NationStates Jolt Archive

I find it so very hard to believe that 60 years of US foreign policy is entirely responsible for the problems of the world today. I'm sure in some warped sense of "logic" that is actually very practical. Nevermind the thousands of years of shared history between the West and the Middle East. Anyone remember the Roman Empire? How about the Crusades? The Age of Imperialism? World War I and II? All caused by the US, right?

Ignore the fact that Africa was carved up by the likes of France, Italy, Great Britain, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands for hundreds of years. Ignore the fact that Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and Russia have used the Middle East as a playground over the past century and a half. And yet, regardless of this, it is the 60 years of failed foreign policy of the US that has caused such problems? OK.

Some people believe that because of George W. Bush, alone, there has been a steep increase in anti-Americanism. I'm not going to argue that he hasn't helped fan the flams, but anti-Americanism has been there long before Dub'ya, and yes, this includes the glorious presidency of William Clinton. Why such a rise, well, perhaps it's because the rest of the world would rather live with the US than under the former Soviet Union? Now that the Cold War is over, that hate, with it's 50 year dormancy, can boil to the surface in all its glory. Nah, that might make sense, it's George W. Bush's fault and his alone. OK.

Anyone remember the Suez crisis of the 70s? When France, Great Britain, and Israel attacked Egypt to secure the Suez canal and the US came in and told everyone, with the help of the UN, to stop it? Then the Middle East put up an oil embargo, including against the US. OK. How about that the French sold nuclear reactor components to Iraq during the 80s and the wonderful Jacques Chirac gave a personal tour to Saddam of the French reactors - a bit of conflict of interest perhaps? How about East Germany building chemical weapons factories in Iraq during the 80s? To be fair, we did give some help to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. And why did France and Germany do such things, for oil. Wait? Other countries use oil besides the US? Why is oil so important?

Could it be because the entire world economy since the Industrial Revolution depends on it? Nah. Forget the fact that petrolium, a biproduct of oil, is a very small amount of the oil itself (someone told me 5%, not sure on that though). Regardless, what else is oil used for...well: cell phones and computers to lubricate the processors, nylon is a product of synthetic oil so if you wear a nylon shirt - oil (which comes in a variety of colors, which simply means more oil), plastic - the mother of them all - is used for your toothbrush, the toothpaste container, bottled water comes in plastic, your shoes, the tires on your car [that's rubber, sorry, but rubber comes from oil too], the pipes in your house, your shampoo containers, DVD containers, even certain papers use oil, and the list goes on and on.

300'000'000 Americans use such products daily, now imagine when 1.2 billion Indains and 1.6 billion Chinese (just guessing on those numbers), which 30% of there population is that of the US, wants such things as well. Are we to tell them no, sorry? Are you ready to give up all those things? So, instead of seeing some rag-tag group of Islamic renegads control the worlds oil supply, which I'm sure would be glad to put an embargo up to shut down the world economy, let's do something about it. Should we continue 30 years of failed foreign policy and expect different results? Or go off the deep-end and try something new? Apparently, people would go with option 1, good for you.

In the meantime, I like wearing my shirts, having my toothbrush, my shampoo bottle, my shoes, and so on. Go get those rag-tag towel heads, but we can't say that, that isn't PC, go get those confused and angry individuals in that certain part of the world. In the end, blame the US because it makes more sense, in that warped sense of "logic" you might have. Whatever is best for you to understand why the world works the way it works. Now, I'll sit back and watch for the name calling. If my "facts" are off, feel free to correct me. Take care. I'm off to the gas station, which is only 500m away, in my SUV that I'll have to fill up on just to get back to the house.

Woah, that is one giant block of text.

Want to carve some paragraphs out of it?

I agree with Dakini. I started to read this, but got a headache, let's trim it or put paragraphs in it, eh? ;)

Put some paragraphs in that sucker and I'll give reading it a shot. I managed to read enough to understand you don't believe the United States is responsible for all that is wrong with the world today, and I agree with that, but then my head began to ache.

~ Romandeos.

How's that boy-o's.

Anyone remember the Suez crisis of the 70s? When France, Great Britain, and Israel attacked Egypt to secure the Suez canal and the US came in and told everyone, with the help of the UN, to stop it?

Um... I'm pretty sure that was Canada. Lester B. Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize for that.

Um... I'm pretty sure that was Canada. Lester B. Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize for that.

I'll double check that one. Maybe triple.

How's that boy-o's.

Much improved, amigo.

~ Romandeos.

