have frittered away. We knew way back in '01 that overthrowing the Taliban regime meant making a lasting commitment to the nation of Afghanistan. Am I wrong about this? Was the war in Afghanistan really just about punishment? Do we really just want them to do it again so that we can start another war?

Al Qaeda disrupted our way of life with boxcutters, people. Boxcutters. The point being that it doesn't matter how many tons of VX you've got, how many silos full of anthrax you're hiding, or how many Scud missiles you won't turn over; you can do a hell of a lot of damage to a big old nation like the United States with nothing more than a $10 piece of hardware and a whole lot of misdirected hate.

Armed with this knowledge, the point of any anti-terrorist conflict should not be punishment, but prevention. We can only win by making such severe anti-American sentiment a nonsensical idea. And we're not going to do that by bombing people and going away. Which is what Bush was fixing to do with Afghanistan. I'm sorry I'm rambling here, but this is the issue. This is why I don't take too kindly to war right now. It seems like our priorities are messed up, our plans are nonexistent, and our already thin resources are going all the wrong places.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 10:56 AM on February 14, 2003

The Whitehouse needs to review their site.
posted by rotifer at 1:01 PM on February 14, 2003

grrarrgh00, you have a strange nickname for a person who says such sensible and humane things. Bush's words are written on water, that has been proved. He has no intention of making Iraq a safer, better or freer place. Shame on these warhawks who destroy so easily but lack the stomach to rebuild where they have destroyed. Shame on them, and shame on those who are fooled again by their lies.

I'll see you on the television tomorrow, fellow revolutionaries. If you see the Paris protests, I'm the chap with the "My Reasons For Opposing This War Are Too Complicated To Put In A Catchy Slogan" sign.
posted by Bletch at 1:06 PM on February 14, 2003

nofundy et al,

I'm so on your side a good 90% of the time; it just worries me when it seems like even the left is only using Afghanistan to score political points.

My apologies hackly_fracture if I left that impression.
Let me be clearer.
I have the greatest sympathy for all the people in this world who are abused and left to die by power hungry war mongers and capitalists out to squeeze just one more penny profit regardless of the consequences. I also feel compassion for a people who are lied to and abandoned by politicians because they care more about serving their constituent base than doing the right thing as promised. I would wish nothing more than to eliminate hunger, disease and poverty, or at least minimize them utilizing everything at the disposal of an able people. Beats the hell out of SMD and B2s and bombs. I also believe the education of everyone is very important (ignorance breeds fundies and hatred) and discrimination of any group is wrong. (Sound like Christian thinking yet?)

These are the reasons I could never endorse the hypocrisy, lies and policies of the right wing nuts. Politics matter because policy matters. Policy matters because it determines the allocation of our collective resources. Our collective resources can be used for the collective good or for the advancement of the few. I never did care for facist oligarchies as they negatively impact the less fortunate of this world.

I trust this cleared things up sufficiently for you my friend.
posted by nofundy at 1:25 PM on February 14, 2003

grrarrgh00 - excellent post. thank you. and nice catch rotifer.

at the end of the day - the bush administrations quiet dropping of funding for those who desperately need it inAfghanistan clearly illustrates what we all already know - his "compassionate conservatism"... as well as most of the distorted version of christianity practiced by the christianwrong - is in many ways as much a perversion of a great religion as is wahabism is of islam.


if you have a chance to see the french indy film "masood the afgan" i highly recommend it.. its an excellent glimpse in the harsh threadbare existence of these otherwise wonderful people that have had war thrust on them by out side (united states (1970s/80s), soviet union, pakistan, Saudi arabia.. etc...) and forces for the last umpteen years.


i also recommend the this american life piece "Come Back to Afghanistan"
posted by specialk420 at 1:36 PM on February 14, 2003

you indicated above that George Bush had nothing to do with the decision to cut funding for Afghanistan.

No I did not. Why are you saying this when it is just untrue and unsupported by what I did say?

1) Perhaps I missed the baseball stadium reference was connected to Bush:

Gee we spent $216 million alone on a baseball stadium around here. Not a lot to rebuild a country, huh?

