In an earlier post I expressed my thoughts about the post election fall out. I appreciate all of your comments and wanted to specifically respond to Maggie as I think that she is quite angry and somewhat misguided in her approach. I am not trying to pick on you, but I can't ignore what you have said here. So let's take a look at a few things and see what we come up with.
"I mean the US has been creating 9/11's in many parts of the world for centuries."
Maggie, I am really confused about how you can make this claim. The US was born in 1776. That makes us a very young country. If you are familiar with US history you know that this "birth" was the culmination of a successful war against the colonizers we call the British. It was done with the assistance of the colonizers we call the French.
Both the British and the French has a long history of colonialism and it should be pointed out that problems between India and Pakistan (Read Kashmir) are due to British influence among other things. As are problems throughout the Middle East. The French have their own issues their in various countries and I would be remiss not to mention them and Algeria.
Those are a couple of examples. I suppose that we could discuss the US and our treatment of Native Americans. It is shameful and wrong, but then again we were following the example of our European brethren. It doesn't make it right, but we were among the "civilized" nations who did this.
BTW, I haven't forgotten the Dutch, the Spanish or the Portugese and their colonial involvement either which is all part of the puzzle that lead to today.
So I would be interested in reading some of your examples of the centuries of US involvement in colonial activities. I suspect that what we will find is a very short list, if anything.
I don't believe life changed on 9/11. In fact, I for one wasn't at all surprised on /11. I knew the US had been occupying many countries throughout the world for years for their own gain. The Middle East in particular. How does a mind go from being attacked by Osama to invading and murdering thousands in another country anyway??
Are you saying that the US deserved 911? Are you arguing that murder is a legitimate form of protest? I need to know, because if you are than I want to be able to speak to that. It is all about an appropriate response.
Life may not have changed for you or for many others on 911. I understand, if it doesn't happen in my neighborhood it is easy to ignore. I am guilty of it too. But the problem is that sometimes things happen to our neighbors and we all get dragged in. It is not always nice, but that is just reality. OBL made it very clear that he was coming for the US and that part of the reason he was coming was due to our soft response to past events.
Here is a section from his declaration of jihad that describes Osama's "understanding" of how the US responds to terror:
"We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce agrieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined youall. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits andpieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And wherewas this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden inlees than twenty four hours!
But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- aftervigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold warleadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands ofinternational force, including twenty eight thousands American soldersinto Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minorbattles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your deadwith you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening andpromising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation forwithdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear."
In essence he says that violence is a tool that works and that it should be used to achieve their objectives. It took 911 for most Americans and the government to wake up and understand that there is a foe out there who will murder and brutalize our citizens without regard for who they are.
It would be one thing if 911 had been solely directed against the US military, but it wasn't. The overwhelming number of victims were ordinary people who were just living their lives. They are not considered legitimate targets by civilized nations.
On September 12, 2001 the US could have turned large chunks of the world into a parking lot and people wouldn't have said boo. We didn't. We took some time and went into Afghanistan to hit those nice people known as the Taliban. The same people who would beat you for wearing whatever you are wearing today because I am sure that it is not a burhka.
I don't want to spend a ton of time on Iraq. We had bad intelligence and I want to see that fixed. But then again so did much of the world. It is universally acknowledged that Saddam fooled much of the world and convinced us all that he had WMDs. If he would have really cooperated with the inspectors he would still be in power. A man who by conservative estimates murdered 300,000 Iraqi citizens.
I didn't believe that the rest of the world could have such hatred toward a country like the US.
Religious extremism can do that. I know survivors of the Holocaust who express similar sentiments about their neighbor's feelings towards them. They can't believe that the people who lived next to them turned them into the Nazis. I know Serbs who have told me about their feelings towards Croats, who have choked up as they admitted that they hate them.
We are human and we have our own weaknesses.
Bush was a well known war-like man before the 2000 election took place.
You are going to have provide a little support for this. Prior to the election he was governor of Texas, owned a baseball team, some other businesses. Do you have anything that supports this assertion that prior to the election he was well known for being war like.
I remember the accusations of stupidity, of nepotism, but nothing about war.
Americans' support for his presidency, shows they are marching to a completely different drummer than the rest of the international community.
You mean the same international community that has mobilized to stop the genocide in Darfur. That told the Taliban that they wouldn't tolerate their shameless violations of women's rights. The same group that marched into Rwanda and Somalia and restored order there. The same international community that prevented Pol Pot from running rampant across Cambodia, that stopped the meltdown in Yugoslavia. You are so right.
Look the US is not perfect, we have our share of problems and mistakes. We have done some stupid things and will continue to. But I'd like to see what happen if we closed up shop and said that we are only working on domestic issues. What would happen if we pulled our troops and funding, cut off access to our research and technology to the rest of the world.
