Important note: Saddam was supported by the United States and other Western governments during 2 of the above points. Not only that, but at no point during Saddams reign did he pose a threat to America until we went to war with him, and after that, posed no threat. So, even if we are attributing his actions to the Iraqi people, they didn’t do much of anything to us.
Dunno, how much are Saudi Arabia and Iraq worth?
I feel that every day, America is continuing to do things that put my life at risk, and for that, I spit at the feet of every administration of my lifetime.
Does that really matter? The question I guess is, “does/did Iraq deserve 9/11?” I have to say that if the US did (which I disagree with), than so did Iraq. It really doesn’t matter who supported Saddam, or to whom he was a threat.
My point is that people, many people, feel the US deserved 9/11. When pressed those same people fire off a volley of atrocities committed by the US in an attempt to justify their position.
So, if a country has committed all of those same or similar atrocities, do they too deserve a 9/11 type situation?
This discussion always seems to come back to Iraq, so I put it out there that Iraq did a lot of bad things in the Middle East, so they must deserve it as well. Does it matter who actually commits the attack? Should we have waited for Osama? Is he the only one that determines these sorts of things?
I don’t think anyone “deserves” a 9/11-style calamity. I just find it mildly creepy to see Americans go around debating who “deserves” such an event, while their government has already inflicted something three times as worse on a country that posed no threat to it.
No, they deserved it! Because they, like, had an evil dictator… that we propped up… and gave weapons… and… hm, wait… damn. Guess that doesn’t work out afterall. O_o
But what does “threat” have to do with any thing? And what does the actions of the US have do to with anything?
If the US deserved 9/11 for committing X, than any other country that also commits X deserves it too. Regardless of whether or not the US helped them, or if they were a threat to the US.
And that is the point of this debate.
It seems a bit hypocritical to say the US deserved it but Iraq didn’t, or that no other country deserves it.
The US is not the only country to have an abysmal foreign policy record.
So again I ask, if the US deserved 9/11, who else deserves it?
Didn’t we do the “deserves” thing to death before? Shouldn’t the question be “Which countries are enacting foreign policies which might reasonably be expected to, rightly or wrongly, provoke a terrorist response?”
For instance, America in Iraq now, depending on your point of view, is liberating the people from the remains of Saddam’s government. However, some people there view it as an occupation - so they might be provoked into retaliating.
UK will, or won’t give up Northern Island. We’re kind of screwed here since I can’t think of any response that wouldn’t cause SOME terrorism
UK, Spain, Portual, France, etc, had empires 100 years ago. Probably not going to provoke anything, since unless there’s been ongoing tension, you’re not going to see anything to gain.
If you rob a bank and kill a bunch of people along the way, you DESERVE to go to jail. If I supply you with the weapons, plans, and funding then I too DESERVE to go to jail.
With that said, if robbing a bank means that you deserve to go to jail, than anyone else who robs a bank also deserves to go to jail.
For our debate, the “rob a bank” part is a bit fuzzy since no one is quite sure why the US recieved 9/11, even though they are confident enough to say they deserved it.
If Germany (for example) no longer deserves it, what did they do to be forgiven?
If Rome no longer deserves it, how long does it take to be forgiven?
US deserved to be attacked for imperialism, then any other country that behaves in an imperial manner also deserves to be attacked. Sounds like a FINE theory to me. In fact, it is the same one used to justify GW1.
Try re-reading the list we gave at the start of this thread before you brought up Iraq “deserving it.” Don’t worry, it isn’t very long.
I’ve defined it for you several times, but you seem to have a hard time reading today, like the list of countries that deserved it that you continue to ask for after being provided by several people many hours ago.
In each case, mostly, they DIED AND STOPPED DOING IT.
In Germany, they were invaded in turn, their government dismantled, and leaders tried for war crimes, with some executions and a lot of imprisonment. Their officers were all penalized, and their society lived in shame as an occupied nation for decades before finally being reunified.
In Rome, well, their fritzy golden age eventually ended, and they got the holy sh*t beat out of them by all the little people they played around with for centuries.
Oh, I think some folks think that 3000 deserved to die. But you are getting into semantics…if the US 'deserved to be attacked in such a manner, then you have to expect people to die. You are trying to basically play with words here…we deserved to be attacked, but no one should die?
And if the US ‘deserved’ to be attacked, why wouldn’t Iraq deserve to be attacked? After all, they did bad shit too, no? They fought wars, they attempted invasions, they murdered civilians…the list is fairly long.
Why would I want to do that? I’m not making a case that either of them deserved it. You are merely talking about degree. If the US deserved what it got, it got what AQ could potentially give it (i.e. they did their best to kill as many as they could…bummer they only got 3000). By the same token, Iraq got what it ‘deserved’ (by this logic) and the US gave it what it potentially could (well, no we didn’t or the body count would be in the millions, but you know what I mean).