I find it so very hard to believe that 60 years of US foreign policy is entirely responsible for the problems of the world today. I'm sure in some warped sense of "logic" that is actually very practical. Nevermind the thousands of years of shared history between the West and the Middle East. Anyone remember the Roman Empire? How about the Crusades? The Age of Imperialism? World War I and II? All caused by the US, right? Ignore the fact that Africa was carved up by the likes of France, Italy, Great Britain, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands for hundreds of years. Ignore the fact that Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and Russia have used the Middle East as a playground over the past century and a half. And yet, regardless of this, it is the 60 years of failed foreign policy of the US that has caused such problems? OK. Some people believe that because of George W. Bush, alone, there has been a steep increase in anti-Americanism. I'm not going to argue that he hasn't helped fan the flams, but anti-Americanism has been there long before Dub'ya, and yes, this includes the glorious presidency of William Clinton. Why such a rise, well, perhaps it's because the rest of the world would rather live with the US than under the former Soviet Union? Now that the Cold War is over, that hate, with it's 50 year dormancy, can boil to the surface in all its glory. Nah, that might make sense, it's George W. Bush's fault and his alone. OK. Anyone remember the Suez crisis of the 70s? When France, Great Britain, and Israel attacked Egypt to secure the Suez canal and the US came in and told everyone, with the help of the UN, to stop it? Then the Middle East put up an oil embargo, including against the US. OK. How about that the French sold nuclear reactor components to Iraq during the 80s and the wonderful Jacques Chirac gave a personal tour to Saddam of the French reactors - a bit of conflict of interest perhaps? How about East Germany building chemical weapons factories in Iraq during the 80s? To be fair, we did give some help to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. And why did France and Germany do such things, for oil. Wait? Other countries use oil besides the US? Why is oil so important? Could it be because the entire world economy since the Industrial Revolution depends on it? Nah. Forget the fact that petrolium, a biproduct of oil, is a very small amount of the oil itself (someone told me 5%, not sure on that though). Regardless, what else is oil used for...well: cell phones and computers to lubricate the processors, nylon is a product of synthetic oil so if you wear a nylon shirt - oil (which comes in a variety of colors, which simply means more oil), plastic - the mother of them all - is used for your toothbrush, the toothpaste container, bottled water comes in plastic, your shoes, the tires on your car [that's rubber, sorry, but rubber comes from oil too], the pipes in your house, your shampoo containers, DVD containers, even certain papers use oil, and the list goes on and on. 300'000'000 Americans use such products daily, now imagine when 1.2 billion Indains and 1.6 billion Chinese (just guessing on those numbers), which 30% of there population is that of the US, wants such things as well. Are we to tell them no, sorry? Are you ready to give up all those things? So, instead of seeing some rag-tag group of Islamic renegads control the worlds oil supply, which I'm sure would be glad to put an embargo up to shut down the world economy, let's do something about it. Should we continue 30 years of failed foreign policy and expect different results? Or go off the deep-end and try something new? Apparently, people would go with option 1, good for you. In the meantime, I like wearing my shirts, having my toothbrush, my shampoo bottle, my shoes, and so on. Go get those rag-tag towel heads, but we can't say that, that isn't PC, go get those confused and angry individuals in that certain part of the world. In the end, blame the US because it makes more sense, in that warped sense of "logic" you might have. Whatever is best for you to understand why the world works the way it works. Now, I'll sit back and watch for the name calling. If my "facts" are off, feel free to correct me. Take care. I'm off to the gas station, which is only 500m away, in my SUV that I'll have to fill up on just to get back to the house.
No argument about western society being dependant on oil (this is why it's going to go down the tubes sooner rather than later). As for the rest:
The mess in the middle east is not solely Bush's fault. It's hard to see his approach to diplomacy since taking power as anything other than poking a wasp's nest with a stick, but he did not create the problem. However, he is also doing little to solve it, which makes him part of the problem, by infallible hippy logic.
As for America's role in the middle east, the question becomes a little more tricky. I cannot, for the life of me, think of a single attempt America has made to dabble in the politics of the region that wasn't a complete disaster. Israel is exhibit A here, but nothing else seems to have worked out well. Trying to intervene in Iran turned the country into a fundamentalist theocracy (and led to America supplying Hussein with WMDs to keep them in check), to pick an example at random.
Besides which, if you're going to claim that something is your bag, it behooves you to deal with the problems that come with it. Doubtless America will manage this in the middle east at some point. Don't hold your breath waiting, though.

Um... I'm pretty sure that was Canada. Lester B. Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize for that.
No, the states forced the cease fire.

Pearson suggested creating the peacekeeping force, that's what he got the nobel prize for.

edit: link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Suez_War#Cease_fire_and_withdrawal

Appreciate all comments, do have to run though. I'll be back on later and check.

Aquilapus, Tremerica, you're both right.

