The organization we are fighting now in Afghanistan, led by BL is not attacking us for any other reasons than the ones I outlined – which you seem to agree with. In which case there was no way in hell we were going to avoid the attack.

If you disagree what “things” could we have done that would have avoided Bin Laden declaring “war” on the US?

Dontreadonme


They hate us for a number of reasons, part of it is our differences religiously and culturally, another big part of it is that Al Qaeda was passed over in 1991 when Saudi Arabia opted for the help of the U.S. over them. We all know they despise our way of life, thats not a theory, its a fact. They are also the masters of of propaganda so they try their best to impose their image of us onto others, with much effect.



It seems your trying to extend the time table back in an attempt to save this argument which has been given by people like Rev Wright and Ron Paul, ect ect. Since you are staying relevant to the middle east, I suppose thats fair enough. I know about MAK by the way, I like to call it (Al Qaeda Beta 1.0) to put it into context I deal with in computer software, lol.

However even if you wind back the time table can you specifically start mentioning things we did in the middle east since the formation of (MAK) in the early 80's that was of the scale and fashion of what happened to us on 9/11? Scale meaning we killed 1000's of innocent people, fashion
meaning we did it for no other reason than to kill as many people as we could. Collateral damage in wars like Desert Storm, do not equate to terrorism as Rev Wright seems to want to let on. Most of our visits to the middle east were simply humanitarian efforts, there was a lot of small scale stuff we had done in the past beyond wars.

Another motivator was to defend allies, and I'm not going to lie by saying that our interest in the middle east was not part of our motivation for staying active in th middle east, because it was part of our motivation. Now while I say that, do understand that it wasn't our sole motivator, and I don't believe it was our primary motivator either.

Is it so hard to believe that we sometimes find ourselves in a situation where we could help someone in need, and that is often our primary motivator?

Is it so hard to believe that the military you have served over the years has no shortage of people of all ranks, that cared about the situation in Iraq or Kuwait, and continue to be inspired today because they want to help end large scale genocide? There are people in our military with rankings ranging from Private to General who fit this description, and I'm sure you know that. There may be exceptions, and I don't claim this nation to be anywhere near perfect. However I want to hear about the things we did in the middle east, that are comparable to what happened to us.

Otherwise the only argument you have successfully made is that Al Quada took our presence in the middle east, and un-rightfully used it as an excuse to justify killing U.S. civilians, in a manner we never carried out in the Middle East. The death we cause is unintentional collateral damage which unfortunately goes hand in hand with every war ever fought by anyone. However, we don't hijack foreign jumbo jets, and intentionally crash them into buildings full of civilians, for no other reason than the sole fact that those buildings are full of civilians. People should be wary of the terms they use to describe this nation, when those words are words like...... Terrorist or Dictatorship. Unless they have something to back it, why use words that don't accurately describe America?


So here is my key argument............

You can launch criticisms on this nation, that are accurate, I do it myself. You can also not support a war because of foul ups, or incompetence, or the mere fact that you don't believe anything justifies fighting a war. However it is not necessary to take it to the next step and blurt out things that are not true, or half true, simply for the shock value. Ive never in my life told someone its not right to be an American and not support this war. However whats not right is enforcing an opinion that supports your beliefs, if what your arguing comes at the price of being excessive and inaccurate. I see this everywhere, and yes some conservatives are guilty of similar behavior. I mean it would be so great if we could all just be honest and straight with people who believe other things, even if sometimes our beliefs are polar opposites.

I'll say right now to those who don't support this war at all, explain the roots of your positions, and true reasons why you feel the way you do. I'm sure many of those reasons are heart felt and genuine. I may disagre with people that do this, because thats not my opinion on this war, but I give a great deal of respect to those who make substantive arguments, and just speak honestly. On the other hand when I hear people say things like........ You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back to you I cant help but think this person is either misguided, or intentionally excessive. The United States may be far from perfect, we make mistakes in foreign policy, we do police the world, although personally I think this is necessarily in many cases, we also often say one thing and do another, but what we don't do is spread terrorism.

This is A description of terrorism from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism .................

.

We may cause damage beyond our primary targets in a time of war, and in war innocent people do die, but we don't launch campaigns that deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

Thats what terrorism is, and thats not this country, sorry. I think most people understand this but many have such an unfavorable opinion on this war or this president that even if they do understand that is a stretch of the truth, they will not speak out against such comments and often even repeat them. Youve done this yourself with president Bush.




Don't be broad, be specific. Just because our foreign policies were used by Al Qaeda as motivation to attack us, doesn't mean it was justified or made sense. So to use that comment to argue that we should drop our foreign policy in the middle east, or go on to say we are to blame, like some people do is just goofy, there are many reasons not to support this war that at least make sense, but thats not one of them.

The fact that you continue to imply that I called Bush a terrorist is childish. Put up or shut up. the question I posed was this: who is responsible for more deaths and destruction in middle east since 2001, Bush or OBL? That was my question for you. Answer it........ post where I called Bush a terrorist....or retreat back to your mothers basement.



And the US government, with Information Operations (IO) and Psychological Operations (PSYOPS), don't engage in the same practices?

Are you of the mind that the victims of our 'unintentional' damage and deaths view us as benevolent? If not, then will you and the Ted's and the Zack's ever admit that intentional or not, our actions produce ripple effects which morph either immediately or over time into repercussions?

You seem to paint anyone who espouses you view the be the polar opposite; you do understand don't you that alternative approaches to US foreign policy does not equate surrender, retreat and isolationism?

Better check your facts. I hope by fact you're not quoting George Bush, the same guy who said Islam is a religion of peace.

