Thoughts - on ‘foreign policy’, terrorists, and power..
August 17, 2006 – 12:33 pmSo the discussion around ‘foreign policy’ - Ministers saying but of course we wouldn’t change our foreign policy just because of some stupid terrorist threat, or what some stupid people suggested has something to do with the threat’. Right - if that’s the only reason you were going to change what is agreed by most people as a highly unethical ‘foreign policy’ - (ooh i love that phrase - such a nice way of ‘externalizing’ and removing the problem one or two steps away - “but dear, it’s foreign policy” doesn’t affect us here”) - clearly it’s not good enough.
How clever though - the reason we heard so much about this fine phrase of not changing policy ‘because we don’t negotiate with terrorists’ - because then - if anyone does speak up about the lack of fit of being a democratic civilized nation and the shitty stuff that passes for foreign policy - why there’s a simple solution: Honey we don’t change policy to suit terrorists - okay? Even if it’s shit we gotta put up with it. We can’t be seen to be responding..
Well that might seem sensible except that it doesn’t seem to be understanding the point of terrorism. Which is to cause terror and gain power. If not ‘literal’ power of the sort governments have - power nonetheless - power over how people see themselves, what they believe in, what they will do for those beliefs etc. - i.e. moral authority. As i’ve said elsewhere, terrorists and governments have much in common - a guy like Bin Laden has plenty in common with politicians who want power over ‘their people’ - scaring your people, propaganda, etc. etc.
Terrorists are effectively similar to people who are career politicians - their end game is the same - terrorists use different means. ( and for those of you who believe the end justifies the means - think about this long and hard..) They’re all folks who basically in search of nation-states and the accompanying power and authority. ( remember what distinguishes the Nation-State from any other form of formal social organization - the monopoly on violence) So whilst some folks might not like my saying it like it is - some people use ‘legitimate’ roots of gaining power within the existing model - and some - who feel they can’t get power in the system - find other ways of grabbing power. Power - also - manifests itself in different ways. Essentially the ‘War on Terror’ gave Osama Bin Laden exactly what he wanted - to be seen as some sort of moral authority for Muslims. Machiavellian tactics in use here.
In any case - someone somewhere said if you magically wave a wand and change British foreign policy it wouldn’t mean the violence would end. Well - obviously, plumping for peace doesn’t mean all the violent idiots out there are never going to kill anyone any more. But it does mean that with less violence going about, we can spot the violence a mile off and say ah - this isn’t good, and in the process distinguish ourselves from these other criminals. otherwise one is permanently in the subjective state of oh well i can kill some people because I have justification, but these people cannot come and kill me which is fine for a lot of us clearly! but some of would rather be honest about the whole malarkey. In any case this is the basis for ‘law and order’ in ordinary society ‘within’ the nation-state - you can’t go about ‘taking the law into your own hands’ because if you do, you are as guilty as the other party. Anyway, this is obvious so the people who don’t get it aren’t really interested I suppose. Still the point remains that in trying to condemn terrorism for the shitty thing it is, state-sponsored violence gets in the way of being able to do this properly. Pure and simple that’s what it is. Not this business of ‘justifying’ terrorism - (which is actually what the countries are trying to do) but precisely the opposite - condemn terrorism and violence for what it is. If countries want to go about being violent - then obviously we ordinary individuals have tried but have not been able to stop them. Pointing to the cycle of violence which makes it much harder to stop future violence is hardly ‘justifying’ violence - precisely the opposite - you want to stop ALL kinds of violence! if you wanted to justify violence you wouldn’t be much interested in stopping the overall cycle. I guess a lot of people are just too dumb to see that or frankly = not interested in the overall picture. They could just be honest about that.
And ‘justification’ of violence is neither here nor there ( in a moralizing world it might be ) for those of us who’re interested purely and simply in providing a suitable environment to live in and enjoy ourselves however best we can - it doesn’t matter. We just want peace. I’m not bothered about ‘oh this person’s violence was good and this person’s was evil - that good and evil dichotomy is frankly nonsense and ‘religious’ if anything. All this moralizing again simply reminds me of the sort of thing that terrorists are supposed to be about. ‘Oh we have a glorious cause for our violence. Some say it’s democracy** ( hah ) and some say its their religion.’ Oh great. I’m not interested in either excuse thanks very much - no shrapnel or shards of glass in my skin is what i’m interested in! And being able to live to savour tomorrow.
