BF2S Forums Why are we in this situation? (Gov't spying on own citizens)

I think the perceived requirement comes from the fact that those that pulled off 9/11 were within our borders for so long, coordinating their actions with others outside of the US. The intent is to prevent another attack within our borders by monitoring for communications similar to those uncovered after 9/11, when we knew what to look for.

There are far too many national interests (for the US and many other allies) to just leave the ME alone...as nice as it would be to do it, we simply can't.

And the US isn't being imperialistic...we're not running around setting up colonies or anything similar. Afghanistan is finally getting a functioning government after decades of regression. Iraq is no longer in the hands of a murderous despot, and the people there finally have a voice in their governance. In both cases, if the people choose to not be allies with the US, so be it. That's pretty much the exact opposite of imperialism.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Kinda going off of this thread.

What have we done as a country to get to this point, to bring on so much hate that our government has to spy on its own citizens to maintain the level of "safety" necessary?  Could it have been prevented by not being so imperialistic and sticking our noses into the middle east so often, or is it simply an unavoidable byproduct of our American ideals.

Are we making it worse by continually trying to change the principles that have been ingrained in middle eastern society for thousands of years and what would happen if we just gave up on the middle east, focused our efforts on improving America and allowed them to do what they wish to each other?  Would 'terrorism' continue indefinitely or would it eventually stop?

Discuss.

I wonder if we have kept it from getting worse, by always intervening...

How much more tyrannical govts. would rule and genocides would occur if the world KNEW the US would not get involved and no sanctions imposed? I think the world is a better place with the US around.

FEOS wrote:

I think the perceived requirement comes from the fact that those that pulled off 9/11 were within our borders for so long, coordinating their actions with others outside of the US. The intent is to prevent another attack within our borders by monitoring for communications similar to those uncovered after 9/11, when we knew what to look for.

There are far too many national interests (for the US and many other allies) to just leave the ME alone...as nice as it would be to do it, we simply can't.

And the US isn't being imperialistic...we're not running around setting up colonies or anything similar. Afghanistan is finally getting a functioning government after decades of regression. Iraq is no longer in the hands of a murderous despot, and the people there finally have a voice in their governance. In both cases, if the people choose to not be allies with the US, so be it. That's pretty much the exact opposite of imperialism.

I think he actually means way further back than 9/11, 9/11 is the reaction of what behavior from the US beyond the incident itself ?

FEOS wrote:

Home wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And the US isn't being imperialistic...we're not running around setting up colonies or anything similar. Afghanistan is finally getting a functioning government after decades of regression. Iraq is no longer in the hands of a murderous despot, and the people there finally have a voice in their governance. In both cases, if the people choose to not be allies with the US, so be it. That's pretty much the exact opposite of imperialism.

If the people decide not to be allies with the US, they have to deal with the military bases we left in their country. I would say us having over 700 military bases in foreign countries is imperialistic.

Got a source for 700?

All those bases are there based on treaties with the host country. Status of Forces Agreements...look it up. If the countries decide not to be allies any more, then the US leaves. Simple as that.

My source was the DoD's "Base Structure report" for 2003: "According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories." I would think that number has grown since then.

"Most commonly it (imperialism) is understood in relation to Empire building, as the forceful extension of a nation's authority by territorial conquest establishing economic and political domination of other nations."
OK, so we don't follow that definition exactly. We just do it a sneakier way. Instead of territorial conquest, we now just install puppet governments who will do our bidding, a la Latin America.

And as to the OP, it's an interesting question, considering it happens and has happened all over the place. It is starting to happen here in the US, it is happening in GB, there was the KGB in Russia, China is monitoring it's citizens internet use. It seems that widespread government domestic spying is simply the result of being a world power.

lowing wrote:

I wonder if we have kept it from getting worse, by always intervening...
How much more tyrannical govts. would rule and genocides would occur if the world KNEW the US would not get involved and no sanctions imposed? I think the world is a better place with the US around.

Depends if those tyrannical govts. represent and benefit U.S. interests (geopolitically and/or economically).  We sure do intervene in Zimbabwe, Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Sudan...the list goes on.  There are plenty of examples of the U.S. Government supporting dictators accused of genocide, turning a blind eye to corruption, aggression, murder, politically-motivated detentions, etc. despite your seemingly altruistic view of American foreign policy and diplomacy.

And for what it is worth, the intervention of the U.S. during the first Gulf War (and the Saudi/Kuwaiti spurn of OBL-backed mujaheddin) was specifically mentioned in Al-Qaeda's plans to target the U.S. - so you could actually say we have made it worse for ourselves.

We are in this situation because certain factions refuse to believe that streamlining bureaucracy and better inter-agency communication along with a better thought out foreign policy execution could have prevented the attacks.  Instead, those factions feel that passing aggressive surveillance laws (such as the USA PATRIOT ACT) and issuing Executive Orders outlining ambiguous domestic spying programs (among other absurd E.O.s) would do more to combat the supposed threat.