"st3ph3nm" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
> > "st3ph3nm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >
> <snip>
> > Here we go again, blame the US.
>
> I'm not blaming the US. I am, however, pointing out that the US needs
> to recognise that some of it's policies in the past have helped bring
> us to the current situation.
Perhaps it's easy for you to focus on the side effects or errors of US
policy. For me, I look at what the French and others have done for years.
A direct and purposeful policy of looking the other way. They give santuary
to terrorists in exchange for immunity from terrorism. Talk about short
sighted policy.
How about countries that gave Saddam his leverage by going around UN
resolutions and trading under the table and using Oil For Food money in a
self serving way. All the while, Saddam spent the money on weapons and
palaces blaming the US for starving children.
>
> > It's easy to lean back and criticize the
> > US, which has been the one country that's provided the leadership and
has
> > paid the high price to make the world a safe place for democratic
societies
> > against despotism.
>
> Paid the high price? Make the world safe for democratic societies?
> Don't make me laugh.
Absolutey. Who's soldiers, tanks and aircraft faced the Soviets for 40
years? Whose ships and submarines stood ready? Who cut off Communist
advances? You may focus only on the bad things that occured in that effort,
but I'd rather have a mess to clean up or mistakes to fix than live under
tyranny.
It's naive to think this wave of militant Wahabist terrorism is a phantom
and isn't a threat to free societies. Again, the US is out front dragging
the world kicking and screaming. It's the Europeans and leftists who want
to get along with despots and terrorists; they were the ones with big
Saddam contracts. They don't see the connection between lack of freedom in
the middle east and terrorism; they see no connection between Saddam and Bin
Laden.
> Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
> Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
> How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
> Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
> elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
> they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
> elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
> is history.
>
You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history book
you read, but it ranks with mythology. Even so, these countries were never
really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and anti
communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not necessarily
to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what they
are now.
You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that went
bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US as
arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the right
thing to fight Communism.
> The US *has* done some great things. As you'll be happy to point out,
> they were the driving force behind ridding us of both Nazi and Soviet
> menaces.
Thank you, and I am happy to point it out.
> That's why I called the policies shortsighted, however.
> In their zeal to win the cold war, they didn't think about the long term
> effects of placing puppet dictators in control of oil rich nations, at
> the cost of freedom for the locals. Right now, we're seeing the
> results of those policies. You need to look at the big picture if you
> hope to see real change in the future.
The US didn't install puppet governments in the middle east. They supported
governments that were friendly to be sure. The stakes in the middle east
during the cold war couldn't be higher. The oil of the middle east was
vital to the western economy, which economy was vital to western democracy
and freedom. Had the middle east been in the Soviet camp, life in the
middle east would be far worse and life in the west wouldn't be
recognizable. That's the long view.
>
> If the US really was the big teddy bear uncle of freedom that you'd
> like to see it as, then why do so many people in the Arab war have an
> axe to grind? No smoke, as they say...
>
Because they see the US as a friend to Israel. These people have been
churned and manipulated to point to Israel (and thus the US) as the source
of their misery. Infidel is a powerful label in Islam. Germans were
likewise manipulated to hate and blame Jews for their misery post WWI.
>
> >
> > We all know that democratic government that recognizes the inalienable
> > rights of individuals and derives it's power from the consent of the
> > governed just "happens".
>
> Not if the CIA have anything to say about it. Not if the freely
> elected government leans more to the left than the US would like. And
> especially not if there's a whole lot of oil in the ground there.
>
Yeah, right. The CIA can't find anything better to do than run around
finding someone they can overthrow. Maybe Europe is next, they're hardly to
the right of the US.
> <snip>
> > Oh and by the way, oil fuels the WORLD economy... not just the US.
Global
> > demand for oil is what drives middle east politics, not any US desire to
> > rule over others.
>
> Which country is the most powerful in the world economy? Which
> country - understandably - wishes to protect its interests? US
> politicians answer to the US people. Don't make the mistake of
> believing the hype that the US is interested in looking after freedom
> and democracy beyond its own shores, however. Historically, the US
> has supported it where helpfull for it's own gain, and (sadly) crushed
> it where not.
The US has no more self interest than any other country in the world. The
need for oil is just as great in Europe and Asia as it is in the US. This
view of the US as some mindless monster of greed and gain is offensive and
wrong. The claim that the US itself has "crushed" freedom and democracy
just so it could gain some advantage is false and strange.