Is this sooo difficult to understand? Surely not.
** Amusing sidenote: { ha- i suppose soon we’ll be hearing calls for ‘banning’ democracy because their proponents have resorted to violence in their pursuit of it - in a similar way we hear that religion must be banned because of all the people who’ve resorted to violence in their pursuit of it..} Golly its the sort of oxymoronic thing where anti-war protestors stage a ‘war’ with the other side to make their point. Oh then of course people would say ‘one should ban pacifism’. Really there’s no end to amusement - sit back and view the world..as long as we don’t take it seriously, you could fill a book with ‘can you believe they actually thought this one up..
32 Responses to “Thoughts - on ‘foreign policy’, terrorists, and power..”
Wow! It was wonderful reading your blog. It may be a limitation on my part, but I have not come across many ladies who are so interested and vocal about politics and world affairs. Amazing.
If I have sounded like a gender biased person, I assure you, that was not my intention.
By Potheek Aami on Aug 17, 2006
Hello Potheek Ami- thanks for your comment
So seriously - stick around this blog - look forward to seeing you again. I’m also curious as to your thoughts/ideas about one of my other posts - it’s posted on this site as well:
Bangladeshi Citizenship and Women
and I cross-posted it to my other blog on Pickled Politics - which received some comments. ( some slightly negative) Any thoughts from you would be very welcome. It’s an area that I only recently found out about - i’d imagined as a Bangladeshi woman I had equal rights under the Bangladeshi Constitution - which is the case - but for some reason, due to the language used in the 1951 Citizenship Act ( and then subsequently the 1972 Temporary Order ) there are inequalities as to how citizenship works for men and women. This seems to me a fundamental step for women’s rights in bangladesh..
By sonia on Aug 18, 2006
Could the problem be, that most people are linear thinkers ( i.e. cause => effect). And are not capable of thinking in terms of whole systems or even causal feedback loops. Looking around the internet at so many crazy polarized opinions - cheerleaders on one side or another of the of violent conflicts - I come to the conclusion that the vast majority of humanity is incapable of conceptualising something as complex (haha) as a “cycle of violence”.
Actually I can’t really bring myself to believe that people have such limited mental faculties - they must just cleverly avoid ever thinking about such a possibility.
By tom on Aug 18, 2006
The politicians we have at the moment are totally incompetent. US policy in the Middle East is a complete disaster and peace now seems further away than ever. We are not adapted to the complexity of the modern world. I agree that part of the problem is linear thinking. We never grasp the consequencs of those feedback loops.
By Leighton Cooke on Aug 18, 2006
Comrade, thanks for your comment in my blog. I will be waiting for your post on libertarian socialism, definitely.
By Tasneem on Aug 19, 2006
Hi everyone thanks for your comments. Tom - i think you’ve hit the nail on the head mentioning the problem with ‘Linear Thinking’.
also generally it appears to me that most people don’t seem to think about their underlying assumptions - and then we end up with this constant round and round the mulberry bush syndrome. if people could think harder about a) the vocabulary they use b) assumptions they have made and make this explicit and c) not assume that the other person also makes the same assumptions and also d) what epistemological considerations they may have/subscribe to.
which isn’t particularly easy or straightforward but still..! as you say Tom - it can’t be that people don’t have the mental faculty. possibly realizing the world’s complexity as you point out Leighton - is too much of an effort mentally. Or socially we’ve become conditioned to think things are much simpler than they are. this good/evil dichotomy one would think wouldn’t be so popular given the bad press ‘religion’ receives - but again, I think a lot of people don’t seem to realize that dogmatic beliefs aren’t the exclusive property of religion.
I have to say i have an interest in what is popularly referred to as ‘human nature’ - in many ways that’s why i’m interested in theories of the social and in general - multi-disciplinary thinking. we’re a complex species we are. that’s why i find social psychology so fascinating. there’s a great little book - Experiments in Social Psychology - which is simply presented and takes an interesting approach - ‘the seven mysteries’ - mystery of belief, mystery of intelligence, mystery of attraction etc. you get the general picture. the mystery of belief section is particularly intriguing.
By sonia on Aug 21, 2006
“Terrorists are effectively similar to people who are career politicians - their end game is the same - terrorists use different means. ”
—–
I am sorry to say this but this is the most atrocious reasoning that i have ever come across from Sonia’s generally decent blog.
