From what I've experienced it is the Americans who say things like "how dare you criticise the USA.." on a forum called USPOLITICS ONLINE. Stupid AND arrogant.

If America's foreign policy doesn't equal America then your democracy is a farce. Then again.....ever since the 2000 election.....

So perhaps the US is stupid in thinking that all of that military equipment makes it safe. After all, with all of your guns you have the highest murder rate by firearms in the developed world.

What a positive contribution to civilization. Why not NOT kill the terrorists but rather stop creating them by not fighting under false pretences and basically occupying countries whose civilian population whom you profess to be saving doesn't want you there in the first place. Use your brain.

Calm down dude. Trying to link military equipment levels with domestic murder rates is outrageous.

Put it into perspective. The threat I mean. More people die of traffic collisions on a monthly basis that have EVER died from terrorism....and yet we paralyze our transportation systems internationally costing our economies billions of dollars? Sorry but I think the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. Bush is an idiot.

A) You missed the point.

B) Hardly outrageous.

Trillions were spent on improving auto safety last century (enumerate all traffic signal upgrades, road surface laying, car design and other things that have contibuted to safety by some percent). In fact counter-terrorism and road safety share a lot in common in that they benifit from technology often.

I don't consider our international transport system as anywhere near paralyzed.

What a positive contribution to civilization. Why not NOT kill the terrorists but rather stop creating them by not fighting under false pretences and basically occupying countries whose civilian population whom you profess to be saving doesn't want you there in the first place. Use your brain.


Actually, the invasion of Iraq was supported by most Iraqis. It was staying so long that they didn't want.

Hopefully, we can keep this interesting discussion free of international egos, Canada-bashing, Canada-chest-thumping, US-bashing and US-chest-thumping. Or rather, hopefully we can return to the subject at hand and stop the stupid games.

OSB, you miss the US industrial policy picture here. It is about the $400+ billion a year you are spending on the military - a large percentage of which goes to procurement. In order to maintain these extremely high levels of military procurement (which are EXTREMELY profitable), major world threats must be perceived (and exaggerated) and actual military operations are needed to justify the massive expenditure. Thus, Iraq serves the interests of a very large segement of US corporations. This is independent of the US oil-machinery/service sector that was previously 'shut-out' of Iraqi contracts.

Without a doubt, the Iraqi invasion means HUGE profits for many US corporations over the next twenty years. These profits are directly tied to the Iraqi operation. Without it, pressure exists to cut the US military budget - particularly for the heavy equipment systems that are the most industrially profitable.

I agree completely.

Bush immediately used 9/11 as a pretext and weapon for domestic US politics (locking out the offers of support from allies) and turning away from Afghanistan to push for the attack on Iraq (either you are with us or against us crap). All designed for US domestic politics.

And taking their cues from Bush, Chretien, Chirac & Schroeder all played the issue entirely to their own domestic political audiences.

To my understanding, only Blair and Putin actually positioned themselves on the issue on principle - relatively independent of their own domestic politics.

Indeed, this is/was a major problem, but I will assert here (as I already have) that it was GWBush's lead that created the environment for the others to do the same. GWBush didn't take the 'high road' and the US was supposed to be taking leadership here - thus, the whole game deteriorated quickly to a bunch of self-serving politicians looking at only their own re-election positions.

I dispute this view of Al Queda as a huge international organisation.

As I've noted previously, Al Queda is a label invented by Washington. It did not exist prior to the application of the label. OBL only claimed the label after the US applied it.

Terrorist groups exist, certainly, but they are not all of one giant and singular organisation or network. The connections with other pre-existing groups consists in the linking of common causes. That is to say, independent groups are acting in concert to a vague common goal. This is entirely due to the prestige acrued to OBL and Al Queda upon their successful operation of 9/11. The connections between these groups are of the nature of 'affiliation' only not organisational control.

That is to say, the US made Al Queda into a successful terrorist 'brand' and other groups are seeking to profit by association with that successful 'brand'. It is good for marketing/recruitment.

Only by their own desire to support the cause. This was an amateur and inept homegrown group that sought to link their actions to Al Queda. Al Queda did not recruit them, pay them, organise them or train them (though apparently there was one instance of communication).

Likewise with the London and Madrid and Bali bombers. None of these groups had any direct/material Al Queda connections. They were all home-grown groups who offered their actions in support of Al Queda's goals.

Agreed that we need some decent political leadership here! That has been one of my principle critiques of GWBush.

As for the other attacks, Britain and Spain and the Bali bombing all have connections to nations directly involved in the Iraqi invasion so these actions are consistent on that basis.

And it is to be noted that the arrested group in Canada only took place AFTER Canada officially hitched their wagon to Bush's policies (PM Harper announced that Canada now formally supports the Iraqi invasion and supported Israel's invasion of Lebanon unconditionally, thus putting Canada into the 'Bush Coalition' now).

I agree, but only up to a point.

The US invasion of Iraq was a fundamentally stupid policy decision and it is for this that the there is going to be large-scale backlash and this is wrapped up in the terrorism issue. The US action forces everyone to play by their game - in order to oppose terrorism, we are forced to support the US invasion of Iraq which is absurd since that is one of the principle breeding grounds for terrorism. This is a catch 22 situation caused by GWBush and American foreign policy. Nothing anybody but Americans can do anything about it. Only an American leader can reverse this dynamic.

