Sorry Afghanistan, and Iraq. Our bad! We aight? (1 Viewer)

[Eeyore]

"Mistake"

EXCLUSIVE: In court filing, FBI accidentally reveals name of Saudi official suspected of directing support for 9/11 hijackers

The FBI inadvertently revealed one of the U.S. government’s most sensitive secrets about the Sept. 11 terror attacks: the identity of a mysterious Saudi Embassy official in Washington who agents suspected had directed crucial support to two of the al-Qaida hijackers.

news.yahoo.com

Why was this information that has "no hard evidence" to back it up get released?

 

[bclemms]

Our government has become everything it was created not to be.

 

[baarbogast]

Our government has become everything it was created not to be.

Unfortunately you are correct. I am a non-interventionist, we mind our own business and most of the problems disappear.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Unfortunately you are correct. I am a non-interventionist, we mind our own business and most of the problems disappear.

Do you have examples of this?

 

[tomwaits]

Its funny that in Yemen, we are backing Saudi Arabia and fighting on the same side as Al Qaeda.
The enemy of the American people and the enemy of the US empire are often not the same.

 

[baarbogast]

Do you have examples of this?

All my experiences involve being stationed in the mid-east. Many of the Egyptians I spoke with (08-09) said they knew Hussein didn’t have weapons.

Do you have examples of this?

All my examples are from personal conversations. I spoke with an Egyptian General in 09, he said everyone in the Arab world knew Hussein was bluffing. He said no one in the West did or claimed to.

I tend to go to non-touristy areas. The older members of South America (I go to many countries and it seems universal) like to remind us of backing military juntas in Brazil and Argentina. They tell stories of people disappearing in the 1970's because they wanted to vote for their government. They also blame US government for the rise of drug dealers and corruption in government. They believe we only acted when it served our interests (distractions) or the "puppet" was starting to break free.

I'm somewhat leary of the new "saber rattling" with China. I just have the feeling we will be sticking our nose into areas that most likely don't want either US or China intervention.

 

[DaveXA]

Unfortunately you are correct. I am a non-interventionist, we mind our own business and most of the problems disappear.

That's just wishful thinking. You propose that if another country is meddling in our affairs, that we should just look away and take it? I don't find that to be a tenable position to take.

I generally rather we have a smaller footprint posture, but there are times when the country needs to stand up to those who would bully us or our allies.

 

[baarbogast]

That's just wishful thinking. You propose that if another country is meddling in our affairs, that we should just look away and take it? I don't find that to be a tenable position to take.

I generally rather we have a smaller footprint posture, but there are times when the country needs to stand up to those who would bully us or our allies.

Until 2016, how many countries were accused of meddling in our affairs? My point was, we should other countries decide whats best for them and not necessarily for us. Our history is littered with us being the nosy and bothersome neighbor.

 

[DaveXA]

Until 2016, how many countries were accused of meddling in our affairs? My point was, we should other countries decide whats best for them and not necessarily for us. Our history is littered with us being the nosy and bothersome neighbor.

Sure, as long as we're not completely passive when push comes to shove, I'm down with taking a more hands off approach where we can.

 

[tomwaits]

That's just wishful thinking. You propose that if another country is meddling in our affairs, that we should just look away and take it? I don't find that to be a tenable position to take.

I generally rather we have a smaller footprint posture, but there are times when the country needs to stand up to those who would bully us or our allies.

Understand that the American people's concerns and affairs are not the same as the empire's affairs. The empire is concerned with its ability to dictate how the world operates and control other regions. So when a politician says that a country is endangering American interests, this is what they are talking about. Not that American people are in danger, but their ability to control a region of the globe is in danger.

If you or your children are in the military, understand they have no problem with you dying for the empire's control and it has nothing to do with the safety of the American people.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

All my experiences involve being stationed in the mid-east. Many of the Egyptians I spoke with (08-09) said they knew Hussein didn’t have weapons.