Again, this isn’t MY logic…its the logic of punishment for countries that ‘deserve’ to be attacked. Since nearly every nation thats a power does distastful things or has done distasteful things in its past to someone, they all ‘deserve’ to be attacked, so terrorism against any one of them is ‘justified’…no? Why single out the US…not like we are the ONLY country doing ‘bad things’.
Very true…the US is a global superpower. We screw with outer countries because its in our best interests to do so. This tends to piss some folks off, no doubt about it. However, we aren’t exactly alone in doing this, you know? Nor are we the only ones screwing with the ME for that matter…every industrial nation in the world has a stake in what happens there, because thats where the oil is.
And yes…I know all about the history that lead up to 9/11 as its been hashed and rehashed hundreds of times on this board. But the question is, did the US deserve what happened to 3000 CIVILIANS, and if so, doesn’t that pretty much mean that you can justify any attack against any country out there?
BTW, your thoughts on the OTHER attacks AQ perpetrated in various other countries…were they justified too? I’m sure that Kenya and Tanzinia must have really done something bad to justify attacks against them…
We supported Iraq because it was fighting Iran at a time when Iran had turned on us big time. Realpolitic that. We didn’t GIVE Saddam chemical weapons (at least, I’ve never seen a credible cite showing it), and we were far from the only nation that supported Saddam. Hell man, the French and Russians were STILL selling the man weapons until recently. Why did we support him in the early 80’s? He was a secular ruler in the midst of (what the US perceived as) a sea of Islamic fundamentalist states. He was fighting against Iran, who the US definitely perceived as a threat. In other words, he provided (what we THOUGHT was) balance in the region…and a potential ‘ally’. He was also sitting on top of the 2nd largest reserve of oil in the ME. Thats why the European nations supported him too btw…not like the US stood alone on this (or that the US is the only nation to support governments of questionable nature for realpolitic reasons).
BTW, you have a cite that the US told Iraq and Saddam directly that he could go ahead into Kuait? I’ve never seen a credible one of those either. My understanding is that there was a mixup and Saddam basically heard what he wanted to hear…not what was being told to him. Certainly it doesnt make sense if he was our pal and all for us to give him the nod to invade Kuait then turn around and cut him off at the knees…does it?
Well, thats kind of the point. If you feel that the civilian population is justifiably attacked because of the policies of its government, then nations who get attacked ‘deserve’ what they get.
Admittedly I’m none too happy about the current administration either…or many of the other administrations in my lifetime. Sometimes I wonder whether its really worth it for the US to be a major superpower…if we wouldn’t be better off just letting it all go and see what happened. Thats when my isolationist tendencies start really getting the better of me.
The problem of course is you are either in the game or you aren’t. All powerful nations meddle and jockey for advantage to themselves. All powerful nations do distasteful things that they feel are in their best interests. All powerful nations play the realpolitic game, consort with people and leaders who deserve a bullet in the head more than a handshake. Its the game of nations. So, either the US is in it…or its not. Sometimes I think not would be better for US anyway.
Prior to AQ’s attacking the US in the early 90’s, what did the US do to AQ? Afaik, they weren’t even on the US’s radar screen.
Do you REALLY think AQ attacked the US to right wrongs and do good deeds for its downtrodden people??
Well, you’d have to check the death statistics for Afghanistan, as that was the direct response to 9/11. Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, right? Again though you are getting hung up on the death toll. Are you saying that the US’s actions would have been justified, and the Iraqi’s ‘deserving’ if the death toll had of been comparable? Say we were 100 Iraqi’s short of the full death toll on 9/11…would we have been justified in rounding up 100 Iraqi civilians and gunning them down then…to make the numbers equal? Or do you allow for some ‘slop’ in the numbers…maybe + or - 50? 100?
Its a matter of degree. If nations ‘deserve’ such attacks (btw, its bullshit to say that the US ‘deserved’ to be attacked but that the Civilians didn’t ‘deserve’ to die…its a hipocritical word game. If a nation gets attacked in such a way, civilians die…in for a penny, in for a pound) due to the actions of their governments, then the results will vary. When AQ attacks someone, they do what they can. When a superpower like the US attacks someone, they have a bigger hammer in their bag of tricks, so you can expect things to be worse.
Personally, I don’t think the US was justified in attacking Iraq (though I think we were justified in attacking Afghanistan)…but then, I don’t think AQ was justified in attacking the US either.
Maybe some military or government types. shrugs That’s what they sign up for.
And each time they went to war with someone else, guess what? They got attacked!
What, are we turning state’s evidence on a murder in order to get off for murdering the murderer?
And just about every industrial nation has been attacked, in some way. Hijackings, bombings, etc. Terrorism is hardly limited to America. We are just new at it.
To be technical, the embassy grounds are considered US soil, so yes, it was an attack on the US.
Right Zagadka…you are restating the obvious. The qestion wasn’t ‘were they attacked’? The question was did they (and the US) DESERVE to be attacked? In other words, were the attacks against them justified? A simple yes or no will suffice. I’m not trying to get anyone off the hook here…just exploring the logic.
