WAR

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Originally posted by speedracer:
If we have to kill 20,000 Afghanistani or Iraqi citizens in order to save 40,000 Americans from terrorists, is it worth it? I think it is. (I'm making up numbers here.)

Sorry, but you make me feel sick. I never, ever, expected to read such statement in this message board. You have the right to seek for justice, but I see no justice in what you said. You guys are really scaring me. This is going too far. You will get your war, if you keep thinking this way. And the whole world is gonna pay for that.
 
Originally posted by follower:
Sorry, but you make me feel sick. I never, ever, expected to read such statement in this message board. You have the right to seek for justice, but I see no justice in what you said. You guys are really scaring me. This is going too far. You will get your war, if you keep thinking this way. And the whole world is gonna pay for that.

One of the grim realities of war is that people who do not deserve to die will die. This includes civilians and soldiers.

But who is to blame if the leaders of Afghanistan persist in keeping their people in the line of fire between us and Osama bin Laden?
 
Speedracer : Who are you to judge than an American life is more important than a Afghanistani or Iraqi life? What the fuck is that all about?

Going to war is all a vicious circle. Killing innocent people will not be the answer, it will only create more hate and terrorism.

[This message has been edited by Naya (edited 09-15-2001).]
 
Originally posted by Naya:
Speedracer : Who are you to judge than an American life is more important than a Afghanistani or Iraqi life? What the fuck is that all about?

Going to war is all a vicious circle. Killing innocent people will not be the answer, it will only create more hate and terrorism.

[This message has been edited by Naya (edited 09-15-2001).]

This is essentially why we bombed Japan at the end of World War 2--we thought that it would bring Japan to a quick surrender and prevent greater casualties, no?
 
Originally posted by speedracer:
This is essentially why we bombed Japan at the end of World War 2--we thought that it would bring Japan to a quick surrender and prevent greater casualties, no?

Um.. slightly different in the fact the whole of Japan was against America, rather than just a few people who happen to live in Afghanistan.

There are a lot of hypocrites in this room right now and there are a lot of people who, quite frankly, are not educated enough and rational enough to make sensible comments on here.

Besides, if we are going to go on about this we should set up a special "War" room where everyone who wants to discuss the various ways of ending our world can talk to their hearts content.

Now that's probably the best thing said in here all day.
 
i think you are all forgetting one thing,as a British politician said in parliment,we run the risk of unleashing 10,000 Bin Ladens for cutting of the head of one Bin Laden,don't get me wrong , I'm all for seeing justice in this, but lets not kid ourselves, for every terrorist that gets removed there will be another waiting to take his place,we will never rid the world or terrorism, no matter how much we try to eradicate it, it will always be a part of the world,I don't think we will see a end of terrorism in our lifetime,it will always be happening somewhere in the world,even our great grandchildren will know what a terrorist is, and not through history books but what will be happening in the world around them.

If you want to wipe out terrorism, then you will have to wipe out mankind first.
 
Originally posted by bullet the blue sky:
Um.. slightly different in the fact the whole of Japan was against America, rather than just a few people who happen to live in Afghanistan.


Wait...the Afghanistani civilians we may end up killing don't deserve to die, but the Japanese civilians we killed did deserve to die? I doubt that this is what you meant.

I don't think Afghanistani civilians deserve to die (and neither did the Japanese that we killed or subjected to radiation-induced leukemia), but do you really think that we're going to be able to eliminate our enemies without spilling a single drop of innocent blood? I doubt it.
 
If you want to wipe out terrorism, then you will have to wipe out mankind first.

With the policy the administration is currently adopting, yes.

I believe we need to look at why they are so pissed off and consider ourselves lucky if we find that we are doing something wrong. That way, we can stop doing it and help mitigate the threat. That is not capitualtion, that is common sense.

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 09-15-2001).]
 
Originally posted by speedracer:
Wait...the Afghanistani civilians we may end up killing don't deserve to die, but the Japanese civilians we killed did deserve to die? I doubt that this is what you meant.

I don't think Afghanistani civilians deserve to die (and neither did the Japanese that we killed or subjected to radiation-induced leukemia), but do you really think that we're going to be able to eliminate our enemies without spilling a single drop of innocent blood? I doubt it.

