Posted on 01/29/2005 10:09:32 PM PST by SmithL
Reagan left Bush Sr. a winning hand, a strong military, a broken USSR and Gramm-Rudman in place to enforce fiscal restraint, he folded.
From the CATO Institute, February 4, 1991
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-147.html
I don't support any PARTY, you sycophantic Republican shill, I support this COUNTRY, which is more than I can say for the likes of you.
Some of the good folks here still value America, and do not wish to see it destroyed by unchecked illegal immigration.
Would you please explain to me again why reducing our foreign-oil consumption would have been effective in combatting al-Qaeda? I'm not sure I understood the first time (nothing elaborate, please, just a couple sentences would be fine). Thank you...
Well, let's start with Osama's 'open letter' to the US.
He seems to indicate that our involvement with ME countries, mostly Israel but others too like Saudi Arabia, is a major reason for his hatred of the US.
Why are we so interested in ME countries? Oil. They have it, we need it.
If our interest and presence in the region were lessened, which would result from a decreased interest in the oil on which the ME dictators sit, I think it would be much more difficult for AQ to recruit because they couldn't sell their America hate propoganda as well.
I am 100% comfortable letting the ME remain a 7th century relic full of poverty and mayhem. I don't care if they have free elections and I'm not interested in forcing them to adopt our style of government, or anything similar.
Veritas: Well, let's start with Osama's 'open letter' to the US. He seems to indicate that our involvement with ME countries, mostly Israel but others too like Saudi Arabia, is a major reason for his hatred of the US.
With all due respect, there are two things wrong with your line of reasoning:
First, you stated in an earlier post that Middle East oil sales help fund terrorism; however, Afghanistan, former home of the Taliban and safehaven of al-Qaeda, does not produce much oil (and possibly none during the Taliban era, although I haven't been able to confirm 'none' definitively); and the bin Laden clan does not appear to be members of the House of Saud, but rather make their money through construction and the sales of food products.
Much of al-Qaeda's orignial financing came directly from Osama bin Laden's advance on his inheritance, and now it apparently relies on drug trafficking for much of its revenue. So, a reduction in the United States' foreign oil dependency would have little-to-no effect on the al-Qaeda/Taliban nexus that was responsible for 9/11. Besides, developing the technology necessary for such a reduction has been taking decades; al-Qaeda's operational cycle was faster than that, until we disrupted their safehaven.
So, in short, while a reduction in oil revenue may reduce the coffers of some terrorist organizations, it would not financially cripple terrorism, and certainly not al-Qaeda. Believing that reducing our oil consumption would cripple terrorism is a fantasy better left to the Arianna Huffingtons of the world, not to the serious thinker.
Secondly, in the same reply that I quoted above (#184), you state: If our interest and presence in the region were lessened, which would result from a decreased interest in the oil on which the ME dictators sit, I think it would be much more difficult for AQ to recruit because they couldn't sell their America hate propoganda as well.
Al-Qaeda's hatred of the U.S. stems from our support of Israel primarily, and to a lesser degree the presence of our military bases in the region which would not be necessary if not for the hostility of such regimes as Hussein's and the mullahs of Iran, but not from our purchase of oil. This is why George Bush's vision of more democracy equalling peace in the region is so vital and important. We could abandon the region and allow it to fester as a 7th-Century backwater as you suggest, but it would always be a source of trouble. Remember our history: We were not going there for oil when the Barbary pirates kidnapped our citizens, were we?
They want our money, and would be more than happy to sell to us and not have us around at all in the Middle East. But, of course, to do so would mean abandoning Israel which is morally unacceptable to many Americans, and not even practical or feasible for years to come.
"drug trafficking"
No doubt. Precisely why we should legalize drugs and eliminate the black markets which drive up costs. I bet ending the "War on Drugs" would help the flow of illegals into the country too.
Perhaps it's not a direct link between "cut off the oil demand" and "end terrorism".
Perhaps when we cut our dependence, the tyrants who run the countries in the ME will be destabalized and could be overthrown by their own people. I think this could work very well in Iran and Saudi. Remember, we're supposedly in Iraq because democratic govt's don't breed terrorists.
Perhaps the links I've drawn aren't as clear as I thought, but I still don't see any proof to the reverse. That being, why are we BETTER off by being overreliant upon foreign oil? Isn't it fair to say that we would be more stable and secure if we rely on ourselves for our energy more than less?
What if Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormuz, for example?
"to do so would mean abandoning Israel which is morally unacceptable to many Americans"
This is part II that I didn't include earlier. (You said keep it short, I kept it too short.)
Why is our gov't SO concerned with Israel, knowing that our relationship is more harmful to us than it is helpful?
I don't view Israel any differently than I do any other country. Each should be responsible for protecting its own government, its own borders, and its own people. If and when Israel is threatened, it may request help from others, but we should only give help to them if it helps us.
How does it help OUR national security to defend Israel from the Arabs who wish it eliminated?
(somewhat off topic, but what the heck...)
As you can see here,
http://truthaboveall.blogspot.com/2005/01/united-nations-is-clearly-anti-israel.html
which I wrote last week, I think the BEST thing our gov't could do for the security and well-being of Israel would be to get out of the UN and to help ensure its collapse.
Isn't it the UN that causes most of Israel's problems, specifically the various Arab "representatives" who use the UN as a soapbox from which to spread their anti-Semitism?
Holland and other countries that have relaxed drug laws have not seen any real benefit, as far as I can tell. I guess you lean more to the libertarian wing of the GOP than I do. My opinion is if we dry up the markets here, through law enforcement, education, etc., then the poppy and coca fields wouldn't be attractive to the average Afghani and Columbian farmer.
