NY: 'It's escalating big, big time'

[tristan]

Does anybody really think that some dude in Saudi Arabia wakes up one morning, decides he hates the freedom and religion of some guy in Iowa, and then vows to sacrifice HIS LIFE to taking that farmer down?!? Until America realizes why these people -- much of the world -- hates us, we will never win.

We are entering an age where the difference between Soldier and Civilian is non-existent. There are no uniforms. The front line is here and now. Time to figure out what you believe in, and to start realizing the crimes being committed in your name around the world, because they are going to come back to us.

You need to travel outside the US and talk to some people. The US is one of the most tolerant cultures in the world, and our presence is generally welcomed, and our achievements are respected. Our defensive umbrella provides security to dozens of countries, including most of Europe and Asia. Without us, lots of smaller countries would be literally up for grabs, like they were in WWII. Go to Kuwait or Bosnia and see how much they hate us. Or go to France, and talk to some of the older people - on one of my trips there, I had an old Frenchman shake my hand and thank me and my country for the liberation. And we even treat our ex-enemies extremely well - the Japanese, Germans, Italians, Russians, and Chinese, generally like us, or at least tolerate us. There's no Russian suicide bombers.

But yes, they do hate us in the middle east, or at least in a lot of countries there. (Not Kuwait.) If you want to change your behavior in some way to pacify that backward culture, then go right ahead, but don't expect anyone else here to follow suit. The US has done more then enough in the middle east - we've tried again and again to broker a peace deal, and we do them a favor by buying their oil for billions of dollars. (Yes, that is doing them a favor - the Soviets didn't buy ME oil - they just took it.)

I actually protested against the first gulf war, and I was wrong to do so. My wife has a Kuwaiti friend, and who knows what would have happened to her and her family if the country wasn't liberated. I don't want to have to tell an Iraqi friend in ten years that I opposed his liberation also.

 

[logicat2001]

Cam,

So, what crimes are we committing exactly? I hear people say things like this, but they never go into detail. Are we talking about Iraq? Support for Israel? Foreign military bases? Trade issues? Bad music and movies? Government sponsored assasinations? Collaboration with space aliens? All of the above?

That's absolutely right. That's the whole point.

What exactly is going on in other countries that would cause hundreds/thousands of human beings just like us to believe that there's only one more way left to try to get the world to notice what the f* is going on there?

With a public display of their own death and as many other people as they can take out with them?

Why would someone be so desperate as to truly believe that's the only thing left to do?

Do you really think that it's because "they hate freedom"?

Here's an excerpt of a speech given by the President of the United States of America on July 22, 2002; almost two full years ago. He speaks about how anti-terrorism technology is the key to homeland security.

He opens with this:

We're in a new kind of war today. We face a ruthless and a resourceful enemy, we do. That's the reality of the 21st century. These people seek to acquire the most destructive of weapons, because they hate freedom. They intend to spread fear and death around the world. To prevail in this war, we're going to take the battle to the enemy, in foreign lands.

And later...

You know, these people hate -- they hate America because we love freedom. They hate the fact that -- as I look out, I mean, I can see people who worship an Almighty and some who don't; who worship an Almighty one way and others another way. They hate that. They can't stand a society which honors freedom -- freedom to worship, freedom to speak, freedom to express our opinions. That's what they hate. And they're going to hate us for a long time because those are the values we'll never relinquish in America. (Applause.)

We believe in tolerance in America. That's what we believe in. We respect the other person -- we always don't agree, but we respect and we tolerate. And we believe everybody ought to have access to the great American experience, regardless of how they're raised or where they're from. That's what we believe.

That this man who's employed by us to be the President, who was chosen by group consent by registered voters... this *politician* expects me swallow that overly-simplistic BS line of logic? That the people who blow themselves up in the market square hate America because we love freedom? And that the reason we're going to find them and kill them is because we believe in respect and tolerance? This is the reason for war??

That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard a public figure vomit up. The current administration has been speaking this garbage since they arrived and I'm always dumbfounded that the majority of the country isn't shouting desperately. Oh also, this same administration turned on the war machine in a huge way and has been killing lots of folks including American citizens, and is prepared to continue for as long as possible.

This is our President speaking to the rest of the world. He does so on each one of our behalf. Do you believe in what he's doing? Go read the whole speech, it's pretty good, then continue and listen/read some more. They are all available on the White House's official web page.

Frankly I don't need to know anything beyond what the "White House" actively and publicly promotes. I don't need to scour for obscure stories that never make it to national news about "the horrors" that are being committed by America around the world.

All I need to see is the ideals they're promoting. I want them OUT of that House come fall of 2004. It's time to reinvent Democracy because the greedy and hateful warmongers have taken over the asylum and are very literally running the show.

And if you think I'm joking about the greedy, hateful, warmongering part, I'd recommend going through the White House speeches and see what our democratically elected "government" has been doing for us and the world.

