Why Shouldn't American Foreign Policy Be Blamed For 9/11?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once upon a time, didn't we support OBL? Later, we just sort of abandoned support for him?

that is a complete fallacy.

The truth is that NONE of our money, weapons, or training went to OBL while he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets.

We funneled each of those items through the Pakistani ISI, and they handed out as they saw fit to the various Muj leaders throughout Afghanistan. Fact is, OBL had plenty of his own money and additional money that he raised from donors throughout the Arab world.

Go read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll if you want to learn the truth of the matter...

How do you know the ISI didn't assist bin Laden? You don't, therefore your argument falls flat.

For the most part, the decision-makers in ISI during the 80's despised OBL and his collection of foreign Muj. Most first-hand testimony on the subject indicates that the ISI intentionally kept OBL from receiving any fund, training, etc from the US coffers. Like I said before, OBL had plenty of his own funding.

Trust me, this is one historical subject I know very well. You really should stick to hugging al Sadr and leave this one alone...

Even if OBL did not receive US training or money, plenty of other future terrorists did. Whether or not specific terrorist groups rose from our efforts in the Middle East, it's undeniable that our actions there during the Cold War directly gave rise to many of the armed radical groups in that area.

Those actions also gave rise to the Northern Alliance - who, coincidentally, fought by our side in 2001 to decimate the Taliban and AQ's forces in Afghanistan. Go figure!

I even have a painting of Ahmad Shah Massoud on my wall that I commissioned - from a local - during my first tour in Afghanistan...

Speaking of walls, some say that the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan played a very large role in the collapse of the Soviet Union; and, ultimately, the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Crazy, eh?

So, my point? You take the good with the bad...

It's obviously not a black and white issue. Still, I think the lesson we need to learn is that bad people are still bad people, even if they happen to be on our side for the moment. Your comment about the Northern Alliance is a perfect example. How many times have our "friends", very similar to the Northern Alliance folks, turned on us when it suited their interests? If we're doing one thing right in Iraq, it's pushing for actual democracy instead of "friendly" lunatics who are just as bad as the people they are replacing. I think our approach to Afghanistan will turn around and bite us in the ass. Sure, the various warlords might be helpful NOW, but how about when helping the US is no longer in their best interests?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
No one person is responsible for the last 40 years worth of poor foreign policy. Is he partially responsible? Absolutely.

Every president that has supported the ME dictators to secure oil is to blame, among others.

How much blame do we place on the people who did the act?

Were people wrong in picking on the VA Tech shooter? Yes. Was his reply acceptable? Of course not.

Was England wrong to search Americans without warrants before the revolutionary war? Yes. Was the Americans' reply acceptable? Of course not.

Interesting what happens when you play that game more consistently. Of course, you shift the rules depending who you are partisan for.

Saddam in the 80's opposing our enemy Iran? Here are some more WMD's to keep power over your people. Saddam in the 90's and 00's? Two invasion, sanctions, etc.

Noriega the dictator and drug dealer under Reagan? Here's some more US aid. Noreiga when he stops doing what he's told? Invasion, thousands of Panamanians killed.

I think the problem when we get into these semantic games is that we tend to shift blame from where it belongs to other places.

Except they're not "semantic games", they're the part of the picture you leave out. You, too, 'tend to shift the blame from where it belongs to other places'.

Where do you put the blame for the loss of Iran's democracy in 1953? You shift it from where it belongs to other places.

How about the loss of democracy in Chile in 1973? You shift the blame from where it belongs to other places.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Craig234

I think the problem when we get into these semantic games is that we tend to shift blame from where it belongs to other places.

Except they're not "semantic games", they're the part of the picture you leave out. You, too, 'tend to shift the blame from where it belongs to other places'.

Where do you put the blame for the loss of Iran's democracy in 1953? You shift it from where it belongs to other places.

How about the loss of democracy in Chile in 1973? You shift the blame from where it belongs to other places.

you forget that the past does not always justify the actions of the day.

In other words, we can find in the past a justification for changing the regimes in Iran and Chile. It just depends on which twisted version of history to use to meet your goals.

your wrong, face it. Justifying the killings of innocents by the whackos who freely identify themselves as Muslims cannot be justified by any stretch. They are simply not fit to live in this world and need to be removed from it quickly.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Craig234

I think the problem when we get into these semantic games is that we tend to shift blame from where it belongs to other places.

