posted on September 24, 2001 12:36:53 PM newThe only sure way to remove ourselves from their persistant angst is to remove ourselves from all meddling in the affairs of the middle east, including Isreal
Krs, carry that scenario a bit further. In the war that would ensue, do you think nukes would not be used? Then, the fallout patterns.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on September 24, 2001 12:38:17 PM new
The Terrorist movement is a result of many things not just one culture or country doing any one single thing.
But I do agree just going after muslim exstearmest will not stop the terrorist movement by its self but it is a start or move toward the effort.
You seem to proceed from the standpoint that terrorists are rational people with a well-developed sense of fair play -- i.e., if we stop, they'll stop.
I don't believe that for a second. They're terrorists. It's their nature. Even if tomorrow the US ceased every single activity that they find objectionable, it would only be a matter of time till they found some new complaint. And, having seen just what an effective tool terrorism is (since it got us to accede to all their demands once before), they'd go right back to it and we'd be in the same boat again -- in effect, we'd be held hostage. Or maybe their complaint wouldn't be against us at all, but some other country -- but in order to get us to help them carry out their objective they use terrorism to strong-arm us into backing them.
Sorry, but I feel that giving in to them only opens the door to all kinds of new problems.
posted on September 24, 2001 12:42:53 PM new
Ken, you know what happens the very day that the Arab world percieves that America has abandoned Israel?
Nuclear holocaust. Or at the very least, the war to end all wars in the Middle East. Guess what? If the Middle East doesn't manage to blow itself up, in a matter of months America would be right back there only this time right in the thick of battle. Why doesn't America care if, say, Africa blows itself up? Because Africa has no oil. We cannot ever disengage ourself from the middle east, no matter how much Osama wants us to.
Three times (including Israel's founding) the Arab world has waged a war that posed an existential threat to Israel's existence at the same time that the rest of the world (the UN in the case of the first one) and/ or the United States were perceived by them as standing by Israel. That was how the Arab world perceived the situation when they thought Israel had a reliable ally in America. What do you think happens the minute they perceive that Israel stands alone? The next war. The day America deserts Israel is the day that Armageddon necessarily happens.
Barry, I don't have all or even any answers necessarily. Here are some hasty thoughts.
To start with, illegitimate [i.e. unelected] and/ or oppressive regimes might be toppled. Democracy can be introduced, while at the same time not trampling on local customs. Most importantly, alongside this all kinds of aid, economic, medical as well as education and infrastructure building must be implemented. All this must be done without condescension. Learn what not to do from the English model. England introduced plenty of 19th and 20th century innovations into an essentially midieval society but they did it in a brutal fashion. There goal wasn't to create a stable and civil society, but to oppress and rule from afar. To say that Arabs are incapable of these changes or there is something inherent in Arab culture that makes it oppressive is condescending or worse. Moderate clerics can be encouraged to band together and make it clear that terrorism is forbidden by Islam. At the very least, if seeds of doubt were sowed amoung many Muslims who otherwise might be susceptible to extremist terror groups some would think, "well hundreds and hundreds of respected Imams have issued a fatwah saying that the fate of terrorists is hell and not paradise. Some Imams are saying otherwise. Hmmm... I'm not so sure now..."
Finally, Israel is not going away. Ever. The Arab world must come to terms with Israel's existence and moral right to exist.
Maybe someone here doubts Israel's moral right to exist. Whatever. It does and that fact must be inculated into the minds of more than one hundred million people who feel that they are in a constant state of war against Israel, a war that must conclude in a final abolishment of Israel. This coming to terms is an absolute must for stability in the Middle East, regardless of your personal stance on Israel or America's relations vis a vis Israel.
------------------------
Finally, there is much wisdom in a simple thought. We cannot allow people who kill in a single day on American soil twice the number of dead at the battle of Antietam to dicatate our foreign policy. For that reason alone we ought not think, "well, what do they want?" That means they win and we lose. Maybe in the future they'll kill a few thousand Americans and then ask us to cut relations with France. Is that reasonable?