According to the Wikipedia entry the United States threatened to sell its reserves in the British pound if a cease fire wasn't signed. This would severely damage the UK economy if it was done.

Lester Peterson came in afterwards with the idea of a UN peacekeeping force to "keep the borders at peace while a political settlement is being worked out." He's the father of the concept of peacekeeping.

(Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Suez_War)

Aquilapus, Tremerica, you're both right.

According to the Wikipedia entry the United States threatened to sell its reserves in the British pound if a cease fire wasn't signed. This would severely damage the UK economy if it was done.

Lester Peterson came in afterwards with the idea of a UN peacekeeping force to "keep the borders at peace while a political settlement is being worked out." He's the father of the concept of peacekeeping.

(Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Suez_War)

Damn! You posted it before I could :D

The state of the world today is the fault of the Roman Empire, Greece, Assyria, Babylon and possibly India.
Without the Romans we wouldnt have imperialism as we know it.
Without the Greeks we wouldnt have the lovely backstabbing politics.
Without Assyria and Babylon we wouldnt have civilization and warfare as we know it.

Oh, and that damn landfish. Somebody go back in time and shoot it, please.

Ack. I couldn't possibly take this all on. I'll just pick at the last thing I read.

Take care. I'm off to the gas station, which is only 500m away, in my SUV that I'll have to fill up on just to get back to the house.

If your worried about oil dependance (or whatever), what on earth would posess you to buy an SUV? Like you said, it takes half a tank to get to the station and half back, to say nothing of the enviromental impact.

The SUV, by the was, is American. The first SUV was the Chevy Suburban.


Or, was your point that your just peachy with oil dependance? :confused: I'm confused.

Damn! You posted it before I could :D
I posted it before he did.

You're a tad angry about anti-americanism arent you? I'm assuming you're a US citizen, safely i think. You missed a chunk of the problem though. Its cultural. Basicly it comes down to whether you'd mind having, assuming thingswerent as they were, being force-fed another countries culture through your TV, to have some huge all encompasing and massively influential companies from some other country filling up your high street with damn Starbucks and McDonalds and watching them slowly take over? Thank got for Tesco's in a way, although its huge in the UK and runs on simular principals to Walmart they can make sure Walmart does not squeeze in. How would you like to spell "color" colour because your stupid spell-checker doesnt actually understand American? Imagine a world where people Brit-slang was addopted instead of the American because there was more British tv than American? Dont you think you'd feel invaded? Imagine people saying Brilliant rather than awesome, try saying naught instead of zero. How about if you were affected by a larger power that has one of the most gridlocked systems of democracy and a almost complete barbaric social system?

its the differences that count you see, these are the main two: Guns being almost entirely legal - We dont get that, it was fine when there was bears in the woods and you needed a millita but not in the 21st century....No NHS or real benefits, the richest country in the world wont stop the poor and the sick people from being poor and sick? as i said, barbaric.

It's a strange thing really, I've never met an american i dissliked, it seems like your the happiest people...or at least the most friendly in the world yet you dont seem to want to help your own...

Bush is not much of a point, he's become such a enlarged paraody of himself now nothing said about him can be taken seriously, politically he's done well he can condense large ammounts of info very well indeed and simplfy issues into electorate friendly chunks and has used his simplicty tag for himself.

Towel-heads? bit harsh dont you think? im personally not particularly PC, a frenchman can be a frog and a German a Kraut, but i believe its okay if they're your neighbours...simply a bit of fun, the English are called "Ros Biff" (i think thats how you spell it) dontcherknow...

Its not all about oil, although it is a point, using somthing like 50% of the earths oil while only containing a fraction of the population...just think equality if you can.

Another English fact here, which you may like its cockney ryming slang moved on a step, to be septic is to be american, from septic tank y'kno, therefore to be anti-septic is to be anti american, and there for if you disslike americans you may be called Listerine. Like it?

I dont disslike america, i just feel its too big for its own good really, with a kind of self-abusing electorate. Still, all opinion eh?

Towel-Heads is not politically correct. Apart from that the majority of the middle-eastern population doesn't wear a "towel" on its head, I might as well start making up insulting names for Americans based on their cowboy heads, or their McDonald's-induced obesity.

As for France and Germany and Oil:
a) Eastern Germany doesn't exist anymore, you might as well start blaming us for the Nazis. The West was involved too, it would be better if you found the references for that. ;)

b) Petrol is a very large factor in oil consumption - and European countries have for many years actively made it more expensive in order to increase efficiency in usage. Compare prices at your local station with those found in Europe, and you'll notice a very different idea of oil policies. That being said, Germany gets the majority of its oil from Norway and from the UK. OPEC as a whole is only a small supplier, and the largest share of that is from Lybia - not Saudi Arabia, and certainly not Iraq (despite what is often claimed by some people).

