So let's see the logic, US helps Mujahideen in the fight against Soviet empire, therefore Mujahideen turn arms against US, and US is guilty -- perfect logic.

Try:
The US arms a terrorist group (one of many).
The US then undertakes an action that infuriates said group (Wars in the ME, expanding of bases or other. Take your pick).
The US then can not just act all innocent when their pet group turns on them.

You skipped the important part. It was the US’s actions which infuriated Bin Laden. After all he didn’t just go from one of the main CIA supported leaders in the Middle East to the US’s grea-*test*-('") enemy on a whim. He has been quite vocal about his reasons for his attacks whenever he takes responsibility, most terrorists are. All of them have been reactions to the US ‘interests’ in the area, primarily military operations within Moslem countries.

Lesson: Don’t create terrorists and then poke them with cruise missiles… you have only yourselves to blame when they react.

I take exception to this assertion, the Mujahideens in Afghanistan were freedom fighters against Soviet military occupation.

As the old saying goes:
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Besides that doesn’t resolve the US from arming and training other terrorist groups, death squads, secret police and a huge list of other nasty people. People who have used that training and those arms to kill those only guilty of having a different political view. Dance around it all you want, history is clear on this fact and even CIA declassified documents don't hide it: The US arms and supports a wide range of nasty people, including terrorists.

Added X2:
PS – The Taliban where one of the strongest members of the Mujahideen and too received support. Eventually, thanks to the US support and the reputation they forged in that war, they would eventually take over Afghanistan. Once more proving the US doesn’t care how vile the people it deals with are, as long as they are blowing up the ‘enemy.’ This partner ship was friendly right up to the point the Taliban said no to a gas pipeline… interesting that.

PPS - Isn’t the very same thing happening in Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment, just replace Soviet Military with US military and you have the same situation. Didn’t go well for the Soviets did it? Pretty hard to fight someone who you have helped train in combating occupying armies when you decide it is your turn to try and occupy their lands.

It's not quite true, it's different if the fighters attack occupying military or they attack civilians, as far as I know Mujahideens attacked Soviet army, some might have attacked some civilians but predominantly it was the fight against the occupying army.

Pretty much, there are some differences though, maybe not important.

Unfortunately such a description, accurate as it is, has never mattered when the country being attack labels their attackers as terrorists or the country being ‘defended’ labels it’s heroes as freedom fighters.

I did give you points that the arming of the Mujahideen was a covert operation during a period of cold war. That operation was very much a success in that it prevented an expansion of soviet territory into the oil rich and critical Middle East. Had the history ended there the US would not only have the ‘moral high ground’ but also admiration for helping defeat a country against an invading force. It is regrettable that the US actions after the cold war or in other theatres aren’t so defendable and have ruined what admiration it might of received after the cold war.

I laid in bed and thought on this for a long while and the sad and disgusting truth is this: All countries will undertake any act, no matter how morally questionable, if the leaders view it in the best interest of either the country, or themselves.

Even down here in Australia it isn’t any different. This world loved and admired country went into another country under the pretext of liberating it from Indonesia. While we did achieve that we ensured a puppet government. One which was all to willing to sign away the countries large off-shore natural gas deposits to Australian companies and place it in Australian jurisdiction. The primary and probably only reason we went in was to get that gas….

That's the sad reality, liberating the gas is more important than liberating people.

Unfortunately the current political setup: countries that look for their best interests is flawed and promote wars and conflicts. UN is not quite working.

