What they’re saying about America
 

Across a Great Divide
Peter Schneider

BERLIN, March 12 — The war in Iraq has made the Atlantic seem wider. But really it has had the effect of a magnifying glass, bringing older and more fundamental differences between Europe and the United States into focus.

These growing divisions — over war, peace, religion, sex, life and death — amount to a philosophical dispute about the common origins of European and American civilization. Both children of the Enlightenment, the United States and Europe clearly differ about the nature of this inheritance and about who is its better custodian.

Start with religion. The United States is experiencing a revival of the Christian faith in many areas of civic and political life, while in Europe the process of secularization continues unabated. Today the United States is the most religious-minded society of the Western democracies. In a 2003 Harris poll 79 percent of Americans said they believed in God, and more than a third said they attended a religious service once a month or more. Numerous polls have shown that these figures are much lower in Western Europe. In the United States a majority of respondents in recent years told pollsters that they believed in angels, while in Europe the issue was apparently considered so preposterous that no one even asked the question.

When American commentators warn about a new fundamentalism, they generally mention only the Islamic one. European intellectuals include two other kinds: the Jewish and Christian variants.

Terms that President Bush has used, like "crusade" and "axis of evil," and Manichaean exclusions like his observation that anyone who is not on our side is on the side of the terrorists, reveal the assumption of a religious mantle by a secular power, which in Europe has become unthinkable. Was it not, perhaps, this same sense of religious infallibility that seduced senior members of the Bush administration into leading their country into a war with Iraq on the basis of information that has turned out to be false?

Another reason for Europe's alienation from the United States is harder to define, but for want of a better term, I call it American narcissism.

When American troops in Iraq mistakenly shoot an Arab journalist or reduce half of a village to rubble in response to the explosion of a roadside bomb, there will inevitably be a backlash. Only a fool would maintain that an occupying power could afford many such mistakes, even if it is under constant threat of suicide attacks. The success of an occupation policy — however temporary it is meant to be — depends on the occupier's ability to convince the population, by means of symbolic and material gestures, that it is prepared to admit to mistakes.

In its use of the language of power the Bush administration has created the opposite impression, and not just in Iraq. The United States apparently cannot be wrong about anything, nor does it have to apologize to anybody. In many parts of the world people have come to believe, fairly or not, that Americans regard the life of their countrymen as infinitely more valuable than the lives of any other of the earth's inhabitants.

Of course, even in Europe only a pacifist minority denies the existence of necessary, unavoidable, justified wars. The interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan were supported by many European nations, even if some took a long time to make up their minds. European soldiers took part in those wars and continue to play a part in the peacekeeping aftermath.

What arouses European suspicion, though, is the doctrine of just, preemptive wars President Bush has outlined. Anyone who claims to be waging a preventive war in the cause of justice is confusing either a particular or a partisan interest with the interests of humanity. A president who makes such a claim would be arrogating the right to be the ultimate arbiter of war and peace and to stand in judgment over the world. From there it is but a short step to dismissing a basic insight of the Enlightenment, namely that human judgment and decisions are fallible by their very nature. This fallibility cannot be annulled or ameliorated by any political, legal or religious authority. The same argument goes for the death penalty.

Animosity isn't the only feature of the trans-Atlantic relationship. Europe is rightly envious of America's multicultural society. There can be no doubt that the United States has produced the world's most varied and integrative culture, and it is no accident that it is the only one to have a worldwide appeal.

But the American multicultural model also generates an illusion. Since Americans really have come from all over the world, in the United States it is easy to believe that you can know and understand the world without ever leaving the country. Those who were born and brought up in America forget that these people "from all over the world" first had to become Americans — a condition that new immigrants generally accept with enthusiasm — before they could celebrate their cultural otherness.

This is why it is always an American version of otherness that is encountered in the United States. You will not necessarily learn anything about the culture and history of Vietnam by working alongside a Vietnamese doctor in the teaching hospital at Stanford. You can sit next to an Indian in the same dot.com company in Los Angeles for years without learning much about the manners and customs of India. And going to a French restaurant in Atlanta is no guarantee that you will be served French cuisine.

Foreign films account for less than 1 percent of the American film market, and the figures are similarly low for books and news from abroad.