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Sep 24, 2001 12:53 PM ]
posted on September 24, 2001 12:44:22 PM new
If you Remove all as you say meddleing in the middle east includeing israel, it won't make things better infact history it self show the opposite.
a at this point there are many countries that have nukes moveing out insure war all over the middle east if you think israel wont protect its interest with the use of them I think your mistaken.
also if israel falls christians world wide are next so all you do is extend the time before war become nessary..
http://www.Dman-N-Company.com
Email [email protected]
[ edited by dman3 on Sep 24, 2001 12:45 PM ]
[ edited by dman3 on Sep 24, 2001 12:47 PM ]
posted on September 24, 2001 12:49:37 PM newkrsThe only sure way to remove ourselves from their persistant angst is to remove ourselves from all meddling in the affairs of the middle east, including Isreal
I believe KRS is offering us advice that others are ignoring. Rather than blindly dispute his advice we need to stop and think about it. That is one tactic we haven't employed before. I don't think KRS is being naive, or is making outrageous remarks in an effort to solicit posts. These are tactics that haven't been employed by anyone since the agreement in 1939 in Munich. Just because appeasement was a bad idea once doesn't mean it is bad idea now.
The Taliban Foriegn Minister expressed regret they were having to use their football stadium for executions and would be happy to move them to another site if only the international community would help fund the building of a public execution site. I think such a offering on our part would make the Taliban pause and take thought at just how much of a loving nation we were.
---------
Totally off topic but I have to share this, I caught a 10lb catfish this morning. It was a big sucker. I was using some liver as bait. I think the key to catching fish is the bait you use. Something that has a strong smell that can't be ignored will get the fish to respond in a frenzy.
posted on September 24, 2001 01:04:53 PM newThe only sure way to remove ourselves from their persistant angst is to remove ourselves from all meddling in the affairs of the middle east, including Isreal.
So is the answer to set up a Jewish Home Land in, say, South Florida?
posted on September 24, 2001 02:41:05 PM newJames: You're right, it's an interesting article. Two comments:
1. Why would you assume that this article is necessarily correct, instead of the other articles that have been quoted that hold opposing views?
2. If this article is correct, I'm still not sure what can be realistically done to address the problem.
As I stated in a previous thread [just after you decided to stop responding to comments, apparently], I suspect that the current situation is a mixture of both viewpoints. There probably is a lot of long standing animosity that dates back over a thousand years. At the same time, though, it may have been brought to the boiling point by events in the last 50 years. Our foreign policy gaffes wouldn't have triggered such violent action if there weren't already a seething resentment and hatred, but at the same time, that seething resentment and hatred may never have reached the boiling point if we hadn't been constantly stirring the pot and stoking the flames.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 24, 2001 03:20:42 PM new
Well, Barry, this isn't the article where I drew my point of view from. It's an article I found today and have read and it supports my view point. I will grant you this; I can't make the claim that I am 100% correct in my worldview. Of course not. But this thread is a give and take and we are discussing. Since this overall issue is much, much more than a give and take amoung backseat driver's and real action must be taken in the real world I am hoping that if my point of view is correct that wise decisions will be made and prudent actions will be taken with this in mind.
In any case, a question I would ask "but what are the root causes??"ers is this. Say we identify these or those policies which caused this unbaseless hatred. Now we must therefore set on a course to reverse this to bring light and happiness back into the world, right? How do you propose we undo 10, 50, 200 or 1000 years of bad behavior and at the same time defend ourselves? While we're having enlightened discourse, in 3 to 5 years the very hostile Iran will have nukes and their hatred, baseless or not may well cause them or some proxies of theirs to use them. On us.
posted on September 24, 2001 09:02:26 PM new
israel, israel, always israel. for fifty years this country has propped them up. what does the survival of israel have to do with us? let them stand or fall, or the world will suffer forever for them out of guilt for what another country did to them. we send them billions of our money and they use it to commit atrocities on the rightful people of that miserable land. it is not God's intention that israel shoot palestinine with bombs and.rockets marked made in the usa. the rest of the arabs see those marks and hate the usa. no wonder. we are killing them.
posted on September 25, 2001 12:07:51 AM new
A while back someone asked me what my military plan was. I've given it a lot of thought and here goes:
85% of the population in the problem nations don't really want a war and would be grateful to sit it out. Basically the middle class and the apolitical. That leaves the rich and the poor. First the rich:
Terrorism is an 30 years old and is basically now an industry. Fortunes have been made and power and prestige gained or maintained because of it. Arms smuggling, extortion, skimming, illicit trade, fees for "services rendered" and the like. Don't doubt that Arafat hasn't a few million stashed in a Swiss bank. All in all, a very lucrative racket and a way to claw your way up the power ladder.
Under the cover of attacking the Hamas and Hezbollah (and their counterparts in other nations) take out the fancy villas (including the cushy mansions of the Imans - sticky fingers in the collection plate, you know) of the power players. They usually are well away from the rabble in the towns. They are ringed with security guards so ground action is iffy, so a few cruise or sidewinders would be apt. Major blow to their finances and lifestyles with little sympathy for "innocent victims" if only a few armed goons are vaporized. It would be nice to take out a few of the rich offspring so they could "feel our pain" up close and personal but they're also probably skiing in Switzerland.