A March 2008 poll (pdf) conducted in six Muslim countries found that 80 percent of their attitude towards the U.S. is based on our foreign policy, 44 percent say their opinion of the U.S. would improve if we withdrew from Iraq, 46 percent if we withdraw from the Arab peninsula, and 50 percent if we brokered a comprehensive peace deal with Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders. A vast majority of Middle Easterners believe Israel and the U.S. pose the biggest threat to them, not their own regimes.

Hate our way of life? According to the poll most Middle Easterners don't even think U.S. citizens have the most freedoms. That honor goes to France.

They don't hate us for our freedoms, Net. They could very well give a damn what we do as long as we keep it out of their borders. I thought liberals were the narcissists.

Lesly would it be safe to say they love the concept of freedom? This is really pointless, why anyone would relieve Al Qaeda of responsibility, by saying they didn't care about us as long as we stayed out of their boarders is preposterous. First off what boarders are you talking about? They didn't have any boarders gal, the gouvernment of Saudi Arabia had boarders, the gouvernment of Afghanistan had boarders, but Al Qaeda did not represent a state it represented a perversion of the Muslim religion, therefore it had no boarders.

If they didn't attack us primarily for who we are then why do I read about things like them saying that the WTC was an ideal target because of the number of Jews working in those buildings? Thats a specific religion and belief system that is supported in this nation like many other religions. Heck if they didn't care about the freedoms we have such as (freedom of religion), the WTC having a high number of Jews would have been irrelevant right? I could throw example after example showing they hated freedom. I cant believe we are even arguing this.

Now if our foreign policy is also partialy to blame, thus far Ive been able to establish that this is because Al Qaeda was passed over as an aid to help Saudi Arabia against Saddam, and instead we were chose, and Operation Desert Storm was the result. That should have been end of story, and if Bin Laden was a man instead of the obvious coward he is, he would have let it go right there. It wasn't in his place to decide if we came over to help, it wasn't his country. So if foreign policy played a role, then it played a role by being used by Al Qaeda as a petty excuse to kill innocent non combatants in America.

For goodness sake this stuff use to be common sense, what in the world happened to common sense in this nation? You know what? Iraq criticisms are at least arguable to some extent, that was indeed a controversial move on our part, but now people are saying things that take the blame right off of Al Qaeda, and put on the U.S., lol. The gouvernment is easy to blame and label, and this has been taken advantage of in ways today that would have made blood shoot out of my ears if I had heard it in 2001.

I think you're misinterpreting Lesly's statement. She's not absolving Al Qaeda of anything. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization; no one is questioning this. However, Al Qaeda isn't attacking us because they hate our freedoms. They attack us because they believe (whether or not it's true) that the US is mucking about in the ME when it shouldn't be. This has been what Al Qaeda has said all along. Of course, it helps to demonize your enemy to encourage support and recruitment.


This is how Al Qaeda (and significant portion of the Arab world) sees it:
Jews --> Israel --> repression of Palestinians --> repression of Muslims

I don't see how you make the logical move you make. This has nothing to do with freedom of religion; it has to do with the animosity towards Israel. In all your "research", have you actually read anything by Palestinian and other Arab thinkers with regard to Judaism and Israel?

Don't get me wrong. This type of thinking is abhorrent. Yet, it has nothing to do with a hatred of "freedom of religion".


I can't parse this paragraph.

Dontreadonme


To be specific you did it more than once, and even drew a comparison between Bush and the Taliban. Ive quoted the specific comments like twice already. I'm not getting into it again, you know what you said and I know what you said, if you want to suggest I'm making it up, honestly at this point I don't really care man. When I take a position I stand by it, whether I'm criticized for it or not. I brought it up because I consider it comparable to Rev Wright suggesting this nation spreads terrorism.


Well if you think that PSYOPS is more commonly abused than used constructively. For example, didn't we encourage Iraqis to stand up against Saddam? That could be considered a form of PSYOPS. In fact it was PSYOPS because we said something that was intended to influence public opinion. However was it so bad that we told them to do that? Well never mind you probably think Iraq could existed peacefully so long as they had a dictator like Saddam controlling them, but in any case we didn't have to build Saddam up thats for sure, he did that by himself.

Look to some extent we do use PSYOPS, but Some mid eastern nations and organizations have mastered and abused the technique. For example I'm sure many Iranians have bought into the idea that homosexuals exist in westernized nations like the U.S. but not in Iran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that all the time. Many also use this technique to reach end goals which are not comparable to what we want to accomplish.

Take a look at what this yoyo said........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9cAa6SP79M...feature=related

Do a youtube search for Muslim extremist, these knuckle heads take the cake.


Right, perhaps they do create a ripple effect which is unavoidable if you launch military operations outside your boarders, you don't think I know that?
Again what your saying is true of war in general, but that doesn't mean its a mistake to take aggressors seriously, so why make the argument? Why make the argument if that point your making is so moot that many people who say it actually support our decision to fight in Afghanistan. All that does is induce doubts that we should ever even went to the middle east to take Al Qaeda out, and if it were up to people like Ron Paul, we would lose wars in both Iraq and with Al Qaeda.




If those Alternatives don't include Military action against Al Qaeda then in my opinion we might as well just do nothing. What are we going to do have referendums on Al Qaeda now?

Net2007, your country psyops is so powerful that you think 19 people actually willingly sacrificed their lives because they hate the fact America is a free nation. How powerful is psyops to make Americans believe that men intelligent enough to make this mass plan of destruction, learn to fly planes, would give up their lives just because we're free??

logophage




I disagree with Jews being part of the equation, other than an aftermath. If African Christian groups invaded the middle east and created a country called Israel, the same hatred would exist. And if that group received most of it's support from the US then we would still seem to be legitimate targets.

Net2007



Wow net2007 what have you done for our side that even compares what OBL has done for theirs. This is the rhetoric that allows for defeat. OBL is far from a coward. He's actually a courageous man he's just not on our side.


