mhendo, suggest you re-read schplebordnik’s post. E.g. If I criticized someone who argued right after the murder that Jame Byrd had brought it on himself, that person could say (as you have), “Criticism of specific African-American behavior is not racism.” However, in that context, of course it would be racism. I hope you would agree. IMHO your position is parallel.
Excactly. And I maintain that anyone who immediately seeks to blame the US for an unprovoked attack against them appears to have started with a bias. E.g., I don’t see a thread asking what various Arabs did wrong and how they should change.
And racists who blame James Byrd for his own murder could claim to base their criticisms on a love for Black people and a desire to see them realise their full potential. :rolleyes:
Where in the world did this come from? You’re accusing me of being prejudiced against non-Americans, but with no evidence. I ask for an apology.
I take you at your word. Let me seriously say that when I criticize you, it comes from a desire to see you be all you can be.
My suggestion follows Shodan’s: there’s a time and place for everything. You ought to understand that at this moment – when smoke is still rising from the site where 6000 bodies are unrecovered, when friends of mine are mourning the deaths of loved ones, when the US economy is in upheaval – for you to blame America right now makes you appear anti-American.
P.S. I was fortunate enough to spend 3 weeks in Australia a couple of years ago and really loved your country. I hope to return some day.
I’d never heard of Chomsky until today: A friend at university emailed an interview re: the attacks and now your comments. According to biographical material I’ve located on the internet he is a: scholar (anthropologist, linguistics), political dissident, socialist, anarchist, anti-semite, supporter of libertarian socialist objectives. “Since 1965 he has become one of the leading critics of U.S. foreign policy.”
I don’t think Chomsky could be classified as an “anti-semite.” I believe he is Jewish, and developed his interest in linguistics learning Hebrew as a child.
Perhaps the author called him that because he criticizes Israel. Which is a totally bogus critical attack.
And he is pretty prominent critic of the U.S. and capitalism. You’ll see him once and again on PBS (although he is a fierce critic of the media, including PBS).
I fail to see in what way saying “how we got here” is the same than blaming the victims.
Moore doesn’t say : the people in the planes, etc… were personnally responsible of the attack. He says that the attack is related to the US foreign policy. So your question “Can we establish that each…etc…” refers to something the author never wrote. Strawman argument.
You can disagree with facts, but pointing them out doesn’t equate with blaming the victims. In other words, blaming the US doesn’t equate to blaming the victims.
And it seems to me that examing the reasons why this attack took place in the US, not only shouldn’t be criticized but should be thoroughly encouraged. Except if you don’t care such attacks to take place again. Should I use the same kind of rethoric than you and states that since you don’t care for the reasons, it proves that you don’t care for the victims?
“How we got there” (or your formulation, “examining how the attack is related to U.S. foreign policy” IS blaming the victim.)
Because it necessarily links the outcome (thousands of deaths of U.S. civilians in WTC/Pentagon) with prior U.S. government activities (deaths the authors believe the U.S. had a hand in).
Which, by the way, many – if not all – of the U.S. government activities have nothing to do with what appear to be the motivations behind the terrorist attacks. To wit:
Clinton bombing Yugoslavia? Yes, he did. In large part to stop genocide against Muslims;
Ford approving genocide in East Timor? Assuming that is correct, Indonesian government is primarily Muslim; East Timorese are Christian; I’m sure Osama is really pissed that the Catholic East Timorese couldn’t get self-determination from the Javanese Muslims;
Bush, et al. for Gulf War? Well, he liberated a Muslim country, in an alliance with a Muslim country. And how many of the terrorists in WTC/Pentagon give a rat’s ass about Iraq?
Reagan et al. in Central America? Yeah, right. These terrorists were outraged at the suppression of socialism in Central America. And, let’s see, wasn’t Ollie North working with the Iranians in setting up Irangate?
There is absolutely no logical correlation between WTC/Pentagon and U.S. foreign policy misadventures/mistakes. The deaths there are strictly the result of a cultural dispute. Now, if the author were to argue that the trail to WTC/Pentagon was paved by U.S. clutural and religious pluralism, maybe the author would have a point. Same one Bush had…
And by the way, in response to the OP, I would say that the US policies should respect some moral principles. Either, there, there is no way to avoid criticism, anti-American feelings or even hate.
