MadMax: I'd take that bet, because you'd lose. TJ's eclectic enough on non-economic issues for me to agree with him sometimes .
Nomar, When I say Saudi's, i mean the current Saudi Arabian Regime will not be attacked because it is the iron fist that keeps the inhabitants at bay through oppression, secret police and tyranny. The problem is that the people that hold the animosity towards the US are upset as well at the Saudi regime. They see the US as a barrier to their freedom because of their military support for Saudi. For example if we were still under British rule yet were oppressed SIGNIFICANTLY more than taxation without representation, and the British were weak, but the Russian forces were there to support them, then the Russians become our enemy. I just don't feel destroying Al-Queda and every sympathizer will do anything aside from a short-term fix from terror because of the underlying hatred that is brewing in the Islamic world. Places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other nations are military dictatorships in which dissention from the government or even talk about the subject equates to death. We need to disassociate ourselves with these regimes and let nature take its course. Humans will strive for freedom and who are we to limit it? The reason why the US does not want freedom in Saudi is because it may become an Islamic nation, normally this would not be a problem but an Islamic nation may not agree with the situation in Palestine and Israel unlike the Saudi regime which has criticized Israel, yet not vehemently. Capitalism is capitalism and who cares what form of government they have, yet Israel is the key issue, and the Israeli's don't want more Islamic nations for fear of their attitude for their fellow muslims in Palestine, so we at Americans are paying the price.
Haven has agreed with me before. I keep a mental log of every time things like this happen in case I choose to change my sig.
i stand corrected...and i'd like to point out we never shook on the bet...i don't have any dollars this afternoon and i ate my donuts this morning.
I interpreted his proposal as a joke. 1) Leave Saudi Arabia to the intimidations of a madman; 2) Leave Israel to get attacked by a wacko who may not care whether Israel responds with nukes, leading to a regional conflagration; 3) Make 'allies' wonder whether we will stick by them when the going gets tough; 4) End the viability of embargoes as an alternative to war, leading to more wars in the future; 4) Show terrorists around the world that they can easily get what they want from us by attacking us, leading to more attacks; OPEC will survive, but the unbelievable instability in the region will send oil prices fluctuation madly.
I agree with Jorge. The problem for the U.S. is that it has "interests" in a lot of places. We will still have to worry about terrorist acts as long as the United States claims other people's natural resources as their own.
Originally posted by F.D. Khan Bin Laden stated that much of the animosity of Arabs/Saudi's ( the strong majority of Al-Queda and Terrorists in 9/11 were Saudi's or the Surrounding Arab states) towards the United States was based on the support of the regime in Saudi Arabia. Going to that country taught me much of the deplorable situation in the country that is allowing extremism to spread like wild fire. Though the wealth because of oil allows for many free social/health services, the freedom of speech and thought are almost non-existant. Similar to in Iran, religion is manipulated to maintain strict control over the people and consolidate and maintain their power. ]I truly don't feel that the US army was there to protect Saudi, in that Iraq had never had or made any statements / actions that would lead us to believe he wanted to attack Saudi Arabia.... He wouldn't have to invade them to impact them. With an unprotected border, he could simply threaten. And do you really think someone like Saddam would be happy stopping at Kuwait? What it boils down to is that the Saudi people want freedom. Who are we to support a dictatorial regime that oppresses their people. All that does is create the animosities that creates groups like Al-Queda. I think we need to pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia, and not because we are giving in to terrorist demands, but because it is not our country and our war to fight. We made a mistake in Iran and many other countries by propping up dictators for our own benefit. Saudi Arabia is different in that I do not believe that we 'prop' them up. We don't rally against their government, and maybe we should, but just because we don't try to overthrow their government doesn't mean that we should be seen as keeping it in power. Assuming Saddam is defeated or overthrown, and then let's say the troops are removed from Saudi Arabia, will the people then rise up and overthrow the regime? It sounds like a cop-out to me. Our troops won't fight a popular uprising in Saudi Arabia. No way.