You knew what I was getting at... stop being pedantic
smile.gif
 
when I say you will have to wipe out mankind first,I mean this IS the only way we wipe it out! Yes I want revenge too..but...sighs...this will (terrorism) always be part of human nature.
 
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:


They are doing everything they can to avoid a war.

No they aren't; they refuse to assist us in identifying the whereabouts of Usama bin Laden, a known terrorist leader and the prime suspect in the killing of at leat 6,000 innocent civilians on Tuesday, and also a suspect on previous terrorist attacks.

~U2Alabama
 
what a bomb--

For every one bin Laden we don't kill, he'll train 10,000 more, yes? Heck, for every one bin Laden who is caught in a failed attack on the US, we'll create 10,000 more if we don't grant him unconditional release and amnesty.

Doctor Gonzo--

We know, sort of, why bin Laden is pissed off. It's (1) because we fund Israel's military activity in the middle East and (2) because the US troops that Saudi Arabia invited to keep a watch on Iraq are desecrating Islam's holy sites in some unspecified way. (1) can be changed, though I don't know how or if we should change it. (2) is a complete mystery to me.

I agree with you that we need to bolster our defenses against terrorists. But I still think that some offensive action against them is necessary.
 
Originally posted by speedracer:

It's (1) because we fund Israel's military activity in the middle East and (2) because the US troops that Saudi Arabia invited to keep a watch on Iraq are desecrating Islam's holy sites in some unspecified way. (1) can be changed, though I don't know how or if we should change it. (2) is a complete mystery to me.


(2) could be because the U.S. military is the only entity that Saudi Arabia allows to bring alcoholic beverages into the nation (although I don't know if this is still allowed). Saudi Arabia is home to several of Islam's Holy sites, including Mecca, and there are many cultural restrictions due to this, including a prohibition on the practice of any religion other than Islam.

~U2Alabama
 
I feel that many people here are confused and do not understand many things.
Military action is justified and neccessary to defend our country and other countries from further terrorist attacks. Many people here are making the assumption that this is just a small number group of people an that it is impossible to retaliate. First, no one knows yet how many people are involved or if a State is involved as well. This is a very large organization that we are going up against which could include states. Early on, Intelligence gathering will be key, but eventually targets will become clear. No one wants to see innocent people die and no other military in the world goes to more lengths than the US Military to prevent civilian deaths.
If it is found that other countries supported Bin Laden then military action is justified against them. I find it silly people saying that if we succeed in destroying a few of these terrorist you will only creat 10 more or 10 will replace so you should not do anything and let the current terrorist go about killing us. That is crazy! Police arrest criminals every day in our country knowing there will be more. Because we know there will be more doesn't stop us from doing what is necessary.
We will attack terrorism even if it involves putting ground troops into certain countries. This is a war and one that will take a long time. The enemy in question can be defeated by USA intelligence and Military action. Those that may come after can will have any action they take reduced and minimized compared to current terrorist. Then they will face termination. Despite what some believe, there is not an endless list of people willing to commit immoral unjustifiable acts that is a sin in their own religion.
If that scale of operations eventually has to increase to a level similar to that of World War II, then it will happen. We will not treat terrorism the way we treated it in the past and will go after the countries that have harbored these terrorist, if it is found they did. When put on a true war footing, the USA has the capicity and the capability to things few here could dream of. More importantly, article 5 has been invoked by the NATO alliance for the first time in its history. This adds tremondous support and capability. While the first USA strikes when they come could produce undesirable results in a few countries, the USA and NATO have the capicity and capability to deal with them. There are many people on this message board that do not understand this. Nothing is off the table, and this country and our allies will do everything in their power to defend civilization and bring the individuals or States involved to Justice by what ever means are neccessary while at the same time minimizing losses of non-combatents or civilians.
The information is still coming in, those responsible are not fully known yet and the nature of the USA response is still unknown. But the USA and our allies will take any neccessary action in order to achieve our goals. The entire political leadership of the USA(Democrat or Republican) and our allies are united in this effort. 89% of USA citizens support military action against anyone, individual or state involved in these terrorist attacks. Many say they have never seen the USA this united before.
 
I'll add a bit to STING's note.

There is this impression that if we eliminate Bin Laden another will take his place. That's absolutely true, and that's why taking out Bin Laden isn't enough. I don't think many people here are suggesting the elimination of thousands of people innocent of these sort of acts, simply that those responsible not just for this, but for other global acts of terrorism (and those that support them) need to be eliminated.

