"Dirty Wars"

[Shane Wahl]

Excellent documentary, exposing the real nature of Obama's continued "war of terror" on human beings around the world.

[TheLeviathan]

I'll just say it: Obama has gotten off so easy on this. Bush was called and accused of some pretty terrible things by the left. All Obama has done is put Bush's policies on steroids and the guy all but gets a pass.

 

Integrity of principle knows no party in this country.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'll just say it: Obama has gotten off so easy on this. Bush was called and accused of some pretty terrible things by the left. All Obama has done is put Bush's policies on steroids and the guy all but gets a pass.

 

Integrity of principle knows no party in this country.

 

Agreed. The only guy I see calling out Obama on this is a freakin' comedian (John Stewart).

 

This single issue alone has taken me from "generally, kinda positive" on Obama to "he's barely any ****ing better than the last guy".

[Mike Sixel]

Agree with Brock, I had (naive) hopes Obama would be different. But he's not. Having worked out there, and even here in MN, in politics and government, I should have known better. But I refuse to give up hope completely. Maybe one of the next leaders will be different. Maybe.

[Shane Wahl]

It in many ways is worse than Bush (not all ways, but many ways). The targeted assassinations sound "nice" because of the scope of these attacks (whether by drone or special operations on the ground), but it exacerbates secrecy, lawlessness, and the losing war for "hearts and minds."

 

Even the case of Anwar al-Awlaki is not nearly straight forward at all (other than the obvious killing an American citizen without any due process). And when they later droned his 16-year-old son (also, of course, an AMERICAN CITIZEN) for no apparent reason . . . well there's little to be said about the commission of such evil.

 

The main point from the documentary is really not about these individual cases, but how the "kill lists" have gone from a few people to that Iraq deck of cards to now thousands at a time . . . and one list after another is indicative of the real motivation for waging a war on terror. It's never to win it, but to always keep it going by creating more enemies to keep killing. And somehow Americans just accepted never-ending war as American foreign policy. It's the war on drugs on a larger scale.

[The Wise One]

The alternative to the "dirty war"is what? Let the people be so they can continue in their quest to kill anyone who appears friendly to the United States?

[glunn]

The alternative to the "dirty war"is what? Let the people be so they can continue in their quest to kill anyone who appears friendly to the United States?

 

Maybe the alternative is to make a greater effort to find peaceful solutions?

[The Wise One]

Maybe the alternative is to make a greater effort to find peaceful solutions?

 

Honorable wish. The people of Afghanistan who were not Taliban would have liked that starting in 1996

[twinsnorth49]

Honorable wish. The people of Afghanistan who were not Taliban would have liked that starting in 1996

 

Try 1838......or 1979 for more recent history. Really at the end of the day, the Afghans have never really known peace for very long.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm ok with aggressive tactics personally, it's the pathetic hypocrisy of it among the parties that are supposed to be checking each other.

[Shane Wahl]

The alternative to the "dirty war"is what? Let the people be so they can continue in their quest to kill anyone who appears friendly to the United States?

 

Who are "the people" and why are so many innocent people slaughtered as well. Al-Awlaki is a perfect example of someone radicalized out of being a moderate cleric because of the brutality of American wars.

[Shane Wahl]

Maybe having a foreign policy that doesn't create more terrorists should be a goal.

[The Wise One]

Who are "the people" and why are so many innocent people slaughtered as well. Al-Awlaki is a perfect example of someone radicalized out of being a moderate cleric because of the brutality of American wars.

 

The list of atrocities committed by the Taliban to women, children, and anyone who is not one of them is long. Two examples.

How the Taliban slaughtered thousands of people

Minority Afghans tell Taliban atrocities - chicagotribune.com

 

Al-Awlaki was nowhere to be found for the Muslim people of those communities. No statements condemning the slaughter. To label him a moderate is (I can't think of a statement or word that isn't banned by TD).

[Brock Beauchamp]

Maybe having a foreign policy that doesn't create more terrorists should be a goal.

 

This sounds like a good start. The best way to do that is to leave them to settle their problems themselves. After awhile, it becomes hard to rally the troops against an invisible enemy half a world away that doesn't give a damn what you're doing.