Conservatism. Faux News. The right wing. You can not have common sense and say something like "they hate us for our freedom" (off topic) You can not have common sense and call french fries, freedom fries, because France won't support us in a war either.

droop224




Droop I do not know how you define a "courageous man" personally I think that he is arrogant but I don't confuse arrogance with courageousness. I dont see anything courageous about blowing up builings full of civilians with planes full of civilians, only to run and hide in the desert for years on end. I dont know maybe thats just me. I'll respond to the rest of your post with the 2 other members that made a similar argument...............



droop224
Lesly
logophage

Wow, I am surprised now, that makes 3 posters in a day who think the idea that Al Qaeda hating the concept of fredom is a stretch of the truth. Man ohh man, ok guys that caught me off guard, I wast aware that such an argument is now considered nonsense.

Well I'll just have to prove it then. Ok these cited quotes should do the trick. I would think, but I wouldn't bet a great deal of money on it at this point, anyway, In the words of our enemy........

Quote 1. Osama Bin Laden says to a Pakistani interviewer after 9/11 the following........

"We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."

Citation.... http://www.time.com/time/columnist/stengel...,189648,00.html

________________________________________________________________________________
___

Quote 2. Osama Bin Laden in a 53 minute broadcast on several Arabic-language websites on the 16th of February, 2003.......

These youths... launched their attacks with their planes in an unparalleled and magnificent feat of valour, unmatched by any in humankind before them. They destroyed the idols of America, struck at the very heart of the Defence Department and hit the black heart of the US economy, rubbing America's nose in the dust and rolling her arrogance and pride into mud. Yet with the destruction of the twin towers in New York, there occurred an even bigger destruction: that of the great American dream and legend of democracy...

Citation.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/not_in_website...rts/2768873.stm
________________________________________________________________________________
___

After two simple quotes right out of the mouth of Al Qaeda's leader, the idea that they didn't hate our way of life, particuarly democracy/freedom is already looking shaky. In the quote above look at what I underlined, I don't know about others here but phrases like that were burned into my memory, and I choose not to forget the importance of what these men say, and the importance of what they have done to us. If that sounds like corny patriotic rhetoric, I still chose not to forget the things they say and do, and I'll accept whatever labels I receive for that position with a smile, because I'd sooner back what I know to be true than make an argument that aparently disregards history.

Ok one more quote, and this one puts the nail in the coffin so to speak....

________________________________________________________________________________
___

Quote 3. Osama Bin Laden in a 52 minute audio tape broadcast on March 27th of 2006..........

"O young people of Islam: Follow the orders of Almighty God and His messenger and kill those people. Follow the example of Muhammad Bin-Musallamah and his companions. Death is better than living on this earth with the unbelievers amongst us, making a mockery of our religion and prophet, God's peace and blessings upon him. Fear God, try to please Him, and do not consult with anyone regarding the killing of those unbelievers."

Citation..... http://www.defenddemocracy.org/quotations/...m?doc_id=165459

________________________________________________________________________________
___

This proves religion was a motivator without a doubt, just as I claimed. I'm not grabbing ideas out of mid air over here. It also proves their intolerance for freedom of religion in general. Look at the underlined portions of the quote above again. So Osama Bin Laden says that being dead is better than living on this Earth with people who don't follow his sick perversion of the Muslim religion. Or lets just say people who don't believe what he does to be fair, yet after several comments like this one throughout the years by him and others in Al Qaeda, 3 posters in this room in a span of one day are actually questioning the Idea that one of the primary motivations for the 9/11 attacks by Al Qaeda was the fact that they don't believe in freedom?

Their philosophy as described by them, is kill all the unbelievers that don't believe what what they do! Its right there word for word, yet our freedoms don't bother them? Lol, yea ok whatever you guys want to believe.

I can not break it down any better than that. The idea that they despised our freedom and freedom in general is not my opinion, its a fact, and I don't say that often but its certainly true here because they are the ones who are openly saying these things, all the time! Their not exactly bashful about being heartless pricks, I'll give them that much.

It will be interesting to see how this is spun at this point. Will some posters here now conveniently suggest these stories were planted by our gouvernment, or am I going to hear that this wasn't enough to convince you? What will it be? Do some research and you will see that this basic philosophy has been adopted by the entire organization, its not just Bin Laden saying these things. Thats just 3 quotes out of hundreds of others like them that have been stated publicly by various members of Al Qaeda that I could use. They despise our beliefs, and they despise the concept of diverse culture and freedom, its the truth and limiting freedoms such as these while imposing their way of life is one of their primary motivations on a daily basis, not according to me, but according to them, case and point.

Thoughts?

When in a strategic nation you have the opportunity to support an authoritarian, Communist, Soviet-leaning govt, versus an authoritarian USA-leaning govt, for 25 points and a chance at the grand prize selected especially for you, which govt do you support? You have 10 seconds to give us your answer....

If only the real world were so neat and clean as you wish it to be....

We have a long record of trying to "steer" authoritarian govts we support in the right direction, but not at the expense of tanking our entire foreign policy concept.

The real world makes strange bedfellows. It comes with the responsiblity.

Certainly.

Why do you assume that Osama Bin Laden's take on Islam is a 'sick perversion of the Muslim religion'? He hasn't acted in any way contrary to the Quran...
Link.

No one wants to admit the truth, not least the Muslims themselves. The truth is Islam is an ideology of oppression that commands its followers to kill the kuffar. America is perceived to be the greatest kuffar nation and so it merits extra special attention.

The bottom line is simple. The only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is by defeating Islam on an intellectual level. The more Muslims develop towards secularism, the less support there will be for seventh century doctrine. The only problem with this is, the landslide of Islam has fourteen centuries of momentum behind it and so far there isn't much to indicate that moderate Muslims in western nations are prevailing against their own brethren with their ideological urge to kill or convert the kuffar. On the contrary, western Muslims have now adopted high fertility rates and illegal immigration as bonafide tactics of jihad and honour killings are becoming ever more frequent in western nations.