The impressive integrative power of American society seems to generate a kind of obliviousness to the world, a multicultural unilateralism. The result is a paradox: a fantastically tolerant and flexible society that has absorbed the whole world, yet has difficulty comprehending the world beyond its borders.

These differences and irritations add up to a substantial disagreement on the joint origins of American and European civilization. Europeans think that Americans are on their way to betraying some of the elementary tenets of the Enlightenment, establishing a new principle in which they are "first among unequals."

And Washington accuses Europe of shirking its international responsibilities, and thus its own human rights inheritance.

After all, what is the point of international law if it prevents intervening in the affairs of a brutal regime to stay the hand of a tyrant? Who is the true advocate of human rights: the one who cites international law to justify standing by while genocide is being committed or the one who puts an end to the genocide, even if it means violating international law?

Unfortunately, we cannot expect the news media in the United States or Europe to present a nuanced view of this dispute. In 20 years of traveling back and forth between Germany and America I have become convinced that news broadcasts usually confirm their audiences' views: in Europe, about America, the "cowboy nation," and in the United States, about Europe, the "axis of weasels."

These disagreements will be influenced but cannot be resolved by the the American presidential election in November. The divisions are too deep, and Europe cannot meet the United States halfway on too many issues — the separation between church and state, the separation of powers, respect for international law, the abolition of the death penalty — without surrendering its version of its Enlightenment inheritance.

On other contentious issues the United States feels as strongly: the universality of human rights and the need to intervene — if the United Nations is unable to act — when there is genocide or ethnic cleansing, or when states are failing.

So are we standing on the threshold of a new understanding or a new historic divide, comparable to the evolutionary split that occurred when a group of pioneer hominids thousands of years ago turned their backs forever on their African homeland?

So far it has usually been the Americans who have had to remind the Europeans of these common origins, which the Europeans, in turn, have so often betrayed. Maybe this time it is up to the Europeans to remind the Americans of the promises of the Enlightenment that the United States seems to have forgotten.

Peter Schneider is a German novelist and essayist. This article was translated from the German by Victor Homola of The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/13/arts/13DIFF.html

Basically it's Narcissism with a "come and look in the mirror with me" attitude, which is the only reason we get away with it. I think it's kinda cool actually. You can see it on this very forum, where Aussies and Europeans focus on American politics almost exclusively. I would hope that a global meeting place like this would have more to offer an American like me seeking otherness, but it is strangely absent. I think in the end the trans-Atlantic conflict that Schneider highlights isn't one of fundamentals, but one of jealousy. In the future there will be a few new superpowers, China, the Arab world, and the continent of Europe, all seeking to clens themselves of American influence, wanting to have the same global influence on culture. The future war between these superpowers will not be fought by soldiers but by pop idols, fashion designers, movie producers, food chains, and advertising agencies.

Great post Js:AP:

Very true. For good afordable French Cuisine, Chartier is the best! Of course, you'd need to go to Monmartre to enjoy it;) The Parisian Hard Rock Café is around the corner of this lovely restaurant;)

there doesn't seem to be much point in discussing anything but american politics here..

i like to try to keep up with it ...but its pretty easy here we get good morning america ,today,meet the press,pbs newshour..and a few of our localy made programs that often feature american politics...

because its american politics that seems to be the driving force in world politics..is my only excuse i guess..


talking aussie politics...nah..its a bit confusing for u yanks..cause over here
i am
a republican that hates liberals..

(i am in favour of a republic here ..and the liberal party is the right wing)

Like Winston Churchill said, we're separated by a common language. Otherness is what I define as cultural irony, when you go from one culture to an other and nothing you discover is as you expect. Like driving in Mexico and stopping at a large red octangular sign that says ALTO instead of STOP. People are pretty much the same anywhere in the world you travel, but cultures are worlds appart. I think the more you understand the concept of otherness the more globe-centric your thoughts become, and Americans are notoriously bad at this.

Sometimes when I read your posts multi I get the feeling that you're meddling in affairs that you have no business with, but I stop myself becasue I know that American politics are a big part of world affairs. But World politics are completly different from American politics, and that is the area of greater interest to me. My observation is that American politics are so advanced that they've gone backwards to childishness, and I hate to see that kind of influence spread globally.

