1. The United States has from time to time and in various parts of the world sought to assure the ascendancy of regimes favorably disposed to its policies and interests. In some cases this has involved the support of democratically elected (more or less) governments (Greece after WW2, El Salvador, Haiti, South Korea, Egypt in 1956, the war against the Axis Powers from 1941 to 1945, etc.). In some cases it has involved the subversion of such governments (Nicaragua, Iran, and South Vietnam come to mind).
2. In all of these cases the efforts of the United States resulted directly in, or abetted, the deaths of innocents.
3. The attack on the WTC involved the deaths of innocents.
4. Nothing excuses the killing of an innocent.
5. Therefore, American foreign policy since at least 1941 and the attack on the WTC are both abhorent, apparently equally so.
6. There "is a definite connection between our policies and the resultant terrorism."
In summary, you have stated in a more eloquent way than most that we, as a country, although not as individuals, and certainly not the individuals unfortunate enough to be in the WTC, had it coming.
With respect for your position, I believe that at least some of its premises are flawed and that your analysis is incomplete.
For example, the death of an innocent can on occasion be excused. Tens of thousands died at Hiroshima that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, might live. One man died at Golgotha that billions might live. War necessarily involves the deaths of innocents. On the other hand, our renunciation of war would inevitably result in many deaths as those whom our power has held in check availed themselves of the opportunities presented.
The embargo of Iraq has not been the primary cause of the destitution of its citizens. That has been the unfortunate result of the refusal of Saddam Hussein to forgo the development of weapons the principal purpose of which is the slaughter of large numbers of innocents. He could relieve the suffering of his people and end the embargo with a single act but refuses to do so. Were the United States to relent and lift the embargo now, we would in fact be abetting the killing of Israelis and Iranians when the first modified Scuds land in Tel Aviv and Tehran.
When the United States has acted to assure the retention of a favorable regime, the alternative has generally not been a pretty one from the perspective of the citizens of the country involved. Are the Iranians happier under the mullahs than they would have been under the Shah? Did most Greeks want to become a Soviet satellite after WW2? Did the Kuwaitis enjoy watching Iraqis barbecuing the occupants of the national zoo? Therefore, an activist foreign policy is not the primary cause of antipathy toward, and terrorism in, the United States.
I believe the antipathy toward us has several sources: envy, an unrelenting propoganda campaign against us, both at home and abroad and, on the part of those who bombed the WTC, a desire to force us to discontinue our support of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
Since it would be morally repugnant to abandon Israel and suicidal to abandon either Egypt or the Saudis, we have no choice but to follow the path our President has set us on: to diminish the capacities of our opponents to a point where they are no longer a threat to our citizens and friends.
But I can reach a similar conclusion with a few simple words...
KNOW JESUS...KNOW PEACE
NO JESUS...NO PEACE
In the end, this will all come down to that.
Thank you for a reasoned and sober response.
John Deere: as I understand your position, it is as follows:
> In some cases it has involved the subversion of such [democratic] governments (Nicaragua, Iran, and South Vietnam come to mind).
Iran
Guatemala
Congo
Indonesia
Brazil
Dominican Republic
Vietnam
Chile
Zimbabwe
Nicaragua
Grenada
To name a few.
> In summary, you have stated in a more eloquent way than most that we, as a country, although not as individuals, and certainly not the individuals unfortunate enough to be in the WTC, had it coming.
"had it coming," is not the best description of what I am saying. "Predictable" is far more accurate. Just like a person who walks off the top of a 30 story building doesn't necessarily "have it coming," still the ensuing sudden stop is quite predictable.
> With respect for your position, I believe that at least some of its premises are flawed and that your analysis is incomplete.
> For example, the death of an innocent can on occasion be excused. Tens of thousands died at Hiroshima that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, might live.
I respectfully disagree with you on 2 counts:
1. It can be argued that the bombing of Hiroshima was not a tactical necessity since the Imperial Navy and the Japanese air force had basically been destroyed and could offer token resistance at most. In 1945, Kantaro Suzuki's government came to power with the express objective of ending a war that the Japanese already understood was lost. This was clearly evident from messages intercepted by U.S. Intelligence and by repeated peace overtures which were kept from the American public.
Rather than getting into all the details, I can tell you that available evidence shows that it is a myth that the atomic bomb caused Japan's surrender and was completely unnecessary. Here is a quote from General Douglas MacArthur concerning the use of the atomic bomb: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender." General Curtis LeMay (one of the architects of precision bombing of Japan and Germany who later served as AF Chief of Staff) said: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war." This evidence also dispels the even larger myth that the atomic bombs "saved millions." 2. The death of the few for the survival of the many is quite an acceptable concept for me with one caveat; that the few give their lives up voluntarily. To conscript unwilling innocents and send them to their deaths "for the greater good," is an unimaginable evil to me. Akin to the idea that it is acceptable that a few innocents on death row be executed, since there are far more guilty individuals that deserve to be killed.
> One man died at Golgotha that billions might live.
By choice.
> War necessarily involves the deaths of innocents. On the other hand, our renunciation of war would inevitably result in many deaths as those whom our power has held in check availed themselves of the opportunities presented.
I view war as a necessary evil, too often engaged in for the economic gain of the few (backed up by ideological justification and propaganda) rather than self-defense. I am not against just war, I am completely against war born of greed and stupidity.
> The embargo of Iraq has not been the primary cause of the destitution of its citizens.
Yes it has. Since when do we hold victims hostage in order to try to effect a change in behavior on their tormentor? This is what I call "batter the battered wife foreign policy," and it does not cut it any way you look at it. Perhaps if we make the battered wife sufficiently thirsty, hungry, ill, and miserable, she will rise up and overthrow her batterer? This is inexcusable.
> When the United States has acted to assure the retention of a favorable regime, the alternative has generally not been a pretty one from the perspective of the citizens of the country involved. Are the Iranians happier under the mullahs than they would have been under the Shah?
The Iranians were ecstatic under the Sha's SAVAK. So ecstatic in fact that they overthrew him and in the process took American hostages for 444 days. The real question is, would Iranians have been happier under the government they elected and we overthrew? Would fundamentalist forces have had the popular support to take power if our Shah had not had one of the worst human rights records at the time?
> I believe the antipathy toward us has several sources:
You list a number of very valid reasons. Envy, which you list first, is probably not among the real reasons. I would venture to guess that the majority of people in the ME would love to have our standard of living. Unfortunately, in order for their standard of living to increase, we are afraid that our will drop. Hence we prop up undemocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt (yes, Egypt is more akin to a dictatorship than a democracy).
By keeping down the forces of democracy in the ME, we definitely ensure our "interests" (translated: cheap oil, big SUVs) at the expense of the people of the ME. Is it any surprise that they are pissed off?
As for Israel, there is nothing immoral about withdrawing support in the way of taxpayer dollars. There is nothing to keep you and all other Israeli supporters from voluntarily sending your money there. What is immoral, is coercing American taxpayers into paying taxes which are then sent to Israel. I will repeat, anyone who wishes to support Israel should send them money. Those that do not wish to, should not be forced to.
Thanks again for your post.
JD