quote: Where's there list of demands? Since they want things to change? Is it just "Stay out, West"?
They've made their wants pretty clear. My guess is you just haven't been listening to them. Here's one of Bin Laden's speeches .
quote: we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.
posted
Yes, because shutting off their ability to travel, among other things visiting their many friends and relatives abroad or those many relatives coming back, is going to really show how good we are.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: How about a big wall, then with no In and no Out around the middle east until they work things out. No meddlesome interference from the West.
If you're being serious, than a big wall wouldn't be very helpful. The Middle East's biggest problems are economic. Cutting off all trade would only hurt this.
Self-restraint on behalf of the West would be far more effective. If we don't like a leader- deal with it. If oil prices get too high- deal with it. It's not our playground- it's their home.
I have to go to class now and won't be back till tonight. I'll check back in then.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I still think it's bull.
They're using the war in Iraq as an excuse. It's not a REASON, because it didn't exist when they started the terrorism.
The only thing the war in Iraq should increase is military attacks from Iraq.
-Katarain
The illegal war in Iraq is a symbol for the overall attitude that the western world holds towards the middle east. we think that we have the right to force our culture on all the other countries of the world, and thought alot of the time, this process is aided by said countrie's own citizens adopting our way of life, there are those citizens that disagree with the process alltogether. you can see this happening within western countries as well, such as in canada, where quebec wants to seperate from the rest of the country, mostly because the french feel that their culture is being overwhelmed by the english one. where as in canada, there exists many non-violent means of expressing and acheiving the goal of non-integration, in the middle east, there aren't as many, and to add to this, many people with a distorted view of their own religion, or moral and ethical obligations feel that it is okay to react violently instead. that is what most modern terrorism is caused by: people wanting to make sure that their culture and way of life is not devoured by ours.
and for the record, we started it. that being said, we are only trying to preserve and expand our culture, but who says we have the right to do that at the expense of others' ways of life? its a question, not a statement
this whole issue really boils down to cultural relativism, which is a very interesting debate
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really think it's fair to lump the US in with "The West" when it comes to all past transgressions. Europe has been messing with and meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for far longer than the United States, and if you want to say that because the US is made up of descendents of Europeans fine, Europe still did far more damage to the ME AFTER America was formed.
When you look at colonization in the ME, what you really need to look at is France and Britain. France controlled much of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Muslim north Africa. Britan was heavily involved in Iraq and Iran. Much of the strife with the Kurds can be blamed on the Brits, and for that matter the first Gulf War.
America is guilty of propping up bad guys in some nations sure, but we by far haven't done as much long lasting damage as Europe has.
Also, if you want to look at the "Beginning" of purely anti-US terrorism. How many Islamic based anti-us attacks were there prior to 1990? I'd be interested to see what their complaints would be if we pulled our troops out of their countries.
Europe should be doing more to clean up the messes it made a long time ago.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hell, Europeans were there first. The Arabs took the Middle East away from what was left of the Roman Empire. Let the Arabs clean up the mess they made.
Which, if anyone was wondering, is not a serious argument. I put it forward just to show how really stupid this kind of blame-throwing is.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a valid argument. The Europeans are so often throwing everything back in America's face, blaming them for getting involved too much while they quietly slink away.
They made a mess, we made it worse, but are getting most of the blame.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Which, if anyone was wondering, is not a serious argument. I put it forward just to show how really stupid this kind of blame-throwing is.
Katarain asked why they hate us, I gave reasons. If the reasons were a thing of the past it would be foolish to dwell on it. But the reasons are still present so it's not stupid to talk about them and a long history of similar reasons. This helps us to understand what drives people to commit such heinous acts.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps you could enlighten me about why they hate us.
To put it simply, here's why:
Because we have used our power to gain more control over the future of their nations and culture than they, themselves, have. We have done this since the end of the Cold War. We are their unelected rulers, and we obey our own conscience, rather than their will.
Iraq is not an excuse. Rather it is a symptom of the above problem. To them, it is a confirmation that we do control them, and are willing to go to war to enforce our values and our ways of doing things upon them. Thus it is part of the cause of terrorism. It does not explain why the threat existed before the invasion, but it does explain why the threat is now greater afterward.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't they would have minded the invasion so much if we would have upheld even half the promises we made when we went in.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Do you think that if the western nations as a whole decided to pull out that things would get better? For them as nations? As several peoples sharing the middle east?
