Do Democrats ever say why Al Qaeda attacked us?

[welshTerrier2]

I was just watching a very good speech by Senator Dorgan. He pointed out, quite correctly, that after six years since 9/11, Al Qaeda, according to all accounts, is stronger today than they were back in 2001. He quoted comments from bush about going after any country or government that gave safe refuge to Al Qaeda. That's exactly what's going on in Pakistan right now.

Dorgan was talking tough and made a great case about the massive distraction and failure that bush's efforts in Iraq have been.

What he didn't address, in fact what I never hear Democrats addressing, is how to really make this country safer. Is it going after Al Qaeda all over the world? If so, is that all we need to do?

What about asking the simple question: why would anyone want to attack this country? Asking the question doesn't imply that we agree with their conclusions. If someone is attacking you or threatening you, doesn't it seem reasonable to ask whether something you've done or are still doing might be what's provoking your adversaries? Is the assumption they just did it for fun or because we are "Western devils" or because "they hate us for our freedoms?"

It seems to me that US actions directly caused the position Al Qaeda takes against the US. My view is that in part it is our support of Israel but it's also our occupation all over the globe of other countries. And it is the way we exploit those countries. Bin Laden has spoken of this.

The argument is frequently put forward by some that "the terrorists will follow us home" if we don't defeat them in Iraq. Did the North Vietnamese "follow us home?" Did the North Koreans? And here's the thing about the Democrats: Why won't they publically state that Iraqi oil should be the sole property of the Iraqi people? If future terrorist attacks on US soil are even a possibility, does anyone believe that possibility might be made just a little more likely if we steal Iraq's oil for the multi-national oil companies?

I'm all for Dorgan's tough talk on really confronting Al Qaeda. I believe Al Qaeda really is a serious threat to this country. The war in Iraq has been an insane diversion from doing what we must do. But the Democrats have been disingenuous about how to make this country safer. Saying it as plainly as I can, they aren't telling the truth. We need to reexamine our role in the world. We need to close down most of the 737 US military bases overseas. We need to stop allowing corporate America and corporate anywhere else from exploiting weaker countries. We need to put an end once and for all to American imperialism.

Those who would attack us do so for reasons. They have no right to attack innocent civilians and their actions are not justified. But neither are the actions of our own government and the corporations our policies cater to all over the world. If we really want to lessen the threats against this country, perhaps while we're busy securing our ports and running around all over the world looking for terrorists, a little introspection is called for. I find it very disappointing that the Democrats haven't addressed this key component of making the country safer and reflecting the values that many of us hold.

[Taverner]

1. Why did they attack? Shit rises to the surface when you stir it up...

[Psychmd]

2. Are you kidding me

It was because we occupied a base in Saudi Arabia and this pissed off the leaders of Al Qaeda. Bush immediately gave in to their demands and closed the base. Now they are pissed that we are occupying Iraq. I think those that take the time to learn about these issues, know quite well why they are angry with us.

[welshTerrier2]

3. that's right ...

we occupied a base in Saudi Arabia ... and now, we're occupying Iraq ... we're occupying Afghanistan ... that's exactly the point.

and now we're trying to steal most of Iraq's oil revenues for the next thirty years or more ...

the point is that all the tough talk about going after Al Qaeda is not going to make us any less at risk unless we also reassess our foreign policy that is built to benefit Big Oil and Big Defense.

What have the Democrats said about this?

[phildo]

7. Troops In Saudi were only part.. But we are not supposed to say support of Israel was on the list

AIPAC would not think well of mentioning that.

Bin Laden's list was:

1. US Troops in Saudi.
2. US support of Israel with weapons being used against Palestine.
3. Harming children in Iraq with the embargo.
4. Attempts to import Western Corporate culture.

That was the full list.

Gee, at least we got the troops of Saudi.

Ok, somebody call me Aunty Semite, now.

[welshTerrier2]

11. The UN said the embargo killed more than 500,000 children

most of that came under Bill Clinton. I guess we're not supposed to discuss that. It was a horrible policy. "Starve the Iraqi people until they're so desperate they overthrow Saddam." How insane was that? Talk about targeting civilians!!!

