Full Version: America's foreign policies coming home to roost
Rev Wright got Obama in trouble for this remark:
You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back to you," Wright said at the National Press Club when asked about a speech in which he asserted the September 11 attacks were retaliation for U.S. foreign policy.
Now- without saying those that died on 9/11 "deserved it"
Isn't it reasonable to assume that our terrorist activities abroad (central America) , our supporting of despots and evil, oppressive goverments worldwide (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Once Saddam as well, Shah of Iran etc), our support of ethnic cleansing of one group at the expense of another (Kosovo comes immediately to mind) - isn't it reasonable to assume that we are practically inviting attacks on US soil for these policies?
So, the questions are- why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back to you," Wright said at the National Press Club when asked about a speech in which he asserted the September 11 attacks were retaliation for U.S. foreign policy.
Now- without saying those that died on 9/11 "deserved it"
Isn't it reasonable to assume that our terrorist activities abroad (central America) , our supporting of despots and evil, oppressive goverments worldwide (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Once Saddam as well, Shah of Iran etc), our support of ethnic cleansing of one group at the expense of another (Kosovo comes immediately to mind) - isn't it reasonable to assume that we are practically inviting attacks on US soil for these policies?
So, the questions are- why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 28 2008, 01:01 PM) 
Rev Wright got Obama in trouble for this remark:
You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back to you," Wright said at the National Press Club when asked about a speech in which he asserted the September 11 attacks were retaliation for U.S. foreign policy.
Now- without saying those that died on 9/11 "deserved it"
Isn't it reasonable to assume that our terrorist activities abroad (central America) , our supporting of despots and evil, oppressive goverments worldwide (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Once Saddam as well, Shah of Iran etc), our support of ethnic cleansing of one group at the expense of another (Kosovo comes immediately to mind) - isn't it reasonable to assume that we are practically inviting attacks on US soil for these policies?
So, the questions are- why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back to you," Wright said at the National Press Club when asked about a speech in which he asserted the September 11 attacks were retaliation for U.S. foreign policy.
Now- without saying those that died on 9/11 "deserved it"
Isn't it reasonable to assume that our terrorist activities abroad (central America) , our supporting of despots and evil, oppressive goverments worldwide (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Once Saddam as well, Shah of Iran etc), our support of ethnic cleansing of one group at the expense of another (Kosovo comes immediately to mind) - isn't it reasonable to assume that we are practically inviting attacks on US soil for these policies?
So, the questions are- why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
The only American citizens that think like Rev. Wright or justify his thinking on this issue fall into the crowd of "hate America". There is no grey area, you either love America and support America or you hate America. Rev. Wright and anyone who agrees with his reasoning hate America and are welcome to find a nation they can love.
why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Obviously it isn't verboten since you just did it.
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Why would you say 'we deserved it' if you didn't mean it?
The fact is, you didn't start anything. This is the way of the world and no country is innocent. The south American nations to which you refer were all doing the same thing, as were the Arabs the Africans, the Asians and the Europeans. This is the way the world has always been.
The problem seems to be a sense of guilt which doesn't wish to accept that people might have their own reasons for attacking you which have nothing what so ever to do with anything you or your nation did on your behalf. This sense of shame and guilt is no where more apparent than in the way Israel is held to a different standard than any of its Muslim neighbours.
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
Perhaps because 'foreign policy' is a term so broad and obscure that it cannot be identified only with those negative conotations you wish to associate it with?
Obviously it isn't verboten since you just did it.
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Why would you say 'we deserved it' if you didn't mean it?
The fact is, you didn't start anything. This is the way of the world and no country is innocent. The south American nations to which you refer were all doing the same thing, as were the Arabs the Africans, the Asians and the Europeans. This is the way the world has always been.
The problem seems to be a sense of guilt which doesn't wish to accept that people might have their own reasons for attacking you which have nothing what so ever to do with anything you or your nation did on your behalf. This sense of shame and guilt is no where more apparent than in the way Israel is held to a different standard than any of its Muslim neighbours.
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
Perhaps because 'foreign policy' is a term so broad and obscure that it cannot be identified only with those negative conotations you wish to associate it with?
QUOTE(moif @ Apr 28 2008, 01:10 PM)
why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Obviously it isn't verboten since you just did it.
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Why would you say 'we deserved it' if you didn't mean it?
The fact is, you didn't start anything. This is the way of the world and no country is innocent. The south American nations to which you refer were all doing the same thing, as were the Arabs the Africans, the Asians and the Europeans. This is the way the world has always been.
The problem seems to be a sense of guilt which doesn't wish to accept that people might have their own reasons for attacking you which have nothing what so ever to do with anything you or your nation did on your behalf. This sense of shame and guilt is no where more apparent than in the way Israel is held to a different standard than any of its Muslim neighbours.
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
Perhaps because 'foreign policy' is a term so broad and obscure that it cannot be identified only with those negative conotations you wish to associate it with?
Well said!Obviously it isn't verboten since you just did it.
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Why would you say 'we deserved it' if you didn't mean it?
The fact is, you didn't start anything. This is the way of the world and no country is innocent. The south American nations to which you refer were all doing the same thing, as were the Arabs the Africans, the Asians and the Europeans. This is the way the world has always been.
The problem seems to be a sense of guilt which doesn't wish to accept that people might have their own reasons for attacking you which have nothing what so ever to do with anything you or your nation did on your behalf. This sense of shame and guilt is no where more apparent than in the way Israel is held to a different standard than any of its Muslim neighbours.
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
Perhaps because 'foreign policy' is a term so broad and obscure that it cannot be identified only with those negative conotations you wish to associate it with?
Rev. Wright said, God says do unto others as you would have them to do unto you (I think that was Confucius?) but then he goes on to say you can't do terrorism on others and complain when they do terrorism on you, or something very close to that. He called America a terrorist nation, lets do a poll and see how many Americans consider America a terrorist nation.
So, the questions are- why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Probably because bringing up what consequences our policies in the Middle East forces us to say things like we support Judeo-Christian values over Muslim ones, which is true but no one wants to say outright. Also, I think we like to believe that we are universally liked/admired/envied. what did we hear for months to years after 9/11 happened? They attacked us because of our freedom. This allows us to condemn the attackers (which we should do) without looking to understand why they did it.
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Well, if you're gonig to play in everyone else's sandbox, you should expect someday people are going to start objecting. In a more civilized world, these objections would be verbal, financial, social, etc rather than physical. It's not fair or moral to kill thousands of innocent people over dissatisfaction witha govt's policies, but yes, we should expect that our enemies and adversaries may well do that.
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
Be specific about which foreign policies you find oppresive and evil.
QUOTE
The only American citizens that think like Rev. Wright or justify his thinking on this issue fall into the crowd of "hate America". There is no grey area, you either love America and support America or you hate America. Rev. Wright and anyone who agrees with his reasoning hate America and are welcome to find a nation they can love.
Not so sure about this. What does it mean to love your country anyway? I like my country. I choose to live here. I don't like everything it stands for. I try to make my community better in ways that I can. But feel-good statements like "America: love it or leave it" have no real meaning to me. And while I don't share Rev Wright's sentiments per se, I don't think he hates America either.
Does American foriegn policy make us legitimate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Of course, it can make us legitimate targets. And for most events, it has made us legitimate targets. We attempt to install economic, political and in some cases military hegemony in many parts of the world.......and then feign uproar when the indigenous victims of that hegemony fight back. It is a symptom of the lack of intellectual depth that this society has sunk to, when the rebuttal is summed up in bumper sticker phrases such as 'America, love it or leave it.'
A majority of Americans seem to believe that our society is somehow superior to any other and thus, reminiscent of manifest destiny, colonization and slavery, they support these actions becuase they love their country. This is followed by outrage, outrage I tell you, at the thought of anyone else asserting their own sovereignty or autonomy.
why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Because so many in our disposable consumer economy live by the tenets of bumper sticker ideology. The MSM, pundits and politicians tell us that we hate America if we question our collective actions, of actions taken in our name. Too many people are willing to live with intellectual cowardice instead of educating themselves. Thus, at this rate, our empire will eventually travel the same path as all empires before it.......
Of course, it can make us legitimate targets. And for most events, it has made us legitimate targets. We attempt to install economic, political and in some cases military hegemony in many parts of the world.......and then feign uproar when the indigenous victims of that hegemony fight back. It is a symptom of the lack of intellectual depth that this society has sunk to, when the rebuttal is summed up in bumper sticker phrases such as 'America, love it or leave it.'
A majority of Americans seem to believe that our society is somehow superior to any other and thus, reminiscent of manifest destiny, colonization and slavery, they support these actions becuase they love their country. This is followed by outrage, outrage I tell you, at the thought of anyone else asserting their own sovereignty or autonomy.
why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Because so many in our disposable consumer economy live by the tenets of bumper sticker ideology. The MSM, pundits and politicians tell us that we hate America if we question our collective actions, of actions taken in our name. Too many people are willing to live with intellectual cowardice instead of educating themselves. Thus, at this rate, our empire will eventually travel the same path as all empires before it.......
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 28 2008, 01:01 PM)
Rev Wright got Obama in trouble for this remark:
You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back to you," Wright said at the National Press Club when asked about a speech in which he asserted the September 11 attacks were retaliation for U.S. foreign policy.
Now- without saying those that died on 9/11 "deserved it"
Isn't it reasonable to assume that our terrorist activities abroad (central America) , our supporting of despots and evil, oppressive goverments worldwide (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Once Saddam as well, Shah of Iran etc), our support of ethnic cleansing of one group at the expense of another (Kosovo comes immediately to mind) - isn't it reasonable to assume that we are practically inviting attacks on US soil for these policies?
So, the questions are- why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back to you," Wright said at the National Press Club when asked about a speech in which he asserted the September 11 attacks were retaliation for U.S. foreign policy.
Now- without saying those that died on 9/11 "deserved it"
Isn't it reasonable to assume that our terrorist activities abroad (central America) , our supporting of despots and evil, oppressive goverments worldwide (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Once Saddam as well, Shah of Iran etc), our support of ethnic cleansing of one group at the expense of another (Kosovo comes immediately to mind) - isn't it reasonable to assume that we are practically inviting attacks on US soil for these policies?
So, the questions are- why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
1) Discussing, in a rational and civlized way, our foreign policy is of course legitimate; Saying "God Dayum America!!" , etc., and ranting and raving from the pulpit is not.
Ever since World War II, the cornerstone of US foreign policy was containing Soviet/Communist expansion. It made for some strange bedfellows and tactics, but I cannot say it was not an appropriate policy. Would anyone rather have permitted gross Soviet expansion?
We have also engaged off and on--now on--in a policy designed to insure Israel's right to exist and to insure stability in the oil producing regions. We have again supported some strange bedfellows and used unusual tactics to do this, but I cannot condemn the policy. Oil has flowed throughout the world, made many non-Americans very rich, and Israel still exists.
