Conservative policy to blame for 911

[mkultra]

Ok, i came to a conclusion in the shower the morning and i want to know if Ive lost it.


My theory is that neo-conservative world policy is to blame for 911.
Ill try to keep it short.

The neo-con policy is that America, as the richest country in the world, has a moral obligation to assert itself globally in its own interest. We support dictators when it suits us, our deployed troops rape and pillage the locals, we kill boat loads of people doing naval exercises, we bomb civilians to get to people that have angered us, we bring the scourge of exploitive corporations, and we subvert governments when the are unfriendly to our policies. All of this has lead to a global hatred of the US that my conservative friends claim is due to jealousy(they are so stupid sometimes). When we role religion into this mix, we get the willingness to invade other countries based on a perceived moral obligation to spread the good news.

Has all of the selfish behavior lead to a backlash in the international community. Obviously, other countries are to small to go to war with us or even piss us off in fear of economic sanctions. so mixed with the madness of one crazy religious figure and alot of money, we ended up with an explosive mix. all of this leads me to the wise words of Will Smith in MIB, "Don't start none, wont be none."

Don't get me wrong, i love America. I also love myself(platonically of course) but i like to think i know when Ive done something wrong and I'm big enough to say I'm sorry. Maybe thats what we need to do is just say we are sorry to everyone. Its not that we have ever done a major crime like Hitler and its not like we've haven't done good things cause we have. But its childish to believe that doing good in one country makes up for evil done to another. In any case, i think we need to rethink our actions and consider acting responsibly in the global theater.

Opinions?

[AntiCoup2K4]

1. Of course the neo cons are to blame

PNAC's own manifesto says that they would need "some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor” in order to implement their plan of global fascism. Only a fool would believe they got one by mere coincidence.

[Cleita]

2. Yep, the conservatives are behaving more and more like

Nazis everyday they are in power.

[MysticMind]

3. no actually it would've happened even if we had no military in the Mideast

As long as Western culture had any influence in the Middle East. Al Qaeda doesn't want Arabs even choosing to watch MTV or go to McDonald's. This question is like asking if it is the Federal govt could've prevented KKK violence if they hadn't enforced desegregation. Al Qaeda doesn't even want peaceful Western involvement in the Arab world.

[Beam Me Up]

8. Was Al Qaeda responsible for 9/11?

Bush and the media say so--and we know they never lie. Of course the evidence they offer is sparse and often contradictory and they won't allow a full, independent investigation. Still, everything the neocons wanted, they've gotten because 9/11 happened. Given the BILLIONS it favors them one could begin to think that if Al Qaeda didn't exist, PNAC would have to invent it.

[MysticMind]

9. the FBI, CIA, and Congressional Commission...

Says so as well. But if you want to believe crazy conspiracy theories you and the John Birch society can do so.

[many a good man]

4. You're describing realpolitik

Neoconservative policy is something new; it was ushered in on the heels of 911 and the PNAC cabal currently occupying key posts in our government. What you describe is the traditional bipartisan superpower realpolitik foreign policy that has guided our government since the establishment of the national security state resulting from NSC 68 in 1947.

Neoconservative policy is much more dangerous because it eschews diplomacy and internationalism. Its reaction to the fall of the Soviet Union is basically to aggressively assert American economic and military dominance throughout the world to re-make it our interests. Iraq was a demonstration case showing US resolve to buck world opinion and display its military might.

I agree that after 911 America had a real opportunity to change course and reconsider some of our long standing policies that have created so much enmity against us throughout the world. Instead, this administration has taken us in exactly the opposite direction. We could have begun work on seriously fighting global poverty. We could have begun actually supporting democratic movements. We could have stopped supporting dictators. We could have stopped trying to control the world by our control of energy sources. We could have worked to achieve peace on the Palestinian question, etc., etc....

Its not likely to happen unless we come to the realization that it would better serve our country to work in cooperation with other countries instead of competing to dominate them.

[MysticMind]

5. now how would Al Qaeda respond to that?

If human rights groups and democracy proponents tried to get Arab countries to adopt democratic reforms they'd still respond with violence.

[many a good man]

6. Cultural imperialism

A violent response is your assumption. While its true those fundamentalists are fervently opposed to the lax morality in our modern culture, I think their response in a democratic context would be similar to the Christian fundamentalists in our culture.

America and the West have become objects of their scorn because of our dominance over their culture, economy, and government. OBL's chiefs complaints are against our support of despotic corrupt governments in the Muslim world which they see as chaining their people in poverty, military occupation of their holy lands, and killing Muslims, particularly by our support of Israel.

A democratic system would allow for these tensions to be worked out internally. If they choose a different system, it could be worked out in a more culturally-relevant way. We may not like the result, but mostly because it hampers our access to oil. At least for a time.

IMO the "axis of evil" speech was particularly counterproductive in the case of Iran. Following the Islamic revolution, Iranians have had twenty years of self-determination. There was a growing trend of discontent with the Islamist government and increasing support for the moderates. The econonomy it spawned is unable to meet social needs. It was trending toward moderation when Bush* made his comments which empowered the traditionalist hard liners.

We could have seen the evolution of an Islamist state into something more moderate and pro-Western. The world could have seen the example of a fundamentalist Islamist state that proved that model doesn't work. They could have created a new model that blends modernism with traditional values in a way that satisfied both sides. Now we may never know.

[MysticMind]

7. I disagree with you...

Islamic fanatics wouldn't work within a democratic system, they'd use terrorism still if they didn't get their way. In Egypt Islamic fanaticism wasn't a response to a police state, the police state was a response to fanaticism.

If oppression causes terrorism then why don't wee see Christian suicide bombers in Egypt? They're more oppressed there than anyone else.

[many a good man]

11. Terrorism Is

Terrorism exists in all kinds of societies...Northern Ireland, Spain, Italy, Oklahoma City, etc. for a variety of reasons.

Efforts to eradicate terrorism require many different approaches. Cooperation among nations is a must. Altering the conditions that give rise to this kind of hatred is essential...

[KoKo]

10. A kick here.

:kick: