The Media Propaganda.

[coastie]

Since Sept. 11th, the US has done absolutely nothing to solve the problems that led to the terrorist attacks. They have crushed Al-Qaeda, and this is good, but Al-Qaeda is not the problem, they are a symptom of the problem.

Al-Queda is the terrorist group that attacked the US. Who would you have the US go after. Iraq may be the US next target. That's something. How can a coutry in the Western Hemisphere with a completely different culture convince terrorists not to attack them?

Answer: by going after the assailants.

So what do feel is the problem? I feel the problem is basically anti-US sentimnet throughout the region. Tracing back to the Iran-Iraq conflicts, it would be foolish to believe that broadening trade agreements or political action and a pretty smile will win any hearts over there.

The US must figure out what they can do to solve this problem and attempt to make some amends to the middle easterners.

Any suggestions? I'm sure Washington DC would like to hear them because the US has been struggling with this for over 50 years.

How many Al-Qaeda's do you think the US can defeat?

That all depends on how long the US citizens will put up with attacks on terrorist groups that haven't done anything to us. What you are suggesting is a virtual witch hunt. The US has made some errors regarding that type of campaign in the past (McCarthyism comes to mind). Not that I believe McCarthyism was totally unneccessary, it served a purpose back then, but eventually the person's involved became paraniod and got carried away.

I don't believe, especially since the nation is so skeptical about our current anti-terrorist endeavors, the the citizens of this country would allow for a terrorist witch hunt. I'm curious as to whether or not you have any suggestions.

Zach

 

[strathyboy]

"So what do feel is the problem? I feel the problem is basically anti-US sentimnet throughout the region. "

I suppose that would be the general problem, but the US must find out why exactly everyone over there hates the US. There could be several reasons for this. It could be related to US support of Israel, or the Iran-Iraq conflicts you mentioned. It could be US support of dictators in the region to secure the flow of oil. It could be western encroachment on their particular cultures. I don't know.
However, what I do know is that simply attacking anyone who makes a move against the US is NOT the way to solve this. All this will do is convince anyone who might not be anti-American that the US is a bloodthirsty tyrant.

"How can a coutry in the Western Hemisphere with a completely different culture convince terrorists not to attack them?
Answer: by going after the assailants. "

Historically, this has been the American solution to far too many problems: kill it, bomb it, slice it, dice it. There has to be a political solution, not just a military one.
I hate to suggest placating the terrorists by changing American foreign policy, but this might be the only solution.

"I don't believe, especially since the nation is so skeptical about our current anti-terrorist endeavors, the the citizens of this country would allow for a terrorist witch hunt. I'm curious as to whether or not you have any suggestions. "

Sorry, you misunderstood. My statement "How many Al-Qaeda's do you think the US can defeat?" was menat to be a rhetorical question implying that there will be more terrorist attacks. All the US has done is militarily stop Al-Qaeda, and by doing so have angered a great many in the region. There will be more terrorist attacks. If the US feels that the only response is to hunt down terrorists as soon as they attack the US, then I will pray for the innocent Americans who will be victims of this.

 

[coastie]

There could be several reasons for this. It could be related to US support of Israel, or the Iran-Iraq conflicts you mentioned.

Not "it could be". This is the problem.

It could be US support of dictators in the region to secure the flow of oil.

The US foreign policy is to never, under any circumstances, support a dictator. The cause for freedom much outweighs the cause for oil.

It could be western encroachment on their particular cultures.

Should the US apologize? It isn't like the US held a gun up to these people's heads and said "You better listen to Michael Jackson and LIKE IT!"

The region is quick to blame the US for every negative aspect in their lives. That is due to an unbridled hatred for the US. I believe that your cause and effect are reversed here.

Historically, this has been the American solution to far too many problems: kill it, bomb it, slice it, dice it. There has to be a political solution, not just a military one.

I hate to suggest placating the terrorists by changing American foreign policy, but this might be the only solution.

First, that is a vast over-generalization. The US president spends a lot of time abroad making political allies and working to attain diplomatic solutions to problems. The Sec of State has been in Israel and Palestine trying to arrange peace talks.

