Quote:
|
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
|
yes, and you'd be right, had i said that. in fact, said almost the opposite.
besides, it was mostly directed at mojo's post, which was immediately above mine. it didnt follow directly into the rest of the post.
totally disagree with you on the causes of "terrorism"--reverting to religious identity as a way to rationalize the political actions of organizations gets you no place. if you want to understand something about fundamentalism, you would probably have to look at instances like the f.i.s. in algeria, link it to other, subsequent movements--in nearly every case, you would find specific political grievances, caused by specific situations (which may or may not follow from american-style capitalism--since the question had to do with the states, i pitched my response that way--but at this level, it would not hold) translated into the language of fundamentalism for tactical reasons--later, things would shift, but you would have to argue the point in each case--and no matter which instance you chose to look at, the sequence would be political grievance (widely construed) mobilization, translation into a more religious type of language.
on the question of intent: it is really difficult to prove intent. it usually operates only as a post hoc rationalization for particular sequences of action. you cannot act on intent--you cannot arrest anyone because of what they might do, you cannot authorize an invasion based on possible problems in the future. the law does not work that way, national, international, etc. it simply does not.
that you would buy the bush administrations next-to-most-desperate line in rationalizing iraq is unfortunate. better to see what that line is in fact.