More curious still is the high rate of crimes committed by Muslims against non Muslims where ever Muslims have congregated in in Europe. Consider the last few days in the UK alone. Today. Yesterday. The day before. The day before that and the day before that and the day before that and so on in ad nauseum. How is it possible that an ongoing racist campaign of violence by one ethnic minority is met with such mute trembling silence?

Because Muslims in the UK belong to a 1.4 billion majority of Muslims world wide. In total, there are 400 odd million Europeans, at least 5-10% of whom are Muslims. When ever a Muslim child is killed by Europeans, there is such an out cry of indigantion that the it echoes from Jakarta to Cairo, and that scares Europes political elite. When a Muslim man knifes two Orthodox Jews in two seperate attacks, it is neither considered deliberate, racist or motivated by religion. It is described as random and unprovoked, but not treated as 'faith hate crimes'. In other words, Muslims are not held to account for attacking our children because to do so is to consider questions that no one dares to consider.

There is a clandestine war going on against 'kuffar democracy' by an unknown proportion of the worlds Muslims based on the teachings of Mohammed, as written in the Muslim holy texts and most westerners don't even want to admit it. Why not is any one's guess but I suppose fear is the upmost factor. Fear of war, fear of western totalitarianism, fear of being accused of racism, or most probably fear of being forced to confront the unforeseen consequences of one's own altruism...

Link.

Question. How do you defeat a vast, powerful, rich, secular capital?
Answer. You colonise it with religious people.

Bruxelles is the capital of the EU. It is set to have a Muslim majority within the next ten to fifteen years. There is no plan to stop this from happening. In the ivory towers of the EU intelligentisa, Islamic immigration is the prefered tool for dilluting and dissolving the national character of the member states.

In the long run, altruism doesn't pay when the people to whom you reach out have their own agenda which seeks to take advantage of your altruism and use it as a weapon against you... just as they used your commerical airliners as weapons against you.

The problem with your thesis is that you are looking at our foreign policies and reactions to it in a narrow view. You go back, grudgingly to 1991. Other nationalities and ethnicities have far longer memories and views of history. Americans by and large operate on a cable news cycle of memory. The angst of Middle Easterners, among others, has been building for decades and centuries. Angst built up from colonialism, exploitation and hegemony.



I see that you continue to launch accusations at "what you know I meant" yet fail to provide proof for all, how courageous; running away from the truth......I'm not surprised.



I would invite you to actually educate yourself on our use of IO and PSYOPS; at the patronizing and intellectually insulting messages to the Iraqi people; at the patronizing and intellectually insulting messages to our own people. Really, Net.......do you actually believe that this nation engages in absolutely no skulduggery, no underhandedness, no oppositional practices to our stated principles? Do you place this nation, comprised of humans like anywhere else, above natural human nature and lust for power???

It's sadly humorous to watch people proclaim our unblemished national virtue and commitment to freedom and liberty for all........and in the next sentence, sell out those principles like a ten dollar whore on payday, when it suits their political interests or macho vision for an imperial America.

Obviously, I must be a surrendering anti-American America hater for wanting a foreign policy that doesn't immediately jump to bullying military options; for wanting a foreign policy that enforces our principles of freedom and liberty as the rule instead of the exception.

Foreign policy operates by and large in accordance with the Law of Unintended Consequences. Getting hardcore jingoists to admit even this is a minor miracle, (talk about open minds)......these people couch this debate in terms of 'winning and losing'. Once we've sold our souls and pretended that we were the 20th century Imperial Rome, we lost. These arguments are treated like video games by people who aren't and will never be 'collateral damage', and by people who will not place themselves at the tip of the spear that they brandish about from the comfort of their suburban homes.

Hardly surprising from a class of people who actually believe they are truly free.........

Does anyone see the irony of a kid living in his kid's basement debating what is courageous?

Quick- there is a kool-aid in this country alright- it is those that think that America does good things in other countries, and that they are better off with our bombing of thier families and friends.

One of the things that has always stumped most people with any world view is WHY we have been attacked so little- considering the evil we have wrought around the world.

What keeps a guy from strapping a bomb to his body and walking into a crowded mall in anywhere, US, to avenge the death of his family by US forces or our proxies?

I think mostly, resources. The 9/11 sleeper cell was the first ones to really exploit the resources they had available- very low tech planning.

A Guatamelan just doesn't have the resources or infrastructure right now to do us any harm- OBL was the first to really utilize the resources he had against the US.

Isolation helps alot too- we have a couple oceans or alot of land betwween the US and those that would harm us- 9/11 erased some of that feeling of invincibility due to isolation I think.

We agree about this, droop, but you took my statement out of context. The context was net2007's statement: If they didn't attack us primarily for who we are then why do I read about things like them saying that the WTC was an ideal target because of the number of Jews working in those buildings? In other words, "Jews" is a codeword for Israel.

You're right that if a country were carved out of the ME for any other non-Arab secular or non-Muslim sectarian group, the reaction would likely be the same.

To net2007:

These quotes do not prove your thesis. Often in the propaganda game, grievances involving historical narrative are transformed into pithy sound bites. These sound bites are not the "reasons" but rather an expression of those reasons. I don't doubt that OBL hates the US. I just doubt that the reason OBL (Al Qaeda) hates the US is because of "freedom". Instead, OBL has outlined his grievances towards Israel and the US occupying Muslim holy land which in the Muslim world are perceived to have legitimate basis. He then exploits those grievances using a number of propaganda techniques.

