News What is the solution to America being a terrorist nation?

[Smurf]

What more can I do?

You can stop responding to Smoking Man. End your pointless bickering.

 

[Informal Logic]

I cannot believe this silly thread has gone for this many pages.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Can you please show me where I posted an opinion as a fact? I can show you where you have.

I have also admitted to being wrong...have you ever?

Townsend, you didn't give me a question, you gave me a binary option. On or Off. Black or White.

You took an organization as complex as the UN and all its subordinate offices, courts, legal systems, treaties, Pacts etc and expected me to answer yes or no because you do not want to discuss the complexities of the issue.

You have constantly posted that you think the UN is not an option because you think China, France and Russia were making too much cash off the situation for the decision to be made in the UN.

This is the 'corruption' you constantly speak about.

Well, that question has been answered dozens of times by the posters here in a variety of ways.

Unlike you, I don't need a constant re-statement of the tired old views of political parties and ideologies which are so bogged down with garbage that they have become unweildy.

In this little, 'game of chess' we keep re-starting you keep getting flustered when I block with the bishop when you make the same move repeatedly.

I keep bringing up new ways of looking at the same issues and you keep attempting to drag it back to the same tired points instead of progressing to other aspects.

I can see why.

The American perspective, being one of defence simply has one point of attack ... the same tired argument ... 'The UN is corrupt' based on one or two aspects so the whole thing is wrong.

When faced with a multifaceted argument, you deliberately ask the same series of questions again and again in an attempt to steer us up that path where you will yet again declare 'see! I told you I was right'.

I've deliberately broken new ground by stating pacts that go back to the 1920s with Kellogg-Briand, the League of Nations, McArthur in Japan, The UN historical position prior to 1984 (when supported by the USA), The Geneva Conventions, Downing Street and a dozen other arguments with each one introducing aspects not considered in your argument.

Your response has always been to drag out this old chestnut ... 'Is the UN corrupt?'

I've even waltzed with you over the viability of Nuclear war on a theoretical level with the Chinese only to have it thrown back in my face that I believe China would start a nuclear war because of 'face' when I have said no such thing. Until now, I have even made no mention of it.

I have posted reams of information here with quotes ... researched the links of others and found contrary documented information and now YOU accuse me of not communicating because I refuse to answer the same question again that you seem to ask and answer yourself on a daily if not hourly basis?

Puleeze.


Oh, and before I get nailed again for a 'personal attack' ... read back and see who is defending himself against an accusation.

 

[BobG]

Right...my point is, what if we had KNOWN that the attacks were about to happen but didn't when or how they were going to happen. What if, in an effort to stop them, the US invaded Afghanistan to capture OBL? Would the rest of the world have been ok with that?

Actually, this is precisely the situation that faced the US prior to 9/11. We new we would be attacked by Al-Qaeda, we knew where OBL's camps were in Afghanistan - we didn't know what the attacks would be, how bad they could be, nor when they would happen.

The reason we never did anything is because the rest of world would have been outraged by an invasion - they still believed you had to separate a legal government from unsavory characters that might reside within the country's borders and that you couldn't hold weak governments responsible for the acts of the terrorists groups within their country. I still don't hold the Taliban responsible for 9/11 - but the magnitude of the 9/11 attack made eliminating Bin Laden more important than the sovereignty of Afghanistan.

I do think the world has changed since 9/11 and you don't have to wait for an attack of the magnitude of 9/11 or even Spain's 3/11 or London's subway attack. Once you have a few attacks, period, from the same organization (the first WTC attack, for example), and you have a reasonable assessment that they could mount even bigger attacks, you have enough justification to do what you have to do to prevent it.

In other words, the threshold for taking action has gotten much lower, but the attacks still have to be in response to something - an invasion to take out a terrorist organization that had yet to make any attacks just wouldn't fly unless you had some incredibly undeniable evidence.

 

[SOS2008]

Actually, this is precisely the situation that faced the US prior to 9/11. We new we would be attacked by Al-Qaeda, we knew where OBL's camps were in Afghanistan - we didn't know what the attacks would be, how bad they could be, nor when they would happen.

