Thanks for the insight. Americans are stuck with a corrupted government and don't know what to do about it, so live in denial till they can handle the truth. Eventually they will come around in numbers significant enough to address it, or they will lose their heritage (if we haven't already)as Rome did when it became expansionist. I'm sure you'll hear a lot of,"Shut up,or we'll bomb you,you commie foreigner" on this. Don't sweat it, as it demeans the 'right'
not you, to speak so.

Our government like any government could certainly stand some improvements but you won't find any better. I think we have alot to be proud of when it comes to our government when you take into consideration thet its only 230 years old. Unlike some who would love to tear it down, I choose to build upon what we already have and improve it.
Maybe one day Wahkonta Anathema will run for office and we can at last have a government that is heaven sent. GCJ

Countries act in their own self interest. Get used to it.

We are no different from others that put their own self-interests first. It was in our interest to back Saddam in their war against Iran and for us to back the Afghan war lords against the Soviet Union. Yet as suggested these interests do come back to haunt us.

Some enlightening comments, some expected. Brad, all countries do act in their own interest, true. However most don't treat the soverignty of others with the contempt that the US does.
My reply is most residents have had a gutfull of the aggorance of the US administration, and will continue to disagree and critise and grow increasing angry, some more than others, GET USED TO IT.
By the way the US did not back the Afgan war lords as such, at least not in the way you refer, the real truth in fact is far less a matter of supporting the little guy against the big, in fact the US agitated the afgan parties to a point of civil war whereby the USSR steeped in. This is fact, not fiction, and the argument is irrelevant as you do not address the real issue, which is the lack of respect shown by the US to the soverignty of other nations, to the point of supporting Bloodthirsty Dictators over democratically elected governments, why, because they do not to the US line. Most other governments do not do this and those that do are by no means doing it to the degree as the US. It seams to have reached a point where the US seems to be involved in almost every situation to some degree, and in most cases, generally not in a nice way. So Brad there is self interest and there is the US version of this, they are poles apart. I am yet to see evidence where the US has actually helped install a democratic , popular Government , that will serve the interests of that nation as opposed to serving the interests of the US.

What country out there treats other countries as well as it treats its citizens? And is the US deliberately murdering innocent people as the terrorists did or are people only saying that because they think of terrorists as innocent people?

Messy, most countries respect others, sorry to burst this bubble, but this is how the world in general works. As for the second question, well terrorism seems to be a word only attributed to the "BAD GUYS". No person or government who kills innocent people can be defended, nor can a government that supports this activity. As the facts stand the US administration has done both in the name of securing its interest and security. I do not for one moment believe they are alone, however the fact is they do invole themselves in activities which are not defensible, and in general they are one of the worst abusers of other countries soverign rights. Which when you consider that they proclaim to be the good guys, you haave to question the credibility of this intention, and ask and or presume that the intentions are less than good, and certainly not for the good of the epople in question at any given time. My argument is it is one thing to exploit a countries wealth and such, it is another totally different thing to instal and suport dictators, under the guise of security and really for self interest.
It is certainly not tolerable to support these governments either with cash or military traing or equipment no matter what the argument.

Finally I do not condone terrorism, however I do understand that when you are treated like shit by the big guys, eventually extrem reactions will happen, and as the saying goes, "WE RAP WHAT WE SOW", and in the case of the US this is becoming more apparent.

A good example of this would be the fact that almost all terror attacks worldwide, are in the main concentrated against US interests, even when they occur in other countries, and sorry I do not buy the argument that the US is well intentioned and the rest of the world just don't understand. We do, and this agorance will become a milstone around your neck, as we move forward in this century.

While the US and other large powers may be able to control governments, they cannot control individules, and groups if these, and this will be where resistance will grow, and sadly for many innocent US citizens, will tend to be in the extreme.

The other fact is that as the world shrinks due to technologies such communication and transport the US and her Allies, which I add includes my country Australia will feel the wrath of these people. I suppose the question is what do we do, do we all crawl into a whole, no, however to continue down the current path will not help. We need to learn that the world is very different place and learn to understand different cultures, and respect them and the soverignity of these nations. This does not mean we tolerate terror, however we do not need to give them a reason for teir so called reason to exist

The US has deliberately targeted innocent civilians? When was this? As for supporting dictators, when was the last time they did that, and if it happened during the Cold War, then I feel it is justified, as the dictators were seen as necessary evils to contain the spread of communism. Of course, many people might have preferred that the Soviet Union be the ultimate world power.

I know that America has intervened against the wish of others, but unless the US purposely murdered thousands of innocent people, then the punishment they bestowed upon us hardly fits the crime. As for reaping what one sows, why does this only apply to enemies of America, yet when these enemies who have terrorized America for years reap what they sow, it's not justified?

As for most terror attacks aimed at US interests, that's simple. Why try to terrorize a country with no influence when one can terrorize the one with the most?

"The US has deliberately targeted innocent civilians? When was this?"

Well... the Cambodia bombings of 1969-1975 killed approximately 600,000 innocent peasants...

