Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)

[Britney Spears]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.  I'm not suggesting the US invaded Iraq because of those things.  I'm simply pointing out that the reason for Iraq's lack of "fundamentalist clergy" and Shair-ia law was not that they were a progressive country championing personal freedoms in the Arab world, but rather an opressive regime which refused to share power.  So I fail to see why you think the lack of those two things was relevant to the US invasion.  The Americans clearly stated their reasons for going in, and nowhere in their declaration will you find the words "fundamentalist clergy" or "Sahir-ra law".

In which case, the US should stop labeling the Iraqi insurgents as "terrorists", or imply that they are somehow linked to Al-Qaida or the Sept. 11th attacks, or that OIF has somehow made the US/Canada safer from terrorism.

Shall we agree then, that the US invasion of Iraq is based completely upon a desire for regional dominance and control of oil supplies, and at most, is only tangentially related to TWAT?

 

[48Highlander]

Meaning: while it may be incorrect that this particular episode may not have been "the worst episode" to occur in the 1900s, it still occured, and the U.S. head of state actively sponsored the slaughter of innocent civilians in another state.

Alright, let's sort this out right now.

Do you REALLY beleive that arms sales to Turkey represent "actively sponsoring" the slaughter of Kurds?  And do you really beleive that it is one of the causes of the attacks against the US?  If so, why hasn't Russia, which has sold weapons to pretty much every country and organization in the world, come under fire as well?  In fact, while we're at it, if US actions in Nicaragua are one of the causes as well, why hasn't Russia been attacked for invading Afghanistan and interfereing in the internal politics of just as many if not more soverign states as the US?  Why is that the only group currently carrying out terrorist actions in Russia are Chechnians?  Your line of logic stinks, but I'm willing to listen if you think you have an explanation for this discrepancy.

 

[McG]

So then, you're claiming that the US invasion of Iraq was an effort to force iIraq to meet its UN obligations? I'm afrad I'm not really versed in what exactly those obligations are, but I don't think that's relevent in our current context, is it.

There was an obligation to allow UN arms inspectors freedom to look for WMD and an obligation to destroy pre-existing stocks (something that Iraq inexplicably could not demonstrate was done).

 

[48Highlander]

In which case, the US should stop labeling the Iraqi insurgents as "terrorists", or imply that they are somehow linked to Al-Qaida or the Sept. 11th attacks, or that OIF has somehow made the US/Canada safer from terrorism.

In case you haven't been paying attention to the news, large numbers of the "insurgents" who first started attacking Americans were foreigners from a number of Arab states.  Wether they're terrorists or not I don't know, but it seems likely.  In any eventl, detonating large bombs outside of Mosques and beheading civilians doesn't seem like conventional warfare tactics to me.  I could be wrong though.

Shall we agree then, that the US invasion of Iraq is based completely upon a desire for regional dominance and control of oil supplies, and at most, is only tangentially related to TWAT?

No we deffinitely shall not.  While regional dominance and control of oil supplies certainly played a factor, there were numerous other issues at stake.  WMD which turned out not to exist were considered by everyone a serious threat at the time.  The fact that they were never found doesn't invalidate the fact that nearly the entire world beleived that Sadam was in possesion of them.  Sadams sponsorship of Palestinian terrorists is certainly a good reason as well.  As was the fact that, while not numerous, terrorist training camps did exist in Iraq.

 

[mdh]

Why is it that I need to justify the accountability of my sources, when many others (particularly those with opions running concurrent to mine) have made claims that equally should have been backed by sources, and nothing has been demanded of them? Like others, I am drawing on opinion and fact of third-party sources, and not wholy on personal opinion.

Furthermore, what more will presenting my sources provide you with other than another set of grounds upon which you will discredit a perspective that runs counter to yours, by "dismissing" my sources as "nonacademic", "biased", "unaccountable", and or plainly "incorrect"?
I think you're skating here, but in fact I agree: everyone should be able to back up their arguments when challenged. Still doesn't let you off the hook though. After all you were the one suggesting we "delve" into US foreign policy in Latin America.  All right, I'm ready to ready to do that on your suggestion, but one or two references would be a good starting point.

