Pakistan FIRES on US soliders crossing in from Afganistan

[JW8725]

Pakistan has fired warning shots to warn US soldiers on crossing the border into Pakistan itself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7396366.stm

[Ntombi]

Whoah.

I guess now that Mushariff's gone, Pakistan has decided to remind W. that it's a sovereign nation.

[iGary]

Good for them; it's their country.

[skunk]

Better be careful: they've got nukes and a delivery system.

[iJohnHenry]

Better be careful: they've got nukes and a delivery system.

To get to the U.S.???

In a boat, maybe. :p

[glocke12]

Good for them; it's their country.

yeah, too bad they cant control the nutjobs that live there.

[mkrishnan]

yeah, too bad they cant control the nutjobs that live there.

In contrast, we even go so far as to provide public housing to our nutjob. It's called the White House. ;)

American troops doing operations inside Pakistan is dangerous... I have a hard time seeing this helping regional stability. As far as my personal concerns go, the last thing I want to see is this to cause more of these militants to be flushed East into India. They cause enough trouble there already. This is an affront to Indian border stability also, and India certainly has done far less to support terrorism than the United States has.

[glocke12]

This is an affront to Indian border stability also, and India certainly has done far less to support terrorism than the United States has.


So the U.S. is a larger supporter of terrorism than India???:confused:

[adroit]

"Pakistan FIRES on US soliders crossing in from Afganistan"

Misleading and somewhat inflammatory thread title.

[JW8725]

"Pakistan FIRES on US soliders crossing in from Afganistan"

Misleading and somewhat inflammatory thread title.

so?

[CortexRock]

America, ******* yeah, comin' again to save the m************n' day, yeah...

Here we go again... saddle up and ride roughshod over the rights of sovereign nations in pursuit of the bogeyman. :mad:

[skunk]

To get to the U.S.???Pakistan International Airways.

[Much Ado]

Pakistan International Airways.

Or TNT. Hah.

[skunk]

So the U.S. is a larger supporter of terrorism than India???:confused:Definitely, yes. Major supporter of a certain Osama Bin Laden, death squads all over South and Central America, support for Georgian armed forces, various unsavoury Central Asian republics, not to mention inflicting Shock and Awe on the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan...

[skunk]

yeah, too bad they cant control the nutjobs that live there.It's a great shame that you lot actually elected your own nutjobs to national office.

[JW8725]

It's a great shame that you lot actually elected your own nutjobs to national office.

LOL! Lets hope another 2 don't make it to office. When is the election anyway? Can't be long now?

[mkrishnan]

So the U.S. is a larger supporter of terrorism than India???:confused:

Unfortunately, yes, we have been. We made too many deals with the devil during the cold war. We've supported and armed many of the militants we've been fighting recently, 20 or 30 years ago.

Besides in 2008, after multiple major examples of how this plan fails to curb terrorism, why are we doing it again?

[Cromulent]

Definitely, yes. Major supporter of a certain Osama Bin Laden, death squads all over South and Central America, support for Georgian armed forces, various unsavoury Central Asian republics, not to mention inflicting Shock and Awe on the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan...

Don't forget a huge backer of the IRA.

[NT1440]

does this have to do with the secret plans W. allowed to go into pakistan??

WHY IN THE HELL is the media not all over that? have we decided taht hes done so much wrong that another one up on the board doesnt count???

Is he just trying to start wars now to make it easier for Mccrazy to get in seeing as he has "more military experience"? WHAT is going on?

seriously!?

[IJ Reilly]

I'm probably going regret throwing in here, but the real issue is that Bush made a tacit deal with Musharaff which allowed him to obtain U.S. military aid, while effectively averting his attention from what was going on in the tribal areas. Musharaff's response to the Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds in this part of Pakistan was the pathetically under-armed, untrained and under-funded Frontier Forces. The mistake was putting so much stock in Musharaff, and not predicating military aid on restoring order in the tribal areas. Now Bush is acting out of desperation to salvage some part of his presidential legacy. That said, let's not pretend for a moment that Pakistan's allowing bin Laden and the Taliban to operate safe havens within Pakistan is an issue we should not care about.

[skunk]

Don't forget a huge backer of the IRA.Not in an official capacity, though. That was private backing from private citizens.

[skunk]

That said, let's not pretend for a moment that Pakistan's allowing bin Laden and the Taliban to operate safe havens within Pakistan is an issue we should not care about.Of course it is a great concern, but carrying out cross-border raids into an ally's territory without permission is tantamount to an act of war.

[IJ Reilly]

Of course it is a great concern, but carrying out cross-border raids into an ally's territory without permission is tantamount to an act of war.

I doubt that it will be treated that way, and it is certainly arguable that by providing the Taliban with safe havens to attack Afghanistan, Pakistan has already engaged in an act of war. The new government in Pakistan has been making more noises about dealing with the tribal areas than Musharaff ever did, but it's not clear that they have the capacity to do anything about it in the immediate term. I have an idea that the Pakistani government will issue protests mainly for domestic consumption, while privately welcoming others to do their dirty work for them. The sign to look for is whether Pakistan takes a grievance to the UN. I bet they don't.

