open Democracy News Analysis - America is more dangerous than terrorists, - Comments

v_s_siddhu on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

v_s_siddhu — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 06:21:40 +0000

Well, the four factors of classifying things as more dangerous is indeed impressive. But, once again, the question is begged to be asked, why are you considering a democratic country a danger than the terrorists? If we are in a democratic society, then we should know that the fundamental principle of Democracy is to oppose tyranny and terror at all times. When the world knows that there are terror elements out there who pose a threat to freedom and life, it becomes necessary for a nation to defend itself from it. President George.W.Bush has done just that. Regardless of the various conspiracy theories about the past American actions in the middle east and Asia, people should not look at outdated incidents and base their themes in today's world. Look at the present scenario and then make those judgements. People argue that Al-Qaeda emerged out of the first Persian Gulf War. The reasons given were that the Saudi Monarch refused the security offer of Bin laden and his group to defend Saudi Arabia in case of an impending attack. That does not give Bin Laden and his group to do the kind of things that he did in Tanzania, Kenya and of course the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A terrorist shows no quarter, at least President Bush does. People also argue about the brutal killings of civilians in Iraq. This is a fact that a war will generate casualties. Remember, America is laying the foundation of Democracy in Iraq. It is the terrorist outfits in the country and the insurgents who are the roadblocks. So, once again, blame the terrorists and not the Americans. President Bush named Iran as part of the Axis of Evil during the state of the union address in 2002. There will be no surprises if he takes pre-emptive strike against Iran now. After Iranian president Mahmood Ahmedinijad spoke of wiping out the state of Israel from the map, he has shown that he too is a tyrant. After these remarks,the US must take pre-emptive action against Iran and ensure that no furthur threats exist in the region.

eric_5 on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

eric_5 — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:57:37 +0100

Not being a megalomaniac, I don't think I can 'fix it'. I can observe and comment.

Joeanna Nee on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

Joeanna Nee — Sat, 28 May 2005 13:12:12 +0100

ok,I am really getting tired of hearing the same old drivel. If our country sucks that bad than why do so many people seek asylum here? Abandoning there own countries, instead of staying there and trying to fix their own countries ... oh right, that's because they would probably be dragged out of there houses and shot. We dont do that here. Everybodies history books have a tendency toslant history to its own countries advantage, and as a simple mom trying to eek out a living started to read alot of these posts to understand global politics. Im still not as proficient as many of you, and quite nervous at times due to my lack of knowledge on many subjects. But I am smart enough to research. No one country is blameless nor can we say this country does more than that one. The old addage "damned if you do, damned if you dont" is always true to form. I may not like what bush has done, I certainly didn't vote for the guy, but I do like living in a country that I can say hes an idiot to as many people as I like and not get shot for it. You people remind me of the school counselor who shredded my five year old for about twenty minutes (he's had difficulties since his father died suddenly right before school started). When she finished, I quietly stated to her "Now that you have proficiently shredded my five year old on all his bad points and have observed him for this period of time; tell me what plan have you came up with to help him then?" Her mouth opened and not a word came out of it. Is it that easy for us to pick someone to shred and go on and on and on ad nauseum; just to have our mouths drop open when someone says "so whats your plan to fix it?" So Eric, what's your plan hun? sincerely Joeanna Nee-an honest woman from Maine

Joeanna Nee on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

Joeanna Nee — Sat, 28 May 2005 12:39:31 +0100

I remember something once said during a history lesson that was stated by the commander of the japanese fleet that attacked pearl harbor: "I fear that we have just awoke a sleeping giant" We get slammed for not getting involved, we get slammed for getting into one ... no country can look at istself and say "hi, im Polly Purebread" Look around you people, your not seeing the big picture. China has more weapons and mor soldiers than we will ever have and they are very secretive about it. So whats more frightening something you can see? Or the one you never see coming? Sincerly, Joeanna Nee-a woman from maine

eric_5 on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

eric_5 — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:46:17 +0000

As I said before, I accept the right of the USA to behave like all other empires in history. I even accept the notion that the motivation of their citizens is that they are doing the best for the other countries. That was also true with other empires.Eduardo_Ferreira What is the basis for this right? Thinking they are doing their best for other countries is baloney, a self-congratulatory cloak for exploitation and self-interest.

