We can “handle it”, we just don’t like it. We don’t think like you do.
we attack their shrines which are religious. The West is not ready for this but if the battle escalates this retaliation on Islamic targets will come...
That is not the American way. We don’t attack churches or religious shrines. This was an attack on thousands of American citizens and our business and military centers. We will retaliate but not by attacking their religious buildings. To do so would be savage, and we aren’t savages. If you want to attack their religious buildings, go ahead, but don’t ask Americans to help you. Please stop telling us Americans what to do. On this particular subject, we don’t think like you do.
Half of Osama BenDover's beef with America is over the US troops and presence in Saudi and Kuwait. He wants the US completely out of the MidEast. So even if there is no Israel he would still be wanting to destroy us. Now if you think the US should not be protecting Saudi and Kuwait that's a whole 'nother line of argument. I don't think your brain can follow it though.
Even if there was no Israel, Osama Ben Laden would attack us. He wants no USA presence in the MidEast and we have a huge presence there to protect the flow of oil. To protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein.
Holding The Bag In the Gulf
The New York Times, September 18, 1996
By Lawrence J. Korb,
Director, Center for Public Policy Education
On "Meet the Press" on Sunday, House Speaker Newt Gingrich criticized the Clinton Administration for using $1.2 million cruise missiles "to do $60,000 of damage in radar equipment that takes three days to fix." While it is debatable whether launching million-dollar cruise missiles at Iraqi targets is less cost effective than dropping thousand-dollar bombs from million-dollar airplanes, Mr. Gingrich's specific criticism raised a much larger issue: How much should the United States spend to protect its interests in the Persian Gulf? In fact, the 44 cruise missiles used against Iraqi air defenses were the least expensive part of the operation. Most were launched from billion-dollar ships that cost thousands of dollars an hour to operate and millions of dollars a year to protect. (A few of the missiles were fired by B-52 bombers flown from Guam.)
After the gulf war, the Navy created the Fifth Fleet, stationed permanently in the gulf. It consists of 21 ships manned by 15,000 sailors and marines, along with 12 more ships with equipment for ground forces and about 250 planes to protect the fleet and enforce the no-flight zones over Iraq. In addition, there are 10,000 people on the ground in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, along with enough equipment for another Army brigade.
On various occasions since the gulf war, including this month, the United States has augmented this standing force by sending a second aircraft carrier, a squadron of stealth fighters and additional air defense groups and bombers.
According to Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, the total cost of maintaining the United States force in the gulf is at least $50 billion per year.
The purpose of spending all this money is to insure that neither Iran nor Iraq threatens the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. But the United States currently imports only about 10 percent of it's oil from the Persian Gulf — some $10 billion to $15 billion worth, depending upon world prices.
Our European allies get almost 30 percent of their oil from the gulf while Japan depends on the region for half of its imports. But except for a handful of French and British planes helping us patrol the no-flight zones, these countries make no contribution to gulf security. Is it any wonder that we spend more money on defense than Western Europe and Japan combined, and that our military budget remains at about 90 percent of its average cold war level?
Since it appears that we are going to have a large force in the region indefinitely, we must ask our allies for a contribution similar to that of the gulf war, when the Bush administration won commitments from the Saudis and the emirates, Europeans and Japanese to pay 80 percent of the costs of Operation Desert Storm. If Europe and Japan would rather send troops than money, that would be fine too. But if they refuse to do their share, we should let them know that we will be forced to consider reducing our troop commitments in East Asia and Europe to pay for our burden in the gulf.
© Copyright The New York Times
Note: The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and should not be attributed to the staff, officers or trustees of the Brookings Institution.
In Kosovo, we preferred TV stations, embassies, trains, cigarette factories, car factories, soap factories, convoys of escaping farmers, nursing homes, trains and bridges. I'm sure I left out some of our "strategic" targets. I'm so happy (not) to see you here again. Did your latest bypass succeed?