[skunk]

I doubt that it will be treated that way, and it is certainly arguable that by providing the Taliban with safe havens to attack Afghanistan, Pakistan has already engaged in an act of war.Do you not remember that the Taliban and Bin Laden were both launched into Afghanistan from Pakistan by the USA and the Pakistani ISI when it suited them? "As ye sow....".
Anyway, against whom would this act of war be? Afghanistan, the USA or NATO?

[mactastic]

No one is arguing that we should be happy that Pakistan has effectively provided bin Laden and company a safe haven. The question is, what do we do about it?

Do we invade and occupy Pakistan in an effort to enforce Bush's assertion that anyone who feeds a terrorist is, by default, a terrorist themselves? My understanding is that this is a non-starter for several reasons. Of course, due to it being a non-starter, it also makes Bush look like the ineffective "speak loudly and carry no stick" blusterer-in-chief he is trying to avoid being seen as.

Do we work with the Pakistanis? So far that hasn't worked out at all. The ISI seems riddled with Taliban supporters (and indeed it has been since the days when the ISI openly supported their Taliban bretheren in Afghanistan) who will alert any targets to the news that they are being targeted just as surely as a mob informant on the police force keeps the don informed about police raids. While there may be some promising signs from the new Pakistani government, that doesn't change the centuries-old loyalties that affect the relationship between members of the ISI and the Taliban.

So do we isolate Pakistan? Seems like we can't just ignore a nuclear power. And sanctions don't often have the desired effects. See one Castro, Fidel. If we want to have any chance of catching bin Laden, we can't just ignore the Pakistanis.

However; we have to be very careful in using clandestine operations wherein we invade a friendly sovereign nation. They have a tendency to backfire spectacularly when things go wrong. A mis-use of these tactics could easily tip any potential anti-Taliban allies in Pakistan away from us in a hurry. If, for example, we killed 90 civilians by accident. Stuff like that can hurt our long-term efforts to combat terrorism.

[IJ Reilly]

Do you not remember that the Taliban and Bin Laden were both launched into Afghanistan from Pakistan by the USA and the Pakistani ISI when it suited them? "As ye sow....".
Anyway, against whom would this act of war be? Afghanistan, the USA or NATO?

I knew I was going to regret it, and so I have.

[skunk]

I knew I was going to regret it, and so I have.Regret it you may, but I'd still be interested in your answer to my second question, which is a serious one.

[IJ Reilly]

Regret it you may, but I'd still be interested in your answer to my second question, which is a serious one.

Why do you expect it? You haven't responded to any of the points I raised.

[Lord Blackadder]

Yeah, Bin Laden was originally our creature...or so we thought.

The only legal recourse we have is to play goalkeeper at the border, which will allow the Taliban and Bin Laden to operate indefinitely unless something drastically changes in Pakistan.

I'm not holding my breath.

We can't allow the Taliban to waltz back into Afghanistan (the Afghanis don't want us or them around, really), but we can't destroy the Taliban's ability to waltz into the country the moment we leave Afghanistan. Catch-22.

[northy124]

Pakistan has fired warning shots to warn US soldiers on crossing the border into Pakistan itself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7396366.stm

Good for Pakistan.

[skunk]

Why do you expect it? You haven't responded to any of the points I raised.I do not "expect it". I said I would be "interested". I answered at least one of your points, about the "act of war" question. As for the other, I do not believe that the new, untried Pakistani leader will as yet have much idea of what is even going on in the border area, let alone much effective control over the military. You don't switch seamlessly from a long-term military dictatorship to a clan-based "democratic" government. Loyalties are no doubt all over the place, and will be for a while, and whatever happens or is allowed to happen in the tribal areas will undoubtedly have a profound influence on how those loyalties settle down.

[mactastic]

I do not "expect it". I said I would be "interested".
Ah yes... "Interested" now means "expect" or "demand". Lack of full support of US actions means we're happy that Pakistan is harboring bin Laden. The beat goes on...

[Lord Blackadder]

Anyway, against whom would this act of war be? Afghanistan, the USA or NATO?

IJ can answer for himself, of course, but I'll take a crack at it.

I completely agree that any incursions into Pakistan are very risky, illegal and should be avoided. On the other hand, it is a fact that the ISI, or powerful elements therein, are actively protecting Taliaban and Al Qaida and allowing them to continue to use Pakistan as a haven from which to attack Afghanistan.

So the short answer would be that, at one level at least, an organ of Pakistan's government is committing an act of war against Afghanistan, or at least an aggressive/unfriendly action. They are responsible for the ISI, and the ISI is up to their eyeballs in responsibility for the fact that the Taliban as a movement (and Bin Laden) is still breathing and fighting.

You've pointed out some of the misdeeds the CIA/US government has been involved with here, so surely you can't leave Pakistan blameless in this case? Other countries support this kind of activity, not just the US. Actually, most of them do, if you want to be technical.

The mitigating factor is that Pakistan's government cannot control the ISI sufficiently to stop it, whether they want to or not. If Musharraf couldn't do it the new government won't be able to either, at least in the short term. But that doesn't change the fact that Pakistan is the source of the insurgency right now.