 

The "they hate us for who we are" argument doesn't really fly with me; they hate us because of what we've done in the region. By simply poking our nose around, we give fundamentalist leaders a nice, juicy target for which to place all of their peoples' blame. It's a time-tested tradition; if live sucks for your people but you don't want to actually give them any power or self-determination, blame somebody else who happens to be nearby. It deflects blame from the leaders and focuses the proletariate toward an outside enemy, which is a bloody good distraction from their daily misery.

 

After awhile, you have to stop playing World Police and just let people blow each other up for awhile and stay the hell out of it. These divisions are thousands of years old, based on deep-seeded hatred of the other's ideology. The big ol' super-powered US of A ain't gonna do jack to fix how the people view one another.

[The Wise One]

This sounds like a good start. The best way to do that is to leave them to settle their problems themselves. After awhile, it becomes hard to rally the troops against an invisible enemy half a world away that doesn't give a damn what you're doing.

 

The "they hate us for who we are" argument doesn't really fly with me; they hate us because of what we've done in the region. By simply poking our nose around, we give fundamentalist leaders a nice, juicy target for which to place all of their peoples' blame. It's a time-tested tradition; if live sucks for your people but you don't want to actually give them any power or self-determination, blame somebody else who happens to be nearby. It deflects blame from the leaders and focuses the proletariate toward an outside enemy, which is a bloody good distraction from their daily misery.

 

After awhile, you have to stop playing World Police and just let people blow each other up for awhile and stay the hell out of it. These divisions are thousands of years old, based on deep-seeded hatred of the other's ideology. The big ol' super-powered US of A ain't gonna do jack to fix how the people view one another.

 

Imagined injustice will work fine to promote hatred. The fundamentalist will always hate what is not them. The U.S . fits the bill whether or not they are meddling in any countries affairs.

[TheLeviathan]

Imagined injustice will work fine to promote hatred. The fundamentalist will always hate what is not them. The U.S . fits the bill whether or not they are meddling in any countries affairs.

 

I tend to agree with you, but there is no doubt our meddling also exacerbates the problem significantly as well. I think it's a bit silly to say that they only hate us because of our actions, they hate us for religious, cultural, and historical reasons.

 

But some of our policies and actions have no doubt put gas on the fire.

[The Wise One]

I tend to agree with you, but there is no doubt our meddling also exacerbates the problem significantly as well. I think it's a bit silly to say that they only hate us because of our actions, they hate us for religious, cultural, and historical reasons.

 

But some of our policies and actions have no doubt put gas on the fire.

 

20 years ago was the first attempt at bombing the world trade center. They did not go away. Current actions have not exterminated them, but it does more than doing nothing.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I tend to agree with you, but there is no doubt our meddling also exacerbates the problem significantly as well. I think it's a bit silly to say that they only hate us because of our actions, they hate us for religious, cultural, and historical reasons.

 

But some of our policies and actions have no doubt put gas on the fire.

 

Oh, they surely hate us for being Christian, Western, and other things... But they're not going to go out of their way to attack someone half a world away that isn't meddling in their daily lives. They'll find a closer, more localized target to focus on.

 

It sounds cruel but I don't see the Middle East being "fixed". The vocal part of the population practices a 14th century religion and has no motivation to change, as it helps them control the rest of the population, which (mostly) goes along with the craziness from that vocal minority.

 

So, let 'em have their craziness. Focus on preventing the nutjobs from leaving the area, infecting other regions, and call it a day.

 

Some problems and people just aren't worth the effort. Take some of that money and work with Africa instead. At least there we'll have a chance to fix a problem that isn't steeped in two millennia of ideological "hate your neighbor".

[TheLeviathan]

Oh, they surely hate us for being Christian, Western, and other things... But they're not going to go out of their way to attack someone half a world away that isn't meddling in their daily lives. They'll find a closer, more localized target to focus on.

 

They've had both though. I don't disagree with you that "fixing" that region seems almost impossible, but I disagree that they'll get distracted with local concerns. The big, bad, oppressive super-power is far more galvanizing than petty local difference. Power-grabbers will always recognize that.

 

There is hope for many portions of Africa, that's very true. But I worry even there that you'll end up supporting the wrong kinds of people and end up creating similar situations there. Look how much money that gets funneled there already that goes into everything but clean water and basic societal foundations in place of tanks and guns.

