I believe the immediate historical context of 9/11 can be spotted to 1953. That was the year when the U.S. and British conspired to overthrow the popular and democratic leader of Iran, Mohammed Mossedegh, who was going to nationalize some of the oil profits flowing out to British petroleum. Kermit Roosevelt, nephew of FDR, and Norman Swartzhkoph, father of the famous general in Gulf War I hatched Operation Ajax.

This was consistent with Anglo-U.S. strategy to secure what the British called “a vital prize for any power interested in world influence or domination” and the U.S. called “a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prices in world history”: oil. Reflecting, in part, on the coup, British Foreign Secretary Selwyn Loyd noted, “We must at all costs maintain control of this oil.” In 1953, the U.S. declared in NSC 5401 that “United States policy is to keep the sources of oil in the Middle East in American hands.

To accomplish this, policy planners recognized that “we have to devise techniques for bringing influence to bear upon other countries internal decisions.” Eisenhower’s advisors wrote to him after the coup, “… hitherto accepted norms of human conduct do not apply. … to survive, long standing American concepts of ‘fair play’ must be reconsidered. We must … learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated and more effective methods than those used against us.”

So, in come the coup plotters. Out goes Mossadegh. In comes the Shah, who brutalized Iran with U.S. support for several decades. In fact, Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to give Iran nuclear technology in the 1970s under the Shah. The Shah’s police, Savak, was a brutal and deadly institution, funded and trained by the U.S. In 1979 the Ayatollah overthrew Mossadegh, taking the U.S. by surprise. Following that was an 8 year war between Iraq and Iran. The U.S. backed the butcher of Baghdad in that one, although they dealt arms to both sides to some degree, which no one really won but resulted in the deaths of a million or so Arabs and Persians. Hussein was a big ally of the U.S. then, who hoped would be their new Shah.

Shortly thereafter, Hussein misunderstood April Glaspie’s response about settling disputed oil fields, Hussein invaded Kuwait, and then came desert storm. The U.S. worried about al Ghawar and other Saudi fields and put some troops on the border to prevent a southern push from Iraq. This enraged many Muslims, including one radical militant named Osama bin Laden, who had just taken part in a rebellion to expel the Russians from Afghanistan (with U.S. and Pakistani backing.) Bin Laden and his fellow travelers, once called freedom fighters by the Reaganites, began plotting against the U.S., eventually culminating in 9/11.

You could tease out other threads as well, such as Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians or the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Lebanon, Clinton’s bombing of the al-Shifa factory in Sudan or the “genocidal” sanctions against Iraq following Gulf War I. But those are the general outlines have what has happened and why “they hate us”, much more important considerations than any cultural misunderstandings. It should go without saying that none of this excuses their violence and terrorism.

I will never get off Cliton’s dick, and you will never get off Bush’s dick. But the difference is I don’t blindly blame one side for all of our problems.

Do you not see that the whole point of this post, was to praise a republican for being right, while showing what was wrong with those republicans that continue to spew lies?

I don’t blindly blame anyone for anything. The blame is where it needs to be. Don’t fault me for putting blame where it truly belongs; on those that are committing the crimes and spreading the lies. I have never once said that all democrats, or all republicans for that matter, are perfect nor flawed. You have assumed that, and ran with it. If you would focus on what I am saying, and stop looking for hidden meanings that you believe exist in my arguments, it would be easier to have a conversation about the points I am trying to make.

Honestly, I think that any religious group that goes to extremes is a threat, and Islamic extremists just happen to go the full nine, which is definitely terrifying. I suppose this is another argument AGAINST organized religion, eh?

And I fully agree that we shouldn’t “give up”, that is why I stand behind us finding a new strategy; one that will work. It is clear that what we are doing isn’t working, so the time to make some changes is now. And you are right, I have no nostalgia for Saddam, but I do recognize that we put him in power, and that even the people of Iraq would rather have him back than us. Those important to consider as well.

Thanks for your insight!

Furthermore, I, like you, am dismayed that we are not allowing them to re-build their own country. Our government, both domestically and abroad, has the unsettling tendency to say “We are the United States Government, we know what’s best, and we will do it for you because you obviously cannot. Oh, and in the meantime, let me just take a little something for myself, thank you very much.” Nonetheless, I have no nostalgia for Saddam (I am not saying you do), and I still consider 9/11 an act of war that cannot be ignored while we sit around and feel guilty for being attacked. While even we Republicans are beginning to question whether Iraq was the best response, The war against Islamic fundamentalists (I’ve always hated the phrase “War on Terror”) is not something we can just give up on because it’s hard.

I will never get off Cliton’s dick, and you will never get off Bush’s dick. But the difference is I don’t blindly blame one side for all of our problems.

“If any blame goes to the republicans, you have to make sure the democrats get their share.”

Well, you must admit that’s fair and balanced.

The issue was bombing Iraq. Clinton did that throughout the 90s every time a scandal was brewing.

” And I am beginning to think you have some sort of real Clinton envy. Seriously.”

Liberals keep saying that to me b/c you guys just don’t do well when things are put in perspective. No one was complaining then. No one wants to blame Clinton, especially you. Why is that?

I don’t agree entirely with candidate Paul’s framing of the issue because it comes a bit too close to a blaming the victim mentality.

I couldn’t agree more. I never meant to suggest that it was the fault of Americans, especially those that died that day. Additionally, as you expertly illustrated, I do believe it has a lot to do with our involvement as a political and military force in the region. Thanks for your comment!

altmalcontent, LAST WORD! HA! Dude, you continually crack me up with your crack-pottery. Thanks for the laugh.