 

[Britney Spears]

There was an obligation to allow UN arms inspectors freedom to look for WMD and an obligation to destroy pre-existing stocks (something that Iraq inexplicably could not demonstrate was done).

I do not doubt the accuracy of your statements, but I think we can agree that those particular events leave a lot of room for debate. Whether the inspectors really had freedom of the country, whether they have found anything, etc. If you're claiming that these were grounds enough to justify the invasion, I must repsectfully disagree.

 

[McG]

In which case, the US should stop labeling the Iraqi insurgents as "terrorists", or imply that they are somehow linked to Al-Qaida or the Sept. 11th attacks, or that OIF has somehow made the US/Canada safer from terrorism.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has been called the mastermind of the insurgency, is known to have ties with AQ.  Even if we did not know of this link, what do you call publicly (through electronic media) beheading or otherwise executing civilians in order to instill fear as a weapon? 

Shall we agree then, that the US invasion of Iraq is based completely upon a desire for regional dominance and control of oil supplies, and at most, is only tangentially related to TWAT?

No.  It was about WMD (and their potential to get into anti-western hands) and continued frustrations from an Iraq that was not living up to UN imposed obligations.

 

[CivU]

"If you agree with their view that the US deserves to be attacked for being immoral and decadent, then perhaps you'd like to grab a couple stones and join in."

When did I say that the US deserved to be attacked?  I suggested that the attacks on the US were not based simply on blind hatred of "Extremist Islam" but instead, that conglomerate of nations we refer to as "The West" had acted violently and aggressively in the past toward the Middle East and were therefore not completely absolved from participating in the growing tensions that fuelled this conflict. The crusades, executed by those who represented "The West" at the time were just one such example.  I hardly think this is comparable to your analogy of blaming the victim, using the case of rape no less (which we actually call sexual assault in Canada), as both parties are guilty of contributing to the tensions that exist between "The West" and "Extremist Islam".  

"So anyway, I'd really appreciate it if you'd tell me which of these possbilites is the one that you and Miss Molson are getting at"

I can't speak for Miss Molson, but I believe you've presented a logically false dilemma.  There exists other options for the attacks on the United States beyond the two you've suggested.  When you describe, "The week before that you gave my friend Bob a large stick, which he then proceeded to use to beat the crap out of Fred.  I wanted to kill Fred myself too, but that's not important either" it reminds me of the involvement of the United States and Israel.  Except that the US would be giving Bob (Israel) the large stick and Bob would be beating Fred (any Middle East nation or group Israel aggresively opposes) with it...Perhaps the aggression of Islam that is widely touted here is a result of US military involvement in the region on the side of Israel.  If you doubt their presence in the Middle East, I suggest you look into the number of countries where the United States has military installations...

"WMD which turned out not to exist were considered by everyone a serious threat at the time.  The fact that they were never found doesn't invalidate the fact that nearly the entire world beleived that Sadam was in possesion of them.  Sadams sponsorship of Palestinian terrorists is certainly a good reason as well."

If the entire world believed Iraq to posses these weapons, why did they continue to insist the United Nations find evidence before anyone beyond the United States and Britain would involve themselves.  If everyone was certain they existed, why is the present "Coalition of the Willing" lacking Canada, France, Russia, etc.  What about the American sponsorship of Israel and its actions against Palestinians, how does that fit into "The West" versus "Extremist Islam" paradigm?
As far as, "It seems I gave you too much credit"  Don't worry, I would hardly concern myself about what someone on a internet forum would assume about me as a person...

Since MissMolson and I have been grouped together, and someone asked for information or sources on American intervention in Latin America, I offer some I just used in a paper discussing the continuities between the fight against communism, drugs and terrorism by the US.

Kumar, Saitsh. 1981. CIA and the Third World. Vikas Publishing House Ltd: Delhi.

Blum, William. 1986. CIA - A Forgotten History â “ US Global Interventions Since World War II. Zed Books Ltd: London.

Blum, William. 2000. Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower. Common Courage Press: Monroe, ME.

Cameron, Fraser. 2002. US Foreign Policy after the Cold War: Global Hegemon or Reluctant Sherrif? Routledge: London.

