• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?


  • Total voters
    102
There is no sportsmanship trophy in international relations. We take our friends where we can find them.

You are saying there should be no consideration of ethics in international relations? Neither side is morally superior to the other? We are no better than terrorists, we just have better weapons?
 
Are you serious? Equating taking out Hussein to taking out Hitler? Talk about twisted ...

That's not exactly what he meant. He was comparing the idea of leaving a dictator to sit upon his throne in 1991 to leaving a dictator to sit on his throne in 1945. Of course, the big difference is culture. The German population was not dividied into tribes since they had gone ahead and slaughtered out the "imperfect" souls prior to. Iraq's population was divided in hitorical tribal hate and the fear of instability acytually convinced the most poerful nations in the world to embrace the dictator.

More telling is the difference in Western population. Both events needed the threat of a foreign jack-ass to light a fire under American butts. Both events had bigger economic issues that were really at stake. And both events had physically nothing to do with Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Yet, both events were about something bigger than words like "Democracy," "Freedom," or today's "WMD."

Twisted is pretending that we can reduce these global events to a black and white ordeal.
 
It isn't just me, its the majority of people in the world and was a big factor of why the GOP lost the Whitehouse. Those that refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.




Not pointing a finger at anyone in particular, but why do some people want to ignore some things that happened in the past?

This is worth thinking about a little bit.

Everyone (Including me.) should learn from past errors, their own, and others errors. It's an easy way to avoid repeating them.



"Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgement."
 
I may indeed. I believe the GWB administration sought to create a Middle East Pax Americana based in Iraq to enable a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.:cool:


The middle east oil wars started long before GWB became president. Study your history man. If there were no oil in the middle east, Israel would have moved or fallen years ago without much support from us.
 
Yep, she definitely needs to get to the eye doctor for new glasses ASAP! I was concerned before, now I am becoming alarmed!

As a test, hold a coupon, preferably one that has tiny print, that gives her the works at any spa she chooses.. IF she can read it...and she probably can...you'll know she's just teasing you, and she loves you just the way you are! See how easy it is? :lamo:

Does your husband know how lucky he is? If not, get him on these threads and I'll straighten him out.
 
That's not exactly what he meant. He was comparing the idea of leaving a dictator to sit upon his throne in 1991 to leaving a dictator to sit on his throne in 1945. Of course, the big difference is culture. The German population was not dividied into tribes since they had gone ahead and slaughtered out the "imperfect" souls prior to. Iraq's population was divided in hitorical tribal hate and the fear of instability acytually convinced the most poerful nations in the world to embrace the dictator.

More telling is the difference in Western population. Both events needed the threat of a foreign jack-ass to light a fire under American butts. Both events had bigger economic issues that were really at stake. And both events had physically nothing to do with Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Yet, both events were about something bigger than words like "Democracy," "Freedom," or today's "WMD."

Twisted is pretending that we can reduce these global events to a black and white ordeal.

You're right, the world is not, and never has been, black and white, but you may have forgotten to state the most important difference ... in one case the threat was nonexistent (they had to make it up), and even then not imminent ... in the other, there was nothing imminent about it ... anything but ...
 
You are saying there should be no consideration of ethics in international relations? Neither side is morally superior to the other? We are no better than terrorists, we just have better weapons?



Jack Hays, like most of us, has some good ideas and some not-so-good ideas.

Seems like most of his ideas are pretty good.

But sometimes he throws out the champagne with the cork.

I'll leave it at that for now.
 
We are no better than terrorists, we just have better weapons?

We are better than terrorists because we choose to pretend we have better morals. It's a matter of convenience. International politics has and will always revolve around power. Those with it can label the terrorists. Even our role in Europe's World War I came down to being forced to protect our economic interests. Were it not for the Brtish embrago forcing our trade to the Allied side, we would not have been compelled to protect that trade. Before that embargo, we traded with the Central Powers as well. When it came to World War II, we assisted the allies in bombing out cities full of citizens and later nuked two Japanese cities. During the Cold War, we supported those brutes who catered to the free world against the Soviets and during the Clinton years ignored the building repercussion of those decades.