[skunk]

So the short answer would be that, at one level at least, an organ of Pakistan's government is committing an act of war against Afghanistan, or at least an aggressive/unfriendly action. They are responsible for the ISI, and the ISI is up to their eyeballs in responsibility for the fact that the Taliban as a movement (and Bin Laden) is still breathing and fighting.I am not leaving Pakistan blameless, but I certainly do not believe that Pakistan is actually capable of doing anything about it. It was an unstable, fragmented country to start with, and was rendered even more so by the machinations of the CIA while they tried to disadvantage the Russians. Ultimately, the situation can only be resolved by diplomatic engagement between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The presence of US and NATO forces is really irrelevant to the long-term solution. Pakistan is a corrupt and dangerous construct maintained as a player in some kind of fictional geopolitical narrative by US arms and US propaganda, and so indeed is Afghanistan. The interplay between them will remain opaque, dangerous and insoluble until the external players withdraw. Further military interference by the US will certainly not help.

[Lord Blackadder]

It was an unstable, fragmented country to start with, and was rendered even more so by the machinations of the CIA while they tried to disadvantage the Russians.

The Russians did invade of course, so The CIA "machinations" did not occur in a vacuum. Heck, if you want to talk history, we should include the machinations of the British Empire and India's wars with Pakistan. But I agree that Pakistan is often more geographical expression than unified republic. We can't expect them to be able to control their own militia and tribal regions, however much they might want to.

Ultimately, the situation can only be resolved by diplomatic engagement between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The presence of US and NATO forces is really irrelevant to the long-term solution. Pakistan is a corrupt and dangerous construct maintained as a player in some kind of fictional geopolitical narrative by US arms and US propaganda, and so indeed is Afghanistan. The interplay between them will remain opaque, dangerous and insoluble until the external players withdraw. Further military interference by the US will certainly not help.

What do you envision happening in the absence of foreign military presence? I'm not convinced about the ISAF mission there, but does the Afghani government have any chance of useful dialogue with Pakistan when we are gone, or will the Taliban re-establish footholds that disrupt that process? Or do you think that the Taliban deserve the government of Afghanistan if they can reclaim it?

Unlike Iraq, I don't think most of the problem will leave with our troops.

[skunk]

What do you envision happening in the absence of foreign military presence? I'm not convinced about the ISAF mission there, but does the Afghani government have any chance of useful dialogue with Pakistan when we are gone, or will the Taliban re-establish footholds that disrupt that process? Or do you think that the Taliban deserve the government of Afghanistan if they can reclaim it?The Taliban already seem to have extensive footholds in Afghanistan. All that the foreign military presence achieves at the moment is to maintain an artificial balance of power, neither eliminating the pervasive Taliban nor convincingly legitimising Karzai, whose writ extends no further than the outskirts of Kabul except where his foreign supporters empower him. Opium production has increased massively, human rights are paid nominal lip-service only, warlords carry on abusing and extorting from their local fiefdoms, and meanwhile small, artificial enclaves of foreign investment lend a totally false impression that broad improvements are taking hold. As in so many other places where outside powers have become involved, the longer this situation continues, the more violent will be the ultimate resolution when the military restraints and vast dollar sweeteners are finally removed.

[Lord Blackadder]

So what next?

Many of the issues you raise long predate the current political situation, so to lay the blame primarily on the international military presence is not correct, I think. If Afghanistan had a Nile delta the people would be growing food and exporting a surplus instead of opium for starters.

[IJ Reilly]

I do not "expect it". I said I would be "interested". I answered at least one of your points, about the "act of war" question. As for the other, I do not believe that the new, untried Pakistani leader will as yet have much idea of what is even going on in the border area, let alone much effective control over the military. You don't switch seamlessly from a long-term military dictatorship to a clan-based "democratic" government. Loyalties are no doubt all over the place, and will be for a while, and whatever happens or is allowed to happen in the tribal areas will undoubtedly have a profound influence on how those loyalties settle down.

Mainly I agree, the government in Pakistan is hardly a national government at all. In fact that was in part was my point. I was responding to your suggestion that Pakistan might regard US/NATO operations in the tribal areas as an "act of war." I think they won't, for reasons already outlined. I also placed some markers on where I think we should look for serious, as opposed to symbolic, objections from Pakistan. I don't think we'll see any, for reasons also already outlined.

I place blame for this mess once again squarely at the feet of the Bush administration. It's just another example of doing too little, or the wrong thing entirely, then overreacting. They backed the wrong horse in Pakistan, and now the price is coming due.

[skunk]

So what next?An unending military presence as is presently predicted by NATO is not a viable option. A "democracy" predicated on such long-term artificial external support is not a democracy at all. The Taliban will not go away. They could not operate without considerable support from the local population. It cannot be beyond the wit of seasoned diplomats to discover a formula which will draw the Taliban into the governmental process whilst mitigating their more unsavoury characteristics.
I also placed some markers on where I think we should look for serious, as opposed to symbolic, objections from Pakistan. I don't think we'll see any, for reasons also already outlined.I believe a summoning of the US Ambassador may be on the cards, but hardly a UN motion, as nominally at least the US and Pakistan are allies, besides which there are almost certainly US personnel involved in guarding or at least watching Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

[Queso]

I found this a while back. It was part of an article discussing the merits of removing the colonially imposed borders on the Middle East and having countries based on nationalities and ethnicity in an effort to achieve lasting peace. Of course, where the article falls down is how the redrawing of the map can be made without imposing the second solution by "colonial" powers, but nice idea all the same.

Notice what happens to Pakistan's western border. The fact that Pakistani Afghans are siding with their brethren in Afghanistan should come as no surprise.

http://www.kurdmedia.com/pix/map_middleeast_change.jpg

[skunk]

Good luck with that one! :)

[nick9191]

Good for Pakistan.