For instance, let’s take the Iraki example. The US could say : “Saddam Hussein is a dictator who invaded a neighboring country”. At first glance, it could seem a correct and moral statement. But immediatly come the questions :
-If Hussein is an evil dictator, why did the US armed him during his war against Iran?
-Isn’t Koweit a dictatorship too? Why the US did back this one?
-If the US thinks that a country who occupied a territory on which it has claims must be condemned, why the US don’t condemn Israel instead of supporting it?
-If the US militarily support the continued existance of an independant Koweit who was historically part of Irak, why don’t they militarily support the Kurds who have at least as much rights to independancy?
-Why did the US reacted when oil was threatened, and not when lives were?
As long as the US foreign policy isn’t consistent and morally defensible and nevertheless implies a lot of direct or indirect interventions, strong anti-American feelings are unavoidable. Nor a policy of isolationism, nor a policy based on a firm moral ground would have such results.
-If Hussein is an evil dictator, why did the US armed him during his war against Iran?
He was fighting what U.S. thought at the time was a worst dictatorship.
Was it stupid to arm him? Yep. About as stupid as supporting the Mujahadeen. That one’s biting us in the ass right now. Iraq bit us in the ass ten years ago, and probably again this year.
“-Isn’t Koweit a dictatorship too? Why the US did back this one?”
They were invaded and occupied. Or are you saying that U.S. should have backed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?
“-If the US thinks that a country who occupied a territory on which it has claims must be condemned, why the US don’t condemn Israel instead of supporting it?”
Which territory are you referring to? West Bank? The land Israel occupied after they were attacked by Syria/Jordan/Egypt? Hasn’t U.S. worked for many, many years to get that established as a Palestinian homeland?
Or are you referring to the country of Israel? The Jewish diaspora’s exodus was an occupation? Didn’t UN support it?
“-If the US militarily support the continued existance of an independant Koweit who was historically part of Irak, why don’t they militarily support the Kurds who have at least as much rights to independancy?”
Historical support for the first statement? Iraq is a creation of former British mandate.
And U.S. has supported Kurds against oppression by Iraq. Or do you think U.S. should have “finished the job” in the Gulf War by taking Baghdad and splitting up Iraq?
“-Why did the US reacted when oil was threatened, and not when lives were?”
Which lives where those? The Iraqis who invaded Kuwait?
“-If Hussein is an evil dictator, why did the US armed him during his war against Iran?”
He was fighting what U.S. thought at the time was a worst dictatorship.
Was it stupid to arm him? Yep. About as stupid as supporting the Mujahadeen. That one’s biting us in the ass right now. Iraq bit us in the ass ten years ago, and probably again this year.
“-Isn’t Koweit a dictatorship too? Why the US did back this one?”
They were invaded and occupied. Or are you saying that U.S. should have backed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?
“-If the US thinks that a country who occupied a territory on which it has claims must be condemned, why the US don’t condemn Israel instead of supporting it?”
Which territory are you referring to? West Bank? The land Israel occupied after they were attacked by Syria/Jordan/Egypt? Hasn’t U.S. worked for many, many years to get that established as a Palestinian homeland?
Or are you referring to the country of Israel? The Jewish diaspora’s exodus was an occupation? Didn’t UN support it?
“-If the US militarily support the continued existance of an independant Koweit who was historically part of Irak, why don’t they militarily support the Kurds who have at least as much rights to independancy?”
Historical support for the first statement? Iraq is a creation of former British mandate.
And U.S. has supported Kurds against oppression by Iraq. Or do you think U.S. should have “finished the job” in the Gulf War by taking Baghdad and splitting up Iraq?
“-Why did the US reacted when oil was threatened, and not when lives were?”
Which lives where those? The Iraqis who invaded Kuwait?
You slide too easily between the idea of justification and that of causation. If the events of last week were believed by the psychos who committed them to be a response to US actions, then it is indeed possible to establish some sort of causal chain. This is the case whether or not the grievances felt by these people were justified. What critics like Moore are arguing is that US actions, even if many Americans feel them to be justified, cause considerable anger in other parts of the world.
Now, it is entirely possible that many of the problems that these people around the world attribute to America actually have other sources, but the fact that they believe that the US is responsible for their plight is a motivating factor in their actions. And i believe the evidence indicates that the US is often instrumental in the problems faced by people in many other countries. I’ve given numerous examples in this and other threads.