How can anyone afford to compare a terrorist with a politician!!!! Has values of the British Asians fallen so low that they are now coming up with stupid generalizations that compare democratically elected politicians with gangs of murderers.
No civilized society is possible without politicians. We may not agree with the political views of many of our political leaders, but the only civilized way for us to so our disagreement is through participating in public debate and by exersising our right to vote at the time of elections.
A politician tries to convince his supporters by addressing issues that the public is concerned about. The politicians (in ideal cases) try to use reason and logic to win over supporters.
Whereas a terrorist wins power only through unleashing a regime of terror. He keeps killing people till the voice of opposition is stifled.
If “Comrade Sonia” cannot understand this simple difference between a terrorist and politician then I really have to pity the low lever of her erudition and intellect. I pity you guys.
By Amrevis on Aug 21, 2006
Aha mon ami Indian Capitalist..
..But I’m not British Asian
In any case, it is silly that such a generalization and group ‘Terrorists’ exist in the first place - clearly some individuals/groups engage in terror activities and some happen to be private individuals, some may be politicians, some may be governments. Obviously they have somethings in common, and are ‘different’ in other regards - as different Tom is to Dick as to Harry etc. I think that’s my point - different people/groups justify their actions with differing arguments based on their social context. Different lots of people have different criteria for judging how valid this is and whether they choose to accept the justification. It’s extremely complex and only straight line reductionists see it otherwise.
The fact is that a lot of people/groups have something to gain through ‘othering’ and linear thinking which leads to bipolarization of absolutely everything.
Say like…Mr. Bush and Mr. Bin Laden - and both made similar gains out of 9/11 politically as a result.
Ah well! Thanks for stopping by IC - how is your Raja Magazine coming along?
I do seem to be addressed as ‘Comrade Sonia’ quite a bit don’t I ?
Ah well again - what’s in a name? I don’t mind how people choose to see me - obviously everyone has a different interpretation of people they meet ( virtually i guess this is magnified)
By sonia on Aug 21, 2006
Agree with you - the only thing that legitimises the proper use of violence is the state’s monopoly of violence.. I don’t agree that the state should gave monopoly of violence, as it’s one way of understanding, organising power across society, but also, as I understand it, a western concept of the nation state, deriving in the main from European political thought. Trouble is we are stuck with it.
By Rowshan on Aug 22, 2006
Civilized politicians! What a great idea, IC. Just what we need. A civilized debate with a President who screams “Islamic fascists!” Sounds like quite an uphill climb.
By Leighton Cooke on Aug 22, 2006
It is most sad that we cannot learn the lessons of our youth. do unto others, Get along, play nice, if you’ve nothing good to say…don’t say anything, etc.
We are such creatures of habit that I am very surprised these lessons do not tend to override the “nuke `em” mentality, but alas, these lessons seem to get bombed each time they are most fit for use.
By thepoetryman on Aug 23, 2006
Agree with you Sonia. Ali Eteraz (somebody somewhere in yur article) made an interesting thought experiment, and I came to the same conclusion as you. If foreign policy changed in an ethical direction, those people who want a war for Islam wouldn’t be able to pose as liberators, would lose most of their appeal as protectors rather than aggressors and I wouldn’t feel stuck between two gangs of terrorists. But how we feel and what we believe might be irrelevant, in the sense that we are assuming it is a guide to general human nature, which I increasingly feel it is not. Let me make a detour to explain.
People want to portray my belief in ethical foreign policy as reactive, but I feel I have always held it, and even if I had not, I should start to do so consistently. My motives and consistently won’t really matter to people who want to find any argument to continue supporting violence, oppression and human rights abuses by their allies. They have just found a convenient way to stigmatise my point of view by connecting it to terrorists who make a similar point.
If ethics don’t cut ice with people, I might be tempted to try speaking to them in the terms they seem to prefer of realpolitik - and explain how it might be part of a hearts and minds strategy that Tony Blair seems keen on. But then they shift ground and say that it would be wrong to look as though they are reacting to terrorism. So they come across to me as looking for any excuse for violence. Just like those terrorists who we might imagine continuing a fight when the excuse of fighting oppression has been removed.
