OT: Philippine government meets terroriest demands, will withdraw from Iraq

[Maple Leafs]

As per http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

First Spain, now this. Regardless of which side of the Iraq debate you find yourself, anyone with a basic understanding of recent Middle East history must see how disastrous decisions like this will be.

[QuikSand]

I agree this is potenially very bad news. I sympathize, but this is a terrible result.

[stevew]

I think they should wait til the guy is safe, then lie to the terrorists. Say.....haha we fooled you!

[sachmo71]

They have a pretty large Muslim population. They have to do what's best for their country, and they seem to think this is it.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

They have a pretty large Muslim population. They have to do what's best for their country, and they seem to think this is it.

What I find interesting about all this is the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front group of Muslim terrorists in the Phillippines) routinely kidnap people all the time out there and the government wouldn't likely accept any demands like this in their own country, in fact they'd likely try and conduct a commando raid to free the folks. But when it's Iraq they fold up and cave.

[hukarez]

I'll refrain from adding my thoughts on the matter...

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

They have a pretty large Muslim population. They have to do what's best for their country, and they seem to think this is it.

But if that's the guiding thinking - then why be there in the first place? Surely Iraq, whatever you think about their former regime or the current situation, posed no threat to the Phillipines.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

But if that's the guiding thinking - then why be there in the first place? Surely Iraq, whatever you think about their former regime or the current situation, posed no threat to the Phillipines.

But there was a possibility of them losing a huge amount of foreign aid from the United States. But who knows?

As for "First Spain," I'm still hesitant to think that the terrorists caused the elections results that did occur, especially when the Spanish political commentators think that that's not what happened.

BUT, then again, we really don't know.

[sabotai]

I understand that giving into terrorists demands is a bad decisions. It encourages them to keep doing their thing...but IU'm going to honest and post what went through my head while reading the first paragraph of the article.

"50 people? Woopdie-fucking-doo. Who cares? Father of 8? His direct family is probably larger than that humanitarian force!"

Again, giving into terrorst demands is obviously the wrong choice, but it's 50 people. It's not like we're depending on them to stay or that they have some sort of vested interest in what happens.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sabotai

It's not like we're depending on them to stay or that they have some sort of vested interest in what happens.

I'm cool with that ... as long as they remember (and our politicians remember) when it comes time to hand out the aid checks.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm cool with that ... as long as they remember (and our politicians remember) when it comes time to hand out the aid checks.

But why does it matter? How does taking those 50 people out realistically hurt us that we would take away aid to a nation that has been our ally? Wouldn't taking away some of their aid and thus reducing their willingness to help/trade/etc. with us (and increasing the chance of them doing it with enemies of ours) be much more hurtful to us overall than 50 humanitarian workers in Iraq?

Or is it that we just want to keep the list of nations in Iraq as high as possible, regardless of how many people they actually have in Iraq. The right has kept pushing this Coalition of the Willing and how this is an effort by many nations, not just us and England. I wonder. Does anyone have statistics on how many people each country actually has in Iraq? I'd be interested to see just how "willing" some of the members of the Coalition of the Willing are.

[Dutch]

While I certainly sympathize with the hostages and the family members of the hostages, one cannot logically think this will lead to less hostage taking.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sabotai

How does taking those 50 people out realistically hurt us that we would take away aid to a nation that has been our ally?

It appears to me that you have correctly used past tense.

Wouldn't taking away some of their aid and thus reducing their willingness to help/trade/etc. with us (and increasing the chance of them doing it with enemies of ours) be much more hurtful to us overall than 50 humanitarian workers in Iraq?

I'm not particularly concerned about the amount of trade we generate with The Phiilipines, I'm having a tough time imagining that it's more than a half a drop in the bucket. And if they choose to get overly chummy with our more obvious enemies, then they are welcome to take that risk if they like.

I couldn't have put it any more succinctly than the President did in early November 2001:

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

[sabotai]

Just to note, before it comes up (if it does), I do think it was wrong for them to give into the terrorists' demands. I'm just asking how does this really hurt us.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

In the fight against terror...The war in Iraq is just a small part of that, maybe not at all, and at this point is basically over (as far as the "war on terror" part goes). "Terror" is still in many places and I don't see the Phillippenes saying they won't help us at all in the war on terror.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I'm just asking how does this really hurt us.