 

But to your larger point - part of why I'm ok with aggressive approaches in both regions is because I think there is little hope, but I do think we should be less visible in those regions. We have the technology to be aggressive without being a constant reminder to people that we're around.

[Shane Wahl]

The list of atrocities committed by the Taliban to women, children, and anyone who is not one of them is long. Two examples.

How the Taliban slaughtered thousands of people

Minority Afghans tell Taliban atrocities - chicagotribune.com

 

Al-Awlaki was nowhere to be found for the Muslim people of those communities. No statements condemning the slaughter. To label him a moderate is (I can't think of a statement or word that isn't banned by TD).

 

Weird about that continued U.S. support of the Taliban right up into 2001, then, huh.

 

Al-Awlaki was sought out in American after 9/11 as a moderate voice!

[Shane Wahl]

20 years ago was the first attempt at bombing the world trade center. They did not go away. Current actions have not exterminated them, but it does more than doing nothing.

 

And when do you think Western meddling began!? How about the West (UK, in particular) drawing ridiculous borders after the fall of the Ottoman Empire? How about the U.S. overthrowing a democratically elected leader of Iran in 1954. Lord, even "Argo" gave a brief but informative history lesson about that. How about radicalizing fundies all over the region, but particularly in Afghanistan in the 80s?

 

Meanwhile, we do nothing but support a truly savage Saudi government which is quite possibly on a par with the Taliban in terms of brutality. Now . . . I wonder why??

[Shane Wahl]

How many terrorists have been "exterminated" in the War on Terror, and how many innocent people have been "exterminated"? Get those answers and see how you deal with them.

[The Wise One]

How many terrorists have been "exterminated" in the War on Terror, and how many innocent people have been "exterminated"? Get those answers and see how you deal with them.

 

US support of the Taliban followed the Muslim decree of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Innocent people killed by the US. Far less than what was killed by the Taliban as previously cited.

AL Awlaki was called moderate by the Times and other news organizations. By actions and preachings, he was not.

[The Wise One]

Oh, they surely hate us for being Christian, Western, and other things... But they're not going to go out of their way to attack someone half a world away that isn't meddling in their daily lives. They'll find a closer, more localized target to focus on.

 

It sounds cruel but I don't see the Middle East being "fixed". The vocal part of the population practices a 14th century religion and has no motivation to change, as it helps them control the rest of the population, which (mostly) goes along with the craziness from that vocal minority.

 

So, let 'em have their craziness. Focus on preventing the nutjobs from leaving the area, infecting other regions, and call it a day.

 

Some problems and people just aren't worth the effort. Take some of that money and work with Africa instead. At least there we'll have a chance to fix a problem that isn't steeped in two millennia of ideological "hate your neighbor".

 

Embassies in Africa and Peru were a half world away and they still went aftr them. But you are right about you can't fix the hate your neighbor thing. See the Shia-Sunni bloodshed over the years.

A good deal of the problems in Africa and the Middle East comes from Britain in that when they left the lines drawn as boundries had little to do with the actual people living there.

[Mike Sixel]

This is complex, imo.

 

On the one hand, how can any caring people turn their head and ignore genocide and other awful actions, and pull back to a smaller set of the world. Borders are fake lines we have imposed on humanity, and I feel there is a sense of duty to help people, no matter where or who they are.

 

OTOH, you can't fix everything, and indeed, trying to fix other peoples' problems often is not effective in the long run. Also, given our current interest in not paying taxes because they are somehow evil, we as a people need to make some difficult decisions. We cannot afford to fix everything.

 

So, should we fix the worst parts, or the parts we can most likely fix? Should we ignore people in other parts of the world, and only work on fixing the US?

 

I just don't think flip answers (which I specialize in) capture the difficulty and nuance of these decisions. I've spent some 40 years trying to answer these questions, and still don't know the answers.

[Ultima Ratio]

1. We should be clear about what "meddling" means. Influence by use of money, other material gain, political support, military use et cetera? Since this word is being used here to argue that we are creating terrorists because we've "meddled," it seems important to know what you all mean. Why?