 

[48Highlander]

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has been called the mastermind of the insurgency, is known to have ties with AQ.  Even if we did not know of this link, what do you call publicly (through electronic media) beheading or otherwise executing civilians in order to instill fear as a weapon? 
No.  It was about WMD (and their potential to get into anti-western hands) and continued frustrations from an Iraq that was not living up to UN imposed obligations.

As much as I appreciate the support, is it really neccesary to repeat what I said?  ;D

 

[Infanteer]

Ha...I can't even keep up with the tangents running on this thread.

It is officially a gong-show.

 

[Bert]

There may be another scale to the debate.  Before the invasion of Iraq, 9/11 occured that
basically scared the crap out of the Americans and set in motion a series of events and
consequences.

The US invaded Afganistan and defeated the Taliban in order to destroy Al-Qaeda.
It was unsuccessful insofar as defeating the central core of the organization and was
unable to influence various groups that supported Al-Qaeda from that position. The US,
for reasons heard in official speeches, press releases, and ancedotal media, invaded Iraq.  
Around the time of the invasion, the US labelled three countries in the axis of evil and
had been going after Al-Qaeda for some time.

It is clearly debatable as noted in this thread the US's justifications for war/invasion has a
shakey foothold in the context of only Iraq, Saddam, and WMD intelligence.  What is overlooked
is the US's influence in the region around Iraq and the effects on Al-Qaeda.  In other words,
the US may have reason for invading Iraq but it had another goal of entering the region
and influencing Al-Qaeda activities which is the primary enemy.  How would the American
public or even world opinion take to a tactic of invading a soverign country to influence
a terrorist organization that is not directly tied to a government but is supported by various
groups in the region?  

To get an overall perspective, one may have to consider the point of views of the USA,
Al-Qaeda leadership, a member of the Saud Royal family, the average Iraqi, the Iranian
government, and Pakistan.  I don't know whether considering "right or wrong" will
win any points but its the understanding that all of these players have their own
goals and their willing to go to lengths to achieve them.

This is an old Stratfor special written almost two years ago but it's perspective rings true
of the situation facing the USA in my opinion.    

http://army.ca/forums/threads/19326/post-103617.html#msg103617

 

[48Highlander]

When did I say that the US deserved to be attacked?  I suggested that the attacks on the US were not based simply on blind hatred of "Extremist Islam" but instead, that conglomerate of nations we refer to as "The West" had acted violently and aggressively in the past toward the Middle East and were therefore not completely absolved from participating in the growing tensions that fuelled this conflict. The crusades, executed by those who represented "The West" at the time were just one such example.  I hardly think this is comparable to your analogy of blaming the victim, using the case of rape no less (which we actually call sexual assault in Canada), as both parties are guilty of contributing to the tensions that exist between "The West" and "Extremist Islam". 

    Alright, let's leave the crusades out of it since I'm sure that, if you'll just look at your staitmen and be honest for a second, you'll realise that a couple crazy brits running around with swords centuries ago really can't be used to explain 747's flying into American buildings.

    I accept that there are other examples in more recent history where the US, or even "The West", have acted violently and agressively towards the Middle East.  I'm not going to go into wether those attacks were justified or not.  You're right in that you never said the US deserves to be attacked.  So the question I put to you now is this.  If you DON'T think that attacks against the US have been justified, what exactly are you trying to prove?  Why bring up possible motives for such attacks if you don't think that those motives justify the attacks themselves?

    And just to go off-topic for a sec, yes I know it's called "sexual assault" in Canada.  Just like shell-shock is known as "post-traumatic stress disorder", stewaredesses are known as "flight attendants", doctors are known as "healthcare delivery specialists", and soldiers are known as "peace-delivery proffesionals".  Yeah, I made up the last one, but I really hate euphemisms.  Rape is a direct term describing a specific act.  Sexual assault is a blanket term covering everything from fondling to anal penetration with a 6 foot barbed dildo.  I prefer being direct.

I can't speak for Miss Molson, but I believe you've presented a logically false dilemma.  There exists other options for the attacks on the United States beyond the two you've suggested.

    Yes but neither of you has talked about any of the other options.  I therefore assumed you primarily beleived in the two I described.

