US Terrorism - Reasons? Back it up.

[ComradeJunichi]

I don't know everything about history...but the things that happened in Sudan, Iran, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, etc. How do you back it up, are there any legitimate reasons to kills hundreds of thousands of people? I tried thinking of a reason for the US to make a move like that, but I can't think of any.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Sometimes, as a function of its sovereignty, the US must undertake just action to eradicate certain regimes, address undesirables, and do what is in the interests of the american people.

The US government and the American people apologize for any collateral damage and compromising of "incidentals" that resulted from said actions.

These actions, however, are not terrorism, they are actions of a sovereign nation ensuring and protecting its own economic and strategic interests.

[Guest]

Afghanistan: Afghanistan was being governed by a tyranic regime called the Taliban which sponsored terrorist cells and striped Afghans of their freedoms, expecially to women. Most Afghans didn't agree with the Taliban and are happy with the US for liberating them.

Nicaragua: The US was helping trying to restore law and order after the chaos left by the guerrilla terrorists there. Guerrillas started the conflict and they are ultimately responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Iraq: Do I really have to continue with this? Iraq used biological and chemical weapons agaunst the kurds in its own country and invaded Kuwait. The whole stability of the region was at stake, if the US had not done something at that moment Saddam would have gained a lot of power and probably continue invading other countries such as Saudi Arabia. As they actually tried at some moment to do.

These are pretty legitimate and noble reasons I believe. And the US has never deliberately targeted civilians (much on the contryry they have always tried to minimize civilians casualties). That is not at all the case with Saddam Hussein, the guerrillas in Nicaragua or the Taliban and its Al-Quada network in Afghanistan. These are the real terrorists.

I'll give you a legitimate reason: because if this actions were not taken a lot more innocent civilians would have been killed and hurt. War is not something anyone precisely likes, but it is sometimes very much necessary to avoid further chaos.

[suffianr]

Yes. Of course. And South Vietnam was just an excuse to get to know South East Asians a little better...

And experiments with chemical defoliants like Agent Orange was just an excuse to see whether teenage soldier-boys from Arkansas would feel better if there was less jungle in their faces...

I've re-read Dispatches, by Michael Herr, countless times. Don't tell me a trueborn American war correspondent would tell lies, would you?

[Guest]

The U.S. really has no exuse for its unneeded help in the word. A reason would be that many people in our society demand that since America has so much (supposedly) they have to help others in the world. This means we could not keep isolationism as a foreign policy. The citizens of our "society" forced us to be a country that uses itsd military power for moral battles, not security and national interest. Now just look at our foreign policy. Remeber conservatives, the real ones, were isolationist. Liberal-leftists were the ones who demanded that the US aid the world, then when the government tried to the same people condemned their efforts.
Military force is only justified in the protection of the rights of the individual, and if you have read the American constitution you would know that that was originally the Governments only purpose. Which is also true philosophically. If you know the history of the US you know that its morals, virtues, and individual freedoms have all been perverted and destroyed by bad philosophy, which is know supported by the right and left in politics.

[Guest]

Not every instance or agent of the US military can accurately describe the whole thing. Think of what the philosophy of america help the military ro be, not what the socialts have made it. The american military can no longer be said to stand for American issues, their goals now seem to be purely serving the whims of the masses, which isn't protecting the individual, "the only minority."

[James]

"undesirables"

I think that term was used by a certain austrian...


Afghanistan: Afghanistan was being governed by a tyranic regime called the Taliban which sponsored terrorist cells and striped Afghans of their freedoms, expecially to women. Most Afghans didn't agree with the Taliban and are happy with the US for liberating them.


Yes that is true in part about afghanistan. But what confuses me, is WHY did the american government help them get into power, and LET THEM STAY in power for so long?

You should also point out, the little matter of a certain thing called "oil pipe lines". Or is that me just being a "liberal air head"?


Iraq: Do I really have to continue with this? Iraq used biological and chemical weapons agaunst the kurds in its own country and invaded Kuwait. The whole stability of the region was at stake, if the US had not done something at that moment Saddam would have gained a lot of power and probably continue invading other countries such as Saudi Arabia. As they actually tried at some moment to do.


Typical american viewpoint there.

If all this is so wrong and bad, WHY did the american government supply Iraq with Atomic capability, and arms (oh yes now i remember, it was to help iraq fight against iran, untill iraq turned on kuwait [that lovely place where some people were hung the other week]).

[Guest]

It is not Americas job to make peace for anyone else, yet everyone demands they do. What would you do?

[Anonymous]

Afghanistam: Afghanistan was being governed by a tyranic regime called the Taliban which sponsored terrorist cells and striped Afghans of their freedoms=but notice that U$ helped these tyranic regime! and its alredy helping another tyranic regime to come to power: the north allience! the same north allience that joined the soviets when these attacked afghanistam!

Nicaragua: The US was helping trying to restore law and order after the chaos left by the guerrilla terrorists there. Guerrillas started the conflict and they are ultimately responsible for the consequences of their actions.=Plus whow the hell would america get all the drug that is produced in nicarágua? and the helplesses americans factrys?!


