Friction between the West and Islam - How to fix?
 

I have to first congratulate this forum for being one of the most entertaining and civil forums I've lurked in. As a long time FOF fan, I've originally visited this site for its FOF information but I now visit more for the diverse topics and points of view.

Here's my first attempt to start a group discussion.

There's been threads discussing the latest West vs Islam (and the clash of civilizations, okay so I'm a Civ fan also) and the why's but I would like to ask this forum their thoughts on HOW to resolve this (seemingly continuous) friction, or even if its possible.

Here's my perspective. I used to believe if we won over the Muslim moderates, they will ultimately control the fringe radicals. I don't believe this anymore.

(1) I suspect muslims that consider themselves moderates would appear pretty radical to me.

(2) The polls seems to indicate a large majority of Muslims in all Muslim countries hate the US, and probably to a lesser degree the West in general.

(3) There seems to be a lack of will/want of Muslim governments and religious authorities to reconcile their population with the West.

(4) The Iraq war and establishing democracy to encourage changes is an interesting experiment but the results do not look promising.

(5) I suspect (no hard evidence) that the majority of the Muslim population are not well educated.

I have my own thoughts on how to correct this problem but would like to hear from this group first. Assuming you are in a position to influence US policy and your goal is for the best interest of the US, how would you REALISTICALLY proceed with correcting this problem?

is anyone else's troll-dar going off?

Listen to Pat Buchanan. Quit being the world's policeman. Understand, ultimately, that Muslims want to rule an Islamic World and let the smaller countries that love to hammer the U.S. about wanting to 'control' international relations learn that lesson the hard way. Then let them come up with solutions to fix the problem. We get to balance our own budget, correct our trade deficits and sit in the back of the room for awhile shooting spit-wads at other countries. Japan and South Korea would have to stop freeloading on our defense to start with, and start spending all that government money they funnel into R and D for their businesses that compete with us into defense.http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48648

It is now....

Well, I know I don't have the answer.

took me a long time to figure out that "quite" was "quit" that had me messed up.....not complaining as im the worst typer on the boards (just ask duckman) but that one got me.

Fixed it, don't usually get that one wrong...read the article though. Posted after the opinion.

It may be a bit early to reach this conclusion. It may well prove to be a miss, but I don't think a true success in this regard would be evident by now under many scenarios.

Lighthousekeep and Sabotai,

I apologize if my post seems trollish to you.

Instead of posting about why things happen, I wanted a (hopefully, comprehensive) thread on ideas on how to reconcile/fix the issue. I honestly find the HOW much more interesting than the WHY.

One thing that I think needs to be done is to, basically, double and triple our bet in Iraq. Increase prosecution of terrorists/criminals, and develop the best educational and medical facilities in the region. In other words, make Iraq the most civilized place in the region, the country that all Arabs want to live in. I don't know if that is possible or would have the intended consequence, but I think it's our best move.

Yeah, except for two news items that I ran across yesterday and today 1. USA TODAY reports that clinics cannot be built according to plan because its become too dangerous and 2. One of the cable news shows (Fox or CNN maybe) had a story on 900 new Iraqi soldiers going south for "duty." After 1 week they were down to 400 (there is no penalty for desertion in the Iraqi forces) and more desertions were expected after payday. So your plan has some big and continuing holes in it.

In answer to the question in the title: you begin by dropping this ludicrous politically correct idea that everything that is wrong with Islam is islamist.

Actually, I wasn't talking about you. :p

(I was refering to the person how posted before me)

Mac Howard,

As in any discussion by writing/emails, what you infer may not be what I said (or mean to say). The subtleties in 'parsing' my text is probably better left to a face-to-face discussion.

Please take my question on its own merit, ignore the perceived bias. How would you resolve/lessen this conflict?

Gee, and I thought being a 'troll' meant that you ignored the topic in order to launch personal attacks on someone you didn't like. Kinda like, well...

*sigh*

It was just a joke....

Gee, and I thought jokes were, you know, funny

I don't think anybody really has any ideas other than what's happening right now with western (US/UK) intervention. The US effort in Iraq and Afghanistan seem a worthy effort to piggyback on, however. If democracy can hold in those two nations (I looks like they may right now) then the people of those two nations will start to get a lot more information and a lot more exposure to the west than they are used to.

That'll have it's ups and downs, but to me, desegregation should be the key mission of the human race. So bringing the west to Iraq and Afghanistan is something I consider a noble and neccessary effort. The question that makes this endeavour risky is, "Are these people ready for desegregation?"

In 2001, the Middle Eastern segregation had it's own Berlin Wall. It stretched from Pakistan to Algeria. The transport for that message rode on the coat-tails of terror groups. Kings and dictators alike either appeased these mullah's, or faced overthrow by the mullah's large support base.

But this uninterupted chain is no more. Afghanistan and Iraq splits Pakistan off on it's own. Iran off on it's own. And Syria nearly off on it's own.

And as long as Iraq and Afghanistan can succeed to the point where democracy becomes self-regenerating in their own flavor of democracy (and with no US support) their own sphere's of influence will push back against the aniquated systems of hard-liner theocratic rule.

Of course, a democratic middle east would present it's own challenges, but I think economic rivals are better than ideological rivals. At least in today's global world.

It's all a bit risky, but right now, success seems to have huge rewards, while failure seems to return us to where we were in 2001. It's worth the effort in my opinion.

I laughed. :p

We ignore creeping multipolarity at our peril. The US is of course currently the world's dominant power but will face challengers in the coming century. Those challengers are unlikely to come from the Middle East. Already in this past year China and Russia have signed a strategic cooperation pact whose aim is to place a check on American strategic interests. The Euro has emerged as a legitimate competitor to the US Dollar as a preferred global currency.