And for supporting Israel, Al Qaeda can go to hell. I think the US should support Israel. I also think the US should support the Palestinians. And I also think if we wanted to broker a peace deal we could. It's clear bush has had no interest in doing so. I'll leave it to others to speculate why. For me, when in doubt, look at Big Oil.

[The Magistrate]

15. Unfortunately, Sir

The numbers claimed for deaths from sanctions simply do not stand up to examination.

The noted Lancet survey used a base, pre-invasion death rate for Iraq of five per thousand, which amounts to roughly one hundred twenty-five thousand deaths a year, during the period in which sanctions were in place. Claims that a million people died as a result of sanctions over that same period, between 1992 and 2003, amount to a claim that nearly one hundred thousand persons a year died as a consequence of sanctions. Were this taken as true, it would suggest the actual expected death rate in Iraq during those years was approximately one death per thousand per year, or twenty-five to thirty thousand deaths a year. You will have a difficult time finding countries with so low a rate of deaths per thousand as that, to put it mildly. Syria, to take a regional example, has a death rate of slightly under five per thousand.

The claim of a half million children dead in consequence of sanctions does not hold up much better. The Iraqi birth-rate runs about thirty per thousand per year, or roughly three quarters of a million births, with infant mortality alone running to nearly fifty per thousand births, or roughly thirty-five thousand per year. This is suggests a pediatric death rate in toto of no more than seventy thousand dead minors, ranging from new-borns to adolscents, over the course of a year. A death rate 'from sanctions' of a little under fifty thousand per year, again, leaves very little room for deaths among minors to have occured at all in the absence of sanctions.

Since the Iraqi population has been increasing dramatically over the years, as the comparison of death and birth rates makes clear, the numbers fit even more poorly, since the population was smaller by several millions at the start of the sanctions, perhaps as low as twenty millions, which would make total deaths calculated on a per thousand basis noticeably smaller, while there is no such elasticity in the average per year of deaths claimed to result from sanctions. In most years, the comparison would indicate, if the latter group of figures were to be taken seriously, that virtually every death in Iraq in those years was a result of sanctions. There being no evidence that persons born in Iraq can expect immortal life, barring sanctions imposed by the United Nations, this proposition cannot accurately describe the case.

[welshTerrier2]

16. i disagree

have to get back to you with data at a later time. sorry about that.

I vaguely recall we've discussed this previously.

[The Magistrate]

17. It Will Take Arithmetic To Sustain The Disagreement, Sir

Simply citing claims of agencies, whether Iraqi or U.N., or private relief groups, that such and so number of deaths derive from sanctions, will not manage the thing. All must fit well within the societal mortality figures, leaving sufficient room for a reasonable rate of deaths unrelated to the porous blockade.

[welshTerrier2]

18. OK ... let's start with this analysis

see if you find the data credible ... i hope you read the full article

here's the link: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html

Garfield concluded that between August 1991 and March 1998 there were at least 106,000 excess deaths of children under 5, with a "more likely" worst-case sum of 227,000. (He recently updated the latter figure to 350,000 through this year.) Of those deaths, he estimated one-quarter were "mainly associated with the Gulf war." The chief causes, in his view, were "contaminated water, lack of high quality foods, inadequate breast feeding, poor weaning practices, and inadequate supplies in the curative health care system. This was the product of both a lack of some essential goods, and inadequate or inefficient use of existing essential goods."

my take away from this analyst: perhaps as many as 350,000 children died from a combination of the embargo coupled with the Gulf War. Isolating that to just the embargo, per this analyst, the number of children killed by the embargo was around 260,000. So, until further notice or additional information, I will use that data to reflect the hideous children-murdering embargo policies of the bush I and Clinton administrations. Let's remember that irresponsible bombings during the Gulf War and the infrastructure damage they caused lift that number to 350,000 dead children. And let's also quickly note that this study only talks about the number of dead children. How many other innocent Iraqis were killed by barbaric US policies during this period?

btw, a separate article citing Garfield's research increases the 350,000 number to 400,000. here's a link to that article: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm#5 ... the cite came from section 5.7 of the report.