Eduardo Ferreira on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

Eduardo Ferreira — Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:33:19 +0100

Owly, Yes, UK was the one losing more in WWII. But to maintain that it could possible remained unaffected by what would happen in the mainland does not make sense. Let me quote you: […]sometimes what happens in 'far-away [countries] between people of whom we know nothing' has a direct effect upon us. If Hitler had the chance to conquer Europe, one country at the time, why would the UK be left out? You seem to have the same notion that the American have, that the ocean insures that no one would ever set foot on your land. That was true since the Norman, including the Great Armada, but it is not an impossibility. The fact is that Hitler was not totally prepared for the war. If the Nazis were given time, would the Soviet Union survive the concentrated might of the entire German army? I doubt it, even with their army spread by many fronts Moscow escaped by a finger nail. The UK *had* to enter the war while it still could be assembled a group of countries to oppose Germany. Or else, when would you go to war? After the defeat of France? After the conquest of Russia? Totally alone? Or would you wait for the invasion, at a time decided by Germany? UK did not go to war to save Poland (and did nothing to that effect), this country was just a line drawn to Hitler’s ambitions. The British Empire was thinking on self preservation. Maybe you do not consider yourself to be an European, when you say: […]Europeans had to be saved from themselves by Anglo-American arms[…] This is strange, because I consider UK to belong to Europe. We have a common culture and history. It seems like yesterday that we were all killing ourselves for the same lands, English, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese. Is your detachment a result of the geographic separation? I live in an Island to, and I think I am European. Besides, do you consider Soviet Union in WWII to be part of the Anglo-American army? Maybe they did not do enough for the defeat of the Nazis… If you want Europe to be humble, because of historical mistakes, then I totally disagree with you. My generation did not create a Hitler, Stalin, Marx, Franco, Salazar or Communism, Fascism and other isms. I decline any responsibility for past actions of my country, and Europe has a whole. The same way I cannot be called to answer for the actions of my father. I may be proud of things my country did, or ashamed of others. But I will not restrict my judgment of present things because of the past. The WMD problem reminds me of a comic program before the invasion: it featured a Bush dummy saying that the Iraq had to disarm itself, or else when the US troops invaded they would be shoot upon! I am sure that Iraq had some WMD after the first golf war and all the inspections. Mossad said that at some point these weapons were handed to Syria. Now, the Israelites are not very neutral when it comes to Syria, but the fact that these weapons were not found is a reasonable indication on that way. When will Syria be invaded? And North Korea, does it treat its citizens better than Iraq? Did you know that after the Iraqi invasion the North Koreans said that it was the proof that countries need WMD for their defense? They also have a point, only after disarming Iraq of most WMD did the US removed Saddam from power; or do you think WMD would not be used in the first golf war if the offensive had continued and Saddam had nothing more to lose? Yet you would wish for 2 more days of war, with Iraq firing SCUD missiles to Israel. Did you stop to consider what would happen if one of those SCUD were equipped with chemical weapons? Can you consider Israel Nuclear capability used in the Middle East? In the first war the allies calculated things very well, if Saddan were taken out of power (not counting with the desperate use WMD) there would be no reason to maintain allied forces in Saudi Arabia for ten years. And the menace of the *big bad wolf* Saddan led to massive American arms purchase from that country. Now that the American bases were getting to be inconvenient in Saudi Arabia (remember that the American presence in that country is the main reason for the fight of Bin Laden), there was a need for a new base of operations, like Iraq. And so that you don’t think my position is just anti-American and pro-European, I can say that European actions had nothing to do with their big hearts. Russian, French and German companies had lots of interests in Iraq, they had much to lose with the invasion. On the other hand most countries were just greedy; after the defeat of Saddan a friend of mine (a CEO of a trans-national company) said: We [the Portuguese] got to send immediately troops to Iraq, even if it is 10 guys and one "chaimite". There will be a lot of money in the reconstruction of that country, and we got to get a piece of the cake. (Note:"chaimite" is a personnel transport from the 60s that still equips the Portuguese Army) The whole picture reminds me of lions eating their helpless victim, while the vultures wait for the leftovers. I am sure that you are an intelligent person, and I hope you look into history to see that what is done is never done by the reasons it is said to be. Do you think WWI was fought to stop all wars? Or that the Spanish were just trying to convert the South American civilizations? Think for yourself and look at the big picture. Not considering the interests, what is happening in Iraq is dangerous mainly for Europe. The inept and arrogant actions of the US may be a trigger for an Arab Leader to rise above national divisions and inflame the feelings of rage and humiliation in the Arab world thus creating another pole of power. In that case, interests will be considered, and there will be no interest in the US that is to far away to attack. But western, Christian, and rich Europe is at their doors. Faith, rage and the sight of gold were never a good combination. And to conclude, I never said and do not think that what countries do in their borders is nobody’s business. But fail to see why in some cases this is true and others is not. I consider being a lot more effective to judge a dictator (like Spain wanted to do with Pinochet and UK refused) than to bomb the whole country. If you break international law anyway, why not kidnap the dictator or just kill him? That would solve most of the world dictator’s problems and would be a lot cheaper for the benefactors in terms of money and men. Not to mention the innocent lives spared in that process. Or do you consider this way to be non ethical? (As opposing to the invasion of a country). Message was edited by: eduardo_mr_ferreira Message was edited by: eduardo_mr_ferreira