I'm not saying that the US policies toward Middle East are a sideshow, but the expense in political, economic, and military capital they require are giving potential competitors such as Russia and China an opportunity to play catchup in terms of their own power capacity building. Relations are not entirely competitive now, but how we choose to deal with these countries now will determine whether our relations will be cooperative or competitive. To the short-sighted this may not matter much now, but this may turn out to be very expensive indeed, especially if and when the Treaty of Moscow expires in 2012.

My apologies, Edward64, I wasn't referring specifically to your question but to the tendancy of our western world, whenever we perceive actions in the Islamic world that impinge negatively on ourselves, to argue that it is extreme Islam that is the problem. Often the problem is Islam itself and this will not be resolved until that is admitted and the real problem tackled. You cannot solve problems if you refuse to acknowledge the real cause.

As for solving that specific problem, I wouldn't care to say. I suspect the Islamic world would argue that a culture that elevates 'service to God" above "individual human rights" does not need 'solving".

But I would suggest that our reliance on oil is why the problem is so acute for us and I'm disappointed that too little effort is being made to reduce that quickly. Had we spent the 400 billion dollars spent on Afghanistan and Iraq on the development of alternative fuels we may well have been able to allow the Islamic world to develop at its own pace and have worried little about what the likes of bin laden, Iran etc thought about us.

It's not too late to do somthing about that even now particularly as the developments in China, India etc are making that reliance ever more acute each succeeding day, but I don't yet see it. Perhaps with a president less involved in the oil industry the move will eventually come :rolleyes:

But that's a long term solution and, as some have suggested elsewhere, the middle east may not be the worst problem for us in years to come.

Klingerware. I think your point is 'be also concerned about West relations vs Russia/China/India' and not just 'West relations vs Muslim countries'. As a IT professional, I am aware of the current and looming economic competition. I have resigned myself that this is a natural evolution of the competitive forces freed up with growing capitalism in China/India (and Russia).

I tend to believe though this relationship is more stable/rational/predicatable as it is driven primarily by economic forces. The US/West relationship with Muslim countries seems more unpredicatable and prone to escalation (I think its because Religion seems to play a major role). In my mind, this is the more dangerous of the two.

Dutch. I agree with you that our Iraq/Afghanistan war has potential for huge rewards (ex. no, not thinking about cheap oil). I believe we will succeed in giving Iraq their own 'flavor of democracry'. However, as in Palestine, I'm not liking the 'flavor of democracy' they have chosen so far. I am hoping my pessimism will prove wrong.

St Cronin. I do think making Iraq the envy of the Arab world was GB goal. It will be interesting to read the history books 20-30 years from now if this was accomplished.

I laughed at Sabotai's post as well. I also didn't think the original post was in any way, shape, or form trollish, but a reasonable attempt to start discussion.

A few years ago I would have laughed my head off at the absurdity of it, but I actually agree on many thigs with Pat Buchannan...

As far as democracy in Iraq is concerned, great. Thousands of Americans die so that we can build a democracy in the middle east. If we can ever harness the power of these sacrificed Americans spinning in their graves when Al-Qaeda is democratically elected to power we can finally kick our addiction to foreign oil!

I hope we do build excellent schools in Iraq too. And an excellent medical system so that all Iraqis have medical care. I wish we were able to discuss correcting these problems in our own nation without it being called socialism. Hell, maybe we can build a good, efficient public transit system there while we're at it.

...I agree 100% with Bubba.

Our government needs to do what's best for it's citizens. IMO, this administration has severly overstepped it's bounds.

Sidenote: Bubba, I thought you supported this (Iraq)? Just want some clarification.

C'mon, kids, play nice :D

The first poster- I don't know how he looked like a troll. Seemed like an honest post.

Bubba's had some very thoughtful posts

No need to get fussy- this is a good thread idea and good thread.

SI

It's sort of crazy to think about how this country only came to be because the settlers believed that they had the right and ability to handle things on their own. Now, we're trying to tell people on different wavelengths what to do and what to think.

Let Israel do it's thing. If it can handle itself, then that's cool. What if Israel gets demolished? That's cool, too. You can only be a parent for so long. You can't kill yourself trying to raise something that is old enough to think for itself.

The world of Islam isn't ready to drink Coke, eat McDonald's, and play baseball. Helping to designate borders is places we have nothing to do with is a mistake. If that piece of shit land is worth fighting for to them, then let them fight. Muslims will not buy what we're selling until we have something they are interested in. It's not a religion issue. Muslims don't say "Canada is the Great Satan", or "Australia's infidels must die"

I don't see why America is holding onto Israel. Let them duke it out.

The current Muslim-Non-Muslim tension can be rapidly solved like every other problem mankind has ever faced - with the overwhelming use of force. Dead men do NOT continue to terrorize their neighbors. The US has used nukes before and I have no doubt that we will use them again when it suits our geopolitical goals. When the Muslim threat reaches a critical point of irritation they will be dealt with in a swift and proper manner.

wow.

A critical point of irritation? You want to nuke an area because they irk you a little? Slightly piss you off? God help us if you get really annoyed... :rolleyes:

Mac Howard. I agree our reliance on oil is a big liability in how we act/react to events in oil regions/countries (many of them Muslim countries). As a side note from this topic, I saw some TV special that investigated the US and European car companies and what fuel efficient/alternative cars they had coming through the pipeline in the next 20 years ... I was somewhat relieved to see a concentrated push. Ex. I think the automotive industry sees the future market and they know they have to produce those alternatives soon.

