Have you been to the countries that people are deported to? Have you taken a poll of prisoners at GITMO and determined how many are truly guilty and deserve to spend their lives there.
How many of those secret torture camps have you been to? How many people are in them? How often are they tortured? How badly are they tortured? What is your criteria for determining torture?
How many people have died during “questioning” so far? What percentage of people collected and detained are in fact just civilians who live in the same area?
What is the criteria for deciding if someone has vital knowledge. Is it only okay to torture if the knowledge is of terrorist activities? Can we torture someone if their neighbor was a terrorist, just because they need incentive to remember everything?
I don’t expect you to have the answers Zap, but somebody needs to be able to ask and someone else needs to answer. I don’t mean in our forums. The fact we don’t know the answers is why it is important we all talk about it.
Personally, I don’t have a lot of faith in the Bush administration to make the right decisions – they seem to messing up a fair amount, according to the way I see the world.
My job during Desert Storm was dealing with prisoners. I also had to deal with a few of them while I was in Afghanistan. I havent been to OIF, so I cant speak first hand of whats there until next summer.
The rules of engagment and for apprehension are very strict. There is no “indiscriminate” rounding up of anyone. In Afghanistan people are targeted by name and face, it is VERY specific.
To imply that people are torturing “innocent” people over there “indiscriminate” and “willy nilly” has nothing to do with the administration and everything to do with insulting the men on the ground.
While I admire your abilities to tear these men down and assume the worst about them because you heard something second or third hand; I truly believe you havent a leg to stand on until you can tell me of your experiences there.
Maybe Im reading to much into what you posted. Maybe you just need to rephrase it. Or, maybe you can take your opinion (thats what willy nilly, indiscriminate, and innocent are until youve been there) and shove it.
Go ahead and prove me wrong. We all know the moon landing was fake so you can’t use that.
Honestly I suggest you read every book you can lay your hands on about the subject material like I have. You appear to have a very shallow understanding of what is happening and you relentlessly parrot the talking points of the American left and some of the nut job Democrat Senators.
[quote]sjoconn wrote:
My job during Desert Storm was dealing with prisoners. I also had to deal with a few of them while I was in Afghanistan. I havent been to OIF, so I cant speak first hand of whats there until next summer.
The rules of engagment and for apprehension are very strict. There is no “indiscriminate” rounding up of anyone. In Afghanistan people are targeted by name and face, it is VERY specific.
To imply that people are torturing “innocent” people over there “indiscriminate” and “willy nilly” has nothing to do with the administration and everything to do with insulting the men on the ground.
While I admire your abilities to tear these men down and assume the worst about them because you heard something second or third hand; I truly believe you havent a leg to stand on until you can tell me of your experiences there.
Maybe Im reading to much into what you posted. Maybe you just need to rephrase it. Or, maybe you can take your opinion (thats what willy nilly, indiscriminate, and innocent are until youve been there) and shove it.
[/quote]
Thanks for providing some first hand info to clear up the bullshit and thanks for your service.
These discussions occur in a public forum and people take them in many ways that aren’t intended.
Zap throws out blind faith statements concerning the government. I throw out the “we don’t know”, “prove X isn’t happening” statements.
In general, I trust the man on the ground a lot more than I trust the administration. The fact that people are deported to countries that don’t outlaw torture and the fact that there are secret detention camps raises red flags.
These issues are not at all related to the man on the ground!
Nobody, including me, knows what is happening in the secret camps. The fact they exist, the fact the Bush administration routinely uses extreme tactics is also ominous.
Have “faith” everything is okay or don’t, but let others ask questions and want to know for sure.
These discussions occur in a public forum and people take them in many ways that aren’t intended.
Zap throws out blind faith statements concerning the government. I throw out the “we don’t know”, “prove X isn’t happening” statements.
In general, I trust the man on the ground a lot more than I trust the administration. The fact that people are deported to countries that don’t outlaw torture and the fact that there are secret detention camps raises red flags.
These issues are not at all related to the man on the ground!
Nobody, including me, knows what is happening in the secret camps. The fact they exist, the fact the Bush administration routinely uses extreme tactics is also ominous.
Have “faith” everything is okay or don’t, but let others ask questions and want to know for sure.[/quote]
vroom, you are back-pedaling.