When you describe, "The week before that you gave my friend Bob a large stick, which he then proceeded to use to beat the crap out of Fred.  I wanted to kill Fred myself too, but that's not important either" it reminds me of the involvement of the United States and Israel.  Except that the US would be giving Bob (Israel) the large stick and Bob would be beating Fred (any Middle East nation or group Israel aggresively opposes) with it...Perhaps the aggression of Islam that is widely touted here is a result of US military involvement in the region on the side of Israel.  If you doubt their presence in the Middle East, I suggest you look into the number of countries where the United States has military installations...

    I see.  It's those damned zionists again.

    It's quite clear to anyone not completely intoctrinated by left-wing rhetoric that Israel has on numerous occasions attempted to make peace with it's Arab neighbours.  It is also quite clear that in most cases they've succeeded.  If they really wanted to "beat Fred", they'd have wiped out Palestine entirely by now.  That the Americans support a nation of allies which is surrounded by countries which have attempted to destroy it on several occasions is hardly surprising.  Maybe Arabs consider that ground for attack, but their opinion is irrelevant because the only alternative is for the US to leave an ally to be destroyed.  I don't know about you, but I wouldn't leave a buddy to get killed in a bar fight just because I might get a bloody nose for helping him, especially when he's doing his best to resolve the situation without violence.

If the entire world believed Iraq to posses these weapons, why did they continue to insist the United Nations find evidence before anyone beyond the United States and Britain would involve themselves.  If everyone was certain they existed, why is the present "Coalition of the Willing" lacking Canada, France, Russia, etc.  What about the American sponsorship of Israel and its actions against Palestinians, how does that fit into "The West" versus "Extremist Islam" paradigm?
As far as, "It seems I gave you too much credit"  Don't worry, I would hardly concern myself about what someone on a internet forum would assume about me as a person...

    Do a little research.  You'll find plenty of material which states quite clearly that the UN beleived Iraq to be in possesion of WMD.  The reason the UN didn't act?  Why didn't they also act in Rwanda?  Well, the UN hates to act.  They love talking though.  Long pointless circular discussions which go on for days, weeks, or months, and generaly end with a resolution which promises more talks later on.  Some of it's member nations also like taking kickbacks on various UN projects.  But let's not get into that debate again, I don't have the energy.

 

[mdh]

Ah yes, William Blum, an interesting choice - he makes Michael Moore sound like William F. Buckley.
For the rest of those interested in where some of these ideas are coming from here is an example of Mr. Blum's "reasoned" discourses on US foreign policy:

I quote from his website:

On December 3, 1996, the Justice Department issued a list of 16 Japanese citizens who would be barred from entering the United States because of "war crimes" committed during the Second World War. Among those denied entry were some who were alleged to have been members of the infamous "Unit 731", which, said the Justice Department, "conducted inhumane and frequently lethal pseudo-medical experiments -- on thousands of ... prisoners and civilians," including mass dissections of living humans. (1)
This action appeared to be rather hypocritical in light of the fact that after the war the man in charge of the Unit 731 program -- whose subjects included captured American soldiers -- General Shiroshii, along with his colleagues, had been granted immunity and freedom in exchange for providing the United States with details about the experiments. Moreover, their crimes were not to be revealed to the world. The justification for this policy, advanced by American scientists and military officials, was, of course, the proverbial, ubiquitous "national security".{2}
There is another reason the 1996 policy is hypocritical. The Japanese, if they wished to, could issue a list of Americans barred from Japan for "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity". Such a list might include the following:
George Bush, for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, including many thousands of children, in attacks upon Iraq and Panama.
Colin Powell, for his prominent role in the attacks on Iraq and Panama.
General Norman Schwarzkopf, for his military leadership of the Iraqi carnage.
Ronald Reagan, for the death, destruction, and torture inflicted upon the people of El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Grenada by his military and political policies.
Elliott Abrams, for his key participation in Reagan's obsessive and paranoid "anti-communist" crusade.
Oliver North, for being a prime mover behind the contras, whose atrocities are legendary, and for his role in the invasion of Grenada, which took the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians.
Henry Kissinger (who has successfully combined two careers: socialite and war criminal), for his Machiavellian, amoral, immoral roles in the US interventions into Angola, Chile, East Timor, Vietnam, and Cambodia which brought unspeakable horror and misery to the peoples of those lands.
Gerald Ford, for giving his approval to Indonesia to use American arms to brutally suppress the people of East Timor.
Robert McNamara, for his responsibility in the slaughters in Indochina and the suppression of popular movements in Peru.
John Deutch, for his callous coverups of Gulf War Syndrome at the Defense Department and drug complicity at the CIA.
Bill Clinton, for his unprovoked rocket attacks upon the people of Iraq and his continual military aid to the governments of Turkey, Peru, Colombia and Mexico, which use the weapons to arm death squads and to carry out wholesale massacres of their own people.