Also, we have been generous to a fault and have operated with a real conscience, which is validated every time we again self-examine ourselves in a way few other nations ever do.
2) Any powerful nation is a target, but to compare us, say, to the Soviets is ridiculous. We STILL have much greater moral authority than they ever had.
3 I do not see our foreign policy as "oppressive" or "evil". That said, I do not blame others for attacking us; I do blame ourselves for blaming ourselves instead of simply acknowledging an enemy and defeating them. A nation should pursue its self-interest, as to do otherwise is to betray its own citizens.
QUOTE(quick @ Apr 28 2008, 03:09 PM)
A nation should pursue its self-interest, as to do otherwise is to betray its own citizens.
That's only true to an extent. When the policies enacted and pursued in the name of self interest - directly cause blowback and creates harm and damage to American citizens and property, since that self interest is at the expense of others, isn't that also betrayal?
QUOTE(Zack @ Apr 28 2008, 09:09 AM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 28 2008, 01:01 PM)
Rev Wright got Obama in trouble for this remark:
You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back to you," Wright said at the National Press Club when asked about a speech in which he asserted the September 11 attacks were retaliation for U.S. foreign policy.
Now- without saying those that died on 9/11 "deserved it"
Isn't it reasonable to assume that our terrorist activities abroad (central America) , our supporting of despots and evil, oppressive goverments worldwide (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Once Saddam as well, Shah of Iran etc), our support of ethnic cleansing of one group at the expense of another (Kosovo comes immediately to mind) - isn't it reasonable to assume that we are practically inviting attacks on US soil for these policies?
So, the questions are- why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back to you," Wright said at the National Press Club when asked about a speech in which he asserted the September 11 attacks were retaliation for U.S. foreign policy.
Now- without saying those that died on 9/11 "deserved it"
Isn't it reasonable to assume that our terrorist activities abroad (central America) , our supporting of despots and evil, oppressive goverments worldwide (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Once Saddam as well, Shah of Iran etc), our support of ethnic cleansing of one group at the expense of another (Kosovo comes immediately to mind) - isn't it reasonable to assume that we are practically inviting attacks on US soil for these policies?
So, the questions are- why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
The only American citizens that think like Rev. Wright or justify his thinking on this issue fall into the crowd of "hate America". There is no grey area, you either love America and support America or you hate America. Rev. Wright and anyone who agrees with his reasoning hate America and are welcome to find a nation they can love.
Moif- when I say "verbotten"- look at the above response- even though I am a veteran, pay my taxes, do all the things Americans are supposed to do- I must "hate" America because I have seen first hand our evil in the world. My evil experiance was in Central America
- where Reagan employed terrorism against the civilian population in supporting the contras, who raped, burned and killed innocent women and children with great zeal as a form of entertainment. Yet, I "hate America" because I say we were not only wrong, but really, really bad, to the point of evil.
Does a German obviously "hate America' for acknowledging the evil of hitler in his countries past?
Also- our involvement in Guatemala, for the sake of the Chiquita banana corp, Pinochet and the Shah of Iran are all very clear evidence of the outright evil of the US foreign policies- but to mention them as such, I must "hate America".
The verbotten issue is not of goverment censure- nope, it is of an immediate cultural reaction that the mere MENTION of coming to terms with our wrong doing is blamed as "hating America".
You note that it also menaces the questioner as a "traitor" that should "find some place else to live"
However- thrown back at them- for instance- since you support the Iraq war, I believe we should treat you just like an Iraqi citizen- kill off portions of your family, blow up your house and force you to flee to live in poverty in Syria or Lebanon (because that is a BETTER place to live!) - they get all upset. Why, is it "worth" the Iraqi citizen's sacrifice, while asking the same of someone like Zack is wrong?
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Moif- when I say "verbotten"- look at the above response- even though I am a veteran, pay my taxes, do all the things Americans are supposed to do- I must "hate" America because I have seen first hand our evil in the world.
I understand your frustration, but I wonder why it matters to you what Zack thinks. Don't your constitutional rights give you free leave to ask such questions? Aren't they more important than Zach's opinion, which I do not sympathise with by the way.QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Yet, I "hate America" because I say we were not only wrong, but really, really bad, to the point of evil.
I don't think you hate America. On the contrary, your willingness to question your country's actions speaks of prudent responsibility.I'm not sure your right in your analysis, but thats another matter altogether
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
The verbotten issue is not of goverment censure- nope, it is of an immediate cultural reaction that the mere MENTION of coming to terms with our wrong doing is blamed as "hating America".
I'd say it was a form of intellectual denial to hide behind patriotism or to accuse people of not being patriotic because you feared the implications of their words. At the same time, you must remember that nationalists get just as much (and in Europe far more) criticism for their opinions. Its not as if your detractors are not themselves feeling a certain amount of pressure. More often than not I feel as if I am labelled all manner of bad things because I don't accept what I see as the insidious bias of the socialists.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
However- thrown back at them- for instance- since you support the Iraq war, I believe we should treat you just like an Iraqi citizen- kill off portions of your family, blow up your house and force you to flee to live in poverty in Syria or Lebanon (because that is a BETTER place to live!) - they get all upset. Why, is it "worth" the Iraqi citizen's sacrifice, while asking the same of someone like Zack is wrong?
Because Iraq is not America. Zach lives in a country which is not governed by violence and oppression. Iraqi citizens have to be prepared to make sacrifices if they wish a viable state, and every opinion poll undertaken apears to suggest that is exactly what they want. They're just not too enthusiastic that it is the Americans (aka kuffar) who are giving it to them so their a surly bunch and they keep their heads down when the fanatics are about (and they seem to have a lot of fanatics for a country which under Saddam Hussein was considered 'secular').
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 28 2008, 10:01 AM)
Rev Wright got Obama in trouble for this remark:
You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back to you," Wright said at the National Press Club when asked about a speech in which he asserted the September 11 attacks were retaliation for U.S. foreign policy.
Now- without saying those that died on 9/11 "deserved it"
Isn't it reasonable to assume that our terrorist activities abroad (central America) , our supporting of despots and evil, oppressive goverments worldwide (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Once Saddam as well, Shah of Iran etc), our support of ethnic cleansing of one group at the expense of another (Kosovo comes immediately to mind) - isn't it reasonable to assume that we are practically inviting attacks on US soil for these policies?
You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back to you," Wright said at the National Press Club when asked about a speech in which he asserted the September 11 attacks were retaliation for U.S. foreign policy.
Now- without saying those that died on 9/11 "deserved it"
Isn't it reasonable to assume that our terrorist activities abroad (central America) , our supporting of despots and evil, oppressive goverments worldwide (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Once Saddam as well, Shah of Iran etc), our support of ethnic cleansing of one group at the expense of another (Kosovo comes immediately to mind) - isn't it reasonable to assume that we are practically inviting attacks on US soil for these policies?
So, the questions are- why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Let's say verboten in most circles in America. Because Americans don't want to face their history and anyway we don't usually suffer the 911 type consequences of our foreign actions so it does seem kind of historically unfair. It would be objectively unfair if foreigners who are adversely affected by us could play the Washington political lobby game. Then at least they could take their anger in a democratic direction. Not having that opportunity the left out look to other opportunities to advance their grievances.
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Legitimate isn't a word I would use. Understandable more fits the bill.
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
Have you heard the expression "follow the money"? I think when the financial benefits no longer are there we will start getting a lot more objective. Until then justifying our interests, as if we and a few allies are the only ones who have any, will remain the main purpose of political expression and action.
QUOTE
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
We will always be a target – that the enemy considers “legitimate” – so our support of Israel is the major reason for Osama – as well as our troops in SA. Should we not have defended Saudi Arabia? We have done nothing to “deserve” attacks like 9/11.
QUOTE
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
Such as? Opposing Saddam – real evil there???? Trying to get the Palestinians and Israelis together – and by the way supporting both with billions/year.
What the heck are you talking about that has to do with al Qaeda?
QUOTE(moif @ Apr 28 2008, 03:10 PM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Moif- when I say "verbotten"- look at the above response- even though I am a veteran, pay my taxes, do all the things Americans are supposed to do- I must "hate" America because I have seen first hand our evil in the world.
I understand your frustration, but I wonder why it matters to you what Zack thinks. Don't your constitutional rights give you free leave to ask such questions? Aren't they more important than Zach's opinion, which I do not sympathise with by the way.QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Yet, I "hate America" because I say we were not only wrong, but really, really bad, to the point of evil.
I don't think you hate America. On the contrary, your willingness to question your country's actions speaks of prudent responsibility.I'm not sure your right in your analysis, but thats another matter altogether
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
The verbotten issue is not of goverment censure- nope, it is of an immediate cultural reaction that the mere MENTION of coming to terms with our wrong doing is blamed as "hating America".
I'd say it was a form of intellectual denial to hide behind patriotism or to accuse people of not being patriotic because you feared the implications of their words. At the same time, you must remember that nationalists get just as much (and in Europe far more) criticism for their opinions. Its not as if your detractors are not themselves feeling a certain amount of pressure. More often than not I feel as if I am labelled all manner of bad things because I don't accept what I see as the insidious bias of the socialists.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
However- thrown back at them- for instance- since you support the Iraq war, I believe we should treat you just like an Iraqi citizen- kill off portions of your family, blow up your house and force you to flee to live in poverty in Syria or Lebanon (because that is a BETTER place to live!) - they get all upset. Why, is it "worth" the Iraqi citizen's sacrifice, while asking the same of someone like Zack is wrong?
Because Iraq is not America. Zach lives in a country which is not governed by violence and oppression. Iraqi citizens have to be prepared to make sacrifices if they wish a viable state, and every opinion poll undertaken apears to suggest that is exactly what they want. They're just not too enthusiastic that it is the Americans (aka kuffar) who are giving it to them so their a surly bunch and they keep their heads down when the fanatics are about (and they seem to have a lot of fanatics for a country which under Saddam Hussein was considered 'secular').
Moif- there are some things of your culture I will probably never understand- I am thinking you don't understand that you really can't talk about this publically without villification on a public forum- such as a discussion on the news or what not- Rev Wright has said that he was quoting an Iraqi about "god damn America"- but the very fact that he broached the subject is too much for America to bear in a public forum without there being cries of "hating America"- just look how people STILL believe Obama is a Muslim sleeper agent- and believe me- there are ALOT of republicans that believe this.
If you look at the morons that believed the swift boat liars line of bull- I mean, you REALLY have to be okay with whack job conspiracies to buy into it- you realize how easy this plays into political mechinations of party politics.
I can BARELY speak of it here- no , I don't give a fig about whatever Zack says- but he still has the same knee-jerk reaction as most Americans have when you even BEGIN to critisize American foriegn policy as anything but our god given responsibility to bring light and goodness to the entire world through our benevolent actions of peace and love and to stop the advance of tyranny anywhere.
