First off, my take on your comment is that it's rude and out of line.  I shouldn't need to remind members that personal attacks (Eurotrash being among those comments I would consider a personal attack) are out of bounds.  Redmanfms: Check your IM please.

That said, let's examine what is being proposed by the Financial Times here.  The survey asked if U.S. Foreign Policy contributed to the attack.  Personally, I think that's partly so, but I'm uncomfortable with my position on that, because it sounds so much like accusing the rape victim of being partly responsible for the attack.  That's despicable.

So why do I have such a problem blaming the victim of a rape and not blaming the victims of mass murder?

It took me quite a while to reconcile this.  Mostly, because the answer is subtle.

Terrorists have always been around.  Europeans have been dealing with them for a long time, probably more substantially than the United States in past, at least until the first major air piracy string during the Carter administration.  But the United States has taken a part, rather a subtle one, in creating them.  Part of the reason is the burning need, in the face of, or the wake of, the Cold War, to avoid accountability for foreign policy decisions- to send the natives to do the job the United States wants done, and then act surprised, after leaving them to their own devices despite promised support, that they might be a little ticked off- and well armed.

Let's face it, the Clinton administration was awfully weak in foreign policy, like Carter before him, he inspired assault.  The United States under his command- or at least the leadership thereof- seemed to lack a certain strength.  It certainly lacked a moral center.  Weakness inspires aggression in my view, and for some reason the United States spent most of the Clinton years muscling its own citizens, and spending a lot of time showing them "who was in charge."  I want to linger on that quote.  "We had to show them who was in charge."  That's Reno, by the way.  She said it twice.  Once to justify the use of force in Waco.  Once to justify the ninja snatch of the Cuban alien.

Show them who is in charge.

I won't lay it all on Clinton, or his administration, so much as him as a product of the times.  Soft.  Naive.  Blind.

What happened to the subtle and professional panache of U.S. action?  I'm fond of saying that in the Hoover era (despite it's faults) Gonzales and Koresh would have been quietly snatched by a guy in an overcoat and a fedora hiding in a potted plant in the mall.  No media.  No crowd.  No ninjas.  No automatic weapons pointed at children.  No incinerated people.

Where are the experts?  Where are those deadly professionals, those that operate in threes and fours and fives, that cuddle up close to those that would do us harm and spill their blood in almost ritualistic sanctity?  Are we so addicted to push-button war that we have lost the courage to spill blood with our hands, not CRTs.

Where are the Walsinghams?

I keep coming back to that basic change in U.S. leadership over the last decade when I wonder to myself why the strongest country in the world seems powerless in the face of a rag-tag bunch of (admittedly well organized and professional) fanatics hiding in caves.  Too busy trying to show it's own citizens "who's in charge" I suspect.   Why the Napoleonic complex?  You have a big red button that will end life on the planet if you press it.  Why pound on your own?

It's pretty hard, as an outsider, to respect a country that seems to have little regard for its own citizens.  Even so, and as it would be easy to say that it's the "fault" of the United States for:

1.  Sending too much to Israel.
2.  Sending too little to Israel.
3.  Drinking too much oil.
4.  Drinking too much booze.
5.  Eating too much fat.
6.  Eating too much electricity.
7.  Being too powerful.
8.  Not being powerful enough.
9.  Not worshipping the right deity.
10.  Not worshipping any deity.

That's all too easy.  Far too easy.  It's also wrong in my view.

I love the United States.  It is my second home, and "second" only by accident of birth.

That said, being an imperial power (and let there be no doubt, the United States >IS< an empire, like it or not) it's time for the country to ACT like an imperial power.  The United States is inspiring all the hatred of being a powerful world influence, but seems reticent to take up that gauntlet, wield it, and enjoy the benefits thereof.

What loses my respect is not the rape victim, the fact that she is a rape victim, the fact that she was raped, the fact that she was wearing a miniskirt, or a low cut neck, or high heels- what loses my respect is that- fully knowledgeable of the nasty nature of the world- she didn't bother to arm herself, or she didn't open her eyes and recognize the obvious threats in the world.

Helplessness and naivety.  That's what offends me.

Watching the Frontline PBS special on September 11th and faith now I've been fighting back tears (with little success) for 45 minutes now.  All that loss.

Now, you ask me... in the face of that... is the United States responsible for the terrorist attacks?

