Carve up the middle East !!!

What, exactly, am I making up? Did he commit any terrorist activities before the U.S. was supposed to leave and didn't? I ALREADY STATED that, yes, his original anger had to do with having U.S. troops in SA at all, but at that point he just complained....for which he was, as you say, arrested. He didn't become a terrorist until after " we didn't leave"...which is, I think, the point we're discussing...Millions of people around the globe complain about the U.S....Bin Laden is being discussed because of his terrorist activities, not his original complaints...

 

We are discussing what motivated Bin Laden's move to terrorism. My point is that he made the move because he didn't want US troops on Saudi soil. When the Saudi government ignored him, he got louder. Causing problems within Saudi Arabia for the government, at which point he was put under house arrest (really city arrest I think). When that happened he fled to Afghanistan, starting his career in terror. He didn't say "well, its ok if they are here, but they should leave after this conflict is over. If they don't I'm going to be a terrorist.' And that is the way you are portraying him.

 

i've really learned alot from this thread, even though the title somewhat put me off of it at first (and wanting to take out Iraq, Iran, and all the other little pissant countries that are against democracy).

 

I said our record in South and Central America was worse than the Soviet record there, which disputes the theory that we were just trying to keep up with the Jones'...er...Litinovs'. And don't you see that it is only agreeing with your own bias to the Nth degree to justify our implementation of murderous dictators just because they happen to be closer to our political ideologies, even if THE PEOPLE OF THOSE COUNTRIES wanted someone else...Who the hell are we to tell Cuba that they can't elect a communist government if they want to? Once we cross that line, we become tyrants...What, do we belive in the freedom of the people only so long as those people agree with us?

 

What? I am not, repeat, NOT saying that we let the perpetrators walk...And I am not saying that we are soley to blame...and I have never, NEVER said that we've only done bad things...

I am saying that we don't have the right to " carve up the Middle East " because of the actions of terrorists, or invade countries because we don't like their views of us. I am saying that we can't justify attacking Afghanistan, who are condeming these terrorist actions, merely because some of our intelligence comminity belive that the terrorists may have been organized by an individual living in that country...I am, in fact, asking us to keep our actions " in context"...

 

Well, the regimes in Central and South America were not all put in place by the US. And the Soviets were active in Cuba, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, and El Salvador in a large capacity. In others at a lower level. So yeah, we had to watch what was happening close to home. Or to keep up with the Litinovs in this case.

It is easy to sit back now and say, 'oh sure, we should've let the communist take over.' It was a little different when we all lived under the constant threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union and the threat that they would roll up to our backdoor. 'Oh but how could you keep the peasants from having a communist government if that's what they wanted?' As you can see from a study of the countries that 'chose' to go communist (usually through a Soviet supported armed insurrection), they quickly became Soviet military proxies that actively exported armed revolution on their neighbors. That is not something that seems threatening now, but the world is a different place now.

In addition there were strategic concerns (Straits of Megellan and Panama Canal) that were vital for NATO reinforcement in the event of a Warsaw Pact/NATO conflict.

Sometimes the strategic outweighs the Wilsonian instinct.

 

Just like I'm not advocating turning the ME into a parking lot, or a colony. Although I will say that we should have a blanket policy of eliminating people who acknowledge they are terrorists. And I believe we should act against governments that harbor those individuals and give them safe haven.

 

What? We have picked sides in several similar situations...El Salvador, Viet Nam, Korea, Croatia....what you mean is, that there was no side clearly in opposition to or favour of our interests...

 

The problem is, once you decide that youhave the right to intervene, merely because you can, it's a slippery slope. Imagine that the U.S. were less powerful than, say, China...would you concede their right to invade us and change our government if THEY THOUGHT it was wrong? When you assume that American standard is THE standard of correct behaviour, you are making the same step as someone like Pol Pot made...my might makes my standard of right and wrong right...When you ask why we should be reluctant to impose our views if we think they're better, read the words of our founding fathers about why they were rebelling against Britain...That the views of a nation should reflect the views of IT'S PEOPLE, NOT THOSE OF SOME FOREIGN POWER. Your comparison of rapists, etc. once again assumes that the American view is the correct one, the normal one, and that those who differ are in the wrong...What if other countries think we're the rapists?

 

I admit that when you divided my post up, and made comments on what I had said, I assumed that you were addressing your comments to me..

 

No, in El Salvador, Vietnam, and Korea we are talking about a Cold War world. In Bosnia there is one country invading another and killing the populace, and there were strategic concerns of it widening into a larger conflict. This is why I'm saying you are not putting things in context. You don't give any context at all. You lump all situations in one context. In Rwanda there were two factions fighting within the borders of one country.

 

I disagree...his original complaint lead to no terrorist action, and had we left he would have merely been amongst the many complainers in the world...He didn't begin his terrorist activity until we didn't leave. There is a great deal of room between saying " It's ok if they are here ." and becoming a terrorist, and Bin Laden was in that room before we defied our stated intentions...

 

You can be a cultural relativist if you want. I'm not. I think we make more good decisions than bad. Sometimes they are based on the ideals of exporting democracy. Sometimes they take a more balance of power strain. Sometimes strategic concerns outweigh the rest. YOU seem to think that we shouldn't intervene in another country because you assume the people's will is being exercised. I don't make that assumption for China, Iraq, and a lot of other countries. Because the leader is native, does not mean he represents the people. And sometimes you intervene because you think its the right thing to do, even if its not consistent with what the people of that country want. I'd rather intervene than stand aside and watch something happen like the holocaust or Pol Pots Cambodia or Iraq invading Kuwait or Sandinistas roll up to the Mexican border.

 

First you ignoring the fact that the Saudi government wanted us to stay. His original stance is the one that caused hismove to terrorism. His claim is that that it was offensive to Muslims for the US soldiers to be on Saudi soil. Why do you think he was put under virtual house arrest before he left? Because he was on a soap box in the public square? Uh, no. Its when he started causing internal dissention about the things the Saudi government was doing. Once they put him under restrictions, he left for Afghanistan. AND that was in '92, so its not like the US had been there for 20 years or something.

 

I agree, but when strategic objectives are used to justify complete opposition of the precepts we stand for, who is the real threat to democracy?

 

As long as we agree that those actions require proof, with the standard of innocent until proven guilty applying, I'd say we're in agreement.