It's important to not lose sight of these fundamental grievances; otherwise, we will never understand our enemy. We will continue to make the same mistakes (such as we have in Iraq). In other words by accepting the premise, "they hate us for our freedoms", we have already lost the propaganda war. By accepting this, we are fighting the war of words (and associated hearts and minds) on his battleground. Any military strategist will tell you that doing so puts us in a position of weakness.

Remember that the propaganda war is not for us, but rather for those people (likely Muslim in this case) who are on the fence or at a minimum not engaged. If we can undercut the foundations of his rhetoric, then we are fighting on our terms and not on his terms.

What I long for Logo- is a much better foriegn policy, nothing more, nothing less.

Where corporate interests are NOT US interests, and we recognize it as so- if Exxon invests heavily in Nigeria, and ends up with it's crap confiscated and "nationalized"- too bad, so sad, your problem, not ours.

If Chiquita banana loses it's slaves- hey, you had it coming.

stop propping up despotic govements, and let business take risks in risky countries at thier own risk. They get killed by revolutionaries over there- hey, that's on you.

Send our own leaders to jail for supporting war criminals.

In other words- take responsibility for our behavior, mind our own country, and stop mucking about in others business.

Perhaps then, we won't be viewed as the world bully we are today.

To some extent this is true, but lets be honest here. That memory is highly selective and we don't see Turkey being held accountanble for its aggressive tendencies or Ottoman legacy. What we see is a Jewish state being held to a very different standard, and what we hear is talk of 'crusaders'.

Answer me honestly DTOM, when was the last time you met a Crusader?


Your not free DTOM? which freedom do you lack?




Resources? How many resources does it really take to make a home made bomb and strap it to your body? I could have done this anytime I chose throughout the eighties and nineties. Books explaining how to make bombs were freely available, even before the internet posted the knowledge to the rest of the planet.

Its not resources. Its motive. Despite your (undocumented) mantra that Americans killed thousands of Guatamalans over cheap banana's, no Guatamalan's have had any ideological imperative to go to America and exact bloody revenge.

And any way Osama Bin Laden was not the first person to carry out a terrorist attack against the United States. Not by a long shot. He wasn't even the first Muslim. Muslims were terrorising American ships as far back as the late 1700's


So what happens when the two coincide CR? I ask because you don't seem capable of grasping the concept of a mutual agenda between the capitalist USA and the corporations which it gives a home to and from who's revenues it benefits greatly.


You won't, but neither will you remain rich either. You will step aside and allow other, far less altruistic nations, like Russia, China, India and Iran to come to the fore and have free reign across the world. Your strategic interests will one by one be lost and the knock on effect will force the EU to either dissolve into impotent chaos or arm itself in order to maintain its wealth.

People will act on their own perceived best interests and in the mean time, the outward flow of immigration from country's with no regard for population control will continue. Into your country too.


edited for spelling

I'm not even including history of western intervention that far back. I will give some benefit of the doubt to cultures in the pre-industrial age who weren't imbued with any notions of democracy and liberty.

What I'm advocating is a more Jeffersonian approach to foreign policy. A balance between hard power and soft power, in light of the recent 'with us or against us' framework, and the previous all's fair to stop the commies approach. We have deviated so far from the intent of the founding father's, they likely wouldn't recognize this nation. The founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. What I'm not advocating is isolationism or 'surrendering' to terrorists, regardless of what the armchair jingoists on this board might imply. A balanced policy that leans more on non-intervention means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations.

Dr. Robert Pape wrote an interesting book, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism in which he covers our foreign policy as he explains the rationale of Islamist terrorism. A summary of his conclusions reads:

Though “we” cannot leave the Middle East altogether, Pape asserts, a “strategy for victory” is available. U.S. should define victory as the separate objectives of “defeating the current pool of terrorists” and preventing a new generation from arising. He rejects Frum-Perle view that the root of the problem is in Islam. “Rather, the taproot is American military policy”. The notion that Islamic fundamentalism is bent on world domination is “pure fantasy” An attempt by the West to force Muslim societies to transform “is likely to dramatically increase the threat we face”. He calls for a policy of “‘off-shore’ balancing”: establishing local alliances while maintaining the capacity for rapid deployment of military forces.
Link

Beating the drums of war is easy; conflict resolution by other means is harder, and often the short attention span American public will be roused by exhortations of patriotism and fall in line with the herd as they march to the beat of those drums. Too many politicians have a Team America approach to foreign policy and it's a sexier sell to the public.

Unbelievably GW Bush stated in the 2000 presidential debates:

I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously.
Link

How far he has fallen from his stated principles. I guess 9-11 'changed everything'.

Finally one of my favorite quotes on foreign policy is from John Quincy Adams:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet on her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world; she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. . . . Her glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

That is the foreign policy that I advocate.



We have a higher standard of living than most nations, but we are not truly free. Probably the wrong thread to get into this debate, and I'll just be labeled an America hater......

Moif- do you seriously believe our economy will come crashing down because we don't support despots and topple democracies in other countries? Seriously?

It wouldn't 'crash down'. It would be a long gradual slide.

Do you really think there are any rich countries on Earth which do not exploit other countries? That don't support destabilising elements in other countries in order to give themselves a distinct advantage. Do you really think your wealth and the comforts you enjoy can be had by any other means but exploiting cheap labour?

Uh, yeah, I do, in fact, think that our goverment's non-interference in other countries is very good for business, and interference is bad. Claiming to be capitalist while forcing command economies upon populations is bad for business.

Who knows where Vietnam would have been without European interference? Vietnam and China are both moving into capitalist models- and Vietnam couldn't really do that until we got out.

Who knows where Cuba would be if we didn't have an embargo of trade?

...and these countries are....?

Question CR. You seem to live your life by if and buts. I am assuming you are the very definition of the Monday morning quarterback.



Hmmm, I think Germany and Japan might actually argue with factual data on this.



