an interesting read from Aljazeera.net - American Hiroshima

and that adds or says what to this thread?

You're a complete waste of time. I wont waste your time or mine.

edit: this is to lickerish.

 

i never said that, but i wont just believe that its our foreign policy that brings us problems. And even if it does..does that automatically mean we need to change it? We need to evaluate that critically. Not just say "America needs to change its foreign policy so it doesnt get attacked."

Does this automatically make them right? Again, this is something that needs to be evaluated critically. simply stating rhetoric like this doesn't make it true.

 

Yes, its apparent that any real examination of the issues on which you routinely demonstrate a profoundly comparmentalised and sanitised understanding would be a waste of your time. The congitively dissonant are so much more comfortable relying upon officially-filtered snippets rather than time consuming research.

Carry on with your programmed reactionist drivel, by all means.

 

no it does not make them right, but this new view of the states will make more people wish to attack them, for the US's own protection they need to alter their foreign policy, you can either continue down the empire path and go down as the empires of the past (except this time it will be nuclear), or you can change to the past, and support freedom and liberty.

i do think you need to alter your foreign policy, and so do many other thinkers. it isn't just your foreign policy, but say that the US kept to themselves, and US corporations didn't go and ruin other nations, then why would people put effort into attacking you, they ould have no reason, and it would be like the 19th century where countries admired the US.

 

so now its nike's fault we're attacked.

*sighs*

why do i waste my time...

 

Why do you waste ours is the real question.

 

okay i give in... where you ever going to listen to anothers opinion, i give others peoples view a look and consider them. but in this post you basically have said to a few people that you are right and nobody else can be.

what do you want me to say- okay USA is the greatest, their foreign economic plan is making everyone rich and the world is fair and equal, all bow down to the freedoms of the states. the corportations are not greedy and causing hatred in other countries, they are making every happy and paying everyone good wages. nobody wants to attack america because of their policies, just because they are evil, end of story.... happy

 

You're right. Thats EXACTLY what i said.

It has been you who has said over and over again that its the US's foreign policy causing us harm..you wont even move from this stance and look at it critically.

You wont even critically evaluate your position.

 

actual i do critically evaluate my opinions, i am studying international relations at present at uni, i have to evaluate my opinion on the international world, but all you have done in this post is when you hear something you don't like, you act as if you know better and you are definately correct . e.g you sigh like we are children who need a lesson.

maybe just maybe it is american foreign policy that is causing hatred towards your nations. i know there is a lot of anti-americanism in europe right now becasue of the american foreign policy

 

i've offered case studies(us in saudi arabia). You haven't done anything to back up your claim..you just wail on about US foreign policy. Since we are dealing with terrorists, al qaeda seems like the one we'd talk about. So i picked Saudi Arabia, since that is what seems to have caused the wrath.

So i'll ask again. Did our foreign policy need changing? We had troops in saudi arabia to stop Saddam hussein. Were we wrong?

I'm sure IT DOES.. THere is no question that it does. But as i've said. We need to evaluate whether that is JUSTIFIED and if we need to change our foreign policy.

 

believe it or not foreign policy is not just on one issue, it actually means all of your foreign policy. just because one source may say this is hy bin laden attacekd you doesn't mean it is the only reason, bin laden has claimed how he was thankful for the US before. this wasn't out of complete hatred towards america. you have to move off one single issue, i could throw in the iraq war and ask you question about policy in that war

you asked if the US needs to change its current foreign policy and i answered, and many political thinkers around the world would argue for world and for the US security the US desperately need to change its policy.

 

we were attacked before the iraq war, so lets stick before that..ok?

and many argue otherwise.

 

Where are your case studies? Links please?

Once again you show how you avoid examining the issues beyond repetitive soundbites. You've already been told that our presence in Saudi was an expediency based on a longrunning mutually profitable relationship with the House of Saud than anything to do with Saddam, but yet once again you repeat your unsupported assertion.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

 

and i argued that for future security you need to change your policy.
only conservative "realist" who believe that states should be at war with each other believe otherwise.
so if you want war and think the world is about empires and selfish needs then yes the US should continue, but this isn't what i beleive it should be about

 

Not by Iraq we weren't. Any more soundbites you wish to hide your lack of knowledge behind?

 

there are times for force..there are times for diplomacy...if that makes me a conservative realist, so be it.

 

WTF?

Seriously, do you even follow a thread?!

we're talking about terrorists!

Seriously! I really have spent my last breath on you.

 

Bingo, right on cue another favorite throwaway soundbite with no real analytical relevance.

 

No Megara, freesmile made a particular reference to our Iraq debacle as an example of US foriegn policy ills to which you replied with that idiotic quip. Perhaps youd spare us all from your unsupported blather and quit the discussion altogether.

 

iraq was not a time for war, iraq was a time for greed
i said that if you believe war with states is a neccessary component of international politics because some states must be more powerful, and that greed is the key then this is what defines a conservative realist. i am sorry to hear that if you do believe in that, i however do not.
okay i am going to sleep now, as i have quite an early morning, and i am on a different clock to you. nice speaking to you
peacex