There is a huge difference between the harsh interrogation that is happening behind closed doors to a select few terrorists and your insinuation that the US is torturing people “willy-nilly.”
If you would stop making baseless accusations like your willy-nilly comment it may be possible to have a reasonable discusion.
As it stands the insinuation of willy nilly torture is so gross it overrides any other point you are trying to make.
It shows you either do not have the least idea what is happening or that you really don’t care what is happening and you just want to engage in mindless criticism.
While you certainly are not the only one that does this sort of thing you seem to do it quite frequently.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
It is in this rebuilding that terrorism will dissapeer. A new infastructure, more and better hospitals, a democratic representation of the many different peoples of Iraq (kinda reminds you of the US huh), a stabalized econemy; all of these things and others that I haven’t mentioned will lend itself to the intolerance of terrorism.
[/quote]
Awesome!
How do you fight the growth of terrorism? Stop the lies, stop the propaganda, and give the people a voice in their own destiny. I see this happening just like bigflamer says it.
[quote]Yet you hastily ignore America’s funding of the non-Muslim Saddam Hussein when he attacked the Muslim Iran back in the eighties.
Two things. First, it is arguable that that decision wasn’t the worst available, given the other option of placating Iran. Second, name one Islamist who hates the US because we subsidized Saddam. Oh, and the US represented less than 2% of Saddam’s subsidies. Under your rationale, France - 13% of the payouts - would be the crosshairs.[/quote]
Well Hussein was trying to create a nationalist state in a Muslim region. He was not favoured by other Arabs. Where did you get your 2% from? Are we talking during the 80s or the 90s?
[quote]Or the support of Israel’s genocide in Palestine.
Nonsense. Mere recitation of the genocide claim won’t get you any traction. Go look at Sudan - that is what genocide looks like.[/quote]
Which was entirely ignored by all Western powers. Britain and America ‘liberate’ those sitting on the world’s second biggest oil field, but not the millions of refugees in the Sudan.
So it can’t commit genocide? Germany was recognised when it was busy doing genocide in the 40s.
I think Arabs have a fairly big issue with Britain slicing that land up arbitarily in the first place.
The genocide happens outside its borders in Palestine and has for years. You seem confused.
[quote]Or the US military presence in Saudi, Oman, Jordan etc.
At the invitation of the governments.[/quote]
And not the wider population. Plus are you 100% sure troops were invited or was there economic coersion?
[quote]Since when has the US been Muslim friendly?!
What kind of history do you learn?[/quote]
Currently medieval Northen Italy and the colonial adventures of Britain and America in Central America during the the late 19th century, why do you ask?
[quote]As I have pointed a myriad of times you can not say terrorists have the same goal. The ones in Iraq? I have a feeling they aren’t bent on world domination! The ones in Chechnya, hmmm. Al Quaeda, well originally Bin Laden said he wanted to ‘remove the US military footprint’ from Saudi. The Palestinian bombers? I don’t think they are trying to take over the world.
Amazingly naive of you to take these fascists in good faith. The US is out of Saudi Arabia - so you expect OBL’s limited objective has been fulfilled so he will get out of the terror business, right?[/quote]
Look, this whole debating thing kind of rests on you not making things up. Look up information on the Taif Air Base and Eskan Village. Plus remember that if needed the US can use the Prince Sultan Airbase and probably any others.
Good to see the place accepted enforced democracy so well.
Well I think the average Palestinian wants peace. The Palestinian terrorist may want to destroy Israel, but I have a feeling that sadly many bombings are revenge attacks.
I agree we can’t exist with fascist jihad, so we have to persuade people not to take up jihad in that perverted way, hence we need to make as many Muslim friends as possible so that they can help propagate and educate on real jihad which is highly positive.
Umm, ok. I’m open minded, but I don’t see anything to give the benefit of the doubt to.
[quote]We don’t know what the London bombers wanted but the BBC talked about a report commisioned after 7/7 in Muslim communities in which those communities themselves said foreign policy was a large part of their disenfranchisement. Don’t over-simplify and assume terrorist goals are black or white.
Wait - foreign policy was the source of disenfranchisement at home? You do know that disenfranchisement means being neutered from the political process - so they can’t vote because of foreign policy?
