While our government may have it's shortcomings, I am not anti-American, but it is however critical that our government address the issues and concerns of our people. It is not like other governments don't have their shortcomings they have contributed to problems as well. In Iraq the factions that are fighting among themselves have age- old animosities and "scores to settle." they are committing genocide of their own people, as they try to gain control and dominance over the "other factions" They also have a responsibility in their own affairs, and if they can't resolve their own internal conflicts what do they expect our troops to do about it? We also need to look at Pakistan ,it has fanatical groups that support Al Qaida and also the fact that it actually has weapons of mass destruction may have to be a concern to us, they are also planting terrorist cells here in the US according to intelligence.

Am I anti-military? No because in a clear and present danger when our country has no other recourse or alternative, when diplomacy or other solutions have failed, we do have the right to defend ourselves against a foreign threat, if it threatens our security here at home or actually intends to attack us. But our government needs to have a more balanced view on foreign policy. But why had Pakistan who had weapons of mass destruction and did support terrorism get a second chance , why was North Korea treated differently? Why in spite of finding lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction did Bush choose to primarily focus on Iraq and Iran? Here is some news on Pakistan:

 

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2002/496/28085

How US helped Pakistan get the bomb

http://www.usip.org/ed/npec/winningessays/06winner.html

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9514/,http://pewresearch.org/pubs/561/pakistan-terrorism

Also on US govt support of Saddam Hussein in the eighties:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2002/506/27605

Especially worth reading: http://www.ithaca.edu/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_-_United_States_relations

How US helped supported the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and has double standards on terrorism.It denounces it and then supports it or at least turns a blind eye to it?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

Our government often helps create the dangers to our nation that it says it is trying to avert by supporting these regimes or factions (often considered the lesser "evil" at the time), supplying them with weapons and training and support , then looking the other way at human rights abuses and other abuses. Then it expects our troops to step in and clean up after it's messy and convoluted foreign policy when it botches things up? And we believe the government will protect us?????????? When will they ever learn? On top of this the Bush administarion may be actually causing more harm to our troops by "get this"

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh Excerpted from the article:

Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?

by Seymour M. Hersh March 5, 2007

Text Size:

Small Text

Medium Text

Large Text

Print E-Mail Feeds

Efforts to curb Iran’s influence have involved the United States in worsening Sunni-Shiite tensions.

Keywords

Middle East Strategies;

Policy Shifts;

Bush Administration;

Iran;

Saudi Arabia;

Sunnis;

Cheney, Dick (Vice-President)

A STRATEGIC SHIFT

 

In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made defiant pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and his country’s right to pursue its nuclear program, and last week its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on state television that “realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by the U.S. and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region.” Article goes on.... also:http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_confirms_it_arming_Sunni_insurgents_0610.html

 

 

Tags: | Edit Tags