The world wouldn't end. It wouldn't die, but it would be a nastier, less hospitable place in many areas.
Imagine what Bush can do in four more years to that hatred.
Maggie, you focus on the negative and I say to you imagine the potential for good. Why couldn't it go the other direction. Give it a chance, he may prove you wrong.
Interested in seeing your response.
4 comments:
"Do you have anything that supports this assertion that prior to the election he was well known for being war like."
During his time as governor for texas he executed people faster than a butcher slaughters pigs. He piled the bodies of those criminals up as if it was judgment day. You can be pro or against death penalty but the way this man made fun of one of the 'dead man walking', a woman pleading for her life which bush had the sick pleasure in of mimicking her scared words and anxious expression, demonstrates this man is and always have been a ruthless killer. It was to be expected he would continue to satisfy his hunger for violence when he became president. Which he has done, with all catastrophic consequences. The despair of those mutilated in his war and the meaningless loss of lives means nothing to him. Bush has absolutely no conscience and he gets some twisted satisfaction when seeing other people in pain.
I absolutely don't understand why the american people prolong the leadership of this werewolf. The US has done many good things in the world, which until previously made you admirable and respectable.
But since bush has been re-elected, this all belongs to the past.
Zeruel
Z,
None of these really answer any of the questions nor do they provide substance to the allegation that Bush was known to be warlike. It is speculative, like saying that people who play violent video games are violent.
The mocking you refer to was of Karla Faye Tucker. It was not professional and not what I would like to see, but let's remember why Karla Faye Tucker was in incarcerated. She brutally beat and murdered two people.
During her trial, Tucker admitted that on June 13, 1983, she and her boyfriend at the time, Daniel Ryan Garrett, took a pickax and hacked Dean and Thornton to death while they were sleeping..
It wasn't the classiest thing Bush has done, but this was not some innocent woman who had done nothing wrong either.
Sorry about that Jack, I meant decades (not centuries)...smile. I do however, stand behind my comment other than the centuries error I made. No, I am not saying the US deserved 9/11, in fact, they deserved it no more than Iraq deserved to be attacked by the US. What I am saying is that prior to 9/11 the US had been occupying countries in the Middle East for their own gain. Bush was warned about the upcoming attack on 9/11 long before 9/11 and he did nothing about the warnings. I suppose you are FOR your country attacking Iraq and that is entirely up to you. For the rest of the world, we find it hideous!! And yes, up here in Canada, we exercise freedom of speech. I understand it is a lot different in the US. Anyway, the world was hoping the people of the US had paid attention to the devastation Bush has brought to the world and we were hoping you would affect some change on the second. Maggie
First off, let me say Maggie that I appreciate your response.
No, I am not saying the US deserved 9/11, in fact, they deserved it no more than Iraq deserved to be attacked by the US. If you think that the two events are morally equivalent than I think that you are horribly misguided. They are not at all the same. Saddam was a mass murderer who had a long track record of misdeeds that included invading Kuwait, using chemical weapons, and launching missiles at Israel.
What I am saying is that prior to 9/11 the US had been occupying countries in the Middle East for their own gain.
What countries are you talking about? How about some examples. And just for kicks are there any countries that do not act in their own interests.
Bush was warned about the upcoming attack on 9/11 long before 9/11 and he did nothing about the warnings. I can make a case that Clinton knew about the problems too. As far as I am concerned both administrations share some culpability. But that is neither here nor there None of this really provides any substance, just a lot of allegations that are in many cases unfounded or taken out of context.
I suppose you are FOR your country attacking Iraq and that is entirely up to you. For the rest of the world, we find it hideous!! I won't speak for the rest of the world, but I am willing to say that you cannot speak for the rest of the world either. And I really find it interesting that you have yet to say anything about Saddam Hussein's responsibility for any of this. Does he not have any accountability.
And yes, up here in Canada, we exercise freedom of speech. I understand it is a lot different in the US. We have freedom of speech too. You are establishing straw men arguments when you imply that we do not. It is patently false to suggest that we do not. There are some limits such as not being to yell fire in a theater. You cannot advocate the violent overthrow of the government. They are also forbidden in Canada.
Anyway, the world was hoping the people of the US had paid attention to the devastation Bush has brought to the world and we were hoping you would affect some change on the second. You keep speaking for the world. You cannot do that anymore than I can. You don't know what the world thinks, as much as you may protest, you really do not know. What concerns me the most is lack of concrete examples and the inability or unwillingness to hold people like Saddam and Osama accountable for their actions. They share responsibility. There is no moral ambiguity there, but you never bring it up. Why?
Post a Comment