owly on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

owly — Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:02:23 +0100

eduardo, You are right to say that the Americans didn't bankrupt themselves with the Second World War: we did ! It was Sir Gordon White who use to say one of his aims in business was to regain that 20% of America the UK owned before the war. Quite so. There is a stand of intellectual opinion which holds that the UK was wrong to go to war for Poland, and we ought to have sat back and allowed Hitler & Stalin to fall out and kill one another and not get involved. There was little to chose between them, save Hitler was a racist: Stalin would kill anyone and did. If you leave aside the war, Stalin's killing makes Hitlers look rather incompetant. May be a reason why we went to war was because of moral principle, and because it was right. We very nearly lost, but I give thanks to God every single day that we did not. You concude your second post by saying the Americas should spare us the superiority bit, well the same could be said about the Europeans. They forget, because it is convenient for them to forget, that the two most terrible ideologies ever created were European creations, and both share the same intellectual roots as I recall. 60 years ago the Europeans had to be saved from themselves by Anglo-American arms, so a touch of humility is more than called for. Sometimes the arrogance is not all American, and there is enough of it in Europe to satisfy anyone. With regard to Iraq the war this was fought for two reasons. WMD was one, and in the absense of any proof we were bound to conculde Saddam did have a WMD capability, and the second was liberation. In 1991 the Allies miscalculated. They assumed Saddam would be overthrown. He wasn't, but had the tanks rolled for 2 more days (and I maintain they would have done so had Lady Thatcher been still in office) he would have been felled. And what is more there is not a soul who can argue that the world would not have been a better place had he been overthrown. The tragady of Iraq is that it has suffered so much. King Faisal II was brutally and cowardly murdered in 1958 and ever since the people have lived under tyrants, culminating in Saddam where they were trapped in a prison atop a mass grave. Are the people of Iraq somehow unworthy, undeserving of freedom and the light of liberty ? Your final point basically rest on the old Westphalia doctrine, that it matters not what a ruler does within his own borders, it has sod all to do with anyone else. Do you really believe this is a tenable position to take in our world ? In someways it would be rather handy if it were, for we would only need to sick our nose in where we had an interest worth defending, like oil !