 

[tristan]

So Bush gets defeated in 2004. Is that going to make the terrorists pack up and go get regular jobs? That doesn't make any sense. The planning for 9/11 started while Clinton was still in power. They don't care about democrats or republicans.

You're projecting your own political views onto those of the terrorists, which is incorrect. You believe that the US is arrogant and wasteful, and that we don't do enough around the world to fight poverty. That may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant to Osama bin Laden, and isn't at all why he hates us. His reasons are very clear, and if you can find a transcript of the 1998 interview a few months before the embassy bombings, he spells it out pretty clearly.

Osama wants a fundamentalist islamic state that covers the middle east, and ideally later, the world. He wants all non-muslims (i.e. Jews, American Christians, etc) out of the "holy land", and wants the entire region governed by the same fundamentalist islamic law that we saw in Afghanistan. He wants islamic control of the middle east oil supply and islamic nuclear weapons. And his concept of the middle east stretches from Central Africa to Central Asia, so that's a pretty big chunk of real estate that he wants to control.

You may have your own misgivings about US foreign policy, but they have little to do with Osama's world view.

 

[patrick0brien]

-Gents

I hate to be a buzzkill here, but let's circle back for a second here.

I can see this thread beginning to descend into the depths of armchair governance and arguing political beliefs, which we all know goes nowhere but anger.

Can we instead of trying to blame the presidential lighting-rod that is currently Bush, was Clinton, may soon become Kerry, and just try to agree that nothing is simple - we cannot get into the minds of these people - they think they are doing right, and conversely we think we are doing right.

Now, what can we do here, us, to solve this? And let's not say 'elect Kerry', that's pretty low-hanging fruit, and we all know his election won't solve it alone. What can WE do?

This is not a test, I'm honestly curious.

 

[tristan]

There's not much that we can do. It's more a matter for the military and for the state department - which takes us back to the president, who's in charge of both of them.

But with that said, I don't think there's any foreign policy magic that anybody can do to calm down the middle east - we've been trying for an awfully long time. Osama, Saddam, the Ayatollah, Arafat, Ghaddaffi, etc are all just manifestations of the same thing - petty dictators sitting on to much oil money, and you just can't reason with them. Eventually they'll all run out of oil and the place will turn into another Ethiopia, I guess. We still don't have economic development figured out, and to the extent that we do, local governments never play along anyway.

 

[cl0r0x70]

So, what crimes are we committing exactly? I hear people say things like this, but they never go into detail. Are we talking about Iraq? Support for Israel? Foreign military bases? Trade issues? Bad music and movies? Government sponsored assasinations? Collaboration with space aliens? All of the above?

Close. But these are closer to the truth:

How about our support for Saddam? The famous picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein? How about selling the Iraqi's the WOMD that we can't find now (which were subsequently used to kill hundreds of thousands in their war against Iran)?

How about unfaltering support for Israel's illegal settlements and policy of destroying entire apartment buildings full of civilians based on intelligence that a rebel may be there?

How about our policy of overthrowing democratic socialism around the world (and especially in Central America) in the 80's and replacing it with genocidal dictators?

How about our support and funding of bin Laden and the Taliban in their war against Russia in Afghanistan?

How about Reagan's drugs for weapons covert operations?

How about our renewed support of the terrorist dictators of Pakistan, Libya, and Saudi Arabia?

How about American corporate globalism's stranglehold on poor and indigent workers in Mexico, South America, and Asia?

How about our complete lack of a post-war plan for Iraq, and the subsequent devastation of its people. How about the fact that whatever follows Saddam, is likely to be much worse.

How about the fact that our country is responsible for a majority of the world's pollution, greenhouse emissions, etc., while having only a small percentage of the population.

To those who would say: "Love it or leave it". A true patriot stays and tries to make it better. If you love your country, fight for change. A coward leaves or turns away.

 

[tristan]

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying when you say "they hate us", "we're arrogant", etc - you're saying that the rest of the world hates us because we interfere in their affairs. Most of the things on your list were US foreign policy interventions.

And you're right, Osama probably does hate us because we have an interventionist foreign policy. But you're missing the rest of it - Osama doesn't care about greenhouse gasses or trade imbalances or any of that - he cares because we're standing in the way of his plans for a Taliban-style regime that encompasses the entire middle east. So yes, Osama's mad that we have an interventionist foreign policy, but only to the extent that it stands in their way.

The reason we have an interventionist foreign policy is because we learned key lessons as a country in the 30s in 40s - if we sat around while stronger countries gobbled up weaker countries, eventually those stronger countries would come after us. (i.e. Pearl Harbor.) So we've been providing counterweights to would-be regional empire-builders like the USSR, China, N. Korea, Iran, and Iraq. It seems like a good strategy to me, but perhaps you have a better idea that doesn't involve turning over the middle east's billion person population and $25 trillion in oil reserves to Osama or whoever else is strong enough to grab it.

 

[Mantat]

I just have one thing to say to all this:
"Happy people dont blow themselves up".

