RE: Bush budget has 0 dollars for Afghanistan

From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Tue Feb 18 2003 - 15:02:18 MST

  • Next message: Michael M. Butler: "Re: Increasing Reading speed, Please reply"

    From: Dehede011@aol.com [mailto:Dehede011@aol.com]
    > Well, Mez, we haven't propped up bin Ladden.

    Actually, we trained bin Laden and many others like him. We gave them
    money and weapons in the 80s to fight the Soviets. We even gave the
    Taliban money as recently as 2001 as part of the "War on Drugs".

    We've also propped up the corrupt and dictatorial Saudi regime that he
    hates.

    > We haven't propped up Sadaam.

    We did sell him chemical and biological weapons in contravention of
    international law. We did give him intelligence against the Iranians.
    We did give him permission to invade Kuwait.

    > As to the King that has taken over in Afghanistan apparently
    > he was the Afghani's choice in the sense that he was the
    > only one they would accept.

    Actually Afghanistan is administered by an elected president. There
    wasn't much support for giving the former king a role in the
    government. Afghanistan is exactly the kind of place we *should*
    support, because it's a young, fragile democracy.

    > Besides the US is always caught between getting
    > accused of proping up some one on the one hand or
    > throwing our weight around on the other. So
    > which is it?

    I think I've been very clear on this. I think the US should throw
    around its economic and cultural weight to encourage democracy,
    education, human rights, free press, economic growth, and free markets
    around the world.

    I must be over my posting limit by now, so I'm signing off for the
    day.

    cheers,
    mez



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 18 2003 - 15:04:50 MST