Drums of war mute Afghani peace message

General Ludd · March 20, 2003, 15:14

Quote:

UNITED NATIONS - An Afghan dentist who cycled halfway around the world to draw attention to the suffering that war has caused his country ended his 11-month ride in frustration Monday, his message of peace to the United Nations drowned out by the drums of war.

Nadir Shah Nangarhari, 36, with tears in his eyes, expressed disappointment that none of the U.N. press corps, or even an official U.N. photographer, captured the moment as he delivered a letter expressing the Afghan people's desire to live in peace and prosperity to the U.N. headquarters in New York.

"When there are a couple of shots fired in any corner of the world, everybody knows about it, but if I talk peace, no one is interested," he said through a translator. He worried that the utter devastation and abject poverty that war has brought to Afghanistan would be forgotten as the world's attention shifted to Iraq.

Nangarhari had never left Afghanistan before biking through Iran, Turkey, Europe and the United States. He speaks no European languages. Local Afghan communities and strangers often took him in, but he sometimes slept outside or in bus shelters or gas stations. A truck hit him in Turkey, causing memory loss and recurring headaches. A supporter in London bought him an airline ticket to Washington, where he resumed his journey to Ground Zero in New York and the United Nations.

After two decades of war, Afghans are lighting their homes with homemade oil lamps while the rest of the world surfs the Internet, Nangarhari told Assistant Secretary-General Gillian Martin Sorensen. People have to leave the country to get adequate health care, most of the population is illiterate, and even raising livestock is impossible because the animals are blown up by land mines, he said.

When asked about the looming war in Iraq, he said, "Our country has been so damaged we cannot concentrate on other countries." He added, "Long live peace. Long live love."

The cyclist said his wife is not angry he left her and his five children to deliver his message of peace, because his brother-in-law was killed by fighting.

An interesting story I stumbled apon while looking up some news, just thought I'd post it here. So, as they say, Discuss.

Note to mods: this isn't about the Iraq war, so keep control over yourselves.

SlowwHand · March 20, 2003, 15:25

Thanks for bringing this up.
It shouldn't have been lost in the press.
An excellent gesture.

Afghans will do fine, without Taliban pushing them around.

Sava · March 20, 2003, 15:28

Yeah, it's good the US killed the Taliban... if only they gave half a crap about helping the people build a decent society.

Arrian · March 20, 2003, 17:13

What Sloww said.

-Arrian

OneFootInTheGrave · March 20, 2003, 17:16

Well Afghans will do better without Taliban that is for sure but I don't see them as a land of peace or otherwise I don't see the west giving them a "marshall plan"...

Arrian · March 20, 2003, 17:20

The West promised a bunch of aid (whether or not that is enough I don't know), let's hope they come through with it.

It's too early to tell.

-Arrian

SlowwHand · March 20, 2003, 17:44

I'm for supplying aid, but it's the Afghan's country, let them set it up.
If they WANT advice, that's fine, too.

Traianvs · March 20, 2003, 17:48

It's not because the Taliban are gone that all is fine...

right now it's just chaos over there

SlowwHand · March 20, 2003, 17:54

Chaos is an improvement.

General Ludd · March 20, 2003, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Afghans will do fine, without Taliban pushing them around.

Too bad they still have the rest of the warlords around to do that.

Here are some other interesting articles I found

An American radio station demonstrates American-style freedom to an Afghan journalist

The newly installed Afghan government is hard at work ferreting out anti... er, pro-democrat factions

Quote:

The West promised a bunch of aid (whether or not that is enough I don't know), let's hope they come through with it.

It's too early to tell.

Happened to find an article dealing with just that, too. Says they're short a billion or two dollars.

On a completely unrelated note

didn't I read a few days ago that the USA was spending a few tens of billions of dollars on new nuclear weapons technology?

Amazing what you can find from surfing news sites. I ought to read the news more often.

RedFred · March 21, 2003, 01:30

The Taliban is down but not out. Neither are other warlords. The situation is very unstable and the whole world would benefit by helping the Afghanis in their time of need.

orange · March 21, 2003, 02:08

Quote:

Afghans will do fine, without Taliban pushing them around.

This is sooooo naive

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 03:18

Says the person supporting France...

Dis · March 21, 2003, 03:37

I'm going to ignore this guy too

Urban Ranger · March 21, 2003, 05:14

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Chaos is an improvement.

Uh huh.

/me checks Slowwhand's temperature.

Thought so.

Az · March 21, 2003, 05:18

so, UR, ANY kind of order is better than no order?

Urban Ranger · March 21, 2003, 05:22

Yes.

I point to you, Iran, which is attempting to become more moderate. On the other hand, Somalia and such countries without any government will take a very long time to go anywhere.

Ramo · March 21, 2003, 05:24

Quote:

I'm for supplying aid, but it's the Afghan's country, let them set it up.
If they WANT advice, that's fine, too.

Let who set it up? The Islamist raping/pillaging warlords that we're supporting in the name of anti-terrorism?

Urban Ranger · March 21, 2003, 05:38

Azazel,

You play Civ, you should know how important Code of Law is.

Az · March 21, 2003, 06:09

Quote:

I point to you, Iran, which is attempting to become more moderate. On the other hand, Somalia and such countries without any government will take a very long time to go anywhere

Iran's "attempts" are very limited. Besides, One could conjure a government more evil than the Islamic "republic".

Urban Ranger · March 21, 2003, 06:15

I agree. Think of it this way: harsh laws are bad not because of having laws, but because the actual laws (contents) are harsh. It's much easier to change the contents.

Az · March 21, 2003, 06:20

I definetly agree to to the reason of why harsh laws are evil, but my points is that at many instances it is better to have no laws ( actually, codes of behaviour are created spontaneously, so total chaos is rare), than to have extremely harsh ones. And easy to change the contents implies that someone at the top that will actually want to change them, which is, ahem, quite rare in places that employ those harsh codes of laws in the first place.

Urban Ranger · March 21, 2003, 07:57

Codes of behaviour are ethics, not laws. But I digress.

Change of laws do not necessarily entail the changes start inside the government. It can be brought on by a change of government, either violent or peaceful.