Calm down dear, its just a bunch of extremists

[MargeB]

As predicted, Tony stood in front of the cameras denouncing any attempt by anyone to 'give the terrorists an inch' in suggesting the Iraq war provided justification for suicide bombers.

Am I the only one that gets reaaaaally scared by this?

"Of course Iraq will figure in their twisted logic." No s**t, Tony!!!!!!! The entire world is full of people, and every one of them has a mind that is based on logic!!!!! Saying they were evil won't make them go away! If they feel that they are on the other side of the fence, that you are hostile to them, do you think that wandering into one of their countries, with no recognised mandate, on the back of a marauding religious extremist (in their eyes) America will make them more or less likely to send their boys on to our turf to wage war the only way they know how?

Go about it your way, Tony, but at least get the psychology even basically right. We have to work with THIS world, not some idealized version of it.

Thoughts?

[nedflanders]

I say keep argueing guys as I am learning a lot of $hit from the two of you!!!!

[jake-the-peg]

Long term a number of Western nations need to learn that that cannot use military force or the treat of military force to protect what they happen to see as their "interests".

In the short term we need to set out the exact criteria for our withdrawral from Iraq and Afghanistan and a roadmap for getting there.

We need also need a "Marshall plan" for these two countries - we've spent Billions bombing Iraq in name on destroying non-existant WMDs and now we seem to expect them to pay for their own reconstruction with their oil reserves - Bit like a builder smashing down your door to catch a non existant burglar and then saying it was a dangerous door anyway but he'll replace it at a price!

I'd also like to see a UN approved end arms end-user certificate program which would limit the sale of weaponry to countries who have agressive (not necessarily just undemocratic regiemes)

This would also stop squabbles between the US and Europe over selling arms to China and the like.

Unfortunately large amounts of the American, British and French economies are dependant on arms sales and the current US administration is currently openly hostile to the United Nations which does not fill me with hope.

This is a long term problem that's been created by centuries of abuse first by European colonialism and then American neo-colonialism and it's not going away quickly - first we have to convince the developing world that we've changed our ways.

Trouble is I don't think we have. 

[Clanad]

Hmmm... reliance on the U.N.to administer financial programs?  Does the term "Oil for Food" ring a bell for you Jake? The UN has been a totally ineffective and corrupt tool, supported almost entirely by levies on western countries.

I see one common theme from the Doctrines you list as history from the U.S.  That is self-preservation.  Especially since the on-set of communism following the Russian Revolution of 1915.  There can be no mistaking the intent of the communists.. world domination... and all one needs to do is look at the results of the countries that became communist. Russia is only now beginning to take on some semblance of normalcy for it's citizens...China is modifying it's own form of communism and I believe it will morph into a hybrid form of capitalism given time.  None of the countries dominated by the communists... including all of the middle-European countries adopted that form of government when given the option after the fall of Russian communism. None of this could have happened without the U.S.A.'s strength and nuclear deterrence.  Does any reader doubt the outcome had we not been able to face down Stalin? 

According to The Heritage Foundation, throughout the past 50 years, the United States has given more than $500 billion in foreign assistance to less-developed countries.  Yet the people in many of these countries are no better off today in terms of per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) than they were decades ago; some, in fact, are actually poorer. Zambia, for example, has received U.S. foreign aid for four decades;  despite more than $1 billion (in constant 1999 U.S. dollars) in bilateral economic aid from the United States,  however, Zambia's real GDP per capita has fallen by almost 50 percent, from $664 in 1964 to $338 in 1999.

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

The dismal failure of development assistance to catalyze economic growth characterizes multilateral as well as bilateral lending institutions. For instance, in sub-Saharan Africa, 17 countries experienced a decline in real per-capita gross national product (GNP) between 1970 and 1999 despite receiving well over $100 billion in World Bank assistance. 
That's half a trillion dollars donated bby the U.S. alone...
 The real problem, as I see it, is the desire... no need, for folks like jake, to have the rest of the world like us...Fact is people throughout the world are going to dislike us... and you, by the way, as long as they percieve any inequality, when in fact that inequality is largely of their own making and when that belief is coupled with radical religious foundations... Achieving prosperity in developing countries, like success for individuals, requires the acceptance of personal responsibility. So, while jakes cures are philosphically laudable, in the real world, the strength of proven benevolent countries, i.e. the U.S and Britain, is the only answer to Osama, et al...