Nothing like to trying draw moral equivalence between Tojo and Bill Clinton...

 

[Britney Spears]

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has been called the mastermind of the insurgency, is known to have ties with AQ.  Even if we did not know of this link, what do you call publicly (through electronic media) beheading or otherwise executing civilians in order to instill fear as a weapon? 

In case you haven't been paying attention to the news, large numbers of the "insurgents" who first started attacking Americans were foreigners from a number of Arab states.  Wether they're terrorists or not I don't know, but it seems likely.  In any eventl, detonating large bombs outside of Mosques and beheading civilians doesn't seem like conventional warfare tactics to me.  I could be wrong though.

This is circulus in demonstrando. What exactly are the purposes of the insurgency? What are the demands of those kidnapping civillians?

WMD which turned out not to exist were considered by everyone a serious threat at the time.  The fact that they were never found doesn't invalidate the fact that nearly the entire world beleived that Sadam was in possesion of them.

This is an argument to ignorance. Rest assured that if Saddam had any reservations about delivering those hypothetical WMDs to "the terrorists", the invasion would have dispelled those reservations.

Sadams sponsorship of Palestinian terrorists is certainly a good reason as well.  As was the fact that, while not numerous, terrorist training camps did exist in Iraq.

Since no Palestinian terrorist group has ever attacked the US, or made any claims of responsibility for such attacks, I fail to see the "good reason". If it were such a "good reason", wouldn't invading the West Bank have been a more effective measure?

I think the "numerous training camps" you speak of belonged to a kurdish group, answar al-islam i believe it was called, which DID have ties to Al-Qaida, but whose principle goal was the deposition of Saddam Hussein. It is only natural that a secular military dictatorship such as Saddam's, or that of Musharef in Pakistan,  is the worst enemy of religious fundementalists, so I'm hardly suprised.


Infanteer:

If you're still reading, I apologize for stretching out the correlation/causation fallacy longer than it was needed, but I simply HAD to poke you with the Madrid/Istanbul thing.
My point, of course, was not to claim that a pre - 9/11/2001 invasion of Iraq would have prevented 9/11/2001 or not, but rather to point out the absurdity of the Iraq invasion prior to 9/11, vs the succeptibility of the US public to fearmongering and propaganda after the fact.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

My point, of course, was not to claim that a pre - 9/11/2001 invasion of Iraq would have prevented 9/11/2001 or not, but rather to point out the absurdity of the Iraq invasion prior to 9/11, vs the succeptibility of the US public to fearmongering and propaganda after the fact.

You mean like after Pearl Harbor and Hong Kong, when Canada forced thousands of its own citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps?

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

Alright, let's sort this out right now.

Sure thing.

Do you REALLY beleive that arms sales to Turkey represent "actively sponsoring" the slaughter of Kurds?

Indirectly, yes. In an effort to profit, the United Stated provided well over three-quarters of the arms to another state, which had a clear-cut mandate of annihiliating a population that happened to reside within Turkish borders. Please explain to me how providing another state with the tools to slaughter a portion of the population, knowing full and well of their intentions, is not supporting the slaughter of a population?

And do you really beleive that it is one of the causes of the attacks against the US?

No. I never made the assertion to begin with. I simply stated that a proportion of terrorist activity is largely due in part to foreign policy throughout history that has directly and indirectly affected the lives of the civilians in a negative manner, and that furthermore has neither been forgiven or forgotten.  

