Three Bomb Blasts hit Egypt - Carlyle group suspected

Yes, let's just cut out the middle man and have Osama write our foreign policy himself. I mean, if the terrorists don't like what we are doing, then it must be wrong.

 

I hope you're not so simple-minded and silly to think that only "terrorists" dislike our foreign policy.

 

Or so simple minded and silly to think that our foreign policy is wholly or even mainly responsible for terrorism.

 

The terrorism currently happening in Iraq? I would say the US invasion and occupation is "mainly responsible," for it. If we hadn't invaded and overthrown Saddam's regime, it would largely consist of the regime's own acts against it's citizens, which was far below what is happening now in frequency and affect. In general, everywhere it happens in the world? Certainly not, but our influence is felt far and wide, for good or ill. And the kind of foreign policy the nation has, has an effect, of differing degrees, in my opinion.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

i hope the next president manages the war better and manages to actual capture some of these big guys.

every american should believe that if someone wants to destroy the usa, then they are our enemy. regardless of religion, country, or race.. they need to get taken out.

the foreign policy of taking out our enemies should never change. it hasnt since george washington.

 

Wholly? No. One of the main reasons? I think most objective people would come to that conclusion. So no, I am not simple-minded or so eager to defend one side or the other as you are.

Pray tell, Hayes, what do you think the number one reason for terrorism in the world? I could take a wild guess, but I would rather you let us know.

 

That's debatable. Saddam killed thousands in an off year, tens of thousands in a surly mood and hundreds of thousands when pissed off. But more to the point...

Certainly not. Exactly. Not denying it has an effect, but laying it all down at our doorstep is just silly.

 

I'm not sure why 'most objective people' would come to that conclusion, lol. That would ignore the effect the rest of the world has on the rest of the world. I don't think any objective person would say US foreign policy is one of the main reasons for worldwide terrorism. That's a joke and a mass oversimplification. Would Israel still be there if they didn't get US support? Yes. Did the US cut out the countries of the world that are having terrorism problems? No. See N. Ireland. See India/Pakistan. Would there be authoritarian regimes in the ME without US aid? Yes. Does anyone really believe that Egypt and Saudi Arabia can't suppress their own populations? Or that they wouldn't have been making oil money from Japan, China, and Europe sans the US? And Europe has hardly been noninterventionist if that's the claim. One might wonder why Europe was so long the target of terrorism? Can US foreign policy contribute to terrorism? Certainly. But you seem to 'objectively' want to defend one side, regardless of your denials.

I'd rather hear your guess, lol. I'm not sure there is one overarching reason. It's different in different places - some religious (ME, N Ireland, S. Asia), some ideological (S. America, S. Asia), some nationalistic, some cultural.

 

can you give a summary by year how many saddam has killed? I don't think he has been killing a lot of iraqis before the iraq war..

 

the iraq/iran war caused about 1 million casualities

 

Not counting the Iran/Iraq war, most centrist sources put the figures at several hundred thousand in the late 80s, around 100,000 shiites in '91, and then a drop off to the thousands per year after that. Or at least those are the figures that seem to be coming from neither extreme.

 

Oh boy, OK. There have been numerous political scientists, former diplomats, and government officials (appointed or elected) -- not to mention the very terrorists who're attacking us -- whom have stated to the effect that U.S. foreign policy either has been the reason behind or has helped increase worldwide terrorism (refer to U.S. State Dept's own numbers of "terrorism incidents" around the world that shows a three-fold increase since the U.S. initiated the current conflict in Iraq. Seeing that you're a rather knowledgeable guy, I would take a guess that you did come across that information as well, but you can play dumb if you want to for all I care.

LMAO! Are you serious? If so, you're seriously delusional!

Stating that it has been "one of the main reasons" doesn't dismiss other factors, but for you to basically say that it's not "objective" to name US foreign policy as one of the main reasons behind worldwide terrorist attacks seriously puts the credibility of whatever argument you're trying to make in serious jeopardy.

No, they probably wouldn't exist anymore, but that's a different discussion and beside the point.

The real issue is that the U.S. is viewed as an enabler and supporter of Israeli policies that are detrimental to the well-being and interests of the Palestinians and in some cases the neighboring states as well. When President Bush stands with Ariel Sharon and makes what the Arab journalists called the "2nd Balfour Promise" -- he basically gave the green light to Sharon's plan to annex the illegal settlements in the West Bank as it was difficult to "change the facts on the ground" -- that is not viewed very fondly by the Arabs. There is a long list of things to mention here but I don't have the time, I am sure you're aware of them.

There probably would be yes, although they almost certainly would not be as US-friendly and they would most likely be more politically liberalized in some cases, not to mention may be less reactionary Islamist groups popping up everywhere.

Not sure who made that claim, but yes I agree Europe has hardly been 'neutral' in many cases, some countries there still practice neo-colonialism and interfere in the affairs of their former colonies.

Define "so long"...do you mean Europe has been a constant target of Muslim terrorist groups for the past decades?

Given the US today is the world's only superpower and is the foremost interventionist state of the past half-century, you vastly underestimate America's direct/indirect influence on the rest of the world. It extends way beyond our military presence abroad, it's cultural, political, and economical as well; I was under the impression you had done some traveling abroad in the developing world.