Except they're not "semantic games", they're the part of the picture you leave out. You, too, 'tend to shift the blame from where it belongs to other places'.

Where do you put the blame for the loss of Iran's democracy in 1953? You shift it from where it belongs to other places.

How about the loss of democracy in Chile in 1973? You shift the blame from where it belongs to other places.

you forget that the past does not always justify the actions of the day.

In other words, we can find in the past a justification for changing the regimes in Iran and Chile. It just depends on which twisted version of history to use to meet your goals.

your wrong, face it. Justifying the killings of innocents by the whackos who freely identify themselves as Muslims cannot be justified by any stretch. They are simply not fit to live in this world and need to be removed from it quickly.

Like greed? Or do you have a better defense of the indefensible? We don't have the right to meddle in the affairs of others in such a way, no right whatsoever. There is no justification, at all.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
No one person is responsible for the last 40 years worth of poor foreign policy. Is he partially responsible? Absolutely.

Every president that has supported the ME dictators to secure oil is to blame, among others.

How much blame do we place on the people who did the act?

Were people wrong in picking on the VA Tech shooter? Yes. Was his reply acceptable? Of course not.

I think the problem when we get into these semantic games is that we tend to shift blame from where it belongs to other places.

If you want to blame our foreign policy then blame us for not reacting strong enough when they attacked us in the past.

The Soviets set the perfect example when a diplomat was killed and some others kidnapped. The KGB tracked down and killed a member of the kidnapper?s family. The hostages were released and no one ever messed with the Soviets again.

Look at Libya as a perfect example. They were a major supporter of terrorism in the 1980s until Reagan missed Khadafi by a few hundred feet. After that they changed their ways.

If we had responded to the 1990s AQ attacks with a real and meaningful response then maybe the Taliban would have decided that harboring Osama wasn?t worth the trouble.
Instead of a few cruise missiles we should have sent in a dozen B-2 and went after the leaders of the Taliban and Osama?s training camps at the same time.

It has nothing to do with their attacks in the past if you bothered to read my post. Our foreign policy has kept the ME poor and in control by their oil rich leaders for our profits. They have simply finally found a way to attack us back.

If we wanted to help the situation, we'd have put all our resources into alternative energy and then spread it to the rest of the world to bleed the ME leaders dry. Without money, these leaders would collapse and the ME would be grateful.

It is laughable that again after the Iraq failure you blame the situation for lack of MORE attacks.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
No one person is responsible for the last 40 years worth of poor foreign policy. Is he partially responsible? Absolutely.

Every president that has supported the ME dictators to secure oil is to blame, among others.

How much blame do we place on the people who did the act?

Were people wrong in picking on the VA Tech shooter? Yes. Was his reply acceptable? Of course not.

I think the problem when we get into these semantic games is that we tend to shift blame from where it belongs to other places.

If you want to blame our foreign policy then blame us for not reacting strong enough when they attacked us in the past.

The Soviets set the perfect example when a diplomat was killed and some others kidnapped. The KGB tracked down and killed a member of the kidnapper?s family. The hostages were released and no one ever messed with the Soviets again.

Look at Libya as a perfect example. They were a major supporter of terrorism in the 1980s until Reagan missed Khadafi by a few hundred feet. After that they changed their ways.

If we had responded to the 1990s AQ attacks with a real and meaningful response then maybe the Taliban would have decided that harboring Osama wasn?t worth the trouble.
Instead of a few cruise missiles we should have sent in a dozen B-2 and went after the leaders of the Taliban and Osama?s training camps at the same time.

It has nothing to do with their attacks in the past if you bothered to read my post. Our foreign policy has kept the ME poor and in control by their oil rich leaders for our profits. They have simply finally found a way to attack us back.

If we wanted to help the situation, we'd have put all our resources into alternative energy and then spread it to the rest of the world to bleed the ME leaders dry. Without money, these leaders would collapse and the ME would be grateful.

It is laughable that again after the Iraq failure you blame the situation for lack of MORE attacks.

Exaclty ProfJohn. The Soviets are such a great example to emulate. Cheney would have made for a great politburo member wouldn't he. And the Neocon political commissars sure are efficient in putting the correct political spin on things to match Neocon reality, just like the Communists did to create Communist reality. Just like with the Soviet Union the world knows bullsh*t when it sees Neocon Bullsh*t. Well the Neocons will eventually go the way of the Soviet communists. It is only a matter of time, and of how much of the US they have time to destroy before they are crumble.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Craig234

I think the problem when we get into these semantic games is that we tend to shift blame from where it belongs to other places.