And with some actual intelligent leadership from an American president, I'm sure you will find a few other leaders stepping up to the plate as well. Unfortunately, US foreign policy tends to drag political leadership down to the lowest common denominator (probably because US foreign policy is entirely driven by US domestic policy) and all of the allies follow suit. Bush is providing leadership here and that's the main problem.

The US only pays lip service to the 'two state solution'. In reality, the US actually physically supports Israel's attempt to permanently annex foreign territory.

If the US actually pushed the 'two-state solution', there could be progress. At the very least, this would remove about half of the hatred against the US upon the issue. Agreed there are some fanatics on both sides that don't like the 'two state solution' but it seems like a 'win-win' solution for the USA and would go a long way to restore the US reputation for being 'helpful' rather than 'destructive' (or 'obstructive') which is the present US reputation.

Permanent occupying foreign territory cannot rationally be termed 'self-defense'.

Israel's invasion of Lebanon cannot be rationally termed 'self-defense'. It was an aggressive attack in the spirit of the 'best defense is a good offense'.

So you admit that US is playing games in the Middle East based entirely upon US domestic politics? No kidding. This is the problem.

Not likely. Bush apparently supported it.

And Pakistan's nuclear technology givaways to N.Korea and Iran occured pre-9/11.

No. Pakistan has long been a major recipent of US aid, loans and military support for their dictatorial regimes going back for decades, through all previous Pakistani dictators. US only seems to drop support for Pakistan when they go democratic (in order to perhaps help the military to get back into power). US policy apparently and historically has much supported the dictators in Pakistan and reduces such connections when Pakistan is under democratic rule.

No. You cannot say agreements with N.Korea are meaningless when the absence of which are the long-stated 'official' reasons for the N.Korean's disturbing actions.

The lack of such agreements are a significant cause of the N.Korean problem and are making war likely. As such, signing such agreements are likely to reduce the problem/danger. No one is suggesting N.Korea ought to be bribed. Bribery is the US policy offered in lieu of actual agreements because the USA refuses to even consider signing any agreement here and thus, bribery is the only available option (and N.Korea tends to reneg on such deals since they ignore the core issue of a lack of a peace treaty or non-agression pact).

Iraq is a very fine legal line that I accept only by pragmatism. US may jump through loopholes to claim the 'letter of the law' here, but not the spirit of the law. Fundamentally speaking, the US invasion of Iraq was NOT explicitely authorised by the UN (and for good reasons).

And speaking of this alleged US support for international law, I offer the example of the ICC. Or the US refusal to sign the ban on land mines (which tend to kill/maim children long after the battle ends). Enough said.

Huh? Violent extremists are a small minority by definition. If they were a majority, they wouldn't be extremists.

And Iraq is breeding them by the thousand these days it seems...

Diplomacy was tried in N.Korea within the last 10 years?

Diplomacy was tried in Iraq within the last 10 years?

I don't see any evidence of this. Only that US foreign policy is consistent in seeking confrontation with these nations. Just like Iran.

And it is to be noted that the US did invade N.Korea, the US did invade Iraq and is threatening invasion of Iran. This is US foreign policy.

I have not stated that Al Queda fights solely against US foreign policy.

My argument here is that US foreign policy creates/supports/upholds the conditions that support Al Queda and other such terrorist groups.

And if Al Queda has lots of money, it would seem to be both prudent and clever to invest some funding in other related groups for optimum effect.

I refer you to the UN Charter itself, of which the Human Rights Charter is a subsidiary document. The humanitarian mission is a secondary one. It is real, it is valid, but it is inferior to the primary purpose of the UN which is international peace.

Well first we dont sign the land mine ban because we use land mines in the DMZ. The rational is "if we sign the ban there goes the first line of defense."

Second, when did we invade N.Korea. If you are talking about the Korean War then that was a UN sanctioned and supported war.

Third, Does the United States not have a right to defend its intrests like every other country? If China wants to play games in the ME than I will be mad, but accept the fact that they are safe guarding their interests. If Saudi Arabia wants to play its own games too, that is with in the rules.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Islamic extremist reaction to comments by the Pope, VIOLENCE, fire bombing of churches. This is there reaction to nothing more than WORDS they do not like.

Any one still naive and foolish enough to think the hatred is a result of U.S. policy? These people are evil, intolerant, violent animals, U.S. policy is an EXCUSE they give, it is NOT the cause of their grievances.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

[quote=Zedrow;800359] I understand what you are saying - or at least I think I do. But your last sentence here is where we differ in the deepest sense. You say that we "bribed" and "forced" these terrorists to do things that turned them into terrorists in the first place. Thus, the responsibility for their transformation in to terrorists is ours. I understand the appeal of this argument, because it is an attempt to make sense of barabarism and evil, and places the ultimate blame on Americans, which is far more comfortable and reassuring than placing the blame on evil adults who made their own choices.

I will never accept the view that they are victims. This is the essence of the disagreement, and where we differ.


Regarding this - I certainly agree. Nihilism produces all sorts of horrible results, in many different varieties.

You know I respect you and always enjoy reading your posts. If I see "Zedrow", I will read the post. But on this our views are utterly diferent, and it is troubling to me partly because all of the Canadians appear to be united in this. The relations between our nations are so poor now that this type of profound disagreement, reflecting two utterly opposed views of reality, does not bode well for the future.

Please understand that I know you are NOT sharing in the hateful comment "You had it coming!". I know that you would not say something like that. But there is a shared view of the terrorists as victims, and that is something I reject.

But of course we will keep talking (or at least you and I will.....)