i honestly don't know where to start ... if you think iraq would have invaded saudi arabia and that the US military bases in saudi arabia were for the protection of the saudis (where most of the attackers from 9/11 were from) ... i'm not sure what to say ...
The whole thing was based on oil. From an Iraqi perspective. From a Saudi perspective. From a Kuwaiti perspective. And from a U.S. perspective. One group took it as a religious perspective, and now here we are.
Why do you see it only as a U.S. perspective and everyone else involved is innocent? Why do you trace every bad thing in the world back to the U.S. and never go after the other assholes in the world? I can admit the the second Iraq invasion was a bad decision but that doesn't mean that everything is black and white.
And why don't you think the Saudi kingdom didn't fear Iraq? Iraq had a madman dictator, the 4th largest army in the entire world with over a 1,000,000 soldiers, and no one in the region was capable of stopping them from taking over the oil reserves.
Jason, you are almost getting to the heart of the matter here. Would 9/11 ever had happened if the U.S. never took sides between places like Saudi Arabia and Iraq? Or between Iraq and Iran? Or between Gaddafi and his people? Or between Israel and Palestine. Countries like Sweden and New Zealand don't get involved in these fights. And they don't get attacked by Muslims either. But those countries have just as much freedom as Americans.
Do I think it's possible that a complete change in foreign policy will end all terrorism against the U.S.? I really don't know. There are some really messed up Muslim extremists. But it would go a long way in getting more of the Muslim population on our side. And that would certainly slow down recruitment of terrorists. So really, it's a win-win situation. We save a ton of money getting troops home and we slow down terrorist recruitment at the same time.
The whole thing was based on oil. From an Iraqi perspective. From a Saudi perspective. From a Kuwaiti perspective. And from a U.S. perspective. One group took it as a religious perspective, and now here we are.
Why do you see it only as a U.S. perspective and everyone else involved is innocent? Why do you trace every bad thing in the world back to the U.S. and never go after the other assholes in the world? I can admit the the second Iraq invasion was a bad decision but that doesn't mean that everything is black and white.
And why don't you think the Saudi kingdom didn't fear Iraq? Iraq had a madman dictator, the 4th largest army in the entire world with over a 1,000,000 soldiers, and no one in the region was capable of stopping them from taking over the oil reserves.
first of all - you need to stop thinking you know what i believe ... just because i'm critical of the US and its actions doesn't mean they are the only bad guys ... stop being so defensive about critical issues involving americans ... it is the primary reason why the second invasion of iraq happened ... too many americans refuse to believe what is so evidently in front of their faces that it allows more bad things to happen ...
honestly, you really need to look at the history of iraq ... i know its easy for americans to believe saddam was a madman dictator and then start on some theory that he was going to take over the middle east ... seriously, no historian or expert in the region is going to corroborate your theory here ...
listen to dr. paul here ... we've been beating this to death for years on this board ...
look at the history of US foreign policy and the things that have been done in the name of america ... if you don't acknowledge the consequences of those actions - you will never be able to fix it ...
i'm still waiting to hear what you and anyone else's theory is as to why an educated rich man like osama bin laden would start and lead an organization to fight american interests? ... clearly he had no interest of taking over saudi arabia or afghanistan - so, it couldn't be for power ... what is it if you don't want to believe what he says?
the reason is that i see him using his motive to get followers. Osama for me is like a politician who will say what he needs to say to get followers. like you mentioned before the US has been intervening with the saudis for a very long time, why did osama not have a problem taking the weapons from the Americans when he was fighting the Russians?
as for the 2nd questions, don't know if that fits the topic. but i will say no i don't think its only because of US. Isreal i think would still be doing it just like many other countries who are doing it.
for the 3rd questions. i do believe that osama followers believe the reason but i have doubts if he does.
followers of what? ... so, osama was hell bent on the destruction of american for what reason? ...
the reason is that i see him using his motive to get followers. Osama for me is like a politician who will say what he needs to say to get followers. like you mentioned before the US has been intervening with the saudis for a very long time, why did osama not have a problem taking the weapons from the Americans when he was fighting the Russians?
as for the 2nd questions, don't know if that fits the topic. but i will say no i don't think its only because of US. Isreal i think would still be doing it just like many other countries who are doing it.
for the 3rd questions. i do believe that osama followers believe the reason but i have doubts if he does.
followers of what? ... so, osama was hell bent on the destruction of american for what reason? ...