Watch the responses on this board- there will be folks that will deny ANY portion of US foriegn policy that portrays the US in ANY bad light.
Some are so cut and dry evil behavior that it is ridiculous that there is even a protestation otherwise.
US behavior in Central America is some of the worst behavior one can imagine, on the level of the worst dictators in history- we directly led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents throughout central and south America- for no good reasons whatsoever than usually protecting US markets.
We were clearly complicit in Pinochet's riegn, and even put him in power, and propped him up. Same with the Shah of Iran- an especially shameful behavior on our part- that leads to Iran's opposition to this day. Without our interference in Iran, we may not even have an enemy, and possibly not even a religious leadership there- they were definately on the path to a much more moderate govermen before we subverted it.
Guatemala is possibly one of the MOST outright evil actions of the US foriegn policy :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala
In 1954, Arévalo's freely elected Guatemalan successor, Jacobo Arbenz, was overthrown by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état. Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas was installed as president in 1954 and ruled until he was assassinated by a member of his personal guard in 1957.
It was during this time that rightist paramilitary organizations, such as the "White Hand" (Mano Blanca), and the Anticommunist Secret Army, (Ejército Secreto Anticomunista), were formed. Those organizations were the forerunners of the infamous "Death Squads." Military advisers of The United States Army Special Forces (Green Berets) were sent to Guatemala to train troops and help transform its army into a modern counter-insurgency force, which eventually made it the most sophisticated in Central America.
We trained and encouraged death squads Moif, provided funding and training for them to do so. Not exactly the good guy eh?
IN Nicaruaga was some of our worst behaviors, supporing the contras, which were mostly members of Somoza's National guard- an organization as brutal as Franco's Fascists or Hitlers Brownshirts. They pocketed aid during the Manugua earthquake crisis. They killed tortured and killed all opposition- and made 9 parties illegal to hold on to power. When those scumbags were overthrown- we supported the Contras- thugs and evil humans that matched Jeffery Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy in morallity- but were far more prolific in thier killing and raping of innocent human beings.
For gawds sake Moif- we used DRUG TRAFFICKING to fund the contras, allowing them to import cocaine to the US simply to fund the contras!
Yet, it is unconcievable to most US citizens that we were even the bad guy there
Our support of the death squads of El salvador - well, it just goes on and on.
The US engaged in outright terrorism that killed FAR FAR FAR more innocent lives than 9/11 even came close too
but to even mention this in a mass media public forum makes you subject to calls that you must "hate America".
Your politican aspirations can be killed just for being LINKED to someone that suggests that US may have been the bad guy in foriegn policy in another country.
Zack is just the usual response you get- he IS the mainstream reaction to this. Heck, we even had one member that actually went so far as to help fund the Swift boat liars. And they see no shame in this-
in fact, they even go so far as to try and find a good reason for the Vietnam war- like, um, why again? Heck, they didn't even have oil!
Our greatest weakness as a nation Moif, and one a European has trouble understanding sometimes in my life experiances MOif- is this inability to come to terms with our bad behavior, and accept that we did wrong and change this.
I wish America could come to terms withour terroristic and imperialistic past similar to what the Germans have done with Nazism- we could repudiate it, and attempt to make laws so that it can't happen again, and repudiate and condemn those that created these policies, so as a nation, we can heal too and move on.
QUOTE(Ted @ Apr 28 2008, 07:29 PM)
Should we not have defended Saudi Arabia? We have done nothing to “deserve” attacks like 9/11.
We defended an oppressive, anti-liberty monarchical regime. Is that so different than Saddam's Iraq? It seems that you're greed for oil and American hegemony is so great that we should simply annex all nations that we wish. Colonization for all, sovereignty for none?
DTOM- folks like Ted also conveniantly forget the Saudi's were the ones on the airplane during 9/11- not a single Iraqi there. He forgets the fact that Wahibism, the extreme sect of Islam that Osama belongs too- comes from Saudi Arabia. He forgets that the Saudis are the #1 financial supporter of terrorism world wide. They also provide the Mullahs that preach the hate around the world. He also doesn't recognize that it is a brutal and oppressive regime on par with any of the "bad" ME countries- and in many ways- more oppressive towards Saddam, which was more "free" than Saudi culture, well for most of the folks not a royal anyway.
Ted likes to throw around the terms "freedom" and "stability" in regards to our actions in foriegn countries- but forgets that we usually overthrow the democratically elected group to put in the evil dictator.
And Ted- we were the ones that authorized the sale of chemical weapons to Iraq- need I remind you of the pick of rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands?
We were cool with him right up to the point he invaded Kuwait.
Kuwait, BTW- they deserved what they got- another autocratic theocracy that was brutal and oppressive. Heck, Saddam even had a legit claim to that area!
Ted, I don't support Saddam, the Saudi royalty, the Iranian theocracy, the Israel socialist policies of ethnic cleansing and relocations, or any other regime in the ME, and it is time we just bought thier oil and left them alone. If exxon gets thier stuff taken- too bad so sad. The oil will still get to market without them.
Low gas prices for Ted's SUV is not a reason for even one US soldier's death.
Ted likes to throw around the terms "freedom" and "stability" in regards to our actions in foriegn countries- but forgets that we usually overthrow the democratically elected group to put in the evil dictator.
And Ted- we were the ones that authorized the sale of chemical weapons to Iraq- need I remind you of the pick of rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands?
We were cool with him right up to the point he invaded Kuwait.
Kuwait, BTW- they deserved what they got- another autocratic theocracy that was brutal and oppressive. Heck, Saddam even had a legit claim to that area!
Ted, I don't support Saddam, the Saudi royalty, the Iranian theocracy, the Israel socialist policies of ethnic cleansing and relocations, or any other regime in the ME, and it is time we just bought thier oil and left them alone. If exxon gets thier stuff taken- too bad so sad. The oil will still get to market without them.
Low gas prices for Ted's SUV is not a reason for even one US soldier's death.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Moif- there are some things of your culture I will probably never understand- I am thinking you don't understand that you really can't talk about this publically without villification on a public forum- such as a discussion on the news or what not- Rev Wright has said that he was quoting an Iraqi about "god damn America"- but the very fact that he broached the subject is too much for America to bear in a public forum without there being cries of "hating America"- just look how people STILL believe Obama is a Muslim sleeper agent- and believe me- there are ALOT of republicans that believe this.
Language can often be more powerful than the sum of its words. I'm not impressed by rev Wright's out bursts either, especially not when I read whom he voices his support for. QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Some are so cut and dry evil behavior that it is ridiculous that there is even a protestation otherwise.
US behavior in Central America is some of the worst behavior one can imagine, on the level of the worst dictators in history- we directly led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents throughout central and south America- for no good reasons whatsoever than usually protecting US markets.
We were clearly complicit in Pinochet's riegn, and even put him in power, and propped him up. Same with the Shah of Iran- an especially shameful behavior on our part- that leads to Iran's opposition to this day. Without our interference in Iran, we may not even have an enemy, and possibly not even a religious leadership there- they were definately on the path to a much more moderate govermen before we subverted it.
Yes, but as I've said before, the USA was not alone in this behaviour. Other countries acted to assist Pinochet and the Shah of Iran also. US behavior in Central America is some of the worst behavior one can imagine, on the level of the worst dictators in history- we directly led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents throughout central and south America- for no good reasons whatsoever than usually protecting US markets.
We were clearly complicit in Pinochet's riegn, and even put him in power, and propped him up. Same with the Shah of Iran- an especially shameful behavior on our part- that leads to Iran's opposition to this day. Without our interference in Iran, we may not even have an enemy, and possibly not even a religious leadership there- they were definately on the path to a much more moderate govermen before we subverted it.
What your saying is essetially true, but your ignoring the greater context. You make it sound as if the USA were a dictatorship that acted alone and purely for selfish reasons. Your ignoring the very fabric of global politics in order to isolate your own country that you might feed your guilt.
This is the way the world is. Its always been like this and it most probably always will. Which country do you think has acted any better?
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Guatemala is possibly one of the MOST outright evil actions of the US foriegn policy :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala
In 1954, Arévalo's freely elected Guatemalan successor, Jacobo Arbenz, was overthrown by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état. Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas was installed as president in 1954 and ruled until he was assassinated by a member of his personal guard in 1957.
It was during this time that rightist paramilitary organizations, such as the "White Hand" (Mano Blanca), and the Anticommunist Secret Army, (Ejército Secreto Anticomunista), were formed. Those organizations were the forerunners of the infamous "Death Squads." Military advisers of The United States Army Special Forces (Green Berets) were sent to Guatemala to train troops and help transform its army into a modern counter-insurgency force, which eventually made it the most sophisticated in Central America.
We trained and encouraged death squads Moif, provided funding and training for them to do so. Not exactly the good guy eh?
Of course you did CR. What other option do you think was available to you? Do you really suppose that if the USA had remained aloof anything would have been any different? Do you really believe America can remain unsullied by the rest of the world? That if the USA had left well alone, it would not have long since been swallowed up by socialism as happened just about every where else on this planet?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala
In 1954, Arévalo's freely elected Guatemalan successor, Jacobo Arbenz, was overthrown by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état. Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas was installed as president in 1954 and ruled until he was assassinated by a member of his personal guard in 1957.
It was during this time that rightist paramilitary organizations, such as the "White Hand" (Mano Blanca), and the Anticommunist Secret Army, (Ejército Secreto Anticomunista), were formed. Those organizations were the forerunners of the infamous "Death Squads." Military advisers of The United States Army Special Forces (Green Berets) were sent to Guatemala to train troops and help transform its army into a modern counter-insurgency force, which eventually made it the most sophisticated in Central America.
We trained and encouraged death squads Moif, provided funding and training for them to do so. Not exactly the good guy eh?
I understand your indignation, I honestly do. Its a horrible thing to have to come to terms with, but the fact is, our free democratic nations are built on exploitation, murder and tyranny. When you get down to brass tacks, there has never been a viable state that could survive without exploiting other people. Its the law of nature imposing itself onto our unwilling human ideals.
We want to be free. We want peace and stability and prosperity and all the good things in life. The trouble is, we can't all have those things. There isn't enough resources on this planet to go around. How you deal with this is up to you, but the fact is, you can be an idealist and give away all you have to the poor and see how far that gets you, or you can be a realist and accept that you must feed on others in order to survive, just as any other animal does.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
For gawds sake Moif- we used DRUG TRAFFICKING to fund the contras, allowing them to import cocaine to the US simply to fund the contras!
This is exactly what I mean. Drugs are coming into the USA regardless of whether or not you want them too. American vice fuels this industry. This influx of South American drugs is a resource that can be ignored and allowed to fuel your enemies or it can be subverted to pay for your goals. To you thats evil. I put it to you that you believe it is evil because you can afford to believe that. Some one else has already acted to give you the freedom to think that. In my opinion, you have not offered any viable alternative to the horrific truths you've mentioned, here and else where. Your point of view is always one of outrage, never comprehension.