[jake-the-peg]

Hmm think we'll have to agree to differ now and move on

[Isacki]

Just to resurrect a dead thread, I find it astounding that many people cannot draw any link whatsoever between US, and for that matter, European, costly foreign interventions, and some of the things that are happening in our world today.
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm catalogues US military interventions since 1890 and really speaks for itself. There are some ill-advised interventions that are not fully described there. The military term for one's actions backfiring, particularly by backing a group that later hurts oneself, is precise: 'blowback'. One of the clearest examples of blowback is the 1980s intervention in Afghanistan that was part of Ronald Reagan's fight against the Soviet Union. Shoulder-held surface-to-air missile launchers were provided to the brave 'freedom fighters' of Afghanistan. The US literally helped to start the mujahideen there as we know it today, and directly provided assistance to Al-Qaeda in an effort to displace the current enemy from the region. in that conflict in the time-honoured belief that has and will damage the US so much: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". The rest is history: Al-Qaeda is certainly a terror network now; the question is whether it would be if the US had not mistakenly assisted them then.
I think people deliberately choose to ignore or downplay the effects of their privileged countries' foreign wars. As long as a misleadingly whitewashed and glowing view of the numerous disastrous coups, wars and assistance (to cite Chile, Vietnam and Afghanistan respectively) prevails, and all the neocons and ideologues can say is that the other side is inhuman, hates America as a fact, and is irreparably evil, there will be no meeting of minds and the carnage will continue unabated on both sides.

[Isacki]

(cont) To be sure, there are many extremists and terrorists from the Middle East and beyond, and their actions are an indisputable threat. But the response has predictably been one of purely blind military intervention which has worsened the situation and deservedly blackened the image of the 'coalition of the willing'. Never mind about the complete lack of WMD in Iraq, nor the unarguable deception by Blair and Bush, but see that it has helped foster terrorism where there used to be none. Saddam Hussein was a brutal man - but he was nothing of the scale of Hitler, as the neocons mistakenly try to liken him to. To liken the Iraq war to WW2 is to insult the contribution of our grandfathers and grandmothers in a truly necessary, though utterly destructive war. America made a great and irreplaceable contribution to WW2, but unfortunately American commentators and some people on this thread make the mistake of ignoring the fact that it was the Allies who won the war and that, painfully for them, it probably could have not been won without the immense sacrifice and dedication of the Soviet war machine either. To merely refer to the 500,000+ American war dead is disingenuous when considering the palpable 26.6 million Soviets killed for their homeland. To paint America as saving humankind by itself might require you to say the same of the Russians.
Iraq is not the sole cause of modern terrorism by any stretch of the imagination - it has 'merely' increased it. The causes of terrorism are many: foreign intervention, religious extremism, economic conditions, and ethnic tension. Not all of these are completely caused by the actions of the USA and the Western world. But many are, and until people try to address these by changing their future actions to include more constructive reforms instead of destructive wars, the spectre of terrorism will linger and it will be partly the fault of the current leaders.

[Isacki]

(cont) The victim mentality on all sides has to stop. Neither the West nor the Middle East are entirely victims and not perpetrators. There has been encouraging progress in Israel as Sharon has finally done a good deed, in my view, by ordering the Gaza withdrawal from land which formerly did belong to the Palestinians. The responses have been predictable from some: 'surrendering to the terrorists'. This is an example of the victim mentality. Without reversing past injustices, you simply give reason for people to, rightly or wrongly, become terrorists themselves.
It is always dangerous for people to believe utterly in an ideological way in one country, and yet there are so many empire-builders and neocons who will not hear a single word that detracts from their vision of the USA as a giant, civilising, Roman-like monolith that brings unparalleled freedom and democracy at zero cost to the thirsty 'uncivilised barbarian hordes'. Perhaps they should have listened to one of their people actually in the government:
"We have 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population. . . In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will allow us to maintain this position of disparity. We should cease to talk about the raising of the living standards, human rights, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
-- George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning of the U.S. Dept. of State, 1948