I suspect you don’t know what you are talking about.[/quote]
Its not tough, the Muslim community feels foreign policy is basically anti-Muslim and so they feel they are unrepresnted (which they are). Members of Muslim communities here in Britain turned to terrorism and you can’t help but feel if the normal bits of the community are citeing Britain’s relationship to the Middle East as an issue the extremist elements will take it as motivation too.
[quote]A desire to replace the authoritarian regimes of, say, Saudi Arabia with Islamist Sharia law is - repeat, not - a desire to experience liberal institutions and freedom. They want a more authoritarian regime - more cruel, more brutal, and more vicious than the one they are being oppressed by.
That is just made up (see above).
Nonsense, go read the jihadist literature. Go read the statements of the various terror groups. If you need a hand, try www.memri.org. [/quote]
The more I read extremist litrature the more I feel it is an exercise in PR and motivational speaking. For instance, using you website take this:
The vast bulk of the document is regarding America in Iraq, then it says towards the end that jihad will spread throughout the world. The focus is clearly local.
[quote]Classic brainless academic exercise - imputing motives to people even when the people themselves contradict the ascribed motives. Want to know what the Islamists want? Go read what they say instead of manufacturing some external reason why they really do what they do.
You’d have to read the whole Chalmers Johnson book to find out. He goes into quite a lot of detail about who wants to get rid of American bases.
Good for this Chalmers. Who the hell is Chalmers?.[/quote]
He’s a pretty prominant academic, author of the seminal work ‘Blowback’ amoung other things. His speciality was East Asian culture, but whilst in Okinawa he witnessed the havoc US military bases wrought on local populations and changed focus.
[quote]Only people I care about talking about the bases needing removal are the European leaders that would actually vote for such a thing. And what do I hear from the EU when it is time to vote the bases out? Crickets chirping.
Our welfare systems are based off US military subsidies? I don’t think France and Spain etc need huge land armies to fight off terrorists and Europe has given up going to war with itself.
You have become a cartoon. Do you have any idea what kind of expenditures individual European nations or the EU in the aggregate would have to spend to have a defense independent of NATO?
The European economies have nearly bankrupted themselves without the commitment to independent defense - what do you think would happen if they suddenly had to take on that responsbility?[/quote]
Hmm, seeing as the EU has economically outperformed America consistantly for quite a while I find this statement dubious. In 2001 Switzerland alone outperformed the US.
The Balkans were pretty nice when I went there this summer, certainly quieter than when I went to Yugoslavia all those years ago. As for Iran, would it have aspired to nuclear deterrant if it wasn’t flanked by Afghanistan, Turkey and Iraq, all of which have ‘intimate’ relationships to America. The phrase ‘backed into a corner’ springs to mind. As a European I feel the greatest threat to me would be America being heavy handed with Iran. Then they might actually use the weapons!
Right…
[quote]Yeah, it’d be pretty hard defending ourselves from those Viking longships that keep raiding our shores without a US military presence. And what with all the UN missions? What bearing does that have? Its not tough, the world wants America to do the UN thing, just like most nations do, but not the things that contravene the UN (like the forrays into Iraq, Central America etc).
The foray into Bosnia did not receive UN approval. You knew that, right?[/quote]
Yes I did, I also knew that Serbian police committed genocide AFTER the West invaded because. The invasion was politically motivated, not humanitarian, although the timeline mysteriously switched under the ‘humane’ Clinton admin.
War as in the true meaning of nation versus nation? Yes, and Robert Kagan in ‘Paradise and Power’ can explain better than me. Terrorism? No, but then that isn’t fought with land armies and by definition can’t be war because it is not a nation state fighting.
[quote]Well McDonalds does get targeted in France a lot, but I digress. You make out that all America does is ship the odd burger abroad when in reality US culture, financial and military establishments pervade the world. I know because I actually live in ‘the world outside’ and travel extensively in ‘the world outside’.
I just got back from a trip in Europe - I stopped in France and Austria.[/quote]
Good for you. I love Austria, its a beautiful country, even if the population is somewhat pompous in areas.
I don’t bother with that pointless dick waving.
When was this about Europe being threatened by America? I thought we were talking the Middle East, like where the invasion is?
[quote]Nobody that I know of has brought a Marxist doctrine into any of this. You’d be well advised to read ‘Clash of Civilisations’ by Samuel Huntington.
Then by all means, read up. The general grievance as blathered by the Left is that if only these poor Arabs weren’t being oppressed by global capitalism they wouldn’t be blowing themselves up.[/quote]
I don’t speak for ‘the Left’. I speak for me, and I never said anything about poor Arabs.