> >
> > > > and proliferation of WMD.
> > >
> > > Where?
> > >
> >
> > Now there's a famous last word.
>
> 6 months wasn't fast enough for the UN. All of a sudden it's okay for
> the US inspectors - who now don't have any opposition from the Iraqi
> government holding them up - to take longer?
> >
The proliferation of WMD is not just about Iraq. It's the defining threat
of the 21st century. The Wahabists have failed so far using pinprick car
bombs to chase the US away and to overthrow moderate Arab governments. They
need WMD. Unchecked, they'll acquire them someday from somewhere.
9/11 was the first non-pinprick attack and I'm sure they don't think they've
achieved their goals yet.
> > >
> > > They haven't used WMD to any great effect. The war on terror's
> > > biggest hit on the US was done with knives.
> >
> >
> > 1. I wasn't aware they had used WMD to any affect. But even so, the
whole
> > point is not to wait around until they do.
>
> Iraq *had* used WMD *within their own country*, some years back.
> Nevertheless, this is a spurious argument. Why shouldn't Pakistan
> invade India using the same argument? Why shouldn't China attack the
> US for the same reason?
>
Obvious, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). But then China and the US
aren't really threats to each other. Pakistan or India might well have
thought pre-emption to be in their interest, but they each have a lot to
lose in such a conflict.
Al Queda has nothing to lose and won't hesitate to strike a blow the minute
they have the capability.
HUGE difference. It's what makes MAD ineffective and pre-emption necessary.
> > 2. The War on Terror is being waged BY the US not against the US.
>
> It takes 2 sides to have a war. The "war on terror" is the easiest
> moniker to put to all this mess. Call it what you will.
It's an important distinction. Calling the 9/11 attacks a part of the War
on Terrorism is plain wrong and misses the whole point of the War on
Terrorism. It shows a lack of interest for and lack of understanding of the
US point of view.
>
> > 3. Assuming you mean the 9/11 terror attacks...... Uh, yeah... the
knives
> > weren't the problem.
>
> They weren't? THEY'RE the weapons that were used to take control of
> the flights, weren't they? What are you going to do, invade every
> country that builds Boeings? Or has the capability to build Boeings?
> Or has plans to develop the capability to build Boeings?
> >
I'm not sure I know where you're going here:
Hijacked, loaded with fuel 767's flown by terrorists were the problem. Those
were the weapons. Regular 767's flown by real pilots aren't a problem. It
makes no sense to invade a country that makes planes that could be hijacked
and flown into buildings. It does make sense to wage war on people who have
sworn your destruction and are credibly gathering together the ability to
attempt to do so.
It's bad enough to try to defend against hijacked planes. It yet another,
quantum levels more dangerous, to defend against real WMD. Our "friend"
Saddam has a long and proven history of developing WMD and the willingness
to recklessly use them. We tried for 12 years to deal with him
diplomatically and all he did was flip the world the finger.
Now I know "knives" got lost here, but they should because they're
irrelevent. Even if they were used to hijack the planes.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Steve
> >
> > Up yours.
>
> Please, don't get me wrong. There is much that the US has to offer,
> and there is much that I love about the USA. However, US foreign
> policy has been shortsighted in the past, and unfortunately, I don't
> see any signs of that changing now. It's alright for you guys,
> because the US government does it for you guys. But it ain't doing it
> for me, and it certainly ain't caring for the people of Iraq, Iran,
> Saudi Arabia, or even, really, Australia.
I'll try. But I just plain disagree with the thing about shortsightedness.
There were side affects to the cold war and some mistakes to be sure. This
War on Terror, in an overarching way, seeks to transform the middle east
from a hodge padge of dictatorships and monarchies and theocracies into
democratic societies. It's a very long sighted view. Is it right? I
believe it is. Will it work? God knows, but it's a worthy effort because
terrorism will never end as long as the middle east remains as it is.
Saddam was a logical choice to get rid of. What a jerk and how dangerous.
One hopes transforming Iraq into a successful democracy works. It paves the
way for other middle eastern countries to follow suit peacefully by showing
Islam and democracy work well together.
What is shortsigted is hoping for and fighting for US failure in Iraq. Or
doubting that the middle east could ever become democratic.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve
