When you use the words "cause and effect" you attribute blame, i.e., US "interventionist" policy.
If the fanatical fringe of Islam attacked us because they hate freedom and democracy then why was the US the only target up to 9/11?
That simply isn't true. First< I suggest you read bin Laden's 1996 fatwa entitled, ""Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." Modern militant Islamic fundamentalism really began with Khomeini's hijacking of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Since then, it has spread around the globe to Afghanistan, the Philippines, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, etc. There were many attacks around the world and they were not confined to US targets.
Timeline of events leading to militant Islamic fundamentalismHISTORY - Time line [some] Important dates in radical ISLAM VS WORLD
They are not going after Russia, China, India, South America or anyone else who does not or has not had some major political or military presence there.
You need to become better informed. Russia--What do you think the violence in Chechnya is all about. There have been many terrorist attacks in Russia linked to militant Islamic fundamentalism, i.e, the Chechen guerrillas.
India
400,000 Kashmiri Pandits, constituting 99% of the total population of Hindus living in Muslim majority area of the Kashmir Valley, were forcibly pushed out of the Valley by Muslim terrorists, trained in Pakistan, since the end of 1989. They have been forced to live the life of exiles in their own country, outside their homeland, by unleashing a systematic campaign of terror, murder, loot and arson. Genocide of Kashmiri Pandits has reached its climax with Muslim terrorism succeeding in ‘CLEANSING’ the valley of this ancient ethno-religious community. With the completion of 11th year of their forced exile, this peace loving, culturally rich community with a history of more than 5000 years, is fighting a grim battle to save itself from becoming extinct as a distinct race and culture.
India has the second largest Muslim population in the world. Islam has been a major influence on the history of the country, icluding the formation of Pakistan. There have been many attacks, including on the Indian Parliament itself by Islamic militants. Terrorism in India
Except for Israel we should have seriously scaled back our presence in the region after the fall of the Soviet Union.
The Berlin Wall fell in 1989. Have you forgotten the fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990? How could we continue to enforce the no-fly zones and sanctions against Iraq without being present in the region? Don't you think that some countries in the region wanted us there to protect them from another attack from Iraq? We have strategic national interests to protect in the region. Should we also withdraw from the Far East and let Taiwan and Japan fend for themselves? The idea that our presence abroad represents a legitimate provocation to our potential enemies and thus we are to "blame" for the consequences is nonsense.
We also played games with Iran and Iraq during their war and now we are paying a very steep price.
Played games? Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980. Iran was still holding our Embassy personnel hostage in Iran and wouldn't release them until Reagan took office. At the time, we viewed Iran as the greater threat to the region. Seizing our embassy was really an act of war and holding our personnel hostage for 444 days was unexcusable. Our lack of a response and humiliation by Iran actually bolstered Khomeini and militant Islamic fundamentalism. We provided Iraq with intelligence information, no arms.
As far as I’m concerned Congressman Paul is the only one who gets it and as unappealing as the message sounds it’s still correct.
RP is an imbecile when it comes to foreign policy. He also fails to recognize the threat of militant Islamic fundamentalism even after 9/11. Can you explain why he has voted repeatedly against the Patriot Act?
Bush correctly identified the enemy when he declared: "you are either with us or for the terrorists" and then he let them slide.
Iran and Syria should have been neutralized as safe havens back in 2004.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a new result is insane.
We won, time to pull back until we can take out Iran and Syria. The politics are not ripe for that at this time.
GW denied WMD's and a Iraq connection with 9-11.
All patriots should question this.
RP never blamed the US for the 9/11 attacks. He has been trying to explain that there is “cause and effect” with respect to our foreign policy in the Middle East over 50+ years.
“When you use the words “cause and effect” you attribute blame, i.e., US “interventionist” policy.”
I merely state that the actions by our government in the region have caused people, groups and nations to take actions in response. If you assume that is equivalent to “blame” that’s your call.
“That simply isn’t true. First< I suggest you read bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa entitled, “”Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.”
So bin Laden hates us because we’re over there? Isn’t that essentially what Dr. Paul said in a previous debate?
“Modern militant Islamic fundamentalism really began with Khomeini’s hijacking of the Iranian Revolution in 1979...”