The underlying supposition of saying that "if you kill Bin Laden another will take his place, so what's the point?" is that the number of wacko fundamentalists won't increase if we sit back and do nothing. That, of course, is flat wrong. These organizations are going to continue to grow if we do nothing. They will grow and grow, and eventually we'll have a much bigger mess than we have now. We'll have a number of nations in that area of the world who's entire government and society would fit along those lines. Iraq would no longer be alone. There would be several states of that nature, and probably with nuclear capability. What then? We've got to try and nip this right now. Remember, people aren't born with the idea that they'll happily die for their radical cause. Eliminate enough of them now and we'll greatly limit the instances of this in the future. There are always going to be acts of terrorism, I think we all understand this. But it's important to do everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen on anything close to this scale again.

Peace, if by that you mean to do nothing, is not an option right now. To think so is foolish. Retaliation while showing restraint is absolutely an option, and a necessary one. A physical response of some degree is needed, but the intelligence aspect of this is even more important as far as the future is concerned. Next time the response needs to come before the action.

The blood of thousands of innocents isn't needed or wanted. The blood of a few radical terrorists is. As long as this is limited to Bin Laden and his cells, this holds true. If Iraq gets intimately involved then the dynamic changes somewhat.
 
Thanks for your comments STING and MSU2mike.

I'd like to add another word about the proposition that "if we kill Osama bin Laden, 10,000 more will take his place."

It's true that if we kill bin Laden, we may succeed in pissing off another 10,000 people. But almost all of them don't have the resources and training to turn into baby bin Ladens. While the roots of the hostility towards the West are deep-seated, the terrorist resources are limited, and with careful planning we can eliminate these terrorist bases.
 
Please read this articel from Guardian if you have the will. These are not my words, but I completely agree with them:

here goes

Seumas Milne
Thursday September 13, 2001
The Guardian

Nearly two days after the horrific suicide attacks on civilian workers in New York and Washington, it has become painfully clear that most Americans simply don't get it. From the president to passersby on the streets, the message seems to be the same: this is an inexplicable assault on freedom and democracy, which must be answered with overwhelming force - just as soon as someone can construct a credible account of who was actually responsible.
Shock, rage and grief there has been aplenty. But any glimmer of recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process - or why the United States is hated with such bitterness, not only in Arab and Muslim countries, but across the developing world - seems almost entirely absent. Perhaps it is too much to hope that, as rescue workers struggle to pull firefighters from the rubble, any but a small minority might make the connection between what has been visited upon them and what their government has visited upon large parts of the world.

But make that connection they must, if such tragedies are not to be repeated, potentially with even more devastating consequences. US political leaders are doing their people no favours by reinforcing popular ignorance with self-referential rhetoric. And the echoing chorus of Tony Blair, whose determination to bind Britain ever closer to US foreign policy ratchets up the threat to our own cities, will only fuel anti-western sentiment. So will calls for the defence of "civilisation", with its overtones of Samuel Huntington's poisonous theories of post-cold war confrontation between the west and Islam, heightening perceptions of racism and hypocrisy.

As Mahatma Gandhi famously remarked when asked his opinion of western civilisation, it would be a good idea. Since George Bush's father inaugurated his new world order a decade ago, the US, supported by its British ally, bestrides the world like a colossus. Unconstrained by any superpower rival or system of global governance, the US giant has rewritten the global financial and trading system in its own interest; ripped up a string of treaties it finds inconvenient; sent troops to every corner of the globe; bombed Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia and Iraq without troubling the United Nations; maintained a string of murderous embargos against recalcitrant regimes; and recklessly thrown its weight behind Israel's 34-year illegal military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as the Palestinian intifada rages.

If, as yesterday's Wall Street Journal insisted, the east coast carnage was the fruit of the Clinton administration's Munich-like appeasement of the Palestinians, the mind boggles as to what US Republicans imagine to be a Churchillian response.

It is this record of unabashed national egotism and arrogance that drives anti-Americanism among swaths of the world's population, for whom there is little democracy in the current distribution of global wealth and power. If it turns out that Tuesday's attacks were the work of Osama bin Laden's supporters, the sense that the Americans are once again reaping a dragons' teeth harvest they themselves sowed will be overwhelming.