Except they're not "semantic games", they're the part of the picture you leave out. You, too, 'tend to shift the blame from where it belongs to other places'.

Where do you put the blame for the loss of Iran's democracy in 1953? You shift it from where it belongs to other places.

How about the loss of democracy in Chile in 1973? You shift the blame from where it belongs to other places.

you forget that the past does not always justify the actions of the day.

In other words, we can find in the past a justification for changing the regimes in Iran and Chile. It just depends on which twisted version of history to use to meet your goals.

your wrong, face it. Justifying the killings of innocents by the whackos who freely identify themselves as Muslims cannot be justified by any stretch. They are simply not fit to live in this world and need to be removed from it quickly.

no, shivetya, you are wrong; you face it. ProfJohn was making the point about 'putting blame where it belongs', using an example like the VA shooter.

I used other examples of where he shifts the blame away from where it belongs. You did not address the point.

Your point was:

Justifying the killings of innocents by the whackos who freely identify themselves as Muslims cannot be justified by any stretch. They are simply not fit to live in this world and need to be removed from it quickly.

How about justifying the killing of innocent Native Americans by the whackos who freely identified themselves as Americans, that 'cannot be justified by any stretch'?

The killing of innocent Vietnamese and Cambodians - millions - by the whackos who freely identified themselves as Americans?

The killing by proxy of innocents, such as the innocent Nicaraguans killed by Reagan's Contra army?

How about the oppression of innocents, put under dictators who strictly limit rights, kept in power by the US? Our founding fathers said killing a repressive govenment is ok.

Are the Americans who have killed innocents 'not fit to live', too, or are you being selective in that to Muslims?

Are the many *innocent* muslims who the US has killed in pursuing its neocon agenda killings that 'cannot be justified by any stretch' too?

You have the arrogance of someone who lives in a far more powerful country who thinks that anyone your country kills is ok.

What's more barbaric - the beheading or stoning of an individual over fundamentalist religious reasons we disagree with, or the napalming of a farmer for corporate greed?

You are not at all reasonable in your selective blaming.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
No one person is responsible for the last 40 years worth of poor foreign policy. Is he partially responsible? Absolutely.

Every president that has supported the ME dictators to secure oil is to blame, among others.

How much blame do we place on the people who did the act?

Were people wrong in picking on the VA Tech shooter? Yes. Was his reply acceptable? Of course not.

Was England wrong to search Americans without warrants before the revolutionary war? Yes. Was the Americans' reply acceptable? Of course not.

Interesting what happens when you play that game more consistently. Of course, you shift the rules depending who you are partisan for.

Saddam in the 80's opposing our enemy Iran? Here are some more WMD's to keep power over your people. Saddam in the 90's and 00's? Two invasion, sanctions, etc.

Noriega the dictator and drug dealer under Reagan? Here's some more US aid. Noreiga when he stops doing what he's told? Invasion, thousands of Panamanians killed.

I think the problem when we get into these semantic games is that we tend to shift blame from where it belongs to other places.

Except they're not "semantic games", they're the part of the picture you leave out. You, too, 'tend to shift the blame from where it belongs to other places'.

Where do you put the blame for the loss of Iran's democracy in 1953? You shift it from where it belongs to other places.

How about the loss of democracy in Chile in 1973? You shift the blame from where it belongs to other places.

Craig, I'm justing tacking comments to your post because it's thelast in the line of discussion about "what if" and placing blame on far earlier events/policy choices etc.

This whole train of thought, I think illustrates perfectly the "law of iunintended consequences" mentioned by Dealmonkey.

With hindisght, and some clever (or not so clever) "what ifs" one can play the "blame game' all day long.

The fact is, humans just aren't smart enough to outwit the Law of Unintended Consequences. Whether it be in realm of science or political policy, we never wil be.

Anybody ever wish we hadn't developed nuclear capability? Einstein himself did. And many of us fear this may ultimately be our destruction long before GW can ever "kick in" Was that an intended or unintended consequence of the Manhatten Project?

Wanna do an imediate pullout from Iraq? Gawd, can't wait to see what unintended consequences may result from that.