And why did the revolution take place in Iran? We (the CIA) put the Shah in power in the late 1940’s. Let’s see...a lot of oil, border with the Soviet Union, and the perceived need to control the spread of communism and save all that oil...looked like a slam-dunk at the time. Of course the Shah, although a great ally of the US was not Mr. Congeniality with regards to his own population. But he was OUR GUY so we kept him in power. It was just a matter of time before he was ousted. We tended to establish and keep guys like that in power a lot after World War II.
They are not going after Russia, China, India, South America or anyone else who does not or has not had some major political or military presence there.
“You need to become better informed. Russia—What do you think the violence in Chechnya is all about. There have been many terrorist attacks in Russia linked to militant Islamic fundamentalism, i.e, the Chechen guerrillas.”
Kashmir and Chechnya are essentially “turf wars” where one group kicks everyone else out. It doesn’t matter what the group identity is (religious, ethnic, etc.) it only matters that only their group wins. Yugoslavia is a great example - Tito died and it didn’t take long for all the ethnic groups to try and dominate their neighbors and claim territory for themselves. And you never found an example in China or South America to tout...
“The Berlin Wall fell in 1989. Have you forgotten the fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990?”
That’s a very good question. For a truly intriguing (and unfortunately long-winded) answer you need to go back to 1980 when the Iran-Iraq War started. One of the reasons concerned control of the Shatt-el-Arab waterway which divides the two countries. Iran wanted the border to be down the middle of the river (”thalweg” principle) while Iraq (led by Saddam Hussein) wanted the entire width of the waterway.
Along the way to maybe 100,000 deaths on each side we (the US) decided to help the Iraqis out in order to defeat Iran. We helped arm Iran for a few decades and knew their inventory would soon rot without US spare parts. It also just didn’t set well with our government what with the Iranian Hostage Crisis still fresh on the mind and if we could “stick it to ‘em” with the help of Iraq, then why not?
So for eight years we helped Iraq though they never could get the hang of winning a major ground war. In an interesting sidebar we also enlisted Iran’s help in freeing US and other captives held in the Middle East during the same time (remember Iran-Contra?). Hence my comments about playing games with both sides, but I digress...
So, about Iraq invading Kuwait? We sent a five-member congressional delegation led by Senator Bob Dole to explain our concern over possible WMD development in April 1990. There was also the mishandled meeting Saddam had with Ambassador Glaspie that, for one reason or another, allowed him to believe that there would be no US involvement if he invaded Kuwait. This was probably reinforced by comments made by State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler and Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly who stressed that the U.S. had no defense treaty with Kuwait and no special defense commitment to it. These statements were made on July 24 and July 31, 1990 - days prior to the invasion.
Saddam gambled that we would not interfere and lost. But he had the presence of mind to at least inquire about our intentions - he did not do that with any other country. We came to Kuwait’s defense (no small feat there - what a monumental PR blitz!) even though they were not a democracy and bailed them out.
The point here is that part of the reason we’re involved in Iraq as we speak has to do with our failure in Iran and the need to “get even” with the help of a dictator with whom we previously had no use.
“How could we continue to enforce the no-fly zones and sanctions against Iraq without being present in the region? Don’t you think that some countries in the region wanted us there to protect them from another attack from Iraq? We have strategic national interests to protect in the region. Should we also withdraw from the Far East and let Taiwan and Japan fend for themselves? The idea that our presence abroad represents a legitimate provocation to our potential enemies and thus we are to “blame” for the consequences is nonsense.”
As far as I know the “no-fly zones” were not a UN-proposed or sponsored event. Only the US decided to impose the zones.
I concur that this country -as well a a number of others - have strategic national interests in different parts of the world. My concern is that our government at times likes to impose its moral values on others whether they like it or not. Another problem I see is that commercial interests tend to drive our foreign and domestic policy too much.
As far as us protecting others in the region from another attack from Iraq - who else had Saddam ever threatened? Even with our help he could only manage a draw with Iran. Had he known about retaliation for Kuwait he would have stayed home. And in his war with Iran his objective was control of the Shatt-el-Arab waterway, not conquest of Iran.
Our military presence in Asia is almost nonexistent save for the US Navy and troops still stationed in Korea. China presents a distinct dilemma as far as Taiwan is concerned. Will our economy at some point be held hostage if China decides to invade Taiwan?
There are some places in the world whose culture is so different as to result in constant friction. The Middle East is one such area. Were it not for the relatively cheap oil we would not be there now. We cannot set the rules in someone else’s sandbox like we used to. There are consequences to our actions whether we perceive them to be rational or not.