G. W. Bush and Crusade; Is our foreign Policy Fault

[Anonymous]

Do you thing our president put his foot in his mouth when he said this would be a Crusade?

It was not used in the Christian context and most likely was a slip up used in answering a reporter’s question. Our president did a big Homer! Will we suffer in the coalation building with predominantly Islamic countries?

Henry Kissinger was being interviewed by BBC. He took great exception to the medias theory that this is partially the fault of US foreign Policy. He was down right irritated with the interviewer's persistent questioning of this topic.

Does the fact of our last three military interventions on behalf of predominantly islamic countries of Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosov (sp?) not mean anything to those in the Islamic world?

[Anonymous]

Who gives a flying rat's ass? What an idiotic question.

[Anonymous]

We were attacked by a group of people who do not believe in what we believe in.

I do not consider myself a hawk by any means but I just do not believe we can stand idly by.

The attack went against any rules of war and engagement. The US may have done things wrong in the past but we always played by the rules - the only exception to some extent I believe is the nuclear bombing of Japan.

Does that mean we should sit ideally by and say we were wrong, you are right, let's just have peace. I think this will only lead to additional illegal, inhumane attacks.

[Anonymous]

Hay you clueless narrow-minded actuary (I can thin of better term but choose to not use it) take a step back and look at the big picture:

If we do not want this to escalate into a war of the west on Islam (bin Laden’s secret desire and our worst case scenario) or want Osama bin Laden to be a martyr (almost impossible to stop) then we do not insult people who we want to help us.

Nowhere is "stand idly by" is in the above post! The days of shot first and ask questions later is long past us. Yes I am sick of waiting but if we do this WE DO IT RIGHT.

WE DO NOT DO A BILL CLINTON AND SHOOT 75 CRUISE MISSLES TO MAKE US FEEL BETTER AND WALK AWAY. Thanks bill for making him a hero to these nuts.

If we distablize the Pakistan gov't, who do you think will have there crude nukes????

Let me rephrase the questions more directly:

Question 1: Will Bush using the term Crusade hamper our efforts to build a coalition? (I am not asking if we need one, since we are already building one)


Question 2: Is the news media biased when pushing this theory that our Foreign Policy may be partially responsible?


My answers:

1. Not in the long run but bush skrewed up and may have to do some diplomace.

2. bin Laden and his followers want to ride the western influence from all Islamic countries so it is hard to believe that even if we changed our foreign policy that it would make a difference.

Kind of like you are partial at fault in a car accident just for being there syndrome - so if you except that premise ....

[Anonymous]

played by the rules - the only exception to some extent I believe is the nuclear bombing of Japan.


You are ignorant of history - perhaps we toasted them for revenge and perhaps we toasted them to show the Soviets we had nukes and would use it, but mostly we did it to save many many many lives on both sides.

Look at the casualties of Iwa Jima! My god how can you say that was not the right think to do. Stop being PC!

IF no Bomb: We would have blockaded Japan, bombed the piss out of them causing the destruction of there country, starvation, death disease ..... then invaded and they still would not have surrendered (remember they did not surrender after the first one was dropped)

Imagine the death toll on both sides; it would have been incredibly larger than those of caused by the two atomic bombs for just the Japanese people.

Think of the war crimes commited by the Japanese. Chemical and Biological warfare. You forget they had the capabilites (crude)of hitting the US using ballons. DO you think they would not have used all weapons at there disposal?

WAR IS HELL not a tea party

[Anonymous]

I was not being PC and agree war is hell and the US position is that the bombing saved lots of US and Japan lives but it was still an attack on "civilians" not military or other strategic targets. I just do not think it is right to target civilians and if you must target a large urban city some warning must be given. Maybe a conventional bomb strike to warn them to get out.

[Anonymous]

Kind of like you are partial at fault in a car accident just for being there syndrome -

True ... except that in this case, our car had been swerving all over the road before we got hit.

Still no excuse. Wacko extremists bear 99% of the responsibility, but we bear the other 1% for always butting into "other people's affairs".

Yes, we shouldn't get attacked for standing up for what we believe in, and in an ideal world, we wouldn't. But, in case you haven't noticed, we're not in an ideal world.

And, finally, yes, maybe things would have been even worse if we hadn't butted in, because "other people's affairs" would have eventually become our own. We'll never know.

[Laocoön]

"Henry Kissinger was being interviewed by BBC. He took great exception to the medias theory that this is partially the fault of US foreign Policy. He was down right irritated with the interviewer's persistent questioning of this topic."

Of course Kissinger was irritated. His idiotic brand of "statecraft," which has treated people as existing in herd-like, undifferentiable blocks to be exploited or destroyed by pitiless "statesmen," is being revealed as the nonsense it has always been.