john doe Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Disagree. You can't "undo" the past. You can only deal with the present and make plans for the future. Quote
john doe Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 I still disagree. Like it or not, the US, along with certain allies, has become the de facto "cop of the world". I don't like it that everyone one else in the world relies on us to defend their freedom when others won't, but that's the way it is. A complete US withdrawal from the mid-east would be a destabilizing factor, and would not make the world as a whole safer. I think it would have a similar effect as if all cops suddenly decided to withdraw from the most gang-ridden part of town because the criminals don't like them being there. We haven't interfered in Sudan, and look at how well-behaved they are. Quote
Setheus Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 You guys are a bunch of novices...the only REAL way to end terrorist is to kill all of them. I prepose we flood the earth. You see, we'll make it rain for 40 days and 40 nights. All the non-terrorist will build an ark. You may bring only 2 pets, or 7 if they are house broken. Its fool proof! Quote
Setheus Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Originally posted by Unorthodox@Oct 14 2004, 09:52 AM What about taking an active POSITIVE role in the Muslim world? Why just use our military to help them? We have other resources! Why not send in Americans to help build Mosques? Roads? Bridges? Educate the uneducated Muslims? This might help show that we are not enemies of Islam, as the terrorists seem to believe. You're kidding right? You must only watch Fox. A good frind of mine is an electrician (journeyman) and his company has a contract which pays him $20,000 a month to do electrical work to new and rebuilt schools, offices, etc. I won't go into all the other "positive" things we are doing over there...except that the Army Corp of Eng. builds roads, and bridges and schools .... Quote
Guest TheProudDuck Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 And we should stay out of their oil altogether.What does that mean?We should not buy oil from the Middle East?Fine. What then happens is that the American spot price for oil goes up (since we've effectively taken part of the supply off our market). A smart Dutchman then buys as much oil from Saudi Arabia as Exxon would have bought. He sells it to Exxon, making a nice profit from the arbitrage. Ultimately, just as much Arab oil gets to America as before, only there's a European middleman to skim off a few bucks.And actively help Palestinians too..so we won't be labelled as Israel's ally.What kind of help are we talking about here? Buying them suicide bomb belts? Quote
Guest TheProudDuck Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Un,In the meantime we could go to other sources of oil where we know there is no middleman.The price of oil is set by the ratio between total global demand and total global supply. It really doesn't matter where we get our oil from. If we get our oil from Venezuela or Nigeria or Russia instead of the Middle East, then the people who were buying that portion of those countries' output will be displaced. They, in turn, would naturally get their oil from the Middle East. All your proposal does is rearrange the chairs. Oil is oil is oil; as long as the West keeps using and the Middle East keeps pumping, someone or other will make sure the buyers and sellers get satisfied. Your theory that terrorists hate the West because the West buys Arab oil doesn't seem terribly logical to me. Even West-hating Arabs have to eat, and you can't eat oil. Since oil is about the only resource in the Middle East capable of sustaining the current population, Arabs have to sell their oil to someone or starve.Re: aiding Palestinians: We do, to the tune of about $180 million per year. Israel gets more, and so does Egypt, because part of the deal President Carter brokered between Egypt and Israel to stop their conventional war involved making large, equal payments to both sides every year. Basically, we bribed both sides equally to stop them fighting. Quote
Guest TheProudDuck Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Un, Re: what makes the terrorists tick -- There's been a lot written on the subject. One of the more convincing theories is that the Islamists really do want to reestablish the ancient Caliphate -- the old united Islamic world under a single ruler. Ideally, the whole world is supposed to be Muslim, and the Islamists (a term that refers to this particular kind of radical Muslim, as opposed to Muslims generally) do talk about that, but first things first. The United States is seen to be the biggest obstacle to this vision. The Islamists think that we'd prevent the entire Arab world from coming under the control. They may be right, although I think they overestimate how much of their inability to revolutionize existing Arab governments comes from American support of them and underestimate how much comes from their own weakness. Al-Qaeda's terrorism isn't all that effective strategically. It's not going to be effective to conquer the West, or even weaken it significantly. (Although 9/11 did actually set off a worldwide recession, probably because the American economy, which drives the world's, was already floundering after the Internet bubble collapse.) The main objective of this kind of terrorism is to make the jihadists look competent, effective, and dedicated, and hopefully inspire the Arab masses to support them and overthrow the existing Arab governments. There always has been some resentment in Arab culture against the United States. Part of it may actually be genuine resentment about some of our policies; most of it is because the US gets blamed for pretty much everything that's wrong in the Arab world. Arab culture is big on shame and honor, and admitting that your civilization is a self-inflicted clusterfarg is a bit much. It doesn't help that Islam teaches that it is the best way to organize a society -- and yet the infidel West is prosperous even as it violates pretty much every Muslim principle, while the supposedly righteous Muslim world stagnates. It's kind of like the cognitive dissonance you'd get in the Church if it kept teaching that the righteous prosper, yet Mormons remained grindingly poor while everyone else got rich. So the West attracts some natural resentment, and when Osama bin Laden managed to get some licks in, there was an emotional response, with Osama t-shirts and all that. But as time has gone by, as much as a rush 9/11 may have given many Arabs, they don't seem really to like the idea of being ruled by a new Caliph. So the Al-Qaeda plan doesn't seem to be working all that well. Alternatively, some have suggested that there's not really much of a concrete strategy at all. Rather, the jihadists are essentially fantasists. They have a psychological need to see themselves in the mold of the old-time jihad warriors that conquered continents when Islam was young and vital. Doing that requires that they cut off some infidel heads. Since they don't have the capability to take on Western armies, they go for the women and kids. Basically, it's kind of a Columbine writ large, with the losers of a stagnant civilization lashing out against the successful. UPDATE: Dang, Un, you modified the post I was responding to before I finished responding to it! Hey everybody: I'm not just running off at the mouth here. I did have a point. Quote
john doe Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 In the meantime we could go to other sources of oil where we know there is no middleman.You mean like Alaska? Or offshore drilling rigs? Or Texas? There are lots of places to get oil, the problem is making it economically and/or environmentally viable to do so. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.