I do think though that allowing dictatorships to do whatever they want is an immoral approach, inaction is immoral, take for example North Korea or Sudan. Getting rid of Saddam should have been done long time ago, probably in the first Iraq war. And of course they shouldn't have supported him to keep in check Iran, taking care of one bad thing by promoting another is not an acceptable way. Also, if US had to have any credibility they should have declared from the beginning the objective and scope of their intervention and get the hell out of Iraq after they got rid of Saddam and didn't find any WMD not impose an occupation regime (which make horrible mistakes that promoted insurgency and civil war: dissolve Iraqi army, ban Baath members from public service)

I didn't support Iraq war because it was started on false pretenses making it immoral from the start, however I do think that guys like Saddam and Kim Jong-Il should not be allowed to run countries. Oh, and by the way, it's not US fault that the entire World is useless and immoral in its lack of action. when it comes to these situations. Everybody is looking at US to solve Rwanda, Somalia and Darfur kind of crises, why? Why don't other states move their butts and take action? Why UN is not doing anything, if UN is the only hope for Darfur then I'm sure that UN commissions will do a very good job of letting millions of people die while they debate what shell be done.

Personally I find anti-Americanism (especially coming from people from Europe) just as disgusting as Bush policies. What has France (for example) did to help Rwanda? I think they sent more machetes there. I think France is suspected in actually helping the people who did the genocide... What did they do in Yugoslavia war? The begged Americans for help they were not able to stop a war at their door. And now they look at US as the devil in the world.... sorry but bad things don't start here there's shit all over the place.

Ah, and Ron Paul isolationism would work fine in this world, I am curious how he would respond to a "how can US help in Darfur" kind of question, would it be something like "it's not US business what happens there" or "market forces will solve the problem", I am partially libertarian but some things are not solved by market forces -- or they are solved but we won't necessary like the solution. (oh, and by the way, if US take some action in Darfur there will be terrorists that would not like that, what will Ron Paul say? That US by its actions provoke terrorists?)

So many questions:

While I would agree with you about not allowing dictatorships to form I have to wonder…

Who gets to say which dictators we take on?
What about dictatorships under other names?
What actions should be taken against said dictators? War? Sanctions?
How would you ensure that the people you wish to punish are the ones being punished under such systems and not the millions of innocence that take the brunt of both war and sanctions?
What about ‘republics’ that have obviously flawed systems that favour one group or person regardless of the will of the populous?

Also are you critical of N. Korea’s polices?
How does that fit into your views that you should be in a country to criticize them?

I use these questions to highlight a sad fact:
There is nothing that the US can do to ‘win a war against dictators.’ The US lacks the man power to fight such a war or enforce such a wide level of sanctions. It is a war that would be never-ending, as the sad fact is most nations are not in a position to function as republics and are ruled by one tyrant or a group of tyrants. Hell they can’t defeat even one dictatorship and keep the country stable enough to form a republic or other functioning government. Yes Iraq is going to end badly with the possibility of another dictatorship or many smaller dictatorships based on religion. The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan where just another group of dictators, just 'our' dictators, and their grasp on power is shaky as the Taliban are already rising to retake power. It is going to end in failure even there, even with the support of most of the world, so how can the US get success anywhere else on it's own?

The US can not win such a war, to try would weaken the US position greatly. While it is sad that such governments still exist the truth is we can’t do anything about them. We have to wait till the people are willing for a change and then let them take that change, supporting them if required and asked for. That would be the only way to ‘win’ such conflicts that won’t lead to massive blow back or just another dictator in power.

Anything else will bring even more hatred of the US and archive nothing productive.

As for the while anti-Americanism thing. I am disgusted when it has no base as in those cases it is just another form of racism. Yet when people seem to think that you can’t have an opposing view of policies being carried out without some how being ‘anti-America’ I just shake my head at them. It is also very hypocritical as many people who have this ‘can’t disagree with America’ view are often very vocal about the policies, or just in general, of another nation.

Yes you can disagree with the actions and polices of another nation without it being wrong.

I shall leave with these words:
I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the ‘haves’ refuse to share with the ‘have-nots’ by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don’t want and above all don’t want crammed down their throats by Americans.
General David Sharp, former USMC Commandant, 1966

That's no easy task but it should be started with clear dictators that are destroying their country and people (see Zimbabwe and NK for example).

