A Blood-Thirsty Foreign Policy Will Only PROVOKE More Terrorism

Dan John
Jul 2, 2010 at 8:22 AM

The phrase "blood-thirsty" is most commonly used to describe those individuals with a lust for killing, and/or individuals who think that violence is the answer to everything. Therefore, it seems to be the perfect phrase to describe the neoconservative foreign policy and the Bush Doctrine.

Contrary to popular neoconservative belief, this doctrine is not a preventative measure taken by the Bush Administration to keep Americans safe from terrorists, but it is a foreign policy that strongly advocates imperialistic acts of unnecessary military aggression.

In other words, this doctrine promotes the cliché that "the best defense is a good offense." This may be true in football, but it is certainly not true at all in foreign policy, especially when "our enemies" are more than willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill others. This is a very dangerous enemy to have, especially for the American civilians.

What pro-war neocons and their sympathizers who are just as trigger-happy refuse to take into account is that the more innocent and otherwise peaceful civilians that get caught in the crossfire of these wars, the more likely these civilians are going to join terrorists groups to avenge the death of their loved ones.

Can you blame them? Wouldn’t you want avenge the death of your loved one if your homeland was unjustly invaded? This is how this foriegn policy of aggression PROVOKES TERRORISM!

As Doug Bandow wrote in his blog, several terrorists have stated that the sole reason they attacked is not because we are still somewhat “free” and a little “prosperous,” but because our government can’t mind its own business and finds it necessary to get involved in conflicts that it shouldn’t join.

I first became aware of Congressman Ron Paul's existence in May of 2007 while watching the Republican Presidential Debate on Fox News.   The famous exchange of words between Dr. Paul, and former New York City mayor, "Mr. 9/11" himself, Rudy Giuliani, brought a lot of attention to Dr. Paul and his message. Those of us who were drawn to his campaign because of what he said in that debate knew what Dr. Paul meant. He didn't literally mean that "we" -- the American people, our government, or even our foreign policy alone -- "caused" 9-11, but the foreign policy implemented by past administrations (including both Bush administrations) provoked 9-11, not "caused" it.

Good post, Dan.  I just avoided a Facebook argument about this yesterday.  It's strikingly naive (or deceptive, depending on how cynical you are) to believe they "hate us for our freedoms."

Bonnie Kristian's picture

Funny, I was listening to Dennis Miller last night and he was talking about how we don't motivate the terrorists and that they naturally hate us. Since when does hate come from a vaccum?

Jihan Huq's picture