Hasn't the US screwed a lot of countries? How come terrorists seem

[The Straight Story]

to only come from a select few - ie, why only do a select few countries that hate us spawn the type of attacks (both carried out and thrwarted).

Hell, the french don't like us - but I don't see em hijacking our planes.

I am sure folks in central and southern africa aren't too fond of us either. Most of europe probably has a dim view and think we are evil and such. The canadians? Well, screw em - they got the good side of the falls and should quit complaining ;)

Who else can we say hates us? China, Russia, NK, philipines, hell I am sure I could go on all night thinking of reasons people don't like us (and on the other side, why they might like us or why we may not like them).

We nuked japan. Bombed the beezejus out of germany. South america, Mexico, hell everyone but Iceland maybe (except that whole fishcer deal...).

We are the big dog on the block. So we get a lot of enemies. So why aren't they all chipping in to blow up planes, trains, and automobiles?

And then there are our allies (or friends at best) - UK, Spain as two examples, who have also been attacked. Generally speaking by the same group of folks from a similar region of the world.

And all this before we went into Iraq and Afghanistan. 9/11 went down after months (or longer) of planning, so these same folks hated us in the clinton days (first wtc attack, uss cole, thwrated 2000 attack, etc).

So what gives?

[Totallybushed]

1. It will require a

lot of thought to figure that one out.

If only our "leaders" would do it, then we wouldn't have to. Or have to worry about it, because the problem could be solved.

[DireStrike]

2. South America and Africa are the only 2 other "stateless" regions

No strong states there to bargain with or overthrow. They're busy fighting amongst themselves.

The bad guys in SA are all busy trading drugs and arms through the CIA, taking hostages for ransom, or else fighting for us against the "worse" leftists who run their countries.

Africa... I dunno. But some Al Qaeda recruits come out of there.

Also, I think religion is almost necessary for imparting suicidal zeal. It's tough to get Christian or Jewish fanatics to attack America, so that leaves Islam as the other major player. Smaller religions are generally tied more to local issues.

[Jeanette in FL]

3. Many of them will/are using economics to destroy us

Look at our trade deficient.

Russia fell because of economics, not Reagan.

China can destroy us in a heartbeat, without a shot being fired.

[uppityperson]

4. I agree with you on this, what I was going to post

There are ways of destroying countries without bombing them.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. No. Just the ones on earth. A lot would include the outer

reaches of the galaxy... and they are sitting on the technology to get there for now.... for a decent explanation of "how" they have screwed a couple countries nearby.... do check out the review below. BTW.... this might have a tad to do with why they "resist" us.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0452287081.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_V58509623_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452287081/sr=8-1/qid=1155508263/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2395961-6853519?ie=UTF8

John Perkins started and stopped writing Confessions of an Economic Hit Man four times over 20 years. He says he was threatened and bribed in an effort to kill the project, but after 9/11 he finally decided to go through with this expose of his former professional life. Perkins, a former chief economist at Boston strategic-consulting firm Chas. T. Main, says he was an "economic hit man" for 10 years, helping U.S. intelligence agencies and multinationals cajole and blackmail foreign leaders into serving U.S. foreign policy and awarding lucrative contracts to American business. "Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars," Perkins writes. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is an extraordinary and gripping tale of intrigue and dark machinations. Think John Le Carré, except it's a true story.

Perkins writes that his economic projections cooked the books Enron-style to convince foreign governments to accept billions of dollars of loans from the World Bank and other institutions to build dams, airports, electric grids, and other infrastructure he knew they couldn't afford. The loans were given on condition that construction and engineering contracts went to U.S. companies. Often, the money would simply be transferred from one bank account in Washington, D.C., to another one in New York or San Francisco. The deals were smoothed over with bribes for foreign officials, but it was the taxpayers in the foreign countries who had to pay back the loans. When their governments couldn't do so, as was often the case, the U.S. or its henchmen at the World Bank or International Monetary Fund would step in and essentially place the country in trusteeship, dictating everything from its spending budget to security agreements and even its United Nations votes. It was, Perkins writes, a clever way for the U.S. to expand its "empire" at the expense of Third World citizens. While at times he seems a little overly focused on conspiracies, perhaps that's not surprising considering the life he's led. --Alex Roslin --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

[datasuspect]

6. this so called terrorist activity

is just blowback - unintended consequences that are the direct result of CIA spookery and nastiness in other countries. they did lots of shit the public wasn't supposed to know about.

so naturally people will ask, "why do they hate us?"

they're not going to ask the forensic question: "what did we do to make them hate us?"