After that go after their finances. The Swiss had losses at the WTC and would be willing to bend the rules for our auditors. Have the Marines land in the Cayman Islands and slaunter into the offshore banks and ask if they mind if we could take a peek. Make smuggling of arms and nasty stuff like serin and plutonium a cause of immediate finacial ruin and tantamount to suicide if linked to it. When one deals in illegal goods, one is basically self-insured. Confiscation or detruction of shipments go straight to the bottom line. Blow up any factories they own and pester to death their front companies. The Mossad will know all the players and who's realy behind the shadow corporations. If they sqwauk, have the CIA and Israelis leak all the details of their shady deals.
Once the money men are hurting, go after the politicos. Once their payroll sources are cut off, their security ring will be weak so grab a few and put them on TV after they've been softened up a bit in jail and are feeling particularily humble. With the hardliners, do a Quadaffi and take out their night table with a Sidewinder. While we're at it, take out their media and put a few 30 foot deep bomb craters in front of their mosques.
As for the poor: They will hit the streets the morning after the first bombing. Send about 50-60 F-22s from a carrier or a 1/2 dozen B-1s from a land base. and few miles from the town center have them hit the deck -- about 50 feet or so. Do a Blue Angels formation stright up Main Street. Hopefully the scurrying will be caught on video. Every window in town will be shattered and their ears will be ringing for three days. Put out a backchannel message of "No more demonstrations. The next time we strafe. After that we bomb." Have the now accomandating authorities round up all the middlemen, "precinct heads" and the like. Let the "privates" be to mill around confused and threw a rock or two.
As for terrorist nations, use Afghanistan as the "stick." When we bomb, hit them with enough bomb tonnage that their whole country will lose about 6 feet of elevation just from the weight of the iron. Bomb em until we run out of ordanance or the pilots drop from exhaustion. And not over days or weeks. In one 24 hour period. Make it the worst day of any humans life -- ever. You don't even have to hit anything (except one location -- that infernal sports stadium) -- just make it noisy -- and continuous. Then turn to the balky nations and say, "Gee, too bad Afghanistan" turned out to be so intransigient... What a shame..." And then offer them the "carrot."
Probably won't happen this way but sounds better than producing a lot of camera ready corpses of "innocent" women and children.
ps Oh, by the way, ask any Vietnam Vet about the "innocent" women and children.
posted on September 25, 2001 12:27:54 AM new
There's certainly room to argue that last (edited to add, slavien's) point. But why waste time?
Fate of Israel aside, the nuclear arms race is escalating in the Middle East. It's only a matter of time before nuclear weapons become available to terrorists. In a few years, it won't be just the Middle East that's threatened. If we don't take steps now, there will be nuclear attacks on U.S. soil.
Surrendering to terrorists isn't the answer. People don't understand that Islamic Jihad isn't a political or even a religious movement. They don't want to promote Islam, they want to destroy the West. Anyway, surrender isn't even in the realm of possibilities. Americans aren't going to give up their TVs and sports cars, our women aren't going to cover up with veils, and we're not going to give up our freedom to a bunch of whacko fundamentalist clerics.
The other thing is that you never, ever negotiate with terrorists. Terrorists have nothing to gain. They aren't seeking a political goal. Try to think of it like this. The terrorists have a bank account. Every day they put a dollar in it. When that bank account reaches $1,000 dollars, they are going to drop a nuke on us. Unless we stop them. And no amount of negotiation is going to change that. Either WTC was a wake-up call, or we can pretend like it didn't happen.
My kids turned five yesterday. They are already hearing about WTC and the war on terrorism in kindergarten. Their main fear is that they don't know how to fight and won't be able to function as soldiers. They are also afraid that Mommy will have to fight. AFAIC, the gloves are off. I've done military service before, and would do it again.
posted on September 25, 2001 04:25:12 AM newToo late...
Barry, I know there was a certain amount of humor in what I said, but it wasn't totally in jest. KRS says we should get out of the middle east totally, and I was wondering if he also thinks we should relocate the Israeli's or just abandon them.
posted on September 25, 2001 06:28:35 AM new
Sort of a new sub-topic here but while reading through this it a key argument occurred to me on why we really need to nail bin Laden specifically, as a person. E.g., he's one of those rare "nexus individuals" who's ruthless, intelligent, and charismatic all combined, AND who can personally focus the use of a tremendous sum of money. Take him out, and the money stash almost certainly falls into control of some variation of a committee. That'll be inefficient, and good for us.
posted on September 25, 2001 06:35:21 AM new
pythOOn, reading your description of Bin Laden, it seems he would fit the definition of cult leader.
cult (klt) n.