QUOTE(Cruising Ram)
Yet, it is unconcievable to most US citizens that we were even the bad guy there
Our support of the death squads of El salvador - well, it just goes on and on.
The US engaged in outright terrorism that killed FAR FAR FAR more innocent lives than 9/11 even came close too
And kept millions of Americans safer and more prosperous than any country in history. Honestly now CR, what would you rather have seen? The USA surrounded by communist countries? ...because you do realise your talking about the Cold War right? You do realise that all those banana companies, which seem so evil, are in fact the instruments of capitalism that helped to defeat the socialists in South America? Its not just about some fat suits getting richer still by calling in the CIA. Its about war, and not just any war, its about the war that is called the fight for survival. Our support of the death squads of El salvador - well, it just goes on and on.
The US engaged in outright terrorism that killed FAR FAR FAR more innocent lives than 9/11 even came close too
We are animals. We fight and kill in order to live. All of our ideals, our talk, our John Lennon style, 'give peace a chance', doesn't stop another person from breaking into your home with an AK 47, shooting you dead, raping your wife, then shooting her dead and dragging off your children to be slaves. Only military strength prevents that from happening.
The thing you have to remember is, other people don't think like you do. People have their own motives, their own perspectives and their own agenda's. You are not going to prevent other people from killing you by being nice to them.
QUOTE(Cruising Ram)
but to even mention this in a mass media public forum makes you subject to calls that you must "hate America".
Your politican aspirations can be killed just for being LINKED to someone that suggests that US may have been the bad guy in foriegn policy in another country.
When the stakes are as high as survival, then of course. What do you expect? I wouldn't vote for him either. Your politican aspirations can be killed just for being LINKED to someone that suggests that US may have been the bad guy in foriegn policy in another country.
QUOTE(Cruising Ram)
Zack is just the usual response you get- he IS the mainstream reaction to this. Heck, we even had one member that actually went so far as to help fund the Swift boat liars. And they see no shame in this-
in fact, they even go so far as to try and find a good reason for the Vietnam war- like, um, why again? Heck, they didn't even have oil!
Vietnam was a just war. It was fought to halt communism and essentially thats what it did. No country ever went communist after they saw what befell Vietnam. Americans like to think it was a bad war because they think they lost. The maudling self pity over 65,000 deaths blinds the eye to the truth. Americans defeat might be the accepted wisdom in the USA, but the fact is, America won the Cold War because of Vietnam. Everything after 1975 was just the inexorable collapse of international communism. in fact, they even go so far as to try and find a good reason for the Vietnam war- like, um, why again? Heck, they didn't even have oil!
The trouble with you Americans is your so soft and pampered that you can't stop whining about losing a few soldiers in the wars which keep you soft and pampered. You've reached the problem faced by every victorious nation throughout history. Victory brings the good life and the good life makes you soft hearted. You can now indulge yourselves with lazy moral debates regarding the guilt of victory whilst the barbarians are hammering your gates down.
What good will your morals do you when your senate, like that of Rome, is a prize for enemy soldiers to sack?
QUOTE(Cruising Ram)
Our greatest weakness as a nation Moif, and one a European has trouble understanding sometimes in my life experiances MOif- is this inability to come to terms with our bad behavior, and accept that we did wrong and change this.
Thats a fairly common perception CR. The thing is, when you do begin to accept your failings on a political level, thats when things start to unravel. I don't know if your familiar with the UK, but its political intellectuals long since embraced the 'we're so evil, we're the bad guys' line your selling here, and its led to the UK being exploited by every third worlder who can rub two coins together to pay for a ticket north. The same thing is happening all over Europe. Third worlders exploit European guilt over colonialism and Nazism to get consessions we give away at the expense of our own children.
QUOTE(Cruising Ram)
I wish America could come to terms withour terroristic and imperialistic past similar to what the Germans have done with Nazism- we could repudiate it, and attempt to make laws so that it can't happen again, and repudiate and condemn those that created these policies, so as a nation, we can heal too and move on.
Germany today has a popuation of eight million Turks, and they are the fastest growing segment of the German population. That is the legacy of Germany's repudiation. Germany, like most of Europe is being steadily eroded by Muslim colonisation and no one dares say anything because we're bombarded by people who marginalise us as racists, if we do.Weakness in the natural world gets you eaten. Its that simple.
QUOTE(Zack @ Apr 28 2008, 01:09 PM)
The only American citizens that think like Rev. Wright or justify his thinking on this issue fall into the crowd of "hate America". There is no grey area, you either love America and support America or you hate America. Rev. Wright and anyone who agrees with his reasoning hate America and are welcome to find a nation they can love.
Complete and utter nonsense. All this "love it or leave it" jive is a bunch of crap and it makes me want to puke.
You look at America like a 5-year-old in kindergarten. You learned how to put your hand over your heart and memorize the Pledge of Allegiance and face the correct direction when the flag goes by. But you bought into this myth that everything America does is right and just and fair and on the side of the angels and you accept everything and question nothing.
Question everything. Every stripe, every star, every word spoken. Everything. ~ Ernest Gaines
You think you love America? You don't love America. You love the myth of what America is just like you still love Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. You hang onto your pitiful and pathetic dream America like a frightened child clutching their teddy bear in the dark as the thunder and light roils overhead. Real patriots love America for all her virtues and forgive her flaws. They know she's not perfect and she could always be better, but that kind of love is tougher than your blind love, Zack. It requires faith in this nation and the possibility that American can be as great as its promise.
People like you Zack, aren't part of the solution. You don't even see the problem. You've confused blind obedience to governments with love of your country.
You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it. ~ Malcolm X
There is no gray area? Are you kidding, Zack? America is nothing BUT gray areas. The flag should be red, white, blue and gray.
I agree with Reverend Wright that the evil we do to others results in evil being done back to us. Anyone who doesn't understand the history of America's involvement with evil knows nothing about this nation's foreign policy and should retreat from this thread to an area of knowledge they do something about---like guessing who will win American Idol or something equally unimportant.
Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. ~ Mark Twain
You crack me up with this snotty "either you love America and support or you hate America" garbage. Neither you nor anyone else on this board is qualified to tell me I do not love my country because I say your statements are full of crap. There are a few like Dontreadonme or Aquilla or some other veterans who can start the conversation, but nobody has standing to call my love for my nation into question. What qualifies you to say Reverend Wright hates America? He served his country. Have you?
The enemy of the truth is often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. ~ John F. Kennedy
But even if you have, that doesn't make you the High Commissioner on Who is a Patriot and Who is Not.
People like you Zack aren't new. The technology and the speed by which you spread your frightening and vaguely dangerous bile is, but the message isn't. Wrap yourself in the flag and attack the patriotism of better men than yourself. It's a old, tired rap, but you aren't the first to accuse Black men of not loving America the same way White men do and you damn sure won't be the last.
PAUL ROBESON: I stand here struggling for the rights of my people to be full citizens in this country and they are not. They are not in Mississippi and they are not . . . in Washington. . . . You want to shut up every Negro who has the courage to stand up and fight for the rights of his people. . . . That is why I am here today. . . .
MR. SCHERER: Why do you not stay in Russia?
MR. ROBESON: Because my father was a slave, and my people died to build this country and I am going to stay here and have a part of it just like you. And no fascist- minded people will drive me from it. Is that clear?
Reverend Wright is part of this country too Zack and he's not going anywhere. He won't be evicted by small-minded people like you, so seeing how he's not going anywhere, maybe YOU might want to get on the first slow boat to China where your repressive perspectives will fit in very nicely.
I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually. ~ James Baldwin
So, the questions are- why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Because one of the founding tenets of American life, never mind politics, is "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all". I don't know where this comes from - I suspect it was a reaction among European Americans - especially English Protestants to persecution in Europe and an attempt to leave behind the divisions that drove them away from their home countries.
Whereever it arose, it is now deeply embedded in the American psyche - the kind of banter and mickey-taking that is par for the course in ordinary conversation in Europe (especially Britain & Ireland) is usually seen as the height of rudeness in the USA.
And it feeds through into national discourse, where the automatic assumption is made than any criticism of something - anything - automatically means that the critic is an ideological opponent of what he or she is talking about.
This idea infects critics too - people who generally like an idea but think it would work better if X, Y & Z were different tend not to make their suggestions in public, for fear that the receiver will latch onto the criticism and get defensive. This feeds back into the criticised
The whole culture (and not just in America, though it's thinking that originated there) is that we are't supposed to criticise the actions or behaviours of other people (without being really careful to phrase it in a psychology-industry-approved "non-judgemental" fashion), meaning we all turn a blind eye to bad behaviour for fear of causing offence or trouble.
And trouble is made more likely because nobody is used to being told to stop doing anything, or to do anything they don't like or enjoy, any more, from childhood onwards. Nobody gets told "No!".
As a trite example, film reviews tend to be either four or five stars or one or two. In part that's their function; they aren't supposed to be a constructive exercise to help the filmmakers improve their efforts next time, they're there to tell punters which films they might want to see or avoid.
In short - everyone is defensive, all the time, because we have lost the ability to handle criticism constructively. So if you say "this policy was bad" or "this war is bad" what other people hear is "everyone who supports this policy or this war is bad" which is, usually, not what the critics mean.
Of course, some critics really ARE just hating on the whole concept of what they are cricitising. And often they'll say the same things as people who are just pointing out flaws in an otherwise worthwhile idea. The only way to tell the difference is to engage in discussion - so closing things down with "you just hate George Clooney/chicken liver pate/books/America" is as every bit as negative and unproductive as the (small) minority of critics who are solely motiated by hatred for the object of their criticism.
Philosophically I tend to avoid thinking about things in terms of there being good or bad people, good or bad countries, good ro bad religions, etc. It's much more productive to talk about whether the things they do are good or bad - though most people still insist on assuming you must be intrinsically and wholly bad. You can be the most sainted and well-loved-by-your-family person to walk the earth, but if all you ever do in the world is steal, cheat, lie and hurt, don't be surprised if you are not welcomed whereever you go.
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
As has been mentioned, "legitimate" is the wrong word, because terrorism is - by definition - an illegitimate action. Killing people - except in straightforward self-defence - is generally a bad idea. If people are trying to attack America because America has killed or is trying to kill them and theirs...? Well defending themselves and attacking US troops taking part may (or may not) be understandable or even justifiable, depending on the circumstances. Nobody was surprised when - say - German soldiers in Normandy in 1940 shot at them, or Iraqi soldiers in March 2003 did the same. And nobody really thought any the less of the particular people involved for doing so.
Bombing, shooting or "executing" uninvolved civilians in retaliation for civilians being bombed, shot or "executed" is not usually legitimate. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
Because very few people have the maturity to accept that whether someone is good or bad has very little to do with them doing good or bad things.
America, on the whole, is a force for good in the world. Militant Islam, on the whole, is not. It's important not to forget that.
