Were we wise to assist the fanatics in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the 1978-1992 war, producing the regime which now harbours bin Laden?
Were we wise to take the side of the KLA (direct links to bin Laden) first in Kosovo, and now in Macedonia?
Were we wise to condemn Russian retaliation against the Chechen terrorists (also with direct links to bin Laden) who bombed apartment buildings in Moscow and St. Petersburg?
Were we wise to aid and abet our own enemy? These are questions we must ponder.
While former US assistance to Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein must be seen in light of the Cold War chess game of proxy wars between the US and USSR, we have since had time to wise up and reassess. The Gulf War showed us the cost of having to cut down to size a Frankenstein of our own Cold War creation when he got too big for his britches.
Our next step should have been to take out the other Frankenstein, Bin Laden. But what did Clinton do? He fed American technology to Bin Laden's network via the Syrians, and likely the Chinese as well. Technology which has now been turned against us in Tuesday's monstrous attack. Furthemore, he turned NATO into the air force of Bin Laden's allies, the UCK/KLA. And let us not forget that the Bosnian Muslim regime, which the US backed, still harbours Bin Laden mujahadin to this day.
We must realise who our true enemies are and who our natural allies are. Our true enemies are Bin Laden and all organisations and countries who support him. Our natural allies in this fight are Russia, Britain and Israel.
We must get our priorities straight, and our first priority must be national security.
We must not allow our righteous outrage to prevent us from analysing the situation with cools heads.
For now, prayers for the those who are lost, those who are injured, those who are mourning, those who are bravely attempting to rescue survivors.
The tens of thousands of people MURDERED by nut-cases did NOTHING to deserve their fate.
Anyone who would try to excuse such an atrocity is beneath contempt.
I well understand that the Arabs didn't like it when we used a battleship to shoot-up Arab villages, but they have to understand that most Americans feel there is nothing wrong with that (of course, I don't have a lot of confidence that they will ever learn to appreciate their innocents being killed.) And not one American in a thousand cares much if Iraqi children die by the hundreds of thousands because of the embargo. I do care, yet, I support the embargo. Not only do we have to take direct action against the terrorist states, we should expand that action. We should not trade with Syria, Iraq or Iran - or with anyone who does trade with them. If France and Japan want their oil, they should trade their goods with each other. If something is worth killing over, it should be worth not buying their goods. If they want to live outside human bounds, let them live outside the human community. That is their choice, not ours.
While Americans don't care, it should be noted that the Iraqi leadership also doesn't care if their children die by the hundreds of thousands. Saddam builds palaces worth $billions while Iraqi babies die. In the Muslim world, that is acceptable - otherwise, their clerics would be screaming bloody-murder. Also, few Muslim clerics are willing to condemn the Great Atrocity in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Very few Muslims will stand-up against the Muslim murderers. They may have some good reasons to be angry with us, but they have no reason for accepting terrorism as a way of life - and they do.
Now, the bombing and killing of civilians such as we killed in Germany during WWII, will probably have no greater effect than it had on German morale during WWII. In fact, the bombing of German cities tended to only build support for Hitler.
The way to respond to terror - is to kill terrorists, and not just anyone handy. We should have a long-term policy of hunting them down all over the world. But that's probably too hard, and not impressive enough for the American people - so we'll probably just kill people. And, it will probably work just as well as it has in Israel.
Should the American people stand-up more against the American military being used to kill people all over the world - of course. And if the American people don't care, the killings will continue, and not only in other countries. And our liberties will be increasingly threatened.
Nevertheless, the United States does have an obligation to responsibly oppose the world terrorists. And not only that, hopefully, many of them will die because of what they did to our country.
This is true but it also was an intrinsic Reagan strategy to bringing down the Soviet Union. I say, good for Ronnie. Of course you wouldn't know what realpolitik is now would you? Kind of lacks the symmetry that you get in your everyday life. While you get up, make your breakfast and put out the garbage (I'm sure difficult and challenging tasks for you), nation-states must make the hard and oftentimes apparently asymmetrical decisions necessary in the world of real politik.
