Posted by firefly:
I agree with almost everything you say. Just few things. Regarding your "European-Jewish controlled state of Israel" comment, as far as I understand, after the Palestinians were thrown out of every other Arab nation, they wern't Palestinians. They had no nation at the time. They were taken in by Israel, and were regarded as arabs, or Israeli-Arabs. Why that would engender resentment I don't know. Also,the Al Quaeda movement is from Afghanistan. Their closest connection to Israel, politically, is Iraq. Why Al Quaeda should be fighting for the Palestinian people only a few years after they threw them out of their country is also beyond me. And if their not, then one wonders why they keep blowing us Americans and British up?
Another thing. I think it's important to remember, that while in hindsight you can say that what Bush and Blair said about Iraq's weopons capabilities was being, to quote an ex British Prime Minister, slightly economical with the truth, you cant deny the fact that Saddam Hussain was a very evil man, doing very evil things to his own people. So, it may have been a very important thing to do anyway.
You are right when you say that perhaps the US and UK should have taken a softer approach, but whos to say that would have worked? People say that the cease-fire in Israel is a success because there has only been four suicide bombs since the beginning of it, but what do you think we would do if there were four suicide bombs in the US? We'd find who did it and punish them. Maybe we should be thankful we didnt give the terrorists an opportunity to put us in that position.
firefly, I appreciate the dialogue (although I suspect someone will complain that this is not Knick related soon and/or move this topic). You are right that Arab nations did not take in the Palestinians or help them in any real way (as I mentioned as well). However, when Israel was granted statehood via the UN the Palestinians should have been taken into account when creating the government. But at that time they were not respected and therefore were not included. They still lived there, regardless of whether they had a state or 'identity' in the way we see it or not and Europeans decided whether other Europeans were going to control the land they also lived on. Since this was not the case of something like Europeans taking over America from the indigenous populations hundreds of years earlier it could have been resolved.
From what I understand Al-Queda and Iraq have no real connection. Simply because they are no fans of Israel does not make them allies necessarily. Al-Queda is not the Afghanistan government, that was the Taliban. They may have been allies but they are completely different entities. Al-Queda's is not the people who threw out the Palestinians. Mostly that was Syria, (from what I recall) who put them in refugee camps for decades. It would take a long time to go through the history, but Al-Queda spawned due to many reasons, but began to make attacks after the first war in Iraq (Gulf War). They are a purely religous based group who interprets Islam in their own way. They began to make noise when they became upset that American troops were in Saudi Arabia, home to the holy city of Mecca. They wanted the US troops out, but they remained. There's more but that is part of it. Let's not forget that Osama Bin Laden and the Mujhadin (sp) were armed by the CIA during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when the U.S. government was supporting 'crazies,' as most Westerners would probably call them today, all over the world to 'repress' Communism...which brings us to the reason Iran hates the U.S. (I will answer that in my response to BRIGGS).
As for Iraq and Saddam being evil, everyone knows that he did dispicable things, but what was the premise of the invasion? Afraid Americans (and some others) remembering 9/11, worried about another attack, believing reports that Saddam had WMDs (which SEVERAL SOURCES including former and present day UN weapons inspectors said he did not or at least wanted to know for sure) and that he had connections with Al-Queda, and COULD attack America. I'm not so sure that this is a strong premise for invasion. Pre-Emptive strikes occurr when you KNOW the other side is about to attack you (like they are fueling their missles). This was not the case.
Find out who commits terrorist attacks. Punish them. So be it. But focus on it as a crime, not a war. These are not nations, they are groups who survive on the depravity of life and improvement. NO NATION HAS ATTACKED AMERICAN SOIL SINCE JAPAN DID WITH PEARL HARBOR. If the U.S., Britian and other nations work on turning that around I believe they will start to see public opinion turn around. Some people/terrorists will never change your mind, but if you decrease the pool of candidates that is when change will really begin. Japan used sucide attacks in WWII, and are very concerned with honor. What helped them was the U.S. pouring huge amounts of money into Japan for construction and economic development, allowing them to succeed. Japan also had leaders and people who knew success so it was easier for them. It will be a challenge in places like the Middle East and Africa, but it has to be legitmate and with minimal conditions...more like a partnership. If it means having U.S. businesses getting too much of the booty, it will not turn around.
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
7/7/2005 2:03 PM
. USA, Spain and now UK 