Think about the withdrawal from Iraq in 1991. Think about Mogadishu. Think about Madrid. Then think about the current mess, and how eager your enemies are to inflcit horrific murders on innocent people on the assumption that the West won't have the stomach to fight on.

That's how it hurts you.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sabotai

In the fight against terror...The war in Iraq is just a small part of that, maybe not at all, and at this point is basically over (as far as the "war on terror" part goes). "Terror" is still in many places and I don't see the Phillippenes saying they won't help us at all in the war on terror.

i'm sure they will help us in the war on terror in the future.

i'm also sure they'll pussy out and bail once they can't take the heat in the kitchen.

we have to rethink the amount of aid we give them now. i don't want my tax-dollars going to help those scared mongrels.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sabotai

In the fight against terror...The war in Iraq is just a small part of that, maybe not at all, and at this point is basically over (as far as the "war on terror" part goes). "Terror" is still in many places and I don't see the Phillippenes saying they won't help us at all in the war on terror.

Granted there's numerous fronts. But right now, all I see from them is the white flag of surrender.

And from this point forward, that's about the only one they'll be able to fly. They've already provided the enemy with a blueprint of how to defeat them.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Just to note, before it comes up (if it does), I do think it was wrong for them to give into the terrorists' demands. I'm just asking how does this really hurt us.

it doesn't hurt us from any strategic standpoint - not like the war will be won or lost because of Filipino involvement (or lack thereof).

it just reinforces what the terrorists are doing as being effective. its already happened twice - now it's ingrained in their heads that these 3rd world countries and their 50 or 100 soldiers in Iraq can be manipulated.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Think about the withdrawal from Iraq in 1991. Think about Mogadishu. Think about Madrid. Then think about the current mess, and how eager your enemies are to inflcit horrific murders on innocent people on the assumption that the West won't have the stomach to fight on.

That's how it hurts you.

Maybe it's me, but I fail to see how the first Iraq war or Mogadishu has any connection with this...

Regardless of the outcome this, it won't change how the terrorist work. If the Phillippenes did not give in, it would still happen. If not giving in made them change their minds, it would have stopped after the first few. I don't see this increasing the amount of times this will happen. They will always murder innocent people in attempt to get what they want. Nothing will stop that.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

it just reinforces what the terrorists are doing as being effective. its already happened twice - now it's ingrained in their heads that these 3rd world countries and their 50 or 100 soldiers in Iraq can be manipulated.

Which is why I still think it was wrong of them, even if it doesn't really effect us. Now the terrorists, who probably would have gone after americans, will now target people from countries that have very few people in Iraq in attempt to get them out. I don't think it will increase the amount, just shift their targets, get what they want more, and thus increase their morale and willingness to be more aggressive. That's exactly what we DON'T want. (And that's how I think it does hurt us)

[Chief Rum]

My boss took a vacation to the Phillipines recently, and he talked about how amazingly poor that country is, especially outside of the urban areas. I have to think losing U.S. aid would really affect that nation, so I'm sure they didn't come to this decision lightly. What does that add to this conversation? Not much, I suppose. Just noting how poor they are (according to my boss, FWIW).

CR

[Mac Howard]

The whole point of taking hostages, sabotai, is that it will coerce your enemy into actions favourable to you - in this case remove your troops. If your enemy refuses to deal then the hostage taking becomes pointless and it stops.

Yes, there have been several hostage situations but you'll notice that the victims' nationalities have changed, precisely for this reason. The terrorists look for a nation that will respond favourably.

It's difficult to know why the Phillipinos have responded - that government isn't well known for humanitarian actions. It may well be that there is considerable pressure from within the Phillipines itself and they're really not giving up very much - not only are there only 50 but they're due to come out on August 20th anyway and the much larger number of civilian aid workers there will remain. Indeed you could see this as an indication that hostage taking is ceasing to make it's point - a nation with only 50 troops who were coming out in 6 weeks anyway does indicate a certain desperation in the terrorists' targeting and an admission that previous events failed to do anything effective.