One interesting aspect of your post, which you might have intended as irony, is your reference to “American imperialist misadventures”. If you concede that America has indeed had such misadventures, then surely the fact that America calls itself a democracy (with a government of, by, and for the people) means that all of its citizens share some responsibility for American policies and actions abroad, as i pointed out in a previous post which you seem to have neglected. And, in case i haven’t said this often enough already, the fact that Americans bear some responsibility for their government’s actions does NOT mean that the people in the WTC/Pentagon deserved to die, nor does it excuse the barbarism of last Tuesday’s events.
But you asked a question about whether or not the poor people killed last week “had a hand” in American foreign policy, and the answer is that they, and every other American, did by virtue of the fact that the US is a democracy. Democracies, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, give rights but also demand responsibilities. And one of the responsibilities is to be an informed citizen who watches what his or her government is doing (to the best of your ability) and trying to change it if it is wrong. You can’t just go to the booths on election day (or not go at all) and then wash your hands of the actions the government carries out in your name.
This is particularly true when you are talking about actions carried out on the other side of the world. As a commentator from the middle east pointed out on the news tonight, most people in the region only know the American people through the actions of the American government. They have no contact with the human side of America, the multitude of good and kind people who make up the majority of this nation.
And if you think that some people from the middle east are the only ones who make simplistic generalisations based on inadequate information, look at the way the people of Russia were caricatured by many Americans during the Cold War. Despite the fact that many Russians had no interest in and showed no support for their leaders’ foreign policy, there was a constant stream of invective directed against Russians by the US. Americans like Ronald Reagan even used similar language to that used by some current anti-Americans, calling Russia the “evil empire”. And the last ten days has shown that many people in the US demonstrate an inability to tell the difference between an “arab”, an Afghanistani, a dark-skinned person, a muslim, and a terrorist. I’m sure you’ve seen the news report of attacks on various Americans of middle-eastern appearance.
Your last comment/question extending the chain of causation to the events of last week and the war to come is interesting and, in its way, valid. But you have, as yet, shown no inclination to take the sort of historical perspective that is needed if you really are interested in attempting to determine where the ultimate responsibility lies for poor US image in parts of the middle east. I’m not even sure that it would be possible to do this.
My own belief is that we need to attach key importance to catching the people behind last week’s actions, and making sure that something similar never happens again. But i also think that this would be a good time to re-examine US policy in the region to determine whether America might adopt a foreign policy that is less likely to engender hatred and violence. The problem of the political discussions of the past week is not in their perfectly reasonable focus on justice, but rather in the way that a single-minded focus on one issue has reduced the ability, or at least the willingness, to undertake any sort of introspective look at American actions in the past and the way in which they might have fueled hatred of the US, whether rational or irrational.
And now to december (this is getting long!).
How many times do i have to go over this? I have not once said on this thread that America deserves to be blamed for last week’s attack. What i have said is that, if we are seeking to understand the attacks and the often irrational hatred of the United States in parts of the middle east, we would do well to examine exactly what it is that America has been doing in that part of the world for the last half-century. Many of my examples have not even centred on the middle east, because another thing i have been seeking to do is counter the avalanche of uncritical commentary that has been putting America on a pedestal as the exemplar of benevolence and light in an evil world.
Lets look at your specific counter-example of James Byrd. First of all, i would never contend that there is such a thing as “African-American behavior”. I have been here long enough, especially given that i live in a city (Baltimore) whose population is about 70% black, to realise that the African-American population is as diverse as any other, and that any attempt to define a specific behavior for this community is essentialism at its most simplistic and ridiculous.
As far as i know, all James Byrd was doing on the day of his death was hitch-hiking. But maybe the white-supremacist lunatics who killed him saw this as some sort of “uppity” behavior from someone who should know his place. To say this is not to make even a tiny justification for the action; all it does is attempt to determine what the killers were thinking at the time. Because if we can understand what motivates such pathological murderers, maybe we can prevent it happening again. And in examining American foreign policy, that should be our main aim - to seek to explain why people who spent months of training and then flew planes into a building would feel that such an action was necessary or justified. This is not “blaming the victim” - rather, it is seeking to understand the aggressor in an attempt to prevent a recurrence.