Eaglesfan27, Sterlingice. Thank you.

Bubba Wheels, rexallllsc, M Go Blue. Duly noted as isolationists. GB ran on a platform of not being the world's policeman and failed on this issue ... do you believe the PB alternative is realistic considering real-world relationships and pressures? Ex. Rawanda, Somalia, Haiti. The execution may have been flawed but I think the intent was good.

RadioFriendlyUnitShifter. I suspect this issue is beyond Israel. Even if Israel and the Palestinians were to make peace, I think the US/West and Islam tensions will still be present as other 'big issues' will come to the forefront.

Kobeck, Jari. If the situation in Iran or N. Korea ever got to the point where we were threatened with Nukes and controntation seemed inevitable (my definition of a "critical point"), I would tend to side with Kobeck and lets do a first strike. Kobeck, your post seems to indicate you think this confrontation is the inevitable end result, is this correct?

I agree with this 100%. Israel is, roughly speaking, a western state located in the middle east, and the conflict there is a proxy conflict, but were Israel to go away, the conflict would still exist. There would just be fewer headlines to remind us.

When Bush ran initially he talked about not nation-building and using intervention only in the interests of the U.S. along with having a clear exit strategy BEFORE we went in.

Buchanan contends in his book Where the Right Went Wrong that after 9-11 the neo-cons have taken control of U.S. foreign policy. This does appear to me to be the case. As far as Iraq, it sure does look like the reasons that the U.S. used for intervening in the first place have changed dramatically. I don't fault Bush for the faulty intelligence he may have gotten and don't consider him a 'liar' (the left pushes this as a strategy to their own peril) but to me history and results so far seem to dictate a need for a change-in-course.

You are dealing with a religion that believes all must convert to Islam or die. The west must get beyond their PC ideology of saying everyone’s belief is equal and address that “or die” tenet. If there truly are Muslims that are peaceful, then they should separate from Islam into a separate division and denounce the extremists.

Today the so called peaceful Muslims and their religious leaders do not denounce the extremists and they often financially support them. Today some westerners believe the entire religion is bent upon the “convert or die” principle and whether it is true or not, perception becomes reality.

Again, until the control of Islam is diverted from the radical hate mongers that will kill no matter what, they are an enemy and should be treated like one. Don’t play games with the people who remain and say they are peaceful. If they are, they will separate themselves from the hate mongers.

How do you fix it? Don’t give aid or any other assistance to the Islamic countries (oil presents a problem here) and defend yourself against attaches of terrorism. Call all Muslims out who claim they are peaceful and force them to either act accordingly with their direct actions and support or treat them like the hate mongers. If they split and differentiate themselves from the extremist in a way that can be measured, then accept them into the fold. Edward, to your point above, you have to clearly separate the extremist from the moderate, so they cannot hide. Just be ready to address the many “moderates” that are silently helping the extremists. They too are extremists.

The result, peaceful Muslims create a new sect that is proven to be unassociated with the violent extremists. The others that continue terrorist attacks are defeated by military force.

RadioFriednlyUnitShifter, I seriously doubt improving education in the Mid East is going to do much to solve the problem. Many of the extremist leaders and terrorist are very well educated by western schools. Hmm, maybe western schools are part of the problem, see my point above about dumping the PC ideology about everyone’s belief is equal. I know we can do it because we rightfully don’t accept the belief’s of the KKK or Neo Nazi groups as equal.

Nuclear weapons are mainly seen as a deterrent weapon by policy and most military strategists. They are near-useless as an offensive weapon once your potential opponent develops 2nd strike capability or if they have allies who do.

My main point is that the US should take a macro, long-term view with regards to its foreign policy. I am not saying that the US relationship with the Middle East is unimportant, but I think the US can do a better job of assessing the long-term implications of its policy decisions. I am also not saying the current US policies are "right" or "wrong", but whatever decision is made there will be consequences. Policy-makers should be doing a cost-benefit analysis of policy consequences. For example, what are the implications of the military and political costs we are expending on the Iraq and Terror policies for our future political and economic competitiveness down the road? Maybe our current policies will be worth the costs, maybe not. Maybe there will be another 90s-style economic expansion that will render the economic stagnation worry moot, maybe not. It is of course difficult to peer into the future, but it is still useful to be more mindful of long-term consequences--it is something that with which we don't seem to do very well.

Do you have any links to that? I have never heard that Islam wanted all non-Muslims killed.

Many of the Western countries are dependant on foreign sources of energy.
Many of the Western countries' manufactured products are now foreign-made (e.g. China).

If they ever get together and start to squeeze the Western countries, they have a lot of leverage.

Dutch, I think this is the first time I've seen you lay out your position in such a clear and lucid manner from first principles. Of course, I do disagree with you conclusions and the assumptions/theories you conclusions rest upon, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate you posting this.

I'm kindof depressed that these days I find myself going "man, I miss the good ol' days of taxes/big govt Democrats vs no taxes/little govt Republicans" instead of the "extreme executive powers Republicans and we-don't-like-you-ninny's Democrats".

SI

There's a big problem with this plan, tho. You're going to need the moderates to be swayed over to the peaceful sect or else they aren't going to have any sort of political power. They'll be the small "radical" function in their country, known as being a bunch of "western puppets" while everyone else has been demonized by the west.

SI

If we all agree, all the time, the world would be a boring place.

We shall fix this problem by breeding with their women, and in time we will all become one.

Here's my thesis to bring the relationship between US/West and Islam back to neutral. I know its not perfect but I like to think its (somewhat) realistic.