On a related note, one of the reasons that Star Wars Episode One sucked so much is because the Senate's politics perfectly mimicked America's. I find it hard to believe that a mish mash of diverse alien cultures a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away would resemble our own culture so much, and it makes George Lucas look very naive for his terible misunderstanding of history. The movie Gladiator, on the other hand, showed ancient Roman politics, and while the similarities are easy to find you can see some important differences as well. Roman culture is well documented, and the amount of change that has taken place over the last 1700 years is vast and striking.

So you can understand why I want to understand other cultures better. America is like a dumbed down version of the rest of the world, and as much as I lover her I'm starting to get bored talking about her. I think in order to understand any system you need a basis for comparison, and this forum is the only place I find it. I never talk about politics with my friends at work, and I hardly talk about it with my family, because all they really know is the American version and there's no room for critical thought. While it may be dificult for you and I to have these discussions when we use different vocabularies I think it's worth getting past the differences in language to get at the heart of these issues, it's very rewarding.

The point is that the internet is going to force us to think of the world as One whether we want to or not, and those who understand World politics from the begining will be the only competent leaders. This is my quest for otherness.

agreed this country is very narcissistic, but i shudder to think of the values we are exporting (think Superbowl Halftime show) and i can certainly envision a day when other countries are of sufficient economic strength to maintain and perpute their own values via their own mass media. i think this century will be the Asian century, as the last century was the American century...easy to envision China, India and other Pacific Rim countries coming into their own. not so sure about Europe, because i think the leftist political and economic agendas that govern them also hamper their economies. i cannot foresee the Arab world as a superpower at all - think there are far too many entrenched cultural, religious, and economic barriers to opportunity for their citizens, women in particular.

this is an interesting point - European leaders need to think long and hard if they think they can ride American coat tails successfully. Look at today's elections in Spain: the ruling Popular party, probably Bush's staunchest European ally after Blair, got tossed out in a stunning upset...in most reports I've seen, voters cite Spain's involvement in Iraq, followed by their own 9/11 the other day, as the primary reason.

i think the Iraq is gonna be looked back upon as a turning point in American foreign policy influence...the high water mark, so to speak, where the wave finally broke and rolled back. we will still be be the biggest dog on the block for a long time to come, but American values are neither immortal nor infallible.

it's very sad..sad for the lives lost in the attack, and sad for the message this election will send to al-qaeda.

i know you don't see it this way knife...but it's much more than just a "stunning upset". it's a stunning set back on the world war on terror. the terrorists have succeeded in manipulating the people of spain into electing a government that has admitted it will not persue terrorism as strongly as the encumbent.

this will only invite further attacks on the rest of europe..and if kerry is elected, the same thing will happen to the u.s.

au contraire, my fine feathered friend: prior to the bombing, polls in Spain showed as high as 90% opposition to the Spain's involvement in Iraq. what the terrorists succeeding in doing was galvanizing a record turnout from a pissed -off Spanish electorate. the new government has, in fact, stated that terrorism is their number one priority:

what they have also said is that they are are pulling out of Iraq on June 30th if the US has not handed Iraq back to the UN or the Iraqis. unlike some people, they are capable of grasping the distinction between the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.

That’s right tk. This is no “stunning set back on the world war on terror.” If anything it was a clear warning to Western Administrations, a warning not to lie to the voters about Iraq.

Reporters in Spain covering this story provided a timeline. First of all, an overwhelming majority of Spanish citizens have been against the war in Iraq, some 90% as you’ve pointed out, because like most people they didn’t see a connection between the war and the real fight against terrorism, which they support. The lack of WMD’s was as big an issue there as it’s been here. But recently the war concerns moved to the background as the faltering economy took center stage. Even so, the election was too close call on Thursday, the day of the attack, and it could have gone either way. Even if they were thinking about the economy, just as many people were still against the war. Immediately after the attack the administration made a huge mistake and blamed Basque separatists, the ETA, and used that blame to shore up support for their party, since they’d been perceived as dishonest about Iraq yet strong on the ETA. Had the ETA actually been responsible for the train attacks or the attacks not occured at all the ruling party might’ve won the election, we’ll never know, they might’ve lost anyway - as this election really was that close and within the polls margins of error.