You also say:
Never have i “blamed” the attack on America. I blame it on those who perpetrated and supported the terrorism. But if those perpetrators truly believed that America was to blame for their problems, and could point to specific instances of American action that had disadvataged them, then they would not see it as an unprovoked attack, even if we would. And regarding the “Arabs”, i may not have started a thread on the topic, but i am losing count of how many times i have condemned the actions of the terrorists as wrong and immoral, and said that those who resort to violence to gain their ends are wrong.
But just as i don’t make my criticism of American foreign policy an attack on all Americans, nor am i willing to criticize all “Arabs” for the doings of a tiny percentage. Although i said that Americans share a certain responsibility for their government’s actions, i also realise that there is little they can do about it on a day-to-day basis. And there is little that the majority of people in the middle east can do to stop what happened last week, so i see no point in starting a tirade against the vast and complex groups of people collectively known as “Arabs”. I prefer to criticize terrorists and their supporters, and not all “Arabs” qualify.
I’m rolling my own eyes here. How illogical can you get? How deliberately obtuse are you trying to be in making these bizarre connections. AGAIN, i’ll say it. I don’t blame the US for the deaths last week, but i do blame the US for its own foreign policy. And i believe that if we are looking to explain last week’s events, then attitudes to US foreign policy on the part of the terrorists could help us. Seeking explanation and attributing blame are two separate things!!! And i am doing the former.
That’s not what i’m saying, and i believe no apology is necessary. Although if that’s how you read my comments, then that is not what i intended. I was referring to your system of logic, not asserting that you are prejudiced. You had been implying that criticism of American foreign policy was tantamount to blaming America for the attacks of last week. I intended to imply that the uncritical nationalism suggested by such a position could logically lead to a desire to hear only American opinions on the issue. Actually, maybe i will apologize - not for my argument, but for not phrasing it carefully enough. Sorry.
I think that this is precisely the time and place to be debating such issues, especially if we really want to prevent them from happening again. And again i say to you - I DON’T BLAME AMERICA FOR THE ATTACKS, AND THEREFORE AM NOT BEING “ANTI-AMERICAN” IN THE SENSE THAT YOU ALLEGE. OPPOSITION TO CERTAIN ASPECTS OF US FOREIGN POLICY IS NOT ANTI-AMERICANISM.
My hands are getting tired, but i still have to answer Jois.
Chomsky has indeed been described as all the things that you say. He is a scholar, linguist, philosopher, anarchist (or libertarian socialist, as he sometimes calls it), and foreign policy critic. He is not an anti-Semite. As schplebordnick rightly points out, those who call Chomsky an anti-Semite are usually attacking him for his criticism of Israeli policy in the middle east. He has also often been referred to, especially by right-wing Jews like Norman Podhoretz, as a “self-hating Jew”. But as Chomsky has pointed out on numerous occasions, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
I really like Noam Chomsky. I think his critique of US foreign policy is right on the mark most of the time, as is his analysis of the media. But, like Chomsky, i also believe that people should make up their own mind about these things. And the best way to make up your mind about Chomsky is not from my recommendation, but through his own writings. You can find some of his stuff here. There is also a website called the Chomsky Archive that has a heap of his stuff, but they were hit by a virus this week and have been unable to get going again as yet. The most accessible of his work in print is probably a collection of writings called The Chomsky Reader, edited by James Peck. There are also two or three books in which he is interviewed by Colorado alternative radio journalist David Barsamian. One of these is called Keeping the Rabble in Line, but the titles of the others escape my memory right now (it’s almost 3 in the morning!) Finally, there is a fantastic documentary made by a couple of Canadian guys, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick. It is called Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, and some video stores (but probably not Blockbuster!) have it on their shelves. It outlines many of his arguments, gives biographical information, and has many selections from interviews and speeches.
You’re starting to sound like a Chomsky flack. A particularly prolix one…
I don’t think anyone blamed you for blaming the victim. But the referenced article either did, or came way too close.
And I must say, the argument that in a democracy, the citizens bear some responsibility for their government’s actions, seems like a back-handed endorsement for dictatorship.
People in American bear some blame for U.S. foreign policy. They voted for the government, or should have at least been informed enough about their government to vote them out. Whereas those Afghans, who don’t have a say in what the Taliban does, shouldn’t have to suffer for what their government does, or more appropriately doesn’t, do…
No definitonal argument forthcoming. Thanks for the history, “you are correct sir,” but those examples I was talking about when I conceded our often lousy foreign policy from the beginning. We have been what I term oversimply “bad capitalists.” Abusing military or intelligence agencies, without legitimate cause and violating national sovereignty, is rank imperialism. Thug tactics against unions, same.