Again i as everyone else here doesn't know the reason. he could have done it because he was pissed off that Americans was on Saudi land, it could be that he was just an angry guy , he could could just have an egotistical mind and wanted to go down in history as the man who hit America the hardest.
the reason is that i see him using his motive to get followers. Osama for me is like a politician who will say what he needs to say to get followers. like you mentioned before the US has been intervening with the saudis for a very long time, why did osama not have a problem taking the weapons from the Americans when he was fighting the Russians?
as for the 2nd questions, don't know if that fits the topic. but i will say no i don't think its only because of US. Isreal i think would still be doing it just like many other countries who are doing it.
for the 3rd questions. i do believe that osama followers believe the reason but i have doubts if he does.
followers of what? ... so, osama was hell bent on the destruction of american for what reason? ...
because he was a mental waste basket absorbed with delusions of power and control....?kind of like hitler ?
Why don't we all look at it this way...we have tried interventionism in the middle east for decades...and here we are...does anyone feel safer? so why not try something new?
Let's start looking at this a little more pragmatically. It doesn't matter who caused what...the fact is we are the target of attacks by groups around the world and whether their perception of our Government/military action over the last 50+ years is correct or not doesn't matter...it is how they feel. Why give them the opportunity to continue that line of education on their youth?
If we want to consider ourselves a world leader, why don't we act like one and stop the violence, at least stop our involvement in it...if it continues against us then the whole world will know we are not the problem...if it does stop than the entire world is a better place for it. Hatfields and McCoys are great stories, but that type of familial, generational revenge should have no outlet in world politics, so why continue what we know isn't working?
It isn't about who is at fault, but more about who is willing to make tough choices to move on from the constant warfare state we are in...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Why don't we all look at it this way...we have tried interventionism in the middle east for decades...and here we are...does anyone feel safer? so why not try something new?
Let's start looking at this a little more pragmatically. It doesn't matter who caused what...the fact is we are the target of attacks by groups around the world and whether their perception of our Government/military action over the last 50+ years is correct or not doesn't matter...it is how they feel. Why give them the opportunity to continue that line of education on their youth?
If we want to consider ourselves a world leader, why don't we act like one and stop the violence, at least stop our involvement in it...if it continues against us then the whole world will know we are not the problem...if it does stop than the entire world is a better place for it. Hatfields and McCoys are great stories, but that type of familial, generational revenge should have no outlet in world politics, so why continue what we know isn't working?
It isn't about who is at fault, but more about who is willing to make tough choices to move on from the constant warfare state we are in...
Again i as everyone else here doesn't know the reason. he could have done it because he was pissed off that Americans was on Saudi land, it could be that he was just an angry guy , he could could just have an egotistical mind and wanted to go down in history as the man who hit America the hardest.
so ... instead of believing what many scholars and what the man said himself ... you want to believe something else ... just not what he said ... ok ... i get it ...
Again i as everyone else here doesn't know the reason. he could have done it because he was pissed off that Americans was on Saudi land, it could be that he was just an angry guy , he could could just have an egotistical mind and wanted to go down in history as the man who hit America the hardest.
so ... instead of believing what many scholars and what the man said himself ... you want to believe something else ... just not what he said ... ok ... i get it ...
What I wonder is, if Bin Laden had been completely successful in his life time in removing the infidel from the holy land (which by the way seems to keep moving to mean wherever the hell Bin Laden wants muslims to live and rule)... would it have all stopped there? Or would Bin laden then be looking to expand his Muslim empire?
I think I know the answer.
Anyhow, I think it is pretty obvious that Bin Laden killed US civilians in an effort to hurt America because he is against our beliefs and our foreign policy. If that foreign policy was removed, I believe he would still be using terror and the killing of civilians to advance his ideology elsewhere.