The "ying yang" thingy is what often saves our bacon. I refer to the concept that the good comes with bad, a sort of corollary to the Law of Unintended Consequences. Even the bad things that result are balanced out by some unintened "good things".

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Fern, with all due respect to your well-meaning post, you are pushing a nonsensical varient of nihilism - why don't I just shoot you, since it might prevent you from being the next VA Tech shooter? Who knows?

The fact that well-meaning policies can go awry, and books are written filled with them, is no excuse not to try to improve the policies to be less evil where we can. On net, it helps.

I won't write the much longer content here with example after example, with some from each side, to prove the point - I need to get off the computer, and hope the point is clear.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Fern, with all due respect to your well-meaning post, you are pushing a nonsensical varient of nihilism (Nah, see below ) - why don't I just shoot you, since it might prevent you from being the next VA Tech shooter? Who knows?

The fact that well-meaning policies can go awry, and books are written filled with them, is no excuse not to try to improve the policies to be less evil where we can. (Evil?. Otherwise I agree, I'm here almost everyday debating policies or proposing solutions, not that I claim they're worth a d@mn )

nihilism from wiki

Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" does not exist, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action can be preferable to any other (Well, I think an action can be preferable, but I'm not sure that many can discern which "action" that might be.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I think the debate on motivation and justification for one side or another can give us insights on likely future actions by any given party, thus its importance.

But the larger issue that inevitably must come up is that of what to do in a world filled with political grievances; justified, idealogical, or simply imaginary.

For much of the time following WWII, the US focused a good deal of effort on creating a fair international field of play through support for institutions, treaties, and international law. The rationale is clear: there is no end to bickering and war otherwise.

While the US under Bush has/had every right to pursue direct attackers and their financiers and protectors following 9/11, the country has completely, utterly undermined any last shred of moral authority by breaking international law. The most egregious transgression - and the one serving as the greatest terrorist recruitment tool - has been in the treatment of prisoners (note, they are not even prisoners of war, which would give them rights).

That this is so contrary to the best self interests of the US should be howlingly obvious to the general public. The fact that it was not, and did not result in a change of leader in the 2004 elections, is a glaring indictment of American hypocrisy and indifference.

My own belief is that the US public is hobbled by the country's size and relative geographic isolation ~ the world is a far away place, I know, I saw it on TV.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Hlafordlaes
I think the debate on motivation and justification for one side or another can give us insights on likely future actions by any given party, thus its importance.

But the larger issue that inevitably must come up is that of what to do in a world filled with political grievances; justified, idealogical, or simply imaginary.

For much of the time following WWII, the US focused a good deal of effort on creating a fair international field of play through support for institutions, treaties, and international law. The rationale is clear: there is no end to bickering and war otherwise.

While the US under Bush has/had every right to pursue direct attackers and their financiers and protectors following 9/11, the country has completely, utterly undermined any last shred of moral authority by breaking international law. The most egregious transgression - and the one serving as the greatest terrorist recruitment tool - has been in the treatment of prisoners (note, they are not even prisoners of war, which would give them rights).

That this is so contrary to the best self interests of the US should be howlingly obvious to the general public. The fact that it was not, and did not result in a change of leader in the 2004 elections, is a glaring indictment of American hypocrisy and indifference.

My own belief is that the US public is hobbled by the country's size and relative geographic isolation ~ the world is a far away place, I know, I saw it on TV.

Aye, the US has all the potential in the world to be a force for Peace. Instead of a force for War.

 

[dyn2nvu]

The Washington, DC, think-tank, The American Enterprise Institute, camouflages its purpose with its name. Its real name should be The Center for Middle East War.

AEI has the largest collection of warmongers in America. AEI "scholars" have agitated for war in the Middle East for years. A moronic president and 9/11 gave them their opportunity. Now that the US invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have failed, the AEI warmongers are conspiring with Vice President Cheney to foment war with Iran.

Writing in The Washington Note, Steven C. Clemons reports that Cheney is working with the AEI warmongers to short-circuit the efforts of Bush?s secretaries of defense and state to find a diplomatic solution. Clemons reports that one former high-level national security official describes the Cheney-AEI conspiracy as possibly an act of "criminal insubordination" against President Bush.