I do not defend abuses of power. To me capitalism consists of non-coercive (“coercive” in the classic sense here–“wage slavery” argument noted) market forces and individual initiative, not abuse of government power and brutal behavior. To say that capitalism equals violent overthrow of governments, IMO, condemns every political and economic system going. No system has totally clean hands.
In summary, my positon is that mere capitalism–when practiced without the abuse of sovereignty or coercion–is not imperialism. One of the early posts basically equated our economic power with imperialism.
I agree with the vast majority of what you said. I make a distinction between good capitalism and bad capitalism. I just want to save some ground for the possibility that there can be good capitalism. Moreover, many of the governments that have claimed to be socialist have practiced little more than a tyranny of the privileged. I think many so-called capitalist countries do a better impression of socialism than most of the supposedly socialist countries. The socialst “paradises” in northern Europe have market economies for example.
Stock purchase to gain control over a corporation is not possible for every country, individual, organization, government, granted. But it is possible. Sometimes ownership of a fairly small percentage of publicly held stock can hold much sway over the actions of a corporation. In particular it is instrumental in removing corporate officers through voting the shares. Moreover, capitalist “profit-sharing” has done more to distribute ownership than most “dictatorships of the proletariat” ever did.
Note also that when I used my hypothetical country “A” I said “if” they can nationalize, regulate, the rest. I concede that this has not always happened but I do quarrel with your implication (or am I just displacing from years of arguing with privileged market-pampered socialists?) that this is the rule. Certainly the United States has no official policy of violating national sovereignty on behalf of industry. Obviously official policy and reality do not coincide as often as I would like. Please insert your favorite argument regarding money corrupting the political system here.
Well, given that a flack is a “press agent” or a “publicity man” (bad gender-specific definition), according to the OED, i don’t think that’s a fair assessment. Sure, i cite Chomsky at times, but my references to him on the last post were at someone’s request, and i made it clear that the person should make up their own mind about Chomsky’s work.
The trouble about the issue of “blaming the victim” is that quite a few posts on this thread have moved beyond the originally-linked article and have tended to put all critics of American foreign policy in the same boat. It is this tendency that i am trying to work against.
And i’m really not quite sure how you see my arguments as a “back-handed endorsement for dictatorship”. I don’t think that the idea of people being responsible for the actions of their government is a bad thing - but i would like to see a polity that was more closely informed and engaged in the doings of its government. Much of the problem here results from the size and structure of modern systems of government, business and communication, in which ordinary citizens really have little say in what goes on beyond turning up to select between a fairly narrow range of candidates every so often at elections. In this sense, even countries like the US, Australia, Canada etc. are not true participatory democracies.
I have also sought to distinguish been the fact that Americans share a certain level of responsibility for government actions, and the fact that they should not be blamed for things over which they have little active control on a day-to-day basis.
I definitely believe that those in Afghanistan who do not support the dictatorship there should not be punished for its actions. But rather than saying that this is a good thing for them, i would prefer a situation in which there was a democracy and the whole population had a chance to have a say in how the country was run.
I have a last point that is not directed at people on this thread, but is a general observation. One interesting thing about many of the debates over the past ten days or so is how many people who had always been so rational and deliberate in making their posts have been swept up by the emotion of the event. And many are now, in the aftermath, returning to a more critical stance. Some have even conceded on various threads that they made comments without thinking, which they then felt the need to retract. I’m not saying that these reactions were wrong - they were wholly understandable. But i just worried, and still worry sometimes, that action taken and arguments made in the heat of grief and fury may end up being less productive than originally intended.
I’m not saying that i am some purely rational being who is able to stand above all the human emotions around me. I can’t really describe the feeling in my guts as the towers collapsed last week, nor can i imagine the pain of those who lost friends and family. But it seems to me that if we do nothing more than succumb to hatred and a desire to see blood, anybody’s blood, then we become little better than those we seek to bring to justice.
"I definitely believe that those in Afghanistan who do not support the dictatorship there should not be punished for its actions. But rather than saying that this is a good thing for them, i would prefer a situation in which there was a democracy and the whole population had a chance to have a say in how the country was run. "
I take it then you will actively throw your support behind a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, if the end result is an imposed democratic, secular, government (a la post-WWII Germany & Japan)?