[The Magistrate]

19. Taken As A Whole, Sir, That Article Supports My Views Rather Solidly

The particular element of it you cite looks worth examination past the excerpts here, but my reading of those figures is a good deal different from yours. The lower figure seems more solid, given the gentleman's acknowledgements of the difficulties of data available, and indicates a death rate on the order of fifteen thousands per year, if the total is pitched in the low middle between the two figures, and adjusted for the proportion stemming directly from the '91 war, during the most intense periods of sanctions. His tossing another hundred and twenty-five thousands onto the pile over the period between 1998 and 2003 has a dubious ring, as all indications are that conditions did improve markedly once the 'Oil for Food' programs were in place, and he is in doing that employing roughly the same death rate as in the previous period.

My point remains quite intact: the claims of lethality owing directly to sanctions commonly bruited about are grossly, even grotesquely, exaggerated.

It is also worth noting there is great room for argument over the causes of 'excess' death during the sanctions period. Some causes cited by U.N.I.C.E.F. have nothing at all to do with sanctions. Sanctions did not impose a pronounced shift from breast feeding to bottle feeding. A reduction in investment in basic health services, though it may be related to a reduction in available capital, also reflects a decision by the government in question to give a higher priority to other uses of available capital: neither the armed forces nor the grandiosity of the ruling clique went hungry in that period, there was money for guns and palaces and fattened bank accounts.

It is not, by the way, my position that the sanctions regime caused no harm, or was benign, or even necessarily proper. Sanctions are essentially blockade, a very blunt and potentially cruel weapon, and of little practical use against totalitarian regimes that by definition are little concerned with the sufferings of the populations they rule. Sanctions mostly serve to give diplomats a fig leaf of taking 'stern action' when they are not willing to do anything concrete and direct against a regime. Their effect could generally be matched by sending a hand-ful of bombing planes over every couple of months to bomb a few maternity wards and old folks homes, and scatter a few incendiaries over poorer quarters of cities, but those who support them would, for reasons that escape me, flinch from such a direct action.

But it is important, in my view, to keep a sense of scale and proportion, and refrain from propagandist excesses. The standard hard left critique of the sanctions imposed by the U.N. on Iraq distorts scale, utterly lacks a sense of proportion, and consists of nothing but propagandist excess.

[welshTerrier2]

20. let's tone down the "propagandist excesses", shall we?

let's look at the language used in the article rather than all this subjectivity you've added about which number "seems more solid".

As best I can read the words used in the article, and I can only assume they were Garfield's words, we have the following very specific language: "at least 106,000 excess deaths of children under 5, with a "more likely" worst-case sum of 227,000."

You're free to speculate about the data any way you like but I'll go with the best available source which explicitly uses the phrase "more likely." In doing so, I'd hardly call such reliance "propagandist excesses." I believe I've cited research by a person who seems to have provided the best available information. He used the phrase "more likely" to refer to 227,000 dead children that apparently, at a later date, was amended to 350,000 and then again presumably at an even later date to 400,000. I'm more than willing to subtract from that number Garfield's estimate of Iraqi children's deaths attributable to the Gulf War (although the Gulf War should come under the umbrella of what this thread is all about). Again, I would hardly use the term propagandist excesses for anyone setting the number of Iraqi children bush and Clinton killed somewhere between 250,000 and perhaps as many as 300,000 or even 350,000. Any variations from this range, either up or down, is purely speculative. I see this research as the best available data.

And, as you quite correctly pointed out, these sanctions were not just potentially brutal but were brutal. This returns to the focus of this thread. I'll repeat: the US should reassess its foreign policy with a special focus on whether its conduct has contributed to hatred of the US and to violence as an expression of that hatred. This view should not only look back into history but also look forward. Surely, anyone being honest would have to agree that a deep hatred for the US, partly in response to US conduct, can be found throughout the Middle East even outside the narrow confines of Al Qaeda. What risk to our futures might that hatred present?

To argue that Democrats, or any leader in this country, should not be expected to take a hard look at these policies, policies that killed perhaps 250,000 to perhaps 350,000 (are the exact numbers really all that important?) children, will likely condemn us to an unnecessarily combative future. To endorse the idea that it's important to "know thy enemy" does NOT mean that their actions have been endorsed. It's important to know the difference. And to turn a blind eye, or worse a seeing eye but a lying tongue, to our policies, seems unconscionable to me. Is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians what America is all about?

