To say that our country supported such and such a regime and then that regime bit us in the ass doesn't seem to have such a casual relationship.
Can't there be second degree blowback--ie that our policies against a nation, for example putting our troops on foreign land be the cause of a regime or group to cause wrath?
If that is true, then can't we always say that our policies against such and such a regime or group be the sole cause of the tiff? Why do we need a blowback theory at all?
It's like saying that if the US gave some leftist group here in the US tons of money, airtime, access to the ballot line ect, and then the left won power and influence, then the CAUSE of that is the money, access, ect...rather than saying that the policies of the US regime and its business partners against workers and unemployed interests were the seeds of revolution.
I'm of course not saying that every reaction against the US (or other Western or pro-Western) policies is a positive, revolutionary one--that needs to be weighed with the facts...but the idea that 'support' in some ways for a regime is the cause of the reaction is silly at best. --- Sent from UnionMail Service [http://mail.union.org.za]