According to your logic, using the minority muslim extremist population, all of these countries would be on the US "black list": Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Phillipines, Uzbekistan (most of the ~stan countries for that matter), Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and many African naions. Because of this, I don't think that the US could take on all of these countries at once, and the selection out of these countries for "muslim attack" would have to incorporate other factors. So I don't think the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were religiously motivated as they were economically and politically (Bush wanting reelection, regime change, etc.)Originally Posted by Maciamo
China has a much less crazy government, especially after Deng Xiaopeng came to power. Their economy has turned more and more capitalist giving private ownership to about half of thier industries. As well, local governments in the west have been having democratic elections for their leaders for the last decade. This trend has also been spreading around the different rural cities (need i remind you that about 80% of the population in China is rural) so democracy has been spreading. Save a few instances like Tiennamen Square, the whole Falun Gong thing, Hong Kong and Taiwan, China is on its way to become THE world power, surpassing the US in economic strength. And who wouldn't want to be friends with that? (And yes, it would be too hard to fight them)Originally Posted by Maciamo
terrorismOriginally Posted by Maciamo
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
Wouldn't you say that the people that Bush is "supposedly" fighting are the same way. Pressuring other countries to go their way not by aerial campaigns and invations, but by car bombs and hijackings. I don't see the difference between Bush sending 100,000+ troops into a country for political and such reasons, and Bin Ladin ordering 9/11 for political and such reasons. Both sides push, but since the US is so powerful, ours is like a violent shove.
And as for the US trying to be a moral standard for the rest of the world, yes i too think it is a little hypocritical. ie - "Killing for peace is like ***king for virginity" However, my whole point is that while the US might be on their own little carpet bombing zone over here, the rest of the world isn't so innocent in comparison. Many more conflicts with much higher body counts are taking place right now, with much less to no attention because people would rather take on the big target --> the US.
Hopefully, Kerry can get elected in November, then the wars will stop (for the most part) and we could get back to a more multilateral kind of foreign policy. VOTE KERRY ON NOVEMBER SECOND OR PREPARE FOR FOUR MORE YEARS OF GLOBAL HEGEMONY, SMART BOMBS, DICK CHENEY, AND OTHER NASTY ICKY THINGS!!!!!
Bookmarks