The goal of these initiatives is to swing the US/West and Islam/Muslim relationship back to neutral in most Muslim countries and pro US/West in a few Muslim countries.

A. Establish sucessful advocate(s) in the region. Split up OPEC.
B. Think more Pax Americana
C. Create a sucessful propoganda machine
D. Direct a focused effort on tangible deeds/results in Muslim countries
E. Resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict
F. Reduce dependence on oil
G. Take out the extremist elements with targeted precision

These intitiatives are meant to be pursued in a concurrent manner, with constant finetuning.


Item A.

From my readings, it seems that Kuwait and Qatar are the 2 most US/West leaning Middle East and Muslim countries in the region. Afghanistan may turn out to be a 3rd but probably too early to tell. Find out what it will take to align them to the US/West more closely.

Ex. Military protection, infusion of investment, (some) industry that they can depend on after their guaranteed reserves and world oil dependence is reduced in the future.


Item B.

Okay, I'm not saying invade countries and take land. However, I believe the US government is resigned to globalization and allowing globalization and the free (and sometimes unfair) market to take us where it goes.

This item pertains to the US government strategically leading globalization and having it follow us.

Ex. IT programming is dead (or will be in the next 20 years). The jobs have and will end up in India and China where they can do the job cheaper and better. The US government does not seem to care that our 'IT intellectual captial' has been traded for short-term profits.

Ex. Textile industry is dead. There is no way US companies using US labor can compete with other companies using labor from China.

I'm not saying I know the solution, all I'm saying is the US government makes little effort to veer globalization to the US long-term advantage.

Specific to Muslim countries in the Middle East, what other significant industries do they have other than for oil? Related to Item A, we need some globalization initiatives with Kuwait and Qatar (to start off with first).


Item C.

It has not been working so far. We need a steady infusion of pro (or at least neutral) US/Western and anti-radical Islam propoganda. I'm not sure how to do this but the answer is definitely not to hire a Washington/NY PR firm. Item C and Item D need to be closely aligned.


Item D.

Regardless of the Israeli/Palestinian issue, I can't help but believe that if the US was to trade a weapons program (ex. lets not build anymore Tridents) and allocate those budgeted funds to direct, tangible efforts in helping the most needy of Muslim population that significant goodwill will be created.

Ex. Spend $1B to reconstruct the hardest tsunami-hit Indonesian areas.

Ex. Spend another $1B to help the earthquake hit Pakistan villages etc.

Ex. Spend another $1B to setup significant employment opportunities in Pakistan where the madrases are (probably will have to hide the fact its coming from the US through a local company).

In these examples, the $3B is small change for the chance of a great upside in goodwill.


Item E.

Regardless of who was there first, who has a right to live there, whose promise land it is, whose fault it was for the missed the opportunities etc. I suspect all issues can be worked out other than for "right of return" and "Jerusalem".

My suggestion for "right of return" is to offer it, details and compensation can be worked out but the overriding concession by the Palestinians will be the inability to vote for the next 99 yers. Other than for voting, they will be protected by all the same laws that protects any other Israeli.

Ex. The US had a significant % of its population not voting for the majority of her existence.

The Israelis will have 99 years to increase their population and to ensure resident Palestinian goodwill. Can't work? The change of power in South Africa seems to have gone 'generally' well. If it can work there after years of apartheid, why not after 99 years of determine integration.

As for Jerusalem, bring it all under UN control, with non-aligned UN troops (ex. Chinese troops in Jerusalem would be a sight!). Alternatively, make the Holy sites embassies/consulates to ensure sovereignty (ala West Wing).


Item F.

The US private sector cannot do this themselves. It has to be mandated and forced onto us to reduce oil consumption. Not in 20 years as GB stated in the State of the Union (what a cop out), but in the next 5-10 years.

I believe we can reduce the oil consumption quickly, it depends on our will, the monetary cost and the price the US will have to pay in jobs/economy.

Our collective will is zilch. At $4/gallon, we'll be griping, blaming it on everyone else but we'll still continue to drive our SUVs. Government needs to impose its will.

I'm not sure how to calculate the monetary cost.

The price in jobs and economy would certainly hit the big automakers first as they will have to quickly retool and abandon currently productive factories. In addition, the profit margin and sales on the newer cars will be difficult to calculate. My best guess is in the short term there will be massive employment casulties in the automotive industry. However after a painful transition period, the opportunities for being the 'first to retool and be in a new market' will be enormous.

Ex. If I was head of the big 3, I would spin off (and own a majority) the hybird/alternate fuel division into its own separate company. Its charter would be to build fuel efficient cars and compete like any other car company

Ex. Like Kodak, its time to give up on film cameras.

For advocates for smaller government and intervention, my theory is there are certain times when government has to impose its will to get things done.

Ex. if not for the government, we would not be as integrated as we are now, not as bad as "separate but equal" but certainly less than the situation now.

The key to making this transition palatable is to provide a safety net for the displaced workers where they can be retrained and not have to worry about basic needs and healthcare. I think this will necessitate an increase in taxes and possibly a recession. However, short of a Depression, I think the costs are a fair price to pay.

Ex. I've been through 2 stock market crashes and 2 recessions. Nothing to laugh at but most people can rebound.


Item G.

Okay, lets call it an assasination. It doesn't need to be done by us, we can initiate, fund, encourage (whatever) but we should leave it as an option. I know its illegal and no, I don't think any of the Muslim government leaders qualify under this category right now. In my opinion, the clear example of where this is needed is in N. Korea.