Now that the Democrats have betrayed their mandate of last November to end Bush?s war against Iraq and given Bush carte blanche to continue the gratuitous bloodshed, the neoconservative plan, spearheaded by Vice President Cheney, to initiate aggression against Iran is back on the front burner.

Disinformation is being fed to the media that Iran is responsible for attacks on US troops in Iraq. This disinformation is routinely reported without skepticism by the American media in the face of challenges from experts. For example, a recent British report concludes: "few independent analysts believe Tehran is playing a decisive role in the sectarian warfare and insurgency."

While the Cheney/AEI conspirators strive to whip up American anger at Iran with lies and disinformation, they are doing everything possible to provoke Iran. The warmongers have planted the story in the media that the US is conducting covert operations against Iran. The US Navy is conducting "exercises" off Iran?s coast. The US military in Iraq has violated diplomatic privilege and kidnapped Iranian officials in Iraq despite protests from the Iraqi and Iranian governments. The US government is stirring up more trouble in Lebanon by setting extremists Sunnis against Iran?s Hezbollah ally. In short, the US government is doing everything possible to start a war with Iran. Bombing Iran, perhaps after a contrived "false flag" operation, is the next step.

Bush continues to tell his favorite lies that he is bringing "freedom and democracy to Iraq" and that Muslims hate us because of our "freedom and democracy." He continues to make these inane assertions even as he ignores the will of the American people and destroys habeas corpus, the foundation of civil liberty.

Bush ignores the will of the people as expressed in last November?s congressional elections and as expressed in opinion polls. The New York Times/CBS News poll released May 24 shows another sharp drop in public support for Bush and his war. America is "seriously off on the wrong track" was the response of 72 percent of the public.

President Bush, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party have proved to the entire world that the American people have no voice. The American people have no more ability to affect their government?s policy than inmates in a gulag would have.

What do people in other countries think when they hear Bush prattle on about "freedom and democracy" while he ignores opinion polls and election results and detains people without warrants, tortures them, and puts them before military tribunals in which they are denied even knowing the evidence against them? Bush has contrived a situation for defendants in which no defense is possible. In Bush?s America, people can be executed on the basis of hearsay and secret evidence. If this is "freedom and democracy," what is tyranny?

read the rest at http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts211.html

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
One of the trigger points for 9/11 was the fact that we were over in Saudi.

Do you remember why we were over there?

Keep the two flash points of the ME seperate when providing theories.

Because Bush Sr. lied to the Saudis and told them that Saddam had troops and tanks on their border preparing an attack?

And where were the troops and tanks? On the Iraq/Kuwait border?

Any idea why our troops were moved in in the first place.
Because Saudi was afraid that Saddam was going to continue to roll down after cleanup up Kuwait. They ASKED us to come over and stay for a while.

I think they feared economic competition and Saddam's ability to negate and influence OPEC more then his ability to invade them. I believe Saddam told a US diplomat that he would guaranteed the US low oil prices and not invade Saudi Arabia. To bad he didn't know how deep and close Bush Sr. and his family were to big oil and the Saudi royal family.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Even though I blame European policies more (many of the 9/11 terrorists were radicalised in Europe), I don't see what's necessarily wrong with it. However, it doesn't mean that you must bend your policies to the wills of others.

Radicalized in Europe? In what way?

You don't see a problem with continuing policies that have obvious negative on effects not just us but a fair chunk of the worlds population? That sounds like "might makes right" to me, which indicates that you feel that the fed doesn't have to think about what it does, before it does it.

 

[robtk3]

Originally posted by: sandorski
You got it all wrong. One day the Terrorists woke up and said, "WTF, they've got Freedom! OMGDie2U!!!"

Everyone knows that's the reason......

You need to change the channel more often. It sounds as if you get your news from only one source. Try a little logic to discern propaganda from common sense. Don't be afraid, enlightenment is healthy regardless of the initial pain.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Hlafordlaes
I think the debate on motivation and justification for one side or another can give us insights on likely future actions by any given party, thus its importance.

But the larger issue that inevitably must come up is that of what to do in a world filled with political grievances; justified, idealogical, or simply imaginary.

For much of the time following WWII, the US focused a good deal of effort on creating a fair international field of play through support for institutions, treaties, and international law. The rationale is clear: there is no end to bickering and war otherwise.