[quote]It is always about ow the ‘other’ is poor or victimized and that is why they do what they do. I am saying the poor aren’t conducting terror.
Because he wants to remove the US military footpr… etc etc
And so the US is gone - so OBL will quit, right? He won’t create another grievance and want to go further, right? And further still, right? He will - under your rationale - quit?[/quote]
If Muslims don’t feel hunted they won’t turn to Bin Laden’s teachings. It doesn’t matter if he quits or not then.
I think history has already panned out, but regardless, I’m not a determinist. I merely suggest more carrot and less stick. Actually winning hearts and minds, not just creating a soundbite. I’d put money on that working.
[quote]Maybe they associated with the Palestinians, and the Iranians, and the Iraqis who all suffered injustice with backing from the West.
What Palestinian injustice? Israel has the right to be where they are.[/quote]
Hmm, depends whether you agree with how Britain carved up that area. The injustice would be the genocide I reffered to.
You’re putting words in my mouth. I said that Muslims, and others for that matter, see how America, backed him, then attacked him, and backed the non-Muslim Hussein against the Muslim Iran.
[quote]And the Iranians? When have we backed Iran to the detriment of its people?
These grievances are self-inlflicted wounds.[/quote]
I don’t think the Muslim world asked America to back Hussein.
[quote]Explain with references. If you could address the Iraq-Iran conflict in particular that would be interesting.
Arab culture has been in a continual backslide - it is a culture increasingly humiliated by modernity. Its basis is tribalism, gender apartheid, theocracy, and idealization of a Dark Ages caliphate by those who have power.[/quote]
Didn’t see much explanation of Iran-Iraq there. Nasty generalisations there.
You do realise places like Oman, the UAE, Jordan, Eygpt are peaceful Islamic-orientated states?
They might be less resentful if we didn’t invade them.
[quote]As for Iran-Iraq - in retrospect, I would have preferred a different solution, but foreign policy most often deals with a choice not between something bad and something good - which is an easy choice- but between something bad and something worse.
Oh well - the sad part is that the Left - the self-appointed stewards of the Enlightenment - have thrown empiricism out the window and have had their reactionary attitude completely played by the Islamists like a tune.
Sorry are you talking extremists or are all Muslims now terror suspects? Your racism is poking through.
Huh? That doesn’t even make any sense. How did you derive that I now suggested that all Muslims were terror suspects?
Embarrassing.[/quote]
Because you simply said Islamists, not Islamic extremists. If you take issue with Islam as a whole then fine, but I think it is the extremists who pevert a peaceable religion.
[quote]My ideas are open more diplomatic avenues with Middle Eastern countries. Withdraw from Iraq soon, but not to quickly and work damned hard with our own Muslim groups to achieve a good relationship. The doctrines of the IMF and World bank need to be heavily revised and updated and the UN’s power needs to be reinforced so that non-Western nations feel protected and will then co-operate to help catch terrorists with a sustained intelligence assault. We need to not invade Middle Eastern countries. What are your ideas? ‘Bomb the hell outta them?’ I suspect.
You would be wrong, as usual.[/quote]
It was a joke.
[quote]My ideas?
Give Iraq and - oh yeah, Afghanistan! - the foundation for democracy patterned after the Marshall Plan and make sure we create a modern trading relationship with the two countries.
But get out as soon as practically possible and let them take ownership of their fledgling democracies.
Continue to develop energy independence.
Begin to limit trade opportunities with countries that don’t share our political values (I, unlike some conservatives, do not think free trade relationships with autocratic countries will bring a cascade of liberalism to their political system).[/quote]
That is a prudent viewpoint, I wholeheaterdly agree.
[quote]Continue to deal with unsavory nations through diplomacy, but with a diplomacy that they know is always backed by an unapologetic use of force. Call it Big Stick.
I would suggest that Iraq is a ‘one shot deal’ in terms of bringing democracy to the ME - no plan to try and foster it beyond Iraq. If these countries want to liberalize, it will be their own decision.[/quote]
Exactly, but where was this policy regarding Iraq? We lack legitimacy there because Hussein did not have WMD and there was the ‘dodgy dossier’ fiasco.
