Quote:
Originally posted by Tuor:
A point of accuracy here:
Since Vietnam and the occasion on which 17 GIs got killed and 51 were injured in a shoot out in a Somalian market the US has not been 'most willing to go into other countries and lend a hand against terrorism attacks world-wide.'
The US has however been more than willing to launch cruise missiles against terrorist targets and quite rightly so many people would say. There is a important difference between those two policies. One endangers the lives of servicemen the other does not.
The US has been willing to act in a peacekeeping capacity and invade other countries to maintain the peace (and oil supplies) but there is a difference between that and anti-terrorist operations. In anti terrorist operations your soldiers are a target every day and you will lose soldiers regularly-examples are Northern Ireland, Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Spain etc etc
The US government has repeatedly shown that the protection of its servicemen is of prime importance-even below the importance of retailiation in some cases.[/B]
|
The U.S. spends a significant amount of money maintaining military bases all over the world. Is this for our own protection or for the policing of countries who would pose a threat to the peace of their neighbors or even the rest of the world? Do you think terrorism would be more rampant without their presence?
Why was the U.S. involved in the Iran-Iraq conflict in the 80's?
How is it that the Syrians were able to kill 248 American Marines in 1983 if our country did not care enough to set themselves up in other people's countries for those people's protection?
Am I wrong in remembering that our involvement in the Iran-Iraq conflict got us dogged world-wide for sticking our nose into other people's business for the purpose of protecting people who could not protect themselves from terrorists?
The rest of the world cries for help when they need it but then screams foul when we take the upper hand...can you blame this country for taking a back seat to going in first when there are treaties protecting the lives of terrorists now?
Daniel Pipes (director of the middle eastern forum, former director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute), who has a slew of credits toward his education and accomplishments as well as being a well respected journalist and international consultant for a number of boards poses the question regarding the Hamas infrastructure of the United States:
"As these fundamentalist groups become more aggressive, more forceful, how will America respond? By appeasing them?" He then offers his suggestion: "The U.S. government and body politic should discredit them like it does the KKK. It should uplift the non-radical Moslems."
A suggestion for a completely peaceful process...one that this country needs to follow if they don't want the rest of the world up in arms over our show of force in stopping terrorists
when they can easily come from organizations that we allow to exist within our very borders.
Of Chabali's plan to bring down the reign of the Saddam Hussien regime and for for enforcing the UN sanctioned inspections on Iraq?
"I'm of two minds. Saddam is ghastly, from both a human point of view and from an American-interest point of view. But we Americans have a tendency to burden ourselves with other people's problems and thereby letting every one else off the hook. Why are we begging the local countries in the region to join our efforts? The Kuwaitis are standoffish, and why not? America is doing all the work anyway, they say, so we might as well reap the benefits. I'd like to turn the equation a round: have them pleading with us to take care of Saddam."
These examples are some time after Vietnam are they not?
More American lives have been lost on
foreign soils for nothing more than the protection of people's basic human rights than any other country that I am presently aware of.
War against other people's human rights and "ethnic cleansing" is as much "terrorism" as car bombings and crashing airplanes full of innocent people into large occupied and innocent buildings. If countries have not recieved any help from the U.S. I can only think that it would be because they have refused it or will not ask for it.
Can you correct me if I am wrong here?
Here is another example of just how much the U.S. cares:
A Tribute In One Man's Perspective
------------------
You know childhood is over when a puddle seems like an obstacle instead of an opportunity.
[URL=http://www.hometown.aol.com/MickySchwartz2]Is Too! Is Not! Is Too! Is
[This message has been edited by Moni (edited 09-12-2001).]