Perhaps when we cut our [oil] dependence, the tyrants who run the countries in the ME will be destabalized and could be overthrown by their own people. I think this could work very well in Iran and Saudi. Remember, we're supposedly in Iraq because democratic govt's don't breed terrorists.
Isn't it fair to say that we would be more stable and secure if we rely on ourselves for our energy more than less?
Yes, we would be better off, but it would still not lead to a total disengagement from the region. Remember, under the first Bush presidency we imported about 40% of our oil, and then during the Clinton years, due to various reasons, the ratio was reversed to about 60% import v. 40% domestic. We could get back to a 60/40 domestic/import ratio, or better, by opening up ANWR and other U.S. oil fields in an environmentally-safe manner, which would buy us time to develop the technologies necessary to greatly reduce our need for oil. However, there are still hundreds of millions of Arabs living in the ME, many of them with family members or business interests here in the U.S., so we will always be connected to one degree or another. And, there will always be a Wahhabi-style hatred of all things U.S., Jewish, Christian, or simply non-Islamic. They'll have to be dealt with, as well.
As far as Israel, the U.S. has an obligation to help that country to be able to defend itself due to its unique history and its isolated location as the lone Jewish state in a sea of Arab hostility. Although Israel has done well in its wars against other countries, that has been because of U.S. assistance in many fields. Plus, with the advance of technology among the Arab states (Iran's nuclear drive, WMD being relatively easy to obtain, advanced weapons systems for sale by China, France, etc.), Israel would have a much tougher go of it in 2005 than it did in 1948 or 1967. Our assistance to that country cannot end until the zeal for its annhilation by many Arabs is expelled.
That goal cannot be obtained by a total disengagement from the region. It is based on ignorance and historical precedence, and is fed by propagandists who blame Israel for poverty and other conditions that are more the fault of the ruling oligarchy than anyone else. However, a democratization of those countries, whereby a middle class is allowed to rise, the government becomes more responsible to its citizenry, cross-cultural contact is allowed, and the al-Jazeeras must become competitive with reality-based networks, is perhaps our best chance at ending the breeding grounds of the jihadis. It may sound like pie-in-the-sky rhetoric, but there is historical precedence to support the idea (Germany, Japan), and really, what better option do we have?
"As far as Israel, the U.S. has an obligation to help that country to be able to defend itself due to its unique history and its isolated location as the lone Jewish state in a sea of Arab hostility."
That explanation lacks real substance.
Why don't we protect Christians being slaughtered all over Africa by muslims? Answer: Africa has no oil.
We only care about the ME because of the oil, and Israel helps us beat back the radicals who want to take control of the whole region (See Iraqi nuke facilities in early 80's).
I am much further into the libertarian realm than most, but not to the extreme as some. Really, I'm just a strict Constitutionalist.
You didn't address my main theme that the BEST way for us to help Israel would be to get out of the UN.
I don't think law enforcement and education can "dry up" the demand for drugs. It's simply not possible. I do, however, think that by going that route, suppliers charge more, and that money goes to enemies of America. (See the narcodemocracy in Afghanistan we've created)
"so we will always be connected to one degree or another"
No problem, but we need to be in a position where we are secure and stable with OR without them and their product/service. Right now, without the inflow of ME oil, America is neither secure nor stable.
"Wahhabi-style hatred"
They can hate me all they want. Hatred doesn't inflict mass casualties, expensive weapons and training do. (One of my other original points, we need to focus on those people who actually have the means to hurt us, not everyone who would if they could).
"That goal cannot be obtained by a total disengagement from the region."
Nobody is calling for "total" disengagement. Again, less engagement is better than more, in terms of the ME. Just like less empire and more isolationism is better than what we are doing now. Not fully isolationist, but let's reverse course and head in that direction.
Veritas: "As far as Israel, the U.S. has an obligation to help that country to be able to defend itself due to its unique history and its isolated location as the lone Jewish state in a sea of Arab hostility." That explanation lacks real substance. Why don't we protect Christians being slaughtered all over Africa by muslims? Answer: Africa has no oil. That explanation lacks real substance. Why don't we protect Christians being slaughtered all over Africa by muslims? Answer: Africa has no oil.
Africa has oil, diamonds, platinum, and all sorts of important and valuable resources. The continent is slowly becoming more engaged with the outside world, but with massive corruption, political problems, tribal conflicts, etc., development has been and will continue to be slow. This current administration has probably done more for the continent than any other (leading the Darfur efforts, introducing the AIDS proposal, etc.).
We are in the ME for two reasons: oil and Israel.
The fact is, we've been involved with the Jewish state from its conception through today. For us to stop assisting it would mean its eventual destruction at the hands of Arabs and various other anti-Semites. As far as us helping it by getting out of the U.N., I don't see the connection. We run interference for them many times when the anti-Semites introduce their condemnations and proposals against Israel. Us getting out and them staying in would not be good; both of us getting out and telling the world to take a flying leap would be good.
You sir, are a fool.
If he accomplished nothing else, that alone would be enough to earn him a place among the top presidents of all time! Now if he could just manage to pack the UN up and ship it to Paris, he'd hit #1!
"For us to stop assisting it would mean its eventual destruction at the hands of Arabs and various other anti-Semites. As far as us helping it by getting out of the U.N., I don't see the connection."
Did you read that link I posted?
The UN is the one telling Israel not to build a fence. The UN is the body passing all these "resolutions" against Israel. All of this fuels the anti-Israel fire.
You're saying that Israel can't take care of itself?
Frankly, I think Israel is more capable and able at this time than we are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.