You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).
The US reaps what it sows? [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

PDA

View Full Version : The US reaps what it sows?


Pootertoot
03-23-2002, 11:58 AM
Taken from the pages of the Washington Post, most shocking parts in bold:

<b>In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.

As Afghan schools reopen today, the United States is back in the business of providing schoolbooks. But now it is wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism. What seemed like a good idea in the context of the Cold War is being criticized by humanitarian workers as a crude tool that steeped a generation in violence.

Last month, a U.S. foreign aid official said, workers launched a "scrubbing" operation in neighboring Pakistan to purge from the books all references to rifles and killing. Many of the 4 million texts being trucked into Afghanistan, and millions more on the way, still feature Koranic verses and teach Muslim tenets.

The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books "are fully in compliance with U.S. law and policy." Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion.</b>

Organizations accepting funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development must certify that tax dollars will not be used to advance religion. The certification states that AID "will finance only programs that have a secular purpose. . . . AID-financed activities cannot result in religious indoctrination of the ultimate beneficiaries."

The issue of textbook content reflects growing concern among U.S. policymakers about school teachings in some Muslim countries in which Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism are on the rise. A number of government agencies are discussing what can be done to counter these trends.

President Bush and first lady Laura Bush have repeatedly spotlighted the Afghan textbooks in recent weeks. Last Saturday, Bush announced during his weekly radio address that the 10 million U.S.-supplied books being trucked to Afghan schools would teach "respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry."

The first lady stood alongside Afghan interim leader Hamid Karzai on Jan. 29 to announce that AID would give the University of Nebraska at Omaha $6.5 million to provide textbooks and teacher training kits.

AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.

"It's not AID's policy to support religious instruction," Stratos said. "But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity."

Some legal experts disagreed. A 1991 federal appeals court ruling against AID's former director established that taxpayers' funds may not pay for religious instruction overseas, said Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law expert at American University, who litigated the case for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ayesha Khan, legal director of the nonprofit Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the White House has "not a legal leg to stand on" in distributing the books.

"Taxpayer dollars cannot be used to supply materials that are religious," she said.

Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980

TheGameHHH
03-23-2002, 01:52 PM
I'm not sure I understand the article fully, but would I be correct in saying that way back in the 80's we were fighting communism, and in doing so we tried to stip up anti-communism propoganda in Afghanastan? What's so bad about that?

IT'S TIME TO PLAY THE GAME-AHHH!

<IMG SRC="http://wwfallon.homestead.com/files/RFnetTheGameHHH.jpg">
Thanks Fallon for the sig!

furie
03-23-2002, 02:22 PM
I think the term for this is "Nation Building." Something our government has been doing since the Spanish-American war.

Generally our efforts were successful because we were building a nation to be a future ally(or colony).

We took a diffrent approach this time, and look where it got us. A lesson for the ages; Watch what you teach the children, because they grow up.

good article though


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer.jpg" width=300 height=100 >
Thanks Fallon!

Sheeplovr
03-23-2002, 06:09 PM
I like the nixon story better



number 333 its the way to be
http://members.hometown.aol.com/_ht_a/walrus701/images/breadsig.jpg
POWER AND CHAOS

Captain Stubing
03-23-2002, 07:24 PM
I think it's easy to look retrospectivily and conclude that our foreign policy decisions suck (Iran, Iraq etcetc). What I'd like to see is for someone to come up with this kind of analysis prospectivly....without doing it 'Jean Dixon' style (i.e. 50 predictions, look 2 were right!!). It's typical Washington Post style to highlight the idea that some U.S. action, that seemed good at the time, created a Frankenstein monster (end of 3rd paragraph) '...that steeped a generation in violence'. Typical...no background, no framework provided to integrate the accusation into a broader context. <P>
How about giving at least lip service to Afganistans history of both internal and external tumult?? And, extending it slightly, maybe discussing how that history fed both their desire to fight the Soviets (whom they have had conflicts with before) as well as the U.S.?? I assume the WP understands this approach given that it uses it all the time with domestic issues (i.e. 'root causes'). <P>
Pooter, I agree that many of us who devote any thought to these issues get frustrated with what seems obvious, but what/who are we supposed to be angry with? Some people tend to get pissed at the people involved (I guess here that would be the Reagan/Bush/Clinton administrations). My take is that no one is capable of working out all of the possible permutations of any given policy decision (especially short and long term) and I assume that government plans will do what my personal plans do - some will work well, some will work like shit, and most will be somewhere in the middle. <P> <P> <P>

Fezaesthesia - Prognosis poor...

sexy bastard
03-24-2002, 05:33 AM
I thought everyone new about this...tis nto a shoock this country is great and all but we've been doingthis sicne the day the country was built.
The way it is is if it can benefit us with an ally or colony, or oil or diamonds or natural resources the government will always be the same


<img src=http://members.aol.com/leonj25/myhomepage/sb.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US>
the epitome of masculinity (yeah right)

PortugueseMark
03-24-2002, 05:33 AM
"touch and go foreign policy." - very true. I like to call it, "Slash and Burn Foreign Policy." Every Administration is pistol whipped by the military into f'ing up some country under some excuse, so that after blowing them up, we can make money of'em and then they grow up plotting American deaths. It's a cycle that will never end the way things are going. Which is why its stupid to say "We're going to end terrorism". Thats like if the president were to announce: "We are going to eliminate crime!" IMPOSSIBLE...

