“Oh come on! Stop tapdancing. Al Qaeda recruitment has gone way UP, and it’s up because we have US troops occupying the 2nd most holy lands in Islamic culture (Iraq)”
Now, what accounts for all the terror elements before we entered Iraq? Indeed, before Saudi Arabia?
I don’t doubt the number has gone up, though I suspect they don’t keep stats on that. Do you have some proof?
“By setting up permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia, for example (during the first Gulf War).”
…at the Saudi Arabians’ request. We also have bases in Germany, established after we defeated them in a war.
“By appearing to favor Israel over Palestine.”
Follow the money. We do favor Israel, but we favor Muslim countries as well, like Egypt, and yes, we aid the Palestinians.
“And so on.”
Well, get back to me when you have something useful.
Now do a balance sheet of the meager items you suggested and the ones I suggested. Liberation, protection, foreign aid in the billions versus the presence of military bases and foreign aid to their declared mortal enemy.
“Paying attention to world affairs and not simply sneering at any country which isn’t your own might be a start.”
(sniff)
I wish I could recommend a self-help book, but they don’t make one for nation-states.
This is a common and false charge. We not only pay attention to world affairs, we essentially run them. We have for the better part of 50 years.
Thunder, you contradict yourself. You say “we pay attention”… then you claim supremacy and how the US “runs world affairs”. Which is it? I don’t have an inferiority complex… perhaps you have a superiority complex? If your country can get over this superiority thing maybe it will piss off less people.
Anyway, the Middle East has been trifled with by western civilizations for centuries now. The British in the past carved out countries. The US and the Soviet Union in the past propped up dictators that did bad things to their own populace. Of course that pisses people off. Everyone has had their finger in the Middle East and taken a turn at diddling the region.
Stick your head a bit further in the sand. You can’t just look at the last few years and understand the problems in the region.
“Thunder, you contradict yourself. You say “we pay attention”… then you claim supremacy and how the US “runs world affairs”.”
Come again? There’s no contradiction. The point is the US is smack dab in the middle of world affairs because as the world leader in managing these affairs, the US has little choice but be front and center to nearly every issue. Therefore, by virtue of the world deferring to the US’ leadership in everything from global warming treaties to war, the US has to pay attention to world affairs even if it didn’t want to. I must ask regarding your claim - how is one the de facto leader in world affairs with the ability to ignore world affairs?
You can’t.
“I don’t have an inferiority complex… perhaps you have a superiority complex?”
Trust me when I say the US would love for other countries - mainly Europe - to accept more responsibility in world affairs.
“Anyway, the Middle East has been trifled with by western civilizations for centuries now.”
And, to be true to history, Middle Eastern Arab Empires have been trifling with other civilizations over time as well. Which brings us to this gem:
“Stick your head a bit further in the sand. You can’t just look at the last few years and understand the problems in the region.”
My point exactly. You seem to believe that the source of history begins with the awful colonialism of Western European bullies against innocent Middle Easterners just trying to carve out an honest existence in Mesopotamia. Not true.
Elements of Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic Empire go back past the Gulf War, even before the establishment of Israel. Muslim regimes have a long and distinguished history of aggressive warlordism, cultural backslide, ideas of medieval restoration, and absolutist theocracy.
Therefore, by virtue of the world deferring to the US’ leadership in everything from global warming treaties to war, the US has to pay attention to world affairs even if it didn’t want to.
Do you even realize what you are saying? Deferring? Hahahahah. You are two pompous for words. The world doesn’t defer, the US ignores everyone else and does what it wants. That is not leadership.
Muslim regimes have a long and distinguished history of aggressive warlordism, cultural backslide, ideas of medieval restoration, and absolutist theocracy.
If you go far enough back, all cultures have a warlike background. The British, French and Spanish certainly created empires.
The point that they have had their own issues, does nothing to excuse the later issues foisted upon the region by external parties. Your argument does nothing to lessen my point.
Recent generations, those that went through dictatorships sponsored by the US, for example, have every right to be pissed off about it. You ignore this like it is a non-issue.
Your arguments simply point to “other reasons”, but do nothing to counter the reasons I’m giving… though you seem to imply the current reasons are negated because their are other potentially other reasons as well.
Whether or not muslim fanatics would have been spurred to commit terrorism on the west without such actions by western civilizations in the last several centuries is something we can never know. You say it would be happening anyway. I say, I doubt it.
If the people in the region were (still) educated, fat and wealthy, they would have better things to do. Now they are poor, uneducated and easily lured by leaders of fanatical groups.
Terrorism isn’t something happy educated people with good lives are generally just jumping into in large numbers.
[quote]vroom wrote:
If the people in the region were (still) educated, fat and wealthy, they would have better things to do. Now they are poor, uneducated and easily lured by leaders of fanatical groups.
Terrorism isn’t something happy educated people with good lives are generally just jumping into in large numbers.[/quote]
I think UBL’s family was worth like $280 million. He’s a spoiled rich kid. And most of his wealth came from the U.S. buying their oil.
There is plenty to discuss from a historical perspective, but I didn’t want to get too far into it because it would be hijacking the thread even more than I already have and so lengthy it wouldn’t be read.
As for the world deferring to the US, a quick example - the Kyoto treaty. The same countries that championed the value of the treaty and whined about the US not caring enough to ratify Kyoto wouldn’t even ratify themselves. If these other nations thought Kyoto was so valuable, why wait on the US?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I don’t doubt the number (of Al Qaeda) has gone up, though I suspect they don’t keep stats on that. Do you have some proof?[/quote]
Rainjack, I don’t see OBL doing a suicide mission… he’s a leader, not a mindless fanatic happy to die for the cause.
Shit, and since when has coming up with a counter-example been a good way to disprove a general statement? What a ridiculous way to try to make a point. You are simply trying to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me. Why not practice saying “you may have a point with respect to poor education and economic conditions leading to increased ability to recruit due to a disaffected populace”?
Thunder, the US has a lot of weight in these things (Kyoto accord). It is a huge influence economically and there is often no point in going forward with something if the US is going to not participate, especially if it gives the US an economic advantage over those that do participate. Businesses in Canada are bitching about this right now.
This doesn’t mean that people are following the US in the common sense of the word or that it is leading. I am not arguing that the US does not have influence or that it isn’t able to scuttle the plans of other nations to come to international agreement on some issues. Might doesn’t make right, it just forces people to pay attention.
I’m not claiming the US doesn’t have economic and military might.
JeffR
"The physical contrast between those two and me (bodybuilder) couldn’t be more stark. The first time they interrupted me, I’d slam my fist on the table and say with a smile, “Don’t interrupt me again.” The next time they tried that, I’d stand, and politely ask them to follow me backstage for a discussion.
Let me get this straight, your political fantasy is to go on Crossfire and beat up James Carville? How does physical violence prove the validity of your argument? Furthermore how does your superior physique in anyway reflect a superior political argument. Ultimately your just a school yard bully who knows that his fist is his best argument. I realize that you stated this was just a fantasy but still it makes it quite clear that deep down you believe ‘might makes right.’