Morality has nothing to do with it. Neither do friends in which nations have none. They only have fleeting allies. Simple moralities is just what politicians use to get the population spinning because they lack an understanding of the world they live in. But even with moralities, populations like America need to see an attack to get behind a plot of revenge. Preaching about morality while supporitng a war of revenge, but not a war of "humanitarian" rhetoric is beyond hypocracy.
 
"Nation building" is precisely why we keep getting in trouble.

Without nation building in Iraq, we could not have installed a new government that would enforce new oil law that let US and British oil companies back in Iraq for the first time since 1973
 
Does your husband know how lucky he is? If not, get him on these threads and I'll straighten him out.

Executing graceful curtsey for your compliment! :thanks:
 
Most historians and most academics in general with advanced degrees are liberal. That is a fact.

How do you think that future, liberal, academics will judge Bush?

It will not be a friendly court.

That will largely depend the nature of the great questions facing that future society. Our present circumstances often determine the questions we ask of the past.:cool:
 
You're right, the world is not, and never has been, black and white, but you may have forgotten to state the most important difference ... in one case the threat was nonexistent (they had to make it up), and even then not imminent ... in the other, there was nothing imminent about it ... anything but ...

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Simple black and whites. Was Germany a threat to our nation during World War II? Who attacked us? Japan I believe. Germany was the face of a bigger regional economic issue.

9/11 showed that the threat was the region. It's the same threat that analysts in the Pentagon had been producing intel reports on since the end of the Cold War. Why did it take 9/11 to convince the politicians? And why did they have to pretend that a single country was the threat? Al-Queda and hundreds of other terrorist organizations in the region comprised of citizens from every single Middle Eastern nation. They all have common themes amongst their societies. This means that everything between Cairo and Islamabad was and is a threat. Democrats crying about ridding ourselves of the UN mission over Iraq and Republicans crying about the Arab Spring causing instability are both ignorant and traitorous to American security. Since it was and is understood that Cold War dictators helped to facilitate this social mess in the region that helped to create an exponentially growing religious extremism that facilitated a regional capability for a 9/11, it must also be understood that dealing with this region's mess was more than a single dictator sitting in Iraq under a UN mission we mostly enforced.

But, I see you ignore these conditions and opt to simply cling to the "WMD" idea of excuse. Do you see why Bush and Co. was compelled to find the simple to explain away a wider issue that Westerners (especially isolated Americans) couldn't understand? Even Osam Bin Laden offered up the "starving children of Iraq" and "escallating troops in the holy land" for why a 9/11 occurred. But still you will default back to whether or not Iraq had WMD, ignoring the wider escallating problems that threatened stability everywhere underneath dictators that only we or an Arab Spring could address.

Bush stumbled into the recipe of correction. Rumsfeld fumbled his way through Iraq until fired so that others could put on the better path. Arabs elsewhere, who didn't rush to Iraq to disrupt any sense of democracy that would give Baghdad to the Shia, later orchestrated government protests and coups to brig their own democracies. Republicans, Democrats, and many Europeans behaved ignorantly from one year to the next throughout either supporting democracy in the region or acting as if petrified of it. And Bush haters can find no comfort in any of it except to reflect on whether or not Iraq had WMD.

Black and white.
 
No you wont. Westerners like simple. This is where "WMD" came from. This is also where ignoring all the issues building towards 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq come in for protestors.

While the rest of the world actually deals with the grey, Westerners need everything to fit into perfect categories of organization and fixed to labels. Do you think hundreds of thouands of starving Iraqis cared about WMD or Democracy or 9/11? If we are to assume that those words held little meaning to them prior to 2003, why do you think those words were used by the White House when addressing a Western world? It's because we are shallow people in the West and our leaders know it. The less we know about what we do to the rest of the world for our economic securities, the better we like it. What we don't like is a war that involves economic security, because it reminds us that energy doesn't simply spring forth from the ground as if a gift from the energy fairy. This is why "WMD" and "Democracy" are used. "Democracy" and "Freedom" are the same words used by American leaders when trying to convince Americans that war in Europe was necessary during both World Wars. Do you think America's econmic security being threatened was used by Truman or Roosevelt to convince Americans that Europe mattered? No way. Willing to forgive a little deciet for those periods though arent you?

