Our Failed So-Called War Against Terror
America's unwillingness to be a fair mediator in the genocidal tit-for-tat between Palestine and Israel is one of the main things that foster distrust toward America.
It is becoming all too familiar lately, a car bombing here a suicide mission there. The so-called "war on terror" is failing. Everyday attacks have become more commonplace. But the question is why? The latest set of attacks in England and Egypt indicates that the tactic of terrorism is spreading. And it is spreading because of several things. First of all, the conditions that create resentment and volatility in those who eventually carry out these missions are still there: abject poverty, no means to self-determination and repression. Also, the tactic of "terror" is now seen as a viable outlet for their frustration and the only way to perhaps "settle the score."
Some may say but America isn't complicit in the economic inequality and oppression in the Arab and Muslim world. Well, actually it is. Let's face it America's foreign policy in the Middle East has been a ticking time bomb for some time now. And it is not just the IsraeliPalestinian conflict but also disastrous agendas in Afghanistan, Iraq and also the support of arguably the most corrupt Arab nation: Saudi Arabia. America's unwillingness to be a fair mediator in the genocidal tit-for-tat between Palestine and Israel is one of the main things that foster distrust toward America.
When Bush and his cronies decided that removing Saddam was imperative they talked about how he was in violation of United Nation's resolutions. OK, fair enough. But what about the fact that the Israeli government has defied United Nations Security Council resolutions 446, 455, 465 and 471 (actually several of the settlements were built after these resolutions were passed) that ordered them to give back those lands that are part of the occupied territories? Why is it that the American government doesn't see it fit to pressure Israel to comply with those U.N directives when they are at the heart of the violence? Then there is the manner of how America left Afghanistan after the AfghanRussian war. The United States fought alongside Afghanistan against Russia because it was consistent with their Cold War objectives. But instead of being a good friend and helping the Afghans get back on their feet after a decade of war the U.S packed up and left once Russia was defeated. And Afghanistan became a wasteland of warlords, where "terror camps" sprung up like wild flowers.
Then there is our new Vietnam: Iraq. Sure the Bushites will say that a democratic Iraq is better than one under the despotic Saddam. But why don't they talk about the fact that the U.S government was well aware of Saddam's homicidal tendencies; and thought it prudent to do nothing while many could have still been saved? And another question: who gave him those weapons (that they still can't find) of mass destruction? For some reason these questions are not being asked to the detriment of the American people and by extension everyone else.
Then there is good old Saudi Arabia and their close ties to the Bush conglomerates. When one listens to the Bushites you would think that the Saudis are a great democratic bunch, especially when George "the lesser" is waxing about the virtues of democratic government. But the reality of course is that Saudi Arabia is not a democracy. So now how two-faced and hypocritical is that? He wants Iraq to be a democracy while his "allies" next door stifle the self-determination of the average Saudi citizen. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? I wonder is that the reason why so many of them are making suicidal, holy war pledges against America? The American people need to deal with the fact that these contradictions render any moral high ground impossible. So now here we are more terror attacks than before and yet all Bush does is talk about the need to be steadfast, steadfast in what stupidity?
The harsh reality is that might doesn't necessarily mean right. But that is a lesson that these testosterone thinkers don't seem to appreciate, since they think that their war toys render them invincible. But as Bob Marley said "a hungry man is an angry man" and the poverty that is the criminal outcome of greedy, governments shall lead to their destruction. So, all this talk about democracy and fighting terror without providing economic equality will not work, especially when American leaders are helping despots like the Saudi Royal Family rob their people. There has been much made about the president's faith and belief in god. Well, if that is true maybe he should read (or have someone read to him) the story of Jesus feeding the multitude with five loaves and two fish, because in the end only equal portions of bread and butter can stop the terror. Anything else is destined to be a miserable failure.
Ann GarrisonNovember 30,2013 @ 12:14 PM
It was sexy to be against the war back then. He was probably in it to get laid.
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 09:29 PM
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 08:34 PM
amslctciikJuly 13,2013 @ 01:47 AM
http://youngsgear.us - louis vuitton bags cheap on the inside...
No Record Exist!!