And finally about Bush and Anti-Americanism:
Remember after September 11? How the French were the very first nation on the planet to express its condolences - and how they were followed by pretty much everyone on the planet?
The entire world has at some point or other been exposed to terrorism. Many people know how horrible that is, and they were genuinely shocked to see it happen in the US too.
It took a lot of unfriendliness to swing opinion by so much.

Ack. I couldn't possibly take this all on. I'll just pick at the last thing I read.



If your worried about oil dependance (or whatever), what on earth would posess you to buy an SUV? Like you said, it takes half a tank to get to the station and half back, to say nothing of the enviromental impact.

The SUV, by the was, is American. The first SUV was the Chevy Suburban.


Or, was your point that your just peachy with oil dependance? :confused: I'm confused.

I don't actually own an SUV or a car for that matter. It was just a joke. The only reason a person should have an SUV is if they live in rural places, harsh weather environments, or their job (as in construction). Having an SUV to get to work seems to be a waist, even if they are "safer" as some argue.

...Basicly it comes down to whether you'd mind having, assuming thingswerent as they were, being force-fed another countries culture through your TV, to have some huge all encompasing and massively influential companies from some other country filling up your high street with damn Starbucks and McDonalds and watching them slowly take over?

While I emotionally agree with your complaint, that doesn't save it from being foundationally incorrect. I wish we (we=human beings) were retaining a little more of our local cultures and styles... I really wish going to travel the world and visit foreign countries was still the experience it once was, but it's not the fault of Americans or American companies that it's not.

There would be no American programming broadcast in Britain or anywhere else, were it not demanded by the local viewers. Starbucks and McDonalds and Wal-Mart would not long be able to keep their doors open "overseas" if they were not actively patronized (and even enthusiastically courted) by the locals.

On the other hand, the number of places in the US where you can find a BP station to fill up at, or take in the BBC world news on the television or radio, or buy yourself FCUK clothing or a Landrover or Jaguar (I know... that last bit doesn't work so well since Ford bought them) are doing nothing but growing.

Get read for the global community. It's coming, ready or not.



And, Aquilapus? Of course it's President Bush the Younger's fault. His, and those Americans who act on and subscribe to his idiocy.

It shouldn't be all his fault... I'll give you that. In a perfect world, it would hinge on the massive and richly detailed history of all the interactions of all nations involved... But here in reality, world public opinion is a function of the feelings and opinions of the world public... Individual human beings that remember much more clearly President George W. Bush leading an attack on a country that did not attack the US, supported by many American citizens out of blind rage, and against the wishes and support of almost every nation in the world community than they do anything or anycombination of things that happened during the Clinton administration, the cold war, or any other time.

Whether the world loves or hates Americans, or anyone else, can change over the course of one news cycle. Sad but true.

Leonstein (make sure I spell it right this time):

The referance to "towel heads" was not meant to be PC and I don't use such terms on a daily basis. It was meant to be sarcasstic.

In regards to Germany and its reference as East Germany, look at the time I am talking about, the 1980s. The Cold War was still going and Germany was divided into East and West Germany.

Again, the instance I was referencing was in the 1980s. In this instance France and Germany exchanged certain materials for oil because it was in the early 80s when Iraq had a strong economy before Saddam pissed it all away in two subsequent wars.

This post wasn't about 9/11. It was about America in the World in regards to the anti-American beliefs and that the US is not responsible for all in the world, though we have caused problems here and there. Yes, France and numerous other countries denounced the 9/11 attacks. They denounced the 7/7 attacks in London. In regards to France and pretty much the rest of the world, that's all they've done with terrorism today. The say how horrible it is and that's it. Empty rhetoric.

Keep in mind about the context in which this post is written.

I am a US citizen but I am actually living in New Zealand, since May 20, 2005.

You give the impression that the US forces people to watch our programs or accept our culture. I don't think that is the case. Turn off the TV or don't accept our culture. We aren't forcing you to do anything.

I live in New Zealand now, and I'm quite familiar with the difference of "English". It's quite fun. But, are you going to blame Italy for the popular use of "ciao"?

I don't actually use the term "towel heads" on a daily basis. At all actually. It is meant to be sarcasstic, not literal.

I do have a problem with the US being 5% of the global population and using 35% of the resources. That, however, requires a change in culture.

That's off the subject of this post, but I'm open to talk about anything.

