myata

No, simply by comparing the state of affairs immediately before, and following the intervention. Even?... when all their lifehood is hanging on US staying there? What a mystery! Now, if (nearly) everybody loved the US, why would they need 10s and 100s of thousands of their troops to (just barely) keep the place in order?

OK, you're bizzaire. And because you can't seem to make a reasonable argument, you'll be on my ignore list from this point on.

And how do you know what is relevant and what not? It's quite obvious that anti western sentiment is widespread in the region. It is contributing to the mishaps in Iraq and problems in Afganistan. It is strengthening authoritarian regime in Iran. Understanding why it is so could explain present failures - and prevent future ones.

We (in the broad sense of western influence in the region) had certainly created much tension, if one examines the recent history without prejudice. Starting with colonial domination, then creation of foreign state on their land, then all the interference to keep oil coming. It's an unlikely pose to pretend pure innocence now. Taleban will do what they do in any case. And no, most likely they won't stop trying to overthrow the government. Why should they? Just because it was installed by the americans and so should be sacred? But if the government is really supported by population it would hold on without massive foreign propping. If not, then all the money and efforts will go down the drain, eventually. As in all the previous attempts by foreign powers to control the area. Girls and teachers is sad (if true), but the question is, are we helping the situation in the big picture and in the long run, by creating this illusion of democracy and (our way of) civilization, which will last exactly as long as our troops are staying there. Last time they were in power, I can't recall them "targeting civilians", not anywhere near present scale. On the contrary, it was the only relatively stable time in x years of the country's recent history. AlKaeda presense was and would be a problem, for sure. A really smart way would be to first, understand and acknowledge what may have contributed to creating it in the first place, and then find a solution which would not create an even bigger problem in the future. Blasting the place away and then sitting with it, like with hot potato, without any clue what to do next doesn't appear to be one.

The toll is now at 30. If that won't make them implement some kind of gun control, I don't know what would.

No doubt that targeting of civilans is a war crime - in our moral frame of reference. What's worth asking though, is whether there's reason or meaningful purpose in trying to apply standards created and developed in our part of the world to societies with absolutely different culture and the way of life. Should we continue to interfere, creating tensions that would and do result in loss of life (for us as well as the local polulation), or find another way of dealing with these societies? I do not believe there's one simple answer to it, but this question should be asked before and at any time during any armed encounter with a different culture.

Of an inexplicable mental weakness? That strikes when one attemps to logically defend something that relies on sole and improvable in principle axiom: "because I can".

And now you, Scotty (with meaningless irrelevant comments). I have to ask again: what's with you guys, is there an epidemics going around?

Dear DOP, I admin that the wording of my earlier statement was not exactly correct. Shah was not installed by a CIA coup. Rather, a popular Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadeh, was removed by a CIA coup, which marked the beginning of authoritarian rein by the Shah, which resulted in numerous abuses of rights. So, the argument that this example was intended to substantiate, still holds: the politics of interference, direct or indirect, create much anguish and suffering in the affected regions. They also result in building up of hatred and tension. On occasion, these will spill out and blow back to the originator of these policies.

Another strange one... What's with you guys today?

There's an article on the Shah in Wikipedia as well. Just search for "Shah of Iran". Dismission of Mussadeh and subsequent authoritarian rule of the Shah resulted in well known abuses of rights in the country.

You probably have a lot more to contribute, just isn't coming out in a legible way. No worries, can happen to anyone.

Maybe you should try to read the entire post before replying? DogOP and ScottSA, FY highly learned info on Mossadeh in Iran: wikipedia article. It was mentioned as just one (by no means the only one and quite likely not the most recent or obvious one) example of US meddling in the Middle East.

On this very planet, there's probably no other nation or government that was involved in so many places / shady operations. If you know one, please let us know as well. No, it's much simplier than that. Just stop selling arms, send military instructors and so on to oppressive regimes. People themselves will figure out what government they want to support. May be, a popular government of Iran before Shah was installed by a CIA sponsored coup? Or continued one-sidedness in the palestinian conflict? As with individuals, "blowbacks" cannot be directly traced to a particular episode or event. Tension raises then spills out at unpredictable moment. There's no doubt that policies of meddling in the other peoples affairs greatly contributed to the tensions in the region.