As for US it makes sense to start with dictators that say "death to US" at every other speech. The rule should be clear: you are dictator, it's time for you to go, if you are against us it's going to happen sooner than later. The bias should be clearly declared, nobody will talk about US hypocrisy: it should be clear, you are dictator and you say "death to America" you are a target of choice. Even dictators that are not anti-US should not be supported, but they can be tolerated till the other ones are taken care of, it's only logical to act like this.

Sanctions don't work, they should be used only for a limited period and only to show that US means business. If you have sanctions for 1-2 years and you don't dispose of your dictator you should expect intervention. Also it should be a signal for opposition if it exists that their time has come and they will be supported to get rid of dictator.

War is not the best mean of getting rid of a dictator, targeted bombs, assassinate, support of opposition all these are acceptable means when you talk about taking down dictators as the guys in NK and Zimbabwe and they should be preferred to war. But, war might be necessary, however US should make it clear that it wouldn't use economic interests to start a war (Iraq war is immoral because of that) and it shouldn't impose occupation regime as they did in Iraq, the war against Saddam was highly successful, they only should have got out of there as soon as they caught the guy. The rest is Iraqis' problem if they want to kill one another is their problem, if they want an antiamerican dictator they should expect another war and the dictator should expect to be killed, that's pretty simple. US should have had the forces home couple of years ago. With less that 1000 dead soldiers and with achieving the objective the US would not have what to be sorry for getting rid of a dictator whose actions provoked about a million of deaths (Iran-Iraq war) and killed his own people: Kurds and Shiites (and Sunnis if they were against him)

And how do you thing you can do even this?

Ok lets assume the US has the right to take out another nations leader simply because they don’t like them. How do you suggest the US go about this huge task? Let us focus on NK alone shall we, because that would be on top of the list:

While North Korea is such a backwards little place every cent generated is funneled back into a military industry that is capable of producing a wide range of weapons. Not the least in that list is ICBMs capable of hitting the coast of America. While I doubt it has the means to produce more then a handful of nuclear weapons, let alone enough to assure success, it could use standard missiles to do massive amounts of damage all throughout Asia.

It’s ground forces are equipped more then enough to repel boarders, and while no longer ‘vets’ from experiences they are still trained well enough to fight. Fresh from having no conflicts and with the ability to conscript any ‘military age male’ with enough supplies to outfit them they would have a functioning military to withstand a fair assault. Armed also with anti-air weapons and having ties, such as a defense pact, with larger nations like China it has more then enough means to repel any attack the US can throw at it.

The US on the other hand only has air-superiority and nuclear arms going for it. We can rule out nuclear arms because the outcry would create a world wide war that could very well end with nuclear winter. This means the only real way they could fight is from the air and NK has more then enough weapons to ensure that any air attack will come with large casualties and losses of aircraft.

Then it’s counter attack will devastate Japan, a large pro-US trading partner and any other Pro-US nation in the area. Any US troops in the area would be shelled, as NK has more then enough gun placements able to hit US bases with no warning what so ever, and it is likely that missiles could rain down on Australia as well as the US east coast.

The loss of life against this one dictatorship would be massive and there is no guarantee of success either…

The US just doesn’t have the ability to take out more then the ‘lowest’ dictatorships or nations it doesn’t like. For let us face it the US would focus more on nations it doesn’t like over dictatorships, declaring even democracies that produce anti-US presidents just as bad. Some of the nations on that list are capable of beating the US’s bad even if they lack the ability to ‘put them down for the fight.’ Yes the US could win, in theory, against a handful of these dictators but not against them all and not without massive amounts of loss of life.

Even going the covert option the success rate is low, as most dictators that are anti-US have already faced coups and assassination plots and know what to look out for. After all they are already being targeted even as we type and are more paranoid then I am! Like wise how would it prevent thier second in command, just as bad a dictator, from rising to power?

Endless war is not an answer.

I don't think so, US lost less than 2000 soldiers in Iraq when they already beat the Iraqy army and captured Saddam. That by any measures, although tragic, is a low number for such a war. Even now after they involved themselves stupidly in a civil war they lost less than 5000 soldiers. I think US lost more people in the last year due to murders or avoidable traffic accidents.

