Is America To Blame?

[RetiredGySgt]

Our military in their holy land, or embargoes that kill innocent people, or bombings that kill innocent people? I think it's pretty easy to put a finger on it really.

our military was in *thier* holy land at the behest of the saudi government. the anger should have been elsewhere.

it was an excuse....... not a reason.

not 'easy to put a finger on' at all.

if it were about that, AQ wouldn't have set off bombs in spain or in london's metro.

you need to look closer.

And is the Saudi government seen as legit by al-Qaeda or puppets of the U.S.? Yes, AQ's reasons for hating us are simply excuses by them, however they use those excuses to convince others to join them and commit terrorist acts. al-Qaeda doesn't care that the U.S. is on Muslim holy land, they care that the U.S. is in a country that they'd like to take over. But which argument will turn more people to their cause? AQ doesn't care about the deaths of innocent civilians, but they'll use it to recruit people who do. As for bombing Spain and London, was that before or after those countries were part of the Coalition?

SO your great plan is to go Isolationist? Sorry dumb ass we need the rest of the world.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

our military was in *thier* holy land at the behest of the saudi government. the anger should have been elsewhere.

it was an excuse....... not a reason.

not 'easy to put a finger on' at all.

if it were about that, AQ wouldn't have set off bombs in spain or in london's metro.

you need to look closer.

And is the Saudi government seen as legit by al-Qaeda or puppets of the U.S.? Yes, AQ's reasons for hating us are simply excuses by them, however they use those excuses to convince others to join them and commit terrorist acts. al-Qaeda doesn't care that the U.S. is on Muslim holy land, they care that the U.S. is in a country that they'd like to take over. But which argument will turn more people to their cause? AQ doesn't care about the deaths of innocent civilians, but they'll use it to recruit people who do. As for bombing Spain and London, was that before or after those countries were part of the Coalition?

SO your great plan is to go Isolationist? Sorry dumb ass we need the rest of the world.

If you're going to call names I'd suggest you learn the difference between noninterventionism and isolationism, lest you embarrass yourself.

 

[Toro]

And is the Saudi government seen as legit by al-Qaeda or puppets of the U.S.? Yes, AQ's reasons for hating us are simply excuses by them, however they use those excuses to convince others to join them and commit terrorist acts. al-Qaeda doesn't care that the U.S. is on Muslim holy land, they care that the U.S. is in a country that they'd like to take over. But which argument will turn more people to their cause? AQ doesn't care about the deaths of innocent civilians, but they'll use it to recruit people who do. As for bombing Spain and London, was that before or after those countries were part of the Coalition?

SO your great plan is to go Isolationist? Sorry dumb ass we need the rest of the world.

If you're going to call names I'd suggest you learn the difference between noninterventionism and isolationism, lest you embarrass yourself.

The Saudi government and royal family is extremely corrupt and is seen as hypocritcal, which breeds a lot of resentment within the kingdom. Many Saudis, for different reasons, want to see the royal family gone. Many Saudis see the US as the protectors of the Saudi royal family. The extremists who support al-Qaeda want to set up a theocracy in Saudi Arabia, but you can't do that unless the Americans are gone. So they hit America in hopes that either America turns tail, like they did in Beirut in 1983 or in Somalia in the 1990s, or you bog them down in a war of attrition for years such that America eventually leaves the region like the Russians did, sick of all the fighting. That's the logic of 9/11.

Is it America's "fault?" America wouldn't have been hit had the US not been in the region, but its not that simple. American troops were in Saudi Arabia to protect the Saudi regime from Saddam after the first Gulf War, not to prop it up internally (though the extremists don't care why). America protects not only its own interests but also much of the West's by being the policeman of the world. If a barbaric theocratic government did come to power in Saudi Arabia, they might cut production to get oil up to $300 a barrel. And there has always been armed opposition to the governments in the region. Elements of al-Qaeda would have arisen in opposition to the Saudi regime even if America wasn't there.

 

[hipeter924]

SO your great plan is to go Isolationist? Sorry dumb ass we need the rest of the world.

