Comparing religions

[invictus0972]

BTW, talking about killers of innocent people, remember those U.S. sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi kids and for which Albright said it was "worthed"!? Do you really believe your "side" don't kill innocent people? "Funny" how killed Americans are always "innocent people" and all others living on open range and when they died it's they own fault.

Talking about "muslims allies"... There are Muslims and "muslims" and they have they own free will and souls. Let's just hope they will not end up like many of your allies you used and betray on the end. Or maybe even worst then that... Like this latest:

US accused of killing Iraq allies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096755.stm

You make some valid points, Sarajevo. However, the two claims you make above are not accurate. Sanctions were a result of Hussein not abiding by the UN mandates he agreed to at the end of Operation Desert Storm. This is true of any country that may be suffering under the burden of sanctions. So, in actuality, it was Hussein who caused his people to suffer. Also, it is true that American military actions have killed innocents; however, it is a mistake to equivocate terrorist actions, which intentionally kill innocents, with U.S. actions that unintentionally kill innocents. I don't think you have necessarily done this in your posts, but your comments triggered these thoughts in my mind. Anyway, there have been instances where the U.S., as a state decision, has targeted innocents for killing, but this is another lively discussion altogether. In those instances, your charge is much more valid, but it has been years since this has occurred. Remember that I am only referring to state sanctioned actions, not the actions of people who commit crimes. The point is that in modern days there are never any U.S. military operations in which the U.S. intentionally targets innocents. Intention is a key point here. Of course this discussion revolves around the discussion of the definition of terrorism, a frustrating and difficult discussion.

Also, it is not useful to refer to allies "betrayed" when discussing international relations issues. These are moral terms that do not apply in the conduct of international relations. The only thing that matters in international relations is to secure the interests of the state (raison d' etat), and the moral imperatives that apply to individuals are not extended to the actions of the state. This is the nature of international relations, and it does not matter whether a country is Islamic or Western. Every state operates toward securing its own interest. So, allies come and go depending on their usefulness in any given circumstance. Has not the United States been used and discarded by other countries? YES! It is just the way things are, and to say the United States is singularly bad for doing what every other country does is really quite ridiculous and disingenuous. In order to have a real discussion on U.S. foreign policies, it would be much better to do away with the moral invectives and the emotions because they just don't matter.