The US has every right to defend and support a nation that shares similar visions of Democracy in a middle east that predominantly despises such notions.
I made no moral judgement regarding US support of Israel. I was simply answering your question about "aggressive actions" that might be used as a justification (in their minds) for terrorist actions. I'm sure you'll agree that US support and arming of Israel is a major point of contention in the Arab world and definitely pisses alot of them off.
You also need to realize who is getting 'bombed.'
Let's see...
40 Palestinian women and children killed in the 1953 Qibya massacre
47 Egyptian children killed while in an elementary school that was on a military base during the War of Attrition
5000+ civilians killed in Beirut alone during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon as well as hundreds of thousands of refugees
241 Palestinian children killed during the First Intifada
Over 2000 Iraqi civilians killed during the Persian Gulf War, not to mention the continuing devastating effects of depleted uranium (Of course, Israel did not conduct this war, the US did).
120 Lebanese civilians killed and 300,000 displaced during Operation Accountability in 1993
118 Lebanese women and children killed while housed in a UN installation in Qana during Operation Grapes of Wrath
Thousands (and counting) of Palestinian civilians killed during the ongoing Al-Aqsa Intifada
1187 Lebanese civilians (1/3 children) killed during the recent Israel-Lebanon crisis and over a million displaced
Just to name a few. And do you really think it matters to them if their father/mother/sister/brother/uncle/etc is killed as a combatant? Especially if one believes that they were fighting for a just cause against an outside aggressor? I think not.
There were human rights abuses in Iraq where the US intervened and supplanted the Hussein regime but that didn't seem to make anyone happier about the US. This is yet another case of damned if we do, damned if we don't. Whenever the US intervenes the charge almost always seem to condemn the US for sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, but then when it doesn't intervene, the charge is that America is heartless.
Seeing as this was in response to charges of US
support for abusive despotic regimes, I don't see your point. Unless, of course, you purposely left out the fact that we supported Saddam Hussein for most of his reign.
However, it is important to note that we did NOT go to war in order to altruistically liberate the Iraqi people from an evil dictator. That was just a side effect (minus the altruism).
I notice you have nothing to say about the abuses perpetrated by the US suported nations I mentioned. Do such truths interfere with your version of America?
Really, what exactly should the US do to make the Muslim nations happy?
Leave them the fuck alone.
What about the Iran-Iraq war?
You're not serious are you?
We supplied arms to both sides. Iran received fighters and missiles and various equipment (via Israel no less because we weren't supposed to have trade relations with them as per Operation Staunch) and Iraq received chemical and biological weapons, military technology, financial support and helicopters.
Iran received alot of bogus (and some factual) intelligence about Iraqi movements and Iraq received alot of factual (and some bogus) intelligence, including satellite photos.
US naval ships were positioned in the Gulf to "protect" Iraqi and "neutral" ships by preventing retaliatory fire, but the patrol could be interpreted as trying to goad Iran into a war with the US. US naval ships also fired upon suspected targets during the conflict (most notably the Iranian civil airliner shot down by a US Cruiser killing 290 people)
We intervened the way we did as a maneuver for control over the Gulf region, helping prolong the conflict and using the dubiously gained profits from arms sales to fund South American terrorists. We had nothing to say about Saddam's use of the chemical and biological agents
we supplied him with until after our relations soured in the early 1990's (and even then - and now - didn't allude to the fact that he received such technology from us, among others).
Uh, Iraq invaded a Muslim nation called "Kuwait" because he wanted to control it. The US signed a treaty with Kuwait years before granting the Kuwaitis protection for continuing to support us through oil. So, please explain to me how this offended the Muslim world? You know, I kind of think that not honoring our part of the agreement would make the US more suspect in regards to its offenses to Muslim nations.
Not all of my statements pertained to all of the Muslim world. I'm sure alot of Iraqis are pretty perturbed by the events of the Persian Gulf War, especially the abovementioned effects of depleted uranium that sicken and kill Iraqis (and US soldiers) to this day and the effects of the economic sanctions on Iraqi citizens.
As for the treaty, I found no note of such a treaty on any Kuwaiti history sites, US gov factsheets, etc. The closest thing I found was the re-flagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Gulf towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war, hence granting them maritime protection.
As I have read it, the original reasons for entering the Persian Gulf War were to prevent Iraq from gaining access to Saudi Arabian oil fields, which added to the Kuwaiti fields would give Iraq a large chunk of the world's oil fields and to prevent skyrocketing oil prices. I don't think we would have given a damn if Kuwait didn't have alot of oil and wasn't adjacent to Saudi Arabia. It was about oil and US control of/access to it. Plain and simple.
The point is that the devastating effects of the war became fuel for future terrorists.
Oh, yes, that evil US who is only interested in the ME for oil, because France, Germany, Canada, the UK, Sweden, Norway, Japan, the Phillipines, and so on care about the ME for reasons other than oil?
When did I mention any of these other countries? The discussion is about US policy in regards to the "prosecution" of "terrorists" and I was simply giving you some possible reasons that people may have to detest the US in response to your implication that the US was attacked unprovoked. Not France or Sweden or any other country.
Please tell me when the moment a nation was allowed to secure its interests.
This sentence seems incomplete, but I believe you are asking "when is a nation allowed to secure its interests?" yes? Well, as someone else has mentioned, up until the (reasonable) interests of another sovereign nation are threatened. Kinda like the quote "Your rights end where mine begin" in regards to individual freedoms.
Propping up cruel despots, inciting coups, supplying WMD, etc should be unacceptable avenues of securing one's interests.
Why do you condemn the US and implicate the US as the sole proprietor for the world's problems.
Could you please point out where I said that the US is solely responsible for all the world's problems because I don't recall saying anything of the sort.
I do, however, condemn alot of US foreign and domestic policy because I take no pride in the despicable things that have been done and are being done in my name. I really, truly want my country to be great and prosperous, but not on the bloodied backs of other people. I really, truly want people to have a positive image of America, but that's really hard when we have so much unnecessary blood on our hands.
Bottom line is that terrorism (not just of the Islamic variety) will never stop as long as we and other nations arrogantly continue to abuse our power by supporting the interests of a few at the expense of many.
PS - I noticed you had no comment on the US instigated coup and subsequent installation of the Shah in Iran. Care to comment now?
Edited by Jaderis, : moved a sentence
™ Version 4.2