What I wonder is, if Bin Laden had been completely successful in his life time in removing the infidel from the holy land (which by the way seems to keep moving to mean wherever the hell Bin Laden wants muslims to live and rule)... would it have all stopped there? Or would Bin laden then be looking to expand his Muslim empire?
I think I know the answer.
Anyhow, I think it is pretty obvious that Bin Laden killed US civilians in an effort to hurt America because he is against our beliefs and our foreign policy. If that foreign policy was removed, I believe he would still be using terror and the killing of civilians to advance his ideology elsewhere.
honestly, i dunno ... maybe you are right ... if the US stopped doing what they have been doing - i suspect he would have lost his main "propaganda" tool ...
Again i as everyone else here doesn't know the reason. he could have done it because he was pissed off that Americans was on Saudi land, it could be that he was just an angry guy , he could could just have an egotistical mind and wanted to go down in history as the man who hit America the hardest.
so ... instead of believing what many scholars and what the man said himself ... you want to believe something else ... just not what he said ... ok ... i get it ...
did you read my post? i'm not saying that he didn't have reason to do what he did. what i am saying is that those might not be the reason he did them.
What I wonder is, if Bin Laden had been completely successful in his life time in removing the infidel from the holy land (which by the way seems to keep moving to mean wherever the hell Bin Laden wants muslims to live and rule)... would it have all stopped there? Or would Bin laden then be looking to expand his Muslim empire?
I think I know the answer.
Anyhow, I think it is pretty obvious that Bin Laden killed US civilians in an effort to hurt America because he is against our beliefs and our foreign policy. If that foreign policy was removed, I believe he would still be using terror and the killing of civilians to advance his ideology elsewhere.
honestly, i dunno ... maybe you are right ... if the US stopped doing what they have been doing - i suspect he would have lost his main "propaganda" tool ...
I think he would have shifted his propaganda to issues in other countries where Muslims were being "mis-treated"... france head scarf rules, etc. But I do believe his propaganda tool would be significantly reduced but he would have constantly be looking for a way to continue his ideology.
I think he would have shifted his propaganda to issues in other countries where Muslims were being "mis-treated"... france head scarf rules, etc. But I do believe his propaganda tool would be significantly reduced but he would have constantly be looking for a way to continue his ideology.
I use to be on-board with this sort of thinking. But, I've kinda changed my mind over the past several years. I am not trying to act as though Bin Laden wasn't a f'd up person. I think he was, he was about as bad as they come (maybe even comparable to Hitler). I also don't think he would've necessarily left us alone, but we don't know that. I really think we did exactly what he wanted us to do. He wanted to antagonize and draw attention to himself and that area. He was successful.
I think, even if you're right, the US should do what is in their best interest. Although it really may be in the world's best interest for us to be over there, it's not in the US best interest.
We should get the f out. If they all want to murder each other, fine. Why do we always need to get involved? Our policy has been behaving like a Dad who's been abandoning his family to go break up fights at the local watering hole. Those fights are going to happen, yeh you may save some of the bars merchandise... but, you're abandoning your family. They aren't doing to well (our citizens are poor, jobless and Poppa America's got no money) and all our government cares about is the drunk fights in the middle east.
We should get the f out. If they all want to murder each other, fine. Why do we always need to get involved? Our policy has been behaving like a Dad who's been abandoning his family to go break up fights at the local watering hole. Those fights are going to happen, yeh you may save some of the bars merchandise... but, you're abandoning your family. They aren't doing to well (our citizens are poor, jobless and Poppa America's got no money) and all our government cares about is the drunk fights in the middle east.
Good points... not to mention the loss of the lives of many American soldiers and inncocent people in those countries and the huge drain of resources. How much have these wars cost in lives and dollars?-- the numbers are so high they make the head spin.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
We should get the f out. If they all want to murder each other, fine. Why do we always need to get involved? Our policy has been behaving like a Dad who's been abandoning his family to go break up fights at the local watering hole. Those fights are going to happen, yeh you may save some of the bars merchandise... but, you're abandoning your family. They aren't doing to well (our citizens are poor, jobless and Poppa America's got no money) and all our government cares about is the drunk fights in the middle east.