As for terrorists, I like the idea of a Predator and a car full of terrorists on a desert road. I do not like the idea of a Predator and a civilian apartment building. There's been situations where we've probably killed many innocents (as well as terrorists) in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Can't we create a quick reaction force to encircle these elements and hold them trapped until a larger force comes? I know this won't work for an apartment building in a city but certainly can work for a smaller town/village.


Two other points to consider for this plan ...

I don't know how to weigh is the current state of our economy. I truly believe if our economy was robust (ala 90's) we would certainly be better able to absorb the increased cost/taxes/job loss than now (still fragile after emerging from our 'shallow' recession).

Political will. Even if GB signs on to this plan, I'm not sure our Congress could agree to follow. The optimal time to propose this plan would have been shortly after 9/11 when GB leadership was at its zenith.

Well, we could do what others want and convert to Islam. Which according to radical Islamists would end all the violence.

I've done some reading on the obstacles to significantly reducing our oil dependancy. It's pretty staggering stuff - I think our best hope is fission power, honestly.

Can anyone give some modern examples of Islamic countries stepping out of their borders and giving the "covert or die" option?

All those that attacked,and horribly humiliated Israel in 48,58,68,72-73.

Without a doubt. USA is 1-0 in neuclear exchanges.

Neuclear wars are winnable they are NOT lose-lose.

All wars, and neuclear wars in particular, should be away games.

that is the purpose of Boomers and SAC, of course SAC has been replaced by TAC - a HUGE mistake IMHO. Anyone who would/could strike back would be lumped in with the primary targets.

The problem is, when you suffer a defeat, the country is all but dead.

PS - The correct term is "Nukular"

And vice-versa. In fact, most Americans probably don't even know the three basic tenets of the al-Qaeda fatwa against the United States (which was written in 1998 before we invaded Iraq). While I strongly hate them and condemn their actions, at least I know why they claim to be attacking the United States. I don't agree with them, but at least I've taken the time to research their grievances. In their words:

1. U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.

In their mind, the U.S. has been occupying their land and using it as a staging ground to attack other Muslims. They also believe that their riches are being plundered, and that their non-elected rulers are being utilized as puppets.

2. U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.

This was written in 1998, but they also believe that the subsequent invasion of Iraq has been responsible for tens of thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq. They also believe that the main reason for the U.S. presence is to protect its oil interests, not to help the Iraqi people.

3. U.S. support of Israel

In their own words: "If the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula."

I don't agree with this, but we're talking about the hearts and minds of the average poverty stricken citizens over there, who eat this stuff up.



Well, to put it quite simply, most of the governments that are friendly to the U. S. are between a rock and a hard place. On any given day, they don't know if they're going to be overthrown by the general population, which doesn't share the same camaraderie with their non-elected leaders that the U. S. does. (e.g. the Saudi Royal family, King Abdullah of Jordan, Musharraf of Pakistan, etc.). When given the chance to express themselves in free elections, we have seen the recent results in Egypt, Iraq and Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood gained strength in Egypt, the puppet government established in Iraq was booted out in short order, and Hamas crushed the U.S. supported Fatah government in Palestine.

The most common name for newborn sons in Pakistan over the past two years is “Osama”.

And we still sit back and scratch our heads and wonder why they aren't throwing the flowers in the streets that Dick Cheney predicted when we invaded Iraq.

My humble suggestion:

http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm

I agree wholeheartedly with this. For 50 some odd years, we've been basically playing pattycake in the region and taken a hands off approach. The worst we accomplish by the hands on approach is what we saw before.

And before anyone says that we're making more terrorists, etc., we have not heard of any attacks against US assets anywhere outside of the two warzones since we've been there (at least none that I can recall).

So attacks against coalition members don't count?

Yes.

My reasoning is that I have no doubt they have tried to attack us, but have failed for some reason. They could attack us on foreign soil as they had in the USS Cole attack, the embassy in (my mind is going blank here) Africa, etc. They have shown their willingness to attack us anywhere on the globe. But the pace of attacks against us have slowed, why?

The only conclusion that I can draw based upon my belief is that we were able to either stop the attacks, or deny them the ability to attack us.

One thing regarding the use of oil. Is there any other resource whose price is based not upon current stocks and reserves, but what is going to happen 20-30 years down the road?

Kobeck. Nuclear wars are winnable but they can be lose-lose. As stated, I'm all for a first strike if we get to that 'critical point' but that only works for governments. I'm not sure a nuke will 'win' anything in the mountains of Pakistan/Afghanistan.

Drake. A little too far out for me.

Vegas Vic. I do not agree with your comparison of us-hating-them is anywhere on the same level of them-hating-us. It is far more vehement and cohesive with the Muslim population-hating-us.

I agree with your statement with 'friendly' Muslim governments being in a rock and a hard place. I think the 2 exceptions are Kuwait and Qatar (and maybe Afghanistan) ... my vote for the 'shining examples in being pro-US/Western.

Warhammer. No I can't think of anything whose price is based on 20-30 yrs down the road. However, I don't think that's how oil is priced now, is it?

Well, we've never had more reserves of oil, production has never been higher, and yes demand is high, but not nearly what was predicted as China's consumption has been lower than what was projected (still increasing by quite a bit though), yet oil is still through the roof. Why? Because we're going to run out of it? If Big Oil is guilty of anything, I think this is what they are guilty of, not telling the truth about our supply.

