It is all our fault

You're never going to get a decent response on an internet forum. My advice would be to read something like 'What Uncle Sam Really Wants' by Noam Chomsky or 'Why Do People Hate America?' by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies. Your local library will probably have copies.

Sure, being an angry ex-vet of some shadowy gov dept you'll probably loathe the expression and the arguments, but stick with and read the 'evidences' listed in the footnotes. You'll easily figure out why Arabs might have reason to dislike your country.

And if you still can't then, well, there's none so blind as won't see.

Who is the angry ex-vet? I am a vetren but not angry. I did not work for any shadowy government, I worked for the USMC who had me work with DIA no shadowy orginization.

My questions are for people that believe that (a) it is our fault we were attacked. and (b) that we could have done it smarter. You did not answer either one but I thank you for your input.

It seems that no one has an opinion or facts to explain it. Please understand that if it is your opinion you get some slact because it is an opinin not fact but if a person says its fact be ready to back it up. I want to understand.

Personally I'm of the opinion that anyone who works for Intelligence is working shadowy business, but that's neither here nor there.



If you want cogent arguments as to a)why you deserved it and b)how you could have done it smarter those are good places to look. Chomsky has a history of presenting the US' actions in a less than favourable light. Perhaps his greatest use is in showing the reader how an unexplained action can be twisted (or is perhaps already immoral) into looking like evil. He makes a very good argument for this about Vietnam, but his work on the middle east is equally well done. The other book explains why Middle Easterners have lost of reasons to despise America for its hypocrisies, betrayals and false promises.

Both books make use of lots of evidence to make their case. If you really want to understand the anti-war crowd, you absolutely have to look at the intellectual basis for their opinions. Canvassing the views of the non-political on a blog site is only going to get you responses you can easily dismiss, leading to drmiler syndrome and the total closure of your mind to reason and rationality.

People are the same everywhere and they act predictably. If you don't understand what one group of people is up to, you obviously don't understand them anywhere near enough. No partisan on the net is going to give that knowledge on a platter. You need to find it out for yourself, and the library is a good start.

In terms of Al Qaeda, they really got rolling against us when the Saud family refused their offer to fight Hussein with an Arab army, and instead allowed the US to base itself in Saudi Arabia and undertake the first gulf war. That was an offense to God in the eyes of bin Laden, and from then on he decided the US already owned the Middle East and it was his job to take it back.

In terms of doing better in Iraq, there's no doubt whatsoever that huge mistakes were made. Bush turned over the whole process of securing and rebuilding Iraq to people who had no business there. There were people recruited right out of college with no experience whatsoever put in charge of vastly important segments of the rebuilding.

The jobs there were political payback, not based upon expertise. Bremer went completely against dictates that the Bush administration had already lined out. There were things he did that they didn't know about until they heard it on the news.

I would suggest watching The Lost Year in Iraq by the PBS show Frontline. Watch it with an open mind. People on either side of the debate can learn from it.

This I already knew. I remember the response he got from the House of Saud which was less than a polite thanks but no thanks. He was humiliated by his own nation. Sort of like when I asked HQMC if I could have my old job back after 9/11. At least when the laughter died down a bit they said they would keep me in mind if the situation warrented my re-activation. The Saudi's did not even give him that much respect. I am disabled with a bad heart and have not been in the business of killing anything more than my golf balls for 17 years. They shamed the man and then turned to a nation he respected but did not like very much. The AQ attacks are designed to show the House of Saud that he was a worthy war fighter. Remember his first attacks were against Saudi targets and then Americans in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's further embrarrassed him by giving him money to go away.



True again. You're pretty smart for someone with just two feet.



Sorry it won't help me to understand the liberal mindset. Most liberals quote books, and documentries but have no ability to put what they have read into their own words. It is just reteric with no meaning behind it. That was what I was attempting to learn or justify. Guess I will have to try another way.

"Chomsky"?

I think I'd look for a better example.

Avram Noam Chomsky, Ph.D (born December 7, 1928) is the Institute Professor Emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, considered to be one of the most significant contributions to the field of theoretical linguistics made in the 20th century. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, in which he challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of mind and language dominant in the 1950s. His naturalistic approach to the study of language has also affected the philosophy of language and mind (see Harman, Fodor). He is also credited with the establishment of the Chomsky–Schützenberger hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power. Beginning with his critique of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known — especially internationally — for his media criticism and politics than for his linguistic theories.[1][2] He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–1992 time period, and was the eighth most cited scholar in any time period.[3][4][5] Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW).

