On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:49:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/8/2017 8:30 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:32:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/8/2017 2:18 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:46:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/8/2017 12:20 PM, wrote:


OK you tell me, what would be worse? If we were not prosecuting the
air war in Iraq in the 90s, there would not have even been a 9/11
(attack) and if we had simply followed up the defeat of the Soviets in
Afghanistan with a minimal level of aid, Bin Laden would not have been
there. In fact with no troops in Saudi Arabia, bombing Iraq almost
daily, he would not have even had the issue he rose to power on.


Always difficult (and dangerous) to speculate but the rise of Islamic
extremist religious groups attacking globally dates back to the late
1970's and escalated during the 1980's. Bush 41's liberation of Kuwait
certainly was not the cause or beginning.

A constant in Bin Laden's complaints about the US was the presence of
US troops on Saudi soil and using those bases for bombing other
muslims. That is also the rallying call he used when he recruited
other Saudis (the majority of the 9\11 attackers)

41's liberation of Kuwait may have received good reviews from Islam
but he was warned not to go to Baghdad and yet he continued to wage
war with Saddam for a decade for dubious reasons and eventually we did
go to Baghdad as a logical conclusion to the 10 year war we waged.
Nothing improved from the end of the 100 hour war until today ... 2
trillion dollars and 6000 GI lives later.


So, you are saying we should never have military stationed with allied
nations?

bin Laden's beef was much more than just having US troops in Saudi
Arabia. His reasons for the "holy war" against the West, including the
USA, were given in a letter by him in 2002. In it he bitched about:

1. Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia.
2. Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya.
3. Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir.
4. Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon.
5. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
6. US support of Israel.
7. Sanctions against Iraq.

So, I guess in order to have escaped his wrath the USA would have to
completely withdrawn from world events, stuck our head in the sand and
hope it all blew over before he noticed us.




The troops in Saudi was the biggest complaint and the main recruiting
tool to get the Saudi hijackers (long before that letter). Remember
the 1st WTC attack was in 93, before Somalia. The Russians, Indians,
Israelis and Europeans had little to do with choosing New York City.
OTOH if we had handled the post Joe Wilson Afghanistan better, there
may not have even been a Bin Laden. That lands squarely on 41's desk.
.



Maybe your memory is starting to fail you Greg. :-)

When Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait his action was in violation of
international law. The UN condemned his action and applied economic
sanctions on Iraq. (this was after he invaded and occupied Kuwait but
before the US led coalition was formed to boot him out).

When the UN sanctions were applied, Saddam started threatening Saudi
Arabia as well, vowing to invade and light all the Saudi oil fields on fire.

Remember, this was in 1990, Saudi Arabia was a founding member of OPEC
and an ally of the USA and other Western nations. It was in our
national interests to defend Saudi Arabia from any threats or potential
attack by Iraq on Saudi oil fields. Additional troops were deployed to
Saudi Arabia at Saudi Arabia's request to help defend against any
invasion by Iraq.

This is what ****ed off bin Laden. Tough ****.



The problem was that after Kuwait was liberated, we stayed in Saudi
and continued to bomb Iraq.
Personally I think we should have just told Saudi and the emirates to
defend themselves with all of that hardware we sold them. If they
wanted help, call the Israelis.

On 4/9/2017 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:49:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/8/2017 8:30 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:32:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/8/2017 2:18 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:46:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/8/2017 12:20 PM, wrote:


OK you tell me, what would be worse? If we were not prosecuting the
air war in Iraq in the 90s, there would not have even been a 9/11
(attack) and if we had simply followed up the defeat of the Soviets in
Afghanistan with a minimal level of aid, Bin Laden would not have been
there. In fact with no troops in Saudi Arabia, bombing Iraq almost
daily, he would not have even had the issue he rose to power on.


Always difficult (and dangerous) to speculate but the rise of Islamic
extremist religious groups attacking globally dates back to the late
1970's and escalated during the 1980's. Bush 41's liberation of Kuwait
certainly was not the cause or beginning.