And this brings me back to Ali Eteraz’s point. Leading western politicians/terrorists will continue their actions whether or not there is evil perpetrated by eastern terrorists and they’ll have a lot of sympathisers even though it seems strange to me. So it may well be that people will sympathise and join terror groups even without the motivation of combatting injustices, however strange that also seems to me.
Sonia, we have to face that we think in strange ways - we do not share the widespread commitment to manipulating people through violence. We might always find it hard to understand why people do so, when they are clearly (to us) a mirror image of those they claim to oppose. But we have to keep trying to understand, because one thing I learn from watching these dramas is to guard against thinking I am immune from such evils. The same motivations are likely in all of us, and we have to keep working on them in ourselves. I think denying your own capacity for evil seems the surest way to make yourself susceptible to it.
By Arif on Aug 24, 2006
Last night we did some very giggly mushrooms in the Russian consulate. Somehow having Vladimir Putin as your landlord concentrates the mind. I was reminded of my family’s roots in the Rhondda coal mining valley and the sacrifices they made in the Second World War. Thanks to Mother Russia we have our freedom today. They fought for it in Stalingrad. Maybe this generation needs to be reminded of the fact that your enemy today was once your friend who helped you in your hour of need. British foreign policy was once acutely aware of this till Tony Blair ruined our reputation in the international community. At least France stopped the war in the Lebanon. Blair stood by in his designer swimming trunks and did nothing.
By Leighton Cooke on Aug 24, 2006
“Ah well! Thanks for stopping by IC - how is your Raja Magazine coming along? ”
—————
Raja Magazine has a great future. In the days to come this magazine will rise as a beacon of hope for the British Asians who have so far been deluded by the vitiated leftist ideology and can only think in “anti-civilizational” terms.
But as in any great enterprise, there are lots of hurdles to cross before one attains the final goal of lasting and enduring success. Me and my partner are going through a tough financial patch right now. We are tight for funds and hence I am planning to issue an appeal to the rich little creeps (Asians in UK) to fork out small sums of money to keep the magazine going.
It is only fair that the British Asians should be made to bear part of the financial burden for taking Raja Magazine to the next level where it can make a serious impact on our society. After all, the magazine has been started with the sole aim of awakening the British Asians to the basic facts of civilization.
It is sad that many people like Comrade Sonia and Comrade Leighton Cooke have to grow up thinking that politicians and terrorists are alike. How silly of them!
Politicians are a necessity. Why? Because only the politician has the power to translate public opinion into a government policy. No civilized society is possible without politicians.
Look at Middle East, the biggest problem with Middle East is that it does not have any politician. Middle East only has Oil Rich dictators who don’t give a damn about public opinion. Ah but I am probably barking up the wrong tree. The comrades on this blog love dictatorship, they probably even hope to be a dictator someday.
I will now appeal to all peace loving British Asians to donate liberally for the cause of RAja Magazine. Your money will be used for a good and worthy cause of global peace. Just paypal me your dollar, pound or any other currency at my email address indianaut@gmail.com.
By Amrevis on Aug 25, 2006
Spamming for donations, IC?
By Leighton Cooke on Aug 25, 2006
Comrade Leighton Cooke, I am only trying to fleece the rich comrade Sonia of some of her money. She has tons of greenbacks stashed away in the basement of her house and I am sure she won’t miss anything if she is made to donate a small part of her hoard to a great “socially relevant” enterprise like Raja Magazine.
And I think you should donate too, for a cultured magazine like Raja Magazine could benifit you too. You will get entertained as well as learn about a few new things.
By Amrevis on Aug 26, 2006
Sonia, you’re that rich and all you did was buy a house?! YOu should’ve bought a castle! Then you would have a dungeon to stash away your money in and Amrevis wouldn’t dare put one toe in the dungeon just to get your money. I’m telling you, buying a castle is with a dungeon as your bank is the best way to safeguard you’re money. If you’re searching for the perfect castle, I suggest you try somewhere in Translavania.
Actually, I’d go with Cinderella’s castle. It’s prettier.
So, when are you coming back to post on your blog?
By Bengali Fob on Aug 29, 2006
Comrade:
Are you still thinking about foreign policy? Come back and blog!
By Tasneem on Aug 30, 2006
Nice to see a blogger speak her mind so forcefully, with conviction, and a willingness to penetrate beyond the surface of an issue. As to the equation of terrorists with politicians, many of today’s politicians are far worse than the terrorists in terms of the numbers of people whose deaths they are responsible for. Peace can be imposed temporarily through fear, but can only be sustained by justice and mutual understanding. Sadly, those who would pursue justice and those who pursue power seldom travel in the same circles.
