If the U.S. removed its presence in the Middle East.....

I don't like the poll. It should read "fewer" attempts/attacks, not "no". Maybe you can change it.

I think it would result in fewer attempts/attacks, but there will always be some loons out their for one reason or another (where religion inclided or another) who will want to bring us/people down, just look at the home grown terrorists like the Unibomber, Randloph and the OKC terrorists.

 

Unclear, wackos are going to be wackos regardless, but it would certainly lesson the hatred especially if we yank our support for Israel, or at least even it out.

DD

 

If we abandoned the Middle East - I think attacks would increase. We'd be charged with turning our backs on them. They still need a scape goat, and we'd have to leave Israel for them to consume and destroy - and then we'd still be one. They would claim that we built our civilizations on their oil or whatever - it won't end just by leaving. Letting them decay further is the wrong approach just as dumb as imposing democracy.

We need to understand these countries and realize they each require a unique solution. These are complex societies and no simple silver bullet solution exists...and we are dependent on their countries for energy.

The question is how to build a symbiotic relationship not just with their gov't but the people too. It may be too late for that, but it's worth a shot. it would require great leadership on our part, and a lot of patience.

We first have to show we're a fair broker of peace between Israel and Palestine - and gain a bit of credibility there. Then we need to engage Iran and Syria, and work with those countries to contain what's happening in Iraq. We need to move to fix afganistan. We'd need to pour a great deal of money into the area...investment into education and creating jobs.

we basically have to show that we give a crap about those people - and I'm just not sure that the American people understand this well enough....to make it politically possible.

This is why there needs to be a voice in the region for moderatism that can't be drowned out by fanatics. Unfortunately, it's hard to see that happening anytime soon.....there is no moderate agenda that has been pitched. Not by the U.S., not by the region. No solutions....

I think the only way would be to start in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Jordan - our strongest allies. They have to commit not to democracy - but creative institutions of freedom. Injecting the kinds of things that great civilizations have - freedom of ideas, press, bill of rights, and etc. In exchange, the U.S. would reward them with investment in education and job creation....and that...would lead to the rise of democracy from within, and a more positive view of the U.S.

Disengagement isn't the right approach...it's just a different kind of engagement other then military.

 

In the short and maybe medium term, there may be fewer attacks. But the geopolitical loss of face by the U.S. would be enormous. You also have to realize there haven't been that many attacks here to start with.

Please understand I detest Bush and his disastrous cowboy mentality. But yanking our troops out of the Middle East would be a terrible idea. The region would go up in flames, guaranteed. Other extremist groups worldwide would see this as a sign of weakness and would attack us the same way hoping to get the same result.

 

I say no, but I don't think we can ignore the region. I think showing our best side to the region is the best way to get rid of our enemies. Investment in hospitals, micro-loans for the poor, even handedness with Israel and it's neighbors... that sort of thing.

Combine that effort with diplomacy, redoubling our efforts to secure the boarders, ports, etc... gives us the best chance of preventing another foreign attack. Domestic terrorism is still a threat, and we can't go to sleep on the possibility that an attack could come from within.

 

Our presence in the Middle East is not an option as long as oil drives our economy, and that of our allies. The sooner we develop alternatives, the sooner we can tell a lot of people in the region to bugger off.



D&D. Clean Energy.

 

Before Iraq War II, a US disengagement of the Middle East would have prevented terror attacks in the US. Its sort of like America ignoring Africa- no one knows,no one cares and no American gets hurt. Our main problem is supporting Israel. Any time you support an oppressor- the friends of the oppressed will come and get you sooner or later.

If instead of spending a billion dollars a week on the war, if they just sent that money to the poor of the Middle East maybe people over there would change their minds.

 

We should reward terrorists with cash gifts? What could possibly go wrong?

 

Because they hate Jews.

 

Obviously, you don't give money to known terrorists, but we could do a LOT of good with a billion dollars a week. Read this link about one of the recent Nobel Prize winners...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061013-nobel-peace.html

 

yap 100% of the people from the middleeast are all terrorists

 

I think it is a mistaken assumption that if we pulled out of the middle east that Isreal would be at the mercy of it's neighbors. Isreal has nuclear weapons, means to deploy those weapons and a state of the art military (supplied by us). If Isreal did lose (which I am certain would only happen after extensive use of their nuclear arsenal) the landscape of the middle east would not be the same. Tehran, Damascus, Baghdad would most likely not exist anymore. It would be chaos for a long time.

 

We are not leaving the middle east and we can stop terrorist attacks if we want to.

 

To simplify a complex situation -- they don't think the Jewish people hate any rights to the land they are occupying (Isreal) and want them to leave.

 

I think he was talking about before starting the war in Iraq and using that money for that purpose, not now. Since toppling Saddam's regime there are countless more of the most fanatical terrorists who see the US as enemy #1 going to and sprouting up within Iraq, and a lot more sympathizers of them throughout the Middle East, so of course now it has become further difficult to aid those in the region without fanatical terrorists getting at it, or those accused of receiving it being slaughtered by them.

 

Even before we invaded Iraq, there were a great many terrorists in the ME, and a mind boggling number of people that supported terrorism. Hizballah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al have been around for quite a while and they all have a lot of support (I remember reading polls where upwards of 70% of Palestinians thought that there should be no punitive actions taken against those involved in attacks against Israeli civilians). So while not all people in the ME are terrorists, a lot more of them are terrorists or terrorist supporters than many people want to admit, and giving all of the poor people in the ME money would undoubtedly be filling the coffers of terrorist organiztions.