To state my own position (in case there is some confusion here)…I don’t feel (generally…there are some exceptions) that any nation ‘deserves’ to be attacked, and certainly not an attack directly targetting civilians with the purpose being to kill as many as you can. Iraq didn’t ‘deserve’ to be invaded by the US. The US didn’t ‘deserve’ to be attacked on 9/11.
Well, there you go. Attacking Iraq, even if there were civilians in the way, has the same justification. After all, we were ‘technically’ attacking Iraq with the same ‘justification’ that AQ had…namely because we could. Glad we settled that.
I said it in the other thread. Retribution is for barbarians. Certainly no one diserves to die in a building on fire.
I think the whole point of the other thread was to point out that 19 people didn’t sacrificed themselves and 3000 others just because they hated your freedom.
In short your foreign policy sucks. You had been screwing too many people for too much time without consecuences.
9/11 could have been (besides a huge, horrible tragedy) a lesson in how it feels to be on the other side of the killing.
You have been a very succesfull country, other countries also did terrible deeds, history, for the most part, punished them. The OP seems to be historically illiterate, after all there are fewer better examples of humbled pride that in the history of Rome, the greatest empire the world has ever known was conquered by a band of half naked savages. It’s capital were the fate of the known world was decided was sacked several times, (Genserico and Teodorico). The fate of Germany is better known.
9/11 (in the historical perspective) was nothing. It could have been a lesson. Instead of asking yourselves how did it happen, you chose to continue (even more strongly) the policy that created the conditions for that attack.
Finally we care little for what did Ancient Egypt, Babylon, Macedonia or the Spanish Empire disserved for their actions. They are history. We aren’t.
I have a hard time getting past the first part of your question, the whole “…the US deserved 9/11.”
Just because the United States foolishly set up the conditions for 9/11 to occur doesn’t mean it deserves it, just as a toddler who climbs on a high shelf deserves to fall and hit his head.
…this thread expose incredible naivete on the part of many posters. The whole Al-Queda sponsored terrorism is unique to the world…this type of thing has never been attempted before. The fact is, this organization is profoundly anti-human. It is based on a philosophy that has no value for the individual, and is actually pro-death. Look at the rantings from OBL himself…ceaseless ravings about martyrdom and the desireability of death for Allah’s favor. It is the sickest thing since the third reich.
The other point is that this is a phenomenon ofmiddle and upper-class people, who are educated and should know better. All of the 9/11 hijackers were educated, and all were able to revert to soulless savages, ready to kill with no compasssion or humanity of any kind. NONE of the hijackers or most of Al Queda came from the ranks of the poor, oipressed palestinians.
Who shouldhave a 9/11" I would say Saudi Arabia, Egypt, , Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc…they should experience the wrath of the vipers that they have (apparently willingly) embraced and consorted with. I’d like to see the Egyptian press blame an attack on Cairo University on the “zionist imperialists” and “CIA spys”.
Is it not fair to say that most nations eventually piss groups of people off enough for them to fight back? The political semantics are not what is important. The fact that at some point in its history, a nation will have to deal with terrorism on its own soil.
I think the difference here is that it is the US thought that it was safe from international terrorism. Most of the rest of the world - as has been pointed out by other posters, doesnt and has been dealing with it in their own way for hundreds of years.
IMO phrases like “deserves”, “retribution”, " freedom"and “tyrant” all dissapear into the mele that is politics, justification and propaganda. Its fluff. The aims of the terrorist are not really an issue in the grand scale of things. Through all of history one group of people has attacked another group coz they’re pissed at something - ( remember they are only terrorists if they lose - Nelson Mandella was generally described as a" terrorist" untill his group won the fight - now he is a “freedom fighter” ).
Britain has been targeted by terrorists ( yes, the IRA are currently terrorists ) for a good few years now, yet for decades the IRA received shit loads of cash from american donations ( Noraid ?). So instead of supporting the (lower case) war on terror, the US did sweet f.a.
However, on 11/9/01 the US got attacked by a very small terrorist group and the whole world was presented with the stark ultimation : were going to invade someone, “you’re either with us or against us”. Not exactly a measured reaction.
So here we are 3 years into the (real ? ) “War On Terror”. Due to the cynical approach that the WH has taken in those 3 years, ( removing YOUR hard won freedoms which you talk about sooo much with the Patriot Act, only half finishing the Afganistan job, inventing a reason to remove Saddam but getting bent over by Iran instead ) the planet is now much more dangerous. The actions of YOUR president have polarised more people across the world.
No-one deserves anything bad to happen to them. Is that not obvious? When it happens - as it will at some pojnt - the trick is to handle it with a delicate touch, a mature head and then to get on with it without trying to make things worse in the long term. That included dragging the rest of the world into the mess. That way you gain respect and allies. Not more terrorists trying to kill you.
God forbid another attrocity occurs on US soil which kills thousands - people around the world may be saying
“shit man, that 11 /9 /01 was appaling, but they were asking for this one”. This would be esspecially pertinant if the US is attcked by a group which formed after, or as a result, of the way America has handled itself in the last 3 years.