What he said. We are far from this point however. If there comes a day when we in America must deal with terrorist attacks on a daily basis as they do in Iraq or Israel then bombs away. We aren't talking about just some ultra-religious nuts that stand on the street corner telling all who will listen that Armageddon has arrived. We are talking about some ultra-religious nuts that want to f'ing kill you. That is not to say all muslims think this way, it's just the extremists. There are some countries that tolerate this type of reasoning(that of the ultra-religious nuts that want to f'ing kill you) and allow them safe harbor. Those countries should be wiped off the face of the Earth if it means their dillusional citizens or agents will no longer be a threat to the lives of my children. Again, I think we are a long way from this point but we dropped the big one twice on Japan to avoid large American casualties from an invasion on Japanese soil. What makes you think for a second we wouldn't or shouldn't drop it again to avoid large scale casualties on our own soil? We have these weapons for a reason. If our way of life is threatened we have two choices: Change the way of life or end the threat to our way of life.

Warhammer. From what I've read, oil prices is increasing not because of anticipated supply and demand 20-30 years from now, but because oil production capacity is (or close to) maxed out.

The temporary Katrina effect notwithstanding (ex. when it was $3+), the sellers can demand a higher price (currently at $2+).

I feel like you do that the oil companies are gouging us. However, I temper that with the thought that if the oil companies were losing money, we would say "tough luck, you've got too much expenses and should trim the fat". It doesn't seem as if the oil companies can win in this current environment, we criticize them either way.

I think you are quite right on this issue. We complain the oil companies are making too much. We'd tell them to buck up if they were losing money. Gouging is a just a ladened term meaning setting a really good price.

Hmm, New York city September 11, 2001, world trade center site.

I mean they are not going to hand you a card and say check yes or no.

I agree too, but this has been talked about since the 70's. It makes you wonder why researchers are just now starting to get really serious in looking to develop synthetic substitute for Oil and Car companies are back giving alternative energy Vehicles a higher priority.

I wouldn't exactly call that little thing with Japan an "exchange." That's like calling yourself 1-0 in arm-wrestling against somebody with no arms.

Thank God those of you calling for a nuclear strike aren't in charge of anything more than your keyboards.

Without discussing the moral implications, the effects of our using a nuke first would devestate us.

First, you can be sure that oil imports would be effected. We'd probably lose ME oil, Venezuela and Russia. We can't maintain our way of life without oil.

Second, China would almost certainly punish us economically. Since we don't make much of anything and China makes a lot of what we need, we'd be screwed. Again there goes our way of life.

Third, it would facilitate a major realignment of world powers. NATO wouldn't survive and the end result would be a Europe that is mostly against us, China gaining influence in the Far East and probably the return of a confrontational Russia.

But of course from the cockpit of your keyboard I'm sure a nucular attack is almost irresistible. All the colors and fire and dead Arabs....

Not the point. Point was that the US has built and used nuclear weapons to facilitate their geopolitical needs. US has built plenty of nukes since that time, could argue that they were "used" as a deterrant against Soviets.

there must be something missing. The US would not resort to nuclear warfare and then abide by normal trade relations. If the US goes nuclear the US will obtain any needed resources by force as necessary. Domestic production capacity can and will be increased/implemented as needed. No trade with China basically means that a Tshirt costs what a Tshirt should cost instead of the cost of a Tshirt made by a political prisoner or 6 year old child.

Just as England did extraordinary things when faced with annilihation by the Nazies (hey got around to Nazies before the 6th page), the US will do extraordinary things if the terrorists truly threaten American soverigenty.

Oh and their is nothing immoral about using nuclear weapons. They are just bombs, big ole bombs that do a lot of damage, but just bombs none the less. I personaly would like to see the US use more air burst gasoline weapons. Those things really go boom and ruin your day if you are anywhere near it. US used them in Afghanastan when we had Bin laden pinned in those mountains. Some foreign reporters believed the US had used some of their nuclear arsenal. They leave a real impression on the receptient.

Who are you going to bomb?

I assume that you want to get all of the terrorists, so we would need to nuke at least 70 or 80 countries. While we're at it, we might as well nuke ourselves, just to make sure that we get all of them.

Exactly.

Kobeck: You're a fool.

And even better, he's never going to be elected to office in any democracy.

Of course, having said that, if he's writing these posts from Iran....we might be in trouble here.

Vegas Vic, JPhillip, flere-imsaho, BucDawg40, BYU 14.

(1) Can we bring this relationship back to neutral.
(2) If yes, how?
(3) If no, what do we do in the forseeable future?

(Greyroo, no need to reply). :)

Wow, must suck being your friend with an attitude like that. I guess a friend in need is a burden who is on his own for you.

1-0 when nuclear weapons were much less powerful. Plus, the idea of nuclear war is not the same as what it once was. With rogue groups looking to start something, there is no longer a country that you are specifically at war with so who do you attack. The only exception to that rule may be Iran, as I see them more likely to use the weapons that North Korea would be. The last thing that China wants to see is North Korea start using nukes and they should have enough influence to keep that from happening.

Well I'll be damned.

Just when I thought I might truly be the last voice of logic & reason in the world, along come some new voices in this thread to prove me wrong.

Will wonders never cease? Eh, upon further review ... I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, I'll just sit over here in the corner & be happy with the reassurance that I'm not the last sane person left.

Edward: Well we sure as hell won't get anywhere by lobbing nukes. There is no way that using a nuke first will be for the better of the USA. It may(but probably won't) make the ME safer for us, but you can't discount the effect on the rest of the world. The surest way to our being knocked off the top of the hill is using a nuke first.

What we do now is tricky. First we need to really focus on terrorism if that is our main threat. We get told one thing, but the QDR makes it clear that we are still focused on a large contry to country conflict. If terrorism isn't our main threat be honest about it. I'm personally not sure that terrorism is a bigger threat over the next three decades than China, but the admin tells us all the time that terrorism is the main problem.