And, in regards to guns being legal. It has historical significance, as you know, as well as social implications. The right to bear arms was set up because the Founding Fathers didn't want the government being stronger than the people. Right for militia's. So, we have guns, because we don't want to not be under a government that has all the guns and we can't do anything to throw off the chaines of such government. That's my opinion though. Most of the time, the argument against having guns comes from the left side of the fence, how interesting.

Tyrell Technologies: I don't like being called an idiot too much [indirect as it may be], but you have the right to your own opinion. I know what your saying and agree with you about [with many other things you said] how unfortunate it is when people forget their history and go off of the latest broadcast. We'll change it someday, hopefully. I won't get into this here, but I'd gladly explain why I support George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism, in its subsequent theatre's of operation. That requires, however, me to go over 400 years of Western history, 400 years of Middle Eastern history, and 30 years of US foreign policy. Plus explain the sociocultural implications in the US. I'm working on the paper right now, but it'll take a bit of time.

The referance to "towel heads" was not meant to be PC and I don't use such terms on a daily basis. It was meant to be sarcasstic.
It wasn't fully clear...but more importantly there are some that anything that think being "politically correct" (what's with the abbreviations???) is somehow a bad thing.

In regards to Germany and its reference as East Germany, look at the time I am talking about, the 1980s. The Cold War was still going and Germany was divided into East and West Germany.
You don't say... :p
East Germany doesn't exist anymore, and your implication was that today's Germany is somehow at fault for this WMD business - I'm sure it is in some way, but it is not responsible for the East building C-Weapon Factories.

Again, the instance I was referencing was in the 1980s. In this instance France and Germany exchanged certain materials for oil because it was in the early 80s when Iraq had a strong economy before Saddam pissed it all away in two subsequent wars.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/merquery/mer_data.asp?table=T11.01a (Excel File)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1110.html (See how much more the US is focussed on Oil than countries like France and Germany? Always has been - the population ratio is *2.78)

Yes, France and numerous other countries denounced the 9/11 attacks. They denounced the 7/7 attacks in London. In regards to France and pretty much the rest of the world, that's all they've done with terrorism today. The say how horrible it is and that's it. Empty rhetoric.
They know how to deal with it. They have: the UK had the IRA, France had the North Africans, Germany had the RAF. That you apparently don't think that qualifies as "terrorism" is hardly a good thing - the number of dead doesn't change the principles behind it.
Fighting wars against terrorists isn't the answer. All it does is replace the current terrorists with other, even more fanatic ones.
It's the way the US have decided to deal with it that is nothing but a reinforcement of the same tired Cowboy stereotypes - just a lot more serious this time. And not only that, they somehow think they have a moral justification for declaring wars on countries. All Western countries have been very helpful when it came to eroding financial support for terrorism, when it came to finding them, and capturing them.
But for us, life goes on. This isn't some sort of biblical armageddon-type "us or them" fight to the death - if it was, you could say goodbye already. Terrorism cannot be defeated. Al-Qaeda cannot be defeated, it can only defeat itself.
Make Peace already. To say that you can't is a myth you cling to - it's as if you somehow think signing a truce would be a defeat. They killed 3000 of you, and in response you killed 20,000 (probably more) of them and others. You have achieved absolutely nothing - for four years running. I think it's time to try something different.

Keep in mind about the context in which this post is written.
You're accusing those critical of the Bush Administration, and American policy in general, of being naive. You're accusing them of not understanding the issues, and you accuse them of stupidity. I can't help but defend myself.
As for your argument about oil, I agree. Using oil is a bad idea, and alternatives need to be created soon. But again, it's the US that is sadly lacking the will to do so - even though it is the largest consumer of oil.

This post wasn't about 9/11. It was about America in the World in regards to the anti-American beliefs and that the US is not responsible for all in the world, though we have caused problems here and there. Yes, France and numerous other countries denounced the 9/11 attacks. They denounced the 7/7 attacks in London. In regards to France and pretty much the rest of the world, that's all they've done with terrorism today. The say how horrible it is and that's it. Empty rhetoric.

My BS alarm ringed when you said the suez crisis of the 70's, and again when you said this. This will be my only post in this thread, because its obvious you have a distant association with facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201361.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/8/28/154621.shtml

Just because you have an irrational hatred for the French, it doesn't mean they hate us. They are one of our most important allies in the world, trailing only britain.

East Germany doesn't exist today, right. Yet to ignore the actions of the past and place the blame squarely on the actions of the present is absurd.

My argument was that everyone needs oil, the US uses more of it, but that was not the point. In reference to using France and Germany, there instances in Iraq, was giving examples of other countries involvement in the region. That's all.

They know how to deal with it? Perhaps, but last time I looked, the policies of other Western powers hasn't erased the problem of terrorism. If the Western powers have done so well at dealing with terrorism, why is it still around?