+ 1

[Lord Blackadder]

It cannot be beyond the wit of seasoned diplomats to discover a formula which will draw the Taliban into the governmental process whilst mitigating their more unsavoury characteristics.

It probably isn't, if we ignore history. Given the historical baggage in the region I think that's unrealistic.

Possibilities are one thing, but which of any of the players in this question actually wants the Taliban around?

[skunk]

It probably isn't, if we ignore history. Given the historical baggage in the region I think that's unrealistic.Diplomatic breakthroughs are often made by ignoring history, though not by an ignorance of it...

Possibilities are one thing, but which of any of the players in this question actually wants the Taliban around?Evidently many of the people of Afghanistan do.

[Queso]

Good luck with that one! :)
Oh I know, completely and utterly unachievable, but people are always going to dream aren't they? :)

Possibilities are one thing, but which of any of the players in this question actually wants the Taliban around?
You may have said the same about Gerry Adams or Robert Mugabe, and yet somehow they've been pulled into power-sharing deals.

[Lord Blackadder]

Diplomatic breakthroughs are often made by ignoring history, though not by an ignorance of it...

True. Frankly, I don't trust the Taliban at all, never mind to help run their own country, but to be a responsible part of the international community. You could no doubt counter with references to the US's shady international meddling, but that doesn't change anything with respect to the Taliban's record of government.

Evidently many of the people of Afghanistan do.

I don't know enough to pronounce... They certainly have armed partisans in-country, and a lot of people are probably sympathetic with much of their ideology, if not their methods.

You may have said the same about Gerry Adams or Robert Mugabe, and yet somehow they've been pulled into power-sharing deals.

If the Taliban do participate in Afghani government I'd wager it'd be more due to the fact of their ability to do violence on their opponents rather than a hope of coming to agreement.

I hope I'm wrong there, but...

[Macky-Mac]

I found this a while back. It was part of an article discussing the merits of removing the colonially imposed borders on the Middle East and having countries based on nationalities and ethnicity in an effort to achieve lasting peace. Of course, where the article falls down is how the redrawing of the map can be made without imposing the second solution by "colonial" powers, but nice idea all the same.

Notice what happens to Pakistan's western border. The fact that Pakistani Afghans are siding with their brethren in Afghanistan should come as no surprise.

http://www.kurdmedia.com/pix/map_middleeast_change.jpg

the Saudis sure wouldn't be happy with this plan......nor would the Turks, the Iranians, the Syrians, and the Pakistanis....or practically anybody with an army for that matter :D

[Lord Blackadder]

One of the problems with geopolitical boundaries is they are rarely formed peaceably - national borders are nearly always the product of warfare. Similarly, national identities are often formed in the face of conflict. Even countries with a strong national identity today, such as France, are made up of many regions that used to be autonomous, regions that exist due to the results of the warfare and politics of distant ages. The French weren't always The French, and so forth.

A corollary to this is that national boundaries are often maintained through force above all else. Examples abound. In other words, nations exist because they are strong enough and stable enough to defend themselves from colonization, invasion, or civil war.

Despite the existence of the UN, this still holds true to a large extent.

[hulugu]

Two good articles from Slate on this subject.

The High Cost of Winning in Afghanistan (http://www.slate.com/id/2200157/), by Anne Applebaum.

And this, in a microcosm, is the dilemma we face in Afghanistan, well understood on the ground but occasionally worth restating for outsiders: Where there is a real military presence, it is possible to bring peace and development to Afghanistan. But where there are no foreign troops, there is often anarchy. Though European governments like to draw a line between bringing "security" and engaging in counterterrorism in Afghanistan, on the ground those missions blur. Americans like to talk about "winning" and "losing" the war in Afghanistan, but on the ground it's clear that those categories aren't relevant. Though there has been much talk about "winning" and "losing" the war in Afghanistan, those aren't really relevant categories. Of course we can "win." The real question is whether we are willing to pay the high cost of victory.


And, Pakistan is the Problem (http://www.slate.com/id/2200134/), by Christopher Hitchens.

The truth is that the Taliban, and its al-Qaida guests, were originally imposed on Afghanistan from without as a projection of Pakistani state power. (Along with Pakistan, only Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ever recognized the Taliban as the legal government in Kabul.) Important circles in Pakistan have never given up the aspiration to run Afghanistan as a client or dependent or proxy state, and this colonial mindset is especially well-entrenched among senior army officers and in the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI.

[Peterkro]

"where there are no foreign troops there is often anarchy" If only,unfortunately the Afghan people are subjected to religious nut cases,war lords,Pakistani adventurism and a invading army none too discriminate about who they kill. Speaking as someone who spent time there between the king and the Russians it's a crying shame what has been done to these people.:mad:

[Abstract]

Of course it is a great concern, but carrying out cross-border raids into an ally's territory without permission is tantamount to an act of war.

I doubt that it will be treated that way....

Americans don't think so. For everyone else, it simply appears that Americans treat every country as another US territory. They can enter and exit as they please, and as long as they say "It's for your own good", then it's excusable.

It's not.


Do we invade and occupy Pakistan in an effort to enforce Bush's assertion that anyone who feeds a terrorist is, by default, a terrorist themselves?