By SadButTrue on Sep 2, 2006
Sonia is furious that her secret wealth is revealed and people are starting to ask her for donations, even if it is for a good cause like Raja Magazine. That is why she has stopped posting on her blog.
By Raja on Sep 13, 2006
hello everyone!
i’m back..so sorry if anyone missed me overmuch, i’ve been off travelling the world! alas all good things must come to an end so i am back to real life. and the world of blogging…
thanks for all the comments - (some more amusing than others) - ho ho- and so sorry to disappoint any hopeful would-be-receivers-of-stashed-in-the-basement-cash. Perhaps I could ask my employers for some more money but i know what they’ll say ..’we’re a Charity’! Perhaps I need to join the world of Investment Banking?
just think of the amusing blog posts that could result - ‘today i dealt with x structured derivatives totalling $3.5 million’ Seriously though there was a guy who blogs about his life in some Bank i linked to a while back - very funny - all potential ‘we want to work for a Bank’ types ought to read very carefully..
( oh and FOB- I do like the idea of a transylvania castle..good suggestion! I have a feeling my other half may object though..he seems to think i’m way too much into the ‘horror’ genre as it is. Still I daresay the idea of a castle is just as good as the castle itself! Right i shall save going on about the principle of relativity with regards to happiness for some other time)
By sonia on Sep 17, 2006
you make some very pertinent points arif - though i don’t believe in the word ‘evil’! precisely because of what you say though -we contain the ability to do ‘dodgy’ things within us. ( people always seem to think of ‘evil’ in some external way) and any of us can become a ‘terrorist’ of some kind or other depending on the context. having been through a war has made me conscious of how easy it is to become a murderer. (I could’ve been one very easily, i think i was extremely lucky in not having had to.. )
and as Animal Farm points out, the pitfalls of power..
Personally i’ve always wondered how people can want the responsibility that comes with power. Phooey to that - I shouldn’t like it at all - I’d be up all night. I much prefer being a woolly dissident. I don’t think i like being ‘organized’ either - and i’m starting to think ‘antisocial-ist’ is more the thing than ’socialist’. ( ooh i wonder what IC would say to that?!) thing about ’socialism’ is that it is such a loose term it pretty much applies to all of human life - we’re social creatures and all sorts of arguments can fall under that loose term. Arguments like ‘oh yeah let’s nuke and vaporize Japan cos otherwise the war will carry on forever. This way we save more lives’ can be seen as a socialist argument. Taking the rights of some people away in order to benefit some other nameless ‘majority’ - all these sorts of dodgy things can be carried out in the name of socialism. So personally i’ve never seen much sense of this so called capitalism vs. socialism hoo ha.
By sonia on Sep 17, 2006
the concept of equity for individuals makes more real sense to me. and it’s that point that seems to be relevant in then thinking about equitable resource sharing - i.e. why it’s damaging for some entity to ‘own’ natural resources that each individual should be able to access.
i’m also very suspicious when it comes to abstractions over real individuals - don’t know what ‘blanket term’ that can fall under.
but then i’m a hermit who’d much rather live on a mountain than deal with fellow man. apart from to theorize and criticize of course..he heh. No doubt some would say i can’t deal with the reality of life, and there’s a good chance that’s probably true.
By sonia on Sep 17, 2006
Hello again sonia. Agree that the responsibility that comes with power is more hassle than its worth…. for someone with a conscience.
But there are compensations for others, such as satisfying an urge to dominate. And there are more complex moral motives, such as keeping people who would otherwise act very destructively out of power.
When push comes to shove, you would probably make the effort to support a lesser evil, even if you don’t consciously believe in evil “out there”. Wouldn’t you?
So even if you will steer clear of taking responsibility as a leader, there’s still your responsibility as a follower. And to say phooey to all of it is just as much of a moral decision. The people now in power won’t let you be a hermit, as they go about removing all models of living which aren’t consumerist and which stand in the way of resource exploitation… so surely it is in your interest to support the liberal who has a leadership complex against the neoliberal. And perhaps to support the conservative against the neoconservative.
And however much you might deny it, you are supporting them by developing the discourse which legitimises the unorthodox and delegitimises ideologies of coercion. The more people who populate the terrain of your blog, the more you have to stay awake at night to make sure that there isn’t a takeover by predatory capitalists or socialists….