You see, we don't care how many people starve or are oppressed into economic misery and religious zealousy under leaders we maintain just as long as we don't conduct a war to remind us of it. And when an event like 9/11 occurs we like to pretend that our enemy simply hates freedom or that Americans simply had it coming to them. It's not war that bothers people who have absolutely nothing to do with it as they flip channels in their Western world. It's feeling that they are supposed to care that drives them to protest the very thing that provides them that channel flipping security. We would rather ignore nations we condemn to hell through peaceful means than actually break a sweat dealing with an issue that has been ignored for too long for our securities.

Do you actually think France cares about Libyans or Africans below the Sahara? Of course not. Just 1 month prior to insisting that American help them against Libya's dictator, they were publicing announcing their support for Tunisia's dictator. It's all about economic security. So when looking for the truth, one might need to think harder than just opposites of what politicians state to an academically lazy and spolied West.

While I agree it is complicated, and that both the reasons given for war and what people look at are simplistic representations, we still need a truthful rationale. We did not get that.
 
That will largely depend the nature of the great questions facing that future society. Our present circumstances often determine the questions we ask of the past.:cool:



Most people have heard that "The histories of wars are written by the victors".

I suppose in the future the victors will be those who will have survived what happened in their past.
 
We are better than terrorists because we choose to pretend we have better morals. It's a matter of convenience. International politics has and will always revolve around power. Those with it can label the terrorists. Even our role in Europe's World War I came down to being forced to protect our economic interests. Were it not for the Brtish embrago forcing our trade to the Allied side, we would not have been compelled to protect that trade. Before that embargo, we traded with the Central Powers as well. When it came to World War II, we assisted the allies in bombing out cities full of citizens and later nuked two Japanese cities. During the Cold War, we supported those brutes who catered to the free world against the Soviets and during the Clinton years ignored the building repercussion of those decades.

Morality has nothing to do with it. Neither do friends in which nations have none. They only have fleeting allies. Simple moralities is just what politicians use to get the population spinning because they lack an understanding of the world they live in. But even with moralities, populations like America need to see an attack to get behind a plot of revenge. Preaching about morality while supporitng a war of revenge, but not a war of "humanitarian" rhetoric is beyond hypocracy.


So it is your opinion we are no better than terrorists. Thanks for sharing!
 
Without nation building in Iraq, we could not have installed a new government that would enforce new oil law that let US and British oil companies back in Iraq for the first time since 1973

Unfortunately we live in a world where resources have been involved with most wars. That's just the way it is. Whining about it or pretending that peope don't have to die over it won't get you anywhere. It's only a matter of time before it happens again. Did you know that water is the biggest resource that people fight over in the Middle East? Syria threatens Turkey constantly over water. We got over 70 percent of our rubber from Vietnam before we started sending troops abroad to maintain a sense of stability when the French hauled ass.

My point is that you may as well see the greater issues at stake than simple resources that will always be involved. To think that after ridding ourselves and the ME of Hussein wasn't going to offer some kick back is foolish. Even keeping him on his throne as his people starved to death throughout the 90s was about oil stability. I know that was more than acceptable to people that looked the other way until 2003, but it's all the same manipulations for resource stability and regional social escalating chaos. I'm pretty sure you are older than me, so how is it that you pretend that oil in the Middle East is an anomaly to history?
 
Last edited:
You are saying there should be no consideration of ethics in international relations? Neither side is morally superior to the other? We are no better than terrorists, we just have better weapons?

No, but our options are always imperfect and tolerance for moral ambiguity is the price of admission to the grown-ups' table.:cool:
 
While I agree it is complicated, and that both the reasons given for war and what people look at are simplistic representations, we still need a truthful rationale. We did not get that.

I did. I read. I don't and didn't blame Bush for being a politician. What I don't forgive is the countless Liberal/Democrats who protested the very things that Obama continued to their silence. This tells me that most protestors were playing to their political party at the expense of bigger issues left unexplained. Ignorance is only the politicians fault if he starts burning the books.
 
