CougarCorner

jvquarterback wrote:The previous statistic citing the lack of any attack on the US by anyone from the ME prior to US intervention beginning in the 1940s still stands.

Oh, so now it's limited to attackers from the Middle East? Because that limitation isn't in your original assertion. This is why I keep asking you to pin down what your statement is, because every time inconvenient facts get in the way, you revise and claim you were right from the outset, which you have not been.

snoscythe wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:The previous statistic citing the lack of any attack on the US by anyone from the ME prior to US intervention beginning in the 1940s still stands.

Oh, so now it's limited to attackers from the Middle East? Because that limitation isn't in your original assertion. This is why I keep asking you to pin down what your statement is, because every time inconvenient facts get in the way, you revise and claim you were right from the outset, which you have not been.

Why would it be otherwise? Filipinos attack when we occupy the Philipines, Iraqis attack when we occupy Iraq, Saudis attack when we occupy Saudia. Cubans, Nicaraguans attack when they are occupied. Bostoners and New Yorkers attacked the English due to their occupation. I could list 50 native tribes that have done the same and still come up short on that list. It is the nature of man. To ignore it puts us at greater risk.

In the early days of Qaeda, >90% of members were from countries occupied by the US (even though their major bases of operations were in countries not occupied by the US - ie they had a hard time recruiting locally). Qaeda numbers have swelled but the percentage of members coming from countries without an occupying US force has remained very stable.

Cougarfan87 wrote: So, I guess my question is, do you, JV, think as part of the withdrawal from Middle Eastern affairs the U.S. should abandon any involvement with Israel? Or to what extent should the U.S., if any, be involved with Israel?

We should trade freely with Israel. Beyond that we shouldn't be involved.

jvquarterback wrote:In the early days of Qaeda, >90% of members were from countries occupied by the US (even though their major bases of operations were in countries not occupied by the US - ie they had a hard time recruiting locally). Qaeda numbers have swelled but the percentage of members coming from countries without an occupying US force has remained very stable.

Apparently you, like al Qaeda, have the same definition of an occupying force - the mere presence of a single foreign troop in a foreign land. We did NOT "occupy" Saudi Arabia. We were NOT an invading force.

It was a convenient excuse bin Laden, Zawahiri and other Islamic terrorists used to excuse to their jihad. When all you need is an excuse it doesn't have be a good one or even a correct one. Any excuse will do.

SpiffCoug wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:In the early days of Qaeda, >90% of members were from countries occupied by the US (even though their major bases of operations were in countries not occupied by the US - ie they had a hard time recruiting locally). Qaeda numbers have swelled but the percentage of members coming from countries without an occupying US force has remained very stable.

Apparently you, like al Qaeda, have the same definition of an occupying force - the mere presence of a single foreign troop in a foreign land. We did NOT "occupy" Saudi Arabia. We were NOT an invading force.

It was a convenient excuse bin Laden, Zawahiri and other Islamic terrorists used to excuse to their jihad. When all you need is an excuse it doesn't have be a good one or even a correct one. Any excuse will do.

What you and I believe about occupation as a motivating factor doesn't matter one bit. What matters is what the occupied believe. From 1991-2002 the US kept 10-20,000 troops in Saudi Arabia. The first attack against that occupying force occurred in 1995/6 and US bases were moved to more remote locations still on the Arabian peninsula. Initially the fatwah called for attacking foreign troops only on the Arabian Peninsula, but when the US moved the troops to more remote locations in Arabia rather than abandon it entirely, the fatwah was extended to US targets abroad and we all know what happened subsequently.

10,000 US troops, even in the hinterlands of Arabia, is no small deal. Can you imagine the fury if the Chinese kept that many people in California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, even if the troops were in the middle of nowhere Nevada? I'd guess there would be bombings in Beijing every day, let alone the Chinese consulates in San Francisco and Los Angeles, even if the Chinese told us it wasn't an occupying force.