The US went in to Afghanistan and removed a dictatorship government as well as destroyed a terrorist network that took thousands of American lives.

Do you honestly think that by placating the terrorist organizations will help save lives? I think that allowing them to exist is what allows them to grow and stew in more anti-US sentiment.

I am appalled that anyone would move to appease the terrorists.

All the US has done is militarily stop Al-Qaeda, and by doing so have angered a great many in the region.

Angered who? More terrorists and their supporters? Good! Should we allow them to take more lives? The US isn't in the business of appealling to criminals and murderers.

There will be more terrorist attacks. If the US feels that the only response is to hunt down terrorists as soon as they attack the US, then I will pray for the innocent Americans who will be victims of this

I believe that currently terrorists are scared brainless of the US. I pray for any citizen of any country that is attacked by a terrorist, and I pray that they will have the will and power to defeat any such threat. If the attacks had killed thousands of people in your city, maybe you'd feel differently.

Zach

 

[strathyboy]

"The US foreign policy is to never, under any circumstances, support a dictator. The cause for freedom much outweighs the cause for oil. "

This is completely and totally false. Despite what the United States officially stand for, it has in the past and continues today, to support dictatorships.
The US supported Fulgencio Batista (sp?) when he deposed a democratically elected government in Cuba. The US supported (both monetarily and militarily) several dictators in Vietnam despite the terrible human rights records of these people. The US helped depose the democratically elected Prince Sihanouk in Cambodia, and aided in the rise of the communist Khmer Rouge. The US deposed a democratically elected government in the Phillipines more than once. The US supports several Arab dictators today, and made omissions from the infamous Bin Laden confession tapes that implicated these people in the 9/11 attacks. I could go on, but the US has no qualms about supporting dictators when it suits their purpose.

"The region is quick to blame the US for every negative aspect in their lives. That is due to an unbridled hatred for the US. "

This is very true, to my knowledge. However, there may be and most likely are some negative elements of their lives that can legitimately be blamed on the US. Do you truly believe the US to be totally blameless and the middle easterners to be totally at fault?

"First, that is a vast over-generalization. The US president spends a lot of time abroad making political allies and working to attain diplomatic solutions to problems. The Sec of State has been in Israel and Palestine trying to arrange peace talks. "

I am aware of that, and their efforts are commendable. It's too bad that they are not more successful in attaining peace in the region.

"Do you honestly think that by placating the terrorist organizations will help save lives? I think that allowing them to exist is what allows them to grow and stew in more anti-US sentiment. "

I don't know if placating the terrorist organizations will save lives. It might, but it's impossible to tell since the US has made it official policy to never ever negotiate with terrorists, so we won't likely see the results of any placation attempts. (Generally speaking, I think this is a good policy.)
You're forgetting one thing. Terrorist groups always have a "raison d'etre"; a reason for their being. They consist of people with (genuine or not) concerns about something. They're not just a bunch of guys who decide to blow stuff up just for the heck of it. There are many terrorist groups dedicated to harming the US that would likely not exist had the US acted differently in the past.

"I believe that currently terrorists are scared brainless of the US. "

I disagree. But until we find some terrorists and ask them, I don't think we'll have a good solution to this one.

 

[coastie]

Despite what the United States officially stand for, it has in the past and continues today, to support dictatorships.

I was stating what the US foreign policy was. What Middle-East Dictatorship is the US supporting? That is the issue.

and made omissions from the infamous Bin Laden confession tapes that implicated these people in the 9/11 attacks.

Help me out. I've never heard anything about that. Which dictators did Bush allow leniency for?

Of the other events you listed, some of these are speculations. The US aiding in the rise of communist Khmer Rouge? This seems strange to me. I'm unfamiliar with this particular event. Since when does the US promote communism? Why would the US commit to such a hypocratical event since it had lost so many thousands of fighters fighting that same type of Government throughout the world.

However, there may be and most likely are some negative elements of their lives that can legitimately be blamed on the US. Do you truly believe the US to be totally blameless and the middle easterners to be totally at fault?

