Why we (the US) do what we do

I have seen several posts here alluding to the fact that we deserved the recent unprovoked attack on us because we are always sticking our noses into other countries business. Many of you from other countries have no grasp of the American ethic and cannot understand why we are so involved on a worldwide scale.
Whereas many countries only get involved on a global scale because it is in their national interests, we also get involved when we perceive it is the "right" thing to do. I'm sure many have problems understanding this.
Let me give some examples. We got involved in the Gulf War because it was in our national interests. We support Israel because it is in our national interests. Face it, like it or not, we want to preserve our way of life. This is the reason we get involved in issues such as the above (Israel is a little more complicated and there are several reasons for our close ties).
But we also do things in the world because we feel it is the "right" thing to do. Other countries, without the means or morals, would often turn a blind eye. We became involved in Somalia because it seemed like the right thing to do. We entered Bosnia to protect the muslims, because it was the right thing to do. We entered Kosovo to protect the Albanians because it was the right thing to do. We are among the first to send aid to EVERY major natural disaster in the world because it is the right thing to do. We have taken in political and war refugees throughout our history because it is the right thing to do. We provide countless billions of dollars to impovershed countries because it is the right thing to do. Because of our power and influenec in the world, we are able to mobilize other countries to support these endeavors who often refuse to get involved until we do.
So what we get for helping out, often from those who we have helped, is to be told to piss off and mind our own business. Because our open society and its values are perceived as threats to many, we are targetted with hate and death. So be it.
Never since Pearl Harbor has our country been so united in resolve as to what must be done as now. Mr Bush is right in seeking an international concensus for what we are about to unleash, but you all should know that most Americans really don't care if there is much international concensus. The Indians cry foul because we are seeking the "support" of Pakistan. I'm sure what we did was present Pakistan with very little choice but to comply with our wishes.
Some people from our NATO allies cry that they don't want to go to war with us. Guess what, they have no choice. They have lived under our protection for the past 50 years, they have joined NATO and agreed to its mutual defense pacts. Time to pay up.
This was an act of war, not merely an act of isolated terrorism. Our military and political leaders were targetted, not just innocent civillians. We were targetted not just by one man, but by many states. Anybody who has encouraged and supported extreme islamic terrorism is the enemy. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Libya, the PLO and friends, and many others. They have cowardly hidden their fighters amongst innocent civillians, often in friendly countries, but we will find them and kill them nonetheless. These states will not all face our missiles, but it is my hope that in some way they each will get a taste of our wrath, be it through economic, political, or military means.
I guess my point is that it is all great to judge and criticize us, but it is really showing ignorance as to our national psyche. You people need to understand why we get involved where we do before opening your mouth. Once you understand that, then feel free to criticize. But also understand that once we are sufficiently angered, all gloves are off, and we will use all our terrible power to bring our enemy to its knees. To paraphrase Japanese General Yamamoto after Pearl Harbor, they have woken a sleeping giant.
[This message has been edited by Jason Menard (edited September 18, 2001).]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
To paraphrase Japanese General Yamamoto after Pearl Harbor, they have woken a sleeping giant.

Did he say so? Oh.. then he really under-estimated America.. It was worse.. It was a 'sleeping beast' for Japanese.

Previous message was from me.
I really didn't intent any harm of hard feelings. Please take it as an harmless joke. Please !
Ashok.
[I felt it may sound against America, once when I read that after posting.. ]

I believe the (translated of course) quote attributed to Yamamoto was, "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.".
I have actually seen several versions of it, but they all say roughly the same thing. That quote I think we will find eerily applies to events today.

I just wanted to bring up a point about Pearl Harbor. Some japanese have complained about the comparison of Pearl Harbor to the WTC attack and they are right to do so. The attack on Pearl Harbor was an attack on an American military installation and civilians were not targeted. The fact that the attack was made without a declaration of war was more due to Japanese bungling then to Japanese treachery. Certainly the leaders of the attack and the men who launched the attack had assumed that a declaration of war had been made. The attack on the WTC is an unprecedented attack on American civilians.

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I just wanted to bring up a point about Pearl Harbor. Some japanese have complained about the comparison of Pearl Harbor to the WTC attack and they are right to do so. The attack on Pearl Harbor was an attack on an American military installation and civilians were not targeted. The fact that the attack was made without a declaration of war was more due to Japanese bungling then to Japanese treachery. Certainly the leaders of the attack and the men who launched the attack had assumed that a declaration of war had been made. The attack on the WTC is an unprecedented attack on American civilians.

Agreed. Don't forget though that it was also an attack on a military installation as well as possibly an attempted assassination of the President (media cited Air Force 1 and White House as being targets).
The Japanese are correct that Pearl Harbor is not an appropriate comparison, but I think it is the closest one we have. Whatever else you want to say about Pearl Harbor the Japanese military attacked US military facilities. They did not hide who they were and they did not hide behind civillians in order to carry out their attack. They also of course did not target civillians.

This is in response to Jason's post:
Evil is never justifiable
The view that US policy invited violent revenge is based upon bogus logic, says Julian Borger
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,553876,00.html
I think the writer is very brave for agreeing that policies are rather hurtful to others however that doesn't mean that U.S. is deserving of such tragedy.
I totally agree with her and pray for the victims and their families.