A constant in Bin Laden's complaints about the US was the presence of
US troops on Saudi soil and using those bases for bombing other
muslims. That is also the rallying call he used when he recruited
other Saudis (the majority of the 9\11 attackers)

41's liberation of Kuwait may have received good reviews from Islam
but he was warned not to go to Baghdad and yet he continued to wage
war with Saddam for a decade for dubious reasons and eventually we did
go to Baghdad as a logical conclusion to the 10 year war we waged.
Nothing improved from the end of the 100 hour war until today ... 2
trillion dollars and 6000 GI lives later.


So, you are saying we should never have military stationed with allied
nations?

bin Laden's beef was much more than just having US troops in Saudi
Arabia. His reasons for the "holy war" against the West, including the
USA, were given in a letter by him in 2002. In it he bitched about:

1. Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia.
2. Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya.
3. Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir.
4. Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon.
5. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
6. US support of Israel.
7. Sanctions against Iraq.

So, I guess in order to have escaped his wrath the USA would have to
completely withdrawn from world events, stuck our head in the sand and
hope it all blew over before he noticed us.




The troops in Saudi was the biggest complaint and the main recruiting
tool to get the Saudi hijackers (long before that letter). Remember
the 1st WTC attack was in 93, before Somalia. The Russians, Indians,
Israelis and Europeans had little to do with choosing New York City.
OTOH if we had handled the post Joe Wilson Afghanistan better, there
may not have even been a Bin Laden. That lands squarely on 41's desk.
.



Maybe your memory is starting to fail you Greg. :-)

When Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait his action was in violation of
international law. The UN condemned his action and applied economic
sanctions on Iraq. (this was after he invaded and occupied Kuwait but
before the US led coalition was formed to boot him out).

When the UN sanctions were applied, Saddam started threatening Saudi
Arabia as well, vowing to invade and light all the Saudi oil fields on fire.

Remember, this was in 1990, Saudi Arabia was a founding member of OPEC
and an ally of the USA and other Western nations. It was in our
national interests to defend Saudi Arabia from any threats or potential
attack by Iraq on Saudi oil fields. Additional troops were deployed to
Saudi Arabia at Saudi Arabia's request to help defend against any
invasion by Iraq.

This is what ****ed off bin Laden. Tough ****.



The problem was that after Kuwait was liberated, we stayed in Saudi
and continued to bomb Iraq.
Personally I think we should have just told Saudi and the emirates to
defend themselves with all of that hardware we sold them. If they
wanted help, call the Israelis.



Knowing your Libertarian mindset I can understand your argument but most
don't see it that way. As I have mentioned before, the USA has a major
role and responsibility in the global balance of power. It's not
something we volunteered for but it has grown with us since the end of
WWII. It would be nice to stick our head in the sand and ignore the
rest of the world but it just isn't realistic.\

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:48:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/9/2017 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:49:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/8/2017 8:30 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:32:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/8/2017 2:18 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:46:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/8/2017 12:20 PM, wrote:


OK you tell me, what would be worse? If we were not prosecuting the
air war in Iraq in the 90s, there would not have even been a 9/11
(attack) and if we had simply followed up the defeat of the Soviets in
Afghanistan with a minimal level of aid, Bin Laden would not have been
there. In fact with no troops in Saudi Arabia, bombing Iraq almost
daily, he would not have even had the issue he rose to power on.


Always difficult (and dangerous) to speculate but the rise of Islamic
extremist religious groups attacking globally dates back to the late
1970's and escalated during the 1980's. Bush 41's liberation of Kuwait
certainly was not the cause or beginning.

A constant in Bin Laden's complaints about the US was the presence of
US troops on Saudi soil and using those bases for bombing other
muslims. That is also the rallying call he used when he recruited
other Saudis (the majority of the 9\11 attackers)

41's liberation of Kuwait may have received good reviews from Islam
but he was warned not to go to Baghdad and yet he continued to wage
war with Saddam for a decade for dubious reasons and eventually we did
go to Baghdad as a logical conclusion to the 10 year war we waged.
Nothing improved from the end of the 100 hour war until today ... 2
trillion dollars and 6000 GI lives later.


So, you are saying we should never have military stationed with allied
nations?

bin Laden's beef was much more than just having US troops in Saudi
Arabia. His reasons for the "holy war" against the West, including the
USA, were given in a letter by him in 2002. In it he bitched about:

1. Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia.
2. Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya.
3. Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir.
4. Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon.
5. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
6. US support of Israel.
7. Sanctions against Iraq.