If you're going to call names I'd suggest you learn the difference between noninterventionism and isolationism, lest you embarrass yourself.

The Saudi government and royal family is extremely corrupt and is seen as hypocritcal, which breeds a lot of resentment within the kingdom. Many Saudis, for different reasons, want to see the royal family gone. Many Saudis see the US as the protectors of the Saudi royal family. The extremists who support al-Qaeda want to set up a theocracy in Saudi Arabia, but you can't do that unless the Americans are gone. So they hit America in hopes that either America turns tail, like they did in Beirut in 1983 or in Somalia in the 1990s, or you bog them down in a war of attrition for years such that America eventually leaves the region like the Russians did, sick of all the fighting. That's the logic of 9/11.

Is it America's "fault?" America wouldn't have been hit had the US not been in the region, but its not that simple. American troops were in Saudi Arabia to protect the Saudi regime from Saddam after the first Gulf War, not to prop it up internally (though the extremists don't care why). America protects not only its own interests but also much of the West's by being the policeman of the world. If a barbaric theocratic government did come to power in Saudi Arabia, they might cut production to get oil up to $300 a barrel. And there has always been armed opposition to the governments in the region. Elements of al-Qaeda would have arisen in opposition to the Saudi regime even if America wasn't there.

The sad fact is that they may have already won (at least for now).

Europe is changing for the worse with the rise of Neo Nazi's and other Fascist movements to combat a rising Islamist threat, the economic crisis is severely limiting what the US can do militarily unless it gets some okay from China or Russia for more funding, and nations which used to tolerate or support the US now hate it.

So withdrawal might be the only answer for now, that is unless the budget gets back on track after Obama and the Democrats get the boot, and we see more support from Russia or China towards the US military in the middle east.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

SO your great plan is to go Isolationist? Sorry dumb ass we need the rest of the world.

If you're going to call names I'd suggest you learn the difference between noninterventionism and isolationism, lest you embarrass yourself.

The Saudi government and royal family is extremely corrupt and is seen as hypocritcal, which breeds a lot of resentment within the kingdom. Many Saudis, for different reasons, want to see the royal family gone. Many Saudis see the US as the protectors of the Saudi royal family. The extremists who support al-Qaeda want to set up a theocracy in Saudi Arabia, but you can't do that unless the Americans are gone. So they hit America in hopes that either America turns tail, like they did in Beirut in 1983 or in Somalia in the 1990s, or you bog them down in a war of attrition for years such that America eventually leaves the region like the Russians did, sick of all the fighting. That's the logic of 9/11.

Is it America's "fault?" America wouldn't have been hit had the US not been in the region, but its not that simple. American troops were in Saudi Arabia to protect the Saudi regime from Saddam after the first Gulf War, not to prop it up internally (though the extremists don't care why). America protects not only its own interests but also much of the West's by being the policeman of the world. If a barbaric theocratic government did come to power in Saudi Arabia, they might cut production to get oil up to $300 a barrel. And there has always been armed opposition to the governments in the region. Elements of al-Qaeda would have arisen in opposition to the Saudi regime even if America wasn't there.

So the question becomes, are we willing to be targets for a corrupt government and cheap oil?

 

[Toro]

So the question becomes, are we willing to be targets for a corrupt government and cheap oil?

Given that we are involved in multiple wars in the Mid East, the answer is "yes."

 

[Avorysuds]

Take all the emotion out of the argument and let's get to the basic premise. What do you guys think of American hegemony, or 'imperialism' for want of a better word - whether it be economical or militarily?

I find it weird/bizarre/strange that a lot of the extreme right in America (and on this board) are all about "freedom", "pursuit of happiness", "freedom of speech" yadda, yadda, yadda, yet your country has absolutely no problems interferring in the inner mechanisms of other countries - overtly (Iraq/Afghanistan/Panama), or covertly (Chile/Central America)..

How do you marry both trains of thought and not expect some kind of payback?

Just wonderin'.....