Eduardo Ferreira on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

Eduardo Ferreira — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 02:20:47 +0100

Owly, I was not totally satisfied by my reply, your comment about the *danger* of America isolate itself deserves a more direct approach. As I said before, I accept the right of the USA to behave like all other empires in history. I even accept the notion that the motivation of their citizens is that they are doing the best for the other countries. That was also true with other empires. But the utter superiority feeling demonstrated in that *danger* idea hit me like a slap in the face. I am a citizen of a country allied and friend of the U.S. and if I feel this way I can only imagine how the people from an American targeted country would feel faced with that kind of notion applied to ground actions. You see, humanity was able to survive very well even before the (young) U.S.A. was born. I dare to presume that it would also survive very well after such a frightening event as the isolation of that country. Empires come and go; it is a cycle that almost every European country has seen. One big certainty is that the American empire would one day be no more, the question is: will it go out with a bang? There is a big difference from the time of the Roman Empire, the difference being the present technology. If the *barbarians* conquered by the Romans had access to NBQ weapons, I am almost sure that Rome would have been ruined by a *terrorist* attack. If you push to hard, someone would be sufficiently aggravated to supply terrorists with such weapons. And the notion that you could ever stop a NBQ terrorist action is pure fantasy (only seen in Hollywood films). The bottom line is: America, use your time and look out for your interests, but please, spare us from the superiority attitude.

Eduardo Ferreira on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

Eduardo Ferreira — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:41:47 +0100

Owly, UK was almost Bankrupt after WWII, not America. There was no interest in the UK to enter a war with Germany, there was even some strategists in the UK supporting that if Europe went to War it would be ruined and the US would rise as the dominant power. That was precisely what happened. The interesting part is that the German master minds of "global domination by the Germany-Russia-Japan axis" (Carl Oshofer for one) knew that, and were dismayed when Hitler invaded Russia (is former ally) thus losing the war. Thank God for Hitler not being a realist. At the time was really of the U.S. interest to enter the War, when the popular view was isolationist. So the question is: is intervention better than isolation? Tolkien once wrote something like (this is not a quote) : Should I go to their country and slay them and their families? Or should I wait in my land, so when they come to slay my family I can say "at least I did not kill". See, there is noting inherently better in intervention versus isolation, it is just different. No one can predict the future, we can just weight the possible results of each action. In the case of Iraq, if the idea was to free the country from Saddan, that could be done after the first war supporting the popular upraising. If that was not done, then other interest where at play (I can think of a few) of higher importance for the US than Iraqi freedom. And, by the way, who decided that was the world interest that the US should save nations from themselves? Message was edited by: eduardo_mr_ferreira

owly on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

owly — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:52:13 +0100

The point of the quote was just to point out that sometimes what happens in 'far-away [counties] between people of whom we know nothing' has a direct effect upon us. The world is interdependent in so many ways. The United Kingdom had no need to give Poland a guarantee as we did, so had no need to go to War in 1939, and indeed there is an argument for saying to save civilization we bankrupted ourselves. Suppose we had sat back and done nothing ? What would the world be like today ? We would be far richer and that's a fact. What is dangerous is not American policy today, it is the possibility that the US might withdrew into a policy of isolation. Do we really want the US to adopt an attitude that the world can go to hell in a handcart and they don't care ?

