America: An Imperial Power.

Status
Not open for further replies.

mercedesrules

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
1,010
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_sep7.html

(Bold by mercedesrules)

Lessons from Sept. 11

"Cost of Empire": the high price of U.S. policies
By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor

Two years after the Sept. 11 suicide attacks on the United States, this earthshaking event remains clouded by mystery and misunderstanding.

Was al-Qaida behind the operation? Most likely, but not for certain. Secretary of State Colin Powell promised a white paper proving al-Qaida's guilt. It never came.

A tape that surfaced in late 2001 purporting to show Osama bin Laden gleefully chortling over the attacks, was seen by many in the Arab and Muslim world as a crude fake.

The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and Spain, not Afghanistan, by young men, mostly Saudis, who were educated and westernized.

Afghanistan's Taliban regime, until four months before 9/11 a recipient of U.S. aid, had nothing to do with the attacks, but did provide a base for al-Qaida, which numbered only 300 members. Most of the "terrorists" in Afghanistan cited by the U.S. were actually independence fighters from neighbouring Central Asia. Taliban refused to hand bin Laden, a national hero of the 1980s anti-Soviet war, to the U.S. without proof of his guilt in 9/11, which the U.S. declined to provide.

This allowed far right neo-conservatives to seize control of U.S. national security policy. They immediately launched the invasion of Afghanistan and began preparing war against Iraq. There's now evidence both invasions, intended to seize major oil regions, were being planned long before 9/11.

President George Bush was widely regarded pre-9/11 as a hapless, rather comical figure enmeshed in the Enron scandal. The savage assaults transformed him into a saviour on a white horse, bathed in praise by the fawning U.S. media.

The Bush administration created a firestorm of jingoism, war fever, and national hysteria that quickly obscured its failure to protect the nation from an attack that Mideast observers, including this column, had predicted was coming.

Disparate bands of extremists

Bush declared a war on terrorism and dispatched U.S. armed forces to attack Muslim mischief-makers around the globe. This, however, was not a real war, but rather a police action against disparate bands of violent anti-American extremists determined to drive U.S. political and economic influence from their lands, and aid the struggle in Palestine.

Declaring "war on terrorism" made no more sense than declaring war on evil.

Few Americans understand their nation became a modern imperial power after World War II, or that it had recreated in the Mideast a modern version of the British Empire - the American Raj. Most were simply unaware, or uncaring, that their governments had been overthrowing regimes, assassinating foreign leaders, promoting dictatorships and waging undeclared wars on foreign nations since the late 1940s.

Fewer understood the U.S. was de facto ruler of Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states, and overlord of Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Washington kept highly repressive feudal or military dictatorships in power in all these nations that advanced Washington's strategic interests and brutally crushed all opponents. Most Americans were unaware that Israel was fighting Palestinians with U.S.-supplied arms, financed by U.S. taxpayers, or that in the eyes of most Mideasterners, and all extremists, Israel and the United States had become indistinguishable.

Osama bin Laden kept tirelessly repeating this theme, calling for revolution against the American Mideast Raj and its Arab vassal rulers. That, far more than truck bombs, was bin Laden's real threat to U.S. interests. Interestingly, bin Laden recently predicted he will shortly die a martyr.

The ghastly 9/11 attacks were what Imperial Britain called the "cost of empire." Angry, fanatical natives would strike back, using any means to punish the high-tech empire seeking to rule them.

Britain had Maxim guns; America, terrifying B-52s.

Bush's knee-jerk military response to essentially political problems, an historic blunder, has left the U.S. mired in deepening guerrilla wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, costing over $7 billion US monthly and growing numbers of American casualties.

Heavy bombing of Afghanistan prior to 9/11, what ever-wrongheaded neo-cons say should have been done, would not have prevented 9/11. Having alert security guards at Boston airport would have. The attacks of 9/11 might have been averted by proper coordination between FBI and CIA, and if Bush's astoundingly inept national security staff had done its job.

Instead, Attorney General John Ashcroft, today the self-appointed scourge of Muslim malefactors, actually cut anti-terrorism spending just before 9/11.

Nothing can excuse the sickening barbarity of the 9/11 attacks. But nothing should excuse America's pre-attack delusions of Olympian immunity from the ills of the outside world, some caused by U.S. policies.

Nor America's casual indifference to the death of 500,000 Iraqi children caused by a cruel U.S.-imposed embargo. Nor the bulldozing of Palestinian shanty towns, without realizing that at some point enraged recipients of U.S. geo-strategic discipline would bite back. Nor the risk of aircraft attacks.