The reason we never did anything is because the rest of world would have been outraged by an invasion - they still believed you had to separate a legal government from unsavory characters that might reside within the country's borders and that you couldn't hold weak governments responsible for the acts of the terrorists groups within their country. I still don't hold the Taliban responsible for 9/11 - but the magnitude of the 9/11 attack made eliminating Bin Laden more important than the sovereignty of Afghanistan.

I do think the world has changed since 9/11 and you don't have to wait for an attack of the magnitude of 9/11 or even Spain's 3/11 or London's subway attack. Once you have a few attacks, period, from the same organization (the first WTC attack, for example), and you have a reasonable assessment that they could mount even bigger attacks, you have enough justification to do what you have to do to prevent it.

In other words, the threshold for taking action has gotten much lower, but the attacks still have to be in response to something - an invasion to take out a terrorist organization that had yet to make any attacks just wouldn't fly unless you had some incredibly undeniable evidence.

I tend to think violence begets more violence in the case of terrorism (as can be seen by the invasion of Iraq). There was a program recently that compared the Israeli approach (kill them first) to Spain's approach, which has been to find ways to live together. This is the reason Spain hasn't had terrorist bombings since Madrid, though of course Hawks will say they are just wimps for this appeasement. I think it was on MSNBC.

 

[loseyourname]

I stand corrected on point 1 - yes, Chomsky reports on Burke's report

Regarding point 2 - obviously, American military actions (or, as the thread title states, 'American terrorism') are being justified on the grounds that they are necessary to protect US citizens against terrorism. Burke and Chomsky (among others) argue that American militarism will not necessarily achieve this aim - so they suggest that American militarism (my preferred terminology despite the thread title) is counter-productive. In that sense they are proposing a solution - ie, that the military actions cease, and that the root causes of terrorism be addressed.

You might be right at this moment and for the next couple of years, but American 'militarism' pre-existed Islamic terrorist groups and will likely continue long after they are gone. Getting rid of Al Qaeda and its ilk won't rid the world of American aggression (at least not as it has been defined for our purposes here).

 

[The Smoking Man]

I do think the world has changed since 9/11 and you don't have to wait for an attack of the magnitude of 9/11 or even Spain's 3/11 or London's subway attack. Once you have a few attacks, period, from the same organization (the first WTC attack, for example), and you have a reasonable assessment that they could mount even bigger attacks, you have enough justification to do what you have to do to prevent it.

In other words, the threshold for taking action has gotten much lower, but the attacks still have to be in response to something - an invasion to take out a terrorist organization that had yet to make any attacks just wouldn't fly unless you had some incredibly undeniable evidence.

Of course things never remain the same.

Now that there is no more 'sympathetic Afghanistan', just what do the 'allied forces' attack now?

I think the 'powers that be' in every terrorist organization just learned the lesson of fighting a superior force. 'Don't be in one place that could be condidered a target.'

Or how about the use of this as a form of attack ... give indications you are housed in countries where you wish to topple the government... Pakistan for instance?

 

[The Smoking Man]

You might be right at this moment and for the next couple of years, but American 'militarism' pre-existed Islamic terrorist groups and will likely continue long after they are gone. Getting rid of Al Qaeda and its ilk won't rid the world of American aggression (at least not as it has been defined for our purposes here).

Some would say that the terrorist phenomenon was as a result of 'American agression' or clandestined/black operations in the Middle East.

Should we give credence to this theory?

Do they truly hate Americans becasue they are free as the other side suggests or is there a foundation to 'fighting western interference'?

Toppling the Iranian democracy in the 50's, Saddam, OBL, the US veto over Israel ... is there a foundation for this claim and should there be attempts at dialogue?

 

[pattylou]

Not just me...anyone. The whole world...what can anyone do to fix America?

I haven't read the whole thread. I only opened it today, and made it through the first few responses.

There are lots of things anyone can do. You're already doing them. You're presenting reason to the global community.

I try to do the same. We come from different ideologies, but neither of us are terrorists.

To the extent that any weak country would feel threatened by us (most recently because of our pre-emptive attack on Iraq which presently looks like an agenda by the administration due to Bolton's attitudes, the Plame thing, the DSM, etc etc) ... we *do* instill fear perhaps to the extent of terror.

But it's not me, and it's not you. So what individuals do, (in addition to trying to interact with reason with the global community) is try to get to the bottom of things, in order to demonstrate that any actions in the name of the US that may inspire terror, should *not* in fact inspire such fear. IOf we can show good cause, for example, for our actions, they would be more accepted by the rest of the world. What we have shown is questionable cause. And recent memos aren't helping.

I'd be scared by the US too, if I lived almost anywhere in the middle east, or had been labelled part of the axis of evil. Wouldn't you?

So, we get to the bottom of things, in an open manner. Did Rove disclose Plame to promote an unjust war? Did Bush want "an excuse" to go after Saddam?

And if getting to the bottom of things reveals that our actions were unjustified or illegal, we take it honorably, and make whatever compensation we can.

This would not be the approach of a terrorist nation. The people who see the US as a terrorist nation would recognize that. And it's honest, and right.

(that was a bit rambly, but I think it answers the basic questions.)

 

[alexandra]

I would expect that each nation would indeed act in their own best interest. I don't think Canada would like the US telling it how it conducts it's affairs.

Funnily enough, it’s not just Canada that wouldn’t like it. For some odd reason, many Iraqi people seem to object as well. Hmmm – how odd! (Yes, I noted that you make a point of saying you are not talking about Iraq, but the events in Iraq are why we are having this discussion in the first place).

Right...It only needs to invade other countries to take care of other countries. Like it did in WWII when it invaded France to remove the Germans. Then..but only then, the US can invade, because it is helping out OTHER countries.

The US did not act altruistically in WWII. Both worlds wars were conflicts between contending imperialist powers – the US stepped in at the end of WWII (once the Germans had sufficiently weakened the British) to claim its place as the new predominant world imperialist power; it acted in its own interests. Any history book that analyses the events surrounding the second world war will point this out.

But if the US is attacked...what? We need permission to do anything at that point?

When the US ‘retaliates’ to ‘defend’ itself against a country that never attacked it or threatened to attack it (ie, Iraq), then thinking people in the rest of the world regard this as unacceptable. They wonder who will be next. Iraq was invaded for its oil, and for strategic (military) reasons. Any other country that has resources the US capitalists want is also in danger of suddenly being attacked. Why do you think the rest of the world should just accept this? It is unrealistic to expect that everyone will happily put aside their own interests (and indeed their very lives) in the service of US capital.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The US did not act altruistically in WWII. Both worlds wars were conflicts between contending imperialist powers – the US stepped in at the end of WWII (once the Germans had sufficiently weakened the British) to claim its place as the new predominant world imperialist power; it acted in its own interests. Any history book that analyses the events surrounding the second world war will point this out.

Aw cummon Alexandra, you got that out of a book, but I was there. The US entered WWII because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor - "A day that will live in infamy" - and declared war on Germany because Hitler praised the attack and reaffirmed his alliance with the Empire of Japan.

 

[Smurf]

Aw cummon Alexandra, you got that out of a book, but I was there. The US entered WWII because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor - "A day that will live in infamy" - and declared war on Germany because Hitler praised the attack and reaffirmed his alliance with the Empire of Japan.

And you still got it wrong! Germany declared war on the US, not the other way around. (and there never was any 'official' alliance between japan and germany, just the tripart pact - they didn't even really get along after that)

 

[Art]

And you still got it wrong! Germany declared war on the US, not the other way around. (and there never was any 'official' alliance between japan and germany, just the tripart pact - they didn't even really get along after that)

The first pact signed between Japan, Germany and Italy was the Anti-Comintern treaty of 1936 in a move to counter the spread of communism. The Tripartite pact was signed in September 1940 and it was article 3 of this which brought Germany and the US into conflict.

ARTICLE THREE
Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Accepting that Germany and Italy declared war first, here is a link to Roosevelt's request and the Congress's declaration of war on Germany and Italy.
http://www.ku.edu/carrie/docs/texts/us_dec_g.htm