[The Straight Story]

7. I can see why they hate us, but why do only some try to kill

us, our citizens, etc and so on - and most others don't?

IS religion the big factor in this equation (extremism/fundamentalism)?

[datasuspect]

9. no religion isn't the most important issue

there are cultural issues in play, which involves religion, but it mostly has to do with american economic colonialism that even the most illiterate sheep herder in the deserts of iraq knows about but your average college educated person in america is ignorant of or refuses to believe.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Straight Story]

10. I am sure you were being somewhat satirical, but

for those freeps outside looking in:

America has faults. We have a lot of good things we all love, but those things don't need fixing.

That's why couples fight over things they percieve as wrong in a relationship - they can spend hours and energy fighting over the bad while taking the good for granted; mainly because they expect the good/the best out of each other and are let down when that does not occur.

In a great country like ours where I see people out helping each other, being good to one another, I am shocked that we have not projected that better into the rest of the world. It is less because of the majority of our people and more because of the minority in power.

Some hate us for good reason, some use hate of us to whip up people to follow them (pick on america, ya can't go wrong).

It's like saying your ills are because of satan, and not your own countries failings (because in those countries as well, a powerful minority often screw over the majority).

[BuyingThyme]

11. I stopped reading when I saw "the french don't like us."

I'm sorry my friend, but you are a citizen of Bush World.

The French are one of the best allies we have. They tried to save the lives of our troops, well over 2,500 so far, but the likes of Bush and The Straight Story told the French to fuck off.

[The Straight Story]

12. Never said they weren't allies

But, in this bush world, do you think they like us?

Last poll I saw (last year) french folks were not too keen on us. Why?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Straight Story]

14. Ummmmm

Not all muslims. Though I have a friend who fled Iran with his family who do feel that way. I also have a muslim friend (from last job) who was about as nice as anyone could be and abhorred violence.

Welcome to DU. Enjoy the stay....

[Sparkly]

16. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a racist statement.

Timothy McVeigh, anyone?

[The Straight Story]

18. I am somewhat in agreement, though not totally

Reasons being:
I am guessing the person meant islamic people (faith), versus muslim (otherwise, yes, racist - but I also confuse the terms at times sadly).

and 2 - if 1 holds then I have heard worse about christians here. A lot. And that somehow seems acceptable.

[Sparkly]

20. I see what you're saying.

Would you go along with "bigoted" then?

[The Straight Story]

23. 100% :) (nt)

[CJCRANE]

22. But Germany was pretty much levelled in WWII.

Plus don't forget the Nuremburg trials.

[Zhade]

28. How very RACIST of you.

The mods have been alerted. Enjoy your stay.

[Sparkly]

15. First, you have to distinguish between governments and loose organizations

that span different countries, and aren't (necessarily) state-sponsored.

Then I think you have to recognize the value of structures that enable nations to TALK to each other, give them reason to talk to each other, etc... Think of the UN, the concept of diplomatic relations, etc...

Then I think the concept of a military, as defense, has to be considered, along with economic power. Carrying a big stick helps people walk softly, to borrow the metaphor. (Which is another reason this country does -- or at least, did -- have plenty of power to wield long, long before actually waging an all-out war.)

Then think of terrorist networks, and how they differ from governments. Their goals are different, their political and diplomatic power is zero and so their tactics are different... And I for one believe they can not be negotiated with -- that violence on its own should never lead to power apart from government of a people (no matter how horrible the government) which have built-in concerns (economic, trade, etc.) and have structures of SOME kind that enable diplomacy.

[The Straight Story]

17. Excellent

A very well worded and thoughtful response which I am in agreement with.

[savemefromdumbya]

19. Answer, Cheney funds Muslim terorrists

[The Straight Story]

21. The more one ponders, the more one does wonder

But they were there during clinton years as well. Was cheney pulling strings then as well? And 9/11 was most likely (I am guessing) planned before 2001.

[CJCRANE]

25. 250,000 people died due to sanctions on Iraq

apparently, that was one of the reasons given.

I personally don't believe that 9/11 had to happen. It was facilitated for political gain.

That's why B*sh conceded to bin Laden's demand to remove troops from Saudi Arabia.