LMFAO. Let me guese you worship on the alter of Chromsky nes pas? So you believe that S. Vietnam was Communist...OOOOOKKKAAYYYYYY. Could it possibly be that they need Capatilism to support their failed ideologies? Naww, too simple.



Who knows. But, I bet if we asked Chromsky he could tell you how it actually would have been!!!!

So, the questions are- why is bringing up this reasonable subject in America verbotten topics of conversation?

Loaded words aside. Assessing the impact of American foreign policy is not a forbidden intellectual exercise, but it is unfortunately a self-destructive political exercise. In politics we do not search for nuances, we search for gaffes or things that can be turned into gaffes. So a politician addressing concerns that mandatory sentencing requirements have created a heavily imprisoned population relative to similar nations is a can;t win debate because it makes you soft on crime.

Also a public exploration in the United States' role in the answer to the "Why do they hate us?" question that inevitably followed the 9-11 attacks was only going to be interpreted as blaming the victims of 9-11 instead of the criminals.

So too does a politicians get assailed for being too idealistic or soft on terrorism if the withdrawal of any recognized legal rights of our "enemy noncombatants" held for as long as six years. This unAmerican question cannot be recognized as being American in the since of recognizing violated "natural rights" theory that our nation was founded on.

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?

The United States has, all things considered, used its power as humanely as any hegemon with Great Britain perhaps coming in a tie. That being said, U.S. policies in our era of hegemony and intervention have cuased many problems and created victims in the world.

I'm not sure if there are legitimate targets of terrorist attacks, but I increasingly find out that I am much more opposed to the use of violence than most people. But for those who use swords instead of pens, the United States has given many people around the world reasons to hate us. I think in balance we have given more people a reason be grateful for our policies than to hate us.



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?

I think people are more comfortable in dismissing challenging to the status quo or conventional wisdom than in listening carefully to criticisms and honestly debating. In my case, critical debate has often led my toward the path of greater love of our nation. But to others to question is to abandon the one side that loves you. For me, this is the type of path that led to a Hindu assassinating Gandhi, an Egyptian assassinating Sadat, and an Israeli assassinating Rabin.

For the record, I am not singing off on the assessment that overall, the United states foreign policy has been oppressive and evil.

I dont have time to reply but to this one post today, because im at my parents again for the weekend, but I'll get to this one for now.


logophage

To net2007:




Of course my quotes prove my thesis. An orgainization who is caught saying things like "death is better than living on earth with non beievers", "dont consult with others about killing those non beievers", or "we will crush the concept of democracy". Are obviously NOT fond of the concept of freedom, especialy when they carry out killing the non believers they speak of, thats common sense logo. Do they use such lines to turn other muslims against us? Sure they do, but the difference between me and you on this is that I can belive what I do while taking the terrorist at their word, if they say they hate life, freedom, and democracy, I'll belive it. I'm not making the mistake of taking what they say as if its not serious, we did that before 9/11 and when that day came along it should have been a clear sign to all of us that we should take these men at their word.

What you have to do to belive what you do is assume the best possible context is true of our enemy. In other words you refer to them as our enemy yet you make them out to sound as normal as possible. For example, I suppose you think since you grew up around people who dont loath the concept of free will, that this rings true for just about everyone. People do the same thing with Saddam, and the only thing that makes sense of this behavior to me is that some people want Al Qaeda or Saddam to sound like incompetent boobs that dont mean what they say, or couldnt possibly hate the concept of free will, because in doing so they help erase any justification for fighting the war on terror.

Ok, I did my part, the ball is now in your court. Why dont you try kicking it instead of dodging it, by providing something that backs your stance rather than resorting to saying my evidence is inconlusive because Al Qaeda doesnt really mean the things they say. How about it, care to make your argument compelling?

Wow. I am left breathless at this tirade of yours. First, you say you take these terrorists at their word, but you completely ignore the words of Bin Laden himself in his 1998 Fatwa:
Second, you proceed with a "common sense" argument that isn't common sense at all making this bizarre claim that no one took Bin Laden seriously before 9/11. Maybe, you don't recall the attempted 1993 bombing of the WTC or the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya & Tanzania or the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Maybe, you don't recall the August 2001 PDB report titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.

Third, you assert you know something about me personally, how I grew up and how I personally feel about terrorists. I've seen you do this with other debaters and every time you do this, you lose credibility. It also isn't debate; it's ad hominem. You seem to resort to this tactic whenever someone questions your position (which occurs with regularity). Don't be so defensive. I appreciate your posts when you remain civil and on topic.

Finally, you completely ignore the main focus of my post which isn't about Bin Laden himself but rather about the propaganda war designed to get new members to join a cause. The US has a point of view as does Bin Laden. What we want to do is reduce recruitment on Bin Laden's side. If we can, we want to increase recruitment to the US's side. I don't know how you missed this point I was making. Maybe, you could read more carefully next time?

I dont recall the 1993 WTC bombing? I just brought it up the day before yesterday, but the point is many Americans didnt even know who OBL was until 9/11 of 2001. Also I dont make comments on what I think people mean, only on what they say in debate which is not flaming. If you say something in debate that I dont agree with. Like despising freedom is not a trait or motivation of Al Qaeda, then I may critisize it. It goes with the territory, if you dont want to recieve constructive critisims, I sugggest you do what Hillary Clinton does and make your position as vauge as possible.

We are all adults here, but if you or Dontreadonme or whoever, want to take positions, then gripe and moan when someone brings them up, I dont know what to say to you. You could try doing what a couple other debaters here do and say I'm misquoting you altogether, although to be convincing you may want to wait a week or two given that the feedback I gave you was regarding comments you made 2 days ago, still too fresh to deny I suppose. Hopefully you dont take that approch, I only know one or two posters here that do, and it never works.