While the US under Bush has/had every right to pursue direct attackers and their financiers and protectors following 9/11, the country has completely, utterly undermined any last shred of moral authority by breaking international law. The most egregious transgression - and the one serving as the greatest terrorist recruitment tool - has been in the treatment of prisoners (note, they are not even prisoners of war, which would give them rights).

That this is so contrary to the best self interests of the US should be howlingly obvious to the general public. The fact that it was not, and did not result in a change of leader in the 2004 elections, is a glaring indictment of American hypocrisy and indifference.

My own belief is that the US public is hobbled by the country's size and relative geographic isolation ~ the world is a far away place, I know, I saw it on TV.

1. Very true.

2. Try as hard as possible to avoid creating, or being party to those "political grievances; justified, idealogical, or simply imaginary." Our government, and secondarily the American people, don't seem to understand that minding ones own affairs is a virtue, and cheaper too.

3. Institutions and legal constructs which the fed immediately ignored or sidestepped when it wanted too. It should be clear to everyone that the fed is the biggest and richest hypocrite on the planet.

4. Agreed, sort of. Abu Graib, from what I understand, was a whispered legend among Iraqi's long before we saw the pictures. The two things, IMO, that inspire Arab/Muslin ire more than anything else are a long collective memory filled with images of brutal Western interference and manipulation, and 15+ years of watching the Iraqi people/culture ground into paste by the US. Let's not forget that Bin Laden's motives aren't a secret being that he's been interveiwed more than once.

5. Indeed!

6. Internet has made media/government manipulation of the facts very difficult. The only reason that vast numbers of American's are STILL out of the loop is because, well..., they seem to WANT to be party to a lie.

 

[SickBeast]

The attacks would have happened no matter what.

Bin Laden had the idea to do it, and regadless of what the US was doing or had done, he was going to use his plan.

I suppose that if the US had been a goodie-two-shoes, he might have picked another target. That said, the US is the most powerful nation on earth, and really 9-11 probably wouldn't have had as much dramatic or political effect on any other nation.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

6. Internet has made media/government manipulation of the facts very difficult. The only reason that vast numbers of American's are STILL out of the loop is because, well..., they seem to WANT to be party to a lie.

Case in point.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once upon a time, didn't we support OBL? Later, we just sort of abandoned support for him?

that is a complete fallacy.

The truth is that NONE of our money, weapons, or training went to OBL while he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets.

We funneled each of those items through the Pakistani ISI, and they handed out as they saw fit to the various Muj leaders throughout Afghanistan. Fact is, OBL had plenty of his own money and additional money that he raised from donors throughout the Arab world.

Go read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll if you want to learn the truth of the matter...

How do you know the ISI didn't assist bin Laden? You don't, therefore your argument falls flat.

For the most part, the decision-makers in ISI during the 80's despised OBL and his collection of foreign Muj. Most first-hand testimony on the subject indicates that the ISI intentionally kept OBL from receiving any fund, training, etc from the US coffers. Like I said before, OBL had plenty of his own funding.

Trust me, this is one historical subject I know very well. You really should stick to hugging al Sadr and leave this one alone...

:laugh:, I don't think so. As your hero, Ronald Reagan would say: "trust, but verify."

If you want me to believe you, prove to me that the ISI didn't give bin laden money. But you cannot prove a negative so it is impossible for you to claim that they didn't. Stop lying.

 

[Infohawk]

But for US support of Israel / US meddling in middle-east, 9/11 would not have happened. There shouldn't be a debate there.

The somewhat reasonable debate is whether the US's support of Israel / meddling in the middle-east was justifiable, and whether the (Muslim) response to that meddling was reasonable.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
But for US support of Israel / US meddling in middle-east, 9/11 would not have happened. There shouldn't be a debate there.

The somewhat reasonable debate is whether the US's support of Israel / meddling in the middle-east was justifiable, and whether the (Muslim) response to that meddling was reasonable.

IMO the US foreign policy since Eisenhower in the 60s has been unreasonable. You guys went from isolationists to the police of the world; there was no middle ground!

The muslim response was unreasonable and they deserve the Iraq war and all that IMO.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Infohawk
But for US support of Israel / US meddling in middle-east, 9/11 would not have happened. There shouldn't be a debate there.

The somewhat reasonable debate is whether the US's support of Israel / meddling in the middle-east was justifiable, and whether the (Muslim) response to that meddling was reasonable.