[The Magistrate]

22. At Those Larger Numbers, Sir

You begin to bump uncomfortably against the ceiling of the overall mortality figures, including those related to sanctions and those unrelated. That basic rate runs at roughly five per thousand a year, according to the Lancet base-line. The basic infant mortality rate is roughly fifty per thousand live births, both before sanctions and at the present day, which would have been producing between twenty-five and thirty thousand such deaths a year normally during the sanctions period. Taking even the 350,000 figure, and quartering it down to 270,000, produces an additional twenty-five thousands per year which takes the total of infant and young juvenile deaths to between fifty and sixty thousands per year, which must fit into an over-all mortality of between one hundred and one hundred and twenty-five thousands per year in all age groups and from all causes. It is not a good fit, Sir: it does not leave sufficient room for deaths in other cohorts of the population. We neither of us are familiar with the study being cited, or the studies and quality of data on which it was based. Clinging tight to maximum estimates in such circumstances strikes me as unwise.

It is an unfortunate fact that when the governments of countries come into conflict, there is no practical way for them to strike at one another save by blows against the body of the countries' populace. Any policy but one of selective assassination of governing leaderships must necessarily make a great many people pay the forfeit for their government's actions who had in fact little or nothing to do with them. There is no help for this, any more than there is any likelihood that conflicts between governments pushed to the killing point will cease to be a feature of human affairs. The policy of sanctions against Iraq did at least have the useful effect of maintaining that country, while under Hussein's continued rule, in a state of military impotence during the time they were in place. That, throughout the last decade of the last century, and even into the first years of this one, served legitimate interests of the United States, and certainly improved the stability of the Middle East. The policy of containment, and of playing Iraq and Iran against one other during those years, was a successful one, and among the great blunders of the present administration was throwing this success away in exchange for the present calamatous condition.

[nealmhughes]

21. That is what Bin Ladin said, allright.

Evidently the Sunni fundamentalists, aka Wahhabis, are rather miffed over Israel having won not merely every war with the Arabs, but taking "holy soil," also. It seems that Arabian and Palestinian dirt is quite holy and infidels' presence defiles the righteous.
Add in the other stuff, and Old Sammy had quite the laundry list, but was quite clear as to why he wanted a jihad against us.

[The Magistrate]

4. Any Attempt, Sir, To Press A Line

That readily boils down to "Politician Y says 'U.S. had it coming'!" will be avoided by professionals.

Nor does it much matter, for several reasons. U.S. and Western involvement in the Middle east is unavoidable, dictated by necessities of fuel that are not going to go away. The reaction, and style, of the jihadis is so excessive and disproportionate that there is no reason to believe they will not manufacture in their minds sufficient reason to press their hostilities regardless of any changes in U.S. policy. The basic root of this is the calamatous failure of Moslem and Arab societies to withstand the impact of modernity on traditional institutions and patterns of behavior, and make the kind of adjustments and accommodations that, say, Japan and China and other Oriental societies managed. This last element is absolutely irreconcilable, and there is no means to address it.

[welshTerrier2]

8. Does this include the "Oil Law"?

are you making a defense of US efforts to "privatize" (nice term for it!) Iraqi oil? are you extending your observation about our unavoidable involvement in the Middle East to cover the theft of Iraqi oil? are you extending our unavoidable "involvement" to include continued occupation of Iraq? Have we benefitted the Afghani people or did we primarily go in there for the oil pipeline? Things are rapidly degrading in Afghanistan. I think that's indicative of bush's lack of commitment to any sort of longterm progress there.

I take it your bottom line is that there are no modifications to US policy that could make us safer or would even better align our policies with the values of the American people and the global community. I'm focusing here on our excessive military presence and occupation of Iraq, our excessively one-side support for Israel rather than seeking an effective resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, our cozying up to brutal dictators like the House of Saud, Saddam and the Shah, and our abusive conduct to procure Middle Eastern oil.

Is it just possible these policies would lead to hostility against the US? I have no way to assess whether jihadists would manufacture other reasons to attack us. Still, I would continue to ask the question: would they attack us for no motivation at all?

[The Magistrate]

13. That Particular Item, Sir

Is an ephemra: even if passed, it will not last past the withdrawl of the United States from Iraq. It is no more worth expending effort to defend than attack, and you will not find me doing either. Similarly, 'Afghan pipelines', though touted in a most humorous manner by some 'ultras' as the 'real reason' for the U.S. invasion of the place in the wake of the September attacks, remain unbuilt and non-functional, and would never turn a profit.