The middle east oil wars started long before GWB became president. Study your history man. If there were no oil in the middle east, Israel would have moved or fallen years ago without much support from us.

I could not disagree more. U.S. government support for Israel has always been viewed as a negative by our oil companies. We offer that support in spite of our economic interests, not because of them.:cool:
 
Most people have heard that "The histories of wars are written by the victors".

I suppose in the future the victors will be those who will have survived what happened in their past.

Nothing is certain, but I doubt that victory or defeat in war will be an overriding consideration for our postulated future historians.:cool:
 
So it is your opinion we are no better than terrorists. Thanks for sharing!

Only our convenience makes us better. I realize that acknowledging human nature is difficult, but the truth is that we are all immoral when the lights are out. Is the poor unemployed man robbing the local store to feed his starving family less moral than the rich man who feasts nightly? Convenience defines most things. Dropping nuclear bombs on civilian cities vs. a terrorists who slaughter a couple hundred people. "Terrorism" is a funny definition. Pretending otherwise is exactly why we are involved in wars longer than we need to be and seeing more blood run than is necessary. It's our "morality" that allows us to stand by and watch people starve to death at the hands of foriegn leaders. It's our "morality" that has us obeying international laws of stability where oppressive and brutal nations have a vote. It's out "morality" that kicks in only after we decide that enough is enough and we send CNN and FOX along with troops to record the carnage we created by ignoring the problems.

I have no problem with my moraity. I define it according to the world I live in and what I have seen the truth of. Others define their morality to convenience, outdated international laws, and the false idea of a utopian world that doesn't exist. The Middle East lingers in misery and blood baths because our "morality" has refrained us from making these terrorists and their part of the civilization so scared that they would rather defy their God than defy us. Our retaliations should be so shocking that even our allies cringe. But instead we play this "moral" game. How much longer and how much more blood would have been shed had we played this game during World War II? For one side to lose a war, it must be convinced that it lost. Our morality has denied us the ability to convice anybody since World War II. Even the "victory" during the Gulf War was hlf assed and hallow given what it set us up for in 2003. We have lost our ability to convince anybody due to our false sense of superior morality. All we have done is prove to the world that we can a create a great amount of damage while preaching about morality. And what's morality without a victory? It's bull ****. Victory is forgiven and only then will our morality mean something.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Simple black and whites. Was Germany a threat to our nation during World War II? Who attacked us? Japan I believe. Germany was the face of a bigger regional economic issue.

9/11 showed that the threat was the region. It's the same threat that analysts in the Pentagon had been producing intel reports on since the end of the Cold War. Why did it take 9/11 to convince the politicians? And why did they have to pretend that a single country was the threat? Al-Queda and hundreds of other terrorist organizations in the region comprised of citizens from every single Middle Eastern nation. They all have common themes amongst their societies. This means that everything between Cairo and Islamabad was and is a threat. Democrats crying about ridding ourselves of the UN mission over Iraq and Republicans crying about the Arab Spring causing instability are both ignorant and traitorous to American security. Since it was and is understood that Cold War dictators helped to facilitate this social mess in the region that helped to create an exponentially growing religious extremism that facilitated a regional capability for a 9/11, it must also be understood that dealing with this region's mess was more than a single dictator sitting in Iraq under a UN mission we mostly enforced.

But, I see you ignore these conditions and opt to simply cling to the "WMD" idea of excuse. Do you see why Bush and Co. was compelled to find the simple to explain away a wider issue that Westerners (especially isolated Americans) couldn't understand? Even Osam Bin Laden offered up the "starving children of Iraq" and "escallating troops in the holy land" for why a 9/11 occurred. But still you will default back to whether or not Iraq had WMD, ignoring the wider escallating problems that threatened stability everywhere underneath dictators that only we or an Arab Spring could address.