After all, many local and state governments play a large role in funding sports complexes.

2) Even so, the only argument I made was the any decision to aid the Rangers was not at expense of anyone in Afghanistan, as stated here:

Without such a causal connection I find the two events separate (i.e. the people of Afghanistan are not being screwed to enrich the Bush or the Texas Rangers).

This argument does not express the notion that Bush had nothing to do 2003 decision to cut Afghanistan out of the budget. Thus, grrarrgh00 I am not sure you come off making the statement you made.

If we great confreres of the left fail in our constant vigilance regarding what we say, we leave ourselves open to accusations of deceit. After all, is this what we want the left to stand for? We're better than that!

Using better tactics to attack Bush does not undercut the mission or the view of left. The connection between the sweet deal for the Rangers and the raw deal for the Afghans just does not exist (duh), and thus sounds foolish. In fact, it sounds like bitching and morning. Bitching and morning is just wants Bush wants us to do! He wants the American people to tune use out. Why must our message be filled with overstatements, name calling and troll? I know we're better than. I know this because we're better than right. We can be vigilant in our stance and message without literally make up stuff and name-calling. grrarrgh00, your argument in the regular sized font was quite good, why did you just say that in the first place?
posted by Bag Man at 1:48 PM on February 14, 2003

FFF, thank you for our daily dose of hate and intolerance. FFF, you Bush and those decry proud. FFF, Your irony is great because its very posting contains so much irony too. I also thank you for anti-religion statement, gosh MIFI and our one-sided debate is better off for it.

I'm sorry, I'm quite sure I'm not fluent in whatever language you're speaking. Nonetheless, I think I discern some sort of discomfort with what you read, probably regarding my use of the term 'raghead.'

Be sure, I used that derogatory term quite deliberately, as a means to emphasize that I feel there creating a war in the mid-East is entirely irrational at this time. I feel that those who are pro-war are sick fucks who have dehumanized those who live in the mid-East and are going to extremes to justify their hatred.

As for your accusation of anti-religious content, you're wrong. Yes, I mock those who misinterpret the message of the Bible. That does not mean I mock the bible itself. Not this time, anyway.

Thanks for playing. Please preview your message before posting next time: I'm not likely to spend a lot of time attempting to interpret such non-sensical sentences again.

Everyone else: sorry for having participated in the derailment. My only excuse is that I thought it was fun to mock the creeps who claim righteousness on one hand, and deal death with the other.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:31 PM on February 14, 2003

The West doesn't give a rats ass about Muslim counties. Period. No - we will not rebuild Afghanistan nor Iraq (beyond the oil fields) nor Iran or whatever other Muslim held, middle east fuck pot we decide to stick our fork in.

Of course the west has demonstrated twice now our ability to rebuild countries - both with Germany and Japan after WWII -- but this comparison is totally false.

Japan and Germany were both scientific, industrialized, largely secular countries before they caught the smack down... rebuilding them was largely an academic economic process.

Such an environment does not exist in the Muslim world. Their citizens have never experienced an enlightenment, an industrial revolution, a world war, an information age.

These people are only a generation or two away from goat herding cave dwellers... not only can they not be "lifted up" - no one in the west wants to make the investment.

You can pick a bum up off the street. Feed him a seven course meal, dress him in a fitted tux, buy him a porsche and put him up in a midtown condo... but at the end of the day all you have is a well dressed bum.

Such is the truth of the Muslim world.
posted by wfrgms at 9:57 PM on February 14, 2003

What???! Cut down on your usage, wfrgms.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 6:51 AM on February 15, 2003

wfrgms, your racist ignorance burns holes in my heart. Such an environment does not exist in the Muslim world - except in Iraq, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and so on. A society doesn't have to be secular to be modern, industrialized, or high-tech. Imperial Japan during the time of the ruling junta had a state religion - Shinto - which held the emperor to be a god on earth. People were strongly encouraged to be fanatical in their devotion to the emperor, whose family had sat on the Chrysanthemum Throne for well over a thousand years. This was not a secular society. However, after American victory and occupation, it became one.