NK is a difficult case exactly because of the nuclear weapon, that's why US should have taken care of it BEFORE Iraq, now it's kind of too late. Also as I said it's not only US fault NK was supported by China and Russia without them it would not even exist as a separate country.

I feel the need to point out that Iraq was a push over at the level of most African nations. It had no standing Air force and what few aircraft it did have where falling apart or stripped for spares long ago. Not only did they lack an air force they also lacked air defences, what little they could scribble lacked the heavy rocketry needed to bring down a modern aircraft outside of blind luck. Hell the insurgency is better armed in this regard then the Iraqi military was…

The US on the other hand modern stealth jets and bombers as well as top of the line rocket and bombardment systems. Their anti-air, even if Iraq had any chance of getting air operations under way, would blow any modern air craft out of the air, as a few of their own pilots found out in miss-fires. Got to give the US credit for having a decent air force. That happens when you focus on air-superiority as your primary tactic.

The old missile systems they once possessed are now so badly decomposed that they wouldn’t have made it more then a few feet off the launch platforms, even if they could ignite and the fuel hadn’t already eaten through the casing like it apparently does. Warheads for them where pathetic without the chemical and biological components they where armed with in previous wars.

The US has state of the art ballistic systems, capable of carrying much larger payloads as over further ranges then anything the Iraqi’s had even at their hight. As tens of millions a pop, I would demand that at least too….

Even the ground troops where equipped with yester-year weapons and lacked the armoured vehicles that most nations do have.

The US on the other hand had modern weapons. Even when they where not equipped the best the US could equipped its troops they still where better equipped then the Iraqi military.

Decades of sanctions, so punitive that even water purification systems couldn’t make it through, coupled with the usual egotistical lust for luxury that Saddam had ensured that the military was crippled far before any war took place. The low casualties and short period of ‘war’ where caused because of this, not because of the US’s capability to fight in that war.

Against a modern armed foe the list would be far greater. Iran for example would ensure a higher total of casualties then Iraq in the first days of conflict…

Oh yeah, I vividly remember body armor NOT being there for the soldiers and families having to buy the stuff themselves and send it to their loved ones since the military did NOT supply it when it was needed.

And no this is not some news story, this is what I heard first hand from ladies back when I was leading the US Army ladies group.

I'm not so sure. Not that I advocate US attacking Iran, they shouldn't even if Iran develops nuclear bombs, but Iran's defense would be pretty much useless against modern weapons. There's huge difference in technology, imagine in WWI a country fighting with technology from WWII, that's the difference, if not bigger.

It isn’t Iran produced technology we are talking about here but state of the art Russian technology. Russia has been selling anti-air and anti-ship weapon systems to Iran at a tidy profit. Some of these weapon systems are next generation such as their super-sonic missiles capable of firing far faster then any missile to date. While un-*test*-('")ed in the field the -*test*-('")s carried out at firing ranges leave people awestruck at the speed, range and payload these babies carry. The Russian military has been greatly under-estimated since the collapse and while they lack the production facilities of the US their R&D has been working overtime on producing new weapon systems.

Even without this technology Iran has quite a bit of ‘last generation’ weapon systems that they did produce. While not as efficient these systems would still cause considerable damage to modern aircraft. Just because they are not as dangerous doesn’t mean that they are completely harmless and with the amount of aircraft we are talking about the US using the chance of doing noticeable damage increases.

Then there is the whole ICBM fact, Iran could do serious damage to any target within the Middle East using its own, last generation, missiles. Any Pro-US country should be pushing the US not to attack for in its collapse Iran will strike at anyone viewed helping the US bring about its defeat. This is standard MAD….

Compare that to Iraq which had cold war era ground weapons and nothing else and it is clear that the US will have a hard time in Iran. Then there is the whole political side of this mess. China and Russia would not be pleased if the US even carried out air raids.