Bush stumbled into the recipe of correction. Rumsfeld fumbled his way through Iraq until fired so that others could put on the better path. Arabs elsewhere, who didn't rush to Iraq to disrupt any sense of democracy that would give Baghdad to the Shia, later orchestrated government protests and coups to brig their own democracies. Republicans, Democrats, and many Europeans behaved ignorantly from one year to the next throughout either supporting democracy in the region or acting as if petrified of it. And Bush haters can find no comfort in any of it except to reflect on whether or not Iraq had WMD.

Black and white.


Ironically you seem to paint a world more black and white than you realize ... but let me try to respond to some of what you wrote, including with some questions, both rhetorical and actual questions to make sure I understand what it is that you are saying ... I'm on my way out, so this will be a bit rished ...

let me begin with some questions ... How did 9/11 demonstrate that it was a regional threat? Did Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor show the threat was the region? What, exactly, is the threat? Has U.S. policy in the region, recent and in the more distant past, contributed to the way we are perceived in that part of the world (and elsewhere) and helps to explain the "threat?" Are we that innocent, or is what you're suggesting is that that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that we win against them. Am I understanding you correctly? What are these themes that they share? Sounds a lot like the familiar they're all the same, they all look alike.

I don't see how I'm clinging to the WMD idea, but if it helps you make your point to say that, go for it. We do agree that there is a lot that westerners do not undersatand, including the role that the U.S. has played in taking out democratically-elected and popular leaders and replacing them with dictators, and then arming them to the teeth, even training them on American soil, all in the name of national security. But then again, that makes it all legitimate and us innocent victims.

Looking forward to reading your response a little later. Now I have to peel potatoes ...

Gray ... a lot of gray ...
 
I did. I read. I don't and didn't blame Bush for being a politician. What I don't forgive is the countless Liberal/Democrats who protested the very things that Obama continued to their silence. This tells me that most protestors were playing to their political party at the expense of bigger issues left unexplained. Ignorance is only the politicians fault if he starts burning the books.

You likely misunderstand the protest. All of this begins with Bush. He invaded on a pretext. He broke laws. Deceived. Obama did not invade. Dud not call torture advanced interrogation techniques. Did not open Gitmo.

Yes, Obama deserves criticism, and gets it. Many like myself denounce the drone use. Did not support him going with Afghan surge. Think he should not have allowed fear mongering (largely from republicans) to prevent him from moving forward with closing Gitmo. And yes, rendition should be stopped.

But do not confuse these things as being completely equal to Bush. Nor should one suggest that we elect worse because Obama isn't perfect.
 
Ironically you seem to paint a world more black and white than you realize ... but let me try to respond to some of what you wrote, including with some questions, both rhetorical and actual questions to make sure I understand what it is that you are saying ... I'm on my way out, so this will be a bit rished ...

Ironically (or hypocritically), while accusing others of a black and white outlook, I do hold my own sense of a black and white. I involve the grey in my assesments and turn it into black and white conclusions. Does that even make sense? I just know that "WMD" and "imminent threat" has nothing to do with it.


let me begin with some questions ... How did 9/11 demonstrate that it was a regional threat?

Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. However, Al-Queda was and is bigger than those 18 few. They were victims of the Wahhabist rhetoric that comes from the House of Saud that reaches the region. Al-Queda is made up of citizens from all those nations and they are all victims of social injustice and economic failure that encourages religious extremism as an answer for all problems. The answer is not the images of 9/11. It is behind it. 9/11 was a symptom and the act of it was forecasted by plenty Middle Eastern experts like Ralph Peters and Bernard Lewis.

The ease in which people from all over the region traveled to fight Americans and the Shia in Iraq to disrupt any sense of social democratic progress should demonstrate how regional and civilizational this issue is. Shouldn't the fact that Al-Queda had traveled from Sudan, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Pakistan, to Mali prove that these type organizations find comfort throughout the region for a reason? It's because they are accepted from place to place wherever they find a portion of the population that approves of their measures. This is a civilizational problem for which Iraq was only locally exempt because "our" one time brutal dictator (while funding terrroist organizations) brutalized the population and created the very thing that creates the Al-Quedas throughout the region. The answer to Al-Queda is not to create brutal dictators.


Did Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor show the threat was the region?