I find it weird that you say the "extreme right" when many on the left now support the wars and all it took was a Black guy with a D next to his name, they don't even need to be "extreme."

4 years of Congress making the war possible... democrat congress and with 2 years of a Democrat president. And what do we get? We have people like YOU still trying to blame someone else.

 

[Dr Grump]

we can start with the easy one;

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the policy or practice of extending a state's rule over other territories: Yep

explain please?

Well via economics and military strength you vicariously run Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. You have bases in Germany (although no to little political influence) and Saudi Arabia...

there's a start...

Our mission in iraq is being drawn down, we have next to zero political influence among them, we have not raped them for their resources and we will not exercise control of there army or parliament...

'Bases in Germany' does not fit the imperial definition in any way shape or form, in fact, it confirms quite the contrary , they are markers if you will of our aversion to 'imperialism'.

Saudi Arabia? Hello, They invited us to base there.

I don't even really know what you mean...in what context?

No offense but, are you making this up as you go along?

Again, I said I put the word imperialism in quotation marks for a reason.

Where in the definition does it say you have to rape them of their resources? I think you have a huge influence on their army and parliament.

If they are your markers, then leave...

Saudi invited you, but did you have to go? And let us not forget, Saudi has a lot of oil, but a shit military. It behooves them to be 'nice' to you...

 

[Charles_Main]

Well via economics and military strength you vicariously run Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. You have bases in Germany (although no to little political influence) and Saudi Arabia...

there's a start...

Our mission in iraq is being drawn down, we have next to zero political influence among them, we have not raped them for their resources and we will not exercise control of there army or parliament...

'Bases in Germany' does not fit the imperial definition in any way shape or form, in fact, it confirms quite the contrary , they are markers if you will of our aversion to 'imperialism'.

Saudi Arabia? Hello, They invited us to base there.

I don't even really know what you mean...in what context?

No offense but, are you making this up as you go along?

Saudi invited you, but did you have to go? And let us not forget, Saudi has a lot of oil, but a shit military. It behooves them to be 'nice' to you...

Was pretty simple really. Iraq invaded Kuwait and Scared the living shit out of Saudi, so they asked us to come.

 

[Charles_Main]

Well via economics and military strength you vicariously run Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. You have bases in Germany (although no to little political influence) and Saudi Arabia...

there's a start...

Our mission in iraq is being drawn down, we have next to zero political influence among them, we have not raped them for their resources and we will not exercise control of there army or parliament...

'Bases in Germany' does not fit the imperial definition in any way shape or form, in fact, it confirms quite the contrary , they are markers if you will of our aversion to 'imperialism'.

Saudi Arabia? Hello, They invited us to base there.

I don't even really know what you mean...in what context?

No offense but, are you making this up as you go along?

Saudi invited you, but did you have to go? And let us not forget, Saudi has a lot of oil, but a shit military. It behooves them to be 'nice' to you...

Was pretty simple really. Iraq invaded Kuwait and Scared the living shit out of Saudi, so they asked us to come. The specter of Iraq gaining control of such a large chunk of the worlds oil supply was unacceptable to the West in General. So the west responded.

 

[Dr Grump]

Was pretty simple really. Iraq invaded Kuwait and Scared the living shit out of Saudi, so they asked us to come. The specter of Iraq gaining control of such a large chunk of the worlds oil supply was unacceptable to the West in General. So the west responded.

About it really....

 

[Samson]

Take all the emotion out of the argument and let's get to the basic premise. What do you guys think of American hegemony, or 'imperialism' for want of a better word - whether it be economical or militarily?

I find it weird/bizarre/strange that a lot of the extreme right in America (and on this board) are all about "freedom", "pursuit of happiness", "freedom of speech" yadda, yadda, yadda, yet your country has absolutely no problems interferring in the inner mechanisms of other countries - overtly (Iraq/Afghanistan/Panama), or covertly (Chile/Central America)..

How do you marry both trains of thought and not expect some kind of payback?

Just wonderin'.....