Also, Iran was not always so anti-American or hardcore about Islam. So when you say, Their citizens have never experienced an enlightenment, an industrial revolution, a world war, an information age, what exactly do you mean by "never"?

Besides, reconstruction does not necessarily mean industrialization or secularization. I personally would be satisfied if the U.S. just rebuilt the infrastructure that was destroyed in the wars of the last 20 years - roads, irrigation systems, etc. - and left a just and stable government behind. The amount of goodwill this would generate, not only in Afghanistan but potentially across the world, would significantly increase our national security. This is an achievable goal, and it is the right thing to do. All that is needed is the money and the will, but for actual compassionate behavior, G.W. has neither.
posted by skoosh at 8:38 AM on February 15, 2003

Also, Iran was not always so anti-American or hardcore about Islam. So when you say, “Their citizens have never experienced an enlightenment, an industrial revolution, a world war, an information age,” what exactly do you mean by "never"?

And if this article is correct (discussed here,) the U.S. is actually interfering with democratic reform and secularization in Iran.
posted by homunculus at 10:02 AM on February 15, 2003

five fresh fish, if wanted to insult me personally or my post without addressing the issues I raised you can send me an e-mail. FFF, thanks for paying pal and thanks for helping me prove my point about the close minded nature of many on the left. I was not referring to your use of the word "raghead," but rather your compete intolerance for any opinion other than your own and total lack of ability to express your ideas without getting personally insulting and trolling. FFF, you are as hate filled as those you decry or at least claim to decry. That FFF is the greatest irony of all. I hate the right because they are close minded, intolerant of all other views and axiomatically apply their dogma without regard to facts. I find it sad that many on the left are also close minded, intolerant of all other views and axiomatically apply their dogma without regard to facts. MIFI is not a market place of ideas or even a place for debate, but it is mostly a forum for a bunch of "Yes Men" just telling each other they are right.
posted by Bag Man at 10:10 AM on February 15, 2003

Whinge me a river, Bagman.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:50 PM on February 15, 2003

grrarrgh00 & skoosh,

Right after the Muslim attacks of 9-11 I was one of the many liberals who were beating the drum of equality and non-discrimination toward Muslims. Like many Americans I've taken a crash course in Islam and the middle east since 9-11. I now realize that the Muslim religion is incompatible with the modern world we live in.

The fact of the matter is that secularism is the foundation of democracy. Without a secular government there can be no democracy. Ergo, there can be no such thing as a democratic muslim held country. Muslims do not have a basis for understanding the value of a secularized government - therefore they will never reep the benefits of a democratic system.

Their religion simply does not acknowledge the principles of individual liberty, civil rights, the rights of the minorities and so on.

Skoosh - you're idea of simply rebuilding the infrastructure in Afghanistan is crazy... we have to do so much more than that - we have to introduce to them basic democratic ideas of liberty, freedom & secularism - other wise - ten years down the road we're still going to have the same problems from these rotten bastards.

And I resent being called a racist by you... I'm not racist. I think the muslim religion as a foundation for government and rule is equally bad whether you're a south-east asian or of middle eastern descent.

IT'S THE RELIGION, STUPID.
posted by wfrgms at 3:43 PM on February 15, 2003

Whinge me a river, Bagman.

Get a life, and thank you for providing additional fodder to prove your stupidity, lack of intelligence and inability to even confront the substance of an issue (you choose to resort to glib insults when the substance of your argument is proven wrong, real mature). FFF, it's too bad that your so called efforts to support an agenda I believe in is destroying the very chances it will succeed.
posted by Bag Man at 2:26 PM on February 16, 2003

Is this thread about Afghanistan any more? If it is...

The original post, the idea that the administration intended to provide no money for Afghanistan reconstruction, is simply not true. The BBC article is wrong. Hundreds of millions have already been spent on reconstruction in fiscal 2002, through various agencies, and more is budgeted for 2003.

Details here.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 10:49 PM on February 16, 2003

As noted above, we have thus far spent $136 million this fiscal year.

Well, I guess facts can't even stop the troll.
posted by Bag Man at 2:08 PM on February 18, 2003