Part of the problem is we don't see these people as human beings capable of the same emotions and motivations we have.

I don't agree with everything that jvquarterback has posted in this thread, but I do agree with the majority. the biggest argument for GTHO out of the ME is the last 15 years of history. war war war. I don't have any kids who have known growing up without a war in the ME involving the US. the cost financially and in human life to the US has been staggering. I don't think all problems would be eliminated by completely withdrawing, but I think we would see a huge reduction in the ability to recruit new jihadists and likely the people of the ME would tackle their own problem of ISIS quickly. terrorism as we know it relies on US involvement for growth.

When I apply the situation in reverse, and if I felt that my liberty, country, religion, family were under attack I'd proudly wear the label of terrorist in an effort to turn that tide. Trump’s election, imo, was due to perceived reverse occupation (encouraged immigration with basically zero vetting process) and was a huge signal that people don't tolerate huge cultural shifts without antagonism. While not a politically correct view, deep down we are segregators. and when that segregation happens organically, i don't see it as a bad thing.

jvquarterback wrote:

Cougarfan87 wrote: So, I guess my question is, do you, JV, think as part of the withdrawal from Middle Eastern affairs the U.S. should abandon any involvement with Israel? Or to what extent should the U.S., if any, be involved with Israel?

We should trade freely with Israel. Beyond that we shouldn't be involved.

Does that include selling them F-16s or do you mean only commercial goods?

What responsibility, if any, do you think we have towards Israel since we were instrumental in forming the state of Israel post WWII?

Cougarfan87 wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

Cougarfan87 wrote: So, I guess my question is, do you, JV, think as part of the withdrawal from Middle Eastern affairs the U.S. should abandon any involvement with Israel? Or to what extent should the U.S., if any, be involved with Israel?

We should trade freely with Israel. Beyond that we shouldn't be involved.

Does that include selling them F-16s or do you mean only commercial goods?

As long as you don't suggest we steal from our own people to give the Israeli military $4B worth of F-16s a year that would be fine.

Cougarfan87 wrote:What responsibility, if any, do you think we have towards Israel since we were instrumental in forming the state of Israel post WWII?

About as much as the French owed us 70 years after the American Revolution. None.

jvquarterback wrote:There were plenty of politicians against the Iraq war in 2001.

Yes, and all democrats from the Bernie Sanders wing of that party. Maybe a larger proportion of the general public opposed the war, but in Congress you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside of the far left that didn't support it.

jvquarterback wrote:

Cougarfan87 wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

Cougarfan87 wrote: So, I guess my question is, do you, JV, think as part of the withdrawal from Middle Eastern affairs the U.S. should abandon any involvement with Israel? Or to what extent should the U.S., if any, be involved with Israel?

We should trade freely with Israel. Beyond that we shouldn't be involved.

Does that include selling them F-16s or do you mean only commercial goods?

As long as you don't suggest we steal from our own people to give the Israeli military $4B worth of F-16s a year that would be fine.

Cougarfan87 wrote:What responsibility, if any, do you think we have towards Israel since we were instrumental in forming the state of Israel post WWII?

About as much as the French owed us 70 years after the American Revolution. None.

I am for as much of a balanced budget as anyone out there. I asked about the jets because if we stopped supporting Israel by selling them weapons they would have a serious problem trying to defend themselves. But continuing the foreign military sales to Israel, we would not eliminate ourselves as a target. So, I don't think we can just end our interactions with Israel, but I do agree that a withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq, not arming rebels, etc. is probably the best course of action for the Middle East. The Bush doctrine doesn't work. They took two anomalies--Japan and Germany post World War II, and thought that it stood for the proposition that the military could remove powerful dictators, and replace them with a stable democracy. The problem is that Germany already had a history of democracy and Japan had a long history of a stable civil society. Aside from the real issue of interfering with other nations sovereignty, the Bush team did not consider the peculiarities of the Middle East when our country was thrown head long into war for the next decade plus.