Things started changing Saturday afternoon when information from the Spanish equivalent of the CIA linked Al-Queda to the attacks, information the ruling party tried to suppress, but after arrests were made the party couldn’t suppress that link any longer. The people saw another lie, got fed up and by Saturday night spontaneously converged at the ruling party's headquarters, demonstrating against the administration chanting “Liars, Liars!” It was quite a scene.

In Spain this party sealed it’s fate because the people felt they were misled about Iraq, not because the people want to withdraw from the war on terror. Indeed, before the election the winning party pledged a tough fight against real terror, vowing not to get distracted by peripheral adventurism.

The connection between Al-Queda and Iraq and terror may be non-existent. Conversely it may exist but be tenuous, a minor offshoot of the real problem, and a dangerous waste of our lives and resources. A war that's good for the Iraqi people eventually perhaps, but something that isn’t solving our immediate security emergency. It may even be doing more harm than good. According to the reports from Spain, that’s the issue that decided the election.

- js.

The war in Iraq may be taking resources from homeland secrurity, but so far there hasn't been a lapse in security big enough to allow an other terrorist attack. We've been able to handle both efforts without problems, probably because of the experinece we gained fighting in two theaters in WWII. Even where security is concerned you shouldn't put all your eggs into one basket. But I don't think we should get into any more combat until our forces are finished in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The war on terror, I'm afraid, is one that cannot be fought by the military. What we should be doing is interrogating and investigating captured terrorists, learning their techniques, and planting spies throughout the Middle East to find Bin Laden et at. I wouldn't be surprised if it was happening already, but unfortunately those tactics can't be publicized to bolster public support. Even in the war on terror we need a few heroes, so maybe that's what the war in Iraq was all about.

several excellent points here: the situation in Afghanistan has never been properly stabilized - Taliban is resurgent, the government in Kabul is precarious, the warlords still run the rest of the country, and of course, we never got the bad guys. one has to wonder how different things might be if we had poured our miltary resources into there instead of Iraq.

the military is great for invading countries and fighting nations, but after Afghanistan and Iraq, then what? as Mazer describes, it's back to intelligence the old-fashioned way.

we will never "win" the war on terror, period. we will contain it, thwart it, guard against it, strike it where we see it, but there will never be a time when we can say we have all the bad guys, it's all over, everyone can relax now. the concept of the "war on terror" is ominously vague and completely open-ended, and it gives government a blank check to do just about whatever it wants under this banner.

i'd be a lot more supportive of my government on this issue if they were a lot more realistic about the long term strategy. invading Iraq to get at Al Qeda is no more practical than invading Ireland to get the IRA, or Tamil to vanquish the Tigers, or Peru to wipe out the Shining Path, or Spain to crush the ETA etc etc. in the end, conducting the "war" will come down to vigilance, intelligence, and security - and in spite of it all our military might, every now and then something's gonna get blown up and people will die. most every other nation in the world has come to terms with this and we will have to as well. as far as the war on terrorism goes, Iraq's just a dead end street in a bad neighborhood.

thats a real pussified way to go through life, just accept the fact that they can kill us whenever they want! sounds fun! spineless attitudes like that is why terrorism has grown the way it has, just look at Spain...bomb civilians, get a more appeasing government! i'm sure Al-Queda will have that in their recruitment tapes.

in spain there has been a attack, the government failed to protect the country, and the people blamed the failure on it's government getting needlessly and irresponsibly distracted by iraq. out goes the government.

in europe the outlook is a lot more focused. they know who's behind these attacks and until they've been brought to ground anything that takes away resources is a potentially lethal diversion.

friends tell me that france and italy, with muslim populations (and problems) the equal to spain’s or greater, are taking this latest attack deadly seriously, and they aren’t going to be looking to iraq for anything but the most superficial solutions.

- js.

Alltho the spanish presence in Iraq played a major role in the way the people voted, i think the fact that the partido popular lied about that the eta had placed the bombs might have something to do with it too ...... untill late saturday night the party ruled by aznar insisted and even asked reporter to say it is eta while she knew that it might have been al qaeda.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...BNStory/Front/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar15.html

Oh dear. This is a sorry state of affairs.