Look I dont care if you disagre with me Logo, im just giving you feedback. Ive gotten some tough feedback myself at times, but I deal with it.

This time around the problem I find in your argument is how "one issue oriented" it is. I belive there are multiple motivations for Al Qaeda. You say Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are not motivated by their disgust of free will, then you make out as if I dont understand that our mid eastern presence hasn't also been a factor here. Even though Ive been saying things like the following in prior days in this room........





I even agreed with a member two days ago that our presence elsewhere creates a ripple effect, but that concept is true of any war. That doesnt mean we were in the wrong for having many of these forign policies we have had. Like helping Kuwait against Saddam. However the fact that Al Qaeda despises other religions and life styles is a motivator as well, and in my opinion the primary motivator. There are hints of this everywhere in their words and actions all the time. Yet that is somehow hard to belive for you?

The arguments that primarily Left wing Americans are making have become increasingly vauge or sypathetic to our enemies over the years. Generaly in regards to Iraq and Saddam, which I understand to some exent given the controversial nature of the Iraq war. However now im hearing Al Qaeda does not hate the concept of freedom, and Bin Laden is coradgeous? Lol, what next? That they are just some every day joes that we are being mean to? At this point if someone in here said that I actualy wouldnt be surprised. I mean come on guys, Al Qaeda is an organization that orients itself around eliminating diversity, particuarly diversity of religion. Honestly you guys should know that.

Ohh well if im the one making an unsenable argumnt by saying that, I'll keep on saying anyway becuase I belive it with every bone in my body. There is no sustitute for using the words of your enemy and the actions of your enemy, to show what their motivation has been. With that, I require no speculation.

I don't know why your dragging me into your argument with Logo; I stand by my position every bit a strongly as you do yours. I don't however think highly of false accusations and the perpetual habit of telling others how they think, and what they must do to validate their opinions.

I believe that you are making the typical jingoist mistake of thinking that any attempt to understand our enemies is tantamount to sympathy for their cause. Enlightened intellectualism disagrees with that premise.

An article rather supportive of Imperialism at least understands the negative effects:

Blowback

History teaches that foreign military bases are a double-edged sword. The most obvious indication of the truth of this proposition is the present “War on Terrorism.” There can be little doubt that attacks over the last decade or more directed against both U.S. forces abroad and targets in the United States itself have been a response in large part to the growing U.S. role as a foreign military power in regions such as the Middle East, where the United States has not only engaged in military actions, even full-scale war, but also since 1990 has stationed thousands of troops. The establishment of U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia was regarded by some Saudis as an occupation of the holiest land of Islam, to be repelled at virtually any cost.

The perception of U.S. military bases as intrusions on national sovereignty is widespread in “host” countries for the simple reason that the presence of such bases inevitably translates into interference in domestic politics. As the 1970 report by the Subcommittee on Security Agreements and Commitments Abroad of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee noted: “Overseas bases, the presence of elements of United States armed forces, joint planning, joint exercises, or excessive military assistance programs…all but guarantee some involvement by the United States in the internal affairs of the host government”
Link

I agree and that is why we need to stay in Iraq after peace is established. As tied to oil as we surely will be for the next 30-40 years we need maintain forces in the middle east and Iraq has requested we stay and is the perfect place to maintain forces. We could leave Saudi Arabia – taking away a BL talking point.

So instead of advocating and working for a change in energy policy and a reduction in hegemony, and since 30-40 years in Iraq will easily translate to 30-40 years of US casualties..........you would simply roll over and accept the imperial line?

Are you in agreeance with our current neo-colonial policy or just excusing it?

Actually we can do both – “change is energy policy" is vital but will take decades to achieve even if we start today and actually do something. The Dems have been in office how long? And what exactly have they done?

And I am agreeing with your quote. We “cannot leave the ME”. So clearly the best place to stay would be a place where there is a democracy that welcomes us – that place is Iraq. And I don’t believe we will have 30-40 years of casualties.

Of course you agree with the quote, I stated that the article in general had a pro-imperialist bent. At least the author has the intellect to understand the negative factors that come with his assessment. And not expecting casualties as long as armed, western infidels are occupying Shia holy land is........naive.

Ted, I ask again, are you in favor of a neo-colonial and imperialist foreign policy, or just excusing it due to oil dependence?

Another provoking article appeared in today's edition of Boston.com. Though speaking more to Iraq, the author discusses US foreign policy in general.

Today, the United States, fearing a geo-political setback that will undercut the broader "war on terror," is putting the diehard goal of military "victory" ahead of the diplomatic initiatives that alone can enable the reconstruction of Iraqi society. The needed spirit of cooperation among Iraqi factions, and from other nations, will never materialize as long as the United States pursues the fantasy that its armed might will at last prevail. Once again, diplomacy is being rejected in favor of war. This is insane.

Let's call this repeated insanity the mistake of "supermilitarism," choosing war over diplomacy, and expecting order to follow, instead of chaos. The mistake was made at the beginning, in the middle, and is being repeated now, in what should be the end. The mistake is so deeply rooted in American structures of imagination, economy, and government that it isn't even perceived as a mistake by those in power. And it threatens the future as much as it burdens the past.
Link

No you say I'm misquoting you, or basing my opinions on things I'm speculating about you personally, when it was your debate arguments that I've been directly critisizing. Please lets not do this again, for like the third time. I don't want to have to quote you for comparisons you already know you made. When comparing our president to Bin Laden, you put it in the form of a question, thats true. However then you went about drawing a direct comparison between our president and the Taliban, ((A Terrorist Organization)) among other comments you've made.

I disagre with many of your key arguments frequently Dontreadonme, and thats nothing personal, but you need to stand by the arguments you make instead of letting on that I'm speculating about you personally.