But it's also important not to conflate that to assume everything America does is good just by definition of who is doing it - the end does not justify the means unless there are no consequences* - and defeating communism in South America (or elsewhere) could almost certainly have been done without putting mass murderers into positions of power simply because they didn't like communism either. Or to extend the "good" to include everything
Even everything Militant Islam does is not bad just because the people doing it are "bad". Feeding & clothing people in Gaza may be a necessary Machiavellian move to gain their support for more hatfeul policies, but Hamas do at least use some of the money they get to feed and clothe people. Sure, they use the rest to arm and indoctrinate them - those are the bad things that need to be criticised.
* Even good things can have bad consequences; failure to plan for the possible consequences of actions in foreign policy or in any other area of activity is one of the biggest human failings. IT was certainly America, being made up of humans, is little better at this than any other country.
Because one of the founding tenets of American life, never mind politics, is "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all". I don't know where this comes from - I suspect it was a reaction among European Americans - especially English Protestants to persecution in Europe and an attempt to leave behind the divisions that drove them away from their home countries.
Whereever it arose, it is now deeply embedded in the American psyche - the kind of banter and mickey-taking that is par for the course in ordinary conversation in Europe (especially Britain & Ireland) is usually seen as the height of rudeness in the USA.
And it feeds through into national discourse, where the automatic assumption is made than any criticism of something - anything - automatically means that the critic is an ideological opponent of what he or she is talking about.
This idea infects critics too - people who generally like an idea but think it would work better if X, Y & Z were different tend not to make their suggestions in public, for fear that the receiver will latch onto the criticism and get defensive. This feeds back into the criticised
The whole culture (and not just in America, though it's thinking that originated there) is that we are't supposed to criticise the actions or behaviours of other people (without being really careful to phrase it in a psychology-industry-approved "non-judgemental" fashion), meaning we all turn a blind eye to bad behaviour for fear of causing offence or trouble.
And trouble is made more likely because nobody is used to being told to stop doing anything, or to do anything they don't like or enjoy, any more, from childhood onwards. Nobody gets told "No!".
As a trite example, film reviews tend to be either four or five stars or one or two. In part that's their function; they aren't supposed to be a constructive exercise to help the filmmakers improve their efforts next time, they're there to tell punters which films they might want to see or avoid.
In short - everyone is defensive, all the time, because we have lost the ability to handle criticism constructively. So if you say "this policy was bad" or "this war is bad" what other people hear is "everyone who supports this policy or this war is bad" which is, usually, not what the critics mean.
Of course, some critics really ARE just hating on the whole concept of what they are cricitising. And often they'll say the same things as people who are just pointing out flaws in an otherwise worthwhile idea. The only way to tell the difference is to engage in discussion - so closing things down with "you just hate George Clooney/chicken liver pate/books/America" is as every bit as negative and unproductive as the (small) minority of critics who are solely motiated by hatred for the object of their criticism.
Philosophically I tend to avoid thinking about things in terms of there being good or bad people, good or bad countries, good ro bad religions, etc. It's much more productive to talk about whether the things they do are good or bad - though most people still insist on assuming you must be intrinsically and wholly bad. You can be the most sainted and well-loved-by-your-family person to walk the earth, but if all you ever do in the world is steal, cheat, lie and hurt, don't be surprised if you are not welcomed whereever you go.
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
As has been mentioned, "legitimate" is the wrong word, because terrorism is - by definition - an illegitimate action. Killing people - except in straightforward self-defence - is generally a bad idea. If people are trying to attack America because America has killed or is trying to kill them and theirs...? Well defending themselves and attacking US troops taking part may (or may not) be understandable or even justifiable, depending on the circumstances. Nobody was surprised when - say - German soldiers in Normandy in 1940 shot at them, or Iraqi soldiers in March 2003 did the same. And nobody really thought any the less of the particular people involved for doing so.
Bombing, shooting or "executing" uninvolved civilians in retaliation for civilians being bombed, shot or "executed" is not usually legitimate. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
Because very few people have the maturity to accept that whether someone is good or bad has very little to do with them doing good or bad things.
America, on the whole, is a force for good in the world. Militant Islam, on the whole, is not. It's important not to forget that.
But it's also important not to conflate that to assume everything America does is good just by definition of who is doing it - the end does not justify the means unless there are no consequences* - and defeating communism in South America (or elsewhere) could almost certainly have been done without putting mass murderers into positions of power simply because they didn't like communism either. Or to extend the "good" to include everything
Even everything Militant Islam does is not bad just because the people doing it are "bad". Feeding & clothing people in Gaza may be a necessary Machiavellian move to gain their support for more hatfeul policies, but Hamas do at least use some of the money they get to feed and clothe people. Sure, they use the rest to arm and indoctrinate them - those are the bad things that need to be criticised.
* Even good things can have bad consequences; failure to plan for the possible consequences of actions in foreign policy or in any other area of activity is one of the biggest human failings. IT was certainly America, being made up of humans, is little better at this than any other country.
Happened upon a relevant quote that summed up my previous post better than I did. From Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury:
As Noam Chomsky has written, the US government thinks that it owns the world (Chomsky could have added that Israel thinks it owns the Middle East and America). Americans can wallow in indignation over China's occupation of Tibet, but be perfectly content with America's occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel can wax eloquently about "Palestinian terrorism" while its military and Zionist settlers terrorize Palestinians.
Americans see no hypocrisy in "their" government's damning of Russia for opposing the incorporation of former Russian satellites and constituent parts in a US military alliance.
Americans see manifest destiny, not US aggression, when "their" government drops bombs on Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Pakistan. Americans do not think it is aggression for them to develop war plans to attack Iran or China or N. Korea or whomever, or to maintain hundreds of military bases all over the globe. The same Americans work themselves into hysterical frenzies over "Iranian influence in Iraq" and "al Qaeda plans to bring the war to America."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_...war_morphs_.htm
As Noam Chomsky has written, the US government thinks that it owns the world (Chomsky could have added that Israel thinks it owns the Middle East and America). Americans can wallow in indignation over China's occupation of Tibet, but be perfectly content with America's occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel can wax eloquently about "Palestinian terrorism" while its military and Zionist settlers terrorize Palestinians.
Americans see no hypocrisy in "their" government's damning of Russia for opposing the incorporation of former Russian satellites and constituent parts in a US military alliance.
Americans see manifest destiny, not US aggression, when "their" government drops bombs on Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Pakistan. Americans do not think it is aggression for them to develop war plans to attack Iran or China or N. Korea or whomever, or to maintain hundreds of military bases all over the globe. The same Americans work themselves into hysterical frenzies over "Iranian influence in Iraq" and "al Qaeda plans to bring the war to America."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_...war_morphs_.htm
QUOTE
As Noam Chomsky has written, the US government thinks that it owns the world (Chomsky could have added that Israel thinks it owns the Middle East and America). Americans can wallow in indignation over China's occupation of Tibet, but be perfectly content with America's occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel can wax eloquently about "Palestinian terrorism" while its military and Zionist settlers terrorize Palestinians.
Odd that you would agree with a person who quotes Chumpsky – who is a dedicated Commi.
How is the Chinese domination of Tibet the equivalent of what we have done in Afghanistan?.
QUOTE
Americans see no hypocrisy in "their" government's damning of Russia for opposing the incorporation of former Russian satellites and constituent parts in a US military alliance.
So you see a problem in countries brutalized by Russia with literally MILLIONS murdered by the worst monsters in world history – like Stalin – wanting to be part of an alliance that would prevent this from reoccurring?
You have to be kidding sir.
And yet Ted, you still fail to post anything but your typical ten second blindly patriotic talking points, liberally sprinkled with juvenile name calling and faux outrage. Are you capable of understanding the concept of blowback? The concept that many of our actions are the defintion of hypocrisy when supported by us but condemned when other nations do the same?
Every nation uses the cover of 'good intentions' to mask exploitation; America is no different. Gas prices may be high, but luckily for you, an open mind costs nothing......
Every nation uses the cover of 'good intentions' to mask exploitation; America is no different. Gas prices may be high, but luckily for you, an open mind costs nothing......
QUOTE
And yet Ted, you still fail to post anything but your typical ten second blindly patriotic talking points, liberally sprinkled with juvenile name calling and faux outrage. Are you capable of understanding the concept of blowback? The concept that many of our actions are the defintion of hypocrisy when supported by us but condemned when other nations do the same?
And DTOM you routinely do exactly what you accuse me of as above.
Yes I do understand the concept of blowback. We support Israel – Arabs and people like Bin Laden hate us for it. But is it black and white as you imply – no way. And what is your solution – have one? Should we just dump Israel?
And as usual you do the one line attack without answering my question. How the hell is Poland joining NATO the moral equivalent of anything the Russians did to them or the world? Or anything we ever did including some of our misguided support of anti Communists around the world?
How about some “blowback” for our work in Bosnia – while the UN watched – good or bad? And lets look at the world today as some clamor for us to rush to Darfur. 300,000 dead and the UN is sitting on their butts waiting for???? Ya the US to come fix it.
I do agree with you on one thing – time for us to concentrate only on our VITAL interests – like the ME and to hell with the rest. Let the UN actually do something for a change
QUOTE(Ted @ Apr 29 2008, 08:12 AM)
And DTOM you routinely do exactly what you accuse me of as above.
Senility must be setting in and I've missed my own childish name calling. Perhaps you could point it out for me?
QUOTE
How about some “blowback” for our work in Bosnia
How about some blowback from our work in Central America, South-East Asia and more importantly, Iraq? It's easy to point out the few less than dishonorable facets of American foreign policy, while turning the blind eye towards the seedier and criminal aspects isn't it?
QUOTE
I do agree with you on one thing – time for us to concentrate only on our VITAL interests – like the ME and to hell with the rest.
I don't think we quite agree. Would you be in favor of removing every regime in the Middle East that is not in the American pocket, to insure unfettered access to oil? And to violently repress any movement of nationalism or sovereignty that would oppose us? You know, the similar spirit of sovereignty, freedom and liberty that we had when we overthrew our colonial masters in 1776? Do you agree or disagree that people around the world should be free to live under the government of their choice, and hold alliances of their choosing? Or are all peoples simply untermenschen for the exploitation of American interests?
You're view appears to be the black and white.....in the 'America: Love it or leave it' variety
QUOTE
. Senility must be setting in and I've missed my own childish name calling. Perhaps you could point it out for me?
how about this - "And yet Ted, you still fail to post anything but your typical ten second blindly patriotic talking points……………faux outrage".
QUOTE
How about some blowback from our work in Central America, South-East Asia and more importantly, Iraq? It's easy to point out the few less than dishonorable facets of American foreign policy, while turning the blind eye towards the seedier and criminal aspects isn't it?
9/11 didn’t happen because of Iraq and if you agree with Chompsky on the invasion of Afghanistan, as it appears you do, you disagree with way over 90% of the rest of us – “blindly patriotic” people.