Personally, I feel that when the US does something like this, they're acting like terrorists. Even by crossing just over the border into Pakistan isn't going to make a difference, so all this does is aggravate the new government. The US would have to really storm into Pakistan to be effective, but that's not going to happen, so they may as well wait at the Afghan border and sit, protecting Afghanistan from that position. Doing anything else just makes America look worse, even if their intent is good. Being diplomatic is more effective, because you can't fix Pakistan.

[glocke12]

While Afghanistan was undoubtedly justified to try to get the people who launched an unprovoked attacked on the U.S., I do think Iraq was a terrible mistake. We will more than likely be there years as a result, and no matter when we leave, and how "stable" that country is when we leave it will more than likely fall back into chaos. Democracy will probably never fully take root there.

That said, I think many of you are incredibly naive to think that if America "stays coser to home" and does not try to preserve its interests abroad that things will be ok. They wont. The fact is there are countries and groups that despise the west, and America for a number of reasons. Our foreign policy is one of them for sure, but our lifestyle is another. Like it or not, many if theses groups loathe our culture, our system of values, and wish to do us great harm. We were attacked under the Carter years (Iran hostages), and we were attacked worldwide under the Clinton years, so this has been an ongoing problem no matter who was in control and no matter whos foreign policy was being followed. The difference is Bush actually had the balls to do something about it. Ignoring Iraq for the moment, the Taliban in Afghanistan were harboring (or at least allowing to operate in their country) the Al Queda members who planned this attack. Were we supposed to idly sit by and do nothing? They were surely not going to hand them over. These people killed 4000 or so innocent people who were just trying to live their lives, and they also ruined the lives an untold number of families...So for some of you to sit in your bedrooms in your Mom and Dads house, or to sit in your dorm room that your Mom and Dad are paying for and write this crap is just plan naive and shows your ignorance and stupidity.

Iraq is another story entirely. Mistake from day one. From the start I never understood why we went in there. But whats done is done and we need to stay and finish the job and get the country as stable as possible before we leave. More than likely once we leave it will fall back into chaos no matter how "stable" it seems.

As to interfering with a sovereign nation such as Pakistan where it is known that radicals operate in the incredible remote regions there, it does not seem that the Pakistanis are able to control them very well, and if these people are causing trouble elsewhere, f'em.

Some you people in the U.S. and abroad should really, really be careful of what you wish for. Some of you posting in this thread and others make it sound like you think the world could be some kind Panacea where everyone loves each other and plays nice if the U.S. would go away, or bury its head in the sand, but that is just incredibly naive thinking.

Also, for the U.S. haters out there, Id like to point out the good that we do worldwide not only as a country but as individuals. Our gov't sends out tons of aid to countries worldwide every year, and individual Americans are THE most generous people in the world, contributing post tax dollars to all kinds of charities here at home and abroad.....

[miloblithe]

Also, for the U.S. haters out there, Id like to point out the good that we do worldwide not only as a country but as individuals. Our gov't sends out tons of aid to countries worldwide every year, and individual Americans are THE most generous people in the world, contributing post tax dollars to all kinds of charities here at home and abroad.....

Do you have a source for this claim? The U.S. actually ranks near the bottom of lists of overseas per-capita government aid. And the only way that our individual contributions to charities abroad can rank similarly near the bottom is by including remittances (recent immigrants who send money home to their families).

[glocke12]

Do you have a source for this claim? The U.S. actually ranks near the bottom of lists of overseas per-capita government aid. And the only way that our individual contributions to charities abroad can rank similarly near the bottom is by including remittances (recent immigrants who send money home to their families).

I dont know how relevant it is to measure aid on a "per capita" basis. I think the total dollar figure, and areas of distribution are more relevant. Not EVERY american is able to give to charities, and as a result I cant even believe that people use the per capita basis as a measurement, but if you look at the dollar figure of aid that leaves this country it is high.

http://www.nautilus.org/DPRKBriefingBook/uspolicy/CRSUSAidtoDPRK.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html

Thats just two things I found in two minutes of searching. I didnt even bother to look up the contributions that the wealthiest members of our society make, but from data Ive seen in the past it is significant.

There is undoubtedly more, but unlike some people in these forums, I have other things in my life I need to attend to so dont have time to sit here and post all day.

Doesnt matter anyway, the U.S. haters here will undoubtedly ignore anything positive I find about our country anyway......

[Queso]

We were attacked under the Carter years (Iran hostages), and we were attacked worldwide under the Clinton years, so this has been an ongoing problem no matter who was in control and no matter whos foreign policy was being followed.
The Iranian hostages weren't taken just to "attack America". The US had propped up the brutal dictatorship that had ruled Iran before the revolution. The hostage taking was a reaction to your projection of power into their country.

As for the attacks during the Clinton era, they were once again linked to the Taliban, who rose out of the Mujahideen that the Reagan government had armed and organised during the 80s, and constant US support for Israel no matter how badly the Israeli government behaves. The US's constant need to influence events in other countries is causing these problems in the first place, and the US people feel unfairly attacked on the few occasions when it comes back on them rather than realising it's down to their own government's actions internationally. Stop creating and arming terrorists, and stop backing horrific regimes, and within a generation all these "terrorists" will be leaving you alone.