For God's sake he's a Prof of "linguistics". Nothing more.

ugh...this is the problem.

yes, there are certain individuals who try to blame the attacks on what osama himself claimed to be the reasoning (as shoddy as it was) but that doesn't mean they speak for anyone else.

there have also been christian conservatives who have actually blamed the liberals for the attack. they claim it 's their fault. does that mean that all, or even a sizable nuber feel that way? no. 90% of this country, regardless of their political leanings know what happened and why. the other 10% will continue to speculate and come up with theri conspiracy theories.

as long as people are trying to "group" everyone who disagrees withtheir position in the most negative light they can spin, we will get nowhere.

BTW..."if" you want the link on Chomsky, it':

Link

ugh...this is the problem. yes, there are certain individuals who try to blame the attacks on what osama himself claimed to be the reasoning (as shoddy as it was) but that doesn't mean they speak for anyone else. there have also been christian conservatives who have actually blamed the liberals for the attack. they claim it 's their fault. does that mean that all, or even a sizable nuber feel that way? no. 90% of this country, regardless of their political leanings know what happened and why. the other 10% will continue to speculate and come up with theri conspiracy theories. as long as people are trying to "group" everyone who disagrees withtheir position in the most negative light they can spin, we will get nowhere.

"This" is the first absolutely intelligent thing I've seen you post!

that's cause ya just usually see red when i post. but anywho...thanks

Right... So you had this idea in your head that you were trying to reinforce. Don't you realise most righties just quote books and magazines and TV shows as well? If you really want to understand the philosophical mindset of a political faction, you're going to have to come to grips with the books, magazines and TV shows that faction uses for its rhetoric. If you're too lazy to do that I'm sure you could be quite happy mindlessly following drmiler in kneejerk reactions to the unfamiliar.



That's an interesting perspective for a man like you to have. I would have thought you'd be all in favour of nonprofessionals writing and discussing on current events. Or do you have a degree in politics?

And let's not forget exactly what branch of linguistics he specialises in. Chomsky's generative grammar is all about how we develop communication in the first place (For the record I think it's a pile of bullshit. When it comes to semantics I find Wierzbicka vastly more convincing). His work with Hermann in the 80s ended in one of the best works of media analysis available. And if you read his books it's impossible not to recognise that he's a man who researches everything extremely thoroughly. His footnotes run to pages and he tends to quote from the horse's mouth wherever possible. You can dispute his spin but his scholarship is formidable.

I have a little surprise for you my friend. This is a blog; all blogs are opinion based and nobody speaks for everybody. Unless you are saying that you speak for all liberals or col Gean speaks for you? Don't shoot! It was an example!

I also know that if you put three liberals in a room and ask them a single question you will get 9 opinions and two conflicting consensus. Just a joke! I seriously want to know how a self-discribed liberal arrives at their opinion rather than relying stereotyping.

Mr. Conners, I read your articles and you have not seen be attack your positions or you except when I confused your reply with someone else and I told you I was sorry. I don't see red when you post, when you write you usually lay it out in a logical manner, wrong as it may be. (smile) I can respect a llberal opinion even if I disagree with it as long as there is some logic or forethought involved.

Actually I was trying to avoid stereotyping people and letting a majority of opinion either prove or disprove my beliefs. It is this really strange concept called intellectual honesty. I use it daily because I am crazy about understanding people rather than to do what you just did which was to stereotype me.



Yes, I see I must fit your mold or be with the lazy in your other mold. It is so much easier to dismiss someone than to learn about them. I don't know you but you have already begun to act in a way that is stereotypical of bigots. You took what I wrote out of context to fit your stereotype of what and who I am to justify your belief and did nothing else. Thank you for your opinion.

If you want cogent arguments as to a)why you deserved it and b)how you could have done it smarter those are good places to look. Chomsky has a history of presenting the US' actions in a less than favorable light.

This cacto is what I was talking about with Chomsky. What does he know about military actions at all? He "is" an intelligent person. You don't get to be a Prof of anything at MIT without being smart. But being a Prof of "Linguistics" doesn't mean you know anything other than your own opinion about US actions of any sort.

On the other hand he is generally considered a "left wing" individual who is an admitted political activist and describes himself as a libertarian socialist.
How do you expect anything he says to be anything but a liberal talking point.

You want to understand a "US" liberal? Easy. Blame everything on everybody else and take no personal responsibility for anything.

Sure, but the thing is Chomsky writes liberal talking points. He's an enormously influential man. I'm basically suggesting that if you don't understand a particular concept, go back to the person who thought it up in the first place and see why it made sense to an intelligent, articulate person (or an unintelligent, incoherent person, as the case may be). Then you can judge it on its merits.

That's all I've been trying to say here.

Actually no. He could have been, but now he is just a caricture for the reasons that Doc Miler stated. Einstein pontificating on Psychology would be equally laughed at.