Good points... not to mention the loss of the lives of many American soldiers and inncocent people in those countries and the huge drain of resources. How much have these wars cost in lives and dollars?-- the numbers are so high they make the head spin.
I wasn't trying to say whether it was or wasn't a good thing for the US to be over there. Just that even if we removed all military and all bases at this point, if Osama was still alive, it wouldn't have ended anything and only caused him to push his ideology elsewhere.
Of course, if the US had never gotten involved in the first place, would he ever of gotten the traction he did with his followers? That's a good question with the likely answer being no way.
hippiemom = goodness
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,431
I wasn't trying to say whether it was or wasn't a good thing for the US to be over there. Just that even if we removed all military and all bases at this point, if Osama was still alive, it wouldn't have ended anything and only caused him to push his ideology elsewhere.
Of course, if the US had never gotten involved in the first place, would he ever of gotten the traction he did with his followers? That's a good question with the likely answer being no way.
Good question, cicnybearcat. My guess is that if we'd stayed out and set a better example for the rest of the world to follow that would have been more appealing than Osama's ideology. We could still do that!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I think he would have shifted his propaganda to issues in other countries where Muslims were being "mis-treated"... france head scarf rules, etc. But I do believe his propaganda tool would be significantly reduced but he would have constantly be looking for a way to continue his ideology.
well ... he definitely included the sanctions on iraq as another reason for his actions ...
it definitely takes a fucked up man to do what he does ... but at the same time - this shit is happening from the so called "good guys" as well ... the only difference is that the US interests are motivated by $$ ... which is essentially at the heart of ill will towards americans but outsiders ...
Jason, you are almost getting to the heart of the matter here. Would 9/11 ever had happened if the U.S. never took sides between places like Saudi Arabia and Iraq? Or between Iraq and Iran? Or between Gaddafi and his people? Or between Israel and Palestine. Countries like Sweden and New Zealand don't get involved in these fights. And they don't get attacked by Muslims either. But those countries have just as much freedom as Americans.
Do I think it's possible that a complete change in foreign policy will end all terrorism against the U.S.? I really don't know. There are some really messed up Muslim extremists. But it would go a long way in getting more of the Muslim population on our side. And that would certainly slow down recruitment of terrorists. So really, it's a win-win situation. We save a ton of money getting troops home and we slow down terrorist recruitment at the same time.
Sweden has been attacked and has been vigilant in preventing would-be attacks. New Zealand has been doing OK, but they have the advantage of being far removed from most of the world.
There is a wide range of ways a country could be exposed to continued terror attacks. On one end of the spectrum, your government could support Israel (quite possibly the worst thing ever per this board). On the other end of the spectrum, some guy working at a newspaper could publish a cartoon. That is a pretty wide range. Pretty, pretty wide.
And the countries that have published cartoons are much more susceptible to a terror attacks then the one country that supports Israel! Go figure ...
My posts have covered a wide range of issues, so I'll try to condense my original point: Terror tactics have become an acceptable tactic to force an ideology.
I want the troops home. But to believe that terror attacks will stop if the U.S. withdraws troops and support for Israel, well, it's a huge pipe-dream. If you disagree, perhaps ask the survivors of today's suicide attack at a funeral in Pakistan that killed 25 people ... sadly, a story that it repeats itself daily it seems.
But to believe that terror attacks will stop if the U.S. withdraws troops and support for Israel, well, it's a huge pipe-dream.
it's something you WANT to believe ... it doesn't make it so ... if you want to justify the historical and continued actions of the US gov't ... that's your choice i suppose ...
all i gotta say is ... if you took a hard look at how many innocent people (women, children, aid workers) have died not only from terrorist attacks but from US bombings, sanctions and attacks - it really shouldn't be that hard to understand why someone would fight back ...
But to believe that terror attacks will stop if the U.S. withdraws troops and support for Israel, well, it's a huge pipe-dream.
it's something you WANT to believe ... it doesn't make it so ... if you want to justify the historical and continued actions of the US gov't ... that's your choice i suppose ...
all i gotta say is ... if you took a hard look at how many innocent people (women, children, aid workers) have died not only from terrorist attacks but from US bombings, sanctions and attacks - it really shouldn't be that hard to understand why someone would fight back ...