Has there been hypocrtical behaviour by all nation-states? No doubt. For example, the U.S. was sucked into supporting the Bosnian Muslims, and the KLA in Kosovo, the latter, pan-Albanian Muslim thugs, against a sovereign European nation-state, the former Yugoslavia. A country which never did anything to harm the U.S. and indeed provided the most effective resistance in Eastern Europe to Nazism.
Unless, however, you are prepared to exercise your cranium in a more subtle fashion to recognize that niceties and pat decisions aren't always there (or self-evident for that matter), you will be unable to exercise the sound judgment necessary to attack the evil of pan Islamic Fundamentalism internationally including the dismantling of this Taliban by force if necessary. Moreover, the Guardian has been one of the most spineless anti-Israel rags. On the latter issue, they are particularly corrupt and amoral in their regular condemnation of Israel. Hence, I give little consideration to this band of whore-mongering scribes.
Let it suffice to ask you to muse on the quality of life you would have living under the tender mercies of Ben Ladin and the power hungry clerics he weilds the sword for.
"Thinking"? Surely you are not suggesting that the author of this piece is "thinking"? The column is simply a very serviceable example of anti-American gibberish undergirded by a typical leftwing utopian vision of the world that has no basis in reality.
It was the Americans, after all, who poured resources into the 1980s war against the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, at a time when girls could go to school and women to work. Bin Laden and his mojahedin were armed and trained by the CIA and MI6, as Afghanistan was turned into a wasteland and its communist leader Najibullah left hanging from a Kabul lamp post with his genitals stuffed in his mouth.
This is true but it also was an intrinsic Reagan strategy to bringing down the Soviet Union. I say, good for Ronnie. Of course you wouldn't know what realpolitik is now would you? Kind of lacks the symmetry that you get in your everyday life. While you get up, make your breakfast and put out the garbage (I'm sure difficult and challenging tasks for you), nation-states must make the hard and oftentimes apparently asymmetrical decisions necessary in the world of real politik.
Has there been hypocrtical behaviour by all nation-states? No doubt. For example, the U.S. was sucked into supporting the Bosnian Muslims, and the KLA in Kosovo, the latter, pan-Albanian Muslim thugs, against a sovereign European nation-state, the former Yugoslavia. A country which never did anything to harm the U.S. and indeed provided the most effective resistance in Eastern Europe to Nazism.
Unless, however, you are prepared to exercise your cranium in a more subtle fashion to recognize that niceties and pat decisions aren't always there (or self-evident for that matter), you will be unable to exercise the sound judgment necessary to attack the evil of pan Islamic Fundamentalism internationally including the dismantling of this Taliban by force if necessary. Moreover, the Guardian has been one of the most spineless anti-Israel rags. On the latter issue, they are particularly corrupt and amoral in their regular condemnation of Israel. Hence, I give little consideration to this band of whore-mongering scribes.
That said, the "nuke 'em all" approach is equally emotional and unthinking. We must kill the killers, but to kill street demonstrators for cheering our dead is merely to pick the final rotten fruits of five decades of relentless propaganda. These people hate us, but we do not hate them.
As for accusing the United States of having "rewritten the global financial and trading system in its own interest," that is a perfect example of the sort of vague, sinister accusation that smacks of cant more than accuracy. Does anyone, anywhere ever do otherwise? As for the deployment of troops worldwide, is it not the principal domestic accusation that we do not do so with sufficient regard to national interest?
Accusing anyone of acting in self-interest is simply silly, and is most often done out of the speaker's own sense of self-interest. The Guardian's staff here decry the lack of restraint on U.S. policies that was provided by the Soviet Union and might, in their perfervid imagination, be provided by a "system of global governance." These are the words of a putative and hopeful looter, nothing more. They decry matching violence with violence, but are answering that with a call for matching tyranny with tyranny, not, in my view, an approach likely to be much of an improvement.
