>>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.

This was in the context of them attacking other targets - which they probably would, regardless of US military presence in the region. However, this military presence is surely a lightning rod, and in some cases probably also a cause.

>>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.

In which of those examples were the troops deployed on American soil?

>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.

Then we can go back to the Western countries harboring terrorists who attacked SFR Yugoslavia. Do you equate that with "trying to wage war"?

>>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.

Germany, Italy and Japan were defeated in a world war which they started. They started as puppet regimes, but in the cold war world they had a special status - Germany was split, Italy has had a regime change during the war, Japan had a complete makeover. They developed under scrutiny of the world, and Germany specially was overseen by the four major forces of the time.

As for South Korea, I have no idea.

And I imagine all of the local governments of various island states which host(ed) US air and naval bases have done so without any coercion (financial or other).

>>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?

No, this is what I can't get. If you want to be a people's liberation movement, you attack the enemy's military and police, not the people. The ideological shift which made it OK for them to kill bystanders may get them the headlines here and there, but isn't helping their cause a bit. Setting a bomb in a cafe or a hotel won't paint you as a hero, no matter what. That's the main difference between an honest guerrila and dirty terrorism. I still don't understand why are they doing that, when it doesn't help them at all.

>>>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.

And then began filling that buffer with their own people... which are what, expendable - since they live in a security buffer?

> Many countries throughout history have done the same, although few have offered to give the land back as Israel has.

I'd rather offer some than be forced to go back to the green line.


>>>>Equal percentage of their BNP, yes.

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

So California should have more votes in the Senate than Utah?

>>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.

Aggression against whom? The US?

>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

How did this affect the US?

>>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"?

Everyone spying on everyone else is the regular business of such agencies. Occasionally taking out an important spy is also done for centuries. Doing some of the regular business somehow makes the engineered coups OK?

>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.

One of the reasons communism degraded into stalinism in most of the places was the siege mentality - because they WERE often under a siege. And I do count the stalinsm as one of the worst ideologies possible; in my book only nazism and apartheid rank worse.

>>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.

Revolution is a revolution is a revolution.


>>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.

Of course - good stands for its own merits. But this mistake lasted almost a century.

>>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

I didn't want any leaders. I wanted to have a say - and I did, locally at least.

>Private property rights

I owned a house, a car. I could own a bar or any other small enterprise (the limit was up to 5 workers). I could own land (up to 10ha per household). Now if the enterprise was larger, sorry, that's where the workers' rights to partake in the management take over, and they may not choose to elect me for their CEO.

>Unable to form a capatalist/democratic political party

Not that I'd want to, but that was really impossible. Actually, there was one party too many already.

>I also understand dissenters could be arrested

In Tito's soft socialism they'd be let go within 24 hours, but they'd have trouble finding a publisher, or finding a job on university etc, but they also had trouble trying to achieve martyrdom. They were left alone and pushed aside. The system usually let them be, just made sure they weren't heard far.