I interpreted his proposal as a joke. There's something to be said for regional autonomy. Besides, the current Saudi regime is doomed. There's no way it'll still be here in 20 years. Unfortunately, all of our efforts to sustain it have simply reinforced radical Islamic tendencies in the region. Traditional deterrence will probably succeed, as it always has. However, Israel's bargaining position would be significantly threatened, possibly resulting in a reversion to 1967 borders. Moderates, like Jordan and Egypt, would likely be able to assert themselves w/o looking like US puppets. Bah. Coalition theory led to two world wars and the Viet Nam war in the 20th century. Let's abandon the soft "loyalty" crap and move to a scenario in which the US protects it's interests along with occasional humanitarian interests. Strict "interest analysis" leads to efficient resolution of disputes, and makes war a mere "risk miscalculation" possibility. As long as you allow "soft" issues to factor into the war calculus, you'll have irrational decision making. Embargos work? The evidence is very mixed. It appears that embargos work when the following conditions are met: 1. One side provides a vital resource that the other cannot get elsewhere, or alternatively, provides the only market for an export of the other party. Meanwhile, the resource must be unessential to the party conducting the embargo, or they must have a viable alternative source. 2. Said resource is essential to the economy of the country being coerced. 3. The issue at stake is less important than economic prosperity. When these conditions are met, embargos may be effected. Such is very, very rare however. The application of coercive force is what counts. Terrorist or "traditional..." you're simply trying to inflict a level of pain on the other party, so that maintaining their status quo policy is unprofitable. If it is unprofitable, there's no point in trying to continue it for "soft" reasons. Truces should be based on a realistic calculations of the "risks" and "rewards" that is independent of other factors. I refer this one to TJ.
We have, but they still have funds from sources we don't know of or won't act upon and they can still communicate (enough for some "imminent attack"). These terrorist cells in our and our allies' country is the legacy of the policies we've kept for the past 40 years. Waging wars against other countries/factions in order to keep the status quo and dealing with terrorists on our homeland are not mutually exclusive. But if continue to think that they are, our children are going to be in this mess. We think that we're going to root out terrorism once and for all. Well this war on terror isn't going to be the war that ends all wars.
could someone decipher this for me, Iain't getting it and it sounds like he has a good point I'm just having a hard time figuring out what it was, seriously
I make run-ons when I get carried away... The way we've worked around the world has to change if we want to see results on containing terrorism. We can't see this enemy. We can't invade them. We can't make them sign a peace treaty. And this enemy isn't motivated the same way as criminals. They aren't in it for the money. The reason we hear Rumsfeld and his advisors saying that this is a long term war is because it isn't really a war, or not a war our millitary can currently handle. These terror cells can lie dormant like cancer in our bodies. When we went into Afghanistan, we disrupted Al Qaeda, but we didn't eliminate Al Qaeda because they're scattered everywhere. They could be in Sudan or the Bekka Valley with the other terrorists. We flush them out and they scurry to another place like rats. In the meanwhile, the sympathizers begin to grow because they aren't interested in our interests. These people only see the starving children and the refugees streaming across the border. Other people are reminded of their own squalor or their helpnessness. And some of the countries in the Middle East are oppressive regimes with no voice for dissent. The only alternative voice are the fanatic terrorists who bomb their own country. But anything is better than the way they live now. They even have new reasons why their country isn't great. At the end of the day, it's the USA's fault... We're making it easier for them to recruit soldiers for their next army. Religious terrorism might not be about money, but a higher quality of living makes so it much harder to throw it all away.
I think they can be beaten physically and mentally. I think war can end this. I think deterrents do work. Although the plan was well executed by the AL Qaeda. If you take a step back and look at what they did. It was like trying to throw pebbles. They got lucky and hurts us. It's possible to defeat an opponent who does that. It's especially possible if you have a coalition working on your behalf. They are like weeds. A b**** to get rid of, but you just go one weed at a time. Eventually your lawn is looking pretty good. If you fail to pick the weeds they take over the whole damn lawn before you know it. They keep coming. They keep growing. When we returned the favor we had lots of people picking the weeds. More than ever before. And that helps to speed the process. The hardest part is dinstinguishing a weed from grass, but that's why you need lawn experts from all over the world to help you. You get that by declaring some sort of war.
