<p>
No, the Saudi hijackers did not have their houses bombed by us. They were, however, incensed over having our troops on the ground in their homeland and in and around their holy places. In their minds, this is an abomination and the nation of Islam had essentially been invaded and occupied. Remember that culturally, Arab Muslims do not recognize international borders and the entire region is, to them, by rights one nation. These lines in the sand to which we are so attached were drawn by the French and British when they gave independence to the former Ottoman territories in Arabia and the Mediterranean which they received from the post-WWI Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne. These divisions were drawn almost arbitrarily and fairly random chieftains who happened to stand in good favor with the powers that be were made kings. Some of their families rule to this day and others like the King Faysal of Iraq and the Shah of Iran were only able to be unseated through bloody revolution. It just so happens that the revolutionaries in these cases were religious fundamentalists and Arab nationalists. The survivors, the Saudis included, are viewed as toadies to western interests. In short, were providing assistance to and even propping up non-representative governments in the region that would otherwise be overthrown to maintain the status quo in the name of the free-flow of cheap oil on the world market. I personally find many of their cultural beliefs and traditions incomprehensible and would never willingly live under them, but the right to self-determination doesnt extend solely to nations that share my views. </p>
<p>As for Somalia, our troops were not killed on a humanitarian mission. They were killed trying to capture one of the major players in their civil war who happened to have a very large following. Attempting to assist is one thing, but taking sides and becoming a combatant is quite another. </p>
<p>
We can’t make the world safe from terrorism any more than we can make it safe from earthquakes. I dont claim to be an expert on tracking terrorists and its obvious that measures need to be taken to curtail it on our soil, but whatever the solutions may be, they absolutely must fall within the confines of what is prescribed within the Bill of Rights. If they dont, the terrorists have already won since weve compromised the one thing we have that is worth fighting for our civil liberties. </p>
<p>We will also inevitably have to withdraw our forces from Arabia. The situation there will never resolve as long as were present and we have to be prepared for the likelihood that there will eventually be a very large nation made up of several current ones. This will likely be a theocracy that will have at least some semblance of a nuclear capacity. Fortunately, they have very few natural resources except oil and virtually no industrial capacity with which to build an effective conventional military. Therefore, its doubtful well have to deal with any serious invasion threat outside of the region unless someone with that capability (China) sells it to them. Fortunately, the Chinese do not like dealing with them as they have had their own terrorism problem. If that were for some reason to occur, however, wed have to be prepared for another Cold War type situation. We can also potentially make the region persona non grata on the worlds stage by simply reducing or eliminating the need for their oil. We should certainly be looking for alternative sources, but other solutions such as a national rail system should be implemented. We could already be well on our way to having one with the money weve spent removing one despotic nuisance from power in Iraq. Oppressive tax measures could also be levied on those purchasing monstrous, gas-guzzling SUVs for status though that should actually be a state question. We should also be helping the Russians exploit their huge oil resources. </p>
<p>Its interesting that Hanoi has come up because it does deal with the initial purpose of this thread which was to explain lessons learned from Vietnam protests. A disservice to the combatants has also been mentioned. It seems that the main lesson learned in this regard is that it is lunacy to blame the service people themselves for their mission. They clearly have a job to do and their opinion is not valued as to whether it should be done or not. The mission itself, on the other hand, is fair game in a nation that values free speech. It seems to me that the next lesson is that proponents of the war shouldnt use the first lesson as a means to squelch opposition. It appears that the pendulum has swung so far the other way that some people cant distinguish the difference and speak of not supporting the troops when it is simply the policy that has been called into question. In my view, this is very dangerous.</p>
<p>As for the bombing of civilians in Hanoi, 1,118 civilians were killed in Hanoi in a single operation in 1972. I can’t find a number for those killed previously. This is obviously way down from the approximately 100,000 killed in a single night in the British firebombing of Dresden, but it was still unacceptable and unnecessary. Yes, it may be true that they tried to avoid bombing civilian targets, but a certain number obviously ended up in the crosshairs. </p>
<p>I find the casualness with which some people discuss civilian casualties in war disturbing. These people generally tend to label themselves “conservative” and my experience with them has generally been that they somehow either don’t have the imagination to put themselves in the position of others or refuse to do so since their arguments would become meaningless in that light. Again, war always begs the ultimate question [Do</a> the ends justify the means?](<a href=“Akvariefisk | Roberts fisk”>www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page1.htm)</p>