What I feel most bewildering about this whole issue is the good versus evil slant that Americans put into this. I believe America, and indeed every nation, has the perfect right to do what is in it's long-term interests, including bombing nations who pose a severe threat to that nations security. However, this argument holds about the other side as well, so it gives the Afghans the complete freedom to do whatever they can in retaliation, if they feel the bombings are unjustified.
And please stop saying America always has "good" in it's heart, and that even it's "mistakes" are justified by it's basically benevolent intenstions. What standards of good are we talking about? What gives America the right to define them? When a terrorist crashes a plane into a building, I am sure he is perfectly certain that whatever he is doing is for some good or the other.
And American actions haven't been consistent, either, on whatever scale of goodness it has. Iraq faces sanctions for oppressing the kurds. Doesn't Turkey do the same? But it's ok for them, since they are a NATO member and a staging fround for American forces. Why is Libya an international pariah? Because 2 Libyans allegedly bombed an American airliner? What about the Iranian airliner that an American warship shot down over the Persian Gulf? Pakistan faced sanctions for a military coup? They had their most cozy relationship with the US when General Zia ruled with an iron hand in the 80s. Ferdinand Marcos was a CIA favorite too, wasn't he? And I won't even mention Israel, and "mistakes" like Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, etc, etc.
It was also amusing to note that Def. Secy. Rumsfeld, in a press interview after the attacks, mentioned "man-mobile SAMs" as the biggest threats to American aircraft over Vietnam. For those who don't know, these are shoulder-fired Stinger missiles that the Mujahiddeen were given in the thousands. By the US.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant US planes over Afghanistan.
What I feel most bewildering about this whole issue is the good versus evil slant that Americans put into this. I believe America, and indeed every nation, has the perfect right to do what is in it's long-term interests, including bombing nations who pose a severe threat to that nations security. However, this argument holds about the other side as well, so it gives the Afghans the complete freedom to do whatever they can in retaliation, if they feel the bombings are unjustified. And please stop saying America always has "good" in it's heart, and that even it's "mistakes" are justified by it's basically benevolent intenstions. What standards of good are we talking about? What gives America the right to define them? When a terrorist crashes a plane into a building, I am sure he is perfectly certain that whatever he is doing is for some good or the other. And American actions haven't been consistent, either, on whatever scale of goodness it has. Iraq faces sanctions for oppressing the kurds. Doesn't Turkey do the same? But it's ok for them, since they are a NATO member and a staging fround for American forces. Why is Libya an international pariah? Because 2 Libyans allegedly bombed an American airliner? What about the Iranian airliner that an American warship shot down over the Persian Gulf? Pakistan faced sanctions for a military coup? They had their most cozy relationship with the US when General Zia ruled with an iron hand in the 80s. Ferdinand Marcos was a CIA favorite too, wasn't he? And I won't even mention Israel, and "mistakes" like Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, etc, etc. It was also amusing to note that Def. Secy. Rumsfeld, in a press interview after the attacks, mentioned "man-mobile SAMs" as the biggest threats to American aircraft over Vietnam. For those who don't know, these are shoulder-fired Stinger missiles that the Mujahiddeen were given in the thousands. By the US.