phantasmzombie wrote:

We shouldn't forget that it was our C.I.A who trained Bin Laden how to be a militant. It seems to me that our foreign policy in the middle east for the last 60 years has had a lot of unintended consequences and done more harm than good. And I wonder, is cleaning up your own mess something you should be celebrating?

I've said this before, but it bears repeating here- a nation can't dictate its foreign policy or decide who it will and won't ally itself to on the basis of the political scene twenty, thirty, or forty years in the future. Dictating foreign policy by retrospect is easy, and the alternative is isolationism--which doesn't work militarily, economically, or socially for a major world power.

Also, calling bin Laden the U.S.'s own mess is ridiculous. The fact that the U.S. gave him weapons and training has no bearing on his target selection (i.e. us). His anger toward the U.S. began because of the first Gulf War... one that was almost unanimously (possibly all the way unanimously) approved by the UN.

phantasmzombie wrote:

I think you are confusing isolationism with non-interventionism. Isolationists don't believe in free trade with other countries. Non-interventionists believe we should be friends with other countries and have free trade, but shouldn't get involved with internal conflicts in other countries. In any case, how do you know if it would work or not, because we have never practiced either policy?

Fine. Non-interventionalism then. Semantics though, considering you obviously knew what I meant. And I know it wouldn't work because you can look at the last 200 years of human history to see what happens to marginalized populations within even their own countries. And as a power with the capability to protect fellow humans, I believe we have that responsibility. Could we pick some of our battles better? Of course. But make no mistake, there are battles to be fought, and the battle against the Soviets in the mid-late 1900s was one of them.

phantasmzombie wrote:

And who gives a fuck about the U.N, or NATO for that matter? Are you arguing that if our holy one world government coalition says its okay, then it must be just?

Paper tiger though it might be, the UN and NATO provide legitimacy for military action. And no, I'm not equating a stamp from the UN to automatic moral high ground. My point is that if you want to call bin Laden a product of foreign interventionism, then you better spread the blame across that coalition instead of conveniently picking out one member. Most of what I just said is a point point though, since it boils back to the point that I made earlier that you either glossed over or ignored-- the U.S. training and arming of the muhajideen has zero to do with their target selection. Zero.

phantasmzombie wrote:

In the 50s, we overthrew an elected government in Iran (the coup d'état), and placed a dictator there to rule. And somehow we have the right to invade countries in the middle east in the name if democracy? Give me a break. Name one thing that our military presence in the middle east has done to benefit this country.

First, where are you getting this "invade countries in the middle east in the name of democracy" argument come from? I never said anything like that. I was talking about training the muhajideen in Afghanstan in the 80s.

Second, you want one thing? Okay. Check this out. There's these people called terrorists. And although they don't ALL live there, some of them live in this place called the Middle East. And sometimes, just sometimes, asking them politely to pretty please with sugar on top not attack US interests abroad doesn't work. So, guys with guns have to go after them to protect US interests.

And yes, I realize that US presence will never stop all the terrorists, and yes, I realize that US presence is troublesome for some countries, including our own... but if you think leaving the Middle East would suddenly stop problems for us (and our allies) from fundamentalists, extremists, and radicals, you're out of your mind.