Nothing we did in Central America had squat to do with it either. And if you wasn’t to condem Israel and maintain we should just dump them please say it.
QUOTE
Would you be in favor of removing every regime in the Middle East that is not in the American pocket, to insure unfettered access to oil?
I never said that. I did say that now that we have blundered into Iraq we cannot just leave it to chaos as this would threaten the oil region we have stupidly become married to.
QUOTE
Do you agree or disagree that people around the world should be free to live under the government of their choice, and hold alliances of their choosing?
Sure but you don’t – you agree with Chomsky that NATO is bad and countries like Poland’s should not be brought in ---- Right?. We should have stayed out of Bosnia – Right? We should leave Afghanistan immediately – Right?
Americans see no hypocrisy in "their" government's damning of Russia for opposing the incorporation of former Russian satellites and constituent parts in a US military alliance.
So tell me how you can possibly buy into the crap that comes out of the mouth of Noam C?
QUOTE(Ted @ Apr 29 2008, 09:31 AM)
how about this - "And yet Ted, you still fail to post anything but your typical ten second blindly patriotic talking points……………faux outrage".
You're confused. What I wrote is an assessment of your narrow political diatribes; childish name calling is exemplified in "chumpsky".
QUOTE
9/11 didn’t happen because of Iraq and if you agree with Chompsky on the invasion of Afghanistan, as it appears you do, you disagree with way over 90% of the rest of us – “blindly patriotic” people.
Again you're confused. This thread, nor my posts have referred specifically to 9/11, but rather American foreign policy in total. Please keep up.
QUOTE
Sure but you don’t – you agree with Chomsky that NATO is bad and countries like Poland’s should not be brought in ---- Right?. We should have stayed out of Bosnia – Right? We should leave Afghanistan immediately – Right?
Quite obsessed with Chomsky aren't you? The fact that Chomsky writes that American by and large do not see the hypocrisy in our foreign policy, does not negate my desire for people to be sovereign from intervention and hegemony on behalf of my country.
We are repeatedly confronted in the foreign policy arena by the dichotomy of our practices and our principles. When the two do not converge, it calls our motives into question. Americans who refuse to examine and re-examine those motives are sheep who are undeserving of the limited level of freedom that we do enjoy. Faux patriots proclaim natural rights to be universal up to the point that those rights stand in the way of our economic, political or perceived national security agendas.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Apr 29 2008, 02:09 PM)
Happened upon a relevant quote that summed up my previous post better than I did. From Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury:
As Noam Chomsky has written, the US government thinks that it owns the world (Chomsky could have added that Israel thinks it owns the Middle East and America). Americans can wallow in indignation over China's occupation of Tibet, but be perfectly content with America's occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel can wax eloquently about "Palestinian terrorism" while its military and Zionist settlers terrorize Palestinians.
So Chomsky puts defending Israel into the same category as attacking Israel and America's retaliation against Afghanistan as the being equal to China's annexatiion of Tibet? I'm not sure why your quoting him to be honest. How many Tibetans carried out terrorist attacks against Bejing?As Noam Chomsky has written, the US government thinks that it owns the world (Chomsky could have added that Israel thinks it owns the Middle East and America). Americans can wallow in indignation over China's occupation of Tibet, but be perfectly content with America's occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel can wax eloquently about "Palestinian terrorism" while its military and Zionist settlers terrorize Palestinians.
I suppose thats just semantics anyway. The real issue lies with hypocrasy, how some country's must maintain an illusion in order to defend themselves because their own populations are unwilling to accept the basic truth behind their comfort. It grows wearisome in the extreme to have to keep pretending that we are some how 'better', or that blow hards like Chomsky have something better to offer. I am depressed to see you quoting Chomsky DTOM.
QUOTE
Americans see no hypocrisy in "their" government's damning of Russia for opposing the incorporation of former Russian satellites and constituent parts in a US military alliance.
Neither do I. Those 'former Russian satelites' are actually free independent nations and have every right to decide for themselves as to where they wish to place their allegience. Moscow has no right to complain after having subjected those countries to decades of Soviet oppression and Noam Chomsky, a self declared communist is no authority worth quoting with regards to former Soviet satelites.The American goverment has every right to tell Moscow off for complaining about free people making their own decisions.
QUOTE
Americans see manifest destiny, not US aggression, when "their" government drops bombs on Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Pakistan. Americans do not think it is aggression for them to develop war plans to attack Iran or China or N. Korea or whomever, or to maintain hundreds of military bases all over the globe. The same Americans work themselves into hysterical frenzies over "Iranian influence in Iraq" and "al Qaeda plans to bring the war to America."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_...war_morphs_.htm
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_...war_morphs_.htm
Frankly I don't care what reasons America uses to justify its actions to its own population. For as long as American soldiers don't step out of line and just start killing people for no reason, then I am more than happy to allow 'American hegemony' to rule the world. The alternatives do not bear thinking about.
Noam Chomsky certainly has nothing better to offer. We've seen what socialism/communism does, what it leads to. The horrors done in the name of socialist morality. That is not a viable alternative.
QUOTE
Again you're confused. This thread, nor my posts have referred specifically to 9/11, but rather American foreign policy in total. Please keep up
So the invasion of Afghanistan is wrong. Do you want to answer DTOM or play word games – please keep up.
QUOTE
Quite obsessed with Chomsky aren't you? The fact that Chomsky writes that American by and large do not see the hypocrisy in our foreign policy, does not negate my desire for people to be sovereign from intervention and hegemony on behalf of my country.
I met the man in the late 60s and have heard him speak and read a good deal of his “writings” - He is a dedicated Socialist and always has been. He hates American capitalism and supports left wing dictatorships all over the world.
QUOTE
Faux patriots proclaim natural rights to be universal up to the point that those rights stand in the way of our economic, political or perceived national security agendas
.As I have said I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq (but did Afghanistan) – you apparently don’t – and agree with Noam – and disagree with most Americans.
If this makes me a “Faux patriot” – I can live with that.
I know your objective is to run from Iraq at all cost – but guess what – most people and experts don’t agree with you. Are they Faux patriots too?
Moif- there was nothing in America's interests of freedom, or protecting us, nothing whatsoever, that made america or ideals safer by our actions in central and south America. SAme with vietnam- nothing, nothing whatsoever.
Those were simply conquests were we suppressed and oppressed a people, no different than what Russia did to it's sattelite states, and, in fact, in central America- we were worse than they- we did it simply to protect corporate special interests. There was absolutely no need for our intervention in Guatemala other than to ensure we had slave labor for Chiquita banana.
There simply is NO justification moif- none at all.
Now, you have folks like Ted in this country that don't mind slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children so he can have cheap bananas, but I tend to take a bit of offense to that.
There was absolutely 0 reason for our actions in central America that had anything to do with our personal freedoms in this country- none. Just as there was none in Vietnam.
If there was a reason for our precense there- I would be defending it too-
We have exactly one honorable action in Central America- Grenada.
There is no self preservation reason here Moif- none whatsoever. It was simply to protect SPECIAL interests and campaign contributors. We didn't want to establish democracy, we didn't want to create freedom- we wanted to protect our corporate rights to have slave labor in Central America. Period- game over.
Those were simply conquests were we suppressed and oppressed a people, no different than what Russia did to it's sattelite states, and, in fact, in central America- we were worse than they- we did it simply to protect corporate special interests. There was absolutely no need for our intervention in Guatemala other than to ensure we had slave labor for Chiquita banana.
There simply is NO justification moif- none at all.
Now, you have folks like Ted in this country that don't mind slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children so he can have cheap bananas, but I tend to take a bit of offense to that.
There was absolutely 0 reason for our actions in central America that had anything to do with our personal freedoms in this country- none. Just as there was none in Vietnam.
If there was a reason for our precense there- I would be defending it too-
We have exactly one honorable action in Central America- Grenada.
There is no self preservation reason here Moif- none whatsoever. It was simply to protect SPECIAL interests and campaign contributors. We didn't want to establish democracy, we didn't want to create freedom- we wanted to protect our corporate rights to have slave labor in Central America. Period- game over.
Your usual stupid insults aside I agree that supporting right wing dictators over left wing dictators made little sense – and Vietnam was disaster brought to us by LBJ.
That said I see little outside of our support for Israel (which I have issues with on many levels) that got us to where we are with the Arab world today.
I for one feel no shame that we did not allow Saddam to have Kuwait – do you?
That said I see little outside of our support for Israel (which I have issues with on many levels) that got us to where we are with the Arab world today.
I for one feel no shame that we did not allow Saddam to have Kuwait – do you?
Why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
It's the topic in about five percent of the threads here, so I don't think it's "verbotten". In an election it isn't going to be a popular sentiment for someone who wants to be elected. A candidate has to be very very careful how he/she broaches this subject. Speaking of ways to avoid future attacks by avoiding past mistakes and changing our current course is an elegant, euphemistic way to approach it...saying we deserve terrorism isn't.
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Well, I'll break away from the pack and say I'm not sure we are targetted (in particular) from the groups we've worst injured. It might stand to reason that we would be, but I'm not sure that's the case. 911, for instance, wasn't the result of disgust over our foreign policy of fly zones and bombing over Iraq, it was the result of having troops stationed in Saudi. Now, regardless of how one might feel about the wisdom of our being on Saudi ground, the Saudi government asked for our troops to be there, not the other way around. And we haven't been targeted by Ireland for having bases in England, nor would that logic hold water as justification if we were targeted by Ireland. Serbs have never targeted us with terrorism, and we have wronged them quite egregiously. On the other hand, the actual folks we defended against the Serbs in Kosovo have many terrorist networks that plot ways to kill us.
South America (aside from Venezuela) is pretty American friendly. I think Mexico dislikes us much more the Guatemala, whatever wrongs the CIA wrought on them. Most of the African nations hold us in strangely high regard and we've certainly not invested much energy in helping them at all by comparison to others. Europe has a lot of terrorist cells and I don't think we've wronged Europe much in particular. Chinese terrorists aren't targeting us over the issue Taiwan....nor are Russian terrorists targeting us over our expansion of NATO.
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
Well, do we "deserve it" if and when we are victims? That seems to be what you are saying. There are plenty of good arguments against our foreign policy. We had an election that showed the voters are fed up with it just a couple of years ago. There's certainly no shortage of conversation whatsoever on this issue.
It's the topic in about five percent of the threads here, so I don't think it's "verbotten". In an election it isn't going to be a popular sentiment for someone who wants to be elected. A candidate has to be very very careful how he/she broaches this subject. Speaking of ways to avoid future attacks by avoiding past mistakes and changing our current course is an elegant, euphemistic way to approach it...saying we deserve terrorism isn't.