I think this could be done, or the UN should be entirely reworked. There needs to be an international force and law which can not be contravened though.
I’m glad you don’t want to, I hope the government shares that perspective.
Yup, but those incentives need to be revised from the current ones, I think thats a given though.
[quote]I would try and get a Palestinian state, but under the ultimatum that US help is contingent on exorcising terror elements entirely. Palestinians have to be willing to accept Israel as a legitimate state before I would lift a finger to help them.
Sound unreasonable to you?[/quote]
Whether Israel was originally legitimate or not it is there, you’re right, other Middle Eastern nations have to accept that. Both sides must be encouraged to work together. It could be a pretty powerful trading bloc, EU style. Its not our place to make it happen though. Mediate, yes, enforce, no.
People talking about politics on a bodybuilding forum.[/quote]
You know what’s even funnier…that you logged into a bodybuilding forum that has a political discussion division and created a post about how absurd the fact that it exists is. This implies that you expected someone to read your post…in the political section of a bodybuilding discussion forum thus creating an attraction to the very forum that you seem to despise. How ironic is that?
On a similar note, however, what does bother me are those who seem to ONLY post in the political section of this forum. Now that’s scary.
“Hmm, seeing as the EU has economically outperformed America consistantly for quite a while I find this statement dubious. In 2001 Switzerland alone outperformed the US.”
The EU economy has been underperforming the American one for years. The Financial Times, WSJ, Economist, all report on this stuff all the time. And it’s silly to cherry pick one country in one year when you are discussing the EU economy as a whole.
Here’s just one report that lays out the problems with EU economic performace.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Judecca wrote:
You know what’s funny?
People talking about politics on a bodybuilding forum.
You know what’s even funnier…that you logged into a bodybuilding forum that has a political discussion division and created a post about how absurd the fact that it exists is. This implies that you expected someone to read your post…in the political section of a bodybuilding discussion forum thus creating an attraction to the very forum that you seem to despise. How ironic is that?
On a similar note, however, what does bother me are those who seem to ONLY post in the political section of this forum. Now that’s scary.[/quote]
[quote]optprime wrote:
“Hmm, seeing as the EU has economically outperformed America consistantly for quite a while I find this statement dubious. In 2001 Switzerland alone outperformed the US.”
The EU economy has been underperforming the American one for years. The Financial Times, WSJ, Economist, all report on this stuff all the time. And it’s silly to cherry pick one country in one year when you are discussing the EU economy as a whole.
Here’s just one report that lays out the problems with EU economic performace.
[/quote]
Well Switzerland isn’t in the EU. Its also my fave country to quote from. I began looking into my counterargument but then I found the CIA world factbook website:
Did you know the US has an estimated 155 heliports? Or that Norway has 4077km of railways? I’m sorry, but I’m not usually that into the US secret service but if it existed just to make this website it would be worth it! Qatar’s highest elevation is Qurayn Abu al Bawl at 103m! What a website!
Well Hussein was trying to create a nationalist state in a Muslim region. He was not favoured by other Arabs. Where did you get your 2% from? Are we talking during the 80s or the 90s?[/quote]
The US gave Saddam subsidies during the 90’s? Show me.
Hmmm. So where are the Western powers, including your European favorites?
And, you should know, as a UN proceduralist, there is not allowance for aggression in the name of humanitarianism.
Moreover, the Arab anger at Palestine is a recent phenomenon; one more excuse to direct rage at Israel.
This is always a hoot. Do those same grievances apply to all the poor souls angry and displaced by the Ottoman Empire? Should non-Arabs get the same level of righteous indignation over the ‘arbitrary lines’ that the Ottomans saw fit to run?
While I don’t argue that the divvy up was too arbitrary given the demographics, the defeat of the Ottomans entailed that the victors are going to swoop in and run the show.
Groups of neo-Nazis in Germany are mad at how the Allies helped organize German government after WWII - not being sympathetic to the Germanic Aryans as a privileged class and all - perhaps if they blow up passenger trains, you can apologize for them being mad at the arbitrary rules the mean ole Americans set up after their defeat?
And more besides - your beloved UN was responsible for a great deal of the line drawing, especially in the disputed area of Palestine. In fact - and I am sure you can appreciate this as a card-carrying multilateralist - the Partition Plan of 1947 was the result of a UN vote of 46 countries, with the big powers abstaining. The Arabs, of course, rejected it, even though it met the “global test” that I am sure you would endorse today.
