|
Zonie63 -> RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas (2/27/2015 9:34:28 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I don't know if it's our elected leadership saying that we are the problem, although some might believe that because we are so powerful, we have a moral duty to exercise restraint and benevolence. If we abuse our power, then that may not set well with some people. But that, in and of itself, would not break Americans' will to defend themselves, even if they strongly oppose embarking on aggressive warfare and overseas interventionism.
Seriously? It sure seems like, no matter the woe, the US is the main causal factor. I'm sure there are even posters here that would put at least some blame on the US for an environmental spill in China.
I think there are those who would blame the US for abusing its power or otherwise getting involved in things which have little or nothing to do with national security. I don't think anyone would suggest that the US is responsible for every woe in the world. However, if we look at the set of nations commonly referred to as "the West," it might be suggested that due to the West's long-term control and influence over most of the world's territories, resources, political systems, and economies, we might have a shared responsibility for the results and consequences.
quote:
I admit that much of the issue we have in the Middle East (note: that does not mean all the problems in the ME) are of our own doing, or have come about because of our past actions there. Some might even say we are just getting the consequences of our actions, when terrorists attack us.
Part of the problem with the Middle East (and Africa) has to do with the legacy of colonialism and the willy-nilly way that country borders were drawn when these nations became independent. So, one tribe might find their previously indigenous region partly in one country and partly in another country, while they share a nation with another tribe with whom they may not be on good terms. Strictly speaking, a lot of that happened before the US got involved, as our allies (France and Britain) were the major players in this region long before we ever got involved. But even Anglo-French involvement had been a relatively recent development, as the Ottoman Empire held primacy over the region until WW1.
As for terrorist attacks being the consequences of our actions, that may actually be true in multiple ways, depending on how one looks at it. Some might say that we are to blame for inflaming the people to the point where they want to attack us, although we've also provided the weapons and tools they need to become an even greater threat.
This was largely due to our obsession with wanting to prevent a feared Soviet takeover of the Middle East. Israel was another factor, and that made it all the more complicated.
Then there was the Shah of Iran, whom we installed in 1953, only to see him overthrown in 1979, culminating in the US embassy hostage crisis in Tehran which ended the Carter presidency and gave us Ronald Reagan. Reagan showed his gratitude to the Iranians a few years later. He also sent weapons to the Afghan rebels who were fighting the Soviet invasion of that country, but once the Soviets withdrew and these people took over...well, we saw how that turned out.
There are quite a number of actions we've undertaken in the region, and no doubt many consequences for those actions. Without questioning whether these actions were wrong or right, I think one also has to examine the practical matter that, if one chooses to meddle around in another country's internal affairs, one has to presume that there will be those who won't like that and may become angry enough to attack us. All these alliances and interventionist policies carry risks. Presumably, our leaders in government are aware of the risks these actions carry, and frankly, the American public should also be aware of these risks.
quote:
We will always defend ourselves. We may not respond all that aggressively, though.
You're right, that won't break our will to defend, but it might weaken it.
Whatever more serious threats there may be to America are probably more internal. If America's will is ever broken or destroyed, it will be destroyed from within. But that's where the terrorists lose, since whenever they attack us, whatever internal divisions which exist in America are temporarily forgotten and set aside in favor of national unity brought about by a shared tragedy which affects all Americans. If anything, it strengthens Americans' will, not weaken it.
|
|
|
|