We need a larger Army. If we're going to commit to long term occupations we need the troops to do it. Right now we really can't do anything much in Iran because we don't have troops free. I would love to add six divisions, but the admin is very reluctant to add any troops. All our fancy weapons are almost useless in insurgency combat and the only answer is more troops.

Devise and follow a plan for Iraq. Its clear to me that we are the focus of the problems in Iraq. I'm willing to admit that Iraq may fall into chaos without the U.S., but I'm convinced it will never be stable as long as we are a crutch for the Iraqi government. The government of Iraq, our supposed allies, have also stated that its fine for Iraqis to kill us. We can't stay in a country that sees us as the problem. We need to declare victory and start a phased withdrawal now before it really will look like we're running.

Our only long-term hope is to get out of the oil business. I don't know if that can happen, but I'll give Bush credit on finally pushing alternative fuels. I don't think we'll ever be friends with militant Islam so the answer is to stop relying on them for our way of life.

We're finally basing terrorism defense money on risk and that's well overdue. I wish the Homeland Security head had more ability to coordinate projects. I still think we're woefully unprepared for an attack.

I want those in the admin to be held accountable and not given medals. Right now loyalty trumps competence. We hire college students to hand out reconstruction money, have a CPA head that touts export tax relief as a major accomplishment, and have a Defense administration that has been wrong on almost every prediction and assumption. I thought this was supposed to be a new era of responsibility.

Finally, I don't think its possible to eliminate the risk of terrorism. Its just something that we'll have to do our best to limit. It helps a lot that we're so far away from the terrorists and I have to believe that the Arab countries can't hold off modernity forever. I generally believe the Bush rhetoric on democracy, but the election results in Palestine, Egypt and Iraq are worrying. What do we do if the militants win elections? Maybe having to be in charge will help mellow them.

What I'm sure of is that we can't kill everyone that doesn't like us. Its simply impossible. That, along with a real ignorance of WWII history, is why I called Kobeck a fool.

i dont know how to fix it, but its all messed up and at some point, like I said in a similar thread about a year ago....if the moderate islamists dont gain their religion back at some point it WILL be a war against Islam and since last time I checked the radicals dont wear a uniform that differentiates themselves from those moderates the collateral damage will be high. I do predict a massive war at some point, which many bibileists will say it was predicted in revelations....whether theyre right or wrong about the relevanc of revelantions in that prediction, the times will be scary. I just have no faith that the belt of islamic countries will get a grip on it and ideoligies will come to a head. Not a good thing for anyone who doesnt enjoy war, bloodshed, and fighting. I hate it.

Interesting topic considering the book I just started reading. "The Long Emergency" by James Howard Kunstler. The book is basically about what is ahead of us a decade or two in the future. According to the book, global oil production has already peaked and started diminishing. Assuming the estimates of reserves the author quotes are correct, as well as the global demand for oil, there are enough reserves to last another 40 years assuming no population growth and demand does not continue to grow. I'm not saying this is gospel, just food for thought.

Eaglefan. In my opinion, in NK you have a crazy guy truly in charge of a country w/nukes and a supporting cast of sycophants. In Iran, you have a crazy guy w/nukes (or soon) but with a group of (somewhat rational) mullahs (afraid of losing power) controlling him. This makes NK much more dangerous.

I seriously doubt China can control him if he decides to go off the deep end. He's got his army, his people have endured starvation for a while, economy is in a shambles and he's still revered.

JPhillips, Flasch186. Both of you seem to indicate you are not optimistic we can bring it back to neutral.

i dont see neutral as a possibility as Al Qaeda and the extremists are excellent marketers and they are able to use the media and current events to their advantage, without even having any control over them. They will fuel the fire until eventually the number of extremists will grow faster than they can be killed and eventually it will come to a head. I am beginning to wonder if at some point in the future the West will have to give fair warning to the ME and those countries holding extremists and if another attack occurs the West attacks in a monstrous war, or Vice versa.

Here's an article about the guy that I got the book handed down from. He seems to have taken this oil issue to heart. I would say that if oil is the issue, and the Middle East has it and we need it, there will never be a resolution to the West/Islamic clash.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...4646/index.htm

Peak oil is an interesting and alarming idea--it's an extreme prediction, but if true, terrorism will be the least of our problems as much of our civilization would fail without petroleum or petroleum-based products. Again, a worst-case prediction, but it is a wake-up call that we better get the timing of the transation away from fossil fuels just right, or there will be chaos.

Also, if true, the Middle East won't matter to the west in 75-100 years. However, the implication for the next 50 years is that there will be a scarcity of resources that will not make cooperation with our economic rivals very easy. Conflict with ascendant powers such as China is beginning to happen now--witness China's attempts to secure oil resources to fuel it's economic development and the outcry caused by CNOOC's bid for UNOCAL last year.

I tend to think that the next large war, if it were to happen, would be over competition for natural resources and not ideology. In fact, I have heard some analysts say that the next war in the middle east would not be over religion or oil, but a tip in the balance regarding rights over scarce water supplies.

Interesting, in the Israeli/Palestinian continual crisis, one of the more quiet issues is the watertable that sits under the West Bank. Israel Proper is almost dry as a bone compared to the West Bank.

Could Israel end up being dependent on Palestine for it's fresh water supply? That's a security risk in and of itself!

Peak oil may not be as extreme an idea as you might think. I myself had a hard time getting used to the numbers used in the book so I've been doing some searching on the internet. Wikipedia and other sites with information regarding oil, natural gas, and coal reserves. Even the highest estimates I could find for oil reserves allows about 40 years assuming no growth in demand. China's demand for oil is growing at a very fast clip, upwards of 40% increase per year now. Even if every other nation in the world could level off consumption, with China's voracious appetite growing as it is, there is only enough oil reserves to last a decade or two.