Your pessimism is very interesting, but expected. Thirty years of failed foreign policy from the West has achieved very little. Yet you seem inclined to continue the policies, or at least follow the lead of other Western powers, do you not? You are so sure that "absolutly nothing" has been accomplished over the past four years. I have seen more change in the Middle East over the past four years then the failed policies over the past 30. That's just my opinion though. Wether this change is for better or for worse no one can say, without seeming damned arrogant.

This is interesting. I don't criticize those being critical of the Bush Administration AT ALL. I am discussing in this post the bleak "logic" of saying that the US is behind all the problems of the world, which is to ignore hundreds of years of shared history between the West and the Middle East. I certainly do not accuse people of being "naive". Nor do I imply it anywhere. If I do, show me, and I'd gladly reword it and appologize. I do not accuse them of not understanding the issues or call them stupid. Show me where I say that or imply it and I'll reword it and appologize. When people say its all the US' fault and don't mention the history and past policies of the West, then that does show they might not understand the length and breadth of such issues, perhaps. This isn't an attack. If you feel that any discussion any person has that is different from your held oppinions as an attack - then you need to consider being less defensive. Now THAT was an attack on you - feel free to defend.

Yes, alternatives need to be found. Don't fool yourself that an answer is right around the corner, which is the impression I get from some. I support that completly, but, again, this isn't what this post was about entirely.

Your BS alarm about the Suez crisis? Where am I off on that? You don't go any further in explaining this. Where is my disassosiation with facts? Do explain. Hate (pun intended) to break this to you, but this isn't an attack against the French or the Germans or anyone else for that matter. I am citing those examples to show the involvement of other nations in the Middle East. I'd gladly go over the British, the Italians, and the Russians if you'd like. I do disagree with the French government (not the people at all) on many issues and doubt their motivations for doing things. Again, I think you are reading too heavily into this. If I implied anywhere that this was a French bashing post, then I appologize, that wasn't my intention. Until then, these cheap character attacks to weaken any arguments I have won't work. Stick to the issues and what I expresly say and not imply (in most cases). If you have questions about what exactly I'm saying or might be implying, then ask, don't assume you "know" what I'm talking about.

They know how to deal with it? Perhaps, but last time I looked, the policies of other Western powers hasn't erased the problem of terrorism. If the Western powers have done so well at dealing with terrorism, why is it still around?

Terrorism as a concept of warfare is old news, even back in Roman times. The concept itself cannot be defeated by open warfare, that's old news as well. Germany managed to rid itself of the RAF, you may want to have a closer look at their strategy. The IRA is dissembling itself at the moment, so you may want to look into that as well.


This is interesting. I don't criticize those being critical of the Bush Administration AT ALL. I am discussing in this post the bleak "logic" of saying that the US is behind all the problems of the world, which is to ignore hundreds of years of shared history between the West and the Middle East. I certainly do not accuse people of being "naive". Nor do I imply it anywhere. If I do, show me, and I'd gladly reword it and appologize. I do not accuse them of not understanding the issues or call them stupid. Show me where I say that or imply it and I'll reword it and appologize. When people say its all the US' fault and don't mention the history and past policies of the West, then that does show they might not understand the length and breadth of such issues, perhaps. This isn't an attack. If you feel that any discussion any person has that is different from your held oppinions as an attack - then you need to consider being less defensive. Now THAT was an attack on you - feel free to defend.


To be completely honest, i don't feel the need to defend that for one single reason : I have never heard any seriouss person blaming the US for all the world's problem. What I did hear numerous times (and what never fails to amaze me) are Americans blaming the rest of the world for blaming them for the world's problems. I've been trying to figure that one out for a while now, maybe you can help me there.
Why do you feel that anybody is blaming you for all of the world's problems? Who do you feel is blaming you for all of them?

How about that the French sold nuclear reactor components to Iraq during the 80s and the wonderful Jacques Chirac gave a personal tour to Saddam of the French reactors - a bit of conflict of interest perhaps? How about East Germany building chemical weapons factories in Iraq during the 80s? To be fair, we did give some help to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. And why did France and Germany do such things, for oil. Wait? Other countries use oil besides the US? Why is oil so important? For one, even the US was allied with Iraq at the time and supplied chemical weapons to Saddam. And Might I remind you that East Germany no longer exists?

They know how to deal with it? Perhaps, but last time I looked, the policies of other Western powers hasn't erased the problem of terrorism. If the Western powers have done so well at dealing with terrorism, why is it still around?
Because Terrorism will always be around, until we have a complete global democracy, where everyone actually feels like their voice matters. Maybe that'll never happen, but I can tell you that no matter what we do or don't do - disaffected and ignored people will use violence to make themselves heard.