[glocke12]

The Iranian hostages weren't taken just to "attack America". The US had propped up the brutal dictatorship that had ruled Iran before the revolution. The hostage taking was a reaction to your projection of power into their country.

and the Ayatollahs are benign rulers....please...the Iranians didnt hate the shah as much for his brutality as they did for his attempts to westernize the country.



As for the attacks during the Clinton era, they were once again linked to the Taliban, who rose out of the Mujahideen that the Reagan government had armed and organised during the 80s, and constant US support for Israel no matter how badly the Israeli government behaves. The US's constant need to influence events in other countries is causing these problems in the first place, and the US people feel unfairly attacked on the few occasions when it comes back on them rather than realising it's down to their own government's actions internationally. .


This is where your ideology and people like you stop making sense. Dont interfere in the affairs of others. Maybe we should have not interfered in the European theatre during WWII. Afer all, Germany never attacked us. We didnt have any major economic interests in Europe or Great Britain at the time....

At the time that we supported the mujahudeen, the Soviet Union was our enemy, they invaded Afghanistan, we responsded in kind by providing aid and support to the afghani rebels.
At the time it was the right thing to do. Where we failed was ignoring the region after the soviets left.


Stop creating and arming terrorists, and stop backing horrific regimes, and within a generation all these "terrorists" will be leaving you alone.

Thats incredibly naive. I dont disagree that our foreign policy has created problems for us, but to think that if we adopt a strict policy of non interference everything will be ok is naive....


Also, as to backing "horrific" regimes, would you rather have us ignore them? Saddam had a horrific regime. If he were still in power I am 100% certain that you are one of the people who are shouting that we should do something about him.

Offtopic, its the same thing with Tibet....if people like you dont want us to meddle in the affairs of others, why do so many of your kind want the US to get more involved in helping to "Free Tibet"????????

[.Andy]

Also, for the U.S. haters out there, Id like to point out the good that we do worldwide not only as a country but as individuals. Our gov't sends out tons of aid to countries worldwide every year, and individual Americans are THE most generous people in the world, contributing post tax dollars to all kinds of charities here at home and abroad.....
You can't buy goodwill and respect. You earn it through action.

[glocke12]

You can't buy goodwill and respect. You earn it through action.

oh dear god...what the hell does that mean ?


THat is EXACTlY what I am talking about. You just proved my point.

The people who hate America in these forums will ALWAYS be critical of what we do, no matter how helpful it is....

If we dont give aid to other nations we are evil...If we do give aid to other countries all we are doing is trying to buy them....

naive...naive....naive....

[Queso]

and the Ayatollahs are benign rulers....please...the Iranians didnt hate the shah as much for his brutality as they did for his attempts to westernize the country.
Do you have this first hand from actual Iranians? I do, and let me tell you the Shah was a nasty piece of work. Why do you think the Iranian people actually preferred the Ayatollahs to assume power, even those Iranians who aren't actually Muslim?

This is where your ideology and people like you stop making sense. Dont interfere in the affairs of others. Maybe we should have not interfered in the European theatre during WWII. Afer all, Germany never attacked us. We didnt have any major economic interests in Europe or Great Britain at the time....
Invoking Godwin's Law doesn't help your argument. The Nazi Party was actually an evil that needed to be defeated. Other legitimate governments, such as those in South America or even most recently in ex-Soviet states, have been toppled with the help of the USA simply to ensure that a pro-American government is in place. The fact that your government cosies up to the likes of the thankfully deposed Musharraf whilst threatening the comparatively benign Chavez should tell you it's nothing to do with "being the good guys".
At the time that we supported the mujahudeen, the Soviet Union was our enemy, they invaded Afghanistan, we responsded in kind by providing aid and support to the afghani rebels.
In that case, do you support Iranian military help for the Shia groups in southern Iraq? They are acting exactly in the way the USA acted in Afghanistan according to your above description.
At the time it was the right thing to do. Where we failed was ignoring the region after the soviets left.
Something that is done time and time again. What is it they say about those who continually repeat their own mistakes?
Thats incredibly naive. I dont disagree that our foreign policy has created problems for us, but to think that if we adopt a strict policy of non interference everything will be ok is naive....
Non-interference is a completely different concept to no longer supporting the repression of people, arming guerilla groups and effectively ensuring populations remain in poverty, all of which American foreign policy is guilty of. If you're going to interfere it has to be in a beneficial way, such as the foreign aid you mentioned earlier. Otherwise don't come crying when you find yourselves on the receiving end of a comeback once in a while.

[Peterkro]

If the US did something useful instead of blindly stumbling about like a wounded elephant trashing all and sundry I'm sure we'd all be very pleased.

[.Andy]

oh dear god...what the hell does that mean ?
It's not very ambiguous - I'll write it again for you. A checkbook is not the way to earn respect. It speaks volumes about you, that out of all the good that american does you chose money as an example.

naive...naive....naive....
Name calling. You're a true class act.

[glocke12]

It's not very ambiguous - I'll write it again for you. A checkbook is not the way to earn respect. It speaks volumes about you, that out of all the good that american does you chose money as an example.


hmmm....ok...Ill stop writing checks out and stop giving money to the charities that I give to already that I cant really afford to give to....I "only" work about 60 hours a week...so Im sure that somewhere between work, eat, and sleep I can find some other way to be helpful.