Lesson? The boundary that the Arabs are most grouchy about - Palestine, not the Iraq triumvirate - is the direct work of multilateral UN action.
Further, despite the fair UN process and fair vote, the moment the Partition Plan was approved, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Lebanon invaded the area in clear defiance of the UN plan. The Arabs got a fair hearing in the world community - and lost - which is ironic, because the Partition Plan would have essentially created the Palestinian state the Arab nations claim to covet.
So who is the aggrieved party again?
Nope - I just can’t square how a nation is committing ethnic cleansing while allowing the ethnicity to exist within its borders. If you hated someone enought to want to wipe out the ethnicity entirely - which is what genocide is - why would you be ok with them living under your nose?
Can you?
If the folks don’t like what the government, why not bomb the government? Second, economic coercion on which side?
We established a presence in the ME going back to FDR to prevent communist penetration into the Gulf. Who is using coercion again?
Keep reading - OBL has also said he wants to reclaim Spanish Andalusia.
Lesson? OBL has made it clear that his ‘grievance’ is a moving target - anything as a pretext to continue his jihad.
Turned to terrorism? They don’t get what they want in the political process - which they most certainly get to participate in, ask George Galloway - so they turn to mass murder on a public transit?
Spare me your apology for these people - pathetic. They can ‘feel’ any way they want - there is no justification for what they did. Being a loser in a democratic process is not a ‘reason’ for radical terror - so also spare me the claptrap about curing this terror by making sure they feel welcome. They are in the wrong.
Aww, so touchy feely. If only we would be nicer to them, they would abandon this desire for radical domination.
In your world, extremists are always the product of some mean old person making them do something the otherwise wouldn’t do - never a result of personal culpability or the result of free will. It is always the fault of someone else - oh, except white imperlialists - they do everything originally, never as a reaction to some other event, therefore tehir actons are always their fault.
And you said you weren’t a determinist?
[quote]The more I read extremist litrature the more I feel it is an exercise in PR and motivational speaking. For instance, using you website take this:
The vast bulk of the document is regarding America in Iraq, then it says towards the end that jihad will spread throughout the world. The focus is clearly local.[/quote]
Wow, what a mealy-mouthed deconstruction. A quote:
"This is the policy of the Qaedat Al-Jihad in Iraq. All the Arab and Western countries are intervening in the Iraqi war, and want to destroy the Jihad fighters there, since they know that if the Jihad fighters triumph, Jihad will spill out from the boundaries of Sykes-Picot, spread to the Arab countries adjacent to Iraq and to nearby enemies, and then spread to the other Western states [within] a global Jihad campaign
I bolded the part you can’t possibly spin. I don’t doubt Zarqawi’s concerns are local, but don’t try and pretend that his motives are just to beat back unwelcome Westerners.
Latest info I have:
USA latest GDP - +3.6%
Euro Area latest GDP - +1.1%
Switzerland latest GDP - +1.0%
Percent changes from a year ago.
USA unemployment rate - 5.1%
Euro Area unemployment rate - 8.6%
Swizterland unemployment rate - 3.6%
Now, my point was less about current numbers than about how taking on independent defense spending would overwhlem the already expensive public sector of the European countries, but there are the numbers for your information and amusement.
Again, your failure is shocking. Iran hasn’t only recently become interested in arming itself to the teeth because of an imperialistic US, despite your fantasies. Iran has wanted Gulf domination for over 30 years. If the US packed up went home tomorrow, Iran would still want the best weapons it can get its hands on.
You already tried it, with the whole “I actually travel to these other places”, implying that I don’t.
Hunted by whom? Who is targeting Muslims?
Well, see above. Britain didn’t do a great job drawing the lines, but I suspect that is one consequence of losing WWI - having your destiny determined by your vanquisher.
And, as for genocide - you’ve claimed it, haven’t shown it.
You said Arabs were mad at the US backing Saddam in the early 1980s. I simply asked who and are they fighting us because of it?
Well, genius - a paragraph below starts…
“As for Iran-Iraq - in retrospect, I would have preferred a different solution, but foreign policy most often deals with a choice not between something bad and something good - which is an easy choice- but between something bad and something worse.”
Assuming you mean Afghanistan and Iraq, they were resentful long before we ‘invaded’.