The fact remains that not only is the oil of the region vital to the economies of the West and the Orient, but that without those economies to purchase the stuff, it would be worthless. This guarantees there will be continual interactions between the modern elements of the global economy, and the backwater region under which this resource lies. The latter end of such an interaction is never going to come out of it too well, and there really is little that can be done about it.

The real root of the problem remains that Islamic societies, particularly Arabic ones, have failed to cope adequately with the revolutions of modernity introduced by the West over a period of several centuries, and this rankles badly with some elements within those societies, who feel it is their god-given right to be supreme, and recall glorious tales of a time when they were. It is exacerbated by the fact that a great many enabling features of Western dominance, such as liberal democracy, freedom of conscience in matters of religion, and rights for women, are utter anathema to the traditionalist religious structures these elements cling to. The conflict is basic, and is not going to go away.

[LSparkle]

5. At least one Rethug even knows: Ron Paul

His response in that debate that drew such fire from Rudy was spot-on.

How do we make the country safer? Improve our intel systems (STOP THE OUTSOURCING!), use special ops (Navy seals, etc.) to target specific regions (yes, PAKISTAN) where we might cut the HEAD off of their organization. Get the fuck out of Iraq and do some damage countrol in terms of our global image. Staying on this "war footing" is only going to make us more of an international pariah and discourage other nations from helping us get the REAL culprits. Oh yeah, and send Bush n Cheney to THE HAGUE.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. I approach the question a different way

I don't believe that we should in any way adjust our behavior to meet the demands of Al Qaeda.

That being said, we have to consider why there is an Al Qaeda in the first place and why there are extreme anti-western governments all over the Middle East. The answer is that our tampering with the Middle East during the Cold War. In this regard, we do need to consider changing our behavior so that we do not make the situation worse.

I can't even begin to imagine how different the Middle East would be today if we hadn't overthrown Mossadeq and Iran was a Democracy.

[welshTerrier2]

9. i fully agree

i'm not making the point that we should change our behavior to meet a list of demands. I'm saying that we should take a long introspective look at our behavior and try to understand what role it has in creating enemies and also whether our conduct in the world reflects the values of the American people and serves their interests or whether our foreign policy has been designed for the commercial interests of Big Oil and Big Defense and is NOT serving the best interests of We The People.

As for your comment about Iran and Mossadeq, that is the very essence of what this thread is about. The US manufactured the Shah. The US manufactured Saddam. We are creating these tyrannical puppet governments in the Middle East and then have to go in to clean up the messes they make.

That's exactly the point. Is it just possible some of making this country safer should include a good long look at that?

[some guy]

10. To some extent

no one will speak out against empire, simply because when the Soviet Union collapsed, we "won", and as victors of the cold war, we have the right to be the empire, and tell the rest of the world how to live.

Underlying that assumption is the nationalism we are taught from grade school, that the US is a benign democracy, and always tries to help other countries. After the towers fell in NYC, there were a few people who questioned Bush's silly assertion about them 'hating us for our freedom' and the response to those few was irrational rage.

From my own perspective, the US has always been an empire, and will continue to be an empire until its collapse. Once that occurs, it might be possible to have conversations about how to rebuild as an actual republic, but not until then.

[welshTerrier2]

12. using the term "empire"

i absolutely see US conduct as empire building. but I don't expect anyone in Congress to use rhetoric like that.

but I think they should use terms like "showing greater sensitivity" to Muslim cultures or seeking to work with countries throughout the Middle East to "open a dialog." We certainly can't allow the Oil Law to go through. they don't have to call it empire but oil theft is oil theft.

The concern is that our foreign policy is for the benefit of a greedy few and it does not serve the best interests of the country. I see no reason why Democrats shouldn't speak out about that.

[some guy]

14. Oil theft

I think the smartest argument WRT that would be to point out how much money has been spent in trying to steal the oil, and ask a person to consider how much oil could have been bought for that price.

Especially if you want to reach conservatives, who are well-primed to accept free market arguments.

As for the oil law, I think passage of it was included as one of the parts in the last funding bill Congress passed and Bush signed. I remember Mr Kucinich speaking out against that provision. So I think it has passed here.

Getting Iraq to accept it is a whole different story. I don't think that will happen.