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Well, I'll break away from the pack and say I'm not sure we are targetted (in particular) from the groups we've worst injured. It might stand to reason that we would be, but I'm not sure that's the case. 911, for instance, wasn't the result of disgust over our foreign policy of fly zones and bombing over Iraq, it was the result of having troops stationed in Saudi. Now, regardless of how one might feel about the wisdom of our being on Saudi ground, the Saudi government asked for our troops to be there, not the other way around. And we haven't been targeted by Ireland for having bases in England, nor would that logic hold water as justification if we were targeted by Ireland. Serbs have never targeted us with terrorism, and we have wronged them quite egregiously. On the other hand, the actual folks we defended against the Serbs in Kosovo have many terrorist networks that plot ways to kill us.
South America (aside from Venezuela) is pretty American friendly. I think Mexico dislikes us much more the Guatemala, whatever wrongs the CIA wrought on them. Most of the African nations hold us in strangely high regard and we've certainly not invested much energy in helping them at all by comparison to others. Europe has a lot of terrorist cells and I don't think we've wronged Europe much in particular. Chinese terrorists aren't targeting us over the issue Taiwan....nor are Russian terrorists targeting us over our expansion of NATO.
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
Well, do we "deserve it" if and when we are victims? That seems to be what you are saying. There are plenty of good arguments against our foreign policy. We had an election that showed the voters are fed up with it just a couple of years ago. There's certainly no shortage of conversation whatsoever on this issue.
QUOTE
That said I see little outside of our support for Israel (which I have issues with on many levels) that got us to where we are with the Arab world today.
You're right. I mean, what are the odds that installing a dictator in Iran had any influence on Middle Eastern politics? Alternating between selling Saddam biological weapons and then bombing Iraqi civilians to free them from their use probably had nothing to do with it either. Selling out Kuwait and then rushing to their defense? That sounds like a recipe for promoting trust and stability. The presence in Lebanon and bases in the 'holy lands' (using the term loosely) were non-factors of course. I mean, how could they be? Oh, and I forgot to mention the fact that the United States continues to support (rightly or wrongly) regimes which are tremendously unpopular.
Ted, I admire your willingness to boldly state that none of these things would have a major impact. Where would we be without your dilligence and keen research skills?
I came up with that list in 2 minutes at work (on lunch...) without browsing away or looking at a single piece of paper. I imagine that someone who is more emotionally invested could come up with a whole list of factors which explains Americas current standards. Ted, you're wrong on that post and unless you want to lose all credibility in this particular debate you'll admit it.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 28 2008, 05:00 PM)
QUOTE(Zack @ Apr 28 2008, 09:09 AM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 28 2008, 01:01 PM)
Rev Wright got Obama in trouble for this remark:
You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back to you," Wright said at the National Press Club when asked about a speech in which he asserted the September 11 attacks were retaliation for U.S. foreign policy.
Now- without saying those that died on 9/11 "deserved it"
Isn't it reasonable to assume that our terrorist activities abroad (central America) , our supporting of despots and evil, oppressive goverments worldwide (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Once Saddam as well, Shah of Iran etc), our support of ethnic cleansing of one group at the expense of another (Kosovo comes immediately to mind) - isn't it reasonable to assume that we are practically inviting attacks on US soil for these policies?
So, the questions are- why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back to you," Wright said at the National Press Club when asked about a speech in which he asserted the September 11 attacks were retaliation for U.S. foreign policy.
Now- without saying those that died on 9/11 "deserved it"
Isn't it reasonable to assume that our terrorist activities abroad (central America) , our supporting of despots and evil, oppressive goverments worldwide (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Once Saddam as well, Shah of Iran etc), our support of ethnic cleansing of one group at the expense of another (Kosovo comes immediately to mind) - isn't it reasonable to assume that we are practically inviting attacks on US soil for these policies?
So, the questions are- why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?
Does American foriegn policy make us legitmate targets of those groups we have injured in the world? As in, hey, we started it, we expect them to sit around and do nothing when they have been wronged by US foreign policy?
Why is the debate always turned around that somehow the victims "deserved it" instead of re-examining a foriegn policy that has been oppressive and evil?
The only American citizens that think like Rev. Wright or justify his thinking on this issue fall into the crowd of "hate America". There is no grey area, you either love America and support America or you hate America. Rev. Wright and anyone who agrees with his reasoning hate America and are welcome to find a nation they can love.
Moif- when I say "verbotten"- look at the above response- even though I am a veteran, pay my taxes, do all the things Americans are supposed to do- I must "hate" America because I have seen first hand our evil in the world. My evil experiance was in Central America
- where Reagan employed terrorism against the civilian population in supporting the contras, who raped, burned and killed innocent women and children with great zeal as a form of entertainment. Yet, I "hate America" because I say we were not only wrong, but really, really bad, to the point of evil.
Does a German obviously "hate America' for acknowledging the evil of hitler in his countries past?
Also- our involvement in Guatemala, for the sake of the Chiquita banana corp, Pinochet and the Shah of Iran are all very clear evidence of the outright evil of the US foreign policies- but to mention them as such, I must "hate America".
The verbotten issue is not of goverment censure- nope, it is of an immediate cultural reaction that the mere MENTION of coming to terms with our wrong doing is blamed as "hating America".
You note that it also menaces the questioner as a "traitor" that should "find some place else to live"
However- thrown back at them- for instance- since you support the Iraq war, I believe we should treat you just like an Iraqi citizen- kill off portions of your family, blow up your house and force you to flee to live in poverty in Syria or Lebanon (because that is a BETTER place to live!) - they get all upset. Why, is it "worth" the Iraqi citizen's sacrifice, while asking the same of someone like Zack is wrong?
Following 9-11 president Bush stated that no longer would it be Americas foreign policy to back dictators but rather to promote democracies because democracies are less likely to be hostile without cause. Americas foreign policy in Iraq is and has always been based on Americas security and there has never been any indication that we have desires from the Iraqi people for anything other than a peaceful nation that doesn't support terrorism.
Well, yes the ME management has been wanting, it seems like herding cats or hauling frogs around in a wheelbarrow. In the past the desire was to "prop up" power figures to allow local ME players to fight amongst themselves to eliminate one from becoming more powerful than a neighbor but that all changed following 9-11. The ME countries are the spoils of war, WWI and WWII and in both cases they supported the losing side, the states are unnatural because they were designed by outside forces rather than internal conflict. War with Iraq was a result of power management of the region during the Gulf War, the war never ended it went into a ceasefire, a ceasefire that could have been resolved in six months. The restart of hostilities was not an act of aggression but of security based on the unchanged facts on the ground and faulty intelligence. The US ME foreign policy has been very consistent since 9-11 so I would think that you would celebrate president Bush's change in foreign policy not to manage the ME with dictators but rather encourage democracy.
Um, because the ME policy has never changed- but become more extreme?
We support Maliki now- an Iranian backed corrupt warlord in Iraq.
We support the Saudi goverment- a corrupt supporter of world wide terrorism.
We support Kuwait- a corrupt thecoracy that is basically the extended family of the Saudi royalty.
And on and on.
Our policy has not changed from nation building- but into making it even MORE impressive.
no one can say that the Iraqi people are better off under US occupation than under Saddam's rule.
That alone should make one ashamed.
We support Maliki now- an Iranian backed corrupt warlord in Iraq.
We support the Saudi goverment- a corrupt supporter of world wide terrorism.
We support Kuwait- a corrupt thecoracy that is basically the extended family of the Saudi royalty.
And on and on.
Our policy has not changed from nation building- but into making it even MORE impressive.
no one can say that the Iraqi people are better off under US occupation than under Saddam's rule.
That alone should make one ashamed.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 29 2008, 12:58 PM)
Um, because the ME policy has never changed- but become more extreme?
We support Maliki now- an Iranian backed corrupt warlord in Iraq.
We support the Saudi goverment- a corrupt supporter of world wide terrorism.
We support Kuwait- a corrupt thecoracy that is basically the extended family of the Saudi royalty.
And on and on.
Our policy has not changed from nation building- but into making it even MORE impressive.
no one can say that the Iraqi people are better off under US occupation than under Saddam's rule.
That alone should make one ashamed.
Check out where you are wrong on the world fact book https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ you are wrong on all counts.We support Maliki now- an Iranian backed corrupt warlord in Iraq.
We support the Saudi goverment- a corrupt supporter of world wide terrorism.
We support Kuwait- a corrupt thecoracy that is basically the extended family of the Saudi royalty.
And on and on.
Our policy has not changed from nation building- but into making it even MORE impressive.
no one can say that the Iraqi people are better off under US occupation than under Saddam's rule.
That alone should make one ashamed.
Who "installed" Maliki? The US interest in the ME is oil, the free flow of oil to the world market, we support power balance and as a result Iran is an axis of evil and will be declawed because the American left will not support America becoming energy independent.
What are the US objectives in Iraq? What stands in the way of the US departing? We only desire Iraq to be free, anti terror and capable of defending itself from their neighbors. They don't want us and we don't want to be there but they "need" us until they are capable and that may be very soon if Iran will self de-claw.
If?
If we drilled all over the US we would not care about the ME.
If we converted coal to oil we would not be interested in the ME.
If the Democratic Party wasn't in the pocket of the environmental lobby we wouldn't be interested in the ME no more than we are interested in Chili.
If we had elected officials that would support a comprehensive energy policy that would make the US energy independent it would be Europe that is refereeing the ME, because it wouldn't be in our national interests.
QUOTE(Cruising Ram)
Moif- there was nothing in America's interests of freedom, or protecting us, nothing whatsoever, that made america or ideals safer by our actions in central and south America. SAme with vietnam- nothing, nothing whatsoever.
So, your saying global communism was never a threat to the USA? QUOTE(Cruising Ram)
Those were simply conquests were we suppressed and oppressed a people, no different than what Russia did to it's sattelite states, and, in fact, in central America- we were worse than they- we did it simply to protect corporate special interests. There was absolutely no need for our intervention in Guatemala other than to ensure we had slave labor for Chiquita banana.
Well I have to disagree with you I'm afraid CR. I don't see how backing local right wing dictators is worse than simply taking over the country by armed force and incorporating them into a global Soviet, but maybe that just me. See, I don't like it any more than you do. I just can't think of a viable alternative, and believe me I've tried all my life to do so. Karl Marx tried to think of a viable alternative too and look where his great idea's led!
The only credible option to ensure one's safety is to be the strongest military power and in order to do that you are going to have to kill people every so often. Its called making sacrifices and there is nothing blasé about using that word. I understand the conotations that word has, and I understand full well why its unpopular to describe dead soldiers as a sacrifice, but that is essentially what they are. Its a credit to your humanity if you feel outrage, but unless you have a viable alternative then I don't see a way to change the world any time soon.
Do you have a viable alternative CR?
QUOTE(Cruising Ram)
There simply is NO justification moif- none at all.
I think victory is the only justification that really counts in the end. Everything else is subjective.Doing 'a Ghandi', and turning the other cheek, gets you shot dead.
QUOTE(Cruising Ram)
Now, you have folks like Ted in this country that don't mind slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children so he can have cheap bananas, but I tend to take a bit of offense to that.
