Regarding the Middle East, Isreal, Palestine, Sunnis, Shia' etc., there have been all kinds of criticisms of what the strategy of the Bush administration was, and now what the Obama strategy is, even though they are somewhat different. There are prognostications of what will work but far more often, what won't.

But we're left with the same problem, it seems. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. It's members are spreading around the globe--to Europe, Africa, the U.S., and Canada. The birth rate of Muslims is in the range of four times that of any other religion or ethnic group. In a few decades, they will be both a political and religious force to be reckoned with. They're already an increasing unsettling force thruout the western world because of their willingness to kill themselves in order to kill many others as a demonstration of their faith. That fact is undeniable.

The "problem with Islam" is worsened by the fact that a huge amount of the oil that we import comes from the Middle East, and there are no other reasonable alternatives sources to supply the U.S. with oil in that quantity. The imbalance of trade as the result leaves Saudi Arabia awash with U.S. dollars. Along with China, the Saudis have become one of the largest buyers of U.S. debt in the world.

At the same time, there is serious unrest in the Islamic homelands in the Middle East. The existence of Israel is a canker right in the middle of Islam. Muslims and Jews will likely never get along with one another. The U.S. is hated by Islam because of our steadfast support of Israel. Islamic fundamentalist hatred has exhibited itself in the numerous jihadist attacks on western and U.S. interests and people in recent years. Israel is becoming far less willing to cooperate with the U.S., while still expecting our money and security provided by our military and the weapons we sell them. The ease of travel, the information available on the internet, and very porous borders in most western countries will almost certainly result in more terrorist attacks. It's only a matter of time, it seems.

So if some disagree with the Bush strategy, and others now disagree with the Obama strategy, then what is the correct strategy to begin to minimize the threat of terrorism? What strategy should be used to assure the flow of oil and dollars back to the U.S. from the Middle East? The "problem" is not going away. In fact, as I said above, it's getting bigger as Islam grows and spreads.

So, if we don't like the approach taken by our most recent two Presidents and our last two majority political administrations...then what would YOU do to address the problem? That seems like a logical question to me.
__________________

Relocate the 5 Million Jews to Detroit and have them rebuild it and the auto industry.

A win win solution.

.

It would take me too long to articulate my feelings and strategy. Instead, please take 5 minutes and read this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblo...isit-to-egypt/

Keedy

try to get these people to stop killing each other (which they have doen for centuries) and in recent times Americans.

I would make getting away from mideast oil the top priority of America. The goal would be to import zero oil from any OPEC members or any other country that does not support the USA.

Then I would pull all troops out of the mideast and let them do what ever they may to each other.

The ONLY reason we currently need to suck up to them is to be sure they don't stop the flow or raise the price too high.

The above is simple and straight forward and do able in less than 10 years.

However we all know what happens to something simple and straight forward when left to politicians.....NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

btk

OK, we pretty well know what the problem is regarding the U.S. and Islam. So what might our objectives be? Let me list a couple...

• Israel and Palestine reach whatever agreements needed for them to peacefully co-exist as neighbors, without the need for an 18-foot wall betweent them.
• We begin to get advanced warnings from the "regular" citizens of Iraq as to where the terrorists are living, where their caches of weapons are, and forewarnings of when and where IED's have been planted to kill American soldiers.
• The world must begin to have some influence on Iran in order for them to stop their nuclear weapons production. Having nuclear facilities for electricity generation is OK, but they'd have to agree to inspections.
• Get the "regular" citizens of both Palestine and Lebanon to report where the terrorists are that are shooting rockets into Israel and where they're shooting them from. The measure of effectiveness will be a reduction of the frequency of rocket attacks on Israel.
• Somehow we resolve the political strength of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban is a legitimate political force in eastern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. To simply say that the Taliban is the enemy and must be eradicated is probably not a winning strategy. Chances are they must be a peaceful part of the solution to political stability on that area. There's no point trying to force American social standards on an organization that is not only accepted, but is popular with a large part of the population of those two countries.
• There are other objectives, of course. But for starts, this is enough.