Obscure War on Terror begins.
90% of the Spanish population say 'no' specifically to war on Iraq.
Aznar goes ahead anyway with the legality of war still under debate.
Bombs go off before the election.
Aznar predicted by every poll to win.
Aznar loses.
Opposition Leader Zaperto promises to pull out of Iraq.

Conclusions:
1. People's original opinion was not listened to.
2. Terrorism can harden original opinion.
3. Opinion does not necessarily determine election result.
4. Terrorism can influence election.
5. Attempting to extracate oneself is bowing to terrorism on the basis of fear, thus Democracy is undermined.
6. Therefor, agreeing with war is the only democratic option.
7. Thus, Democracy is single-minded?

Scary, scary stuff.

busisness statement
 

i watched the media coverage of american poitics since the mid 80's and we have had american shows on here since TV started..the JFK assasination interuped my kids shows oneday when i was young, i saw both shuttle crashes oklahoma bombing 911..ect all live as they happened..watching another countires politics is ofcourse is going to be very different to being there and living with it...i would just like to point out that we are pretty ingrained over here with alot of american culture..
i guess i have understood the mechanics of it a little better since being on the net and even on this forum and it is rather complex so i dont pretend to know everything........learning all the time.. :)anyway it really doesn't involve the evil multi meddling with it..too much:sus: muhahaha !:sus:

Time out.....you saying the IRA are the same as Al Qaeda ? I think you should re-read what ever facts you base this on or look for another source to get information.

Do a little search on....Collusion - a British State Policy


Also, what do you mean by "win"? If the USA can stop another 9/11 then I say they are winning. Sure the bad guys will always be out there,The US must stop their plans of terror in the USA and other Western targets. That is how we are winning.

that's what i've been hearing too. that the vote, too close to call on thursday, was decided by saturday night when it became obvious (to the voters) their government was lying to them.

PBS Newshour interview with Nicolas Checa of Kissinger and Associates.

"NICOLAS CHECA: Margaret, I really think what the key issue here is the handling or mishandling of public information in the 48 hours after the tragic events of last Thursday. I think it bears mentioning that the election was a statistical dead heat, according to public polls the morning of the tragedy on Thursday morning well within the margin of error, one or two points. And it was really not until Saturday evening, as Keith in your set-up shared with us, that the government decided to come forward with information as to the arrest of these five suspects linked to al-Qaida.

As an example, it took a personal call from Prime Minister Elect Zapatero to the interior minister, the Spanish homeland security secretary, informing him that the Socialist Party was aware of the arrest and that he was prepared to move forward with that information. It took that kind of information to get the current government to come forward and announce to the country at large that in fact it was not the ETA lead that would generate success down the road in the investigation, but rather the al-Qaida route.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're saying it more than just a public suspicion that they were withholding information, in fact the Zapatero campaign had to essentially pressure the government to release this information?

NICOLAS CHECA: Precisely. Yet there was a report earlier in the afternoon on Saturday coming out of Spanish intelligence agency saying that they were 99 percent confident that ETA was not responsible for the attacks and that all the avenues of the investigation pointed into al- Qaida.

In the early afternoon after the arrests had already been made, the director of the Spanish CIA denied those reports and it was after that that the campaign manager for the Zapatero campaign had to come forward and basically inform public opinion that there was information that was not being shared with the population."

Later on in the program Checa added the following:

"The government of Spain on both sides of the aisle has a lot of experience in dealing with terrorism and fighting terrorism. I think in the end after the dust settles, after we all understand that the election is over, I think we're likely to see a tremendous amount of European cooperation and indeed a Spanish cooperation on the global fight of terrorism.

Will it happen in the same terms and in the precise specific fronts that we have seen it so far with the previous government -- possibly not. But will the government of Spain be an ally for the global fight on terrorism -- no question about it."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/inter...drid_3-15.html

it must be the easiest lesson in the world to forget, that lying to your constituents is a recipe for losing elections, since politicians never seem to remember it. nixon learned it the hard way - twice. although it didn't cost them elections both reagan and clinton will suffer historically from not heeding it, and bush, well so far he just doesn't get it at all.

when asked by dianne sawyer about the misinformation on the lead-up to war in iraq he looked at her and in all serious snapped, "what difference does it make?"

