b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Message 2128952 (Thread)

#
I'd hardly call getting 'excited about' something a sound piece of reasoning upon which to go to war with two countries.

I think it's a bit too easy to throw generalisations around on this kind of subject. Britain has been living with terrorism for a long time now, I think a lot of Americans have failed to understand what we mean when we say -lots of the funding for the IRA came from the USA- and but still you had radio stations that would openly broadcast appeals to the American population asking for donations for them. Donations so that they could kill us. Donations so that they could kill me and my family (yep, we were considered legitimate targets because my father was in the civil service at the time. Oh those fun days of checking for car bombs before I got a lift to school in the morning).

There is quite a lot of bitterness about the hipocrisy of the US towards terrorism in other countries and against them. While I don't say it's right that we are bitter it's an easy sentiment to understand.

The destruction of Iraq could not have been more thorough. Sure, you could have killed everyone, but at least that would have been organised. Instead there is a power vacuum that will not be filled easily by democracy. Most Middle-Eastern countries have never existed in a democratic state and are perfectly fine about it, it's just a case of finding a benign dictator. The US is trying to impose a foreign system of government on the people and as such is destroying them in a way that bombs never could.

I think the point that people were trying to make earlier is really that the Sept 11th attacks were really to do with the way that the US automatically believes it has the right to impose their moral codes (and related cultural artifacts such as McDonalds and Gap) on the rest of the world... And that the US has the arrogance to assert that we should all be happy about this. The trouble is that I don't think America even noticed this aspect of why the attacks happened, the US was too busy being shocked... I mean, seriously, is 'The US is open for business' really the best way to represent a strong face into attacks? Is commercialism the answer or the problem?

I'm a bit passionate about this subject... Not that I think that anyone will change their minds because of anything I say.
(, Sat 11 Oct 2003, 0:22, archived)
# I get it.
My point is, as I've made in other posts, that the duty of government is to provide for the best interests of the country it represents. Whereas the average citizen may want the world to be a happy place filled with sunshine, butterflies, rainbows and kittens; the government has only the responsibility to provide that (or as close as possible) within the borders of its own country.
If terrorism is a real and ongoing threat in your own country, blame the government that is responsible for taking actions to prevent it; which is not the US government, unless you happen to live on US soil.
The US's only interest in Iraq is it's oil. As far as the US government is concerned, it's the only thing in the area worth considering. This may sound harsh and mean, but it's business and business always boils down to the bottom line.
Of course the US government doesn't give a rat's ass about terrorist threats affecting other countries... they only care about their own country, as any realistic government has the obligation to.
Taking it out on Americans as a whole is a sign of total ignorance.
(, Sat 11 Oct 2003, 0:52, archived)