This writer was aboard a hijacked Lufthansa A310 in 1993 when the air pirate warned the FBI he would crash the jumbo jet into New York's Wall Street.

All the flag-waving and heart-rending survivor interviews that will mark this week's 9/11 anniversary should not - but, of course, will - obscure the painful truth: the faux-macho Bush administration was asleep while on guard; it refuses to accept responsibility for its dereliction of duty; and continues to mislead Americans about the real causes of 9/11.
 
Excuse me, you're pate` fell on the ground..oh, no, wait; those are your brains. Sorry.
 
"Interestingly, bin Laden recently predicted he will shortly die a martyr."

Give me a holler if he needs any help.

As far as the rest of the article goes - I disagree with the Contributing Foreign Editor.

John
 
Failure to respond with shocking, overwhelming military force to 9/11 would be interpreted as extraordinary cowardice in the circles of Islamic fanatics. Support for the late Ahmad Shah Massoud(killed by UBL 2 days before 9/11) may very well have driven Al Qaeda from its shelter in Afghanistan and disrupted its operations. While local cells operated in Germany and Spain and elsewhere in Europe, the headquarters was Afghanistan. Our mistake was abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout and allowing the Taliban to gain power in 1996 in the first place.

A massive military response was also the only way to accomplish another goal of ours: revenge. Retribution is quite legitimate. Read UBL's own words about our retreat from Beirut and Somalia if you doubt this.

The assertion that the US is the de facto ruler of countries like Turkey and Jordan ignores these nation's outspoken ambivilance towards our actions in Iraq and around the Middle East.

Most people in that part of the world would enver believe that UBL was behind the 2001 attacks even if you provided a taped confession with voice analysis. They are too intoxicated by bizarre conspiracy theories and delusions of persecution. Don't waste time trying to win hearts and minds that can't be won. Convince them by instilling fear.
 
some points:

The information about al-Qaeda is probably correct. Al-Qaeda is not a terrorist organization in the sense that ETA, HAMAS or PIRA are, but rather an organization that provides general paramilitary training for the mujahid and funds for more traditional terrorist groups (in that sense doing what many countries have done historically) whose aims generally coincide with those of al-Qaeda. This is not that unusual in the Middle East and such groups have (and do) existed, usually in the disguise of charitable organizations, to support Palestinian and Afgani Muslims in their wars against Israel and the Soviet Union.

The association is probably quite loose, and operational security would probably preclude many in al-Qaeda being aware of the individual actions being planned. IMHO it could well be that UBL was unaware of the 9/11 groups actual plan, aside from an attack against the US, which is why the US has seemingly come up short with evidence linking him with the 9/11 attacks themselves. What they did do is train and provide some funding (though rather more seems to have come from Saudi sources) to some of the hijackers.

The last part of the article is to a degree correct as well; despite what you all think there are sizeable swathes of the worlds population that hate the US, not for its ideals or its people but because what its Government, and to a much greater extent, those that Government supports, have done to them over the last half-century.

Why is a nation that makes such an issue of liberty allied with the likes of Saudi Arabia anyway?
 
"Why is a nation that makes such an issue of liberty allied with the likes of Saudi Arabia anyway?"

Easy: because they aren't Iranian. Now that that Iranians are less of an issue (it's been a while since they tried to sink a tanker,) the Saudi's are not as vital to US interests, and therefor do not have the regional importantance they previously did. (That half the heads of the Saud clan, noteably Prince Sultan, hate the West, makes it that much easier and more important for us to have left.)

Re: al Queda
Accepting for the moment the assertation that al Queda is not a 'traditional' terrorist organization, but instead trains the members of other groups, why does that make them any better? Does it not make them a more worthy target, as destroying them reduces the effectiveness of other terrorists?


Incidendly, was al Quedea state-sponsored terrorism, or like Arafat's Palestine, a terrorist-sponsored state?
 
despite what you all think there are sizeable swathes of the worlds population that hate the US, not for its ideals or its people but because what its Government, and to a much greater extent, those that Government supports, have done to them over the last half-century
Yeah, we have really put it to the world, dominating through hundreds of billions if not trillions in foreign aid, bailing them out when their economy fails, when someone invades them, when a natural disaster hits, when they need peacekeepers to maintain some semblence of order because their society is such a sewer that no one in their right mind would step foot in there, letting them in as legalized immigrants and turning a blind eye when they sneak in illegally, sending our scientists, our medical expertise, our technology, our food, our clothing, our money, our weapons so they can defend themselves after they whine that we have been there too long, pandering to their petty whims, tolerating their extortion, IOW, saving their backsides during EVERY SINGLE CRISIS, and then, THEN!, after all this, listening to them pout because WE DIDN'T DO ENOUGH!!!