If I thought for a moment that 'cheap banana's was why the CIA got involved, I'd agree. But I don't think that is why they did. My understanding is that the chiquita company was a tool of capitalism being used to control the local region. Sure it sounds so wonderfully horrific, 'hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children slaughtered for cheap bananas', but is that really what it was all about? Why would the CIA care about cheap bananas?
QUOTE(Cruising Ram)
There was absolutely 0 reason for our actions in central America that had anything to do with our personal freedoms in this country- none. Just as there was none in Vietnam.
So you've said, repeatedly. You still haven't answered my reply, which is 'communism'. Have you actually forgotten about what Communism meant in the Cold War or have you swallowed the new Russian amnesia?QUOTE(Cruising Ram)
There is no self preservation reason here Moif- none whatsoever. It was simply to protect SPECIAL interests and campaign contributors. We didn't want to establish democracy, we didn't want to create freedom- we wanted to protect our corporate rights to have slave labor in Central America. Period- game over.
You can't promote what doesn't exist CR. Your talking as if the South Americans were just harmless people who wanted nothing more than to become democratic and who had nothing what so ever to do with Moscow's designs. As for protecting corporate rights; what exactly do you think gave America the money and power to defeat the communists CR?
Of course you protect your corporate interests, without them your nothing but bean fed peasants like every one else!
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Apr 28 2008, 04:38 PM)
QUOTE(quick @ Apr 28 2008, 03:09 PM)
A nation should pursue its self-interest, as to do otherwise is to betray its own citizens.
That's only true to an extent. When the policies enacted and pursued in the name of self interest - directly cause blowback and creates harm and damage to American citizens and property, since that self interest is at the expense of others, isn't that also betrayal?
I think it is impossible for one nation to really understand what another nation "wants", or what is in its "self-interest". For example, ask any American why the Iraqis haven't kissed our rings for overthrowing Saddam and you'll get a blank stare. We assume overtthrowing Saddam was in their best interest. The only thing you can know, for sure, is what is in your self-interest.
I would suggest to you that your second sentence begs a few questions: First, creating "blowback" may not be to your self-interest; if so, do not pursue policies that cause blowback, unless the other benefits outweigh the negatives. Second, many times what is in one nation's self-interest will not be in another nation's self-interest; what to do?; Well, our national leaders owe their allegience only to us--we elect them, we pay their salaries, and their authority comes only from our Const; other national leaders conversely owe their allegience to their citizens. I cannot blame our leaders for doing what is best for us, as that is what they are duty-bound to do--can you? The same is true for other national leaders pursuing a course that benefits their citizens--but that does not stop me from wanting to throttle countries that seek to harm my nation.
The problem today I think is many of our leaders do not do what is in the best interest of their citizens, but rather what is in their own personal best interest, or in the best interest of a small minority. The do not understand their duty.
"Duty is the most sublime word in the English language." Robert E. Lee.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 29 2008, 12:58 PM)
Um, because the ME policy has never changed- but become more extreme?
We support Maliki now- an Iranian backed corrupt warlord in Iraq.
We support the Saudi goverment- a corrupt supporter of world wide terrorism.
We support Kuwait- a corrupt thecoracy that is basically the extended family of the Saudi royalty.
And on and on.
Our policy has not changed from nation building- but into making it even MORE impressive.
no one can say that the Iraqi people are better off under US occupation than under Saddam's rule.
That alone should make one ashamed.
We support Maliki now- an Iranian backed corrupt warlord in Iraq.
We support the Saudi goverment- a corrupt supporter of world wide terrorism.
We support Kuwait- a corrupt thecoracy that is basically the extended family of the Saudi royalty.
And on and on.
Our policy has not changed from nation building- but into making it even MORE impressive.
no one can say that the Iraqi people are better off under US occupation than under Saddam's rule.
That alone should make one ashamed.
You must listen to "Democracy Now!" often.
I will reply to all of your comments with this: You have never suggested one alternative to our policy, and you cannot except to say something like, "we should be equitable and fair", whatever that means. Since WWII, we have acted primarly to contain the Soviets and to promote our self-interest. That said, we have provided billions in aid and assitance, often without strings, all over the world, and have been a beacon of freedom for many, warts and all.
The Chinese under Mao killed at least 100 million of their own citizens; the Soviet under Stalin did in about 20 million of their own; and those are just two examples. To try and paint us with the same brush is beyond insulting. There is nothing more dishonorable than killing one's own citizens, and you can dredge up the Tuskegee tests, or what have you, but nothing we have done even gets into the same book....
QUOTE
You're right. I mean, what are the odds that installing a dictator in Iran had any influence on Middle Eastern politics? Alternating between selling Saddam biological weapons and then bombing Iraqi civilians to free them from their use probably had nothing to do with it either. Selling out Kuwait and then rushing to their defense? That sounds like a recipe for promoting trust and stability. The presence in Lebanon and bases in the 'holy lands' (using the term loosely) were non-factors of course. I mean, how could they be? Oh, and I forgot to mention the fact that the United States continues to support (rightly or wrongly) regimes which are tremendously unpopular
.I guess you lost me here Joe. We supported a dictator in Iran so you logic says that once this was overturned we should be happy with the country no matter what they do or how they threaten us? I disagree.
We gave Saddam NO WMD of any kind – he made his own thank you. If you think otherwise please post.
We never sold out Kuwait – and let’s remember the UN (with us doing most of the work) saved Kuwait.
The Lebanon situation is somehow our fault – Oh right Syria and Iran were wronged by us so its ok that they have terrorist groups there and try to run the country? I get it .
We have always supported regimes that are unpopular – like Israel and always will if it is deemed in our self interest. NK, China, Russia, Syria, etc. do the same.
So lets take a look at the rest of the world and how well they are doing. The UN was perfectly willing to watch genocide in Bosnia – we stepped in. We didn’t in Rwanda and nearly a million people died while the rest of the world sat back – same for Darfur right now – 300,000 dead and no sign anyone will do squat unless the US takes the lead – which I am strongly against.
Ya I guess we are just bad to the bone Joe.
Moif- how is a democratically elected goverment, NOT a dictatorship, in Guatamela, threatening the US? We used Communism as a boogeyman- but bottom line is- when we left those countries alone- they left us alone, or converted back- Vietnam again- we canceled elections in South Vietnam because we knew the guys we wanted to win would NOT win- and Ho Chi Mingh would.
Nicarugua's freely elected goverment was no threat to the US in any way.
Chile's freely elected goverment was no threat to the US in any way.
Had we allowed many countries to have thier own self determination they would have been no threat to us in any way.
Even Cuba would not have been communist had we not so thoroughly interfered and screwed that country up.
Mrs P does make one very intersting point that is true- the folks we "help" are the one's that usually come back to bite us in the butt later- not the ones that are oppressed- maybe because genocide takes the wind out of thier sails?
Noriega- installed, then removed
OBL- didn't train him directly, but benefited from US interference in Afghanistan.
Saddam- Ted- read the post- Saddam was greenlighted by the US to develope the WMDs by the US- if not for the US, he would not have had a program- because we were the ones that fought to lift the ban on chemical weapons or info being sold to Iraq- soon as we lobbied to have that barrier lifted- there were plenty of business that were happy to do the business with Saddam. REmember the handshake there sport?
Kosovo- as Mrs P pointed out- the Bosnian and Serbs have NEVER been terroristic against the west- but the Kosovars are actively working with Muslim groups that seek to harm the US.
It is the very despots we back that are the ones that usually do the US harm- not the oppressed.
Mrs P- Africa, in many ways- could be considered the way we SHOULD "help" the world- send humanitarian aid were possible- back UN efforts if need be- but don't EVEN take the lead in nation building or whatever- I think what makes us so popular in Africa is our mostly humanitarian aid and the almost total lacking of killing and bombing that usually goes with our "help".
Nicarugua's freely elected goverment was no threat to the US in any way.
Chile's freely elected goverment was no threat to the US in any way.
Had we allowed many countries to have thier own self determination they would have been no threat to us in any way.
Even Cuba would not have been communist had we not so thoroughly interfered and screwed that country up.
Mrs P does make one very intersting point that is true- the folks we "help" are the one's that usually come back to bite us in the butt later- not the ones that are oppressed- maybe because genocide takes the wind out of thier sails?
Noriega- installed, then removed
OBL- didn't train him directly, but benefited from US interference in Afghanistan.
Saddam- Ted- read the post- Saddam was greenlighted by the US to develope the WMDs by the US- if not for the US, he would not have had a program- because we were the ones that fought to lift the ban on chemical weapons or info being sold to Iraq- soon as we lobbied to have that barrier lifted- there were plenty of business that were happy to do the business with Saddam. REmember the handshake there sport?
Kosovo- as Mrs P pointed out- the Bosnian and Serbs have NEVER been terroristic against the west- but the Kosovars are actively working with Muslim groups that seek to harm the US.
It is the very despots we back that are the ones that usually do the US harm- not the oppressed.
Mrs P- Africa, in many ways- could be considered the way we SHOULD "help" the world- send humanitarian aid were possible- back UN efforts if need be- but don't EVEN take the lead in nation building or whatever- I think what makes us so popular in Africa is our mostly humanitarian aid and the almost total lacking of killing and bombing that usually goes with our "help".
QUOTE(moif @ Apr 29 2008, 10:14 AM)
I am depressed to see you quoting Chomsky DTOM.
I had no idea that offering a Chomsky quote would elicit such a Pavlovian response from people. I expected it from Ted who appears to have no concept of open mindedness or critical thinking, but to insinuate that I am a Chomskyite because I agreed with a quote of his is intellectually shallow. I suppose now if I quote Bush, I'm a neo-con?
QUOTE(moif)
Frankly I don't care what reasons America uses to justify its actions to its own population. For as long as American soldiers don't step out of line and just start killing people for no reason, then I am more than happy to allow 'American hegemony' to rule the world. The alternatives do not bear thinking about.
It's perfectly fine if you wish to live in the United States of the World, but when that pipe dream would come at the expense of many nations and many peoples who also wish for sovereignty and liberty, it's hypocrisy.
QUOTE(Ted)
So the invasion of Afghanistan is wrong.
No, I generally support the action in Afghanistan. Critical thinking involves looking at each issue on its merit as opposed to acting as a political lemming.
QUOTE(Ted)
I for one feel no shame that we did not allow Saddam to have Kuwait – do you?
I support Kuwait's right to sovereignty, but we kept one anti-liberty regime from absorbing another anti-liberty regime. What exactly was the grand success of intervention?
QUOTE(Zack)
You seem to have listed several separate debates as justification for your hate for America.
Why is it that questioning practices that we have engaged in that do not mesh with our stated principles equal hating America? Will you blindly support foreign policy decisions when made by Democratic presidents, or will you then become an America hater also? Or is your mouth breathing rhetoric only reserved for opponents of neo-conservativ