retired_lapepe

I've been looking for a flash with overview of US interventions and occupations in its history, but just can't find it.

Here is a list from wikipedia. It's only since 1945, but you get a pretty good picture of what they're up to. Stuff not mentioned there is for instance the war against Mexico where the US stole about 1/3 of their land IIRC.

If you really want to get an inlook to the thoughts of Bush's inner circle you can go to the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) website. This is a bit political, but it basically goes back to the Monroe-doctrine from 1823. The goal is what is called "full-spectrum dominance", meaning complete control over sea, land, air and space. This is where the socalled "Star Wars" program comes into play.

Unnecesary to say politics is my other big interest

creative36

It's only ever the losers who get indicted for their indiscretions. History is, after all, written by the winners of any given conflict.

retired_nahed

al queda came on the US soil. The Taliban supported them. Hence they were attacked. Not a real hard equation to follow. And if you are implying that no one knows who was responsible for 9/11, you are ignorant of the facts.

retired_lapepe

The facts are that not even the CIA has actual evidence that Al Qaida was behind it. I do however belive they did it. Taliban said shortly after the attack when fingers pointed at Al Qaida. "Bring us evidence, and we'll hand them over". Evidence never came.

But that's not really interesting. The US has never followed the rule of law, it's no surprise they didn't this time either. The US foreign policy operate by one guiding principle: Do as we tell you or we'll destroy you.

Let's take another example using your logic of Taliban supported Al Qaida, hence we shall destroy Afghanistan. The United States supported bin Laden's mujahedin (resistance) movement in Afghanistan when the Soviets were running amok there. Does that mean that Afghanistan has the right to destroy the US? There are litteraly hundreds of such examples.

The way to deal with crimes is polic work, not "kill 'em all"-policy. The first option will deal with the problem relatively well, the latter will increase hatred, and ultimately the chance of another attack. Just look at what has happened. Before the US attacked Afghanistan, there was pretty much no terrorism in the world (obviously apart from the attack on the US). What is the situation now? Daily attacks in Iraq, frequent attacks in Afghanistan, attacks in London, Madrid, Egypt - all against civilians. This did not happen before the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, the "war on terror" is a recipe for more terror. You can't fight terror with more terror, just as you can't fight hatred with hatred.

At last a quote I like by Ghandi:
-An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

retired_tinkfaeree

Great quote, Pangaea.

retired_crazybonejr

To add to that, the "full spectrum dominance" is actually called the "Manifest Destiny" where the USA believes that they are destined to control North America, and then the rest of the globe. It's taught in grade 10 Canadian History here in Canada as part of the required curriculum.

The US could look back into their history of attacking Canada, however, and see that their efforts were once thwarted by a single female, named Laura Secord.

retired_crazybonejr

By single female I mean one person, that being a female. I believe she was married, though.

retired_nahed

MAnifest Destiny had nothing to do with world dominance and if that was what you were toaught then that was indoctrination based on political ideology not fact. Manifest Destiny did believe that The US would reach the PAcific OCean. But if it stood for what you were taught, then the Yukon would've been the US's 61st state.

As for AlQueda, not being behind 9/11, Mohammed Atta, the pilot of one of the two planes that hit the world trade center was proven to be the rign leader of an AlQueda cell.

The US does nto have a "kill them all" policy. However, police work only works in criminalogy. It does not work in acts of war. THe problems faced throughout the world with terrorism will not be solved until all terrorist acts are thought of as acts of war, not crimes.

Evil exists in this world. Anyone who intentionally targets innocent civilians to try and further their own political ends is evil. And before you try and spin what the US is as that, collateral damage, while inevitible, is not the same thing. I have (I still refer to him in the present tense) a friend who was killed in Iraq trying to protect an innocent family that wandered into the wrong place during a terrorist attack. It happens. If you were to talk to anyone who has been over there, trying to establish a free, sovereign Iraq, they would tell you how 85-90% of the Iraqi population, wants the US and its coalition partners to stay there until that job is done.

KingsbayYHPE

Nah, that's YooEss propaganda you're spouting there, Ignats.

I watched 5 British Servicemen (1 woman) being repatriated in coffins a couple of days ago. I see reports of almost daily attacks on YooKay and other coalition forces, Basra was a safe haven when the UK troops first went there, they patrolled without body armour and wearing berets...not now.

I hear daily of Suni and Shi'ite Mosques being attacked, of bombs killing local people, of Kurds being killed...

85-90%? I don't know where you got those figures, I'd imagine 85-90% want the forces to leave being a truer figure.

There comes a time when occupation forces cease being a solution and become the problem.

This is that time.

retired_tinkfaeree

Well, Ian, they still haven't left Germany after 60 years, so why should they leave Iraq earlier?