Originally posted by Shama Khan:
This is in response to Jason's post:
Evil is never justifiable
The view that US policy invited violent revenge is based upon bogus logic, says Julian Borger
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,553876,00.html
I think the writer is very brave for agreeing that policies are rather hurtful to others however that doesn't mean that U.S. is deserving of such tragedy.
I totally agree with her and pray for the victims and their families.

Nice article, thanks. I agree that those who say we had it coming to us need serious help, and need to take a long look at themselves.

Originally posted by Shama Khan:
The view that US policy invited violent revenge is based upon bogus logic, says Julian Borger
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,553876,00.html
I think the writer is very brave for agreeing that policies are rather hurtful to others however that doesn't mean that U.S. is deserving of such tragedy.

Interesting. The article uses "bogus internal logic" (i.e. a point of view) to denounce "bogus internal logic" (another point of view). The idea of "what goes around comes around" is an observation and not a logical conclusion.
I take issue that such a point of view is detached to the point of inhumanity, there wasn't a three minutes silence for...................the list is endless.
We have created a militaristic culture where conflicts are resolved by violent acts and northern hemisphere has contributed, supported and profited from this sponsoring. 1 in 5 people in the UK are employed directly or indirectly in the arms trade. We are the second largest exporter of arms in the world.
Years ago at the height of the cold war we would see news images of "terrorist groups" and they were all firing AK47s into the air, search yourself now for contemporary and count the M16s.
"This supposition of cosmic balance is disturbing. It does not figure in any of the major religions, and it seems to be rather irregularly applied. " This is very wrong, the major and minor religions all contain metaphors of cosmic balance. "so shall you reap that which you sow", the concept of the balance of sins against good deeds, etc. etc. Action and reaction.
The reference to to the holocaust is warped. What happened in NY was not a sane act but neither was the sponsoring of the contras, sponsoring the coup that murdered Allende, the massacre of Sikhs at Amristar or any other major atrocity against humanity. "hate does not answer to logic" were these acts those of love?
The US could now massacre 10s if not 100s of thousands of innocent beardies, beardesses and beardlings all because it is in a perpetual cycle of blood, a cycle of which the events NY were a small part.
The author seems to be under the impression that people who observe "WGACA" are somehow justifying these abhorant acts. To explain something is not to excuse it, it is toward understanding. We need understanding in order to prevent it happening again; to change our relationship with each other and our relationship with the world.
The author asks "But which nation will throw the first
stone?................", a violent act, and not "But which nation will cause the first to turn the other cheek?".

"Years ago at the height of the cold war we would see news images of "terrorist groups" and they were all firing AK47s into the air, search yourself now for contemporary and count the M16s"
At one time the policy of some of the republicans in Northern Ireland was known as "Ballot Box and the Armalite", I believe that the Armalite is also a name given to the M16.
Marcus

At one time the policy of some of the republicans in Northern Ireland was known as "Ballot Box and the Armalite", I believe that the Armalite is also a name given to the M16.
"An armalite in one hand and a ballot paper in the other" were lyrics to 'The Foggy Dew', a song commemorating the 1916 Easter Rebellion.
The M-16 was the military designation for the Armalite AR-15 which was first licensed for production in 1959.
So it was a bit before the M-16's time. I do see the retrospective irony though.

Originally posted by Moira Stewart:
The author asks "But which nation will throw the first
stone?................", a violent act, and not "But which nation will cause the first to turn the other cheek?".

Yes it would be wonderful to live in a world where everybody was able to live together and violence did not exist. However that is not the world we live in. Turning the other cheek instead only makes for an easier target and invites more bloodshed. As a historical example to illustrate I point to the German Jews during WW2.
During the previous eight years we have been turning the other cheek. We have had our citizenry attacked at the WTC in 1993, our sailors killed in Yemen, our airmen killed at Khobar in Saudi Arabia, and our embassies attacked in Africa. All of this has elicited very little if any response for us. We take out a couple of buildings with great precision for the embassy attacks but otherwise all we do is "try to find those responsible." Come on, this is NOT a law enforcement issue. The fact that we have been trying to respond to hostile acts against us in US courts of law is utterly ridiculous.
Eight years of Clintons bungled handling of these events, turning the other cheek if you will, have culminated into the act of war perpetrated on us on September 11, 2001. So since "turning the other cheek" has failed, what are our alternatives?
All life is sacred, but unfortunately there comes a time when you must protect yourself and your own. It is a simple fight for survival. It would be nice to be able to negotiate with these animals, but there is simply no negotiating with people who will only be happy with your destruction, and are also more than willing to die in the process.
What can we offer to them in negotiation to make them stop killing us? Abandon our friends the Israelis? The fact is there is nothing we can negotiate for that will stop them from killing us. It is a mistake to assume that these people share your own motivations and morals, when in fact they are quite alien to us. Failure to realize this can be fatal.
So now we've determined that ignoring them is not effective, nor is diplomacy. We have tried both in the past and both have failed catastrophically. We have tried very limited military reprisal and that also has not been effective. The only option that remains is to bring down such force as to destroy their will and/or ability to further make war on us. Force can take the form of military force, economic force, or political force. It will most likely require all three. But in whatever forms we use force it must be overwhelming and utterly devestating, or we will fail to persuade this enemy. It is simply a question of our survival, and the survival of our way of life.
It is not pretty, it will take a long time to accomplish, and innocents on both sides will die. People need to wake up and realize this is the real world, decide where their priorities for themselves and their families are, and dig in to prepare to stomach all that surely seems to lie ahead.

[This message has been edited by Jason Menard (edited September 19, 2001).]