What I have in your blog, that I don’t have in a nation state (or non-nation state), is a meaningful sense of voice and exit as options if I disagree. Perhaps that is something that foreign and domestic policy would focus on under the regime of the Sonia Party, allowing hermits and dissidents to go about their business unmolested.
By Arif on Sep 18, 2006
There is no such thing as the ‘Sonia Party’ - perhaps you’ve been taking Indian Capitalist’s comments too seriously?
Or perhaps you’re imposing your own view or reading too much between the lines…
Everything you say is ditto for yourself of course
And naturally by ‘being’ we - me - you- and everyone else - perpetuate the social contract we unwittingly find ourselves in. obviously..
Perhaps my language isn’t as self-effacing as you think it ought to be? I do apologize..but hey. It’s not the end of the world, could do ‘better’ in future but it’ll have to do for now.
By sonia on Sep 18, 2006
“The more people who populate the terrain of your blog, the more you have to stay awake at night to make sure that there isn’t a takeover by predatory capitalists or socialists….”
i’m not sure what you mean at all - if i didn’t have a blog i wouldn’t have to worry ? How would anything be different?
“And however much you might deny it, you are supporting them by developing the discourse which legitimises the unorthodox and delegitimises ideologies of coercion”
who says i denied ‘it’ > what’s ‘It’? Who is ‘them’? Perhaps you need to think more about what you say, just as I need to think about what I say. Of course you don’t have a blog..so perhaps you’re not staying up all night?
In any case I’m curious as to why you’re focusing on ‘me’ at all. Who am I in any case? Why not ‘yourself’? I’m quite interested..
By sonia on Sep 18, 2006
I don’t have any particular paranoia of ‘takeover’ or any such thing - perhaps Arif you see too many metaphors of the Nation-State wherever you go?
Words when written down seem to have more effect than when spoken - certainly you seem to take words voiced on this blog in some particular way - almost as if by speaking there is some obligation on your part to psycho-analyze ( which is a very entertaining past-time in itself!) in a rather deadly serious way - which seems to imply it might have been better not to speak at all. That’s my interpretation of a theme running through quite a few of your comments - and obviously there is a certain amount of truth to that - but again - everthing can be interpreted the other way - for example - not to speak could be open for another form of accusation that by not speaking you’re ’supporting Them’. It’s obvious that no matter what anyone says or doesn’t say they’re open to ‘accusations’. I personally think that’s part of the cycle so am fine with it. I find it fun! I don’t stay awake at night….( apart from maybe the odd giggle) But then again some people may shake their heads at my lightheartedness…!
By sonia on Sep 18, 2006
Sonia, I think you’re taking what I wrote a bit too seriously. I didn’t mean to accuse you of anything like setting up a party or whatever. Risking the chance I might be accused of over-psychoanalysing, I guess i take your tone to be quite light-hearted and so I thought my comments would also be taken light-heartedly. But reading back what i wrote I admit it is clunkily written like some sort of “i know what you are really thinking” rubbish. Sorry about that.
Just to make it clearer, i agree with your arguments to a spooky degree, and that’s why i commented… just to give you a flavour of the dilemmas I feel face me as a fellow-traveller.
I’m wondering whether protecting our spaces for dissent leads to questions about how this will be done. So you are write that when I write “you”, I really mean “I”. And, err, one is sorry for invading one’s identity!
What is a libertarian to do?
By Arif on Sep 18, 2006
** you are “right”, not “write”
Freudian slip?
By Arif on Sep 18, 2006
no doubt..!
By sonia on Sep 18, 2006
arif - well i thought you were playing devils advocate to a certain extent..( which you do quite often! heh heh ) and i was sort of responding to you on that level. i get your drift in general - i’ve had similar dilemmas ( all the time more like) and it often holds me back, which is often a problem. something to always keep in mind, but not to the extent where it stops one from doing anything. i do sometimes wish i had less of that sort of thing as then i could be much more ‘right this the problem and this is how we’re going to sort it’ sort of person.. i can see problems ( though i am not eloquent enough to relay this textually) but i can’t see many ’solutions’ that aren’t problematic in themselves.
ah well!
By sonia on Sep 21, 2006
very good discussion
By khamis alromaimi on Nov 24, 2006