Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by miko2d
The goal of OBL and his followers was to topple corrupt princes and establish people republic - based on religious principles but kind of democracy nevertheless.

If this is anything like what they have in Iran, then it is a sham, where the elected have little real power, and it is concentrated in the upper tier of the Church.  I wouldn't call it even a "Kind of Democracy"

I believe that you give the fundamentalists too much credit. And I still wonder what demensions this unrest took on between the time of the Iranian revolution, and the US presense.  It sounds like you contend that they would have been overthrown without the US moving in there.

The one flaw I find in your reasoning (in my opinion of course) is that if this is truly the problem, then why Isn't OBL trying to overthrow the Saudi Government now? Why direct this anger at the US, and go through elaborate schemes to crash airliners into buildings, instead of staging unrest within Saudi Arabia, with the goal of assuming the leadership. This has been the pattern for getting rid of colonial powers in the past, and it has worked all through the 20th Century. Although I can see the point you are trying to make, considering 1978 in Iran, it's hard for me to believe this.  

-Sikboy

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by miko2d
When your own king Charles XII wanted to engage in foreign military adventures, your own parliament actively resisted him, denied funding and happily deposed him after the disasterous campaighn in Ukraine. Where those people traitors or patriots?

1) We did not have a parlament back then.

2) Carolus XII was one of the most popluar monarchs Sweden has ever had. The people and the soldiers loved him. The low and middle class nobles loved him. The high class nobles disliked him.

3) The King remained king until his death in 1719. Poltava was in  1709. (see separate thread soon to follow)

4) If there had been such persons as the ones you are trying to describe, they would have been traitors, yes.

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Sikboy


I'm not sure I follow you Miko. In the 12 years between the Iranian revolution and the Gulf war, I do not believe that there was ever a serious challenge to Emirites. And during this time, there was no US military presense in the region beyond our Bases in Turkey, and the 6th fleet.

-Sikboy

  We've been in Saudi since 1979.

[majic]

"If we only pulled out 1991 or even never went there, left saudis to their own devices and stopped interfering with their fight for freedom and religious hotspots, he would have likely still been our friend - maybe even as a president of Saudi Arabia. "


You don't really believe that do you?  BTW, how do you rationalize the deliberate targeting of civillians?  Is that justified?

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Sikboy
The one flaw I find in your reasoning (in my opinion of course) is that if this is truly the problem, then why Isn't OBL trying to overthrow the Saudi Government now? Why direct this anger at the US, and go through elaborate schemes to crash airliners into buildings, instead of staging unrest within Saudi Arabia...

 That is a good question. Do we really support saudis to such extent as to make overturning them impossible? Did he want to achieve greater popularity first? Was he so much offended by the presence of US troops on the sacred soil? Anything else?
 OBL was not a fool and knew what he was doing. Even if he is dead, he is way ahead of the game that he was playing.

 Anyway - this whole area is a huge snakepit.  No reason to get involved. If we feel so bad for the people (most of whom would cut our throats) - why not offer asylim to dissidents. We would gain willing and productive - even well educated people who appreciate our way of life. It would cost much less to settle them here than the military expences and casualties/terrorism damage. In a year or two they would pay taxes and contribute to economy.
 The rulers would be happy to be rid of troublemakers and at the same time due to loss of brains their technological progress would be slowed and our facilitated.

 All the jews and palestinians I saw here are wonderfull people and have no problem with each other. If we offered them a piece of some desert and extended immigration visas, we would gain another 6-7 millions of productive citizens. The fanatics on both sides who want the land for religious reasons would then be welcome to slaughter each other.
 The amount of money we spend each year to help them would probably pay for the whole operation.

Hortlund: Carolus XII was one of the most popluar monarchs Sweden has ever had
 Apparently not for a few years he was hiding out in Turkey...

The low and middle class nobles loved him.
 Same here - enough patriotic trash willing someone else to shed blood for something they don't understand.
 I bet iraqi love mr. Hussein too...

The high class nobles disliked him.
 Those probably were smart enough to realise in advance that such adventures would prove the downfall of their country - as they surely did.

If there had been such persons as the ones you are trying to describe, they would have been traitors, yes.
 Nice sentiment. In our country showing dissent, voting for more than one candidate and creating new laws daily (which assumes there was something wrond with the country to need a change) is not considered traitorous activity - at least for now...
 I am surprised that with such views you oppose Hussein rather than admire him - glorious military leader, gets his army exterminated and his country devastated much like C. XII, does not tolerate dissent...

 miko

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Tumor


  We've been in Saudi since 1979.