 

2. Because we've exerted (meddled) influence in almost every corner of the world and I don't believe every corner of the world has put anything like a "fatwa" for meddling in their zones of influence in the past.

 

3. Therefore, while it may be a contributing cause, I don't think "meddling" can be shown to be the primary cause for the creation of terrorism.

 

4. The more likely causes are ignorance perpetuated by lack of education, religious and culturally fixed view about the West (which they find obscene and encroaching on their religious/cultural values), and the fact the violence and conquest is how their religion began and spread.

 

5. Just for illustration, and do correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we Vietnam was meddled with a great deal in their history -- China was always their greatest foe, then the French came, then Soviet influence, then The USA came. Yet, we have normalized relations with all of Vietnam and they are possibly our greatest ally in the region even after so much carpet bombing, money, US military presence et cetera. We've "meddled" plenty there, yet somehow it only took a couple decades after this conflict to normalize relations throughout.

 

Also, I would guess that the culture and religious views of SE Asia are/were just as foreign as those of the Middle East and central Asia.

 

I think this points to something other than "meddling" as the sole or primary cause of terrorism exported from that region.

[Shane Wahl]

A couple good posts that require more thought for a response at the moment . . .

[twinsnorth49]

1.

2. Because we've exerted (meddled) influence in almost every corner of the world and I don't believe every corner of the world has put anything like a "fatwa" for meddling in their zones of influence in the past

Maybe not in a religious sense (considering that's what fatwas are based on) but I'm quite sure other regions have had opinions on foreign "meddling" Not sure what your definition of a fatwa is.

 

3. Therefore, while it may be a contributing cause, I don't think "meddling" can be shown to be the primary cause for the creation of terrorism

 

 

4. The more likely causes are ignorance perpetuated by lack of education, religious and culturally fixed view about the West (which they find obscene and encroaching on their religious/cultural values), and the fact the violence and conquest is how their religion began and spread.

Are you talking about the terrorists or the citizenry? The vast majority of the citizenry do not have any negative fixed views about the West or other religion.

Muslim conquests had nothing to do with forcing people to convert to Islam, they were territorial based, no different than the Christian Conquests. Islam being spread by the sword is a tired myth.

 

5. Just for illustration, and do correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we Vietnam was meddled with a great deal in their history -- China was always their greatest foe, then the French came, then Soviet influence, then The USA came. Yet, we have normalized relations with all of Vietnam and they are possibly our greatest ally in the region even after so much carpet bombing, money, US military presence et cetera. We've "meddled" plenty there, yet somehow it only took a couple decades after this conflict to normalize relations throughout.

 

Also, I would guess that the culture and religious views of SE Asia are/were just as foreign as those of the Middle East and central Asia

Vietnam never had its Israel, a bit if an extenuating factor don't you think? Last time I checked nobody voted to give part of Vietnam to someone else without asking. Whether that viewpoint is right or wrong is irrelevent, it's a factor.

 

I think this points to something other than "meddling" as the sole or primary cause of terrorism exported from that region.

[Shane Wahl]

Well that's a damn good response twinsnorth49. There's a lot to be said here.

 

Can you imagine . . . I used to try to have these kinds of conversations on . . . Hannity.com???

[Shane Wahl]

This is complex, imo.

 

On the one hand, how can any caring people turn their head and ignore genocide and other awful actions, and pull back to a smaller set of the world. Borders are fake lines we have imposed on humanity, and I feel there is a sense of duty to help people, no matter where or who they are.

 

OTOH, you can't fix everything, and indeed, trying to fix other peoples' problems often is not effective in the long run. Also, given our current interest in not paying taxes because they are somehow evil, we as a people need to make some difficult decisions. We cannot afford to fix everything.

 

So, should we fix the worst parts, or the parts we can most likely fix? Should we ignore people in other parts of the world, and only work on fixing the US?

 

I just don't think flip answers (which I specialize in) capture the difficulty and nuance of these decisions. I've spent some 40 years trying to answer these questions, and still don't know the answers.

 

There is an absolute need to fix the world, including ourselves. There MUST be engagement and perhaps strong diplomacy to get barbaric regimes to give up.

 

There is no clear answer, however, as to how to help. Waging war is clearly not a viable answer as has been demonstrated.