My only answer would when has'nt it. Sorry supporting any one for what ever reason does not justify the action, for no matter what reason. Especially when it there is no possible reason than to make sure of your influence in the country.

I suggest you look at history a bit more closely, as you seem to have very little understanding of what has happened over the past several decades, in reference to US relations and intervention. When you create enemies when there only crime was to resist the will of the aggressor then what do you expect, you seem to fail to understand that the US and any other country with similar attitudes meddles in onother countries affairs that this is wrong, and not justifyable, no matter what the argument. I would suggets you read a recent book by "Noam Chomsky" for some insight into just what has been going on in the world, the title is Hegemony or Survival, there are many other publications, however this is a good start. As for whether the punishment bestowed fits the crime, I have never argued nor condoned the punishment, merely pointed out that if countries and this case the US continue their arrogant disregard of Soverignty of other countries, then this treatment will escalate, and to say that the US is terrorised due to its influence, is simply misunderstanding the point at hand. Countries who violate the soverignty of others and interfer in their domestic issues, to the point of influencing the democratic rights of the people of that country for their own ends are likely to attract negative treatment. If the US is one of these then it will increasingly be the reciepent of terror attacks.

The reality is that in many cases countries feel forced to take extremist measures such as building their own ability to use WMDs, not to be agressors , but to defend and deter against a percieved threat, just as the US does. By this I mean the US has WMD as a deterent against potential aggression, so do others, and they feel vindicated in doing so.

A good example of this in the past would be the Cuban Missle Crisis. In Brief, the US position Missiles in Turkey directed at the USSR, then they became agressive againt Cuba, Cuba sought the help of the USSR, USSR saw this as an opportunity to position their missiles in a similar way to the US, the old say in physics, "every action will cause an opposite and similar reaction". Put simply, you get bombs and face them at someone they get bombs and face them back, thus the stalemate. Really great way to create security .

I would stress that I in no way would say that the USSR was justified, however I hope you see my point,.

To be accurate, the US is NOT a Democracy. It is a Representative Republic. It is believed by many that a pure democracy would just be mob rule.

Mei Lai springs to mind too, of the US killing innocents. That was in Vietnam

How far into the past are we going because I'm not sure about the recent terrors of other world powers, although I do know that Vietnam was France's fault to begin with.
To suggest that the US is constantly seeking to kill innocent civilians is ludicrous at best, unless other countries have simply condoned the actions of the US for decades, actions which have not made it into the news. Of course, I guess that to somebody who hates the US, any action done in another country is seen as intentionally killing innocent civilians. And to think that the US was just meddling in other countries for the hell of it. There was a Cold War happening and the US did want to contain communism. Of course, maybe we should have just allowed the Soviet Union to do whatever it wanted.

You really don't get it do you Messy Mu, for a start, when one makes a critisim of the foriegn policy of a country, this does not mean that I hate the US, so I suggest that you learn that all people do not hate the US, nor at any point did I imply this let alone state it.

Secondly you obviously do not seem to take much notice of what goes on in the world on a day to day basis, as none of what I have said is past history any more than present.

Thirdly, besides comments that I have made implying that the US has been involved in activities where innocent people have died or been injured or had their lifestyle impacted in some, I have not implyed nor stated that the US goes out seeking to kill, I have stated that US foriegn policy does condone, support and involve the CIA and US military in actions which result in the Deaths , injuries and displacement, actions which are in the main not warrented, and are not for the benefit of the citizens of the said countries,.

My comments are not meant as a threat, to the contary they are to state facts which may, if understood, give some insight as to why the US is a prime target of terroists, as opposed to say Canada. If you do not get this well that you rpoblem, but just as I expected, many people would totally ignor what was intended as comments from a non US citizen, meant to give insight into what people feel about this and previous US Administrations.

The fact is that your best arguments are that this hasent happened or if it did some one else started, or that the US does not go around killing people, yet as yet youi have not once addressed one comment that I have made, once again I suggest you read the content of the argument, properly and then make comment.

I would like to add That if you would like an example of deliberate and unwarrented killing, one needs look no further than Gulf War 1, you may recall the Fuel Air bombing of retreating Iraqi soldiers, it was stated that these were the Republican Guard Retreating, when in fact they were concripts who did not want to be there, most being Shiti Muslims and Kurds, in all approx 200,000 were killed, while they were retreating, your Government at the time declared this a victory, when in fact it was a slaughter, you can look at it any way you like, but as I said History will be the judge of this action.

Its interesting when I start a debate over the US admin's lack of respect of others and yet the best I get back is symantics over whether the killing was dileberat or our fault, and whether the US is a democracy, I will take it that your lack of refutement of the real issues is in fact and admission of guilt.

Some enlightening comments, some expected. Brad, all countries do act in their own interest, true. However most don't treat the soverignty of others with the contempt that the US does.

1st how do you define sovereignty? So if some thug takes over the seat of government of a country, declares himself supreme overlord of said country and his thugs enforce their rule on the terrorfied population does he deserve the same sovereignty as say France?

They don't? Which countries in history that have had the power to violate the "sovereignty" of countries haven't excercised that power? You're kidding right? The entire history of Europe has been about violating the sovereignty of other countries.