On the other hand I suspect we give far too much credit for rationality and calculation to these actions

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

According to the latest news it seems that there's no confirmation wheter they will pull the troops out before their 1 yr. tour is up.

One thing is clear though, that we should pray for the hostage and his family.

[Anthony]

i'll save my prayers for American troops and hostages, thanks anyway.

[SackAttack]

HA, coming from you, I think those prayers would do more harm than good.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

They have a pretty large Muslim population. They have to do what's best for their country, and they seem to think this is it.

Mostly all their Muslim population is on the south islands. The south islands really have no political power at all because the people there are rebels against the government. On the northern islands, people are mostly Catholic (Spainish invasion a long time ago converted most of them). So, I doubt that it was the Muslim population that influenced the decision. However, I don't see this decision as a huge problem. They what? 51 troops in Iraq? Big deal, and its not like they've put a lot of money into the war.

[PsychoCop]

Ahem.

Anyway, I'm a Filipino, and am currently living in Manila. 70% of the population is CATHOLIC. Most of the Muslims are from the southern Island of Mindanao (currently the most dangerous place to live in the Philippines right now.)

The current administration is pretty much the lapdog of the U.S. That's the reason why we sent a "humanitarian" to Iraq as part of the Coalition of the Willing in the 1st place, so that when the time to rearrange things came, Filipino's would be among the first to get jobs there.

The current administration won the recently concluded elections by a not so popular vote (around 40%). We had 5 candidates for the presidency, and if the opposition candidates only joined together, they would have won by a landslide. So you see how the people think of the current administration. A majority of the population really don't want us getting our hands dirty in the entire Iraq thing... heck, we've got enough terrorist problems as it is.... unfortunately, the government really needs to brownnose with the U.S., else we get cut off from the aid they're giving (we're currently the #1 benefactor from US Aid in South East Asia.)

You probably don't know it, but for the past week, there have been hundreds of rallies and prayer vigils for Angelo De La Cruz, pushing the government to pull out the contingent we sent there.

The biggest blunder that the current admin. had was the fact that they said that Angelo was released last Saturday... and when the news was falsified on SUnday, everyone was practically outraged with the carelesness of the government released false info and raised false hopes.

So our beloved (gack, choke, choke) president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is trapped between "Iraq and a hard place"... no pun intended. If she doesn't pull out the contingent (which was supposed to leave on Aug. 20 anyway), she's asking for something the opposition could rally on, and quite probably stage a coup. If she DOES pull out the contingent, it's going to affect US-Phi relations, and we might lose aid...

Personally, I think the guy knows the risk he took when he went to the middle-east... earn money, but you know that there's a war going on. We shouldn't give in to terrorist's demands no matter what... unfortunately, we Filipino's have a sentimentality within us that we cannot part with.

If there were 100 hostages, they would be a statistic to us Filipinos. But now that it's just one person and that the media has practically already told the entire nation this guy's life story... well, we can't help but sympathize with the family.

Unfortunate for Angelo De La Cruz, but I think that by pulling out our troops, these terrorists are just going to target us again and again because we flinched when we should have just called them.

[Daimyo]

Doesn't seem like it would be wise to burn bridges with the Philipines over this. Haven't they been our closest ally (along with maybe Thailand for a little while there) in Southeast Asia since the start of the cold war? Seems if we ever need a temporary presense in the region again (China-Taiwan?) they'd be a nice ally to still have around.

I guess this is another one of many fears of people apprehensive about the war... besides the countries who outright opposed it from the start we've also put more willing allies into can't win situations like this that can only strain more of our international relationships. I hope we can look back on it in 10 years and say it was all worth it.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Maybe it's me, but I fail to see how the first Iraq war or Mogadishu has any connection with this...

Here's a quote from Bin Laden. It's a nice summary of how he and his ilk feel about America's withdrawal after Mogadishu.

Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War (...) Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. ...

(Emphasis added.)

