Marc Rich is not and never has been an Israeli citizen. In fact, the oil they sold was to a Switzerland based company that he owned part of.
Here is my proposed solution: 1) Pull out of Saudi Arabia 2) End all embargoes 3) End support for Israel in exchange for 1) A truce with Al Queda 2) A truce with angry Middle Easterners 3) THE END OF OPEC BOOM! In one fell swoop the price of oil drops to $9/bbl, the Dow hits 15,000, we no longer have to direct billions towards defense/intelligence, and we no longer have to worry about terrorist acts. I guess the other way to do this is to just wipe out the entire Middle East and then claim the oil for the US.
I think there is a ton of wisdom in this post....having said that, I'm not sure that it meshes well with this enemy. Bin Laden talked about how weak American resolve was. He laughed at no retribution after the Cole attack...he thought he could scare us to death and we'd do nothing (or very little) in return. Unfortunately, I think you have to send the message to these guys that if they want to play this way, they, themselves, will never be safe ever. The greatest move of the entire war on terrorism so far came a few weeks back, in my opinion, when a drone launched a precision guided missile into the car of an al qaeda leader. That's the kind of message I think you have to send...that's throwing terror right back in their face. And unfortunately, it's the only language they seem to understand. I don't think there is anything we could do short of killing ourselves that would make these folks happy with us...or make them stop wanting to kill us. Their perversion of Islam, I believe, takes away any opportunity to sit down and reason with these guys. Finally...I don't see it as the more we attack, the worse it gets for us. In fact, I've noticed that we've done a whole lot of attacking on Al Qaeda since 10-2001, and they've not hit us here since 9/11. (knock on wood). This same kind of logic was used back in the 20's regarding the mafia.
MadMax, I don't think the mafia analogy holds up too well. They are motivated by money and power, typically, which is quite different from a Jihad, as far as I can tell. You may be right about the language they understand, but what do you think about a certain poster's suggestion of pulling out of Saudi Arabia, ending unquestioned support of Israel, etc? In effect, dramatically changing our policies in the region. Would you say that Al Qaeda would keep attacking all points "west" anyway?
i think they'd find new reasons....they never once previously said that our support for israel was a reason to attack us...then the game changed when it became in their interests to say that. they hate us as much for who we are as for what we do overseas. my point on the mafia analogy was simply that people believed it would never go away...that kind of hate may never go away...greed may never go away (and it hasn't)...organized crime never goes away...but you put a significant dent in it when you meet it head-on...and there were those who said, "the mafia is just going to get more violent if we turn the heat up on them." that proved to not be correct...instead, they were put more on the run and were less able to organize themselves. my hope is that can work in the war against terrorism as well.
Like B-Bob said, these terrorists are motivated by ideology and religion and are less bent on money or power. If you look at the N. Ireland situation, English support of putting down troops only escalated the conflict and drove away moderate Catholic support. And that was a secular issue. Terrorists like Bin Laden are going to send people who are willing to lay down their lives in order for some fanatical reward. The IRA is brokering peace not because they think their goals are met, but because Ireland and N. Ireland aren't in the dumps anymore. The people are getting richer and the cause is getting dimmer and dimmer. Religious terrorism isn't bent on money. But if you eliminate their sympathetic support base by addressing the status quo in the region, they will only grow less in number. They might even unleash some desperation attack on their populace, but that would be counterproductive to their cause of uniting the Arab world against the Christian world...
Jeff, I agree that obliteration of the enemy isn't possible. However, hasn't the main point of the attacks on Al Qaeda thus far been to weaken them and take away their resources to perform serious acts of terrorism rather than destroy them? If just leaving them alone and letting them attack until they "get it out of their system" is the answer, then okay. However, I think that is extremely risky for the same reasons that MadMax pointed out. I don't think there's a guarantee that these people will ever let up, no matter what action the U.S. takes. And just for the record. I don't think any president (especially in his first term) will ever just stand pat after a serious act of terrorism; the majority of the public's call for retaliation will be too great.
If we knew where they were, there's no doubt we'd destroy them. Weakening them is the next best option. How we weaken them is in question...