You know what I see?  I see F-16s flying up to potentially hijacked planes unarmed, inspiring the debate over requiring a pilot to give his life to take that plane down by ramming it...?  What government permits it's son's and daughters into battle unarmed?

That's what offends me.  That's what makes me shake my head.  The blind, unarmed rape victim.

Enough.

Raise the sword and point it in the right direction.  Not at your heart.  Not to spill your own blood, or those of your sons and daughters, but the blood of those who would strike your sons and daughters.  It should run red in the streets.  Why hasn't it?

That's my take.

As for "Eurotrash" ...?  I can carry concealed anywhere in my country of birth that I wish.  If that's Eurotrash, where do I sign?

Where does the list end?  Particularly during the cold war the United States pleged it's support for reform, even going so far as to supply and to fund organizations to free them.  Everywhere from Poland, to Iran, to Hungary, to Cuba, to Iraq, to China's democracy movement, to Yugoslavia, to any number of Bananna Republics.

See, that was the way of things.  Encourage the locals to organize with promises of support.  Wait for them to get things moving and then lack the resolve to complete matters.  Surprise, the movement falls, or lingers and eventually decays into chaos or warlord ruled factions.



:(



Good point.  Then again, Dilligner was more the common thug type then say Kroesh or a Cuban illegal alien.



[b]TOTALLY[/b] agree.  (Look!  We see eye to eye on something!)



Well, that's perhaps another good point.  But if the average citizen doesn't (America is supposed to be at least [b]demoncratic[/b] if not a "democracy," then who does?  :(



Of course it isn't, but given that the "average citizen" can't seem to do anything about it, we are left with the administration as the only real place to point the finger, no?  Surely the voters must be accountable on some level for electing a boob just because he can play the Sax on Arsinio...?



Was Standard Oil not an empire?

The U.S. practices gunboat diplomacy, maintains bases (garrisons) world wide, projects power about the globe and dominates international policy and rulemaking for everything from the distribution of foreign aid, IMF, World Bank to space (GPS, space law, international space use restrictions), the sea (after the British gave up on being a sea power the law of the seas is almost exclusively defined, maintained, enforced and intrepreted by the United States), worldwide commercial aviation (international airline rules are effectively American rules.  The offical language of air traffic control is... english).. the list goes on.

I have no problem with this per se.  Everything seems to work well (mostly).  The trains run on time.  But let's not fool ourselves into thinking Europe (or anyone else) has a whole lot of agency in such things.  I suppose if we want to be strict about definitions there are no empires anymore.  If the U.S. has managed to avoid that label it's only because it skirts the line and occasionally stands up and makes a speech about not "national building" (while quietly installing new leadership in Afghanistan or ousting this or that warlord in some 4th world nation).

Again, I think all this is fine, I just dislike the elegant lie that is told with a wry grin when the U.S. pretends not to have such aspirations.  Have them, I say.  Why isn't gas $0.23 per gallon after the Gulf war.  That should have paid the wardebt and put a surplus into the taxpayers pocket.  What, because the United States isn't Rome?

Perhaps it should be.  (9/11, WTC, Lockerbie...)  Yes... yes perhaps it should be.



Let's have the evil empire then.  Just don't lie to me and pretend that isn't the desire.

Strength is all that commands the respect of the forces aligned against the United States.  Demonstrate it.  Damnit.  Make it clear that ill that befalls any U.S. citizen will bring down the most ire wrath known.

I haven't been involved in this thread, but am a small step from locking it.  There seems to be no end to personal attacks.  Please [b]discuss[/b], without making it personal.  "What a jackass" sounds personal to me, as well as several others.  Thank you.

I absolutely don't disagree with your [i]point[/i].  [b]BUT[/b] we have a CC to decide who gets banned.  Do you really want people banned for "anti-American comments?!!"  [b]That[/b] is what we stand for (here and in America)?!!!  All I'm asking is that the discussion be kept civil and w/o the personal attacks--that's it.  When an individual makes an asinine comment he/she can be called to task for it without calling them names.  You are free to contact offenders via IM if you wish to insist on an explanation.  They are free to respond, or not, as they see fit.  I, again, am only insisting on adherence to the CC--not in any way agreeing with Libertyof76's silly statement.  Name calling makes us look juvenile and unable to make a rational, reasoned argument.  It's just the freaking internet--none of this really matters.  There are people "out there" who are going to say and believe silly, outrageous things.  Some of them come here and post.  Please don't attack them [i]personally[/i].  Attack the crap out of their ideas!!