You got it right. 1. Not supporting its "allies" if they aren't wanted by their people; 2. Not plotting and conspiring against governments elected by people if they aren't doing you any harm, even if you don't happen to like them, for any reason; And logically following from the above, yes, there must be a fair resolution to the Middle East problem. You probably wanted to explain why would you call it a "nonsense", but forgot in the last minute?"

I havent studied the subject, so cannot speculate. However, it doesn't take a PhD to figure out that if one keeps pissing off a bunch of people, especially in that particular manner when they have nowhere to go (i.e. in their own land), or could resist in any meaningful way (because one acts by proxy, or with hugely superior military force), sooner or later one is bound to get something in return. With response in proportion to the pressure. A law of human nature as simple as Newton's 3rd law of mechanics. And no, I'm not to blame that the world just happens to work this way. Even a chipmunk or a squirel will bite when cornered. To Scotty: I apologise. It's obviously beyond your ability to comprehend even a simple logical sequence and I've no time at this point to lay it out for you.

I'm not sure whether it's actually conveying any message or just helping the regime by strengthening their raison d'etre (that is to resist american domination in the region) and firing up anti-american sentiment. It should be also be questioned, whether the "rules of real politics", developed in the post colonial cold war era are still valid (that is to say, practical) in this age? American meddling already gave them 9/11 and a few smaller attacks. Could it have been "cheaper" in the long run to just have a simple trade based relationships with whoever happens to rule in the region, no matter their ideological / political and so on, orientation?

I guess it's an irony. Yes it's hard to stop someone who's doing exact same thing as us, by accusing them of being in the wrong.

You're quite obviously confused withing three (no two) step logical sequence. 1) You should not fight in a war unless you have to (and if and when you have to, you'll know it - there would be no need to suck non existing justifications out of a thumb). 2) If you do fight in such a war, you should not be complaining about the other party not respecting your rules. You had a choice to not be there, and chose otherwise. All bets are off. Unfortunately, scientific words won't add anything to an argument that does not exist.

I suggest to replace guesswork with a due process. Long reaching conclusions without proper substantiation already proved wrong (and a very expensive wrong at that) in the previous and not so old instance. The avenues are available: ICJ, Security Council. Why don't this administration bring their accusations to these bodies, and prove them following due process? Their fanning hot air only makes me think that perhaps their evidence record may be too thin to be considered seriously. Maybe of the same nature as their (in)famous WMD file on Iraq?

C'mon: even if it can be proven that they were delivered from Iran (which I have yet to see), it's a long long shot to claim government involvment. Maybe, the same standard as that required to prosecute americans in the ICC should be applied?

Quite likely it never occurred to you to question, if and why they really have to fight (and win - or lose) that war there, x thousand miles from their mainland. That omission on your part can be either plain dumb, or, really twisted. To M.Dancer: no I don't. Look what happened in Iraq where everybody (with vested interest in the war) just "knew" that they had WMD or helped Alkaeda. After Iraq, all american claims should be taken with utmost scrutiny: once bit, twice shy.

The signal they're sending is that they're ready to use exact same methods as their presumed opposition (whose guilt has yet to be proven conclusively). In my eyes, that greatly diminishes their claim to moral superiority which they never fail to make.

Can this, perhaps, be substantiated? Or just your word should suffice? And who gets to decide what is a "lesser" evil? Who knows what is a lesser evil? In any case, someone who's supporting these regimes for any reasons, loses all grounds to preach about morality and democracy. No, but what about you - if you believe that it's OK to support one undemocratic government that tortures and kills people to get rid of another that does the same?

It means exactly what it says. There're numerous reports of human rights abuses in that country (here's one, US gosdep). It is a strange proposition that associating themselves and supporting one kind of undemocratic regimes (Ethiopia, Uzbekistan and probably a hundred of other similar examples) against another kind of undemocratic regimes (Taleban, Hussein's regime in Iraq), is somehow going to bring better democracy into this world. Unless, of course, that (ie. advancing democracy in the world) is not the real objective. Which could be, for example, advancing the global domination of the US by all means possible. At least, from that perspective, their activities make perfect sense.