Iraq: Do I really have to continue with this? Iraq used biological and chemical weapons agaunst the kurds in its own country and invaded Kuwait. The whole stability of the region was at stake, if the US had not done something at that moment Saddam would have gained a lot of power and probably continue invading other countries such as Saudi Arabia. As they actually tried at some moment to do.=Yes long live america and its Nintendo wars! men Iraquian villages were dangerous! the leader of Iraq is Sadam but wait wasnt that guy the one that was trained by the CIA and put in power by america? well the point is he attacked kuwait! he is evil! those poor helpfull oil reserves burning! America had to save them! plus in one singular atatck to iraq america killed more innocents that iraq in the entire operation in kuwait! ( http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/WarCrimes.html )

These are pretty legitimate and noble reasons I believe. And the US has never deliberately targeted civilians (much on the contryry they have always tried to minimize civilians casualties). That is not at all the case with Saddam Hussein, the guerrillas in Nicaragua or the Taliban and its Al-Quada network in Afghanistan. These are the real terrorists. = fuck them! america treined all these terrorists! taaalibans were trained by america, so was Sadam! who is the terrorist? yes and these were some good legitimate wars! because whenever there is an injustice to a oil reserv america will make justice!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from James on 5:18 pm on July 26, 2002
"undesirables"

I think that term was used by a certain austrian...


Afghanistan: Afghanistan was being governed by a tyranic regime called the Taliban which sponsored terrorist cells and striped Afghans of their freedoms, expecially to women. Most Afghans didn't agree with the Taliban and are happy with the US for liberating them.


Yes that is true in part about afghanistan. But what confuses me, is WHY did the american government help them get into power, and LET THEM STAY in power for so long?

You should also point out, the little matter of a certain thing called "oil pipe lines". Or is that me just being a "liberal air head"?


Iraq: Do I really have to continue with this? Iraq used biological and chemical weapons agaunst the kurds in its own country and invaded Kuwait. The whole stability of the region was at stake, if the US had not done something at that moment Saddam would have gained a lot of power and probably continue invading other countries such as Saudi Arabia. As they actually tried at some moment to do.


Typical american viewpoint there.

If all this is so wrong and bad, WHY did the american government supply Iraq with Atomic capability, and arms (oh yes now i remember, it was to help iraq fight against iran, untill iraq turned on kuwait [that lovely place where some people were hung the other week]).



"Yes that is true in part about afghanistan. But what confuses me, is WHY did the american government help them get into power, and LET THEM STAY in power for so long?"

The US government did not help put them into power. The taliban consists of SOME ex-mujahadeen rebels, among other tribes, whom the US supported against the soviets, but that is far from being the same as putting the taliban into power.

"You should also point out, the little matter of a certain thing called "oil pipe lines". Or is that me just being a "liberal air head"?"

That is merely an incidental benefit of our presence in the region. Besides, we are the middle-east's cash-cow when it comes to oil. They need our business as much as we need their oil, more even

"If all this is so wrong and bad, WHY did the american government supply Iraq with Atomic capability, and arms (oh yes now i remember, it was to help iraq fight against iran, untill iraq turned on kuwait"

James, the USA did not supply the Iraq with nuclear capability, That is a ludicrous claim.

[Guest]

The Americans should have simply let the Soviets do what they wanted in Afghanistan. Then we wouldn't have all this Taliban and Bin Laden stuff. Or America could have done something even more radical. They could have addressed the poverty and political instability that gives rise to terrorism. America treating other nations with respect? Now that's something we'll never see.

[Xvall]

CI, He still has a point. Notice how America only seems to care about themselves? Do you think America would have given a crap about Afghanistan if they attacked China or Russia? There are TONS of opressive regimes in other countries. And America doesn't seem to care about putting those out? America isn't playing 'superhero'. It's playing a Mercinary that only takes action when it will benifit itself.

[Bandalong]

All of America's claims to support democracy are false. Several brutal right-wing regimes all over the world were supported by the Yanks to counter the 'threat' from communism. America is itself a terrorist nation. America has illegally deposed democratically elected governments to support its on Agenda. This is terrorism. The Americans are simply receiving 'Karma'

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 5:47 pm on July 26, 2002
CI, He still has a point. Notice how America only seems to care about themselves? Do you think America would have given a crap about Afghanistan if they attacked China or Russia? There are TONS of opressive regimes in other countries. And America doesn't seem to care about putting those out? America isn't playing 'superhero'. It's playing a Mercinary that only takes action when it will benifit itself.


We were assisting a nation in preserving their freedom and preventing a communist regime from forcing itself upon another nation and trying to instill a communist colony there against the wishes of the citizenry.

Besides, I bet most communists here would not take exception to the fact that the soviets were supplying, training, and advising the NVA in vietnam MUCH more than we helped the mujahadeen in afghanistan.

[Guest]

You guys are way off base. America only claims to stand for demopcratic, majority rule, because all the polititians are pink. America is a republic established for the individual. Read the constitution, then look around, the constitution was sold out to compromise to selflessness. America shouldn't go invading places, but you should evaluate more properly on why. I doubt you would find that the crusaudes are in the name of americas true philosophy. It is more like leftist altruist democratic mob rule. Which always leads to the masses following their one man god, ect,ect.

[Capitalist Imperial]

What?

[Guest]

American wars are mostly started by left wingers cries for help of the innocent people who have a bad government, but the war can never be completely won because the objectives of the war become compromise of individual freedoms. What you get is a country led by the majority, or the majority elected ruler (sometimes not true), which ends up blaming America for not lifting it out of its poverty. So then America tries to start helping there economy. Many people need jobs but have no skills. All America can offer is cheap labor. Now we are exploiting them. It is a cycle. The only way to fight a war is on a moral (meaning the area of philosophy men explain how to treat each other in a society) principle. You have to believe you cause just and explain it completely, from a reasonable perspective. This isn't the normal call to democracy that has nothing to do with individuality and freedom. Majority rule doesn't equal individual freedon, it is essensially (from a philisophical level) eqwual to socialism. Everybody has a say. So everybody compromises their principles to the whole.