Your pessimism is very interesting, but expected. Thirty years of failed foreign policy from the West has achieved very little.
Apart from numerous wars Israel vs Others, solidifying the destruction of Lebanon, watching the Kurds have to play the Pariahs, various dictatorships from Saudi Arabia over Jordan to Iraq, and the tiny matter of the third largest war in human history. And did I forget to mention the Taliban?

Yet you seem inclined to continue the policies, or at least follow the lead of other Western powers, do you not?
No, not at all. I think the previous entanglements in the Middle East have achieved preciously little positive movement, but a lot of negative.
Using bodies like the UN, or even the modern news media, you can affect change in countries without having to assassinate or fund terror groups.
An alternative to past policies doesn't imply a shift to even more violence, if you can also go in the other direction.

You are so sure that "absolutly nothing" has been accomplished over the past four years. I have seen more change in the Middle East over the past four years then the failed policies over the past 30. That's just my opinion though. Wether this change is for better or for worse no one can say, without seeming damned arrogant.
Well, I don't think that Iran feeling it needs nuclear weapons, or that a ruined state full of angry people is that good, no matter who's opinion it might be. I can't put a positive spin on that, no matter how hard I try.
A good thing however is the Syrian retreat from Lebanon, but wait...there was no violence involved! Not even the threat of violence. After Hariri's death the people decided that they wanted the Syrians out, and they went on peaceful protests: That is what changes the future. Iraq has a 50-50 chance of becoming a real state eventually (IMHO), Lebanon is already stable and will stabilise even more.

I am discussing in this post the bleak "logic" of saying that the US is behind all the problems of the world, which is to ignore hundreds of years of shared history between the West and the Middle East.
Who are you talking about then? Do you really think there are people out there that think so?

Anyway, I feel we agree on some core issues - namely that the world isn't all black and white. I've seen plenty of people who have a very "kill all the terrorists and we win" kind of view, maybe you know a few "Bush caused Katrina" people (I don't).
But my point stands: Attacking nations doesn't end terrorism, if anything it causes it - does anyone seriously believe those kids would've blown themselves up in London had it not been for Iraq?

First, the US was never "allied" with Iraq, but they did assist them with WMD's aswell.

Yeah, terrorism has been around for a long time. I don't see the world blaming just America or American's seeing the world blaming them. Too much, that is. I currently live in New Zealand and I do find that the "bigger picture" seems to fall by the wayside and people single out the policies of just the United States as the major cause of the problems of the world today. I see American's blame the state of Africa on the United States. Granted, any resonable human being, such as some on here, would see the bigger picture, but that is not always the case. I would say the majority of the people I have talked to don't see it that way. They don't seem to think past 20 years or past there own exsistance. People I think tend to focus on one aspect of a problem instead of looking at the bigger picture. Many of these responses, not from you to a certain degree, focus on one point or the entire post, which is nice, but there are smaller points that are usually overlooked or not commented upon for one reason or another. Hope that answers your question.

Again, Leonstein, while I have some greater respect for your views now, you still have this complacency or "just deal with it" mentality. I might be reading too much into that, but correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm sure you have no problem doing. Ideally the UN is a marvelous institution; however, it is in serious need of an overhaul. Right now, the UN has failed. 16 resolutions against Iraq and they do little about it except pose sanctions or write nasty letters. Empty rhetoric, as I have mentioned before. That is where I see the UN today. Is it entirely the UN's fault, not at all. We all have some blame in that.

While peace is the ideal solution, not everyone in the world can come to such conclusions easily. I'm a borderline pascifists if you can believe it, but that won't make war or violence go away no matter how much I want it to. War, unfortunate as it is, is neccessary at times - usually when diplomacy failes.

Yes, there are people out there who see things in such harsh contrast. It's either this or that, no grey. I think it has alot to do, specifically in the United States, with the polorized atmosphere that's almost toxic. An atmosphere where the fringe groups make sense and moderate thinkers are crazy - that's where I see the United States socioculturally right now. It'll pass, but it's tough going right now.

Overall, this was probably the best posts I've shared with you Leonstein. While I fundamentaly disagree with most of what you say, I can respect you enough for honestly believing it and not just spewing some dogmatic expressions.

Only thing I want to mention, where we disagree but I want to see what you say. I find your ideas, which is good that you have suggestions, to be too soft to put it bluntly. Your suggestion would be to deal with terrorism through the UN, yes? To deal with terrorism through peace and cultural change? Attacking a nation causes, amongst other things, more terrorism and doesn't solve it (I agree pretty much here)? And just for the record, while those "kids" may have blown themselves up because of British policies, namely Iraq, to use Iraq as the chief reason for doing it doesn't justify such actions (which I don't think you are saying) and if it wasn't Iraq it would possibly be Afghanistan, if it wasn't Afghanistan, it might have been Israel - they'll find a way to justify it.