Once again, with oil becoming such a scarce commodity, and the Middle East having two-thirds of the world's estimated reserves, and the West's and now China's appetite for oil increasing, I see no resolution to the West/Islam clash.

But that is the resolution, if you follow peak oil to it's logical conclusion--once the oil runs out, it won't matter as much...

Absolutely, I somehow missed that earlier. We will simply retreat to our little corner of the world.

A very interesting long-term problem for Israel. Countries bisected by the major rivers in the region (Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, etc) also may be suceptible to conflict, especially if a country upstream decides to draw more water or dam up the river...

Except to reduce what Bush calls "our addiction to oil" by the development of alternative technologies.

True, production capacity is close to maxed out. However, I disagree with a few statements, I do not believe that the oil companies are gouging us. They only make 8.5-10% return on investment which is extremely low. The people that make a killing are the speculators in the stock market. They are the ones who cause the price fluctuations in the price of oil based upon demand.

Also, our refinery capacity is not any different than it was 5 or 6 years ago. In many ways it is better due to process improvements refineries have made the last few years.

Oy, this Peak Oil stuff. The basic idea is true (there will be a time where we reach a peak, etc, etc), but this catastrophe prediction is way off the mark. Remember there are PLENTY of oil reserves that we don't mine because it is not economical at the current price (well, the current price a year ago... the price is high enough now that some of those projects, like oil shale mining and offshore drilling off West Africa are beginning). Basically, we may see a peak in easily mined oil, but new technology and other reserves that will become more economical with the high oil prices is going to stave off any 'catastrophe'.. for at least the next century. And who knows, by then, we may be driving hydrogen cars.

Anyway, when technology becomes sufficiently advanced the BIG prize is in Siberia. It is rumored that there may be more oil under the permafrost than there is in the Middle East as a whole. We just have to be able to cheaply drill through the permafrost so that it is economical. New technology may indeed make it far cheaper than currently.

ISiddiqui. Assuming we can drill the Siberian oil economically, it'll still be a major problem. Wrong sphere of influence.

Mac Howard. I'm all for the alternative technologies. Its just that we've been preaching that since the 70s and its not been happening fast enough. GB and his 20 yr goal is mindless, pushing it off onto another administration who'll do the same and on-and-on-and-on.

Dutch. I didn't know about the water supply situation. Interesting.

Nothing like getting personal to show you have lost touch huh?

I understand the historic signigance of the US bombing Japan into submission in WWII. I also know not only was it the most expedient way to end the war it was also the best way to end the war. I am defining best as the way that minimizes US/allied loses and maximises Japanese loses. There are a lot of Americans around today cause their grandfathers did not have to storm the beaches of Japan.

And in fact the US can kill everyone that it is necessary to eliminate. Now there is no painless and pretty way to do it, but it can be done if the will is there to do it.

Your outlook has been warped by 50+ years of silly anti-nuke rehoretic. Free your mind from that crap and you will see the nuke bomb as the tactical weapon with the strategic force that it is.

But I do agree that currently a bunch of the US antagonists are not worth dropping a nuke on, some of them are not even worth conventional weapons. For those foes there is only boots on the ground. US is currently in Germany and Japan and the US will be in Iraq and Afghanastain in 2040 cause that is just the way it goes. Came with the decision to go in to begin with ( I was against the Iraq invasion FWIW).

Just cause you hate Bush does not mean you have to hate the US strategically excersizing its power to protect US interests. Don't be scared, Americans do not approch the world from a position of fright and weakness. If you want a foreign policy based on giving a crap about the people you are gonna bomb then go to France.

And FWIF I am a veteran and I have children, I had family enlisted in every conflict since WWI, probably before but not positive. My point here is that although you might take some wierd comfort in believing that the US cannot defend itself, your attitude is not only wrong it sends the wrong message. If it takes the world being frightened about the next US move to secure the US future then so be it.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a rule somewhere on the books that says if Turkey were to dam up the Tigrus and Euphrates rivers that the "World Alliance to dismantle what's left of the Ottoman Empire" event is triggered.

:eek: And you were talking about OTHERS losing touch?!

Just depends on the next President of Russia. I mean the US doesn't need to have more oil within its borders. That's just silly. A Russian President who wants to make as much money as he can will supply the US will plenty of oil, or supply others with plenty of oil, leaving other parts for us.

Are you scared of Nukes also? Seems that way. Nukes are just weapons nothing more, nothing less. Nukes are not evil.

The longbow was the "nuke" of its day. A stand off weapon that could penetrate the best defenses (armored heavy infantry) of its day. The longbow is not evil and nuke bombs are not evil. quite being so French.

A single longbow could turn a city to dust? I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I think the nuke is a great weapon too, so long as it doesn't turn our milk purple, that is.

the longbow was not often used individually. The longbow was a mass attack weapon and it provided the tactical advantage that a nuke does today. That is it nutralized the offensive capability of the opponent and gave control of the battlefield to the side with the longbow. Nukes are designed to be used on battlefields. The fact that they could be airbursted over a city, as the US did to Japan, is just another reason to embrace the nuke as the tatical weapon with the city busting strategic punch that it is.

Again all wars, and nuke wars in particular, should be away games.

Please tell you are just trolling us. I wonder if use of a longbow would turn the user state into a pariah among the world, including (former) allies. Do you also advocate using nerve gas as tactical weapons as well?