For what? The hatred toward the US. Is hatred excusable anywhere? We're talking about terrorists here. Not your average Saudi. Let's put this in perspective. Let's say that I hated England. Is it the fault of the English that I hate them. No, doesn't matter what they did, hatred is hatred. They aren't responsible for my feelings toward them. If you truly hate someone they could offer you all the milk and cookies in the world, and you'd still hate them.

However, no one, using any reason, can excuse terrorist behavior. Killing thousands of people who have never done anything to you is a evil and cowardly thing to do. It cannot be simply dismissed by saying "Oh, by the way the US has handled foreign policy, all of those innocent people deserved to die."

I am aware of that, and their efforts are commendable. It's too bad that they are not more successful in attaining peace in the region.

Strange isn't it that they were unable to attain peace. How can the US help attain peace in a region where there hasn't been peace for hundreds of years? The terrorist groups don't want peace, they want land, and ultimately power. The average middle eastern people want freedom from Tyranny, and to feel safe when they go to the market. Terrorism is the cause of their fears. The US isn't the reason that they kill each other.

You're forgetting one thing. Terrorist groups always have a "raison d'etre"; a reason for their being. They consist of people with (genuine or not) concerns about something.

Which still doesn't excuse killing innocent people. And it accomplishes nothing and never has and never will.

They're not just a bunch of guys who decide to blow stuff up just for the heck of it. There are many terrorist groups dedicated to harming the US that would likely not exist had the US acted differently in the past.

So the US had it coming? Or it's ultimately the US' fault?

Is it Canada's fault that Saudi Arabia is blaming the bombings on a Canadian. Is it Canada's fault that one of it's own members is about to be executed for something that they didn't do? Absolutely not!

Canada has done nothing to Saudi Arabia. They just need a scape goat to deal with their internal problems. This basically the mind-set of the terrorists.

The terrorists are scared of the US. Maybe not the average Joe college student, but they are sure as heck scared to death of the military. I would be interested to find out how many terrorist attacks have been discouraged and desolved due to the US' iron fisted stance against such acts.

 

[strathyboy]

"Help me out. I've never heard anything about that. Which dictators did Bush allow leniency for? "

Whether it was Bush or the CIA or some other governmental body is perhaps debatable... but that's beside the point. The United Arab Emirates, which, despite having a constitution, is essentially a dictatorship by the seven ruling emirates. Some of the emirates were implicated in the Bin Laden tapes. Now, since the US gets a great deal of oil from the U.A.E., it would not be prudent to bring the wrath of the world down on them.

"The US aiding in the rise of communist Khmer Rouge? This seems strange to me. I'm unfamiliar with this particular event. Since when does the US promote communism?"

This takes a little explaining, but I'll try to keep it brief. The leader of Cambodia, Prince Norodam Sihanouk, was completely neutral in the Vietnam crisis until 1958 when his nation was invaded by South Vietnamese forces (which were usually trained and advised by members of the CIA, although in this case it may not have been). Before 1958, Sihanouk was very anti-communist and simply wanted his nation independent (he didn't want aid from communists or from the US). After 1958, Sihanouk began to strengthen ties with China and began to warm to the North Vietnamese (although at no point did he ever move towards socialism whatsoever). Before and during the war, Sihanouk allowed NVA and VietCong troops to travel through Cambodia, and thus the US bombed Cambodia tremendously (although this was not revealed to the American people till much much later).
So, America supported a coup by Sihanouk's generals and a coalition of partisan groups (one of which was the Khmer Rouge) to get rid of Sihanouk and silence him before he could tell the world that the US was bombing Cambodia. As time went by, the NVA and VC continued to go through Cambodia and the US continued to bomb, the Khmer Rouge began to gain more and more power.
Now, a word about the Khmer Rouge. They were originally a broad coalition group embodying many different schools of thought, but soon became rabidly communist (far more than the Russians, Chinese, or Vietnamese), and desired to return to a "pure, simple" past, and none more than their leader Pol Pot, who assumed absolute control in 1973. Since they represented the majority ethnic group in Cambodia (the Khmer's), this pure and simple past did not include any foreigners or any other ethnic group. So, as the Cambodians saw their land ripped up by the fighting of the Vietnamese and the US, they began to lean more and more towards the Khmer Rouge.
All the while, the US continued to give aid to the provisional Cambodian government, since they were attempting (although very unsuccessfully) to fight the Vietnamese. After the US began to pull out of South Vietnam around 1972, they continued to support the Cambodians, despite the fact that the now Communist Khmer Rouge essentially ruled the country.
As soon as Pol Pot gained absolute control of the KR, he went on a massive "purification" campaign which resulted in the genocide of more than 1.5 million Cambodians. For various reasons, the US was unable or unwilling to stop this genocide, but the Vietnamese, who had by 1975 united Vietnam, sent in an army and deposed Pol Pot, and made sure that such a thing would not happen again.
Throughout the 80's and 90's, the US continued to give aid to the Khmer Rouge, despite the fact that they were communist, although by this point the nation was incredibly poor, so US could be commended despite the ideological contradictions.