And while were at it, we could do the same in the following non-democratic countries:
West Bank/Gaza (when was the last time Arafat stood for election?)
Iraq (ditto Saddam)
Syria (ditto Assad Jr.)
Libya (ditto Ghadaffi)
Each of which also sponsor or harbor terrorists.
And no doubt you stand behind U.S. support of Israel, which is the largest democracy in the region…
-Civilians aren’t a legitimate target
-Even if the terrorists were to argue that the US is directly responsible to as much civilian deaths or more, the principle “two wrongs don’t make one right” still apply
-The attack serves no clear purpose except killing people for the sake of it
An attack with a plane full of explosives (instead of passengers) against the Pentagon, for instance, would have appeared to “fit the crime” much more if the terrorists had legitimate claims.
I know that some people will scream reading that, but consider that the US (or any other country) never considered that the fact civilians work in a military headquarter should prevent them from attacking it.
Also, on a personnal basis : I’m a civil servant, and at the beginning of my career, I decided that I would resign if I was assigned to the ministry of defense (or something similar), because I don’t want to be associated with a policy I would dissaprove. I’m also a conscientious objector for exactly the same reason. So, I’m very conscious about the responsability one’s accept when he choose to work for military offices.
That said, I can’t support any military operations except if they’re obviously necessary to avoid what I consider as being a greater evil. In particular, I strongly oppose to operations which have only revenge as motive. So, in this case, since I don’t see what exactly was the purpose, and since I don’t consider “The US are responsible for the death of X persons in the past” (revenge) as a valid motive, I would tend to consider that even an attack similar to what I described above (explosives against the Pentagon) wouldn’t “fit the crime”, either.
I believe that any of us have some responsability, not only in our government’s policy, but more generally in the events that occurs everywhere. That since we are reasonnably well informed (we can’t say “we didn’t know” when faced with the genocide in Rwanda, for instance), are affluent (so, we can a least offer some relief even if we’re unable to prevent something to occur) and live in free countries (so we can choice to protest, write to our representants, or take into account the foreign policy of our country when we cast our vote)
However, I don’t think this responsability is unlimited. I don’t think an ordinary citizen should be strongly punished, let alone killed for what his governement does or did. I believe in personnal responsability. The soldier who kill a civilian is personnaly responsible. The officer who gave the order is personnaly responsible. The politician who ordered to invade the place and don’t care if civilians are killed or not is responsible. The civilian advisor who said to the politician that the invasion should be done, even if it implied civilian losses is personnally responsible. The share holder of some company who suggested that an invasion would be economically profitable is personnaly responsible.
Responsability implies free-will, knowledge (or at least the ability to know) and action (or lack thereof). The responsabilty of a particular individual is directly dependant on these three elements. More free will (i.e. a general as opposed to a soldier) implies more responsability. More knowledge (knowing that the long-range artillery fire is actually directed at an hospital, for instance) implies more responsability. Action (pulling the trigger as oposed to witnessing the execution) implies responsability.
So, in my opinion, the average citizen, probably poorly informed on a given topic and lacking efficient way to actually prevent an action has a very limited responsability.
Incidentally, it works both way. I spoke about responsability in negative actions, but it applies also to positive ones. I believe that the guilty are more often punished than the heroes are rewarded, and it worries me. Particulary exemplar IMO, though not even enough is the concept of “Justs amongst the nations” (not sure of the english translation) in Israel. In the recent example the NY firemen who risked their lives and survived should be given appropriate (read : huge) rewards, as much in honor than in money. Unfortunately our society isn’t really good at rewarding and honoring, which is a pity and IMO also an error.
Finally, I would like to point out that if someone displays proudness for the achievments of his nations, he must be ready to share the blames too. But it’s often not the case. The “we” when pointing out some right done often become “they” (the government) when pointing out a wrong done. Actually, in my opinion, there are usually few reasons for an individual to feel personnaly proud or ashamed of his country’s actions, anyway.
This one will be short : more or less none. They can offer some juicy contract to another country, refuse to use their regional influence in favor of the said country, bring their case to some international court whose decision will be ignored but will give them some diplomatical support, voice their opinion at the UN, but any resolution will be vetoed anyway,…They can’t choose anymore to patronize another force (USSR), or threaten to do so, though it used to be an useful tool in negociations.
Also, there is a big difference between a government not liking an US decision, and a population not liking an US decision.
