you do realise america was attacked because of its foreign policy so if the foreign policy was changed then the attacks wouldnt have happened.

and by invading afhganistan and iraq the situation has got alot worse, 9-11 will happen again becuase of western foreign policy

sorry to triple post but diplomat where do you think saddam got that gas from?and what about other countries like zimbabwai (sp) and rwanda and congo - o no oil that explains it

@Diplomat - So we invaded to save Kurds, who by that point already had a defacto state of their own? If we'd wanted to stop Saddams genocide against the Kurds we were about 14 years too late. The main thrust of that was, according to Wikipedia from 87 to 89. And after the Gulf War the Kurds had a defacto state of their own after a brief uprising against Saddam. If saving the Kurds was our reason for invading we were WAY late to that party.

Baquack - that's not the US propaganda machine, that's just Diplomat talking without any thought again.

I will tend to lean toward his position on Afghanistan, I think that was/is an arguably justifiable war, (though I was a bit uncomfortable with it when it was starting) and if we'd focused on it, rather than getting distracted in Iraq, and had focused on actually rebuilding the country after the invasion (same problem we had in Iraq... no plan at all for what to do after toppling the government), we'd probably be in a much better position in the world than we are today.

@Trim, while I agree that US foreign policy certainly contributes to the number of terrorists, it's hard to say with certainty that changing policies would assure that September 11th wouldn't have happened. Certainly you can argue (and I do) that US foreign policy needs to change, and that changing it properly will help to make the US and the World safer, but there are certain people out there who are basically just crazy, and do have to be combated with force.

bin laden attacked becuase of the us bases in suadi arabia and american ties with israel

"My cousin is mercenary in Afghanistan."

If your cousin did work for a military contracting company like Blackwater you wouldn't say he was a mercenary because I hear they really hate that. It also isn't technically true that they're mercenaries, but that's just legal mumbo-jumbo.

Regardless of why bin Laden attacked I hope you can at least admit he was wrong to do it.

The crazy people out there are in small numbers, attacking the homes of people in iraq and afghanistan means sane people take up arms against the US as well as the extremists. I'd wager that US foreign policy in the last 8 years is the best recruiting tool al qaeda and others has ever had

I'm not going to get into a debate on Israel here, as I have very mixed feelings and it's just a discussion I don't want to get into here.
But honestly, because there are some bases in a country (that are approved of by the government of that country) killing thousands of people is justified? Is that really such an evil policy? I'd argue that Bin Laden is definitely in the "irreconcilable" category, and is the sort of person who won't ever be satisfied, regardless of his stated reasons, and has to be dealt with by killing or capturing him.

I'm not defending all of the US's foreign policies in the last decade (or even longer than that) I'm just saying not everything is so clear cut, and there are people out there who just want to kill and destroy, and/or have demands that are simply not reasonable, and some of them have to be dealt with by force.

Baquack - I'm not defending the invasion of Iraq, nothing about it was a good idea, from the very idea to the execution. It was a disaster, made worse by the bungling of the aftermath.

I'm not even arguing that Afghanistan was handled well, but I honestly don't think it was a completely unjustified war. I also think if we had focused on Afghanistan, and specifically on rebuilding Afghanistan (not even so much from the actions of the US, because there wasn't all that much to destroy to start with, but from decades of war and strife, and the disastrous rule of the Taliban), we might have actually managed to have the opposite effect on perceptions of the US. It's been my impression that many Afghans were honestly happy to have the Taliban overthrown, it's been the poor handling of the country since that has turned more and more people against the US.

@Baquack To clarify, I'd agree almost entirely with your earlier statement where you said:

"I'd wager that US foreign policy in the last 8 years is the best recruiting tool al qaeda and others has ever had."

We might just disagree on a few nuances of that, but on the whole, I agree. The last 8 years (and I'd even extend it further than that) have played pretty much right into the hands of al quaeda, and others like them.

bin laden was wrong to kill civilans yes, but was he wrong to attack america, i dont think so, he just went about it the wrong way.

I apologize for being honest.

What about the 7/7 bombers in your own England, trim101? Did they just go about it the wrong way?

Reasons for invading aside, we have promised to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan and should follow up on them. If we can do that consistently despite the government change back home I think democracy and America will score some points abroad, maybe not immediately, granted. It's worth it to do things responsibly as Obama is doing. I agree with his approach, though I never though I'd say that during the campaign.

In regards to the whole "how can Americans sleep sound at night if we're not shooting muslim civilians". I worked in a slum in northern India, which happened to be at the center of some serious shit between Hindus and Muslims alike. I taught kids every day while there, Hindus and Muslims and Christians, all together, at peace with each other. So don't give me your little Hippie bullshit about the war. When Civilians die it is always wrong and tragic, no matter who they are, or what they believe. I wish to serve for those which are oppressed in the world, and the military is a good place for stopping bad guys from reaching there ends. The fact of the matter is there are (simply put) bad men in this world and if they are left to there own devises then we (humanity as a whole) will pay a much greater price than already at hand. While working abroad I began to grow increasingly compassionate for ALL of the people that live on this planet with us. That's what I believe this war is ultimately about. It is a war against oppression.

Another thing. "The world is ruled by violent men, and violent men take it by force". Peace is worth fighting for. Oh, and I'm joining the Marine Corps tomorrow morning. I'll see you all on the other side...so to speak.

Thank you.

You're going to go and get yourself killed for halliburton and exxon-mobil, fair enough. At least you'll get treated slightly better in the marines than the army. (I think the contractor that had parasites in their shower water was only supplying the army)

yes invictus they did, attacks on civilians are despicable but an attack on a country can be justified

@trim101 - what exactly would the "right way" have been to go about it?

an attack on a miltary target with minimum civilian casulties would have been the right way to go about it, you telling me that america and also britain didnt deserve to be attacked after meddling in other countries politics for so long mostly to the determent of those countries

@trim101 - to follow up, I'm not actually arguing against the general idea that sometimes attacks can be justified, I made that argument earlier, so it would be rather hypocritical of me to so say now that it can never be justified.

But what exactly should Bin Laden have done instead? I still think he's despicable and that essentially no amount of changes (aside from nearly everyone converting to his bat-shit-crazy brand of Islam) to anyone's foreign policy, would actually stop him from calling for and planning more attacks on civilians.

@trim101 - I thought you might say that military targets would be the way to go, and to some degree I agree, it's certainly at least closer to, or more, justified than deliberate attacks on civilians.

But he has, and continues to try to, attack civilians. So what do we do about it?

I don't have an easy answer. I do think that reforming foreign policy is certainly a step in the right direction. Meddling less in other countries internal affairs, supporting bad governments less, increasing targeted aid that helps ordinary people, and generally trying to be more cooperative with the rest of the world would certainly do a lot to decrease the number of people who would get drawn into the orbit of someone like Bin Laden.

Certainly also, the majority of terrorism fighting should involve international intelligence and police actions more than straight military actions, but I honestly do believe there is a role for military strikes in fighting people like Bin Laden, and as much as I'd love to live in the world you talked about earlier where no country has a military, we don't live in that world, and some form of military is necessary to keep civilians safe.

"an attack on a miltary target with minimum civilian casulties would have been the right way to go about it"

I can't believe you actually think that. That's an unconscionable point of view.

no its not, you saying that a country can boss everyone around generally act the bully,fuck countries over and not expect some sort of retaliation, tell me you understand why 9-11 happened please?

No, I won't say that you shouldn't expect a terrorist response from people who hate your country, but I will NEVER say that they were right to do it. There's a world of difference between those lines of thinking.

they were right to do it just the target was wrong

That is a disgusting and offensive thing to say.