These "sizeable swatches" of the world can eat dirt and die as far as I'm concerned.
 
The internet is a great place for finding words that others have spoken. Indeed, there are whole sites with nothing else than quotes from people who think either as we do or opposite_from that.

Here is one that I think is worth considering:

"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East."_ John Sheehan, S.J. (a Jesuit priest)
 
"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East."_ John Sheehan, S.J. (a Jesuit priest)


Because the Middle East belonged to other powers before there was an Israel? (England, France, Turkey) Certainly, there were tribal chieftans that, say, Standard Oil paid baksheesh to, but that wouldn't really count as friend or foe.
 
No, no, no. They aren't "Palestinian shanty towns". They are 'refugee camps', where they were forced to live after those nasty Israelis were attacked by them. Of course, anyone who lives in a refugee camp for 20, 30, 40 or more years has other problems; mostly connected to an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.
 
Rockjock,
IOW, saving their backsides during EVERY SINGLE CRISIS, and then, THEN!, after all this, listening to them pout because WE DIDN'T DO ENOUGH!!!
I agree. I say end American imperialism (cultural, military, or otherwise), we have our own borders to seal. We're going to be hated anyway, let's be hated for free. :p
 
This guy is actually a writer? With no sources quoted or factual data established? My 7 year old daughter writes better than this half wit.

Writer?
Liberal, Leftist, Nutless, Anti-American Pig would be a better title.
 
Knee jerk response? No, it was carefully planned and executed. If the author is suggesting that there should have been no military response to 9-11 then he is not living on the same planet we are. Not to respond would have encouraged UBL and his fellow travelers more than a dozen 9-11 attacks could.
 
>Yeah, we have really put it to the world, dominating through hundreds of billions if not trillions in foreign aid,

Exactly, rock jock. It has been trillions in foreign aid, most of it sent out without oversight through bank "loans" which the Fed then prints money to pay off in the inevitable default (all perfectly legal under the Monetary Control Act of 1980).

But these trillions in "aid" have gone to dictators and oligarchs. The Warsaw Pact itself was 200 billion to the better from our Aid To Dependent Dictators when it broke up (and of course the aid hasn't stopped).

Are you proud that our taxes have paid for the majority of the world's dictatorships?

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/dictatorship_nemesis.htm
 
A quick look at a history book will reveal that America has been an imperialist country since oh, 1847 when they attacked Mexico in a war to gain land. Also, what were the Indian Wars about? :eek:
 
The standard leftist shortcuts to actually figuring out what is going on are to call it either Imperialism or Nazi/Fascist, thus proving that they didn't learn anything about those two movements in junior high history class.

For instance, if we were imperialists we would actually KEEP the places we invade, instead of rebuilding them with our cash and going home a couple years later. That's what EVERY OTHER IMPERIAL POWER IN HISTORY tried to do. By that definition... you know, the one based on what imperialism ACTUALLY IS... we've been out of that business for about a century.

And if Bush was a Hitler analogue, he'd be the foreigner in the moustache gassing people, not the Texan with bad diction. One killed 6 million Jews and 4 million "miscellaneous undesireables" in death camps. One pronounces "nuclear" funny. Always seemed pretty simple to me.

:rolleyes:
 
No, it was carefully planned and executed. If the author is suggesting that there should have been no military response to 9-11 then he is not living on the same planet we are. Not to respond would have encouraged UBL and his fellow travelers more than a dozen 9-11 attacks could.

Yeah, it's just too bad the president attacked the wrong country. If I had been in charge, Saudi Arabia would now be a smoldering cinder and a Saudi Prince would be detailing my El Camino right about now.
 
A quick look at a history book will reveal that America has been an imperialist country since oh, 1847 when they attacked Mexico in a war to gain land. Also, what were the Indian Wars about?

WE WERE BRINGING THEM DEMOCRACY!

Why you giving me a funny look? If Bush can use that one for Iraq, why can't we use it for the "Indian" thing? The Indians had nothing before we came west. We brought them liquor, small pox, VD, beads, Christianity and the English language....and all we asked for in return was that they live on tiny patches of worthless land and starve to death slowly. There's just no pleasing some people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top