What I find impossibly naive is the attitude "well, now we've punched you in the face, perhaps you'll see things more our way." Can anyone motivated by anything more than hostility and wishful thinking really imagine that the cause of the Palestinian state is advanced one millimeter by the murder of 5000 innocent Americans? Mr. Arafat knows better.
While the Guardian's "j'accuse" is old news, its timing is, to say the least, indiscreet and thoroughly offensive, and far from balancing the scales of opinion, it only serves to further polarize its audience. For evidence I offer the range of opinion in this thread.
I actually agree with you (and this article) that there is a lot of ignorance, blindness, and hypocrisy on display among tha American public and the media these l;ast few days, and I wince when I see corrupt politicians talking about "taking action." They have as much innocent blood on their hands as these terrorists do. Also, I saw the despicable Colon Powell state that the world would stand together against terrorism. He mentioned specifically thugs like Blair and SChroeder, and even Zemin of China. So, we will stand WITH terrorists against terrorists, huh?
Having said all that, there is something important to remember here. It is not complicated to judge people that do what these terrorists did. They killed thousands of truly innocent people. They knew in their heart of hearts that they were being evil, and that the true Creator was grieved by their bitter hatred. They chose Allah (which is just another name for Satan) as their god, and obeyed him, instead of the one who made them, and their consciences were screaming at them, as they would be in ANY man. They rejected God, in their bitterness and pride. It matters not that they grew up in a dark society, and it matters not that the USA has become an international bully. These men, and all the people that support them, should be beaten back. These Muslim nations oppress and starve their own people, then call on us to feed them, while cursing our God, and the God of our forefathers. If Allah is so great, let Allah save them! I say to them, if your god is so great, don't come to this nation to improve your economic lot - it is a nation built by Christians, and deists from a Christian culture. Turn to Allah, don't turn to the USA. And when you insist on holding on to your worship of Allah, don't expect the USA to be able to help you. We Americans are not all fat, lazy, immoral, arrogant globalists, and if you come to our turf and mess with us, you will find that out.
These terrorists lived in this country, enjoyed our liberty, ate our food, fit for kings, and interacted with friendly Americans. They KNEW who they were killing, and they and their cohorts deserve no mercy. The ones who smashed the planes into the building, are now with Allah in Hell. We should send the rest of them involved there, too.
But, one thing to ponder: many in this nation, including Powell and Bush, cheered on Clinton as he bombed the hell out of Serb women and children because their army dared to fight the Muslim thugs who were taking over their ancient homeland. This is the appreciation the Muslim world gives us for acting as their airfoce for a whole year and murdering Serbs for them. Shame! Shame on the whole world!
God (not Allah) is watching, and His grief will also be His wrath.
The American government likes to lull the American people to sleep with a lullaby that we are bringing freedom, democracy, and prosperity to the rest of the world, but the reality is quite something else. The American government has, in the name of vested commercial interests, backed some of history's worst dictatorships, including those of Batista and the Shah of Iran. Then, when the oppressions and impoverishments committed by these puppets against their people resulted in revolutions, the American people, befuddled, scratched their heads and wondered why anyone in Cuba or Iran could possibly prefer Castro or Ayatolla Khomeini over leaders who were bringing them the benefits of "truth, justice, and the American way".
I've visited a great deal of the world. Some people love us. More do not. It's unrealistic to expect any people to love a nation that imposes, often with force of arms, its values and its gods upon others. You can call it "peacekeeping" all you want; it's still an invasion to those who stop the bullets.
The fact is that we still do not really know who the villian is in New York and DC. We only know that the government and media which has lied to us so many times before is pointing the two minute hate at Osama Bin Laden, a former (if there is such a thing) contract agent for the CIA and a heck of a convenient patsy if a Presidential dynasty that owns a petroleum company wants an excuse to go in and invade a lot of oil wells.
It's clear that the goal of these attacks was to start a war, a war that is most assuredly AGAINST the interests of the Arabs and for the interests of other parties, especially those interested in controlling more of the region's oil.
