DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
You took the case for intervention, and seemed to ignore the logic case for non-intervention. If we don't intervene in a situation you know situation a, and result a2. We know how much isolation helped or hurt us compared to base case A.
We have no way to compare with case A1, since it never happened.
In other words, we know whether isolation benefitted us (comparison to base state) - we can't compare to intervention results.
You must have missed the first part of my comment:quote:
By your own logic, there is no way to tell if isolation benefited us or not. We know we isolated ourselves, it didn't work out. Do you know what would have been the result if we had jumped into things? Of course you don't.
I acknowledge that we can only know one result, since we only have one situation.
quote:
While it is tempting to say that AQ bin Laden, and the Taliban would never have been created - I think that is also a fallacy. Most people blame those actors on our actions - but I think it is pretty clear they get created regardless. Khomeini didn't start out reacting against the US (although we were a convenient stooge) he sought, from the beginning, to impose a muslim theocracy.
the taliban and bin laden is as much a result of saudi arabia pumping wahhabiism and an awakening islamic movement as it is about us. Muslim caliphs must have a military component; sooner or later with the amount of funding the sauds were throwing at afghanistan, an islamic leader with strict muslim beliefs would arise. Even if the Sauds weren't involved, Paki's ISS have used pashtun recruitment of jihadi's as a counterbalance to india in Kashmere.
Sure, bin Laden hated us. But just as much as he hated us - he wanted to bring about jihad - hence the jihad attacks in spain, england.
When were the jihad attacks in Spain and England?
How would bin Laden and the Taliban gotten the training and arms they got from us? The short answer is, they wouldn't have. While it's entirely possible they would have still existed and gained arms, that they wouldn't have gotten them from us is a noteworthy distinction.
Would Iran have opposed us as much as they did/do had we not backed Iraq?
Is there no Middle Eastern outrage caused by our presence in Middle Eastern countries? Is there no propaganda pitting the US against Islam based on our presence in Islamic countries and fighting against Islamic groups (completely disregarding that we're NOT attacking them because they are Islamic)?
The US has brought a lot of ire against itself because of our backing Israel. That might not be physical action being taken by the US, necessarily, but it's still an action that has brought a lot of hate towards us.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: War - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread