[quote]<strong>Some of our actions in Central/South America constituted terrorism or mass murder, without provocation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You bring up our incidents in other nations when talking about Afghanistan only serves to draw parallels between the two.
United States' soldiers did not commit acts of terrorism or mass murder on the people of South and Central America. Those were incidents of the natives of those lands slaughtering themselves, sometimes with our help. But when discussing right and wrong in those conflicts the U.S. is not the nation to look at.
[quote]<strong>Their main crime was not to conform to US ideological and political preferences.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Spoken as if the U.S. took action within those nations. We backed (much like the Northern Alliance) factions that we thought were the best options.
[quote]<strong>My gripe is that we are going after one target whilst blatantly ignoring others because of favoritism, political expediency etc. If we continue to approach the terror issue in a duplicitous or un-evenhanded fashion, then the coalition will surely collapse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps you missed my point.
[quote]<strong>But what if, say, Country A's terrorism against Country B happens to involve U.S interests?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wait wait wait. I thought it was a BAD thing to get involved because of "U.S. interests". Isn't that what makes the incidents in South and Central America so terrible?
Are you inadvertently justifying our actions there?
[quote]<strong>Sure, we are the primary nation here, but those other nations, no matter how unimportant, do count. Or not?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a great question that's going to require some specifics.
Which nations are involved in the Coalition against Terror and are suffering acts of terrorism by another nation?
[quote]<strong>isnt that what we do anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't that THE grip about America?!
How on Earth can you recommend further unilateralism while saying our unilateral actions were negative!? You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth!
"Dahmer is an evil bastard for killing people, but he might as well kill my enemies because he's going to kill anyway."
[quote]<strong>And the inevitable/likely consequences of such are not
in the national security interests of America.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But when you're large, pissing someone off is inevitable. We used to get bitched at for being passive.
[quote]<strong>I don't feel that it is 'idealistic' or 'unrealistic' for the world to get together and really have a shy at this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think so.
Every nation has its own interest. It's in France's interest to embrace a man who bombs American businesses in France as a national hero. It's in Israel's interest to not get pushed into the sea by the numerous Arab nations that want them dead. And so on and so forth...
[quote]<strong>But maybe we as a nation will have to make some compromises here, and resist the temptation to be the playgound bully as we have done in the past so often, with impunity, simply because we have the biggest muscles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh I can't imagine where I got the idea that you thought our actions in Afghanistan were unjustified.
Impunity? Simply because we have the biggest muscles?
Un-**** yourself, then we'll talk.
[quote]<strong>I don't feel that such is 'unpatriotic'; maybe it lacks the mass appeal of machismo or yahoo-ism, but that's no great loss.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's justified but unenlightened, eh?
What's the enlightened solution?
[quote]<strong>Firstly this was because of our default paranoia of socialism, and secondly to eject the military of a country we didn't approve (USSR) that invaded a remote nation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Justified paranoia and to protect a sovreign nation from another nation. Yes.
[quote]<strong>Blowback in full flight here, and a perfect example of short-term and ill-conceived foreign policy, and total lack of foresight.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What was the other option?
Let the USSR take over Afghanistan? Not help them?
It's quite brazen in idiotic to put the blame on America's shoulders for the collapse of Afghanistan. Pakistan has 40x the responsibility we could ever dream of having. But Pakistan is Muslim so they're not a good enough target for the wackos.
[quote]<strong>Why would the US bombing of 'Israeli positions' elicit my complaints any more than the bombing of anywhere else?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because Israel has done nothing to us. Who are we bombing now or who have we recently bombed that you felt were unjustly attacked?
[quote]<strong>In this instance the US is sponsoring international terrorism. Is that OK? Or do we feel that we can do no wrong, no matter what?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Israel is defending itself. They haven't been perfect, but let's not play at them being the bully picking on poor innocent Palestine.
Israel has had to fight two full wars to keep their people from being annihilated, all within the latter half of the 20th century. To act as if they are not under threat is idiotic.
Are all their actions fully justified? No.
Is it irresponsible to label them pure terrorists?
Palestinians throw rocks at armed Israelis, if they had fully automatic rifles they would (and do) use those instead. Israel's methods are barbaric at times, but they are the result of being repeatedly attacked.