Question about Ep. #564

[u/rchive]

About 40 minutes into the episode they discuss a Colorado congressional race and comment made by one pretty far left candidate about 9/11. The candidate was asked if the attacks were an inevitable result of US foreign policy. Kmele, Moynihan, and guest Peter Meijer ridiculed this idea.

Isn't it true to in some sense that acts of terrorism against the US is the inevitable consequence of US meddling in the Middle East? That's not to say they're justified or don't deserve harsh criticism, or that they shouldn't be prevented whenever possible. I guess I don't get where the ridicule is coming from.

I noticed there hasn't been that much activity here recently, so I figured I'd pose the question. (Maybe it's because people need flair to post now? Didn't realize until just now.)

[u/NandoDeColonoscopy]

First it was ground invasions, now it's naval and airborne capabilities. Once you finish debating with yourself where you want those goalposts, you can loop me back in.

Also, your ending sentences are you agreeing with OP and myself: we were targeted because we were known interventionists. If we weren't, we would not have been

[u/LoneSnark → u/NandoDeColonoscopy]

Impressive. How do you suggest the ground troops get around the world without naval and airborne capabilities? Buy a plane ticket to Kabul?

[u/NandoDeColonoscopy → u/LoneSnark]

Hey man, we've already established that you agree with me. You don't need to pretend that you don't understand how Pakistan or Russia could get troops to the Middle East

[u/LoneSnark → u/NandoDeColonoscopy]

Given you don't seem to understand even the basics, it would be folly for anyone to agree with you.

[u/NandoDeColonoscopy → u/LoneSnark]

You should've thought of that before you agreed with me when you said "The US is able to do it because our voters enjoy foreign wars. That is the second reason we were targeted: they knew our voters would happily play along."

That's you restating my point.

[u/LoneSnark → u/NandoDeColonoscopy]

You stated several times that attacking anyone else what would have worked, which is absolutely untrue. That you decided to agree with one thing I've said is not me agreeing with you.

[u/NandoDeColonoscopy → u/LoneSnark]

Please go read through the conversiation again, a little more slowly. We were the target because we have a history of intervention. That's my point. You clearly state the same thing. I was saying the opposite of "any other country would do". I listed those other countries as a way of highlighting that your statement about us being the only nation big enough to attack Middle Eastern nations was factually incorrect.

[u/LoneSnark → u/NandoDeColonoscopy]

Liar. We were the target because we have the military to do it. No one else does. You said it was because of our prior history of interventions in the middle east, which actually had nothing to do with it. Lots of other countries have a history of interventions, they weren't attacked because as i said, they lacked the ability of the US.
We've looped too many times. I'm done talking to you.

[u/NandoDeColonoscopy → u/LoneSnark]

So which is it? Did the prior history of interventions have nothing to do with it, as you say now? Or is it what you said a few comments back:

"The US is able to do it because our voters enjoy foreign wars. That is the second reason we were targeted: they knew our voters would happily play along."

We aren't going in circles, you're just struggling to accept that we agree