In the slim chance that Ive misunderstood you somehow in the past, and you didn't mean what you said, stop saying those things is my advice. Say what you mean and mean what you say or your going to be misunderstood.

I looked over my question, and it appeared to be in English and spelled correctly.............So you spent an entire post telling us that you misunderstood my question to you? I'm not sure then why you brought it up on so many occasions as some sort of attack on my position.

I asked you previously if you had ever thought that US foreign policy has been underhanded or for less than honorable intentions. You didn't respond, and based on your other posts, I am led to believe that your answer would be no.

I would then ask the same question of you that I posed to Ted. Has your support of Americas foreign policy been an excuse for oil dependence, or a sense that we should promote our governance on other nations, or that our perceived sense of national security trumps any considerations of long term effects and blowback; not to mention the sovereignty of other people.

Have we reconciled ambition with honor? Power with morality?

I said in the slim chance that I misunderstood what you meant, its obviously because your saying things you dont belive. I'm going only on what you have said in debate.

Now to answer your question of have I ever thought that US foreign policy has been underhanded or for less than honorable intentions?

At the worst Ive seen us do things that have been controversial, in the sense that there was always a justified reason for our actions, but in some cases those reasons were not convincing to some, or turned out not to work as planned. The U.S. government is not perfect, and there is an element of secrecy in it that makes us all wonder at times. Are we free from corruption? No. Are we free from being capable of deception? No

However I don't think we can be compared to the likes of the Taliban, or Bin Laden. That is a stretch to say the least, and you have at the very least drawn comparisons between the Bush administration and the Taliban. You drew the comparison with OBL as well, although in that case you put it in the form of a question and it was pretty obvious what your stance was on your own question.

That should be a pretty clear answer, I hope, I have my share of criticisms on this government, but I'm not about to use that as an excuse to draw wild comparisons between us and some of the worst elements on planet Earth. You know what? Everyone is disappointed with this administration to some extent, it's been frustrating for many people, but I believe people have become so disgusted with the Bush administration that they have used that as an excuse to drop anchor and assume the worst possible scenario is true in every single circumstance with him.

When I'm arguing points like saying (I don't base my beliefs regarding the Iraq war on things that might be true of president Bush) I mean just that. I don't know for sure that he hasn't lied regarding many issues, its certainly possible, but all of these arguments of deception would ultimately fail to prove anything in a court of law, which is exactly why this president has not been impeached. Have you actually ever considered that?

I'll make criticisms on the things I know, and what do I know?

For starters I know president Bush is a poor president, with poor leadership skills for a number of reasons that I don't have to speculate about. I dont have to compare him to the Taliban (which is ridiculous) to know he is a poor president.

Now that being said, even though I am a Conservative Republican myself I don't support this war simply because it was initiated by a Conservative Republican, especially Bush, who is far from a shining example of a great conservative leader anyway. If the next president is Democrat and by some miracle of reasoning they decide to try and win this war, I'll be behind them 100%, regardless of politics. My support for this war comes from a belief that this nation is in a unique position to make a difference in the world in ways less resourceful nations cant. I think our presence in the world in most cases has helped rather than hurt, and you can disagre with that if you want, but these are my core values.

In the case of Iraq as Ive said many times I think Bush went about doing the right thing, the wrong way, and at the wrong time. The reason I support the war is because I believe we can win despite these foul ups for one, and I believe that when you commit to a war like this one, you put the fate of another nation in your hands and the lives of American soldiers in your hands. Leaving prematurely will make everything the Liberal left has been arguing true overnight.

Think about it, It will be at that point when it will be accurate to say this was a total waste of life, and resources. It will then be accurate to say this war was a lost cause as well. Overnight all these arguments will become valid, but until that time Dontreadonme we have a choice, and we have the ability to make this work. Im sorry you don't believe that, but I do, and if you think thats based on blind patriotism, or me being naive, whatever, believe what you will. Ive seen this nation do good deeds many times, and Ive read about this nation come together and pull itself out of holes even bigger than this one.

The point is valid but every time I've seen it brought up it is ignored. The benign optimism that "our" government can do no wrong is being tested. On that point, I agree with you. See post #40 for details.

What you touch on to a limited degree is the pyschology that westerners must go 'forth' and spread their influence because there is a palpable fear that if they don't they will imperil themselves. If we attempted to deconstruct the problem, I think fear and the media play a fairly large role. So does a disdain for the foreigners to manage their own affairs.

I would speculate that Viet Nam and now Iraq represent a disenchantment from national perogatives which is an unusal experience for American public.

Maybe in a few more years after we've put a few more men through the meatgrinder, we'll will be able to look at geopolitical power politics in another light.

Oy vey.

I don't post regularly for a month or two and see what happens.

Throughout this thread I've seen the same stereotypical 'love it or leave it' nonsense that I've been hearing since September 11, 2001. Folks, to deny that our foreign policy decisions do not result in hostility toward America and yes, attacks on its boarders is to deny the entire concept of cause-and-effect. Of course our historical support of brutal dictators from Latin America to the Middle East results in hatred and resent. With that said, onto the questions.

Because the American political atmosphere is polluted with nationalistic emotionalism, jingoism, logical fallacies and ignorance. Explaining the cause [American involvement in the affairs of sovereign countries] that has an effect [terrorist attacks, anti-Americanism, etc.] has been turned into justifying the effect. As a result, those who explain the cause and its effect are labeled anti-Americans [to those who are inclined to and want to call me one...Go nuts, I promise you that I don't care]. That's the nationalistic emotionalism/jingoism and logical fallacy all lumped in one. The other reason is ignorance. A lot of Americans simply don't know the darker side to American history [yes, it exists] and as a result, reject hearing 'new' information that paints their country in a negative light. To these people who are ignorant of American history, it's like finding out that their uncle who paid their way through college and housed them has a drinking problem.