Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Can terrorism be stopped by any President?

KMA-628 · 10-12-2004, 09:54 AM

roach-

The history of American foreign policy really shows us nothing consistent as the manner and tone has changed over and over again. We were not popular decades ago and we are not popular today, nothing has really changed there:

i.e.

1) Before Nixon: Vietnam, etc.

2) Nixon Admin: Stained the office of the President in many country's eyes

3) Carter Admin: Royally f'd up in the middle east and probably could be held to blame for some of the problems that we have in that region today.

4) Reagan Admin: There was worldwide anti-US and anti-Reagan sentiment in the 80's.

5) Bush Sr. Admin: Gulf I, War for Oil, etc.

6) Clinton Admin: How many terrorist attacks against us? Another stain on the office of the President regarding Monica in the eyes of the world. Somalia? Haiti? Bosnia? Aspirin Factory? The largest attack on Iraq to that date., etc., etc.

To say that the anti-US sentiment is new is ridiculous. To say it is W's fault is equally ridiculous. We are not in a popularity contest. There is no way to appease everybody all of the time. Regardless of how we conduct foreign and domestic policy, our actions will be unpopular to somebody.

"people are driven to desperate actions by the situations in which they find themselves"

I would have to disagree here. The terrorists are two well funded to be in a "desperate situation". We are infidels, pure and simple. I have read parts of the Quran and remember some of the comments about how infidels should be treated (i.e. tear them limb from limb, etc.). The only way this is political is because their religion controls their politics.

Even if we remove our influence from foreign countries, we would still be infidels. We would still be the enemy. I don't remember us declaring jihad on them, it was the other way around. Some of the ideals we have as Americans are infectious, regardless of how these ideals spread. Even if we went isolationist and didn't spread democracy and capitalism, some people would still want what we have. Not to mention the countless countries that rely on the very money that comes from a system that you abhor. What kind of anti-US sentiment would occur if we turned off the old money spigot? If we pulled out of the World Bank? If we called in all of our loans to other countries? If we stopped sending billions and billions in aid?

I know this is an arguable position, but I am not of the opinion that we forced "Westernization" in the Middle East. Part of the whole "Westernization" concept is some people want what we have. Having been to many countries around the globe, I can see why.

10-12-2004, 09:54 AM	#42 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	roach- The history of American foreign policy really shows us nothing consistent as the manner and tone has changed over and over again. We were not popular decades ago and we are not popular today, nothing has really changed there: i.e. 1) Before Nixon: Vietnam, etc. 2) Nixon Admin: Stained the office of the President in many country's eyes 3) Carter Admin: Royally f'd up in the middle east and probably could be held to blame for some of the problems that we have in that region today. 4) Reagan Admin: There was worldwide anti-US and anti-Reagan sentiment in the 80's. 5) Bush Sr. Admin: Gulf I, War for Oil, etc. 6) Clinton Admin: How many terrorist attacks against us? Another stain on the office of the President regarding Monica in the eyes of the world. Somalia? Haiti? Bosnia? Aspirin Factory? The largest attack on Iraq to that date., etc., etc. To say that the anti-US sentiment is new is ridiculous. To say it is W's fault is equally ridiculous. We are not in a popularity contest. There is no way to appease everybody all of the time. Regardless of how we conduct foreign and domestic policy, our actions will be unpopular to somebody. "people are driven to desperate actions by the situations in which they find themselves" I would have to disagree here. The terrorists are two well funded to be in a "desperate situation". We are infidels, pure and simple. I have read parts of the Quran and remember some of the comments about how infidels should be treated (i.e. tear them limb from limb, etc.). The only way this is political is because their religion controls their politics. Even if we remove our influence from foreign countries, we would still be infidels. We would still be the enemy. I don't remember us declaring jihad on them, it was the other way around. Some of the ideals we have as Americans are infectious, regardless of how these ideals spread. Even if we went isolationist and didn't spread democracy and capitalism, some people would still want what we have. Not to mention the countless countries that rely on the very money that comes from a system that you abhor. What kind of anti-US sentiment would occur if we turned off the old money spigot? If we pulled out of the World Bank? If we called in all of our loans to other countries? If we stopped sending billions and billions in aid? I know this is an arguable position, but I am not of the opinion that we forced "Westernization" in the Middle East. Part of the whole "Westernization" concept is some people want what we have. Having been to many countries around the globe, I can see why.