[savemefromdumbya]

27. scary stuff

there was a lot of string pulling. They killed JFK. The rest toed the line.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

24. I don't think it is hating us exactly, just not wanting to get bombed

And also the covert activities and the economic ones. Because if you think about it people in other countries are not really different from us. They don't want to get killed or legs blown off with landmines or starve to death. So because the way we do things makes it where so many people in other countries have to make these sacrifices so that we can be the richest and most powerful a lot of the people don't agree with it any more than we would, so it is not hate, just more like self preservation.

[CJCRANE]

26. Why did most US citizens support

"shock and awe" on Iraq?

Human emotions of revenge, confusion, anger are universal.

[The Straight Story]

29. I think people supported that

because they felt we were targeting the govt and troops.

Had we went on the air saying 'death to the iraqi people, we will kill them all in our campaign' people would have been pissed. When terrorists promote death to americans in toto, it seems a bit worse imho...

This is why i think people are more upset thesedays with the war in Iraq. We went in, took out saddam and his military, and then...well we stuck around and innocent people are dying.

I was around some local redneck bars when all this crap started. From 9/11 to iraq war. The consensus was, go in, kick ass, get out, git-r-done. Go to the same bars now and people are like - shit, why are we still there?

[CJCRANE]

30. But terrorists

are only a tiny minority - 19 hijackers out of 1.5 billion muslims. And the hijackers only succeeded because Bushco enabled them.

[The Straight Story]

32. So we hit on an important point indeed in all this

While some may say we make terrorists by our actions, I see them more as being formed by the religious nutjobs on the fringe who flame the hate and stoke the fires. I don't think those 19 woke up one day and decided to just do it.

Currently there are leaders,of a fundamentalist nature, fomenting hate and recruiting people to do things they themselves won't do. So maybe the problem is less that many hate us and more that a few hate us, and those few turn that hate into action by sucking in the guillible.

It is not dissimilar to me that such is also done here (and elsewhere) where the dogmatic will say 'enlist, and save us from our enemies. You may die for your country, but it is a good cause' here though, we don't guarantee enlistment means kamikazee style death - you have a chance to carry out the mission and live. That to me might be the difference between wacko and nationalistic pride. One believes they should die along with others, the other believes they should make the other person die and collect their virgins at the local pub later ;)

Ok, a little sarcasm in all that....

[CJCRANE]

33. I think like for like comparison doesn't work.

Islamic extremists use suicide bombers which is obviously incomprehensible to most Westerners. But the neocons put forward the "flypaper" or "honeytrap" theory - i.e. put a large body of American troops in the ME and let them act as a magnet to the jihadis. The neocons in their own way are seeing the troops as fungible, for each one we lose we kill ten of them. It's a similar mathematical calculation as those who use suicide bombers. The worst thing is it creates more "terrorists" because many of the insurgents are simply nationalists fighting occupation and not al-Qaeda.

[The Straight Story]

34. I do think what scares people though is - who would use the bomb

more readily if they had it. Us, or them (them being terrorists or nations run by kooks).

The reason I think it is an issue is that terrorists are harder to pinpoint, attack, and define. We blow up Kabul - it don't matter as the terrorists have no centralized government or structure.

If they had it, the goal would be to use to cause misery regardless of effect on total goal. Take out NY, a few million less americans in general to worry about (ie, civilians seem to be the main targets with them).

So how do we combat it, do we try to make them love us? To do so we need to find the root cause - and sadly I am wondering if the root cause is something rational..

[CJCRANE]

35. I don't have an answer

but I think the BFEE/Neocons(or whatever you like to call them) are part of the problem.

They sold weapons to Iran secretly all the while saying it's a rogue state (Iran/Contra). They funded the Afghan Mujahideen which became the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Their actions surrounding 9/11 and the run-up to the Iraq War are also in question. While America has a leadership that doesn't act in good faith and only seems to exacerbate the problem it will be impossible to address these issues.

on edit: not to mention Plamegate etc.

[reichstag911]

36. Since we're the only country...

...that has used "the bomb," I'd go with us. Regarding your earlier post, Muslims are followers of the Islamic religion, so they are equivalent terms. Perhaps you meant to differentiate Arabs and Muslims, which are not necessarily the same.

[CJCRANE]

31. I think it's irrelevant whether people hate

America or not. The better question is what is your govt doing to a) protect you and b) reduce the hate?

If the govt exacerbates the hate and uses that for their own political gain that is a much bigger problem.

(By "govt" I mean elements/factions within it. Obviously most people in the bureacracy and rank and file are doing their best to protect America).