Pearl Harbor was a national attack comprised of Japanese citizens. It was not a result of a regional social and economic failure trapped in an endless game of blame. In other words, the attack did not involve citizens throughout the Pacific. Our enemy then was easier to identify. Today, we have to find a scapegoat like Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden to explain away the regional conflict we are actually in.

However, why did we choose Germany as an enemy that had nothing to do with attacking us? Because they were the larger economic problem that the rest of Europe was failing to curtail. The minute they began sinking our ships in the Atlantic Roosevelt started hamming up "democracy" and "freedom." The same was true for World War I with Wilson. Behind these words was economic instability caused by the Central Powers/Axis and the Allies. Like that, Al-Queda was not solely an Afghanistan issue. It was closer to the heartland of Islam, where Saddam Hussein (who we needed to get rid of anyway) sat in the middle of. Our bigger economic issues was Europe, not the Pacific. Out bigger 9/11 threats was the Sunni Middle East, not Asian Afghanistan.


What, exactly, is the threat? Has U.S. policy in the region, recent and in the more distant past, contributed to the way we are perceived in that part of the world (and elsewhere) and helps to explain the "threat?" Are we that innocent, or is what you're suggesting is that that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that we win against them. Am I understanding you correctly? What are these themes that they share? Sounds a lot like the familiar they're all the same, they all look alike.


The threat is economic stablity. Always has been. The same as it was for the Barbary Pirates Wars, World War I, World War II in Europe, Vietnam, and the Gulf War. We have been attacked 2 times (I don't include the Mexican-American War) - Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Beyond wars against the Japanese and the Afghans, what was the rest of these wars even about? We fooled ourselves into thinking that economic stability in the Middle East was always going to be secure under dictators who defied the Soviet Union. As soon as Hussein invaded Kuwait we should have accepted that our foreign policy needed to change. The Arab Spring of a few years ago proved that our foreign policies were not keeping up with the changing of the times. We don't get to witness the creation of over 120 democracies in the world since 1900 and keep denying the Middle East (an entire region) their opportunity to grow forever. In the mean time, Islmaic extremism exponentially grew under the brutality and oppression of dictators.

I don't see how I'm clinging to the WMD idea, but if it helps you make your point to say that, go for it. We do agree that there is a lot that westerners do not undersatand, including the role that the U.S. has played in taking out democratically-elected and popular leaders and replacing them with dictators, and then arming them to the teeth, even training them on American soil, all in the name of national security. But then again, that makes it all legitimate and us innocent victims.

There it is. You just described the Cold War I was talking about - exactly what our foriegn policy was about. STABILITY. However, this stability was at the expense of the populations and was always temporary. Business endures because democracies don't die. Will our business deals with France end becaus the French President has a heart attack? Dictators die and along with them any deals they made with foreign countries. This is why we struggled to maintain their thrones throughout the Cold War. When that Berlin Wall came down, we didn't know what to do. It was like releasing the pressure of a soda can we had been shaking for decades. Eventually, that can will explode. It was seen all over the world as dictators no longer had to hold to the superpower rules of their controllers. The populations festered under their dictators. Many eventually joined others alreay in terrorist groups against their governments. Some went international to blame that good ole' foreign devil. Never did they or do they look in the mirror and examine their own culture. We help them to legitimize their own designed denials into what their people are doing.

The problem many people seem to have is that they are quick to point out our Cold War mistakes, but quick to dismiss what we are supposed to do about the repercussions. Looking the other was a foreign policy praticed between the Berlin Wall coming down (11/9) and 9/11. Citizens, who need "WMD" to define their world, still fancy this option.
 
Ironically (or hypocritically), while accusing others of a black and white outlook, I do hold my own sense of a black and white. I involve the grey in my assesments and turn it into black and white conclusions. Does that even make sense? I just know that "WMD" and "imminent threat" has nothing to do with it.




Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. However, Al-Queda was and is bigger than those 18 few. They were victims of the Wahhabist rhetoric that comes from the House of Saud that reaches the region. Al-Queda is made up of citizens from all those nations and they are all victims of social injustice and economic failure that encourages religious extremism as an answer for all problems. The answer is not the images of 9/11. It is behind it. 9/11 was a symptom and the act of it was forecasted by plenty Middle Eastern experts like Ralph Peters and Bernard Lewis.

The ease in which people from all over the region traveled to fight Americans and the Shia in Iraq to disrupt any sense of social democratic progress should demonstrate how regional and civilizational this issue is. Shouldn't the fact that Al-Queda had traveled from Sudan, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Pakistan, to Mali prove that these type organizations find comfort throughout the region for a reason? It's because they are accepted from place to place wherever they find a portion of the population that approves of their measures. This is a civilizational problem for which Iraq was only locally exempt because "our" one time brutal dictator (while funding terrroist organizations) brutalized the population and created the very thing that creates the Al-Quedas throughout the region. The answer to Al-Queda is not to create brutal dictators.




Pearl Harbor was a national attack comprised of Japanese citizens. It was not a result of a regional social and economic failure trapped in an endless game of blame. In other words, the attack did not involve citizens throughout the Pacific. Our enemy then was easier to identify. Today, we have to find a scapegoat like Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden to explain away the regional conflict we are actually in.

However, why did we choose Germany as an enemy that had nothing to do with attacking us? Because they were the larger economic problem that the rest of Europe was failing to curtail. The minute they began sinking our ships in the Atlantic Roosevelt started hamming up "democracy" and "freedom." The same was true for World War I with Wilson. Behind these words was economic instability caused by the Central Powers/Axis and the Allies. Like that, Al-Queda was not solely an Afghanistan issue. It was closer to the heartland of Islam, where Saddam Hussein (who we needed to get rid of anyway) sat in the middle of. Our bigger economic issues was Europe, not the Pacific. Out bigger 9/11 threats was the Sunni Middle East, not Asian Afghanistan.





The threat is economic stablity. Always has been. The same as it was for the Barbary Pirates Wars, World War I, World War II in Europe, Vietnam, and the Gulf War. We have been attacked 2 times (I don't include the Mexican-American War) - Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Beyond wars against the Japanese and the Afghans, what was the rest of these wars even about? We fooled ourselves into thinking that economic stability in the Middle East was always going to be secure under dictators who defied the Soviet Union. As soon as Hussein invaded Kuwait we should have accepted that our foreign policy needed to change. The Arab Spring of a few years ago proved that our foreign policies were not keeping up with the changing of the times. We don't get to witness the creation of over 120 democracies in the world since 1900 and keep denying the Middle East (an entire region) their opportunity to grow forever. In the mean time, Islmaic extremism exponentially grew under the brutality and oppression of dictators.



There it is. You just described the Cold War I was talking about - exactly what our foriegn policy was about. STABILITY. However, this stability was at the expense of the populations and was always temporary. Business endures because democracies don't die. Will our business deals with France end becaus the French President has a heart attack? Dictators die and along with them any deals they made with foreign countries. This is why we struggled to maintain their thrones throughout the Cold War. When that Berlin Wall came down, we didn't know what to do. It was like releasing the pressure of a soda can we had been shaking for decades. Eventually, that can will explode. It was seen all over the world as dictators no longer had to hold to the superpower rules of their controllers. The populations festered under their dictators. Many eventually joined others alreay in terrorist groups against their governments. Some went international to blame that good ole' foreign devil. Never did they or do they look in the mirror and examine their own culture. We help them to legitimize their own designed denials into what their people are doing.

The problem many people seem to have is that they are quick to point out our Cold War mistakes, but quick to dismiss what we are supposed to do about the repercussions. Looking the other was a foreign policy praticed between the Berlin Wall coming down (11/9) and 9/11. Citizens, who need "WMD" to define their world, still fancy this option.


Unfortunately (or fortunately if one is hungry, as I am) I'm cooking and had only a brief moment to read your response (I hear beeping in the kitchen, so I have to hurry), and find that we're not nearly as apart as I first thought ... I'll try later to respond in more detail, but if I don't make it, have a good night, and I'll try to respond tomorrow ...
 
Back
Top Bottom