Bin Laden and others like him are not stupid. They know that there is no way to win a war of attrition against America. The Americans have better weapons, better technology, and better taining. But they believe, based on history, that it's not necessary to actually beat the Americans on the battlefield. All you need to do is inflict a few casualties (preferably of the horrific variety) and the American people will demand that the war be stopped. Their entire strategy is based on the assumption that the Americans don't have the stomach for a real fight.

It seems that they're now testing the theory that you can substitute "the West" for "America". Whenever you see a hostage taken and threatened with a brutal death (and you can expect to see it much more often thanks to episodes like this), they're counting on the people to rise up and demand an end to the fighting. So far, with few exceptions, they're getting exactly what they want.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

Doesn't seem like it would be wise to burn bridges with the Philipines over this. Haven't they been our closest ally (along with maybe Thailand for a little while there) in Southeast Asia since the start of the cold war? Seems if we ever need a temporary presense in the region again (China-Taiwan?) they'd be a nice ally to still have around.

I guess this is another one of many fears of people apprehensive about the war... besides the countries who outright opposed it from the start we've also put more willing allies into can't win situations like this that can only strain more of our international relationships. I hope we can look back on it in 10 years and say it was all worth it.

I agree, cutting the Phillipines off over this wouldn't do much good at all, it would likely only gain us another enemy.

[PsychoCop]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i'm sure they will help us in the war on terror in the future.

i'm also sure they'll pussy out and bail once they can't take the heat in the kitchen.

we have to rethink the amount of aid we give them now. i don't want my tax-dollars going to help those scared mongrels.

We're not scared, a majority of our population, just don't understand what the hell we were doing there in the first place. Our government was practically strongarmed by the US to send a contingent, using foreign aid as a persuasive medium...not to mention how Bush holds our president by the short and curlies. And there's no need for name-calling... me and my people are certainly not mongrels... and it's particularly insulting.

[sachmo71]

I thought many countries sending troops were trying to get inroads for business opportunities.

[sterlingice]

Great post, PsychoCop. I with I knew more about world politics so I love when the posters from other countries ring in on local events.

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i'll save my prayers for American troops and hostages, thanks anyway.

With sentiments like that on our side, how can we possibly lose...

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PsychoCop

Our government was practically strongarmed by the US to send a contingent, using foreign aid as a persuasive medium...not to mention how Bush holds our president by the short and curlies.

And here's what I think some of us in this thread are saying (and are hoping that is said by the administration in the future as well) :

You've made your choices, now we'll make ours.

And if your choices reduce our motivation to supply foreign aid, then that's something we'll all just have to live with.

Seems like a pretty straightforward situation to me -- Just so long as everybody remembers: we didn't move the trough, your government chose to walk away from it.

[Dutch]

Exactly, stop blaming America.

If you don't want hand outs, stop asking for them. Is it that fucking hard? Fucking welfare. Damn, I hate it.

[clintl]

I find it absolutely amazing that the conservatives around here continue to argue that the US should be able to do anything it feels it needs to do to protect its interests, but vilifies any other country that asserts the same rights. I don't think the Philippines did the right thing here, but why should the US get all huffy and threaten aid because a country pulled four dozen troops out six weeks earlier than they were going to anyway?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by clintl

I find it absolutely amazing that the conservatives around here continue to argue that the US should be able to do anything it feels it needs to do to protect its interests, but vilifies any other country that asserts the same rights.

Umm ... I can't speak for every conservative here but as for me ... anybody is pretty much welcome to do what they want to "protect their interest".

The qualifier is that "actions have consequences." which all too often seems to be overlooked.

In other words, they aren't villified because they exercise their right as a sovereign nation ... they're welcome to that & I don't believe I've seen too many people say otherwise.

But if they choose to exercise that right in a manner that leads to their villifcation, that really isn't on anybody but them ... because as we established already, actions have consequences.

[Schmidty]

Edit: Why am I in this thread?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But if they choose to exercise that right in a manner that leads to their villifcation, that really isn't on anybody but them ... because as we established already, actions have consequences.

Then perhaps the consequence of the US action of bullying and bribing other countries to join the "Coalition of the Willing" is a well-earned lack of loyalty to a dubious cause.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by clintl

Then perhaps the consequence of the US action of bullying and bribing other countries to join the "Coalition of the Willing" is a well-earned lack of loyalty to a dubious cause.

