I would say that states cannot directly engage in terrorism. States directly engage either in war (if with another state) or brutality (if with their own citizens). Anyhow, it is neither here nor there.
>...
> > I'm sorry, you haven't proven that. Even ignoring my complaints above,
> > you haven't addressed McVeigh, the FLQ, the Northern Irish, the Basques,
> > .... There are probably dozens of other groups I haven't even heard of.
>
> Most of those were trying to take over the levers of power and thus are
> rebels, not terrorists by your definition of terrorism. The IRA wants to
> end british control of North Ireland, the Basques want independance, etc.
But there is a difference between fighting your way to independence as America did and attempting to blackmail your perceived oppressors into allowing independence. If I raised an army to take on the Canadian army from within, that is very different than blowing up the Canadian parliament building and promising to do more damage unless the Canadian government grants my wishes.
>...
> All of which did not elect people with policies contrary to US interests.
> That part of how the US empire works. When you elect people the US gov't
> likes then you can have a Republic. But if you don't follow orders then a
> dictatorship gets imposed.
Really. Name three places where the US has militarily deposed a democracy in favor of a dictatorship in the last ten years.
> ... Countries where such groups would probably come
> to power if they had free elections, like Saudi Arabia, don't have free
> elections.
Which political party in Saudi Arabia is proposing free elections? It doesn't even have to be an official party. It could be a party in exile or an underground party like the old Nigerian governments-in-exile or the democratic resistance in Burma. You make it sound as if George Bush could go over to Saudi Arabia and start directing people on how to set up polling stations and that would be that.
Ever since September 11th, I have been hearing about how the American government is not happy with the Saudi's anti-terrorism efforts. But the Americans are somewhat circumspect about criticizing them. So who has the power in that relationship?
> ... Countries were pro-US groups can win elections have them. The
> supposed positive changes in US foreign policy after the cold war is most
> myth, what's really changed is the propaganda used to justify imperialism.
> It used to be "fighting communism" then it was "humanitarianism" and now
> it's "anti-terrorism."
I'd be interested in examples of either of the last two, where a democratic government was replaced with a dictatorial one on grounds of either "humanitarianism" or "anti-terrorism."
>...
> > After years of liberal agitating in favor of East Timorese independence,
> > East Timor is independent. The US gets the blame for the years of
> > domination but none of the credit for the independence.
>
> When Joe Lockhardt was asked what the US position on East Timor independance
> was he said he wasn't aware he had a position. I see no reason to give them
> credit, they didn't bring the situation about.
The East Timorese people of course deserve the credit for their own independence. Nevertheless, the US has helped directly and indirectly. The US pays 1/4 of the cost of the UN, which is running the transition to democracy. The US voted in favor of sending peacekeeping troops.
Here's how Australia's president views his role: "Australia, he said, "has a particular responsibility to do things above and beyond in this part of the world" and was prepared to take on a role as America's "deputy" in the region." The US administration specifically asked Australia to go in as peace keepers.
http://www.etan.org/et99b/august/1-7/1aus.htm http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/09/10/p1s1.htm
The US is one of several countries sending peacekeeping troops to East Timor.
Could the US have done more in East Timor? Yes. Given infinite resources. Does the US take some of the blame for the original problem? Without question. Does it deserve (along with many other countries) some of the credit for solving the problem? I think so. Can America-haters see America's modern role in the world with fresh eyes? Seems unlikely.
Paul Prescod