- js.

go reread my post - what i'm saying is that invading a country to get at a terrorist underground movement is an enourmous misplacement of resources, because a)you create enourmous good will for the terrorists, b) the terrorists simply resurface elsewhere and c) your resources are bogged down for years doing things like nation-building and peace keeping.

are we winning? how do you quantify that? in terms of net number of terrorists, i'd bet there are more now than there were two years ago. in terms of terrorists attacks, there have been more large scale attacks in the last year (e.g. Bali, Turkey, Madrid) than in previous three years, with the obvious exception of 9/11. saying we're winning because 9/11 hasn't happened again is fallacy because you can't prove a negative correlation.

two and 1/2 years into the "war on terror", the only pertinent question is this: "is the world a safer place than it was before 9/11?" if the answer is no, than it might be a good idea to re-examine the strategy, no?

I read your post again and I still say you have no clue what you are talking about when you group the IRA with the rest of those groups. The IRA were and are not a terrorist undergroud movement. If you say they are then you will also have to say the British Government the largest working terrorist group in the world with Irsael a close second.

Quote:

are we winning? how do you quantify that? in terms of net number of terrorists, i'd bet there are more now than there were two years ago. in terms of terrorists attacks, there have been more large scale attacks in the last year (e.g. Bali, Turkey, Madrid) than in previous three years, with the obvious exception of 9/11. saying we're winning because 9/11 hasn't happened again is fallacy because you can't prove a negative correlation.

More large scale attacks? You are ignoring the Clinton years then right? The USA warned Bali about an attack and they ignored it, Turkey has always had problems, and Madrid is to bad, all are heartbreaking events. How many Americans were killed in these attacks? There has not been a large scale attack on an American target. Not even a soft target, and don't get me wrong, the terrorist are planning one, we are just going to have to have faith in the Government to stop it.

Quote:

two and 1/2 years into the "war on terror", the only pertinent question is this: "is the world a safer place than it was before 9/11?" if the answer is no, than it might be a good idea to re-examine the strategy, no?

No. two and 1/2 years and you want to throw in the towel? How many years did it take after the American Revolution before there was peace? We will win this war. 2 1/2 years is nothing.....

heh, i remember a week into the war in Iraq people with knifes mindset were shouting that the war was a failure because we hadn't won yet so i don't read too much into their doomsaying.

you don't read much, period - and neither does Sinner. the only issue i'm talking about here is whether the war in Iraq has been an effective strategy in the war on terror. you guys seems to have a little trouble grasping the thread here...

Sinner got a little side-tracked by my use of the IRA as an example. your pals in the White House consider them a terrorist group, but the one-man's-terrorist-is-another-man's-freedom-fighter argument is a whole 'nother thread.

the point remains: while the war in Iraq has was sold to the world as a strategic necessity in the war on terror, to date, there is only evidence to the contrary.

Report: Saddam Harbored Terrorists Who Killed Americans

Saddam Hussein supplied financial support, training and shelter for an array of deadly terrorist organizations right up until the onset of the Iraq war a year ago, including such notorious groups as Hamas, Ansar al-Islam, the Palestinian Liberation Front, the Abu Nidal Organization and the Arab Liberation Front, according to a comprehensive report released by the Hudson Institute.

Titled "Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror," the report details the role played by terrorists supported by Saddam's regime in an array of infamous attacks that have killed hundreds of American citizens both inside and outside the U.S. before and after the Sept. 11 attacks - including the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Palestinian Intifada.

Compiled by Deroy Murdock, a Senior Fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Fairfax, Va., and columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service, the report chronicles Saddam's support for:

# Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted for mixing the chemicals for the bomb used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six New Yorkers and injured over 1,000. Yasin fled to Baghdad after the attack, where he was given sanctuary and lived for years afterward.

# Khala Khadar al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, who reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The attack killed all 259 passengers, including 189 Americans. Al-Salahat was in Baghdad last April and was taken into custody by U.S. Marines.

# Abu Nidal, whose terror organization is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans, and wounding 788 more. Nidal lived in Baghdad from 1999 till August 2002, when he was found shot to death in his state-supplied home.

# Abu Abbas, who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, during which wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody last week.

# Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who ran an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and reportedly arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan. Al Zarqawi is still at large.