IMO the US foreign policy since Eisenhower in the 60s has been unreasonable. You guys went from isolationists to the police of the world; there was no middle ground!

I agree. As late as FDR, the US had a 'reasonable' foreign policy; under Truman, the republicans learned that the road back to political power after being destroyed by democrats since 1932 was the issue of fear-mongering, and dangerous movements towards militarism occured, from the 'loyalty oaths' and creation of the CIA under Truman to the McCarthyism of the early to mid 50's, paving the way for a dangerous cold war.

The Eisenhower administration pursued a variety of wrongheaded policies, usually involving siding wrongly with European allies, from overthrowing democracy in Iran in 1953 - the origin of the CIA term "blowback", culminating in the rise of the radical religious leaders in 1979 - to his support against independance in Viet Nam and for the French colonization, with the US paying 90% of the French war costs at one point. After the speed bump of JFK not going along, this led to the large-scale, wrong, war there.

With another 'speed bump' under Carter delaying meddling much, we've been right on track after, from Nixon to Reagan to Bush 41; whatever Clinton may have wanted, these policies put him in a corner on his options, setting the world stage for American policies in the world.

The thing is, few Americans today realize the radical shift from our traditional policies to the radical empire we've become after WWII, and they are hard-pressed to see any alternative way to run our nation than to continue with the same sorts of policies leading to ever-stronger 'control' in the world. They feel fear and worry about 'threats' even while being probably the most militarily secure and powerful nation in world history.

Just as the US failed in its first attempt at self-government under the articles of confederation by keeping too much power for the states, the world has failed twice to find any better way to run things than 'the most powerful nation does what it likes', first with the League of Nations and now, with the less than effective United Nations. So, we stumble on, with the power du jour fulfilling the old maxim, that absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely, as perhaps the least corrupt nation in history, the US, succumbs as well.

We need to look for *systemic* improvements to world government, to end the cycle of some groups' wealth being based on other groups' misery, and so on.

I don't know what those are, any more than many who saw the problems with England's governing in 1770 knew that democracy (after revolt) was the answer then.

Even the founding fathers like Ben Franklin had spent years trying to get England to moderate its policies rather than pushing for independance and a republic.

But we need that discussion, and I don't see it almost anywhere. So, we can expect more of the same, as each power simply pushes for more for itself, whatever the impact.

 

[First]

Paul is right in the sense that it's well known, both in CIA and any half-wit intel agency that blowback is a reality of the world that people should get used to. Most don't question U.S. intentions because most know that the vast majority have good intentions when it comes to Middle Eastern affairs; e.g. GWB isn't in Iraq because he's evil, wants to kill Americans/Iraqis, etc. His intentions were good, his execution was downright horrid. Most know this. What most won't accept is that 9/11 was, unequivocally, blowback. CIA knows and will readily admit this assuming you're not conversing with a politically correct talking head, I suppose. Certainly the 9/11 Commission Report delineates blowback reality clearly.

Some of the best intentions, throughout history, have resulted in some of the worst horrors in human history. 9/11 is, in part, no exception. Combined with the irrational, illogical, and often completely blind hatred that many war mongering terrorists in the Middle East hold, American strategic mistakes in the region compounded into a horrible tradegy on September 11th, 2001. Let's hope those in charge learn from their mistakes.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Paul is right in the sense that it's well known, both in CIA and any half-wit intel agency that blowback is a reality of the world that people should get used to. Most don't question U.S. intentions because most know that the vast majority have good intentions when it comes to Middle Eastern affairs; e.g. GWB isn't in Iraq because he's evil, wants to kill Americans/Iraqis, etc. His intentions were good, his execution was downright horrid. Most know this. What most won't accept is that 9/11 was, unequivocally, blowback. CIA knows and will readily admit this assuming you're not conversing with a politically correct talking head, I suppose. Certainly the 9/11 Commission Report delineates blowback reality clearly.

Some of the best intentions, throughout history, have resulted in some of the worst horrors in human history. 9/11 is, in part, no exception. Combined with the irrational, illogical, and often completely blind hatred that many war mongering terrorists in the Middle East hold, American strategic mistakes in the region compounded into a horrible tradegy on September 11th, 2001. Let's hope those in charge learn from their mistakes.

Those in charge are going to be gone soon and haven't yet shown a propensity for learning from their mistakes. The proper "hope" would be that the next group in charge learns from this group.