Your entire text seems a pretty damning account of American politics. You make some good points though.
BTW, American foreign policy only enforces international law when it suits it.
Israel has flouted more UN resolutions than any other country, but the US (and Britain) turns a blind eye.
However, she also treats the population like chattel, practices land-grabbing with the philosophy of "if we live there they cannot get rid of us," and have practiced quite frank terrorism such as blowing up the homes of families of terrorists. However, in a choice between a democracy that can behave badly, and regimes such as Syria who do behave badly, the democracy will win. It is never a situation of "black and white," "good versus evil."
For the record I still think Rumsfeld was a feckin' idiot.
DoctorX: That's a _lot_ of hogwash. How was Bush's antiterrorism a success?
Oh, you admit the answer:
He didn't bring terrorist attacks from 1'000 attacks a year to zero.
He took them from 0.001% to zero. . . .
- and we don't know whether any of the measures taken after 9/11 actually helped.
What we _do_ know is that warnings before 9/11 were ignored. . . .
I don't wanna play down 9/11.
It was a terrible thing to happen. But it was a crime of an organisation called Al Quaida, not an act of war by Afghanistan or Iraq.
Second, Iraq was not about 9/11 other than we no longer wait for the inevitable. He rather did what you suggested regarding Al Quaeda--he paid attention to the problem.
You implied method of looking at terrorism as something you can "sort out" or "arrest" is not only naïve, it fails. This was Clinton's approach after the first bombing of the Towers.
How well did it work?