>SNIP
>The forces which want to create a Muslim-ruled world have existed, and exist independently from this issue, and they have their goals.

Those "forces" must be taken into account to understand the global conflict currently occuring between radical Islam and the West.

>We were talking about them attacking the US - and you had only two things to show: US troops abroad and Israel. Apart from 9/11, that is, which was probably an attempt to bring the unspoken war to American soil. Again, had these people not felt exploited, abused and humiliated by the West, the history would have looked quite different.
>

That discussion started because you asked : "Which mid-Eastern country ever tried to wage a war against the US?" I listed 4 examples. I can list many more if you wish (hijackings, kidnappings, bombings). These are not just the US or Israel either. Italy, Great Britain, India and others have had to deal with middle-eastern terrorists. You may not equate governments who sponsor terrorists with countries "trying to wage war", but I do.

>You may imagine foreign troops may be welcome - and they surely are welcomed by any puppet regime installed as a welcome committee - but I reckon they're just a finger in the eye to the general populace.

Following your assessment then : Germany, South Korea, Italy and Japan are "puppet regimes"? Iraq and Afghanistan have set up their over governments based on their own constitutions.

>And facing an overwhelming force that they can't fight, they resort to poor man's war - guerilla and terrorism.

So targeting civilians is justified in your mind?

>>The lines were drawn years ago and have already been fought over. I believe that the Palestinians have been misled for decades by despots who are involved in a religious war to run the Jews to the sea.
>
>And the state of Israel is completely secular and has no agenda? And let's not forget the terrorist history of the Likud party. And the fact that they're still keeping territories under occupation.
>

They were attacked and took the land to create a secutiry buffer. Many countries throughout history have done the same, although few have offered to give the land back as Israel has.

>> I believe the Israelis have every right to defend themselves against extinction. I hope that someday the Palestinians will elect leaders who are genuinly interested in a peaceful solution.
>
>Takes two. The logic that the current Israeli prime minister seems to be following gives some hope.
>

Too bad the current Palestinian leadership advocates the destruction of Israel.

>>>>Besides, Palestinians aren't fighting against Jordan where a good portion of the British mandate of Palestine resides.
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
>>>
>>>Could it be because they aren't second-class citizens in Jordan?
>>>
>>They don't have their own land or country, which is what their leaders claim to want. Most of what they claim as their land is in Jordan. Where is the consistency?
>
>They want to live like normal people anywhere else. I figure in Jordan they aren't required to go through dozen checkpoints when going to a nearby city, aren't bombed and arrested daily, no bulldozers are flattening their homes, so maybe they don't have much of a reason to complain there.
>

Why were those checkpoints set up in the first place? Terrorist attacks.
Who is bombed by Israelis? Terrorist leaders.
Bulldozers flatten whose homes? Families of terrorists who've attacked.

This is all a part to the constant retaliation cycle.

>And where are the headquarters of the UN? On Antarctica? Don't tell me that US didn't know what was going on.

The US called for and is leading the investigations to expose these things. The UN is populated by despotic, anti-democratic regimes which seek to undermine the West in general and the US in particular at every turn. I believe it is time for a major reform.

>I think there was a policy to let UN erode and help it erode, so to be able to prove it not viable. Then do a reform and have a new UN version which will more closely reflect the goals of globalization, corporate rule over everything etc etc.
>

A solid viable organization for good shouldn't be able to "erode". Besides, shouldn't the other countries in the club be able to make it work without the US?

>>>Equal percentage of their BNP, yes.
>>>
>>BNP?
>
>Pardon my European - brutto national product, known as GDP here, if I'm not mistaken again.
>

Ah the socialist solution to everything. Pay more because you can but don't expect to be treated any different than anyone else.

>>>>Korea
>>>>Egypt blockading Israel
>>>>Vietnam
>>>>Russia into Afghanistan
>>>
>>>You're putting the US into nice company.
>>>
>>Nope, the US is trying to liberate, the others were on conquests. I do not subscribe to the moral equivelence.
>
>And how did Vietnam get on the list? The fake incident in the Tonkin bay was faked by... the Inuit?
>

The seeds of this war were long established and exasserbated by communist aggression.