The U.S. is not the only target. Do you agree with this statement?
all i gotta say is ... if you took a hard look at how many innocent people (women, children, aid workers) have died not only from terrorist attacks but from US bombings, sanctions and attacks - it really shouldn't be that hard to understand why someone would fight back ...
all i gotta say is ... if you took a hard look at how many innocent people (women, children, aid workers) have been helped by U.S. aid and relief efforts - it really shouldn't be that hard to understand why someone would be appreciative.
That said, both the above views are ridiculous if you only look at the U.S. from one of those two perspectives.
first of all - you need to stop thinking you know what i believe ... just because i'm critical of the US and its actions doesn't mean they are the only bad guys ... stop being so defensive about critical issues involving americans ... it is the primary reason why the second invasion of iraq happened ... too many americans refuse to believe what is so evidently in front of their faces that it allows more bad things to happen ...
honestly, you really need to look at the history of iraq ... i know its easy for americans to believe saddam was a madman dictator and then start on some theory that he was going to take over the middle east ... seriously, no historian or expert in the region is going to corroborate your theory here ...
listen to dr. paul here ... we've been beating this to death for years on this board ...
look at the history of US foreign policy and the things that have been done in the name of america ... if you don't acknowledge the consequences of those actions - you will never be able to fix it ...
i'm still waiting to hear what you and anyone else's theory is as to why an educated rich man like osama bin laden would start and lead an organization to fight american interests? ... clearly he had no interest of taking over saudi arabia or afghanistan - so, it couldn't be for power ... what is it if you don't want to believe what he says?
I'm not being defensive because you are being critical of the U.S. .... I'm more concerned that you never tend to be positive about the U.S. in this forum. How do you expect others that are 100% RA-RA for the U.S. to expand their views when you cannot expand yours? I've not seen you yet acknowledge that there are other very serious components other then U.S. policy that fuels these terror cells.
Also, here is my theory on why an educated man started and led an organization to fight american interests: He had lots of money. His mind was poisoned by his religious mentors at a young age and in college. He hated Jews. He believed he was fighting a holy war and his success against the Soviets fueled this belief. He believed that a U.S. base in Saudi Arabia was violating sacred and holy ground. He was angry that the Saudi's spurned his mujahideen. He viewed the U.S. military as killing Muslims instead of fighting a war over oil.
It wasn't for power, it was to promote an ideology.
US intervention in saudi arabia goes well back before iraq/kuwait war ... i suggest YOU go further back ...
We just followed the British lead on that one. :twisted:
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
we are the target of attacks by groups around the world and whether their perception of our Government/military action over the last 50+ years is correct or not doesn't matter....
It does matter. If someone occupied your country and ransacked it for it's natural resources then I'm pretty sure that would matter to you.
we are the target of attacks by groups around the world and whether their perception of our Government/military action over the last 50+ years is correct or not doesn't matter....
It does matter. If someone occupied your country and ransacked it for it's natural resources then I'm pretty sure that would matter to you.
You mean like the Chinese occupation of Tibet?
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
we are the target of attacks by groups around the world and whether their perception of our Government/military action over the last 50+ years is correct or not doesn't matter....
It does matter. If someone occupied your country and ransacked it for it's natural resources then I'm pretty sure that would matter to you.
You mean like the Chinese occupation of Tibet?
Yeah, like the Chinese occupation of Tibet.
By the way, I'm not Chinese....for the zillionth fucking time.
It does matter. If someone occupied your country and ransacked it for it's natural resources then I'm pretty sure that would matter to you.
You mean like the Chinese occupation of Tibet?
Yeah, like the Chinese occupation of Tibet.
By the way, I'm not Chinese....for the zillionth fucking time.