The right might consider him a caricature, but I can tell you now he is immensely influential on the left. He's practically a god to many 'true believers'. I'm not sure where you get the idea of his irrelevancy from. His public lectures are always packed and his books sell across the world. Not bad for a caricature.

As for Einstein, he did have some extremely interesting things to say about the human psyche and psychology. I consider it a great calumny that in the modern age we feel compelled to pigeon-hole people into a single discipline. All the greatest inventions have been the result of cross-disciplinary research, and it seems a shame that we must now reject all cross-disciplinary analysis as fundamentally flawed. Can society survive if we reject cooperation and progress? I think not, but obviously you disagree.

Very well said.



With your obvious opinion about them, why do you want to hear their answer anyway? For Fun? the country is in a disastrous situation and you still living in the Virtual world?

wake up and read the reports coming out from the same gang who started this mess.

That is a contradiction, isn't it?

if liberals blame everything on everybody else wouldn't they blame the attacks on others too not on their own country? according to the article the liberals blame themselves not the attackers. That is not taking responsibility?

Are you a liberal? If not why should I answer you? If you are why are you asking stupid questions. Are you so dishonest that you can't answer a simple question without exploring all angles for the most politically advangagous answer? Does your opinion change with the wind or do you actually have core beliefs or do you just say the most hurtful thing you can come up with to make you feel better? You see I don't understand how you think which makes puting your words into context difficult. Do I take your words at face value, or do I read between the lines? Allow me to help you a bit. I asked an honest question, no hidden meanings. No one seems to be able to answer it so it is too complaicated or it is too simple for a liberal to manage.

You actually asked several questions, each of which has yet to be answered in full, and none of which can be answered until 2057. Why? Because we won't know what the government knew until their records are released. Until then no one, including the right, can make a final statement on whether the war was conducted in the best way based on the knowledge of the time.

But I don't think you need that level of evidence to say Iraq's been a shambles and a disaster from the very start that was crippled by some extremely poor decisions on the part of the US government. There was no excuse for the mission's name (Infinite Justice? What were thinking), the label of 'proconsul' for Bremer, the summary dismissal of internal security forces, the failure to protect essential services in the cities, Abu Ghraib, etc. Each of these should have been prevented. The first two by consulting a regional expert, the third by speaking to the Brits, the fourth by speaking to a PR campaigner and the last by keeping a closer eye on prisons, which even in western countries require constant oversight to prevent riots, mistreatment and torture.

That the US did none of these showed how woefully underprepared the war effort was. For something that had been planned for many years its execution was abysmal. It was the great failure of neoconservative idealism, and it was an unnecessary tragedy. The US had learnt a lot from its previous wars, and it was a great failure that soft power was completely overshadowed by the demands of a high-tech and fast military invasion.

Of course that's just an answer to this question of yours: But given the situation as it unfolds how could we have done anything other than what we did the way we did it?

You asked others. I don't have the time to answer them, but I promise you that you will get a solid and well researched 'liberal' position from reading one of the liberal agenda-setters. Being proactive is good for you.

You answer questions based on whether i am a liberal or not? and if i am, the question becomes stupid?. anyway, i am an independent, there are things i agree on with liberals and the same with conservatives.



If i was dishonest i would have answered you with a convoluted round about answer. The reality is you got many good answers but you still not accepting any of them.

here is again your question:


The short and direct answer is this: The attacks are a result of our one-sided policies in the Middle East. The fact that we are one-sided since 1948 is undebatable. it is documented in every step we do or take regarding that region. Is it any surprise that sooner or later any people who feel injustice will fight back with whatever means they can?

by the way this is not a liberal-originated answer, it is universal and some not all the liberals just agree with it. right or wrong it is the way it is in the world at large. none of us like it, but it is the reality.

So from what you are saying the liberals that say it is all our fault won't actually be making this statement until 2057? This is what I meant when I said liberals read between lines and explore every angle until they find the most advantageous politically correct answer. The accusation was made in 2001 but the proof of the statement won’t be around until 2057 maybe.



If what you say is true then it will take longer than that. Keep in mind the Kennedy murder. It will not start the declassification process until Senator Kennedy dies and then add 50 years before it is declassified. If special circumstances is claimed then we have to wait until the war on terror is over plus 20 years or until the President, Vice-President, and the leadership of Congress all have to die before the declassification process can start.



If you are a liberal then you have just avoided the questions I asked and tried to deflect and obfuscate to another subject of which you have not answers either. It is true that Bremer did screw up, by disbanding the Army but the only guide he has on the subject was WWII in Germany and Japan. He did not take into account that Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda were going to continue to fight the war that was over for the Iraqis.



What essential services? They were all mostly gone from the first war and never rebuilt. The money in the oil for food program was not used to do anything except enrich Saddam's pockets and rebuild his war machine. The services that we rebuilt were being knocked out by the terrorist to keep the Iraqi people angry and miserable to get them to continue to fight a war they wanted over.