So how do we accomplish those objectives? By having our President travel to the Middle East and tell them in no uncertain terms that regardless of what they might believe, Americans are really good people who have already done a lot for them? By going on to tell them to quit obsessing over the existence of Israel? To tell them to simply get over it and begin to worry more about the situation inside Islam and forget about the U.S.--we've really done a whole lot in their behalf already?

All that stuff is true, of course, and that's the message the conservative columnist from the Washington Post says should be carried to the Middle East. Does anyone think that kind of foreign policy message would be effective in achieving our objectives above? Will the Muslims actually begin to move towards the accomplishment of our objectives by us telling them to forget about Israel and get their butts in gear to resolve their own internal issues?

Nice column. But I can sure see why the columnist isn't ever going to make a living in the area of foreign relations.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Regarding the Middle East, Isreal, Palestine, Sunnis, Shia' etc., there have been all kinds of criticisms of what the strategy of the Bush administration was, and now what the Obama strategy is, even though they are somewhat different. There are prognostications of what will work but far more often, what won't.

But we're left with the same problem, it seems. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. It's members are spreading around the globe--to Europe, Africa, the U.S., and Canada. The birth rate of Muslims is in the range of four times that of any other religion or ethnic group. In a few decades, they will be both a political and religious force to be reckoned with. They're already an increasing unsettling force thruout the western world because of their willingness to kill themselves in order to kill many others as a demonstration of their faith. That fact is undeniable.

The "problem with Islam" is worsened by the fact that a huge amount of the oil that we import comes from the Middle East, and there are no other reasonable alternatives sources to supply the U.S. with oil in that quantity. The imbalance of trade as the result leaves Saudi Arabia awash with U.S. dollars. Along with China, the Saudis have become one of the largest buyers of U.S. debt in the world.

At the same time, there is serious unrest in the Islamic homelands in the Middle East. The existence of Israel is a canker right in the middle of Islam. Muslims and Jews will likely never get along with one another. The U.S. is hated by Islam because of our steadfast support of Israel. Islamic fundamentalist hatred has exhibited itself in the numerous jihadist attacks on western and U.S. interests and people in recent years. Israel is becoming far less willing to cooperate with the U.S., while still expecting our money and security provided by our military and the weapons we sell them. The ease of travel, the information available on the internet, and very porous borders in most western countries will almost certainly result in more terrorist attacks. It's only a matter of time, it seems.

So if some disagree with the Bush strategy, and others now disagree with the Obama strategy, then what is the correct strategy to begin to minimize the threat of terrorism? What strategy should be used to assure the flow of oil and dollars back to the U.S. from the Middle East? The "problem" is not going away. In fact, as I said above, it's getting bigger as Islam grows and spreads.

So, if we don't like the approach taken by our most recent two Presidents and our last two majority political administrations...then what would YOU do to address the problem? That seems like a logical question to me.
__________________

The reason Islam is the "fastest growing religion" is they are out-procreating the so-called Christians and Jews. Islam only agrees to abortion when the mother's life is at risk, while so-called Christians and Jews are killing off over a million a year via abortion just in the USA for nothing more than staving off inconvenience. That's why the USA's population has "grayed" so much over the last three decades, the Social Security Fund has reduced and illegal aliens fill the workforce void created by the "missing young." So, here we have another one of those "unintended consequences" of abortion. If the live-birth differential between Muslims and Christians/Jews continues with such a disparity, and it is just a few decades away from minority-to-majority, and we are letting it happen through our own "Pro-Choice" mentality, then we get what we deserve.

As as far as "serious unrest in the Islamic homelands," there always has been. It's no better now than ever before, and in truth, Israel is not helping the matter by virtually expanding its borders by building more settlements and filling them with recruited Russian and other immigrants. The Arabs are just as guilty with their failure to do much in the way of quality-of-life support to the border areas and aid to refugees there. So, both sides have unclean hands in all of this. And that is all the more reason for the US to be neutral from here on out, and stop funding this insanity at the annual tune of $2.5Billion to Israel and $2.0Billion to Egypt/WestBank/Gaza. Israel will continue to be arrogant to its Arab neighbors, as long as the US is there to defend Israel unconditionally and subsidize the arrogance, and the Arabs will continue to keep the border areas in turmoil through population incitement despite US aid as long as that tactic will work as a counter.