Funny how you rage against one country for one thing, but not another that does the same thing...never accused of being Chinese....maybe just an apologist for them
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Comments
Jason, you are almost getting to the heart of the matter here. Would 9/11 ever had happened if the U.S. never took sides between places like Saudi Arabia and Iraq? Or between Iraq and Iran? Or between Gaddafi and his people? Or between Israel and Palestine. Countries like Sweden and New Zealand don't get involved in these fights. And they don't get attacked by Muslims either. But those countries have just as much freedom as Americans.
Do I think it's possible that a complete change in foreign policy will end all terrorism against the U.S.? I really don't know. There are some really messed up Muslim extremists. But it would go a long way in getting more of the Muslim population on our side. And that would certainly slow down recruitment of terrorists. So really, it's a win-win situation. We save a ton of money getting troops home and we slow down terrorist recruitment at the same time.
first of all - you need to stop thinking you know what i believe ... just because i'm critical of the US and its actions doesn't mean they are the only bad guys ... stop being so defensive about critical issues involving americans ... it is the primary reason why the second invasion of iraq happened ... too many americans refuse to believe what is so evidently in front of their faces that it allows more bad things to happen ...
honestly, you really need to look at the history of iraq ... i know its easy for americans to believe saddam was a madman dictator and then start on some theory that he was going to take over the middle east ... seriously, no historian or expert in the region is going to corroborate your theory here ...
listen to dr. paul here ... we've been beating this to death for years on this board ...
look at the history of US foreign policy and the things that have been done in the name of america ... if you don't acknowledge the consequences of those actions - you will never be able to fix it ...
i'm still waiting to hear what you and anyone else's theory is as to why an educated rich man like osama bin laden would start and lead an organization to fight american interests? ... clearly he had no interest of taking over saudi arabia or afghanistan - so, it couldn't be for power ... what is it if you don't want to believe what he says?
followers of what? ... so, osama was hell bent on the destruction of american for what reason? ...
Again i as everyone else here doesn't know the reason. he could have done it because he was pissed off that Americans was on Saudi land, it could be that he was just an angry guy , he could could just have an egotistical mind and wanted to go down in history as the man who hit America the hardest.
because he was a mental waste basket absorbed with delusions of power and control....?kind of like hitler ?
Godfather.
Anyone who attacks America is either just a psycho mental case, or is simply jealous of your 'freedoms', right?
Of course U.S foreign policy has nothing to do with it.
no, but it doesn't exclude it either.
Let's start looking at this a little more pragmatically. It doesn't matter who caused what...the fact is we are the target of attacks by groups around the world and whether their perception of our Government/military action over the last 50+ years is correct or not doesn't matter...it is how they feel. Why give them the opportunity to continue that line of education on their youth?
If we want to consider ourselves a world leader, why don't we act like one and stop the violence, at least stop our involvement in it...if it continues against us then the whole world will know we are not the problem...if it does stop than the entire world is a better place for it. Hatfields and McCoys are great stories, but that type of familial, generational revenge should have no outlet in world politics, so why continue what we know isn't working?
It isn't about who is at fault, but more about who is willing to make tough choices to move on from the constant warfare state we are in...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
great post!
:thumbup: hayyyyy ! now your catching on bro.
Godfather.
so ... instead of believing what many scholars and what the man said himself ... you want to believe something else ... just not what he said ... ok ... i get it ...
What I wonder is, if Bin Laden had been completely successful in his life time in removing the infidel from the holy land (which by the way seems to keep moving to mean wherever the hell Bin Laden wants muslims to live and rule)... would it have all stopped there? Or would Bin laden then be looking to expand his Muslim empire?
I think I know the answer.
Anyhow, I think it is pretty obvious that Bin Laden killed US civilians in an effort to hurt America because he is against our beliefs and our foreign policy. If that foreign policy was removed, I believe he would still be using terror and the killing of civilians to advance his ideology elsewhere.
honestly, i dunno ... maybe you are right ... if the US stopped doing what they have been doing - i suspect he would have lost his main "propaganda" tool ...
did you read my post? i'm not saying that he didn't have reason to do what he did. what i am saying is that those might not be the reason he did them.