If so, why hasn't Russia, which has sold weapons to pretty much every country and organization in the world, come under fire as well?

A) I never suggested the above was true: the United States found itself under attack because it sold weapons to another state. In fact, you incorrectly inferred that from my statement. The detail that the United States sold weapons to Turkey throughout the 1990s reveals no more than the fact that the United States, like many states, has indirectly/directly supported the annihilation of groups of individuals throughout history.

B) It is necessary to look at the impact that American/Western foreign policy has had on the areas that generate political violence and terrorist activity. You'll notice that it has, by-and-large, been a negative one in certain areas, generating extreme sentiments of hatred for the West.  

In fact, while we're at it, if US actions in Nicaragua are one of the causes as well, why hasn't Russia been attacked for invading Afghanistan and interfereing in the internal politics of just as many if not more soverign states as the US?   Why is that the only group currently carrying out terrorist actions in Russia are Chechnians?

Let me clarify, because you are seemingly melding your assumptions of what you think I said, with what I actually said. U.S. policy, intervention, and economic/business ethics in Nicaragua, Colombia, Honduras and much of Latin America have resulted in much, not all, of the political violence and terrorist activity directed against American symbols and institutions in Latin America. How you have associated this with the events in the Middle East, I don't know. I simply made the connection between the political violence that has characterized many of the continents, but not all, in which the United States has executed direct and indirect policy, intervention and business practices. This isn't coincidence.

Why wasn't Russia attacked for interfering in the politics of another sovereign nation: Afghanistan? Keep in mind that the Cold War was still ongoing, and that the main threat to Western civilization was Communism. With the onset of Russian intervention in Afghanistan in December of 1979, the United States maintained pro-longed interests in combatting Soviet Expansionism, even if it meant intruding on another state's political landscape.

The National Security Archive reports:

"Fighting between CIA-funded Afghans and the Russians with their Khalq allies continued through 1988. At that time Moscow, having suffered substantial losses and incurred excessive costs in the country, decided to withdraw. The last Soviet forces left Afghanistan in early 1989, but warfare continued as the rebel forces contested with the Khalq regime for control of Kabul. The CIA ended its aid in 1992, the Russians sometime later, and the pro-Russian government in Kabul fell."

It is clear why the United Stated didn't intervene, and in recognizing the bipolarity of the world throughout the Cold War, it is also clear why Western allies, who were also combatting the communist threat, did not intervene either. Why didn't states of the Eastern bloc intervene? Who knows. The risk of hot conflict?

Lastly, in order to understand the full extent of the violence that is occuring between the Chechnyans and the Russians, one must look back into history. While I do not know enough on the issue to make a statement in certainty, it is my understanding that Russian forces have been slaughtering innocent Chechnyans for decades.

Your line of logic stinks, but I'm willing to listen if you think you have an explanation for this discrepancy.

Only because you don't agree with it. My line of logic stinks no more/no less than yours.

 

[48Highlander]

This is circulus in demonstrando. What exactly are the purposes of the insurgency? What are the demands of those kidnapping civillians?

    I would imagine that the demands of those kidnapped civilians go something like this:  "please please plase don't kill me!"

    If you meant to ask what the demands of the terrorists are, does it matter?  Youi stated that the US should stop calling the insurgents "terrorists".  We responded that, as long as they use terrorist tactics, we'll  keep calling them terrorists.  What do their demands matter to what we call them?

Since no Palestinian terrorist group has ever attacked the US, or made any claims of responsibility for such attacks, I fail to see the "good reason". If it were such a "good reason", wouldn't invading the West Bank have been a more effective measure?

    You don't think funding terrorists is a good reason to go after someone?  Well, I don't really have much to say in response to that.  I'll just point out that Bush did promise to go after ALL terrorist groups, not just those attacking the US.

I think the "numerous training camps" you speak of belonged to a kurdish group, answar al-islam i believe it was called, which DID have ties to Al-Qaida, but whose principle goal was the deposition of Saddam Hussein. It is only natural that a secular military dictatorship such as Saddam's, or that of Musharef in Pakistan,  is the worst enemy of religious fundementalists, so I'm hardly suprised.