Dude, you just dont make sense. People like you complain when we dont do anything, you complain when we do do something, and you complain when we do the most helpful thing imaginable...give food aid or monetary aid to other countries...

As I said, your looking for a magical panacea that just does not exist, accept in your own mind(s)


Name calling. You're a true class act.

Since when did the word naive turn into a a derogatory remark, "or name calling" ???

naive: having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information;

Your opinions, and those of many others on here reflect that definition.

Anyway, time to go to work kiddies....

[Queso]

naive: having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information;

Your opinions, and those of many others on here reflect that definition
The only naiveté I spot is the rose-tinted view you have of actions being carried out in your name and the effects they in turn generate. If America really is only attacked because they hate your freedom, where are the terrorist attacks on Greece, Switzerland, Sweden, etc.? The only western countries where these attacks are occurring are those either projecting their power where it doesn't belong (in the case of France) or those directly backing and supporting the USA on its misguided adventures (Spain, UK etc.). That correlation says it all.

[miloblithe]

I dont know how relevant it is to measure aid on a "per capita" basis. I think the total dollar figure, and areas of distribution are more relevant. Not EVERY american is able to give to charities, and as a result I cant even believe that people use the per capita basis as a measurement, but if you look at the dollar figure of aid that leaves this country it is high.

Well, your assertion was that individual Americans are the most generous people in the world, so per capita contributions is the only way to measure that. Would you say that 5 people who give a total of $100 to charity are more generous than one person who gives $80 to charity? No, I don't think you would.

[skunk]

the Iranians didnt hate the shah as much for his brutality as they did for his attempts to westernize the country.Ask any victim of SAVAK whether they agree with your assessment. I think you might be greeted with a hollow laugh.

This is where your ideology and people like you stop making sense. Dont interfere in the affairs of others. Maybe we should have not interfered in the European theatre during WWII. Afer all, Germany never attacked us. We didnt have any major economic interests in Europe or Great Britain at the time....Apart from the staggering ignorance displayed in this invocation of Godwin, you may be interested to know that Hitler declared war on the USA, so to claim that "Germany never attacked us" is what you might well call "naive". As for not having any major economic interests in Europe, your homework is sadly lacking. Your country was supplying trucks, steel, alumin(i)um, electronics, oil, rubber and financial support to the Third Reich, through the agencies of Ford, GM, Du Pont, Alcoa, IBM and Prescott Bush, among many others. Without US support, the invasion of Russia would not have been possible.

At the time that we supported the mujahudeen, the Soviet Union was our enemy, they invaded Afghanistan, we responsded in kind by providing aid and support to the afghani rebels.
At the time it was the right thing to do. Where we failed was ignoring the region after the soviets left.It was not the right thing to do. The period of Najibullah's government in Afghanistan was one of relative stability and respect for women's rights. Your proxies replaced it with vicious warlords and Islamic fundamentalists.
Also, as to backing "horrific" regimes, would you rather have us ignore them? Saddam had a horrific regime. If he were still in power I am 100% certain that you are one of the people who are shouting that we should do something about him.You should have left him alone. What good have you done?

Offtopic, its the same thing with Tibet....if people like you dont want us to meddle in the affairs of others, why do so many of your kind want the US to get more involved in helping to "Free Tibet"????????"Our kind"? What "kind" is that? :confused:

[IJ Reilly]

So much for the topic.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/world/asia/17pstan.html

[.Andy]

hmmm....ok...Ill stop writing checks out and stop giving money to the charities that I give to already that I cant really afford to give to....
A true altruist doesn't sprout about their good deeds. Especially as an anecdote on an internet forum to win an argument.

I "only" work about 60 hours a week...so Im sure that somewhere between work, eat, and sleep I can find some other way to be helpful.
We all work lots of hours in modern society. You're not special.

Dude, you just dont make sense. People like you complain when we dont do anything, you complain when we do do something, and you complain when we do the most helpful thing imaginable...give food aid or monetary aid to other countries...
I'm not complaining about anything :confused:. Just pointing out on the scale of things giving money isn't a way to win respect or admiration. It's a step in the right direction, but a cheque alone is a rather empty gesture. Again, out of all the good deeds that America does around the world, donating $$ is one of the most hollow. It illustrates good intentions however.

As I said, your looking for a magical panacea that just does not exist, accept in your own mind(s)
No solution to any problems is going to come with just $$. You need hands and minds to work around conundrums and implement the solutions. $$ didn't solve smallpox, it was a dude that invested his time to do so. Money helps, but time is the most valuable and altruistic commodity to donate.

Since when did the word naive turn into a a derogatory remark, "or name calling" ???

naive: having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information;

Your opinions, and those of many others on here reflect that definition.
More name calling. The depths you plumb are tiresome.

[skunk]

So much for the topic.Yes, I suppose a small mea culpa is in order...

[.Andy]

Yes, I suppose a small mea culpa is in order...
X2 (Sorry IJ)

[hulugu]

I dont know how relevant it is to measure aid on a "per capita" basis. I think the total dollar figure, and areas of distribution are more relevant. Not EVERY american is able to give to charities, and as a result I cant even believe that people use the per capita basis as a measurement, but if you look at the dollar figure of aid that leaves this country it is high. ...

Yes it is, but with caveats.