You see, I know that whether humanitarianism was ever an official reason for this war is highly debated, but it IS a reason why I am in favor of it. I want women and children to have rights and be treated better. I want all of those people to be free to believe in any religion they want to. I support this war because I hope beyond hope that the people will truly become free and have a government supported by the people, separate from the west. That's what I want. It can be asked...well, what right do we have to inflict our way of life on these people? I answer, what right do a few strong, vicious men have to oppress an entire nation? Maybe it's a rationalization, but I say, if the people are given a democratic process, then at least the majority can choose what sort of government they want.
Fugu13 said that I have a bizarre perception of reality, and maybe I do. (Although his assessment was based more on my questions than my opinions, I think.)
Unfortunately, I don't believe that the middle east will ever be at peace because of what I believe the Bible says about it. (Though, to be fair, that is only something I've been taught--it would take some research to actually get a verse to support it.) But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try...
quote: Maybe it's a rationalization, but I say, if the people are given a democratic process, then at least the majority can choose what sort of government they want.
Which other countries should we invade in order to bring democracy to them?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. It doesn't sound like a very good idea when you put it like that... But what are we to do?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right Tom. I'm getting pretty upset with this "spread Democracy throughout the world" mentality.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You see, I know that whether humanitarianism was ever an official reason for this war is highly debated, but it IS a reason why I am in favor of it. I want women and children to have rights and be treated better. I want all of those people to be free to believe in any religion they want to. I support this war because I hope beyond hope that the people will truly become free and have a government supported by the people, separate from the west. That's what I want. It can be asked...well, what right do we have to inflict our way of life on these people? I answer, what right do a few strong, vicious men have to oppress an entire nation? Maybe it's a rationalization, but I say, if the people are given a democratic process, then at least the majority can choose what sort of government they want.
France may think that our abortion restrictions violate human rights, that we are murdering when we execute criminals, that our foreign policy oppresses countless peoples, and that our brand of capitalism is inhumane to the poor. Do you believe that given these beliefs, if they had the power, they should overthrow our conservative government in the name of humanitarianism? Do you think certain Americans might react violently if they did?
I am all in favor of humanitarianism, but I believe we must recognize that in order to gain the right to tell others what to do, we must give them the right to tell US what to do. That's how civil communities work if they are fair. I have for a long time advocated giving the U.N., or a similar world body, more effective powers to vote on laws to ensure a certain degree of human rights throughout the world - but only if ALL nations subject to those rules are given a say, and ALL nations who have a say are subject to the rules. If this is done for real (not just as a sham that the U.S. actually still controls), I think terrorism will decrease.
The other option is to refuse to give any nation power over the rules made by any other. If we think our own autonomy is more important than our humanitarian efforts in other countries, we can take this route. This would be a fair solution to, if we decide it is best, but it would mean no Iraq invasions.
The one thing we can't do, though, is have it both ways in our favor. We can't tell other nations what to do and force them to obey, while simultaneously claiming they have no say in our laws.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not a totally valid comparison Xaposert.
Americans choose to live the way we do. We choose our economy, and enjoy the results. We choose our conservative government, and for better or for worse appreciate the process. Furthermore, I don't think in the history of the world a nation has ever invaded another for killing what, the couple dozen people a year that are executed?
The nations being discussed on some sort of "Spread democracy" list don't have that choice. Were they to have free elections, and CHOSE to live in a way that we see as wrong, that would be an entirely different equation.
That being said, I wholly disagree with that reasoning for invasion. There are more peaceful ways to bring about change, ones that are far less destructive to the short term survival of a nation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Americans choose to live the way we do. We choose our economy, and enjoy the results. We choose our conservative government, and for better or for worse appreciate the process.
I don't choose any of the above. I mainly choose between one of a few candidates, none of which usually will change much if they get into office, and as often as not my choice gets overruled by the choices of other groups of Americans who vote in larger numbers.
You can say this is more choice than Iraqis had, but France could just as easily say it is not enough to choice to eliminate the need to invade on my behalf.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that we have an all volunteer army would be another point then. Regardless of what the situation might be, it's not forced conscripts that defend it, but the people who both agree with it and disagree with it.
Something that can only be said for a fraction of the world's armies.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you scottneb, I detest, abhor, dislike, hate, can't stand, and want to chomp on all those that twist the purity of faith and turn it in to something they can get profit of.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