Only people who have lost all hope for them, their family and country would sacrifice everything. The cure to terrorism is to help people live an active and happy life. Give everyone a job, health and freedom to do what they want and there wont be anymore suicide bomber.

 

[tristan]

That's simplistic. Was a Japanese kamikaze pilot unhappy? They had suicide bombers in WWII you know.

The 9/11 hijackers were not poor downtrodden people, they were fairly wealthy Saudis and Egyptians who were well educated and had the money and resources to travel.

The palestinian suicide bombers are poor, and they basically do it for the status and the $$. Their families were receiving thousands of dollars from people like Saddam.

Rethink your view that poor dispossessed person = suicide bomber. Seen any suicide bombers from Mexico? Rumania? Vietnam? Bangladesh? Argentina? East L.A.? Soweto? Tibet? What ever happened to non-violent resistance? It worked for Gandhi. There's never any excuse for attacking civilians.

The fact is Osama is a charismatic religious leader who can convince people to fight and die for his cause - a fundamentalist Islamic state. The suicide bombers aren't poor downtrodden people wronged by the US, they're just religious nuts who want to see you praying to their god five times a day.

 

[cl0r0x70]

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying when you say "they hate us", "we're arrogant", etc - you're saying that the rest of the world hates us because we interfere in their affairs. Most of the things on your list were US foreign policy interventions.

Wow! If it were that easy.

The problem (or one of the many,) IMHO, isn't our interventionist policy. It's our interventionist policies in wreckless disregard of -- and often contrary to -- the needs and the wishes of the native peoples.

The history of our interventions is disastrous, blatently self-serving, and it is a breeding ground for anti-Americanism throughout the world.

But when 70% of our voting public still believes that Saddam Hussein has ties to Sept. 11, when 50% think we have discovered weapons of mass destruction. . . how do you change minds?

 

[JesseJames]

Okay, clearly one of the reasons we went to war in Iraq was for oil. Pure and simple.
America has an overwhelming addiction to foreign oil imports. So ultimately, you can blame your average American to a degree. Driving their big SUV, going through the drive-thru, blithely sipping their lattes.

Also, there is the unbelievable Intelligence failures from the top on down. Classic case of Keystone Cops.
Were we misled into a war? Did those WMD's really exist? Was Saddam and his ilk really a clear and present danger?
It amazes me that we are willing to spend billions on whiz-bang weapon systems (which are pretty cool by the way) yet ignore the fact that nothing beats good ol' human intelligence. It could literally be the guy holding the cup to the wall in the next room listening to the miscreants plot their heinous schemes. It could be that simple.
It sounds a little scary (perceived as McCarthy-ism) but where are the folks who worked the cloak and dagger stuff during the Cold War? I know terrorist cells are damn near impossible to crack into but you at least have to keep an eye on certain people.[Just surveillance folks]

This country needs to be at the forefront of renewable energy technology. We will always need oil but we can reduce our dependency on foreign oil. The critics are wrong, even with all its growing pains hydrogen power must be in our future as well as nuclear. We've pretty much got the fission part of atomic energy harnessing down; now we need to figure out the fusion part.
Americans will never give up their cars. Not a chance in hell. So make it worth peoples while to own a hybrid vehicle. Give them tax breaks. Perhaps even subsidize the manufacturers to make them. The hydrogen vehicle must rule the roads in the next 30-40 years. A gradual phase-in that won't give upheaval to the economy.
The technology exists but no one uses it because it's either initially too expensive, you don't want to look like enviro-nazis, or you're just apathetic and lazy.
So, back to square one. Let's pacify the Middle East and build a memorial for Mr. and Mrs. Smith's son who was killed over there and get in our SUV's and sip some lattes.

 

[tristan]

Wow! If it were that easy.
The history of our interventions is disastrous, blatently self-servering, and it is a breeding ground for anti-Americanism throughout the world.

Were World War I and II disasterous? Was Bosnia disasterous? Was Korea disasterous? Are you really trying to say that every time we've intervened it's been a mistake? Would you have rather not fought the first gulf war and left Kuwait in the hands of Saddam? The only reason the weapons inspectors were even there is because it was part of the conditions of his surrender.

And what you're saying makes no sense. If you intervene in a conflict, you will make one side unhappy, but you will make another side happy. France was very happy to be liberated. S. Korea was very happy we fought off the communists. Kuwait was happy to be freed. After the airlift, Berlin was very happy. That doesn't sound like anti-americanism to me - I think those countries were very happy with our actions and are still our allies today.

I suggest you try to think critically about what the world would look like today if the US had failed to intervene in key conflicts, or what the future would look like if the US decided to disband it's security umbrella that protects countries like Taiwan, Japan, S. Korea, Israel, and Western Europe.

Now I'm not saying every foreign policy intervention is good - some work, some don't, and as a country, we're still working on and debating the checklist for an appropriate intervention. Iraq is hotly debated, as were Bosnia and Haiti under Clinton. But to say that an intervention never makes sense is simply ignoring the lessons of the twentieth century.