While this is off slightly off subject, do I have your above assertions correct? If that is how you feel, I don't think you understand the problem of terrorism exactly (I'm no Dr. either). You say use the UN, when the UN has failed. Your recomend a change in policies towards one of peace and diplomacy? Demeaning as it might be, what happened to fighting fire with fire? What would you do instead? This probably requires a different thread or just telegram me, but I'd be interested to hear your reponses.

Also, Leostein. In regards to Lebanon and Syria. Lebanon has been in a perpetual Civil War for a while, they've become more stabalized thankfully. Yes, they did it peacefully through mass demonstrations. As you mentioned though, this was AFTER an assasination of one of their political leaders. Violence, yeah? As this example shoes, violence usually leads to peace. Yes, peaceful demonstrations are great, especially when they work, but things hardly ever work in the ideal.

One last thing to mention, from a historical perspective, it takes about 10 - 12 years to turely understand current events and what exactly happened. It is difficult to keep such perspective, but try and keep in mind all the things that are going on. Would Lebanon protest if it wasn't for the US in Iraq? Would Syria eventually in some undetermined date in the distant future leave? Would democracy as we know it eventually take hold in the Middle East if we didn't invade Iraq? Did this just happen by itself and it's just a conincidence? Not even I dare answer these questions with absolute certainty and I doubt you would either. It's the failure of some to keep a perspective on things that truely frightens me. That doesn't mean we can't argue such things, but we must keep a perspective.

what happened to fighting fire with fire? What would you do instead?
I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I just couldn't leave it without comment... I'd fight fire with water.

I know you weren't being literal, but in most cases, metaphors extend quite well. If you respond to violence with violence, what changes? If someone shouts at you and you shout back, what happens? Do they shout louder maybe? What happens if you respond to them calmly? Do they mimic your behaviour and calm down? I think you'll find this is often the case and I believe it is possible to resolve all conflicts peacefully with a little patience and good communication skills.

I am a complete pacifist, btw, I don't believe that violence is ever the best or only reaction. There's this group who go to trouble spots and just talk to people, they have done amazing stuff so far and I totally believe that their techniques are applicaple to almost every situation. Don't have the info on them to hand, will look it up.

Edit: Here we go: http://nvpf.org/np/english/mission/statement.asp.html the Nonviolent Peaceforce, working primarily in Sri Lanka, but with great prospects for future work all over the world. Check it out.

Fair enough, but I don't see that going over to well. A terrorsit blows people up and kills hundreds and you go and have a cup'a tea with them? Ideally, that'd be great. I just don't see that happening with Al-Qaeda. The peaceful route with them would be to turn into a radical fundamentalist society. No violence would be involved there, but I doubt any of us would want to make an appeasement like that. How's this, your child is misbehaving. You can just sit and talk with him - the peaceful route. Or you can send him to his room - the peaceful route. Depending on the child, this may or may not work. You can spank the child - a violent route to some. You might even beat the kid in an uncontrolable rage - kid will probably shut up and be a little doggy later in life (not my personal option). You can take various routes that might border on the peaceful or violent side. In this situation, however, there is no one perfect answer, as it is with most things. It also depends on the child and the circumstances that surround it. Does it not? Extreme instances require extreme measures - peacefully or violently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bush Administration hasn't invaded Iran or North Korea. Maybe threatned to do so, but I doubt it. They are going through those problems peacefully and through diplomacy. North Korea appears to be working and Iran is up in the air. The difference between these two examples is that they are countries with leaders. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist cell with many leaders. You can't use normal methods of diplomacy with them, nor would you want to give them such legitimacy. It just depends on the circumstances.

Ack. I couldn't possibly take this all on. I'll just pick at the last thing I read.



If your worried about oil dependance (or whatever), what on earth would posess you to buy an SUV? Like you said, it takes half a tank to get to the station and half back, to say nothing of the enviromental impact.

The SUV, by the was, is American. The first SUV was the Chevy Suburban.


Or, was your point that your just peachy with oil dependance? :confused: I'm confused.


Not that this has any real bearing on any important part of the conversation.

LAND ROVER birthed the Modern SUV.

Not Chevy--and while the Suburban became the Name used officially by Chevy. Before 1939 all Covered Carry All vehicles were commonly reffered to as "Suburbans"--Dodge started that in the Automobile industry if I am not mistaken.