They are welcome to draw whatever conclusion they see fit ... as long as they don't whine about the consequences.

(Personally, the only benefit I've ever seen from the vast majority of the coalition members is in the p.r. area. And that's an element of the whole situation that I wish the administration had been far less concerned with from day one. I mean, I understand why it can be an issue, but I can still wish they had chosen to focus more of their energies elsewhere).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by clintl

Then perhaps the consequence of the US action of bullying and bribing other countries to join the "Coalition of the Willing" is a well-earned lack of loyalty to a dubious cause.

How exactly is it bullying? Who bribed who? Give it up, brother, Michael Moore lied to you.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They are welcome to draw whatever conclusion they see fit ... as long as they don't whine about the consequences.

I'm just saying it works both ways. The US shouldn't whine about the consequences of its actions, either.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Dutch

How exactly is it bullying? Who bribed who? Give it up, brother, Michael Moore lied to you.

I'm not relying on Michael Moore. I haven't even seen the movie yet. However, it was pretty obvious when the US was throwing around multibillion dollar aid offers prior to the war what was going on - and we know the US was, because Turkey turned the offer down.

[PsychoCop]

I agree with Maple Leaf's post regarding Bin Laden's view of America.

It is even disputed that terrorism as a global entity exists because of the United States consistent meddling in affairs that "protect their interests".

It is quite sad to note that a majority of the world's population hates America as a political institution, but idolizes the lifestyle that its citizens enjoy. I think that this is mostly the very root of most any anti-US sentiment... you guys seem to already have it made, and you go out of your way to screw with the lives of people who live so far away.

It is a hard reality that after WW2, the US has indeed emerged as the global superpower. They have proven to be able to do what they want whenever they want, and guise it in the form of 'liberation' and 'democracy'.

When the Philippines was under the inhumane rule of Ferdinand Marcos, a fascist pig, the United States Government supported him until the wee hours of his dictatorship. And I'm sure that the United States Government is currently supporting, and has actively supported dicatators and oppressors of human rights, democracy and freedom. So it's very funny to watch the US go on idealogical crusades about 'freedom' and 'democracy'... hypocrisy at its highest level.

I don't hate the citizens of the US. I think you're a jolly bunch of people... heck, half of my family are US citizens. But I do think lowly of the US Government, and I suppose 80% of the world's population does as well. Their constant policing of the world to protect their own interests has certainly caused much tension everywhere, moreso in the middle-east

But what can we do? Your government has the military, monetary and political leverage to exercise whatever policies it wants when and wherever it wants to. That is the sad fact of life, and I suppose noone can do anything about it. Well, there's that little thing called terrorism....

Just my $0.02

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by clintl

I'm not relying on Michael Moore. I haven't even seen the movie yet. However, it was pretty obvious when the US was throwing around multibillion dollar aid offers prior to the war what was going on - and we know the US was, because Turkey turned the offer down.

That's negotiation, not bullying or bribing. We did not cut off any previous aid, favored nation status, or anything like that for them not negotiating a favorable deal with Turkey. As a matter of fact, it was even thrown around that Turkey would join NAFTA if the EU continued to reject them. Those suggestions happened after the Turkish negotiations fell through.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by PsychoCop

But what can we do? Your government has the military, monetary and political leverage to exercise whatever policies it wants when and wherever it wants to. That is the sad fact of life, and I suppose noone can do anything about it. Well, there's that little thing called terrorism....

Just my $0.02

Bullshit. What is happening is that corrupt governments allow terrorism to thrive in exchange for terrorism and anti-government sentiment to be aimed elsewhere. If the Filipino's hate the American government so much, then protest YOUR government for dealing with us. If the Euro's hate America so much, they should protest THEIR governments. If the Middle East hates America so much, they should protest THEIR governments for dealing with us.

I would find it more likely that America is not nearly as corrupt as it is perceived. I would suspect that a good portion of the governments that these people protest from are corrupt. Take it up with your own governments and tell them, "Just say NO to the USA".

