Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if...the US didn't intervene in the Middle East pre 9/11

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What if...the US didn't intervene in the Middle East pre 9/11

    (Hat tip Phillip for the idea.)

    At a recent rally, Ron Paul claimed that if the US remained non-interventionist in the Middle East during the Cold War, the 9/11 attacks would never have happened.

    To justify his attacks, Bin Laden cited:
    • The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia
    • US support for Israel
    • US aggression against the Iraqi People


    And so on, so on...

    Now, what if the US:
    • Didn't intervene in the Soviet-Afghanistan War
    • Didn't put boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia
    • Didn't defend Kuwait
    • Didn't support Israel
    • Didn't get involved in the Middle East, full stop


    Could this have reduced the chances of, or even prevented, 9/11?

    I'm inclined to think not. One thing often glossed over when discussing US foreign policy is that, ever since the Cold War, it has been attempting to help the Muslim world rather then colonize or defeat it. Whilst not denying that the US has its own interests in the Middle East, my point is that those US troops in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait were trying to defend those countries. Also, since 9/11, the US and her allies have been trying hard to help Muslim countries, including Afghanistan and Iraq.

    For me, this suggests not some rational grievance, but rather wounded pride that, combined with traditional religious extremism, is warped into an extreme hatred of the US. Also worth considering is that Bin Laden and his ilk consider the US to be an infidel country, and are contemptuous of liberal democracy, secularism and liberalism/libertarianism.

    As for Israel, Bin Laden seems to be motivated by hallucinatory antisemitism rather then compassion for the Palestinians. Bin Laden has done nothing to help the Palestinians. If he truly cared about disadvantaged or oppressed Muslims, he could have used his vast wealth to help. Instead, he wages Holy Wars that hurt other Muslims. Indeed, most of AQ's victims are Muslims.

    I guess, to sum it up, I'm trying to say the 9/11 attacks were guided by religious extremism and hatred or America as much as, or even more, then it's interventions in the Middle East.
    You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

    -- Ataturk

  • #2
    It wouldn't have mattered in any case. The majority of the Islamic terrorist leadership are from wealthier families and were primarily radicalized when attending Western Universities where Progressive Leftist professors filled their heads with revolutionary anti-Western nonsense. Look up any of the names.
    They all attended fairly Leftist to extremely Leftist universities. That is what primarily led to their hatred of the West. Isalm just gave them an excuse at home to recruit smucks to wear suicide vests when they didn't want to do the job themselves.

    Comment


    • #3
      If the U.S would have not intervene (not only in the ME but at all) they would have probably rate lower on the terrorist "to do" list. That doesn't mean they wouldn't show, but they'd simply not be such a burning priority.

      However, this means that the U.S would not be a world superpower and probably wouldn't have won the cold war to begin with.

      So yeah, the U.S would probably not be attacked in 9/11, but that is also a very different U.S than we know today...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Golani View Post
        However, this means that the U.S would not be a world superpower and probably wouldn't have won the cold war to begin with.
        Which raises another question: if the US pursued a non-interventionist policy in the Cold War, what would the result be? Would the USSR live a few more years before imploding, would it still be there or would it have collapsed in the nineties anyway.

        Of course, probably shouldn't derail the thread any more then necessary.
        You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

        -- Ataturk

        Comment


        • #5
          What is not intervene? Even if the US remain isolationist in the 20th century, they would still find a cause to blame us for something in the past, say Tripoli? It is never their fault, nothing they ever did was wrong, and all their suffering was our fault just because we are strong. Ever hear them complaining about Mongolia?
          Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

          Prayers.

          BoRG

          http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

          Comment


          • #6
            The number one "problem" for salafists is the existense of rival factions within islam - something that is often forgotten by both Israel and the US.

            The easiest way to deal with them from geo-ploitical perspective is to actively "encourage" them into sectarian strife and manipulate different sides to your own advantage.

            The mere existence of Israel will always be considered "western intervention" - from thereon foreward non-intervention really wasn't an option anymore.
            Last edited by Snowygerry; 27 Aug 12, 03:23.
            Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

            Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Crackshot View Post
              Which raises another question: if the US pursued a non-interventionist policy in the Cold War, what would the result be? Would the USSR live a few more years before imploding, would it still be there or would it have collapsed in the nineties anyway.

              Of course, probably shouldn't derail the thread any more then necessary.
              This extends way past my guesstimation abilities, but I assume the U.S.S.R would have imploded either way, so the question shouldn't be whether or not it would have, but rather what's the amount of damage it'd have caused the West in the process.

              On the question of political Islam, however, the question is exactly how much does the U.S not intervene? The model of how political Islam would have engaged a separatist U.S should range from France, through Spain and Germany to the U.K, depending on the exact stance the U.S takes, IMHO.
              The U.S would still represent Western values and ideals, thus it'd be regarded still as an enemy to political Islam. However, probably not the "leader of enemies", depending on who is/are the dominant players on the world political arena.


              Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
              The mere existence of Western values will always be considered "western intervention" - from thereon foreward non-intervention really wasn't an option anymore.
              FTFY

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Golani View Post
                (...)
                On the question of political Islam, however, the question is exactly how much does the U.S not intervene? The model of how political Islam would have engaged a separatist U.S should range from France, through Spain and Germany to the U.K, depending on the exact stance the U.S takes, IMHO.

                The U.S would still represent Western values and ideals, thus it'd be regarded still as an enemy to political Islam. However, probably not the "leader of enemies", depending on who is/are the dominant players on the world political arena.
                Agreed -

                FTFY
                The geographical location does have a lot to do with it - stricly speaking political islam makes no claims outside their territory.