So, if there is ever going to be peace with honor in the MidEast, the parties need to be honorable. Neither has been nor will be as long as outsiders are in the economic and military picture.

As far as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned, we are not in the "nation-building" business. That's the UN's job to oversee that. Let the UN send all the "peacekeepers" it wants there (and we'll even subsidize them), as we have accomplished all of the conventional military goals. As far as "anti-terrorism" is concerned, the Iraqis and Afghans just need to know that if the same problem occurs as what brought the US there continues or happens again, don't expect the UN peacekeepers to get in our way as we defend ourselves.

Eventually, we need to recognize that the US Military cannot solve every problem everywhere, and that even Sun Tzu warned that you cannot deploy troops indefinitely. The troops have already won, as the safer homeland now exists, and it's up to the international reconstructionists to make Iraq and Afghanistan become good international neighbors. We can always go back, kick butt again, and leave to let them try to get it right again. It's a vicious circle, but it does work better than siege warfare with a long supply line.

I really think that we cannot get too intellectual with these people. Their culture is different then ours. Talk, talk, and more talk is totally useless. I know it sounds barbaric but brutal strength is something they understand. To them, alot of talking is seen more as a weakness and when they sense it, they laugh in it's face.
Leverage is what they understand and that is what you need to negotiate with them. Look, I know what I'm saying sounds simplistic, but we have been talking to them since the Carter years.
The way to have leverage is to be more independent. They have what we want (oil) and they know that we don't have our own. The liberals say that it takes too long to drill for oil. They say it takes 6-10 years for it to get to the consumer. Well, if we had stared drilling when Bush first took office, we would be enjoying the fruits of our labor and we could go over there and talk with real strength.
I know it is not the only solution...but it is the best one I can think of.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

OK, we pretty well know what the problem is regarding the U.S. and Islam. So what might our objectives be? Let me list a couple...

• Israel and Palestine reach whatever agreements needed for them to peacefully co-exist as neighbors, without the need for an 18-foot wall betweent them.
• We begin to get advanced warnings from the "regular" citizens of Iraq as to where the terrorists are living, where their caches of weapons are, and forewarnings of when and where IED's have been planted to kill American soldiers.
• The world must begin to have some influence on Iran in order for them to stop their nuclear weapons production. Having nuclear facilities for electricity generation is OK, but they'd have to agree to inspections.
• Get the "regular" citizens of both Palestine and Lebanon to report where the terrorists are that are shooting rockets into Israel and where they're shooting them from. The measure of effectiveness will be a reduction of the frequency of rocket attacks on Israel.
• Somehow we resolve the political strength of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban is a legitimate political force in eastern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. To simply say that the Taliban is the enemy and must be eradicated is probably not a winning strategy. Chances are they must be a peaceful part of the solution to political stability on that area. There's no point trying to force American social standards on an organization that is not only accepted, but is popular with a large part of the population of those two countries.
• There are other objectives, of course. But for starts, this is enough.

So how do we accomplish those objectives? By having our President travel to the Middle East and tell them in no uncertain terms that regardless of what they might believe, Americans are really good people who have already done a lot for them? By going on to tell them to quit obsessing over the existence of Israel? To tell them to simply get over it and begin to worry more about the situation inside Islam and forget about the U.S.--we've really done a whole lot in their behalf already?

All that stuff is true, of course, and that's the message the conservative columnist from the Washington Post says should be carried to the Middle East. Does anyone think that kind of foreign policy message would be effective in achieving our objectives above? Will the Muslims actually begin to move towards the accomplishment of our objectives by us telling them to forget about Israel and get their butts in gear to resolve their own internal issues?

Nice column. But I can sure see why the columnist isn't ever going to make a living in the area of foreign relations.

VK, this problem has been around for a long long time through a number of Presidencies.

According to reports I have read and anyone can read, there is a hate for the West represented by the USA which is not just in the heart of terrorists, but in most of the average citizen of Islamic lands.

All the olive branches in the world will not take this hate away; many have tried both openly and with subtle and secret envoys over years and years.

They want us to concede, and what I dont know...I imagine that Israel is one thing. I know that waging war and killing each other does not seem to work anything out, but we CANNOT and SHOULD NOT begin to give up things to people who hate us. We, as a country, seem to have this need to be loved and perhaps there is no way to get even respect from these folks.

