|
| quote: | | But the US made it clear any entity who is an accessory to terrorism will be dealt with expedient coercion. |
But that's my point: what gives the US the right to determine who it can annihilate? They may have the worlds most powerful military forces, but does that automatically give them the right to make such demands? And if you do think that these demands are reasonable, then you have to ask where the line is drawn. Does the US have the right to wipe out anyone it wishes to if it feels its national interests are at stake? Like I said, do whatever necessary to acheive a just outcome (catching those proven to be immediately linked to the events on September 11) but don't use what happened on that date as an excuse just to pursue your xenophobic agenda.
| quote: | | Revenge? You think so since you have some serious issue with this 'guy'. |
Yeah but I have serious issues with the guy because of the way he's retaliated in this situation and in several instances before (his revoking of the Kyoto treaty, cuts to third world aid, his abortion policies etc.), not the other way around. By bombing Afghanistan he is flexing his military muscles - I see little other reason to be doing what he's doing. There's nothing left to bomb - certainly nothing that will get the US any closer to acheieving true "justice" - so I can only question what he feels there is to acheive by these air raids other than to satisfy his nation's - and his own - vengeful urges. Seventy-six civilians dead? Do we just keep going until the tally hits the 6,000 mark? Is that his idea of justice?
| quote: | | Who's getting anrgy? Syria? the Arabs? PLO? They've all been angered long before WTC. The pandora's box has been opened a long time ago when US became a destined global superpower. |
Yeah but these attacks are hardly going to assist the situation though are they? You think that Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. are just going to sit back and think: "well I suppose they're justified in doing what they're doing given what Osama did to them"? I doubt it. These terrorists, when you get down to it, are little more than conservatives who want to maintain the status quo in their societies: keep things the traditional way, the old way, the tried and tested way, don't allow the western influence to poison their society. Then there's the pride that's at stake. How many more countries are there left for the US to humiliate? With every "great" military victory, you're creating one more enemy - these muslim groups are tired of being bullied, for want of a better word. They simply want the US out of their world, just like the Americans wanted the English out of their world in the 1700's. And, like Mr. Stamper said:
| quote: | | I don't think people like bin laden would attack america for no reason, there must be a motive to why so many countries and so many people dont like the US. Maybe you should ask yourself why. |
There are ways of resolving the situation without using force. Has anyone tried using compromise? I doubt that these terrorists would be interested in negotiation per se, but there still has to be some sort of critical point where the US can keep the Arab nations happy while protecting the security interests of the rest of the world? If you smack a child every time it misbehaves, it will grow up angry and resentful. But if you can lead by example, reason with it, teach it, then you have a better chance of having it grow up into a functional human being. Same deal with international diplomacy.
| quote: | | As for the Middle-East (the friggin powder keg), it's geopolitics between Israel and the US that spans 50+ years. You believe the US should just get their butts out of the Middle-East's business? When that happens, watch the fireworks explode as Israel will face impending wars with long-standing enemy fronts (arabs, muslims). |
Now I do agree with you here. I think it is important for the US to protect the interests of Isreal - but then the Isreali's are allies in the first place. They are not part of the muslim terror factions that we are talking about. It's one thing to protect Isreali territory, but it's quite another to occupy Saudi Arabia, or insist that all the other Arab countries yield and comply with the US way of life or feel the wrath. The US has set itself up as international peace-keeper, though lacks the depth of vision to understand that it may be doing a great deal of long-term harm to acheive a small degree of short-term gain. As I have alluded to several times before, no other Western power has come close to fueling the amount of hatred simmering word-wide over the past 100 years that the US has.
| quote: | | First, The way I see it is the US is a superpower with responsibilities. Unfortunately, it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it. Second, I find it amusing the people who rant and bash US actions and Bush's decisions don't know the price of freedom -- to have it and to protect it. Third, meglomaniacal or not, I rather have US as the freedom fighter and protector of this world. Fourth, face it, if the roles were reverse -- USSR or China was the only global superpower of today, you'll all wouldn't be crying wolf but truly fighting for liberty. 8) |
Don't get me wrong - the US plays a very important role in international peace keeping, and has done a great deal of good with some of its campaigns - the peace keeping role in Kosovo was, for the most part, a calm and restrained one. But there is still a huge problem when you have essentially one country that decides what is and what isn't right for the rest of the world. The other 96% of the world just have to sit back and twiddle their thumbs waiting for orders. Economically, the US is vital to the rest of the world, and I do agree that (as someone who studied economics for 3 years) it does need to remain economically involved, and try to ensure that the main tennets of capitalism are observed world wide - using rhetoric though, neither force nor coersion. But it doesn't mean that it has to take such an active role politically. I'd like to see the European Union, Russia and China become more actively involved in terms of global politics, to at least restore some of the balance of power and provide the planet with more than just the "American way or no way" solution to everything.
And I'm not sure whether the comment was directed towards me at all, but to suggest that I am unaware of the price of freedom is to sell me short. It is precisely because I am aware of how important freedom is that I oppose the antaganistic American response to the events of September 11, and it is precisely why I oppose the megalomanical American politics of the 20th century and the present day. Americans view the world through a network of misguided, fallicious moral dichotomies: right and wrong, just and unjust, good and evil, black and white. There's the misguided view that America must be right, thus the rest of the world must be wrong where it disagrees. They don't consider the fact that there may a grey zone between the two extremities - there is no negatiation, no compromise. We must be right, therefore you must be wrong. Comply or be spurned. Another dichotemy: you are either with us or against us.
No, I am not an activist. No I am not a futurist: I don't purport to be. I am trying to keep a calm, rational head, and envisage where this uncertain situation might lead us. I'm not trying to say what will or won't happen, just suggest that some courses of action are more likely to result in a more desirable outcome down the track than others. And I fail to see how I can be an activist when any questions or criticisms I direct towards the American mentality, system of government or any other faction of the lifestyle, will be rejected by the inherent self-righteosness all to prevalent there across the Pacific. We can't be wrong, we are God's chosen country (though how many countries make that claim?), we have the flag, we have the constitution, we have a proud history of military victories behind us (don't dare say that the Amercians would never have one the battle of independence if it wasn't for the French joining in to piss the English off!), therefore, taking it all into account, we must be right and you must be wrong. If this is the way I want to do it, the hell, it's the way I'm gonna do it. Lord help anyone who gets in my way.
God bless America, indeed!
|
