Compassionate conservative Bush gives the murderous Taliban $43 million
June 8, 2001 10:51 AM Subscribe
Compassionate conservative Bush gives the murderous Taliban $43 million Did anyone else read this from Onlinejournal? This is a disgrace! For what reason would W want to curry any favors with the Talibans?
It is all a part of his faith-based charity. After all, how could he turn some down and give to others without liberals calling him a bigot?
posted by Postroad at 10:53 AM on June 8, 2001
posted by Postroad at 10:53 AM on June 8, 2001
Rafe has been following this story. It's a lot more complicated than it seems.
posted by dhartung at 11:53 AM on June 8, 2001
posted by dhartung at 11:53 AM on June 8, 2001
Far be it from me to defend the Bush administration or the Taliban --
which often seem like twins separated at birth -- but I felt compelled to
respond to the L.A. Times article on U.S. aid to Afghanistan and the
disingenuously *conservative* view it offers.
Afghanistan is suffering the effects of over 20 years of brutal civil
war, which as usual have been borne primarily by the civilian population.
Largely unknown to the rest of the world, which only hears about Afghanistan
in regard to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban's misogynist policies, the
country faces a humanitarian crisis of tremendous proportions.
Paleo-conservatives such as those in the Bush administration usually use
the arguments in the article as an excuse NOT to provide humanitarian aid to
countries whose policies they disagree with; never mind that the people who
are suffering did not devise the policies and (as the article points out)
have no power to change them. This is precisely the argument they make in
favor of continuing the sanctions against Iraq, and for not doing more to
help North Korea.
Thus, when the usually inhumane Bushmen actually attempt to do something
positive -- even if for wrong or misguided reasons -- we shouldn't
automatically jump at the chance to join those who would outflank them on
the right.
(I won't even go into the role that the U.S. played in promoting the rise
of Islamic militants in Afghanistan, the fact that many of the things that
the article decries occur in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
that are/were U.S. allies, that the Afghan economy was ruined long before
the Taliban came to power, or that, despite the author's wishful thinking,
the Taliban are hardly "at the breaking point".)
U.S. drug and foreign aid policies are a travesty; helping those who are
suffering around the world is not.
My $.02...
posted by Fstop at 12:21 PM on June 8, 2001
which often seem like twins separated at birth -- but I felt compelled to
respond to the L.A. Times article on U.S. aid to Afghanistan and the
disingenuously *conservative* view it offers.
Afghanistan is suffering the effects of over 20 years of brutal civil
war, which as usual have been borne primarily by the civilian population.
Largely unknown to the rest of the world, which only hears about Afghanistan
in regard to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban's misogynist policies, the
country faces a humanitarian crisis of tremendous proportions.
Paleo-conservatives such as those in the Bush administration usually use
the arguments in the article as an excuse NOT to provide humanitarian aid to
countries whose policies they disagree with; never mind that the people who
are suffering did not devise the policies and (as the article points out)
have no power to change them. This is precisely the argument they make in
favor of continuing the sanctions against Iraq, and for not doing more to
help North Korea.
Thus, when the usually inhumane Bushmen actually attempt to do something
positive -- even if for wrong or misguided reasons -- we shouldn't
automatically jump at the chance to join those who would outflank them on
the right.
(I won't even go into the role that the U.S. played in promoting the rise
of Islamic militants in Afghanistan, the fact that many of the things that
the article decries occur in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
that are/were U.S. allies, that the Afghan economy was ruined long before
the Taliban came to power, or that, despite the author's wishful thinking,
the Taliban are hardly "at the breaking point".)
U.S. drug and foreign aid policies are a travesty; helping those who are
suffering around the world is not.
My $.02...
posted by Fstop at 12:21 PM on June 8, 2001
The $43 million was not given to the Taliban, it is aid for drought relief in Afghanistan. The United Nations will be in charge of administering that aid, not the Afghani government.
However, it seems apparent that the UN is giving money to the Taliban to crack down on opium poppy farming. I read an article stating that the UN planned to offer the Taliban $25 million a year to put the poppy farmers out of business, but I haven't been able to discover whether the offer was actually made or accepted.
The US also might be giving drug aid to Afghanistan, but I haven't been able to find actual documentation of it anywhere.
The reason I believe that the UN (and/or the US) are paying the Taliban to crack down on opium farming is that the Taliban has done so, despite the fact that they used to be in the opium business themselves, and they used to let the opium poppy farmers grow and sell their crops unmolested.
posted by rafeco at 12:27 PM on June 8, 2001
However, it seems apparent that the UN is giving money to the Taliban to crack down on opium poppy farming. I read an article stating that the UN planned to offer the Taliban $25 million a year to put the poppy farmers out of business, but I haven't been able to discover whether the offer was actually made or accepted.
The US also might be giving drug aid to Afghanistan, but I haven't been able to find actual documentation of it anywhere.
The reason I believe that the UN (and/or the US) are paying the Taliban to crack down on opium farming is that the Taliban has done so, despite the fact that they used to be in the opium business themselves, and they used to let the opium poppy farmers grow and sell their crops unmolested.
posted by rafeco at 12:27 PM on June 8, 2001
hmmmmm, is it just me or is posting something from the likes of onlinejournal.com by an obvious liberal basicly the same thing as a conservative posting something from rushlimbaugh.com? I don't doubt that a rushlimbaugh article would get laughed off of MeFi, so obviously so should onlinejournal.com.
This would be almost as bad as posting junk from bushwatch.org. But, if that's what the people of MeFi want to see, I have plenty of "Clinton was an alien." sites. :)
posted by the_0ne at 10:31 PM on June 8, 2001
This would be almost as bad as posting junk from bushwatch.org. But, if that's what the people of MeFi want to see, I have plenty of "Clinton was an alien." sites. :)
posted by the_0ne at 10:31 PM on June 8, 2001
« Older | Great article Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Rastafari at 10:53 AM on June 8, 2001