"Let's say that I hated England. Is it the fault of the English that I hate them. No, doesn't matter what they did, hatred is hatred. They aren't responsible for my feelings toward them. If you truly hate someone they could offer you all the milk and cookies in the world, and you'd still hate them. "

Hatred doesn't just happen. I don't wake up in the morning and suddenly hate one of my roommates for absolutely no reason. No matter how irrational it may be, there is always a reason for hatred, at least in the beginning. It's true that hatred can then perpetuate itself to the point where nobody remembers why they hated in the first place. But there is always a catalyst for the hatred.

"Which still doesn't excuse killing innocent people. And it accomplishes nothing and never has and never will. "

I agree that whatever reason the terrorists might have does not excuse killing innocent people. As for how successful it is, I imagine it is more successful than you think, but only when a majority of the people support the "terrorists".

"So the US had it coming? Or it's ultimately the US' fault? "

To a small extent, I would say yes. Americas actions in the middle east in the past are by no means all altruistic and designed to help those in the middle east. It is silly to believe that all that America does is good, and therefore all that anyone does or says against America is groundless.

 

[coastie]

Informational issues taken in point. Nice research.

Whether it was Bush or the CIA or some other governmental body is perhaps debatable... but that's beside the point.

Actually... That is the point. But the topic has been skewed anyway so I'll forget it

Hatred doesn't just happen. I don't wake up in the morning and suddenly hate one of my roommates for absolutely no reason.

That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that you can do what is right and have someone hate for that. Some people hate the US for allowing equal rights to Blacks.

No matter how irrational it may be, there is always a reason for hatred, at least in the beginning. It's true that hatred can then perpetuate itself to the point where nobody remembers why they hated in the first place. But there is always a catalyst for the hatred.

And holding that hatred for fifty years or more is something that these terrorists excell at. Their reasons for hating the US are wrong. The reasons themselves are what you should question. What do any Afgani Muslims have against the US? Freedom of speach, freedom of religion, strong capitalistic society. People are allowed to enjoy life once in a while. What is it?

To a small extent, I would say yes. Americas actions in the middle east in the past are by no means all altruistic and designed to help those in the middle east. It is silly to believe that all that America does is good, and therefore all that anyone does or says against America is groundless.

Admitting US fault is implying that the terrorist attacks are excusable. So I'll say this again, there is no excuse for the murdering of innocent people.

It is silly for anyone to take the word of anyone who speaks against their country with out investigating their allegations first. I'm not ignorant to US blunders, I'm in the US military for goodness sake.

American actions, first and foremost are to improve/maintain the quality of life in America. If that ever isn't the goal of a Nation's leader, then they are lacking the aptitude to govern a nation.

Zach

 

[VOW]

To all:

I was stating what the US foreign policy was. What Middle-East Dictatorship is the US supporting? That is the issue.

Oh, this is good! The Shah of Iran was an EXCELLENT example of US supported dictatorship. We wink a lot at Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, a HOST of Mideastern nations, to make sure that oil keeps on pumpin'!

