So, just how useless are the European NATO members?

[Sava]

but they had very close ties to the Taliban.

They aren't the only ones.

A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.

A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

[regexcellent]

The US wasn't attacked because of colonialism and this is plainly obvious from the fact that we don't have any ****ing former colonies.

The problem with anti-colonialism is that western culture actually is better than the indigenous culture of everywhere else, and places that have adopted aspects of anglo-american culture (Japan and South Korea in particular) have benefited immensely.

e: also I should add I can't really emphasize enough how ****ing dumb it is to blame America for 9/11.

[kentonio]

The US wasn't attacked because of colonialism and this is plainly obvious from the fact that we don't have any ****ing former colonies.

No, you just excelled in the art of the puppet government in the wake of colonialism.

[C0ckney]

It's fascinating how there are some people who still wring their hands about colonialism. It's a phenomenon that in the real world I've never encountered outside of academia. And it tends to be associated with a hilariously retarded relativist worldview.

Basically, uggh who the **** cares about colonialism stop navel gazing it's ****ing boring.

given the narrowness of your experience and intellect, this is hardly surprising.

The US wasn't attacked because of colonialism and this is plainly obvious from the fact that we don't have any ****ing former colonies.

it was because they hate your freedom.

[regexcellent]

that still isn't why 9/11 happened, and you have no reason whatsoever to believe that NOT doing that sort of thing would have prevented 9/11.

it was because they hate your freedom.

Yes! Well done. That is literally true. And they hate our freedom because they have a ****ty culture which is inferior to ours.

[kentonio]

that still isn't why 9/11 happened, and you have no reason whatsoever to believe that NOT doing that sort of thing would have prevented 9/11.

9/11 happened because of US involvement in Saudi Arabia and across the middle east. Why the **** do you think it happened?

[regexcellent]

Do you really think Saudi Arabia is or has ever been one of our client states? The extent of our relationship pre-9/11 was us providing them with weapons and training as a regional counterbalance to Iraq and Iran, and before that to keep it from going to the Soviet camp. But we've never tried to make them not be ****stained ****heads who treat women like property.

The idea that 9/11 was an attempt to get us not to interfere in the internal politics of Saudi Arabia is retarded because we'd kept a pretty hands-off approach in that regard and if that was their intention, they failed miserably since we now have closer ties with Saudi Arabia than ever before, making 9/11 a huge strategic blunder. That would imply that terrorists would only attack us if they're very dumb and don't know what's good for them, which is a state of affairs I'm fine with.

[DinoDoc]

The US wasn't attacked because of colonialism and this is plainly obvious from the fact that we don't have any ****ing former colonies.

Liberia, Philippines, and various islands in the Pacific. We also still have current colonial possessions.

[Hauldren Collider]

it was because they hate your freedom.

This, only unironically.

[C0ckney]

It requires you to disconnect between what you want to happen and what is likely to be the most positive outcome long term. The most positive long term outcome for many middle eastern countries is probably for the dictatorships we supported to be removed via intervention and/or supported internal insurgencies/revolutions (in many cases already done) but for us to then walk away. Short term it'd almost inevitably lead to chaos and mass bloodshed but over time the state will likely result in something that fits the actual needs of the people. Instead we end up trying to prevent the violence and in the process interfering with both the governmental structures that get built and the wishes of the people who actually live there. Long term divisions continue, and a lower level violence burns for decades. In the meanwhile the west is (rightly) blamed for their interference and the anti-west hatred continues.

It might sound cold but I think sometimes the outcome has to come locally. If we can help prevent violence then great, but if the cost of that is that the future direction of the country and the self determination of its people is compromised, then that price isn't worth paying. All we end up doing is pushing the problem down the road hoping that it'll resolve itself in the future. Which basically never happens. We also need to start recognizing that if the government type the people want is one that doesn't suit us, then that's tough ****. If the people of the ME want theocracies of some form, then that's their business. Long term we're likely to get much better foreign policy outcomes by just letting these states form and mature and dealing with them fairly. Unless they actively aggress against us then it really is not our place to try and act against them or try to control them.

so essentially you want to intervene in countries but then leave them to it. that doesn't seem like a very moral or effective strategy (see libya) and i see no reason to believe that effects that you presage from removing dictators and then leaving will come to pass. perhaps then, in light of this, it might be better to leave the intervention part out of your plan and keep the leave them to it part.

[regexcellent]

Liberia, Philippines, and various islands in the Pacific. We also still have current colonial possessions.

What, Puerto Rico and Guam?

The Philippines was more of a protectorate than a colony; we never really settled anyone there.

[C0ckney]

This, only unironically.

Yes! Well done. That is literally true. And they hate our freedom because they have a ****ty culture which is inferior to ours.

i'm sure that the propagandists who thought that line up are delighted that somebody believed it.

[kentonio]

so essentially you want to intervene in countries but then leave them to it. that doesn't seem like a very moral or effective strategy (see libya) and i see no reason to believe that effects that you presage will from removing dictators and then leaving will come to pass. perhaps then, in light of this, it might be better to leave the intervention part out of your plan and keep the leave them to it part.

Libya is a perfect example of what I mean. You don't think it's moral because of the chaos and death, but the likely outcome of leaving it alone will be a government or even division of the country that eventually suits the people who actually live there better than any solution we try and impose.

As for not intervening, that might have been acceptable if we weren't the ones responsible for the oppressive regimes in the region. As we were however, how exactly is it moral to sit back and say 'Yeah, we made the mess you've suffered under for decades, but now you can clean it up yourself'? Would your solution to the Arab Spring have been to sit back and watch the regimes crush the uprising using the military hardware that in many cases we paid for?

[kentonio]

Do you really think Saudi Arabia is or has ever been one of our client states? The extent of our relationship pre-9/11 was us providing them with weapons and training as a regional counterbalance to Iraq and Iran, and before that to keep it from going to the Soviet camp. But we've never tried to make them not be ****stained ****heads who treat women like property.

The idea that 9/11 was an attempt to get us not to interfere in the internal politics of Saudi Arabia is retarded because we'd kept a pretty hands-off approach in that regard and if that was their intention, they failed miserably since we now have closer ties with Saudi Arabia than ever before, making 9/11 a huge strategic blunder. That would imply that terrorists would only attack us if they're very dumb and don't know what's good for them, which is a state of affairs I'm fine with.

The US has propped up the house of Saud for half a century you idiot by supplying the military hardware and political cover that allows them to continue to keep their people oppressed while furthering US interests. How exactly do you think it makes Saudi people feel seeing the king and princes living lives of unimaginable luxury while they live in squalor, with the status quo preserved by US backing?

Coming from a nation that spends so much time lecturing the world about human rights and freedom the hypocricy is beyond measure.

[Sava]

And they hate our freedom because they have a ****ty culture which is inferior to ours.

you are a world class dumbass