Starting the timeline at 9-11 is how the War on Terror is promoted. If we are to counter the misnomer that "the terrorists attacked us first" we need to start the historic timeline before 9-11.
This is what I say to moderates or conservatives in an attempt to counter that misnomer:
In the 2000 election one of the major presidential candidates criticized the foreign policy of the previous administration (Clinton's) by saying that "our soldiers shouldn't be used for what's called nation-building" and "policing the world" and "if we go around the world telling other people what to do, they will resent us".
That is exactly what the foreign policy of the 1990s (and earlier) was all about, and many people in other countries DID resent the US for "policing" their countries and "telling them what to do".
Saddam Hussein was encouraged and helped by US intelligence in his war with Iran from 1980-88. US (and Soviet) weapons helped Saddam stay in power by suppressing minorities in Iraq (Kurds and Shi'ites). Once he consolidated power, he invaded Kuwait after a US diplomat said that the US wouldn't object.
Instead of letting Arab countries remove Saddam, the US pushed the UN to sanction the Persian Gulf War (an undeclared war that left Saddam in power). This resulted in US military bases in Saudi Arabia (that remained long after the Gulf War was supposedly over), along with a lot of "telling other countries what to do", "policing" their Muslim holy sites and the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, and the occasional bombing of Baghdad in the 1990s.
Don't forget the intervention in Somalia to secure the UN's humanitarian mission in 1992, which was ramped into a "nation building" scheme in 1993. The 'Black Hawk down' incident turned the country against that blunder, and most of the troops came home, but then came the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo for the rest of that decade. All of those were "policing the world" and "nation-building" schemes to help the "poor helpless Muslims join the 20th Century", as Clinton and the national press corps repeated ad infinitum.
But some of them didn't want "our help" and resented the arrogance of outsiders to "tell them what to do" and station our troops on their land, aiding corrupt dictators (Mubarak) and monarchs (Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait and the Saudis) and meddling in their internal affairs.
Some of them resented the US enough to attack the US government embassies in East Africa and the US military in the Middle East (Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and USS Cole in Yemen). And then, around the time of the 2000 election, 19 of them were already in the US, working on their plan to fly planes into the WTC towers on 9-11.
The "resentment" had already boiled over into a few attacks on the US abroad. But even though that 2000 presidential candidate was not sincere about changing the policy (he responded by expanding it, instead) we now have a presidential candidate that not only makes the same statements, but has a proven record of voting for a "humble foreign policy" of "no nation-building" and "no policing the world".
------
People are tricked into thinking that someone saying something is the same as them doing it. They remember Bush saying those things in the 2000 elections, and they foolishly assume that "he tried it and it didn't work; 9-11 happened".
Sadly, you can't make people think, but you can keep trying to talk sense until you find people willing to listen and think. And keep trying different ways to explain things if people don't understand your first try. Resist the temptation to dig in your heels if people don't get it at first.
We (in the r3VOLution) have plenty of knowledge and information.
Unfortunately we have too little wisdom.
There is a huge difference between the two.
by Cliff Hutchison comment: Antiwar Conservatives: on Facebook, under John Lofton's post, "Attempted 'Terrorist' Attacks"