Are you refering to our use of Saudi Arabia as a staging point during the Iranian Hostage crisis?

Obviously you are in a better position to know than I am, so was this a prolonged  stay of a large number of troops? Honestly, I'm not familiar with the details of this presence, fill me in.

-Sikboy
(wonders if Tumor will unsquelch him)

[Hortlund]

miko, please this is getting embarrasing. Although I'm somewhat flattered that you have learnt enough of Swedish history to know about Carolus XII, your knowledge seems to be somewhat lacking in some areas.

First, the reason why the high nobility disliked him was because his father had performed the greatest reduction in Swedish history. The nobles lost something like 90% of their lands to the crown. Most of the high nobility tried to use the young king as their pawn or tool if you will, to get their lands back. When the young king went to war however, those hopes were shattered.

The war took a very long time too, Sweden was in a constant state of war from 1700-1721.

The reason the king was "hiding out" in Turkey was because of the loss at Poltava. Take a look at a map over 1709 Europe. Go south from Poltava towards Turkey (this is the king and roughly 1000 men trying to avoid capture by tzar Peter by running to the closest ally, Turkey). Find a town called Bender on a map. (It is in the Moldavia area). Now, deduct 4 years from the kings stay in Turkey (because during that time he wanted to convince the Sultan to ally against Russia), then try to figure out how to get to Sweden with minimal escort without passing through Poland, Sachsen, Brandenburg, Denmark or Russia. There is the reason why the king stayed so long in Turkey.


Take a look at what you wrote:

When your own king Charles XII wanted to engage in foreign military adventures, your own parliament actively resisted him, denied funding and happily deposed him after the disasterous campaighn in Ukraine. Where those people traitors or patriots?

Now, since the kings word was law, anyone actively resisting is in effect committing treason. Anyone trying to depose the king is guilty of high treason. Both kinds are traitors. Your problem is that you are trying to compare a 21st century situation with a 18th century situation, it cant be done.


And no, I hate Hussein, but for some reason you seem to be one of his biggest fans in the western world. Go figure.

[miko2d]

Originally posted by majic
"If we only pulled out 1991 or even never went there, left saudis to their own devices and stopped interfering with their fight for freedom and religious hotspots, he would have likely still been our friend - maybe even as a president of Saudi Arabia. "

You don't really believe that do you?

 OK, I shoudl have put "for freedom" in quotes - no doubt OBL would have been an oppressive bastard too. All those freedom fighters and colonialism-fighers end up worse than before to their people. Who cares - he was not looking for a fight with us untill 90s.

BTW, how do you rationalize the deliberate targeting of civillians?  Is that justified?
 How do I rationalise the gravity? You throw up a brick, you better have enough brains to get out of it's fall - civilian or not.
 I subscribe to the view that the nature does not have rewards or punishments - just the conseqenses.
 We went into the snake pit - we exposed our civilians to danger. We failed to protect them.

 If we wanted to fight someone who would not have harmed our civilians, we should have messed up with someone civilised, not homicidal fanatical bastards.

 It's not even whether our intervention was just - it's also whether we are up to the task. I do not believe competence of our democratically elected government to conduct such operations. They will never be good enough, our intelligence will never be good enough, our society will never be defended enough - it's just not compartible with our democratic way of life.
 Do I want to live in a police state just so Kuwait could be free of Iraq? The hell I am.

 So far we are only reacting, not acting on any intelligence.

 If Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were a problem, how come we only learned about that when he invaded Kuwait - where he did not use any? Israelis blew up his reactor way before that but we continued to supply him with weapons and tech.

 If our actions in SA caused OBL to openly declare war on us, how come we only now tightening our security? How come we waited so long to start a hunt for him? His intents were in papers. We did not know his capabilities? Why? Our intelligence was bad? Than why did we got involved there with bad intelligence?

 France decalred war on Germany while having it's flank completely open. They were stupid enough to expect germans to honor the neutrality of the neighbouring countries? Who is to blame? Germans, for sure - but they were known bastars way before.
 Japain attacked US while having fraction of it's industrial capacity and being behind in technology - who should they blame they got firebombed and nuked? US for being too resourcefull?
 BTW - Japain attacked a clear military target, in return we quite deliberately went targeting their civilians - does it bring and analogies to you mind?