It was the Americans, after all, who poured resources into the 1980s war against the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, at a time when girls could go to school and women to work. Bin Laden and his mojahedin were armed and trained by the CIA and MI6, as Afghanistan was turned into a wasteland and its communist leader Najibullah left hanging from a Kabul lamp post with his genitals stuffed in his mouth.

But by then Bin Laden had turned against his American sponsors, while US-sponsored Pakistani intelligence had spawned the grotesque Taliban now protecting him. To punish its wayward Afghan offspring, the US subsequently forced through a sanctions regime which has helped push 4m to the brink of starvation, according to the latest UN figures, while Afghan refugees fan out across the world.

All this must doubtless seem remote to Americans desperately searching the debris of what is expected to be the largest-ever massacre on US soil - as must the killings of yet more Palestinians in the West Bank yesterday, or even the 2m estimated to have died in Congo's wars since the overthrow of the US-backed Mobutu regime. "What could some political thing have to do with blowing up office buildings during working hours?" one bewildered New Yorker asked yesterday.

Already, the Bush administration is assembling an international coalition for an Israeli-style war against terrorism, as if such counter-productive acts of outrage had an existence separate from the social conditions out of which they arise. But for every "terror network" that is rooted out, another will emerge - until the injustices and inequalities that produce them are addressed
 
Instead of making a single attack on Bin Laden or whatever bastard did this he has decided to attack entire Middle Eastern countries.

So thousands more innocents will die

Why does everyone insist that we are out to kill innocent people?

What makes you think this?

Mark
 
Originally posted by Marko:


Already, the Bush administration is assembling an international coalition for an Israeli-style war against terrorism, as if such counter-productive acts of outrage had an existence separate from the social conditions out of which they arise. But for every "terror network" that is rooted out, another will emerge - until the injustices and inequalities that produce them are addressed

Thanks for the article. I will, however, point out a fallacy in this last paragraph.

The perpetrators of terrorist attacks like those of last week did these things ostensibly because some of the US's actions and policies in the Middle East are unjust. But just because they feel our actions are unjust doesn't make it so. For instance, should we really have let Iraq annex Kuwait in 1991? Should we completely withdraw our support of Israel, and watch it be bombed to a crisp?

Not only will some of the terrorists' demands be unpalatable to us, they will also be unreasonable from a more objective point of view.
 
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
you forgot:
The United States Of America
Whoops...most people are forgetting who financed and trained Osama Bin Laden. We better start looking at what we are doing if we want this to stop.
Golly, how many people are going to say that we trained and financed Osama Bin Ladin without providing the rest of the facts? When people say "USA trained and financed Osama Bin Laden", it implies that the USA trained this terrorist and gave him money. That is so misleading, when the truth of it is that the USA actually trained and financed the Mujahidin (the rebel army that forced the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan), of which Osama Bin Laden happened to be a part. Osama Bin Laden was NOT the leader of the Mujahidin, and the MUjahidin was NOT a terrorist group. So come on people, if you're going to make a statement, don't make half truths!
 
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
I believe we need to look at why they are so pissed off and consider ourselves lucky if we find that we are doing something wrong. [This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 09-15-2001).]
Lucky? Lucky that terrorists killed what will probably be at least 10,000 people? That's ridiculous! Osama Bin Laden is lucky he still walks the face of the earth.
 
Mujahedin not a terorist? Come on, not by definition, but they are the most fundamentalist muslims in the worls, and they generaly belong to terorist organizations. Bin Laden was a mujahedin, and he is a terorist. Yes you trained them, yes you created people who are Talibans now, you gave tham power and guns.
When we talk about Kuwait... It was all american interest b/c of the oil that Kuwait has! Why didn't you free Ruanda, Etiopia, Siera Leone? Come on don't be so naive. Why almost all of the muslim middle east hates you? First: Israel, they have a historic right on their state (and in the beggining they didn't get guns from the US but from USSR, Yugoslavia and some European states, so it's wrong to say that US created Israel - US even enforced arms embargo to Israel in it's beggining), but they are openly rasist, and they discriminate everyone, offcourse especialy Palestinians. If you want to fight terorism, than you should also fight Israel (and IRA for that matter), b/c Israle invented terorism as we know it today. Please don't tell me that you fought for kuwait, you fought for oyur own interest. Second: Iran hates you b/c you financed and helped Iraq when these two states were at war. Iraq hates you b/c you bombed them and fought them, and before that you promised them that you will free them from Saddam, the man who got his power suported by you. And so on, and so on. If you like to fight for freedom so much why don't you "liberate" some of the african and South AMerican ocuntries that are poor?

