ETA: ^ tennyson
, the point I've been trying to make is how US policy in the Middle East has increased anti-American sentiment in the region. Scherzo
, has focused on on the Iran-Iraq war. Hopefully, reading this post will make it clearer what I've been trying to say.
scherzo, on Mar 13 2007, 08:35 PM, said:
No one in this thread said Saddam is responsible for "the burgeoning ranks of the jihadists."
I'm afraid you did Sir. More precisely, our early support of Saddam during his conflict with the Ayatollah, was cited by Kosh as a factor in recruiting terrorists, and you quickly agreed. Before you deny this is the case...please remember this is more easily researched than most things.
Go back and look at the difference between what I denied saying and what you just posted. In your previous post, you said that I said that Saddam was responsible for "the burgeoning ranks of the jihadists." What I've been saying, is that the US has a track record of meddling in the Middle East with disregard for the people who live there and their well-being, and that this meddling has had the unintended consequence of giving rise to anti-American sentiment, which provides terrorist recruiters with a base of angry, resentful recruits. US support for Saddam, including during Iraq's war with Iran, provides several instances of this meddling, which I'll get to later in this post. Sometimes other countries besides the US meddled, but the US and the Soviet Union are the worst offenders among outside powers, and the US is the country that provides financial and military support for Israel. Muslims regard Israel as being a squatter on some of the land that's holiest to Islam, and they view Israel as being rather arrogant about it. By supporting Israel, the US puts itself on a steep uphill climb to win hearts and minds in the Middle East. Muslims chaff at Israel's possessing several of Islam's holiest holy sites, and consequently, US support for Israel increases the fallout when the US does things harmful to Muslims.
Providing support to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war prolonged the war and quite likely resulted in more pain, suffering, and death being inflicted on Muslims during that war than would otherwise be the case.
Specs do you honestly believe it's possible to string together words like the above quoted, and not have a severe anti-American bent? Is it possible to observe the events of the Iran/Iraq conflict, with the various countries involved in arming both sides, and arrive at the summation "America prolonged the suffering and death of Muslims", and still reasonably expect people to believe you're for this country? How do you think declaring "America prolonged the suffering and death of Muslims" plays among the potential jihad crowd? Is this responsible language to use in our current climate?
I'll get to the first part of that paragraph in minute. For right now, I'll just say that once again, you've twisted what I've said. I suspect that it is because you have no response to what I actually write so you resond to what you wish I had written. You have yet to address any of my actual points or respond to the actual words in my posts. I doubt you're fooling anyone except maybe yourself. A terrorist recruiter would have little trouble coming up with incindiary words about US policy in the Middle East that make what I actually said (and even what you said) seem drab in comparison.
Specs if someone is going wildly out of their way to portray America in the worst light possible
I haven't done anything of the sort. I've been softpedalling my posts about American foreign policy so as not to needlessly piss off Americans who might read my posts and be persuaded that we should re-examine how we do foreign policy in the Middle East. Making a point as inoffensively as possible tends to be better at persuading people than pissing them off so much that they're no longer in a rational state of mind.
and promote the idea that hositlity towards us is completely justified
People don't need to justify hostility and few do. If someone kills your brother or sister, your reflex is to be pissed at them. You don't need to first come up with a rational argument about why you're justified feeling pissed at them.
Now, that I've corrected your lies and chased down your red herrings, I'll return to the Iran-Iraq war and then to my overarching point. Regarding the US's involvement in the Iran-Iraq war, you might find this analysis
illuminating [you'll probably decry the author's agenda, but she cites her sources quite well]. The US provided Iraq with vital funding during the Iran-Iraq war. Yes, America wasn't the only country that engaged in the dispicable behavior of using the Iraqis and Iranians as pawns in a proxy war. Even so, America was still a major player, and terrorist recruiters will use that fact against us (see the first paragraph in this post for why they focus on us). For some reason, you've chosen to belabor this point regarding Saddam and the Iran-Iraq war. If you recall, I listed a number of other things America has done in the region to cause anti-American sentiment. To recap, the things I listed were propping up strongmen in the region [I didn't even specifically name Saddam at the time], transgressing on Muslim Holy sites, and this list
. My point, which you've tried your best to distort beyond all recognition, was that the US has a history of meddling in the region, which has had the result of causing and then inflaming anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. Hatred takes a lot of energy to take form and be sustained, and the anti-American sentiment caused by the US's long history of ends-justify-the-means foreign policy in the Middle East gave bin Laden a base of recruits upon which to draw when he got pissed off at us.
Now, while the aid we gave to Saddam is only an implicit subpoint in the post of mine that started the tangent we're on now, since you take such an interest in Saddam, you should be interested in the following items from the list I linked to:
- 1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.
- 1973-75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."
- 1980-88: Iran-Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly-aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.
- 1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.
- 1990-91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted. To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid post-war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.
- 1991: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Madeleine Albright (U.S. ambassador to the UN and later Secretary of State) declares that "the price is worth it."
- 1993: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self-defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier. [SW: Is this what we claimed?]
Sources cited on the web page
There are a number of items on the list besides the ones dealing with Iraq. The list is not pretty. And the US has done these things in large part because it needs the oil in the Middle East. This brings us back to one of the main points in the post that launched this tanget: if the US got serious about cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells, and other alternative fuels it would become much less reliant on foreign oil , and its need to do disgraceful things to feed its addiction would correspondingly decrease. And we could hopefully stop doing the things that feed anti-American sentiment and that make terrorists more likely to strike at us.
Edited by Solar Wind, 14 March 2007 - 01:23 AM.