|
What should the U.S. have been doing during the past 5 years [in order to not gain defamity and make the world more dangerous]?
We'll essentially, what has made the world more dangerous, and is a direct result of our actions, is our increased footprint on the Middle East.
You'll recall that Osama Binladen gave up his status as a Saudi prince, when he refused to standown in an arguement with the Saudi king, in which he decried allowing US troops to deploy in the Arabian Peninsula during the run up to the first gulf war. It was after he relocated to Apghanistan, that he began his tirade against America, and began organizing and funding terrorist attacks. Osama's status as an enemy, and all he has done against us, is a consequence of our troops landing on Islamic sand.
Till less then 2 or 3 years ago, major terrorist operations against the United States were carried out almost exclusively by the central Al Quieda organization. Now splinter groups bearing little or no connection to it (despite often sharing its name) are poping up all over the place, due to both increased US presence in the Middle East, and the glorification of martyerdom.
It's not purely that were there and were infidels. It is also that we are percieved to be post imperialists. The president of Iran claims we are trying to create an empire, and his opinion is not unique in the region. US supported dictators (like Saddam and the Shah of Iran) brutally suppressed their populaces, and our backing of them is not forgotten. We are seen in the Middle East, as stealers of oil, not backers of peace and democracy.
Of course it's not just what we are doing and how our intentions are percieved, it's also that Israel exists, and has impoverished millions, and killed thousands both via direct violence and aformentioned poverty leading to starvation. We are viewed as responsible for Israel, and for good reason. Israel has survived and continues to survive as a result of our military aid, and in cases like the recent Hezbollah incident, we have actually shipped supplys to it ahead of schedule in order to ensure it's ability to fight at full scale.
Bush's costly wordplays haven't helped us either. "Crusade" "Evil-Doers" "Axis of evil" etc etc. Being named part of the Axis of evil is allegedly part of why Iran swung towards extermism during its last election. They were with us on Apghanistan.
In the end, we've been pouring oxygen on the flame for decades, and we've picked up the rate of pour since 9/11. The sum total of all we have done seems to say that our efforts as of the past 5 years, have not created enough water to counteract the resulting inflamation.
Strongrad:
Well, that's what the likes of the UN would have us do.
Of course, if we were to make the UN happy, we'd all be dead. The UN thinks diplomacy fixes everything.
I would agree that UN permission should not be required for military action, being that the UN is essentially an innefective organization, in that it is not a world government, but rather a group of self interested nations ready to lambast and block anything but decisions meeting the lowest common denominator.
The terrorists are not rational, nor can they be talked to. The only way people like that are happy is when anyone who doesn't agree with them 100% is dead.
Osama Binladen was nearly assassinated by his cook, who was contracted by the United States to poison him. Before his schemes came to completion, they were uncovered, and Osama let him go and gave him money.
The current president of Iran concentrates greatly on fighting poverty and could be argued to be realitively humanitarian. He claims that nuclear weapons are unislamic...we'll see whether or not hes being honest about that in perhaps a few years...He has also said that while he wants Israel out of the Middle East, he does not hate jews.
Really, our enemies are people, and that should be recognised. They are not pychopaths. This is not to say that we can rectify all of our issues diplomatically, but it is to say, we should not limit ourselves to the assumption that co-operation with disagree-able characters is in all cases inachievable.
For example, if he is as he seems through his speeches, I gauge that Iran's president has no desire for Iraq to fall into a bloody civil war, though he doesnt like our occupation as he sees it as imperialistic. If we can through certain means ensure him that our intentions are not what he thinks they are, perhaps we can enlist his help.
Apparently, there was credible evidence that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction.
Bush (like Clinton) probably truly believed Iraq had WMDs, or that there was a good chance that it had them, but regardless, he fudged his proofs to the public. This is proven by his, emphasis on data which was disproven, hypotheticals, selective leaks , and misconotation of information.
Saddam and Osama DID hate each other, but who's to say that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing wouldn't come into play, with Saddam and Osama teaming up to smite the evil Americans?
We'll Osama is allegedly pretty darn principled. Regardless, we knew North Korea was persueing nukes then, and only suspected that Iraq was...which is not to say we should've invaded NK. China wouldn't have let us, and NKs got a good army.
If we had invaded Iraq with a large enough army to occupy all of its territory simultaniously, had not been against nation building (or to explain Bushes term, using US funds to build foreign economies), had not disbanded the Iraqi army...then we might have avioded most or all of what has transpired. Now were going to be darned lucky if we can leave the country in any kind of good shape at all.
|
Log in
Wiki
FAQ
Search