Please try to understand that these terorist are not just madman that have nothing else to do. They were trigered by something, something that you did. That doesn't justify them, but it would be better for you to understand it so you don't do the same mistake again.
 
Marko,

My point is that some of the "mistakes" you refer to--and your operating definition of "mistake" seems to be "something we do that gets terrorists pissed off at us"--were entirely legitimate actions. (Some were probably not so legitimate. We should all learn from our history, I agree.)

We're not the world's freedom fighters, but liberating Kuwait (and its oil) from Saddam Hussein was an entirely legitimate thing to do.

If we don't repeat the "mistakes" of the past, we'll inadvertently commit new ones. It seems that tensions are so high in the Middle East that anything we do or don't do is going to anger someone. For example, the Taliban is telling the people of Afghanistan that we're instigating a jihad, a holy war. Of course their media outlets aren't telling them that there would likely be no such war if the Taliban would cooperate with our investigations. Asking the Taliban to turn over bin Laden is something that seems legitimate to me, given that he's a prime suspect in several crimes against the US and given that Pakistan agrees with us. But this entirely reasonable demand is something that's going to end up fanning the flames of the Afghanistani people's anger towards us. What are we to do?


[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 09-16-2001).]
 
Originally posted by Marko:

When we talk about Kuwait... It was all american interest b/c of the oil that Kuwait has! Why didn't you free Ruanda, Etiopia, Siera Leone? Come on don't be so naive. .
You are the one being naive. Does it really surprise you that a country decides which fights to get involved in based on its own interests? Surely not! I would like for you to name me every situation in the world in which tyranny exists. Can't? Neither can I. You know what that tells me? That the USA can't possibly help eevry country that needs it. Now, put yourself in the place of someone who needs to decide which equally horrible fight to get involved in Rwanda, in which people are getting slaughtered left and right, or Kuwait, in which people are getting slaughtered left and right? Hard decision, right? Yes, very difficult. So, you must go to that next level, which is "If we can't get involved in everything, we have to get involved in the fights that involve our own interests." And believe me, the Kuwait situation not only involved America, but every developed nation in the world. Do you realise what a large percentage of oil would have been in teh hands of that madman Sodamn Insane had he not been pushed back, and were able to gain complete control of Kuwait? The fallout from his victory may have been more than we could handle. So yes, sometimes you have to base your decisions on what serves your interests. You may not like that, but that's sometimes the way it must be done.
 
Yes I agree with that about kuwait, and I agree with the fact that Talibans should hand over Bin Laden, I'm just saying that I don't like to hear that you fight for freedom. It's just not so, so I'm not being naive... I'm talkin about hipocrits that see only the things that the want to see. And speaking about choosing: well the masacre was far greater in Ruanda, but hey they don't have the oil! I only ask of you to say that you fought for moder world and oil and not for kuwait people, and the idea of libety.

I'm sorry if I seem to agressive about all of this, it's just my opinion, but I'm not sideing with terorists, I'm on oyur side, just be objective and see the big picture - the world and not only the US
 
Originally posted by Marko:
I'm just saying that I don't like to hear that you fight for freedom. It's just not so, so I'm not being naive... I'm talkin about hipocrits that see only the things that the want to see. I only ask of you to say that you fought for moder world and oil and not for kuwait people, and the idea of libety.
I'm sorry if I seem to agressive about all of this, it's just my opinion, but I'm not sideing with terorists, I'm on oyur side, just be objective and see the big picture - the world and not only the US
Well, I didn't think you were being overly-agressive at all. You believe in your opinions strongly. I understand that completely, because I am the same way. I have been known to get really worked up in some of these debates.
About the US "not fighting for freedom", that's not the case. We have fought many times for freedom. What do you think Vietnam was about? We had no national interest there at all. It had to be about Freedom. The Kuwait thing was mainly about oil, I think,and one of Bush Sr's big mistakes was not being honest about that. The American people would have understood.
 