All my examples are from personal conversations. I spoke with an Egyptian General in 09, he said everyone in the Arab world knew Hussein was bluffing. He said no one in the West did or claimed to.

I tend to go to non-touristy areas. The older members of South America (I go to many countries and it seems universal) like to remind us of backing military juntas in Brazil and Argentina. They tell stories of people disappearing in the 1970's because they wanted to vote for their government. They also blame US government for the rise of drug dealers and corruption in government. They believe we only acted when it served our interests (distractions) or the "puppet" was starting to break free.

I'm somewhat leary of the new "saber rattling" with China. I just have the feeling we will be sticking our nose into areas that most likely don't want either US or China intervention.

You answered the question “does the US screw local things up when they intervene?”
And I completely agree with your answer
HOWEVER
The question was,”what evidence do you have that things sort themselves out when the US does not interfere?”
bc that was your claim

 

[baarbogast]

You answered the question “does the US screw local things up when they intervene?”
And I completely agree with your answer
HOWEVER
The question was,”what evidence do you have that things sort themselves out when the US does not interfere?”

If you want evidence, like a smoking gun, then no I don't. However, personal experiences and seeing our international problems today and tracing them to decisions made between 1946-1960, I think I could make a compelling argument even if it wouldn't stand in court.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

So here is the question that arises
Say you live next door to an abusive man
On the slick you try to tell the wife to get her and the kid out
She doesn’t
You intervene and make sure at least the kid gets in to safe hands
But this enraged the guy and he takes it out on the wife and she winds up in the hospital
It is correct to say that your interference led to the wife being hospitalized
BUT
Nothing tells us that the wife and kid would be fine if you just left them alone

Now I’m not being naive to US intervention- it can and must get LOTS better
But isolationism does not fix anything
At best it makes us like the people in YouTube videos who just stand around and watch racist Karens yell at Mexicans in the Walmart

 

[tomwaits]

So here is the question that arises
Say you live next door to an abusive man
On the slick you try to tell the wife to get her and the kid out
She doesn’t
You intervene and make sure at least the kid gets in to safe hands
But this enraged the guy and he takes it out on the wife and she winds up in the hospital
It is correct to say that your interference led to the wife being hospitalized
BUT
Nothing tells us that the wife and kid would be fine if you just left them alone

Now I’m not being naive to US intervention- it can and must get LOTS better
But isolationism does not fix anything
At best it makes us like the people in YouTube videos who just stand around and watch racist Karens yell at Mexicans in the Walmart

That is not equivalent to US foreign policy.

Here is how this would play.
The US pays a man to marry a woman forcefully to be her husband and exploit her and her family so US corporations can benefit.
The man starts working with other foreign powers that threaten the US's power position in the neighborhood.
The US then says the man is bad because he abuses his wife and kids.
The US restricts the man's ability to buy essentials like food and healthcare for him and his family.
Some of the man's children die as a result.
The US arms and backs another man equally as evil to go kill the first man and take his family (more of his children dies in the process) as long as he helps exploit them to benefit US corporations and does not get involved with other neighbors who who threaten US power in the neighborhood.
The US may also bomb some children directly.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

That is not equivalent to US foreign policy.

Here is how this would play.
The US pays a man to marry a woman forcefully to be her husband and exploit her and her family so US corporations can benefit.
The man starts working with other foreign powers that threaten the US's power position in the neighborhood.
The US then says the man is bad because he abuses his wife and kids.
The US restricts the man's ability to buy essentials like food and healthcare for him and his family.
Some of the man's children die as a result.
The US arms and backs another man equally as evil to go kill the first man and take his family (more of his children dies in the process) as long as he helps exploit them to benefit US corporations and does not get involved with other neighbors who who threaten US power in the neighborhood.
The US may also bomb some children directly.

Again
The idea was offered that isolationism fixes the problem
I counter that it does not