                Then of course they consider everywhere a muslim ever set foot to be "their territory", so it means little I guess -

                Still had - for arguments' sake - your Jewish state been located elsewhere I doubt you would be enemy nr 1.

                You've settled on some pretty specific piece of real estate there
                Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

                Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Golani View Post
                  On the question of political Islam, however, the question is exactly how much does the U.S not intervene? The model of how political Islam would have engaged a separatist U.S should range from France, through Spain and Germany to the U.K, depending on the exact stance the U.S takes, IMHO.
                  The U.S would still represent Western values and ideals, thus it'd be regarded still as an enemy to political Islam. However, probably not the "leader of enemies", depending on who is/are the dominant players on the world political arena.
                  For the part in bold - let's say hypothetically we're talking non-intervention unless the US is directly attacked. So no coup in Iran, no support for Iraq in their war with Iran, no arms deals or diplomacy with Israel or the Palestinians, no getting involved in Saudi Arabia or the Gulf War, etc etc.

                  I don't think - if someone could correct me if I'm wrong - that there would be any foreign or military intervention without US leadership. The last time a Western power sent boots on the ground in the Middle East without American leadership were the British in 1948 Palestine (or, if you count Algeria, the French in 1962).

                  Even if so, I don't think any attack on US soil by Islamists could be preventable, unless there were better security measures or no Islamist movement in the first place. But since the Islamist ideology seems to be based on a contempt for Western society first and Western foreign policy/economics second, that such a plan would be at least attempted or thought-out seems inevitable. The US might not have been a non-priority target, but still a target.
                  Last edited by Crackshot; 27 Aug 12, 04:51.
                  You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

                  -- Ataturk

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I don't think - if someone could correct me if I'm wrong - that there would be any foreign or military intervention without US leadership. The last time a Western power sent boots on the ground in the Middle East without American leadership were the British in 1948 Palestine (or, if you count Algeria, the French in 1962).
                    There was Suez in 1956. It's just that USA have far more possibilities than European countries have.
                    There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                      There was Suez in 1956. It's just that USA have far more possibilities than European countries have.
                      I thought there was something missing. Cheers for the reminder.

                      As for the second part of your post, definitely. Just about no country - let alone Western ones - can match the US military in size and spending.
                      You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

                      -- Ataturk

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                        There was Suez in 1956. It's just that USA have far more possibilities than European countries have.
                        And the Americans used economic threats if Britain and France didn't leave.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
                          The geographical location does have a lot to do with it - stricly speaking political islam makes no claims outside their territory.

                          Then of course they consider everywhere a muslim ever set foot to be "their territory"
                          Not only that but political Islam rallies under the flag of "Islam shall rule the world". So that explains, say, Israel and parts of Europe. This will also explain all of "other" Europe, since, like us, they would than sit on a pretty "specific piece of real estate", but then that would explain the rest of the world...

                          Still had - for arguments' sake - your Jewish state been located elsewhere I doubt you would be enemy nr 1.
                          Yeah, probably. Europe would most likely take that place, especially assuming the U.S is separatist. This does not go to say we weren't still be enemies.
                          If the U.S isn't separatist, then we'd still rank pretty high up there, seeing that we control the U.S, the world media and the world banking system.


                          Originally posted by Crackshot View Post
                          I don't think - if someone could correct me if I'm wrong - that there would be any foreign or military intervention without US leadership. The last time a Western power sent boots on the ground in the Middle East without American leadership were the British in 1948 Palestine (or, if you count Algeria, the French in 1962).
                          Like Emtos said, 1956 France and Britain. Algeria probably wouldn't count. It doesn't always fall under the Middle East, but nonetheless it wasn't "foreign intervention" since they were part of the French empire.
                          Even if so, I don't think any attack on US soil by Islamists could be preventable, unless there were better security measures or no Islamist movement in the first place. But since the Islamist ideology seems to be based on a contempt for Western society first and Western foreign policy/economics second, that such a plan would be at least attempted or thought-out seems inevitable. The US might not have been a non-priority target, but still a target.
                          Again, the question was specifically on 9/11. Assuming the U.S is completely separatist it's not Islam's enemy no.1. So there is no reason to focus such an attack on them.

                          So, no September 11, but definitely still considered an enemy of Islam. The only question is would the U.S be regarded as "Dar el-Harb" or "Dar el-Hudna".

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            (...) seeing that we control the U.S, the world media and the world banking system.
                            Not to mention the weather, the tides and by agency of orbital space lasers our very thoughts
                            Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

                            Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Golani View Post
                              Like Emtos said, 1956 France and Britain. Algeria probably wouldn't count. It doesn't always fall under the Middle East, but nonetheless it wasn't "foreign intervention" since they were part of the French empire.
                              I was referring to any sort of intervention really, whether colonial or humanitarian, etc etc.

                              Originally posted by Golani View Post
                              Again, the question was specifically on 9/11. Assuming the U.S is completely separatist it's not Islam's enemy no.1. So there is no reason to focus such an attack on them.

                              So, no September 11, but definitely still considered an enemy of Islam. The only question is would the U.S be regarded as "Dar el-Harb" or "Dar el-Hudna".
                              Maybe Hudna without US foreign policy. But I still think, that unless the US completely withdrew in a shell in both economic and foreign policy, that such an attack, even if it wasn't on 9/11 would still take place. Also note that a few scholars have argued that the WTC was attacked because it was an icon of US trade. So this suggests an economic motive too.
                              You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

                              -- Ataturk

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X