    I'll admit I don't know exactly who the camps belonged to.  I'll look into it.

 

[Britney Spears]

You mean like after Pearl Harbor and Hong Kong, when Canada forced thousands of its own citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps?

Well, that wasn't quite the analogy I had in mind, but you could put it that way, in this sense, I think  many less progressive Americans support the Invasion of Iraq soley on the basis that the Sept.11 hijakcers were Arabs, OBL is an Arab, the Iraqi's are Arabs, and thus we should invade Iraq sort of reasoning.

This is not to say that any of the posters here make such a claim, in fact they've outlines a number of good, internationally acceptable reasons for the invasion, e.g. the weapons inspectors, that Saddam was a mean old jerk, etc  I'll concede that those reasons exist, but apparently they were not nearly reason enough in a pre- 9/11 world, hence my first point.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Red writing hurts my eyes. mdh can you try a soothing blue or something?

 

[48Highlander]

Indirectly, yes. In an effort to profit, the United Stated provided well over three-quarters of the arms to another state, which had a clear-cut mandate of annihiliating a population that happened to reside within Turkish borders. Please explain to me how providing another state with the tools to slaughter a portion of the population, knowing full and well of their intentions, is not supporting the slaughter of a population?

So now they're indirectly-acitvely supporting the slaughter of Kurds?    I understand where you're coming from, but that's not much of a reason for the attacks against the US.  And, as your following statements make clear, you agree with that.  So let's continue.

No. I never made the assertion to begin with. I simply stated that a proportion of terrorist activity is largely due in part to foreign policy throughout history that has directly and indirectly affected the lives of the civilians in a negative manner, and that furthermore has neither been forgiven or forgotten. 

Then why bring up examples which "terrorist activity" ISN'T "largely due" to?  I thought we were discussing examples of why muslims decided to attack the US.  If your example isn't in that categroy, there's no reason to bring it up.

Let me clarify, because you are seemingly melding your assumptions of what you think I said, with what I actually said. U.S. policy, intervention, and economic/business ethics in Nicaragua, Colombia, Honduras and much of Latin America have resulted in much, not all, of the political violence and terrorist activity directed against American symbols and institutions in Latin America. How you have associated this with the events in the Middle East, I don't know. I simply made the connection between the political violence that has characterized many of the continents, but not all, in which the United States has executed direct and indirect policy, intervention and business practices. This isn't coincidence.

    Once again, I'm not really sure why you brought up Latin america.  I haven't seen any Latin Americans flying planes into American buildings.

Why wasn't Russia attacked for interfering in the politics of another sovereign nation: Afghanistan? Keep in mind that the Cold War was still ongoing, and that the main threat to Western civilization was Communism. With the onset of Russian intervention in Afghanistan in December of 1979, the United States maintained pro-longed interests in combatting Soviet Expansionism, even if it meant intruding on another state's political landscape.
.....
It is clear why the United Stated didn't intervene, and in recognizing the bipolarity of the world throughout the Cold War, it is also clear why Western allies, who were also combatting the communist threat, did not intervene either. Why didn't states of the Eastern bloc intervene? Who knows. The risk of hot conflict?

    You misunderstood.  I didn't ask why the US hasn't intervened.  I asked why no terrorist activity has been aimed at the Russians.  If as you state American foreign policy is a principal precipitator for terrorist activity, then Russian foreign policy should have had the same, if not a more drastic, effect.

Lastly, in order to understand the full extent of the violence that is occuring between the Chechnyans and the Russians, one must look back into history. While I do not know enough on the issue to make a statement in certainty, it is my understanding that Russian forces have been slaughtering innocent Chechnyans for decades.

    Once again you misunderstand and I guess it's my fault.  I know why the Chechnians are fighting the Russians.  That case is fairly clear-cut.  What I'm asking is why they're the ONLY terrorist groups operating against the Russians.

Only because you don't agree with it. My line of logic stinks no more/no less than yours.

You're right, your logic is fine and I can see that now that you've clarified a few points for me.  What I thought was faulty logic is just excessive information which isn't relevant to the discussion of the arab-US conflict.