Even those who are NOT terrorists speak ill of us...before Iraq...after Iraq...etc etc...it is not new this hate speak. I dont hear ANYONE from the middle east condemning Bin Laden, and my concern at this time is just conceding too much for any reason !

OK, let's consider what kind of leverage we could apply. Setting aside the legal, cultural or moral issues involved, do you think the following would work?

We pick up stakes and leave the Middle East, leaving the message that they'd better get their act in order. We tell them very specifically--if there is another terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland or on U.S. facilities or interests anywhere in the world, we will respond in kind. If they commit terrorism and kill 3,000 Americans, we will send in a couple F-16's with tactical nuclear weapons and make toast out of one of their cities or population centers. Obviously, there will be a terrorist attack. We then do what we said we'd do and turn some part of the Middle East into molten glass, metal and wailing women.

That's as direct an application of brute strength as I can think of. That's actually the way we won the WWII war with Japan. But would it work today? What would be the next step? Who would take the next step? How would such an application of brute force effect our relations with other major powers, particularly those that have nuclear weapons or significant military capability themselves?

If I've gone a bit too far with my example of "brute strength", then what lesser example might be recommended that might work to accomplish our objectives?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

OK, let's consider what kind of leverage we could apply. Setting aside the legal, cultural or moral issues involved, do you think the following would work?

We pick up stakes and leave the Middle East, leaving the message that they'd better get their act in order. We tell them very specifically--if there is another terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland or on U.S. facilities or interests anywhere in the world, we will respond in kind. If they commit terrorism and kill 3,000 Americans, we will send in a couple F-16's with tactical nuclear weapons and make toast out of one of their cities or population centers. Obviously, there will be a terrorist attack. We then do what we said we'd do and turn some part of the Middle East into molten glass, metal and wailing women.

That's as direct an application of brute strength as I can think of. That's actually the way we won the WWII war with Japan. But would it work today? What would be the next step? Who would take the next step? How would such an application of brute force effect our relations with other major powers, particularly those that have nuclear weapons or significant military capability themselves?

If I've gone a bit too far with my example of "brute strength", then what lesser example might be recommended that might work to accomplish our objectives?

All the above.
Keedy

A little history of Israel if you have the time. Chuck is a Bible teacher but approaches many things from a historicol and scientific angle.

If you only listen to one, part three is particularly striking.

http://www.khouse.org/6640/BP056/

Why won't they shake Obam's hand:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ca_1244063181

Originally Posted by dklassen

A little history of Israel if you have the time. Chuck is a Bible teacher but approaches many things from a historicol and scientific angle.

If you only listen to one, part three is particularly striking.

http://www.khouse.org/6640/BP056/

In the end, what it shows is that one person's "freedom fighter" is the other person's "terrorist," and it doesn't matter if that's person was Begin or Arafat. It depends on which side of the wire you live.

What all history does show is that so many outsiders have tried to decide the future for people of the region that everyone is hated by everyone else because of it.

Which is why all outsiders need to realize that they can do no good there by their interference, no matter how well-intentioned it may be. All that has eventually happened is that all of the people of the region have become so dependent on other's money and protection that they won't move forward on their own for fear (or arrogance) of losing the money and protection. And what makes it worse is that there is a coalition of US politicians who forget their role is what's best for the US and not what's best for other nations.

Divided loyalties by our elected/appointed officials mean failure to adhere to one's oath of office, be that congressperson, judge or federal executive. And if the oath the person took when s/he was elected/appointed is violated to the benefit of another nation, then that's treason, pure and simple. There is no justification to place the interests of the US secondary to that of another nation.

Most of the oil U.S. imports comes from Canada.
In 2007 U.S. imported -
1840 Barrels a day from Canada
1579 from Saudi Arabia
1116 from Mexico
1030 from Venezuela

Maybe the answer is to maintain good relations with these other Countries.

Originally Posted by chuckinca

Relocate the 5 Million Jews to Detroit and have them rebuild it and the auto industry.

A win win solution.

.

Well, we could make the offer but they'd probably say, "are you nuts?"