"They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn.
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn." - Ralph Chaplin

This message was edited by PortugueseMark on 3-24-02 @ 9:40 AM

Pootertoot
03-24-2002, 06:45 AM
There's nothing that makes me happier than seeing this board's potential for intelligent discourse on this board. Other than raping young, that is.

Cap'n, excellent critique of the article. We would all be better off if we had an unbiased history of those we were attacking. If we knew a little more about Afghanistan's sordid military past, and our own little ventures there (or lack thereof...the Taliban can do whatever they want to women until they make a move), we might not be so gung-ho to let other people get our "collateral damage" unchecked while we go back to watching Friends in syndication. We need to be involved insomething of this magnitude, actively. I'm willing to bet that most people wouldn't be able to tell you what CONTINENT Afghanistan is on, let alone point it out on a map.

We're all too quick to let the enemy be the enemy and nothing more. They're a dark force, an evil overlord that's somewhere over there that threatens to kill us all or subvert our lifestyle. While this works in the short term, meaning we get our revenge proper and eradicate the immediate enemy, in the long term it does more harm than good. It's all just a little bit of history repeating...World War I begat World War II begat the Cold War begat now...We go in, lay them to waste, then expect their children to be fine with it. Unfortunately, the result of our initial destruction is worse than what we destroyed. Sure, we beat the red menace...we out nuked 'em into submission, despite the fact that on numerous occasions they wanted total disarming of all nukes on both sides in an effort to make peace...and now we've got a poverty-stricken hodgepodge of pseudocountries selling nukes to our enemies in bulk. But the pinkos are gone, at least!

Teaching math with tanks and missles? Associating a heavily armed soldier with high praise from their god? What did we THINK was going to happen? Granted, you never really expect the hand that feeds them would be bitten, otherwise you wouldn't be feeding them, but when is warping the minds of innocent, impressionable youth EVER acceptable?!

<embed src="http://hometown.aol.com/slfcallednowhere/mario2.swf" width=300 height=100>
Censored, Because I'm a Responsible Moderator, who fucks children in the ass.

Dudeman
03-24-2002, 06:54 AM
I hate our fucking shortsighted touch and go foreign policy.


I agree. Foreign policy that is baised soley on our point of view, or on black and white view of the situation (ie. "axis of evil") are short sighted and ignorant. It is frustrating watching those who lack an appreciation of others' culture and history trying to shape a foreign policy (ie. W and powell.)

<IMG SRC="http://wwfallon.homestead.com/files/RFnetDudeman.jpg">
blinky has a central nervous system
thanks wwfallon!

NewYorkDragons80
03-24-2002, 08:23 AM
You do know what would have happened after the Soviets conquered Afghanistan don't you? They would have taken Iran, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia if we did not stop them. Then they would have had a good chunk of the world's oil (In addition to what Russia already had at home.) We would've had to pay Russia for oil, and they never would've gone bankrupt, the Cold War would rage on, and we would still be living in constant fear of nuclear attack today.

Another thing to keep in mind is that none of the 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan, therefore these books had nothing to do directly with the attacks.

It does upset me that we left Afghanistan after we won, though. The least we could have done is helped build a stable republic.

We live in the present, we dream of the future and we learn eternal truths from the past.
-Chiang Kai-Shek

"Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father."
-Senator John McCain



This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 3-24-02 @ 12:33 PM

furie
03-24-2002, 10:45 AM
It does upset me that we left Afghanistan after we won, though. The least we could have done is helped build a stable republic.


we were never really in Afganistan. A few CIA agents here and there. They acted as advisors and were not a fighting force, unlike the Vietnam "Advisors"


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer.jpg" width=300 height=100 >
Thanks Fallon!

NewYorkDragons80
03-24-2002, 12:53 PM
And that's the mistake we made. When the North overthrew Saigon, Russia was very active in the building of a communist government in Vietnam. We should have done this in Afghanistan.

If you were to ask a Russian soldier or an Afghani Communist, each would agree that American weapons defeated the Soviet occupation, not Osama bin Laden or any other members of the Muhjahadeen force. Probably the only group that would not make this claim is the Muhjahadeen because they refuse to even recognize that the "infidels" supplied them.

Just remember the Soviets were kicking some serious ass in the early years, just as we kicked ass in the beginning of Vietnam.

We live in the present, we dream of the future and we learn eternal truths from the past.
-Chiang Kai-Shek

"Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father."
-Senator John McCain

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 3-24-02 @ 5:02 PM