 Same with us. Did we expect OBL to abide by Geneva conventions? How about after he tried to blow WTC up the first time? After they blew the embassies? The US ship?

Hortlund: miko, please this is getting embarrasing. Although I'm somewhat flattered that you have learnt enough of Swedish history to know about Carolus XII, your knowledge seems to be somewhat lacking in some areas.
 Well, I am in my office and my history books are at home - I may misplace a fact or two. The last time I read about your country's history was probably 20 years ago.

 Now, deduct 4 years from the kings stay in Turkey (because during that time he wanted to convince the Sultan to ally against Russia),
 He was defeated at Poltava in 1709. He persuaded Ahmed III to declare war on Russia in 1710. What is that? Half a year? A year? One and a half? Not four.
 That russo-turkish war was over in 1711. Turks had to fire up his house to kick him out.

then try to figure out how to get to Sweden with minimal escort without passing through Poland, Sachsen, Brandenburg, Denmark or Russia
 If he salied through India, Sumatra, around South America and across atlantic, he woudl have circumnavigated the globe in less than four years. If he traveled incognito - like russian tzar did in Europe, he woudl have been home in a matter of weeks. Could it be he was not entirely welcome?
 Such a brave figher did not have problem doing just that - passing through the enemies' lands and getting through the actual front lines to help defend some besieged fortress.

And no, I hate Hussein, but for some reason you seem to be one of his biggest fans in the western world.
 Here is one place we agree. It's just that I know enough of history to hope that we can replace him with anyone better - or that the cost to our society in blood, money and most importantly lost liberties is worth it.

 There are worse bastards all over the place. Idi Amin is Saudi's guest. Duvalier lives in Paris. Mugabe starves his people. Why not blow the hell out of those first? Apparently we have nothing better to do.

 miko

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by miko2d
He was defeated at Poltava in 1709. He persuaded Ahmed III to declare war on Russia in 1710. What is that? Half a year? A year? One and a half? Not four. That russo-turkish war was over in 1711. Turks had to fire up his house to kick him out.

[/b]
Well, the problem was that Sweden was not mentioned in the Turkish-Russian peace. That is why it was important to C.XII to stay in turkey and try to persuade the Sultan to attack the Russians again. He succeeded too, in december 1711 there was a new war, and then another one in October 1712. Nothing good came from those wars though, but the King kept on trying. 1713 the Bender debacle, but the King stayed in Turkey until September 1714.

 If he salied through India, Sumatra, around South America and across atlantic, he woudl have circumnavigated the globe in less than four years. If he traveled incognito - like russian tzar did in Europe, he woudl have been home in a matter of weeks. Could it be he was not entirely welcome?
 Such a brave figher did not have problem doing just that - passing through the enemies' lands and getting through the actual front lines to help defend some besieged fortress.

[/b]
Problem would be that if he tried that "sail around the world" option, he would have been out of the world politics during those 4 years, and that is a risky trip indeed. It would most likely have ended with his capture at the hands of the Danish fleet though.

 There are worse bastards all over the place. Idi Amin is Saudi's guest. Duvalier lives in Paris. Mugabe starves his people. Why not blow the hell out of those first?

Neither of those people have weapons of mass destruction.

[Sikboy]

For the Record Miko, what weapons did we supply Saddam with? I was under the impression that his arsenal was built on Soviet and French weapons.

-Sikboy

[majic]

"BTW - Japain attacked a clear military target, in return we quite deliberately went targeting their civilians - does it bring and analogies to you mind?"

You have a good point there, but (and this subject is way too involved to do it justice here) the Japanese did deliberately attack civilians where they could (China).  I can see both sides of the argument for and against our bombing during WWII, but current weapons tech allows us not to deliberately target civilians today.

I understand your argument as a whole, but I feel we cannot be isolationist.

"If we wanted to fight someone who would not have harmed our civilians, we should have messed up with someone civilised, not homicidal fanatical bastards. "

Unfortunately, those are the people we have to "mess with".

[Sandman]

Originally posted by majic
"I understand your argument as a whole, but I feel we cannot be isolationist.

It doesn't have to be that black or white... There's an alternative to isolationism.