Why America is hated: An alternate view of 9/11 and U.S. foreign policy

No I don't. What I am saying is that you have a right to get your "history" from wiki, as much as I have a right not to.

Don't see why this is such a problem for you.

 

The facts of history are staring you in the face and you refuse to acknowledge them.

 

What do you call failure to meet the primary objective, bugging out before the Cong got to town, leaving hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment and installations?

Those scenes in front of the US embassy with the helicopters taking the americans and some "valued" viets outta town were a striking vision of defeat.

It was perhaps the only war in history where one side (the US) won every major battle with the enemy and still lost.

 

We were not defeated....I have asked before. Tell me what battles we lost? Tell me what happens when congress defunds, does that mean the US soldiers are defeated? That they lost?

By this...

You must be talking about the "civilian" AIR AMERICA Huey that was removing ONLY Vietnamese.....RIGHT?

Get your facts straight...before insulting our military and our country again...thank you.

 

It is amazing that so many americans beleive their crap doesn't stink.

They support and have supported all kinds of nasty brutal murdering dictators, and when the citizens finally get rid of the bastert they ain't got a good opinion of his american "allies".

This story has been repeated at least a dozen times.

the cold war was nasty and all that americans seem to think about it is they won and therefore anything that was done was justified because the end justified the means.

America was is a staunch supporter of Saudi Arabia - a country diametrically opposed to American values. Bin Ladin's main beef was with the house of saud and the fact they retained their power because of US backing. He dressed up his motivations in all kinds of rhetoric and bogus excuses in an attempt to rally the religiously insane in various other regions to his cause.

America was attacked, not because of their "freedoms", but because of their position as the seemingly impervious meddlers in other's affairs.

 

No America was attacked because their are truly evil people amongst us. We embarrassed Osama and he killed 3,000 people. That sounds reasonable.

 

great post

 

No friend, that is historically false (no offence).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg[/ame]

That last video may be connected top the 9/11 truth movement, who i do not endorse.

 

......you really do believe this?

 

False? Ah no it isn't...."The Guardian" seriously? More wiki?

This is fact. Osama fought and defeated the Russians in Afghanistan. Osama went to the royals in Saudi Arabia, he told them that he and his army would fight Iraq in Kuwuit. After fears spread that Saddam would attack the Saudis next. The Saudi's choose to ask the USA for help instead. Osama was embarrassed. He started a holy war against the US. Calling them invaders of The Holy Land. Continued his rhetoric with his Islamic extremist followers...killed 3,000 innocent people in America.

Where am I wrong?

 

Yes, you really don't?

 

I agree there are truly evil people in the world.

I don't agree that embarassment was what prompted OBL to attack america.
that doesn't sound reasonable at all.

Or is it that Americans beleive that embarassment could (or has) motivate them to commit heinous acts?

I don't deny the possibility that international actions could be prompted by the simplest and stupidest of reasons, its just that I think such assessements quite possibly provide one explanation of why Americans think their crap dont stink.

 

Osama bin Laden stated the reasons for attacking America In his Letter to the American People:

 

You were thrown out on your sorry arses! Read some real history-not the Hollywood version

 

Vietnam was a war of attrition. We were defeated, but it was because we realized that it wasn't worth our time, lives, or money.

It also didn't help that our political leadership got in the way of military leadership, when it came to strategy.

Entering Vietnam was a bad idea to begin with, but we could've won if we had the stomach for it and the willingness to kill far more innocent people in the process. It eventually got to the point that the collateral damage was too much, although our actual losses in terms of soldiers were relatively small compared to the amount of enemy soldiers we killed.

 

War is bad enough, but fighting someone else's war and using it for geo-political manoeuvering is all kinds of dumb, and horribly costly in terms of lives wasted.

 

Agreed. Vietnam was a lost cause, and I believe our experiences there were what contributed to our lack of involvement in Cambodia.

 

The US is criticized for its involvement in Vietnam and some of the same people fault you for not doing more to prevent the Cambodian Genocide. Some days you just can't win!

 

Ha! Good point...

That kind of reminds me of the Arab Spring thing.

We and the rest of NATO get criticized for entering Libya, yet we also get criticized for NOT entering Syria.

I'd say we're best off not entering anything. Just trade with foreign nations and let the pieces fall where they will. It's basically what China does, and they profit immensely from it.

 

We can't as long as we don't control the life-blood of our economy....oil.

 

That's fixed easily enough by more domestic drilling and refining. We also need to convert more towards nuclear power and green alternatives.

In the short run, shifting more of our oil trade to Brazil would be good as well.

Since we already get more oil from Canada and Mexico than we do from any Middle Eastern country, that's reason enough to get out of there anyway.

 

Who is going to protect Europe's energy supplies? They can't do it themselves and it's not like allowing them to collapse in an energyless heap helps us. It's all a chain reaction now. One Western Country cannot fail without all of us failing. look at what Greece started.

We have to protect EVERYONE'S energy supplies. ALL of our trading partners rely on us to keep the trade lanes open and "letting the chips fall where they may" simply isn't option when a collapse of Europe could mean our collapse as well.

 

You are correct..

1) Canada
2) Mexico
3) Saudi Arabia
4) Venezuela

Both 3 & 4 are controlled by OPEC which is a large chunk. We import about 58% of our crude oil. If OPEC spikes prices, our other suppliers will raise their prices. The market reflects real & perceived supply and demand. If we start drilling on American land in earnest, a perceived supply will be increased which will drop imported oil prices.

 

Also, since Brazil is set to increase their supplies as well, it might help offset the impending increases in demand for oil from China and India.

 

I really don't think that Europe is near collapse for energy reasons. Besides, they're increasingly buying more oil and gas from Russia.

The Middle East is becoming less relevant as an energy source for Europe. China and India are actually buying more from them as well as certain African countries.