From the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0106/p16s01-cogn.html):

In terms of traditional foreign aid, the US gave $16.25 billion in 2003, as measured by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the club of the world's rich industrial nations. That was almost double the aid by the next biggest net spender, Japan ($8.8 billion). Other big donors were France ($7.2 billion) and Germany ($6.8 billion).

But critics point out that the US is much bigger than those individual nations. As a group, member nations of the European Union have a bit larger population than the US and give a great deal more money in foreign aid - $49.2 billion altogether in 2003.

In relation to affluence, the US lies at the bottom of the list of rich donor nations. It gave 0.15 percent of gross national income to official development assistance in 2003. By this measure, Norway at 0.92 percent was the most generous, with Denmark next at 0.84 percent.

Bring those numbers down to an everyday level and the average American gave 13 cents a day in government aid, according to David Roodman, a researcher at the Center for Global Development (CGD) in Washington. Throw in another nickel a day from private giving. That private giving is high by international standards, yet not enough to close the gap with Norway, whose citizens average $1.02 per day in government aid and 24 cents per day in private aid.

*Note, the article is from 2005, but the data is fairly consistent.

[solvs]

but our lifestyle is another. Like it or not, many if theses groups loathe our culture, our system of values, and wish to do us great harm.
I can't believe anyone is honestly still using this line. As noted, why then aren't they attacking other countries who are far freer and more against their "values"? Unless you still think we're the freest nation out there. I suppose you'll call us America haters or whatever by pointing that out. Love that line too. By criticizing some of our governments' decisions we must hate America. :confused: Ok.

BTW, Clinton actually never stopped bombing countries like Iraq, sanctioning other ME countries, and fully supported Israel as well, so if you're wondering why they continued to hate us during his reign, there are plenty of other reasons than our "freedoms".

The difference is Bush actually had the balls to do something about it.
If by balls, you mean like what we completely dropped, then yeah.

Ignoring Iraq for the moment
But we shouldn't ignore Iraq, because thanks to us pulling resources from the 'stans to go there, we did in fact completely drop the ball in the whole War On Terror thing. Bush has done a terrible job of it. He went in without planning for the aftermath, with overstretched resources and troops, losing in both places even years later. You credit him with the balls to go in, ignoring how badly he really has screwed things up, making it worse for us overall. Sure Iraq was a mistake, and Afghanistan if done properly wouldn't have been. But it wasn't done properly. Even ignoring Iraq.

FYI, Clinton wanted to go after Bin Laden, but was blocked from doing so because they said he was wagging the dog to distract from his scandals. So he handed over his reports, along with Richard Clarke, for his predecessor to continue. Which he didn't when he and his staff ignored a PTB warning Bin Laden was about to attack. Planning even before that to go after Iraq for ill defined reasons (proven in several things, among them PNAC's list of stated goals and the Downing Street memo). After the '93 bombing, Clinton's administration did go after those actually responsible, using regular old police tactics to hunt them down and prosecute them. He could have done more, but I'm kinda glad he didn't now if it was going to turn out like this. Don't know if it would have had he planned better (he certainly couldn't have planned less than the current admin) but again, he never stopped bombing and sanctioning Iraq, so it's not like he wasn't doing anything.

Were we supposed to idly sit by and do nothing?
We were supposed to be smart, not reckless cowboys.

So for some of you to sit in your bedrooms in your Mom and Dads house, or to sit in your dorm room that your Mom and Dad are paying for and write this crap is just plan naive and shows your ignorance and stupidity.
That was completely uncalled for. Especially considering that some of your statements seem like the pot calling the kettle black. We all remember 9/11. Some of us are pissed about what is being done in it's name. All the mistakes being made, all the missteps, the ironically named "Patriot" Act type things. If you think Iraq is the only mistake and Bush's "balls" to go in without better planning and resources, you're the naive and ignorant one.

But whats done is done and we need to stay and finish the job and get the country as stable as possible before we leave. More than likely once we leave it will fall back into chaos no matter how "stable" it seems.
Just pointing out the obvious contradiction here.

and if these people are causing trouble elsewhere, f'em.
What about the innocents caught in the crossfire, like the recent killing of 80-90 civilians, many of them children (no matter how much our people express regrets (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/as_us_afghanistan))?

Some you people in the U.S. and abroad should really, really be careful of what you wish for. Some of you posting in this thread and others make it sound like you think the world could be some kind Panacea where everyone loves each other and plays nice if the U.S. would go away, or bury its head in the sand, but that is just incredibly naive thinking.
Stop the strawman, no one is saying that.

Also, for the U.S. haters out there
Again, how does being critical of some of our governments' policies make any of us "U.S. haters"? :rolleyes:

Anyway, we were warned of this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan), and it's obvious they were trying to send a message, no matter how much we seem to ignore it when they do such things (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/21/islamabad-marriott-bomb-sends-a-message/) and continue to do the same things only to expect different results.

[rasmasyean]

There are Jihadi's that fight against Jihadi's too.

http://www.pajhwok.com/viewstory.asp?lng=eng&id=61980

Often there's more complicated political motivation in these things other than "they don't like us". Much of the "simple explanations of things" is because that's what the media reports for propaganda and just so "commoners" can understand it and keep interested in the news. If they start going on writing a novel with any deep analysis, it's past the attention span of most normal people.

There are prejudices in all sides of the combatants of course, but it's just not that simple. The higher up in the ranks you go, the less it's about "hate" and the more it's about politics and economics.