I think he would have shifted his propaganda to issues in other countries where Muslims were being "mis-treated"... france head scarf rules, etc. But I do believe his propaganda tool would be significantly reduced but he would have constantly be looking for a way to continue his ideology.
I use to be on-board with this sort of thinking. But, I've kinda changed my mind over the past several years. I am not trying to act as though Bin Laden wasn't a f'd up person. I think he was, he was about as bad as they come (maybe even comparable to Hitler). I also don't think he would've necessarily left us alone, but we don't know that. I really think we did exactly what he wanted us to do. He wanted to antagonize and draw attention to himself and that area. He was successful.
I think, even if you're right, the US should do what is in their best interest. Although it really may be in the world's best interest for us to be over there, it's not in the US best interest.
We should get the f out. If they all want to murder each other, fine. Why do we always need to get involved? Our policy has been behaving like a Dad who's been abandoning his family to go break up fights at the local watering hole. Those fights are going to happen, yeh you may save some of the bars merchandise... but, you're abandoning your family. They aren't doing to well (our citizens are poor, jobless and Poppa America's got no money) and all our government cares about is the drunk fights in the middle east.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Good points... not to mention the loss of the lives of many American soldiers and inncocent people in those countries and the huge drain of resources. How much have these wars cost in lives and dollars?-- the numbers are so high they make the head spin.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I wasn't trying to say whether it was or wasn't a good thing for the US to be over there. Just that even if we removed all military and all bases at this point, if Osama was still alive, it wouldn't have ended anything and only caused him to push his ideology elsewhere.
Of course, if the US had never gotten involved in the first place, would he ever of gotten the traction he did with his followers? That's a good question with the likely answer being no way.
Good question, cicnybearcat. My guess is that if we'd stayed out and set a better example for the rest of the world to follow that would have been more appealing than Osama's ideology. We could still do that!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
well ... he definitely included the sanctions on iraq as another reason for his actions ...
it definitely takes a fucked up man to do what he does ... but at the same time - this shit is happening from the so called "good guys" as well ... the only difference is that the US interests are motivated by $$ ... which is essentially at the heart of ill will towards americans but outsiders ...
There is a wide range of ways a country could be exposed to continued terror attacks. On one end of the spectrum, your government could support Israel (quite possibly the worst thing ever per this board). On the other end of the spectrum, some guy working at a newspaper could publish a cartoon. That is a pretty wide range. Pretty, pretty wide.
And the countries that have published cartoons are much more susceptible to a terror attacks then the one country that supports Israel! Go figure ...
My posts have covered a wide range of issues, so I'll try to condense my original point: Terror tactics have become an acceptable tactic to force an ideology.
I want the troops home. But to believe that terror attacks will stop if the U.S. withdraws troops and support for Israel, well, it's a huge pipe-dream. If you disagree, perhaps ask the survivors of today's suicide attack at a funeral in Pakistan that killed 25 people ... sadly, a story that it repeats itself daily it seems.
http://news.yahoo.com/suicide-bomber-kills-25-funeral-pakistan-151235529.html
it's something you WANT to believe ... it doesn't make it so ... if you want to justify the historical and continued actions of the US gov't ... that's your choice i suppose ...
all i gotta say is ... if you took a hard look at how many innocent people (women, children, aid workers) have died not only from terrorist attacks but from US bombings, sanctions and attacks - it really shouldn't be that hard to understand why someone would fight back ...
That said, both the above views are ridiculous if you only look at the U.S. from one of those two perspectives.
Also, here is my theory on why an educated man started and led an organization to fight american interests: He had lots of money. His mind was poisoned by his religious mentors at a young age and in college. He hated Jews. He believed he was fighting a holy war and his success against the Soviets fueled this belief. He believed that a U.S. base in Saudi Arabia was violating sacred and holy ground. He was angry that the Saudi's spurned his mujahideen. He viewed the U.S. military as killing Muslims instead of fighting a war over oil.
It wasn't for power, it was to promote an ideology.
It does matter. If someone occupied your country and ransacked it for it's natural resources then I'm pretty sure that would matter to you.
Yeah, like the Chinese occupation of Tibet.
By the way, I'm not Chinese....for the zillionth fucking time.