A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader
I need more coffee
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
[ edited by snowyegret on Sep 25, 2001 06:36 AM ]
posted on September 25, 2001 06:44:27 AM new
After reading James' article and Slavien's opinion on the U.S. suport of Israel I did some searching on the net last night for a summary of the strategic reasons for America's support of Israel.
I won't post any links because I didn't find anything that I found to be that enlightening. I found one site run by a Jewish organization that had a page which stated their opinions of why supporting Israel is in the strategic interests of the U.S.
I found another site run by a Washington think tank that provided an almost point-by-point refutation of the pro-support case. However this article was from 1985 and is probably out of date by now.
I found another web site that also refuted the pro-support case in fair detail but the rhetoric on the site was very anti-Israel. As such their viewpoint isn't necessarily one I would want to accept without collaboration from a more neutral source.
Does anyone know of any internet link that leads to a rational presentation of why supporting Israel is in the strategic interests of the United States?
Dr. Beetle
Edited for dyslexic spelling.
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Sep 25, 2001 06:45 AM ]
posted on September 25, 2001 06:56:09 AM newCooltom: Your "plan" would ensure the the downfall of our country. It would arouse hatred for us not just in the hearts of other terrorists but also amongst now friendly nations. It really wouldn't matter that we are the richest most prosperous nation--with the fury of the rest of the world aimed at us, we *would* be taken down one way or another.
posted on September 25, 2001 07:45:52 AM new
To the lasting delight of all, I'm sure, I'm back. There was a pretty neat set of thunderstorms here and as is always the case, the primary target must have been the @home.com server in the area.
drbeetle,
I don't find much rationality when looking into that question either. It's always very heavily pro Israel, or against. James's position is obviously the former, but there hasn't been anyone with the devoted energy needed to refute that stance. It won't be me, either. Still, it's a good question. Another one might be 'if we need oil, who do we support?'. Israel? Hardly, as they ain't got any. Has our support for them continued all through these years in order to preserve a path to those who do have oil? I wouldn't think so since most of those that got have no use of Israel. It must then be an emotional support, or one driven by a national guilt as was suggested above. Whatever it is, it's pretty clear that our position(s) in the middle east, including and maybe predominantly that in regards Israel, have brought us a great deal of trouble up to and including this the latest tragedy.
Now the president talks of war-at first an all inclusive war against the forces of evil everywhere. That premise is ridiculous from the get go for if bush can do that successfully what in the world would God do? Retire?
So now he seems to back from that promise to save the world from all evil. There's equivocative interviews being released by Rumsfeld and Powell. It turns out that in the scramble for suppport he is making deals with
some of the very countries who have been at the top of the list of supporters of terrorism for years. What's that all about? He lifts sannctions against countries which have successfully completed nuclear testing for weaponry when we're all in such a dire position and are being threatened with the near reality of nuclear terrorism? Does he think that those monies he's anding out will any more be kept to our purpose than those given Iran, Irag, Syria(!) and even bin laden himself?
I read an article that compares bin laden to the greatest evil genius's the world has ever known. It ended with the stated belief that killing him will defuse most of the terrorist activity in the world for quite some time. There is no replacement waiting in the wings who is born with the capacities of that guy. Kill him and rest easy.
I hope that that is really what bush is going to try to do. If he tries for much more I think he'll lose and will take untold numbers of our mother's children to their deaths with his loss.
In case anyone can't figure out where I'm coming from--it's very simple. I do not want to live to see any U.S. troops die for another lost cause.
posted on September 25, 2001 08:35:41 AM new
This isn't Viet Nam, Ken. The proof in the pudding will be when we start seeing the body bags coming home on t.v. The thought makes me nauseous and full of dread, but I know it's coming. And how many Americans will feel the same way they feel now when they find out that our soldiers will be fighting (and killing) children, boys that are 12, 14 years old? It's not the way of Americans to fight children. But that is coming too. But what can we do? I don't think we're going to rain bombs down on Afghanistan willy-nilly. My hope is that somehow, someway we will be able to find bin Laden. Yes, the terrorist network will survive him, but it might buy us some time to implement some other options.
posted on September 25, 2001 08:56:08 AM new
I'll remember that you said that, as it looks exactly like another hopeless chase through god awful terrain for a people who are united in their appreciation of both the spotlight and the political embarrassment of the US through quasi military means. There will be huge costs and eventually we'll just go home leaving the peoples and the political situations little changed. It seems to be what bin laden has planned for us, and we're just following right along. There is no issue of our survival--they know that they can't defeat us. I do think that they believe that we might be led to defeat ourselves in the soviet style, and that's the game. If the US doesn't play, who will terrorists terrorize?