Eduardo Ferreira on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

Eduardo Ferreira — Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:44:35 +0100

['How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging ttrenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing'. Neville Chamberlain.] That attitude is totally different from the US attitude at the time, right ? Roosevelt had a bad time trying to help the UK against Hitler, because of the non-interventionist popular opinion. It was only after the Japanese attack that America went to war. In a way I agree with Caveman, people are alike everywhere, but that is true EVEN on the government. Probably caveman would think differently if he was in Bush’s seat ( it could be a case of “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” ). Bush is sticking out for U.S. interests (oil, control) as well as is own (money and power), like many would do in is place. But can he say that? No. Why? Because of the ethical/political hypocrisy that rules the human species at these days. Long are gone the times of the “minister of war”, now is the “minister of defence”. Now we go to war to free some country, in old day it was because one king offended the other. Have things changed? Have people changed? Maybe not at the bottom, but the surface is very different. Is America doing something new? When the Roman Empire invaded some land they were taking the light of civilization to those “barbarians” (a roman word for anything not roman). The roman PAX had some cost, usually many people ended as slaves in Rome while other were simply massacred during the invasion (collateral damage, we say today). Rome had is empire. When the Europeans sailed around the globe, trading in some places and colonizing others, there was a very good reason: to save souls and spread the word of Jesus. The souls of the locals were saved, at the cost of their lands or their lives. And Europe had is colonies. Now America wants to export democracy to Iraq, in return they want to import oil and have a say in the region. America has the right to do so, because historically it has been always like that: if you have power, you will use it to your advantage. But then, the Iraqis have also the right to fight back, they have the right to fight in every way they can because they face a very powerful enemy. And if you have a strong belief, that you are in the side of good against evil, than you should use every method to achieve your ends. This is the case of America against terrorists, BUT is also the case of the terrorists. You see, nobody has the monopoly of good, reason and rights. America is no worst or better then other countries, it is just more powerful AT THE MOMENT. You cannot change the way governments act, some will act wisely, others not, but in general they will do in large scale what you and I do in small scale. Is the third world starving? So are some homeless people you cross every day. What is your Iraq?

brolly2_1 on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

brolly2_1 — Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:17:49 +0100

['How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging ttrenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing'. Neville Chamberlain.] The above supposedly 'smart' quote really says nothing that is applicable to what Caveman was saying. We are expected to draw the conclusion that the US and UK war with Iraq is going to save the world. I simply do not draw such a conclusion and nor do I suspect do many others apart from those that favour the neoconservative and Bush Doctrine.It would be different if the motives of the Americans were as pure as they would have us believe but we know that their defence of 'freedom' is related to the cost and continuity of the oil supply and also to diminish the support of the Palestinians by other Middle East countries by eliminating them as independent countries and substituting puppet governments. Iraq is the first step in this direction. If Bush is re-elected the heat will turn up on Iran. Message was edited by: brolly2_1

owly on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

owly — Sat, 14 Aug 2004 12:07:58 +0100

'How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging ttrenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing'. Neville Chamberlain.

caveman on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

caveman — Sat, 14 Aug 2004 05:59:17 +0100

I live in the United States and I believe that the biggest threat to our National Security is our own attitude. As long as we keep thinking we are better than every one else we will continue to make other people angry and want to attack us. We are the architects of our own misery. We human beings are more alike than we are different. America is not one man, it's a nation of teachers and plumbers and grandmothers and paper boys like every other nation on the planet. We are no better and no worse than any one else. It's always a few hot heads that can't get along. And then they force you and I to fight each other to solve THEIR problems. When are we, as human beings, going to say ENOUGH! Fight your own damn battle. The PEOPLE of America have no beef with the PEOPLE of Iraq. It's their leaders and our leaders who have issues. Put them all in a room and give them box cutters and let them fight it out.

jmiddleton on "America is more dangerous than terrorists"

jmiddleton — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:25:15 +0100

James Hewitt: Have you ever been to China? India? or the US for that matter?

America is more dangerous than terrorists,

eric_5 — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0100

"Totalitarians and other rogue dictators should not be given the benefit of the doubt and their threats as uttered by their leaders should be taken with great seriousness." Neocon Since the United States is more efficient in spreading death, destruction and oppression, as demonstrated by the case of Iraq, it is more of a danger to the world than those it is attacking (potentially everybody).