And what "one side" is that, Hayes, and how am I "defending" them? I stated that American foreign policy was "one of the main reasons" that fuel terrorism, if you believe otherwise I would be interested in hearing your case with some supporting evidence that goes toward supporting your implied assertion that U.S. foreign policy is not one of the main reasons that provoke terrorism or violence -- that seems to be your 'beef' here more than anything else.

 

I think we can all agree that there are many causes for terrorism. At the same time though it would be mistaken to believe that there are no negative repercussions from our foreign policy.

 

I agree that terrorism would exist regardless of US foreign policy but it could also be noted from what you cite as that US intervention hasn't done much to lessen terrorism either. In many cases then US intervention just injects us into other countries problems with us also getting hit by terrorism too.

 

I think there are so many other causes that while I wouldn't deny US foreign policy has an effect - I think its more of a magnifier than a cause - and that's in the incidents where there is a relation at all. That much of the terrorism doesn't even involve the US puts it in perspective: Northern Ireland, Basques/Spain, Nagorno-Karabakh and Georgia, Chechnya, Sikh, Tamil and Kashmiri terrorism, Nepal, Algeria, Turkey, 17th November in Greece, Shining Path in Peru, Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) in South Africa, to name a few - have nothing to do with the US. So out of the total pie chop those incidents out right off the bat, and the myriad of other separatist movement related incidents like in Western China. Now if Israel would cause terrorism (Hamas, Hezbollah for example) whether or not the US was involved, I don't think its fair to attribute that to us. If despotic regimes in the ME cause terrorism, you can only attribute that to us if you can show they would be gone or more progressive absent the US. I think you'd have a hard time showing that - especially when one considers their power is threatened by reform AND that they use external enemies as an outlet for internal dissent (which undoubtably spurs terrorism). Then of course you've got the UN actions spurring terrorism - like 'sanctions on Iraq,' 'troops in Saudi Arabia' etc. You've got the emasculated Arab, which comes from European colonialism. That's not even getting to Europe's role in spurring terrorism independent of the US. As for the State Dept report, Iraq accounts for a lot of the increase - and I'll grant that's US related, its really one conflict counted over and over again in the report.

Agreed. Not saying that at all.

Yep. True. But until now the interventional (is that a word?) focus hasn't been on lessening terrorism except in cases like bombing Libya (which did stop their smack for awhile. Or the intervention in Afghanistan, which I think its fair to say put a dent in Al Quaeda's operational capability and sent a clear signal to state's sponsoring terrorism.

 

We were talking about terrorism, weren't we. glynch said we should have a foreign policy that does not swell the number of terrorists. In that context, it is only the opinion of the terrorists and would-be terrorists vis-a-vis our foreign policy that is relevent. Of course there are others who do not like our foreign policy. China does not like the fact that we stand between them and Taiwan, for example. If we were talking about how other superpowers feel about our interfering in their spheres of influence, I may have made a sarcastic remark about allowing the CCP to write our foreign policy. Here is an idea: let's write our own foreign policy with our interests in mind and anyone that doesn't like it can go **** themselves.

 

I think that is true in some cases, and not true in others. It certainly could be argued, for example, that US foreign policy decisions, and their aftermath, caused the terrible attack in Madrid... that caused Spain to withdraw the small force she had in Iraq.

Absolutely agree.

Come on, Hayes... I'm a strong supporter of Israel, and definitely not a supporter of the right-wing, expansionist government it has had these last several years. Feeling one way doesn't exclude feeling the other way as well. The Bush Administration has been an enabler, in my opinion, of the Likud's aggressive moves in the West Bank to create "facts on the ground," that gives Israel large portions of the best areas there. Bush has done next to nothing to stop Israel from that policy, and the entire time has continued US policy of giving her the largest percentage of US foreign aid, the best military equipment, and so on. I don't have a problem with the aid and the military hardware. None at all. But I have a problem with doing that while the Israeli government that is in power makes a land grab in contravention of international law and the United Nations. Bush could have made an effort to change Israeli policy. All he did was give sound-bites, which amounted to US approval. That had a direct effect, in my opinion, on terrorism against US interests abroad, and against Israel herself, which is pretty ironic.

This is so convoluted that I think I'll comment later, lol!

Somewhat agree. Not entirely. The Balkans, for example, was an intervention to stop widespread terrorism in the region. It just wasn't "terrorism," as soon to be defined by Tony Snow. Terrorism, nonetheless.



(no one ever told be about the "quote thingy!" I didn't know we had the thingy!)



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Great

Now your posts are going to be as hard to read as his are.

 

Ok, my bad, I misunderstood then.

I fully support that

However, that's not always the case...

 

OR, I dunno....it could have been SPAIN'S FREAKING FOREIGN POLICY.

Yet Israel was a huge grievance BEFORE junior took power. Remember that even groups like Hamas have traditionally NOT targeted the US keeping their battle strictly Israel vs. But some people put that responsibility on the US instead of on Israel. I guess if your equation is to say 'the US is the greatest power so all the befalls the world is her fault,' then you might get there. Otherwise I don't think so. You know I'm no Bush lover, Deckard. But again I say 'yes, US foreign policy has an effect - but that is a magnifier more than a CAUSE.'

Not convoluted at all. Its just a list of other potential causes of terrorism.

Hmmmm. Ok. So you are contradicting SC when he says it should be noted that US foreign policy hasn't exactly decreased terrorism. Add the Balkans to Libya and Afghanistan. Now you've joined the parsing nitpicking ranks! So THERE SC!