posted on September 25, 2001 09:07:51 AM new
Well then, what do you think we should do? In all seriousness, what means do you think we should take that will stop this? It's pretty clear that Bin Laden and/or the Al Queda organization have targetted not only "U.S. interests, but US civilians. Also all other non-Muslim people who live in the Middle East. Do you think that abandoning Israel and pulling out of Saudi Arabia will do the trick? Do you think that will be enough for them to stop? Do you think this is really about "political" vs. "religious" ideology, or are the two hopelessy intertwined? With all respect, I truly wonder if you see another solution that will guarantee American safety at home and abroad?
posted on September 25, 2001 09:40:47 AM new
I think that the US continuing presense in the middle east prevents a (call it) natural resolution. If it were possible to imagine that we had never been there or had no compelling interest there then it can be imagined that there would already be a solution however abhorrent to our western mores it may be.
This country has more or less stood by while much more ruthless and horrific things have taken place in the world. Remember Idi Amin? Pol Pot? There was little that we could have done, and it wasn't in our interest to do anything. Now it's reasonably quiet in those areas.
But there in the middle east we have interests. They are not simply interest in the supply of oil but instead it's interest in how that supply is controlled, and by whom. We, our collective corporate we, wants to have our hand in that pie for sure. What would happen if we relinquished that control to the owners of the oil? They'd sell it to us anyway--they certainly don't need such huge stores of it to boil the occasional infidel.
So you ask what I think? Well, as if it matters, I think that the thing to do is to get the f**k out of there and let come what may come in the area. Oh, we'll have shortages, so what's new? We have those at the hands of our own corporations anyway. Maybe, finally, those same companies will turn attention toward providing their goods, energy, in other better ways. What will become of Israel? I don't know, and don't much care. This country has given them everything possible to defend their stake; they've become as ruthless as their neighbors or more so, now let them swim or sink.
Oh, and kill ben laden--he's dangerous to everyone.
As to the horror of the towers? You know, it's really a pretty paltry horror in comparison to all of those that have been perpetrated by those we support against those we don't. It's ours so that makes it the mostest, right?
posted on September 25, 2001 10:05:19 AM new
Okay. I do understand what you are saying. Basically, an isolationist view? How practical is that view for modern times, or to use the cliche, global economy. I dunno. There is merit in what you say about oil and US energy corporations. But, (a big BUT for me) I disagree about Israel. I do believe in it's moral right to exist, whether that right is based upon guilt, history, religion, practicality or whatever. And if Israel has become ruthless in order to survive, it is no less than what any country will do to protect itself and it's citizens. But I don't agree that our complete withdrawal from the middle east will satisfy the fanatical religious ideologists of Bin Laden and his ilk. They may use "political" agendas if they think it will advance their cause, but their true agenda is religion. So in the long run, redrawing economic and political delineations won't amount to a hill of beans.
As to the horror of the towers? You know, it's really a pretty paltry horror in comparison to all of those that have been perpetrated by those we support against those we don't.
No, it's not. The line has been drawn.
posted on September 25, 2001 10:28:51 AM new
Oh, I know and have argued the reality of the now global aspect of every county's presence several times, but in this case I think that there's some confusion over the definition of terms. Is it global, in the meaning as you use it, to maintain policies which are in effect imperialistic? I don't see world dominance as falling within the scope of a global participation in the welfare of the world's peoples, nor do I feel that the inclusion of the word 'economy' to the term necessitates the view that in order to play world marketplace we need to create and preserve monopolies.
posted on September 25, 2001 10:37:24 AM new
I wonder what the world would be like if America had stuck to its isolationist policies during WWI and WWII? There were certainly a lot of people who felt that the US had no business interfering with the affairs of other countries. In fact, it wasn't until Japan actually declared war on us that we finally got involved in WWII. Of course, instead of returning the aggression, I suppose we could have pulled out of the Pacific entirely and just allowed a "natural resolution" to occur.
On the whole, I think the world is a better place because we didn't let Germany, Japan, and Italy run unchecked over Europe and Asia. But that's just me.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 25, 2001 10:41:38 AM newI wonder what the world would be like if America had stuck to its isolationist policies during WWI and WWII?
There would not have been a Jew left on the planet. Next question.
posted on September 25, 2001 10:44:53 AM new
Situational, barry. And can you point out where I've taken an isolationist point in all things, historical or otherwise?
This topic is 8 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new
