Re: Afghanistan after the war

From: Technotranscendence (
Date: Fri Nov 09 2001 - 19:00:16 MST

On Friday, November 09, 2001 5:18 PM Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> George W. Bush says he isn't interested in "nation-building". I read this
> to mean that after the war, Afghanistan will be left to become a rotting
> hellhole that will shortly fall prey to yet another religious warlord.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's hard to say, but this war looks to be like the
Cold War or the War on Drugs -- one that will probably outlast the President
and much of the leadership on all sides.

> Nation-building is the only strategy that ever worked for America. It is
> only natural to suppose that America will never use it again. The only
> hope for the Afghani is that the war drags on until 2005 and we get a
> better President.

Can you give any examples of nation-builing working? What exactly do you
mean by it?

> Sigh. Don't you wish McCain was in office right now?

NO! In fact, I wish he would just go into retirement.

If there was any good outcome of the 2000 elections it is that McCain did
not make it to the Presidency. Not only is he one of most corrupt
Senators -- hardly ever met a lobby he didn't like -- but his policy
perscriptions are basically just welfare statism all over again plus a good
dose of international interventionism. He's even hinted at being pro-Draft.
(See "Is the Draft in Your Future? Recruiting Shortfalls Reopen An Old
Debate" by Brian Mitchell reprinted from _Investors Business Daily_ 1999
February 19 issue at .) Even where
McCain has the best of intentions, his reforms would probably make things
worse or, at best, distract from the real problem. (See, e.g., "The
Corruption of Reform" by Jude Blanchette at .)


Daniel Ust

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:18 MDT