# Ramzi Yousef, who entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport and was the architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as well as Operation Bojinka, a foiled plot to explode 12 U.S. airliners over the Pacific. Bojinka was later adopted by Yousef's cousin Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as the blueprint for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Arrested in Pakistan in 1995, Yousef is currently serving a triple life sentence in Colorado's Supermax federal lockup.

# Mahmoud Besharat, the Palestinian businessman who traveled to Baghdad in March 2002 to collect funding from Saddam for the Palestinian Intifada. Besharat and others disbursed the funds in payments of $10,000 to $25,000 to West Bank families of terrorists who died trying to kill Israelis.

After Saddam announced his Intifada reward plan, 28 Palestinian homicide bombers killed 211 Israelis in attacks that also killed 12 Americans. A total of 1,209 people were injured.

For more details on Saddam Hussein's sponsorship of the terrorist networks that killed hundreds of innocent U.S. citizens, go to: http://www.hudson.org/files/publicat...damarticle.pdf

link

the Hudson report fits my contention nicely - every terrorist incident listed is credited to people who were terrorists before they ever got to Iraq. the incidents listed occurred independently of Iraq, without any established cause-and-effect relationship. no question, Iraq would be a stop on the Wide World Of Terror tour, but should it be the main event? in terms of getting a return on our investment in the war on terror, the cost/benefit relationship remains quite thin.


the question remains: 550 + dead American soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars later, has the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq reduced terrorism and made the world a safer place?

not yet.

eh, my belief is you gotta start somewhere, why not start with the guy that has shown a propensity for being rather open to terrorists and in fact commited terrorists acts through his infiitada funding? it's better than wondering around aimlessly hoping something falls in your lap which seemed to be Clinton's strategy and would likely be Kerry's.

it may be cold to say but if those 550 lives somehow, through some Kevin Bacon 6 degrees of seperation, stops another 3000 American lives from being lost then it was all worth it.

I wonder what the world thinks about having American Troops in these many countries:
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Columbia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D'lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Jamaica
Japan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Malaysia
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Singapore
Sierra Leone
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Syria
Sweden
Switzerland
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html

most of those countries probably have less than 20 troops in country, plus the troops wouldn't be there if those countries governments didn't want them there.

Your crystal ball is wrong knife...I do read....so do you by the looks of it, to bad you read a bunch of non-sense and buy into it.

Your link doesn't work (http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/rira.htm), but I notice it says RIRA in it. If you had any idea at all on what you were taking about you would know the RIRA and the IRA are two different groups.


EDIT---- I am not going to say the IRA never used violence because we have, but to say the IRA is a terrorist movement is darn right retarded.

Little quote from a PPS doc...\


There is a perception that the IRA and other paramilitaries have used mindless violence. That is very far from the truth. The violence has always been used for a purpose.

And, simply put, violence is used as a communicative dimension. It is saying to the state or to government, "We are here. You have to talk to us. If we have to bomb our way to a negotiating table, we will." So, very rarely do you get examples of mindless violence in the Northern Ireland context.

And when you look at the type of violence, over time it has changed. Because the violence was a classic example of armed propaganda. Sometimes car bombs would be used, which would be simply about causing as much economic destruction as possible, as making Northern Ireland so expensive for the British exchequer that there would be a demand for the British to withdraw. Or they would target British soldiers. There always was the belief that the death of one British soldier was worth at least, in propaganda terms, ten policemen from Northern Ireland, because in Britain itself, the British mainland, the demand to get out would grow.

--It is worth pointing out that Belfast, for example, never became Beirut. There was a control to most of the violence. Before the violence occurred, there were usually plenty of warnings. Very rarely could you put your finger and say that innocent people were targeted deliberately.

They were very conscious in their propaganda of how they sold their violence. They were always conscious they had to bring their people with them.

I agree with span here, we had to start somewhere and if anything the war in Iraq served a utilitarian need: Saddam was himself a terrorist against his own people and millions of people are safer now that he's in custody, and a large fraction of those people are Americans. I find it interesting that many Iraqis are mad that we haven't executed him already, instead of keeping him in prison. But anyway, we finished what we started in '91 because we couldn't have rightly turned our collective back on Iraq while trying to fight terrorism elsewhere. Now the military has done its part to ensure our security; that success was incrimental, and now it's time to use other tatics to fight on other fronts in further incriments.