The Shoes of Imelda Marcos were a FAMOUS dictatorship supported by the US Government. Our government pumped MILLIONS into the Phillipines, for education, for agriculture, for FOOD.....and the Marcos family literally lived high on the hog, spending the money like water and surrounding themselves in luxury while people outside the Presidential Palace starved.

I think Thieu was the horribly corrupt President in Vietnam at the height of the US involvement. We KNEW he was running a racket, but it was easier to keep paying him off than to try to fight a war on two fronts.

I never CAN keep track of who the good guys and who the bad guys are in Central America.

For years and years, the All White government in South Africa was a near and dear friend of the US, taking US money all the while committing horrible human rights' atrocities to the black citizens, forcing them to live LESS than second-class lives.

US foreign policy is based on two things: What can the other guys give us, and how can we make them look like the "good guys."


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[coastie]

VOW,

Thank you for helping point out the negative aspects of the world's greatest nation.

However, I tend to believe (my patriotism is one of my greatest bias) that unless innocent people are murdered, most actions by the US are for the greater good.

US foreign policy is based on two things: What can the other guys give us, and how can we make them look like the "good guys."

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Do you know how much money the US sends to other nations in humanitarian aid every year? More than all other donations from all other coutries combined.

Can you think of any other nation that has forgiven more countries of their debt? I can't.

I believe that that statement was rather counter-productive, but to each their own.

This isn't the topic here right now, though. Post #27 was completely skipped.

Zach

 

[VOW]

To Coastie:

You won't get any argument from me that the US is the greatest nation on earth. But greatest is NOT synonymous with "humanitarian" or any other glowing, heartfelt terms.

Don't believe for one moment that any of our aid is not given with some sort of strings attached. If this were something from the goodness of our hearts, WHY are all foodstuffs marked, "A Gift from the Government of the United States".........in ENGLISH?

Altruism and politics don't fit in the same sentence.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[coastie]

WHY are all foodstuffs marked, "A Gift from the Government of the United States".........in ENGLISH?

I'm not sure they all are. I passed out humanitarian sustenance packages in Haiti. Not one of them said that. The food packs said "made in USA" in the bottom corner and the sustenance packs just had picture instructions printed on them. They probably couldn't read anyway.

Besides, when you get a birthday present doesn't it say "Happy Birthday from: Joe Schmo".

That's not because they think that they can get something out of you. They just want you to know they are thinking about you.

What does the US have to gain from the people who are misfortunate enough to need the humanitarian aid anyway? Respect maybe. There is nothing wrong with taking credit for doing something for someone. You just won't receive the rewards in heaven for it. Maybe I'm not as cynical as you are because I've been working so closely with US humanitarian efforts in the past few years.

But I do believe you are being a little hard on the US.

Zach

 

[VOW]

Just a quick question, Coastie:

Your humanitarian efforts, have they been part of any GOVERNMENT sponsored entity, or through a church? My opinion is that a church would be infinitely more altruistic than a government agency.

And my cynicism comes from being the daughter of a military man, being married to a man who is retired from the military, and also from being a state employee.

I say, "what's in it for the government," especially because the taxpayer has been sold a bill of goods called, "We can save money by contracting out."


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[coastie]

I am a Coast Guardsmen. I've really only been on two church sponsored missions in my life. All other humanitarian aid was through the Coast Guard.

I say, "what's in it for the government," especially because the taxpayer has been sold a bill of goods called, "We can save money by contracting out."

I'm very sorry that the military left such a sour taste. There are things that I absolutely abhor about the military, but as for it's contrcting decisions. I'd much wrather fly around in a French Designed helicopter assemled and built in France than a French Helicopter assembled and manufactured in the US.

BUt I don't think we are talking about the same thing here.

Most of the time the lowest bidder is an American company when it comes to manufacturing for the government.

Zach

 

[VOW]

To Coastie:

I'm not talking about manufacturing, Hon. I'm talking about "Contracting Out."

And actually, my experience in the military was quite good. Well, there some moments, but I sure wouldn't hesitate if my son wanted to make a career of it. However, the experiences DID remove the rose-colored glasses from my eyes.