March 1959 - The armed revolution begins as Ho Chi Minh declares a People's War to unite all of Vietnam under his leadership. His Politburo now orders a changeover to an all-out military struggle. Thus begins the Second Indochina War.
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html

>>>And you approve the way CIA does business?
>>>
>>Sometimes.
>
>Then you wouldn't mind if a foreign government would install a friendly puppet regime here, to make sure the natural resources are properly exploited by their companies? Just sometimes.
>

So that's all the CIA has ever done? There aren't some instances of the CIA actively working towards the security of the USA without establishing a "puppet regime"?

>>Which then does make them wars-by-proxy.
>>>
>>Not sure what you're saying here. All were wars.
>
>As was customary in the cold war, the two superpowers never fought directly, because that'd bring nuclear weapons to the table really soon, and nobody wanted that. But then they weren't at peace either, so there was always some place along the edges of their spheres of influence where they'd pick sides to help. Sometimes it'd be an Asian country split north/south, sometimes it'd be a liberation movement aided by one superpower versus a friendly dictatorship aided by the other - so while the US(A+SR) weren't directly at war, there was a way to try their weapons in a demo field. That's war by proxy.
>

No argument

>>Nicaragua was taken over by revolution in 1979 as well.
>
>Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista - and ask yourself why do people go for revolutions in the first place.
>
>Besides, these guys later had elections they won (with international consent that they were fair - excluding some in the US who disagreed), and another round later that they lost. Somehow they seem more fair than your regular capitalist country, which regularly turn the tables whenever anything communist-like wins elections (Chile 1973, Kingdom of Yugoslavia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Yugoslavia, "Popularity of the party was shown for the first time on local elections in Croatia and Montenegro in March 1920 where communists won majority in several cities (including big cities like Zagreb, Osijek, Slavonski Brod and Podgorica), but regime refused to confirm communist administrations of these districts.", and even the elections in Italy 1974 weren't exactly clear, because they were close to the two-party system, the demochristians vs communists, and the latter had better odds - and CIA was alerted).
>

The legacy of communism is corruption, elitism and 100 million dead. You may claim that capatalism has suffered the same corruption and elitism but you cannot argue the deaths.

>Besides, I can't see why the US would be against a Revolution - it prides itself in having performed a successful one.

The US had a revolution that resulted in the greatest democracy the world has ever seen. A beacon for freedom which has led to the liberation of billions of people. You're dame right we're proud of it. If you choose to compare it to revolutions in Iran, Iraq, Russia or Nicaragua, then you are delusional.

>Maybe the attempts to topple the Sandinista government were just envy for them replacing the US-educated Somosa dictators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasio_Somoza_Debayle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasio_Somoza_Garc%C3%ADa, who was also "able to rise through the ranks of the Nicaraguan National Guard (Guardia Nacional), the constublary force organized by the United States Marines.", "Despite widespread corruption and repression of dissent, they were able to hold onto power because the United States viewed them as anti-communist stalwarts and a source of stability in the region.").
>
>And should we mention the US occupation of Nicaragua before that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Santos_Zelaya
>

There have clearly been mistakes made in the history of the US. That does not diminish the good.

>>>>Independence is a great thing. The US has fought against the forces of Totalitarianism, Naziism, Fascism and Communism in order to bring freedom to hundreds of millions of people around the world.
>>>
>>>I lived in a communist country. Can you describe how unfree was I?
>>
>>Compared to what? Virginia Beach? :)
>
>Where did I say "compare"? First, "totalitarianism" isn't a force or a system, it's a state of any system when it becomes exercising total powers over each citizen. One may argue that any country, while at war, may become totalitarian. Totalitarian is the mode and degree of use of power, not a system per se.
>With nazism and fascism, I agree, they were just plain bad, racist and whatnot.
>As for communism, you simply describe it as something to be fought against to bring freedom. Well, I figure you don't know a thing about it, so it's your prejudice speaking, not knowledge. And I just wanted to know what's the un-freedoms I suffered in first 35 years of my life, in your mind.

Since I have little knowledge of your country's specific history I will leave this response to Srdjan.

"In my mind" I would offer the following "un-freedoms"
Unable to vote for your leaders
Private property rights
Unable to form a capatalist/democratic political party
I also understand dissenters could be arrested