I find it "weird/bizarre/strange" that you should find any conflict/relationship between the individual rights of citizens of The Land of The Brave, and the conflict/relationships between the country and other countries.

Do you think there should be, say, "Miranda Rights," read to other countries before they are "arrested" because our citizens have this same "right?"

I'm amazed you'd even attempt to "marry both trains of thought."

Next, I imaging you'll be grafting a citrus branch onto an apple tree then asking if there is any difference between apples and oranges?

 

[Dr Grump]

Take all the emotion out of the argument and let's get to the basic premise. What do you guys think of American hegemony, or 'imperialism' for want of a better word - whether it be economical or militarily?

I find it weird/bizarre/strange that a lot of the extreme right in America (and on this board) are all about "freedom", "pursuit of happiness", "freedom of speech" yadda, yadda, yadda, yet your country has absolutely no problems interferring in the inner mechanisms of other countries - overtly (Iraq/Afghanistan/Panama), or covertly (Chile/Central America)..

How do you marry both trains of thought and not expect some kind of payback?

Just wonderin'.....

I find it "weird/bizarre/strange" that you should find any conflict/relationship between the individual rights of citizens of The Land of The Brave, and the conflict/relationships between the country and other countries.

Do you think there should be, say, "Miranda Rights," read to other countries before they are "arrested" because our citizens have this same "right?"

I'm amazed you'd even attempt to "marry both trains of thought."

Next, I imaging you'll be grafting a citrus branch onto an apple tree then asking if there is any difference between apples and oranges?

I find it weird/bizarre/strange that you could put a coherent sentence together on this thread...

...after all there is not even an inkling of pornography mentioned....

...you are indeed, on a 'higher plain', but not the one you think you are on...

 

[Samson]

Take all the emotion out of the argument and let's get to the basic premise. What do you guys think of American hegemony, or 'imperialism' for want of a better word - whether it be economical or militarily?

I find it weird/bizarre/strange that a lot of the extreme right in America (and on this board) are all about "freedom", "pursuit of happiness", "freedom of speech" yadda, yadda, yadda, yet your country has absolutely no problems interferring in the inner mechanisms of other countries - overtly (Iraq/Afghanistan/Panama), or covertly (Chile/Central America)..

How do you marry both trains of thought and not expect some kind of payback?

Just wonderin'.....

I find it "weird/bizarre/strange" that you should find any conflict/relationship between the individual rights of citizens of The Land of The Brave, and the conflict/relationships between the country and other countries.

Do you think there should be, say, "Miranda Rights," read to other countries before they are "arrested" because our citizens have this same "right?"

I'm amazed you'd even attempt to "marry both trains of thought."

Next, I imaging you'll be grafting a citrus branch onto an apple tree then asking if there is any difference between apples and oranges?

I find it weird/bizarre/strange that you could put a coherent sentence together on this thread...

...after all there is not even an inkling of pornography mentioned....

...you are indeed, on a 'higher plain', but not the one you think you are on...

Continue to blither away to yourself, nonsensically trying to equate individual rights to international relations.

I'll continue to check in to your silly little thread in case you may hurt yourself tripping over anything relevant.

 

[Pegasus]

Take all the emotion out of the argument and let's get to the basic premise. What do you guys think of American hegemony, or 'imperialism' for want of a better word - whether it be economical or militarily?

I find it weird/bizarre/strange that a lot of the extreme right in America (and on this board) are all about "freedom", "pursuit of happiness", "freedom of speech" yadda, yadda, yadda, yet your country has absolutely no problems interferring in the inner mechanisms of other countries - overtly (Iraq/Afghanistan/Panama), or covertly (Chile/Central America)..

How do you marry both trains of thought and not expect some kind of payback?

Just wonderin'.....

All countries play in the influence game and practice covert operations, especially those which you mentioned. as such, these same countries engage in and are guilty of imperialism according to the definition you so swiftly agreed with.

Hence, all emotions aside, your basic premise is flawed and your agrument that 'America is to blame', invalid.