The first two, none of the so called experts realized what was happening with Iran, and Al Qaeda until it was too late because the media kept everyone misdirected on the so called riots and unrest that was typical when an oppressed nation is freed. Remember how the museum was looted and priceless treasures were stolen? Only to find out that none of that happened. Oops the Media and the experts that pointed to the stuff carried away as priceless relics were bad copies because all the priceless stuff was safely locked away years before the invasion. And while manpower was wasted securing worthless junk for the cameras whole armories were looted because the outside experts said this was more important. The local commanders were derelict in their duties because no one reported to them what was happening and when they did find out they arrested and charged the people responsible. The media was kind enough to tell the world what happened for no reason. It did nothing to stop the tragedy but it did give the enemy plenty of propaganda. The media did not bother to tell anyone until the damage was done that the people responsible were already in custody and facing trial months before the story broke. Good work don’t you think? The government can’t control the media which has been doing its job of reporting the news as they see it. Their job is to get viewers and readers not so much the truth but makes good reading. For months we debated world wide about torture that did not happen. While our enemies used it to inflame their people and recruit. A pity no one holds the press responsible for their actions even though they are part of the government.



You left out the fact that we have been unprepared for this type of war for over a decade. We tried to increase troop strength but liberals said we did not need more troops because the Soviet Union was no longer a threat. The liberals convinced the rest of America that we could spend the money wasted on troops on social programs. The big fuss Congress kicked up because the SecDef wanted to cancel weapons programs that Congressmen wanted and speed up programs that would be used to fight the type of war we are in now. For months before 9/11 the press and Congress fought the revamping of the military and how the Generals were not listened to. Mean old Rummy did not listen to the “experts”, then when we were attacked we had a military still geared to fighting a conventional war instead of the type of war we are fighting now. It looks like the experts had us going in the wrong direction when the attack hit.



If what you say is true you would be correct but if you look back at the war you will see that we did not have any serious plans for the war in Iraq. The battle in Afghanistan was the main focus and when Intelligence showed we were going to have a problem with Iraq we started building plans. That was just about a year before we invaded. Contrary to popular belief there were no plans for the invasion of Iraq and they had to be made on the fly. The diplomatic efforts involved in the invasion were set and then turkey backed out keeping a third of our forces from being put in place. This meant we had to re-plan the invasion with weeks to go.



Actually if you study warfare you would have noticed that the battle plan was taken from the Nazi Blitzkrieg. I don’t know what you mean by soft power. The strategy was the best we had in the short time we had to put the plan together and get it going. The urgency of need to get Al Qaeda stopped and contained was the driving force. The other reason for the invasion was to show the world that if you support terrorist openly you will be attacked. It was a partial success until the press broadcasted every flaw. In every major war the press at least made a pretense of supporting the country. This time they started with disaster and did not stop until they got it. Remember that Iran provided intelligence and a small amount of support until they saw the public reaction in America and went back on thier word.



I still fail to see how it was our fault. How we could have done it smarter does make sence in hindsight. oh well.



No I just waned to read from liberals how it was our fault and how we could have faught it better. I still don't see how it was our fault but you did shine some light on doing it better if we had the benifit of hindsight.

The short and direct answer is this: The attacks are a result of our one-sided policies in the Middle East. The fact that we are one-sided since 1948 is undebatable. it is documented in every step we do or take regarding that region. Is it any surprise that sooner or later any people who feel injustice will fight back with whatever means they can?

And "how" do you figure that we're one sided? I can think of quite a few we sided with and I don't mean just Israel. So your assumption is wrong. If you start re-reading Middle Eastern history, we have at one time or another sided with just about every Middle Eastern governments. Can you say Iraq? Or how about Egypt or Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey? How far would you like me to take this "list"?

So you speak for all liberals or only the parts of liberalism you agree with?

I too have agreements with both sides of the isle which is why I asked for an understanding on the liberal side of the house. These were simple blanket statetments made as best as I can tell by people that say they are liberals starting in 2001 and no one seems to what to know what is meant by the statements. I am asking. You would think with 6 years somebody would be able to explain how the war was all our fault.



Ok, say you are correct, then the attacks on the United States will only breing more death and destruction on them. It does not seem to be well thought out. Did AQ think that after the attacks we would just give up? Five years of planning and no one thought of what would happen after. AQ seemed to know we would come after them which is why they closed down their camps in afghanistan a month before the attacks. It also means that no matter what we do they have no intenion of giving up until they are all dead. Their goal seems to be to create more hate and death with no victory or end game. this means the war will not end until they are all hunted down and killed. Thank you for your opinion.