And you think that there is absolutely no relation altogether between the attack and the US government activity? That the terrorists just felt like crashing a plane on a building that day and rolled a dice to choose the country?
Sure. I suspect the terrorists had few interest in the US policies in latin america. I assumed that the author wanted to point out that the US foreign policy could be morally arguable and that it could have consequences on the US soil.
OK. I understand better. You’re amongst the people who not only won’t aknowledge that the US can be something else than well-doers in their foreign policy, but are even unable to conceive that other people in other countries could have a different view.
The fact that people still hold your view is in my opinion an excellent argument to state that examinating the reasons of this attack is absolutely necessary.
Nope. U.S. can do wrong, and has. Other people are entitled to think so. However, U.S.'s record is far, far better than any country that supports or harbors the terrorists, or which the terrorists choose as a model. Or are you prepared to argue that Afghanistan’s human rights record is better than U.S.'s?
Now, rather than making blanket statements, lets examine the act of terror and correlations to U.S. foreign policy. What elements of U.S. foreign policy can possibly be correlated to the terrorists. As far as anyone seems to been able to identify, there are two or three:
U.S. aid (military, and otherwise) to Israel.
U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia during and after Gulf war.
(maybe) U.S. aid (military, mostly) to Egypt.
Now, which of those do you feel is morally suspect?
U.S./Israel? Biggest (some would say sole) democracy in the region. I suppose you think U.S. should support dictatorships over democracies. If so, why isn’t Pinochet over Allende preferable?
U.S. troops in Saudi. We are there by invitation, mostly to check Iraq aggression. And our troops abide by Saudi clerical laws (no alcohol, etc.)
U.S. aid to Egypt. They’ve actually committed to peace with Israel. I suppose that we should not reward countries for making peace with their neighbors?
Did I ever say anything even remotely similar? And I don’t understand the point in saying that the US is better than such or such country. It’s the same argument than a burglar saying to the court : “what do want to condemn me? There are murderers and rapers out there!”
Now, what do you mean by “the US record”? The US record inside its boundaries, or outside? If it is outside his boundaries, do you make some sort of addition of the plus and minus? Do you actually think that a victim of a dictatorship backed by the US, or of a bomb dropped by an US plane cares about the freedom an american is enjoying or about some good deed of the US somewhere else?
A country whose leaders (and often his citizens)show so much self-righteousness should be able to display an exemplar record. And it’s obviously not the case.
You know as well as me (or so i hope) that this issue isn’t that simple. If you go that way, I can say :“Israel is illegally occupying another country and oppressing and killing its people. I suppose you think US should support invaders”.
The invitation of a country which is actually the worse theocratic dictatorship of the region, Talibans excepted. Why the US supported this theocracy against Irak and didn’t support the more moderate Iranian theocracy when the same Irak invaded it, but at the contrary armed the invaders?
I’ve nothing against US aid to Egypt. You will note however that it will be considered as a premium to treason by the fundamentalists (and not only by them, actually)
The policy of the US in the middle east if full of inconsistencies, when you examine it from the moral point of view. I posted before an example of it, with the invasion of Irak. The arguments I gave are those I heard from arab people. There is no way you could convince them that the US actions were based on moral considerations. And actually they weren’t. They were based on the US interests.
You can’t say “we fight this dictator because he invaded his neighbor” and be taken seriously when before you have backed invaders, ignored the pleas of invaded countries, backed/are backing dictators, armed the exact same dictator some years ago, etc…
There are only three realistic positions, IMO :
Cynism : we choose our policy on the basis on our interests, it’s what everybody does and what we should do
2)Isolationism : we don’t want to be involved in this mess altogether
3)Moralism : we will base our policy on a definite set of our values (support democracy against dictatorships, support capitalism against communism, etc…) and will act acordingly.
Currently, the US does 1) but officially pretends to do 3). People who believes that he actually does 1) live in denial or are uninformed.
I do not feel that foriegn policy is the sole arbiter of terrorism. I do not feel there is a direct causal relationship between terrorism and foreign policy.
Perhaps here, or perhaps another time, I would be interested in hearing the causal relationships murderers of abortion doctors and the doctors themselves, the causal relationship between unsuspecting victims and their serial killers, and so on.
In other words, I have a real hard time seeing causality that some here seem to want to demonstrate. I am reading with interest, however; please continue, everyone.