I've got a LOT of respect for people in uniform, especially the lower "grunt" ranks. Humanitarian aid from military members is typically from the heart; military knows full well what it is like to do without, and they provide help from their hearts and often their own pockets. Right here in California, volunteers from Camp Pendleton are digging through landfills, trying to locate a missing toddler.

Now, if you wanna talk about someone from the State Department, or maybe some USDA official trying to unload surplus commodities, that's a different story.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[coastie]

LOL... State Department, USDA, NSA, NASA, the media... I don't have the energy to debate about these mess-ups. But each has their own individual value and virtue. My soap box is sagging right now.

I've been jumping back and forth between this forumand the Washington Post sub-site debating politics all day.

I need to take a break

It was a pleasure talking to you.

Zach

 

[VOW]

To Coastie:

Washington Post? Poor Baby! Come on over to Riley's Pub and have a cyber brew!


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Oliver]

Originally posted by coastie

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Do you know how much money the US sends to other nations in humanitarian aid every year? More than all other donations from all other coutries combined.

I know this comment is rather off topic now, but... are you so sure? I mean when I read this comment, it seemed rather exaggerated, and I thought that although the US may well be the largest donor, they certainly don't help more than all other countries combined.

Then I saw another comment like yours on these boards and decided to (quickly) research, and the figures I came up with seem to show that the US are not even the largest donor! Japan is ahead, and the European Community as a whole donates 4 times more...

from this site: Economic aid: donors

I didn't find more "official" sources for those figures though, so I wondered if you had different figures, or were you just guessing?

 

[coastie]

I got the figures from an old US News weekly article.

It'll take me a while to find it again, I only found it after some lengthy research. I may have saved it though. I'll get back to you.

 

[coastie]

I wasn't able to access the U.S. News Internet Archives because my "free trial" membership has run up. The article was in reference to the presentation below way back in 1995. While this (nor the rest of the presentation) does not support my claim, there is more to the statement than the article had let on.

I know this doesn't exactly answer your question, but hopefully it adds to the credibility of my previous statement.

Okay here it is as quoted from

J. Brian Atwood
Administrator
U.S. Agency for International Development
to the
Committee on International Relations
House of Representatives

The Future of Foreign Aid

Probably the reason that you found those numbers is because of the impending budget cuts at the time of the above presentation. Outdated information has degraded my argument a little here. But as you can see that at the time of this event, American Foreign Aid was quite substantial.

Now we are way off topic, I hope this helps a little.

 

[Oliver]

Thanks for the link. US foreign aids were maybe higher prior to 1995, and the US may well have been the first donor at some point (as I said, these figures came as a surprise for me too), yet I doubt that they ever gave more than all other countries combined. But anyways, this was mainly nitpicking on my part

I also see that this text gives an answer to a question you asked a few posts ago:

What does the US have to gain from the people who are misfortunate enough to need the humanitarian aid anyway? Respect maybe.

Apparently, Brian Atwood joins VOW in thinking that US aids do have "some kind of strings attached":

"In some parts of the world, these cuts would clearly benefit the trade prospects for our economic competitors, while undermining the growth of U.S. exports to developing markets. America's ability to move nations toward free market reforms would be drastically reduced and countless U.S. firms would lose a valuable "foot in the door." America would be giving away the comparative advantage it now enjoys in fast growing export markets such as environmental goods and services, high technology products and agricultural processing equipment. Tens of thousands of American jobs would be sacrificed as a result."

In other paragraphs, he also underlines the humanitarian consequences of such a cut, but the point is that as a whole, the US (and this is the same for the other donors) also benefits from these economic aids.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm not bashing developed countries for this: I think this kind of help is far better than no help at all, and the only other solutions I can think of right now look more like utopy than real solutions. But when I read comments like the following on these boards : "We cannot afford to make the world a socialistic welfare system that will only burden the American tax payer into bankruptcy." (and I heard similar things in Europe too), I find them very simplistic and rather dangerous. Ok, end of rant