Marko,
I'd have to say that Seumas Milne couldn't be more wrong in what he had to say in the article. The USA does not bestride the world like some Empire. Nor is the financial system written in its own interest. The USA and its Allies have a heavy amount of trade between them. There is also trade with the third world, but it is mainly for natural resources which is very important, but not equal to the dollar value of trade among western industrialized nations. The USA and western nations have tried to help the third world with Billions of dollars of loans. While its true that those nations now face crippling debt and the debts should be canceled, it was the third world countries that failed to properly use and invest the money they were loaned. The main reason for poverty in the third world is instabiliy, either between states or within them. Undemocratic governments are another. But to blame the nations of the Idustrialized world that send money and aid in addition to technology is absurd.
"The Bombing of Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia and Iraq without UN aproval". So Milne is suggesting that the USA has to get UN aproval to defend itself! After only two paragraghs I have lost all respect for this journalist. That is crazy. The USA has the right to safeguard and protect all of its interest without UN aproval. Not that would make any difference if we had that to the terrorist and those that support them.
The USA has embargoes against regimes like Iraq to prevent them from rebuilding their conventional military might which is what took Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia in the first place. Iraq is allowed to sell Billions of dollars of oil for food and other supplies through the UN. These sanctions keep the peace and prevent interstate war, the murder comes form Saddam who starves his on population for his own interest in order to stay in power.
While Israel is still in control of the West Bank, what they did was not illegal, for they were attacked first by the Arabs. 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982. Can you name another country in the world that has been attacked so often in only 40 years. Israel is a democracy and we support them and their most difficult task of providing security for their people. It is true in 1967 that Israel launched a preemptive strike in order to save the country from a terrible attack. Clearly justified.
This writer then speaks of the USAs egotism and arragance. This is laughable because it clearly reflects the writers own deep seated jealousy and hatred of America.
While it is true that the USA did support the Mujahadeen during the 1979-1989 war with the Soviet Union, the USA's role was not as large as most seem to think. Pakistan played a huge role as well. There was some training especially with some modern weapons, but the average Mujahadeen fighter most likely never met with a CIA or Pakastani trainer, and fought the Russians with captured Russian made weapons. But I don't think there was anything wrong with supporting the Mujahadeen against an invading power trying to spread Communism to every country on the planet. It was in our interest at the time to support them. In any event the Taliban were formed many years after that war ended.
Sanctions against Afghanistan causing starvation? Well, Afghanistan has had very little trade with any country even before 1979, so the idea that santions would cause mass problems is absurd. 90% of the population lives in rural area's and 90% of the population lives off the land thourgh agriculture. So, wrong again!
There are NO USA injustices or inequalities That produced this terrible terrorist act. It is the sick minds of certain individuals that mobilize masses of people to act in this manner. They do not have or enjoy the freedom of information we have. They have done this becuase they have been brain washed to believe that the USA and others are the cause of any of their problems. They have perverted their religion and used as a way to control masses of people, with statements that the USA seeks to end Islam, or that US Troops on Saudi soil is a sinful act against Alah. The greatest fallacy in the last statement is the presumption that only injustice and inequalties could produce such an act. That is wrong for the factual reasons in this case and also because generaly, there are those in undemocratic area's of the world that seek to use what ever power they have to gain more and to dominate others. Bin Ladens ultimate goal is a massive Islamic state over the entire middle east with him as its ruler.
That it for the article, as for some things you said Marko, The USA did not finance and help Iraq during the Iran Iraq War. Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union with Billions of arm sales from the Soviet Union to Iraq every year. Every piece of equipment that the worlds once 4th largest army had were built mainly in the Soviet Union and some in China.(just take a look at the figures from the International Institute Of Stategic Studies) There was very minor US assistance in the form of Grain lones that were used to purchase instead, trucks and transport helicopters. Iran was are client state in the region, but that changed in 1979 with the fall of the Shah.
It is important to remember in the case of Bin Laden, that his organization formed at the end of the Russian Afghan war from unemployed mujahadeen fighters with no home to go back to. Bin Laden is rich and took them in, and uses them to commit his acts of terror. It is the brain washing of a group of people to do the evil deeds of a few people. Easy to do in an undemocratic system. So the say of madmen with nothing else to do, but to empower themselves is true.
 
STING said

"I'd have to say that Seumas Milne couldn't be more wrong in what he had to say in the article. The USA does not bestride the world like some Empire. Nor is the financial system written in its own interest."

HA HA HA HA. Sting you poor misguided fool.
 
Back
Top Bottom