Of course, if the whole reason the USA is so evil and must be battered is because of a lack of true global polarization in the world right now, then I would accept that....but let's be a little more honest in our dealings with it, rather than complaining and bitching all the damned time about us winning the economic fortunes at this moment in time.

[PsychoCop]

First of all, I'm not arguing the corruptness of any political institution, let alone the United States government. IMHO any type of government is going to be corrupt in one way or another. The entire world is connected somehow to the US with regards to financial/military aid... and I suppose if everyone just said "let's cut connections with the US", the entire world's economy would collapse. The real world is not as black and white as saying 'just say NO to the US'. I'm saying that US policy has always been made for the interests of the US alone, no matter how many people/countries they railroad along the way. They can do this because they have the resources and political leverage to do so, and have done so in the past. It's not as much bitching and whining as it is a true fact of life.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by PsychoCop

When the Philippines was under the inhumane rule of Ferdinand Marcos, a fascist pig, the United States Government supported him until the wee hours of his dictatorship. And I'm sure that the United States Government is currently supporting, and has actively supported dicatators and oppressors of human rights, democracy and freedom. So it's very funny to watch the US go on idealogical crusades about 'freedom' and 'democracy'... hypocrisy at its highest level.

This is actually a very common view world-wide. Contrary to what many seem to think (and Bush et al love to repeat), many of the terrorists don't hate America's freedom -- rather they'd like to see America do more for the cause of freedom, rather than supporting whichever dictators happen to be convenient to US interests. Many Muslims in particular believe that the US views them as almost sub-human -- that America will gladly stand by and watch them be tortured or killed by the most brutal dicators, all the while musing about the importance of freedom.

For example, the US moved to the brink of Baghgad in 1991, exhorting Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. Then the Americans turned and left, and not suprisingly many of those Iraqis were hunted down and killed by Hussein for daring to show support for the infidels. Iraqis haven't forgotten. Even those who wish for freedom and democracy (and not all do) are understandably reluctant to take the Americans at their word.

Algeria once seemed headed towards democracy, in 1992. Unfortunately, it seemed as if they were likely to elect a government that was pledging support for Saddam. When the ruling military stepped in to put a brutal end to the elections, America did nothing in defense of democracy. In the five years of violence that followed, 80,000 Algerians died. Again, people don't forget.

If this reads as an anti-American screed, it's not meant that way. Rather I think it illustrates the almost impossible paradox of America's place in the world. When they involve themselves in the affairs of others, they're imperialists. When they return home, they're cowards. When they stay silent all together, the world asks why they don't do their part.

I do find find myself wondering if all those who are calling for the US troops to be pulled out now, regardless of the consequences for Iraq, really have any understanding at all of the history at play here.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

This is actually a very common view world-wide. Contrary to what many seem to think (and Bush et al love to repeat), many of the terrorists don't hate America's freedom -- rather they'd like to see America do more for the cause of freedom, rather than supporting whichever dictators happen to be convenient to US interests. Many Muslims in particular believe that the US views them as almost sub-human -- that America will gladly stand by and watch them be tortured or killed by the most brutal dicators, all the while musing about the importance of freedom.

For example, the US moved to the brink of Baghgad in 1991, exhorting Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. Then the Americans turned and left, and not suprisingly many of those Iraqis were hunted down and killed by Hussein for daring to show support for the infidels. Iraqis haven't forgotten. Even those who wish for freedom and democracy (and not all do) are understandably reluctant to take the Americans at their word.

Algeria once seemed headed towards democracy, in 1992. Unfortunately, it seemed as if they were likely to elect a government that was pledging support for Saddam. When the ruling military stepped in to put a brutal end to the elections, America did nothing in defense of democracy. In the five years of violence that followed, 80,000 Algerians died. Again, people don't forget.

If this reads as an anti-American screed, it's not meant that way. Rather I think it illustrates the almost impossible paradox of America's place in the world. When they involve themselves in the affairs of others, they're imperialists. When they return home, they're cowards. When they stay silent all together, the world asks why they don't do their part.

I do find find myself wondering if all those who are calling for the US troops to be pulled out now, regardless of the consequences for Iraq, really have any understanding at all of the history at play here.

Great post.