So, I guess in order to have escaped his wrath the USA would have to
completely withdrawn from world events, stuck our head in the sand and
hope it all blew over before he noticed us.




The troops in Saudi was the biggest complaint and the main recruiting
tool to get the Saudi hijackers (long before that letter). Remember
the 1st WTC attack was in 93, before Somalia. The Russians, Indians,
Israelis and Europeans had little to do with choosing New York City.
OTOH if we had handled the post Joe Wilson Afghanistan better, there
may not have even been a Bin Laden. That lands squarely on 41's desk.
.



Maybe your memory is starting to fail you Greg. :-)

When Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait his action was in violation of
international law. The UN condemned his action and applied economic
sanctions on Iraq. (this was after he invaded and occupied Kuwait but
before the US led coalition was formed to boot him out).

When the UN sanctions were applied, Saddam started threatening Saudi
Arabia as well, vowing to invade and light all the Saudi oil fields on fire.

Remember, this was in 1990, Saudi Arabia was a founding member of OPEC
and an ally of the USA and other Western nations. It was in our
national interests to defend Saudi Arabia from any threats or potential
attack by Iraq on Saudi oil fields. Additional troops were deployed to
Saudi Arabia at Saudi Arabia's request to help defend against any
invasion by Iraq.

This is what ****ed off bin Laden. Tough ****.



The problem was that after Kuwait was liberated, we stayed in Saudi
and continued to bomb Iraq.
Personally I think we should have just told Saudi and the emirates to
defend themselves with all of that hardware we sold them. If they
wanted help, call the Israelis.



Knowing your Libertarian mindset I can understand your argument but most
don't see it that way. As I have mentioned before, the USA has a major
role and responsibility in the global balance of power. It's not
something we volunteered for but it has grown with us since the end of
WWII. It would be nice to stick our head in the sand and ignore the
rest of the world but it just isn't realistic.\


No it isn't. Soon Russia and China would own what's left out there. I wonder which would get Canada?

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:48:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The problem was that after Kuwait was liberated, we stayed in Saudi
and continued to bomb Iraq.
Personally I think we should have just told Saudi and the emirates to
defend themselves with all of that hardware we sold them. If they
wanted help, call the Israelis.



Knowing your Libertarian mindset I can understand your argument but most
don't see it that way. As I have mentioned before, the USA has a major
role and responsibility in the global balance of power. It's not
something we volunteered for but it has grown with us since the end of
WWII. It would be nice to stick our head in the sand and ignore the
rest of the world but it just isn't realistic.\


How has that been working out?
We keep deposing these dictators for humanitarian reasons and ending
up with a far worse humanitarian problem than they had before.
We killed Saddam and we have the worst refugee problem since WWII. Now
we think it would get better if we take out Assad.
.... and then what?
Is there a muslim Thomas Jefferson hiding somewhere that we have not
seen or are we just going to let another radical anti-American cleric
take over?

On 4/9/2017 11:45 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:48:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The problem was that after Kuwait was liberated, we stayed in Saudi
and continued to bomb Iraq.
Personally I think we should have just told Saudi and the emirates to
defend themselves with all of that hardware we sold them. If they
wanted help, call the Israelis.



Knowing your Libertarian mindset I can understand your argument but most
don't see it that way. As I have mentioned before, the USA has a major
role and responsibility in the global balance of power. It's not
something we volunteered for but it has grown with us since the end of
WWII. It would be nice to stick our head in the sand and ignore the
rest of the world but it just isn't realistic.\


How has that been working out?
We keep deposing these dictators for humanitarian reasons and ending
up with a far worse humanitarian problem than they had before.
We killed Saddam and we have the worst refugee problem since WWII. Now
we think it would get better if we take out Assad.
... and then what?
Is there a muslim Thomas Jefferson hiding somewhere that we have not
seen or are we just going to let another radical anti-American cleric
take over?


I didn't say we have all the answers. I said we have played a major
role in the global power balance since WWII. The issue is if we can
retreat from this role as you would like us to do or are we stuck with
it for our own security and that of our allies.

I have some Libertarian DNA but I also realize we can't pretend the rest
of the world doesn't exist or has no affect on us.