And while no attack could ever destroy America, it is clear that these attacks are intended to trick Americans into destroying what American stands for. Already we are seeing calls for a suspension of basic rights and due process, indeed the very qualities of American life we point to as our gift to the rest of the world (and justification for our military incursions into other people's lands).
If we throw away the Bill of Rights because racial profiling is "common sense", then we throw away all that America stands for. When we do that, those who attacked New York and DC will have succeeded, even if we hunt them down and kill them.
Is there any doubt why Britain supports us? They know a friend when they see one. Much of the world sneers at us and spits bile on us. Oh we get half-hearted statements of condolence from most while they rub their hands in glee at our loss. Some are completely silent, yet we support them.
The world needs to know that things changed drastically on Tuesday. The world will never be the same again. You either stand with us or against us. There is no middle ground. God help those that stand against us.
I want retribution for this horrific attack, and I want ongoing suppression of attempts to commit future acts of terrorism against the US, by essentially any means necessary and effective to accomplish it.
That said:
(a) I don't perceive that getoffmylawn gave his post a straight up endorsement either by posting it or by his remark following the post, andI really do not like to perceive of the US as contributing to a vicious circle of unreasoning viciousness. For that reason I hope to see US foreign policy strictly guided by two principles: (a) the golden rule and (b) speak softly and carry a big stick. In other words, let us not be arrogant, unreasoned, and/or vicious. Let us treat others fairly and consistently and let us stay out of their affairs which do not concern us. But when the chips are down, when others even think about not treating us as respectfully as we have treated them, then the whole world needs to know that we have both the means and the will to let nothing stop us from having our way.(b) The article is not completely fallacious. Some implementations of US foreign policy have been both arrogant and frivolous. Particularly during the Clintoon years our behavior was almost always unreasoned and sometimes bordered on insanity (our behavior was in fact Clintoonian). Arrogant, unreasoned, vicious behavior undoubtedly has created enemies, some of whom are arrogant, unreasoned, vicious people.
You have hit the nail on the head: These "patriotic" and "macho" hysterics are actually a sign of feminization.
These people consistently speak in terms of push-button war from the air. They care nothing about what happens in the world, or to America, in the coming decades, whereas real masculinity is concerned about the long-term. It is typical of the homosexual, state-worshipping, fascist mentality not to care about the long run. Remember the fascistic, homosexual Keynes's dictum, when asked about the long-run implications of his money-printing nostrums: "In the long run, we are all dead."
They don't want to hear anything about American behavior that might actually have aroused hatred for America. Our killing of millions of people through bombs and starvation during the past fifteen years has nothing to do with it!
These "patriotic," "macho" people who are screaming for blood and bombs and destruction are having a screaming, epicene hissy fit. They are a symptom of the feminization of our society--only this feminization in their case is disguised by the fact that they are calling for blood.
I have been struggling for the right adjective for these people whose response to all this is "kill, kill, kill" and "bomb-them-back-to-the-stone-age" and "kill them all, women and children first" and "we must inflict pain" and "send them to hell," etc.
You have hit the nail on the head: These "patriotic" and "macho" hysterics are actually a sign of feminization.
These people consistently speak in terms of push-button war from the air. They care nothing about what happens in the world, or to America, in the coming decades, whereas real masculinity is concerned about the long-term. It is typical of the homosexual, state-worshipping, fascist mentality not to care about the long run. Remember the fascistic, homosexual Keynes's dictum, when asked about the long-run implications of his money-printing nostrums: "In the long run, we are all dead."
They don't want to hear anything about American behavior that might actually have aroused hatred for America. Our killing of millions of people through bombs and starvation during the past fifteen years has nothing to do with it!
These "patriotic," "macho" people who are screaming for blood and bombs and destruction are having a screaming, epicene hissy fit. They are a symptom of the feminization of our society--only this feminization in their case is disguised by the fact that they are calling for blood.
This, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing.
Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television Commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:
None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States. When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.
When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.
I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10?
If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times - and safely home again.
You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.
I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those." !
Stand proud, America! Wear it proudly!!