This is actually the best solution for the problem, but its not known to the average everyday citizen of the US. This also means ending support for Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf States, except for IMF funding to help their economy to make them future purchasers of US goods and services. I can almost guarantee that every terrorist action against the US would cease and desist and it would be the best move for the United States in terms of furthering its economic strength and world-wide respect.
That makes 3. As long as their's a rich and a poor in this world, the poor will do what it can to the perceived "oppressor." Oh, and that whole religion thing as well.
Poor? In the year before the WTC attack, Bin Laden's estimated net worth was around $250 million. I don't think this has to do with money.
i don't think he means the bin ladens...he means the poor guys who bin laden sends to die for his cause...poverty is a nice incubator for that
But, Max, don't you think that they know already that they are dead men??? I mean, these guys consider themselves martyrs. How do you defend against a suicide bomber? It isn't like these are some kings sitting on a big gold throne in a castle somewhere daring us to do something about the attacks. These are people who live in caves and underground bunkers. They train in the middle of places none of us would ever want to visit. That is what gives them an advantage. Who cares if he laughs at us? What difference does it make? Given that the vast majority of the rest of the world saw those actions in virtually the same light we did, I'm thinking that they are the one's that look stupid and cowardly, not us. But that's the problem. They already live in terror. They have no families. They have no lives. They live in God-forsaken places with constant surveillance around them. Their lives are prisons of their own making. How can we possibly make them worse? We cannot. Killing them is, in their minds, a reward. I know it sounds crazy because it is, but we need to face the fact that they live their entire lives just to die at our hands in the way we kill them. We actually are giving them exactly what they want, so how could bombing them or threatening them possibly be a deterrant? It is what they wanted in the first place. I agree. However, their hatred runs deeper than just "you are the West so we must hate you." They view how we have involved ourselves in their culture as sacrelidge. They view it as a violation of their social, political and religous beliefs. They also see our unyeilding support of Israel as support of a dictatorship that kills their bretheren. That is the reality. Now, we can keep messing around over there if we want and that's fine, but we need to be prepared for the fact that it is like picking at a wound. The more we do it, the more it will irritate the situation. You are thinking WAY too recently. If you recall, we have had hijacking and terror problems since the 70's. They've been slowly escalating. If it wasn't a hijacking, it was Iran taking hostages. If it wasn't the car bombing of a military installation, it was the torpedoing of a US warship. 9/11 was the just the latest and most tragic of events that have been happening around us since the late 60's and early 70's. And the longer it has gone on, notice, the worse it has gotten.
No way do I ever support a truce with Al Queda. Even it means a hundred thousand American lives lost. Backing down to a bully will only encourage more bullying. They will think that anytime we do something that they don't agree with, bomb a building, I mean after they are the uncatchable enemy hence no reprecusations from us. America can not fight this war from afar, it may take us getting our hands dirty but they must know that no matter where they go or what they do we will be after them.
Jeff...you posted a lot here and I'm not gonna pretend we'll have a meeting of the minds on this issue! But I will address what I quoted from you... The leaders of Al Qaeda and the old Taliban are not living the lives of their followers. These guys DO have big families...they have lived quite well, particularly in comparison to the rest of their neighbors! If Bin Laden wants to die so bad, how come we never see his butt strapped to the end of a bomb? On the contrary, all reports indicate he's a hypochondriac (did i spell that right?) who fears death constantly. He always thinks he's sick...always thinks he's on his death bed. It's a deterrant because it keeps them disorganized...keeps them on the run...it deterred the hell out Ghadaffi. I don't know what the end game here is...but I think Bin Laden felt that he could strike without real retaliation from the US. That message was reenforced to him for a long time. I imagine his life is much more unpleasant today than it was before 9.11. I don't think you can allow yourself to continually be attacked and then sit back and say, "well..there's really not much we can do about it...let's just let them do it...or bow to their wishes." i don't think that approach suffices in this situation, because it creates the very real impression on the world that we are willing to drop our freedoms and our interests from the threats of madmen...that's not the precedent I wish to set.
Trader_Jorge has proposed what is easily the most sensible solution to the problem. Unfortunately, politics will prevent it from ever being realized. At the very least, it won't be suggested until far more Americans have died . To many people, such a strategy comes uncomfortably close to surrender. And Americans don't like negotiating for anything less than total victory, even if it's more profitable in the end. We like winning.
