Do you really think "they" will stop attacking us if we just leave now?

[Reason]

I recently emailed out Patrick Buchanan's recent article,

(you can read it here if you haven't already read it)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=244060

& A friend asked the following;

"Has Pat Buchanan been reading Ron Paul? They make good points. Do you really think they will stop if we pulled out of those areas, or has the damage been done and they will bring the battle here anyway? If the latter is true, what do you think can be done to stop it...obviously what we are doing now is insufficient. (Are we really doing anything about it now? It doesn't really seem like it.) Great article. Thanks."

I will separate what I see as the key question for the sake of facilitating a good amount of thoughtful responses in this thread.

~~

#1 Will people with a goal of attacking the United States abandon their pursuit upon our withdrawal from the middle east and cessation of interference in the region?

#2 If the damage has already been done, what can we do about that?

[SWATH]

As a whole why would they? I'm sure there will still be grudge holders who seek revenge but by and large I think they will declare victory for repelling the invaders and be satisfied so long as we leave them alone.

[JK/SEA]

Ask him WHEN he thinks we can declare victory, and how will it happen?

Seriously, this BS can't go on much longer. Decisions must be made one way or the other.

[winston_blade]

I recently emailed out Patrick Buchanan's recent article,

(you can read it here if you haven't already read it)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=244060

& A friend asked the following;

"Has Pat Buchanan been reading Ron Paul? They make good points. Do you really think they will stop if we pulled out of those areas, or has the damage been done and they will bring the battle here anyway? If the latter is true, what do you think can be done to stop it...obviously what we are doing now is insufficient. (Are we really doing anything about it now? It doesn't really seem like it.) Great article. Thanks."

I will separate what I see as the key question for the sake of facilitating a good amount of thoughtful responses in this thread.

~~

#1 Will people with a goal of attacking the United States abandon their pursuit upon our withdrawal from the middle east and cessation of interference in the region?

#2 If the damage has already been done, what can we do about that?

Will they stop if we stay? If they attack us regardless of our actions, we might as well get attacked while spending the least amount of money possible.

[1000-points-of-fright]

#1 Will people with a goal of attacking the United States abandon their pursuit upon our withdrawal from the middle east and cessation of interference in the region?

Eventually most will, but there will always be some who hold a grudge or be emboldened by their "victory" and try to finish us off.


#2 If the damage has already been done, what can we do about that?

Deal with it on a case by case basis or commit religiocide.

[Reason]

Personally my instant response would be that every time we drop another bomb at a funeral in N Pakistan and kill 1 "enemy" and create 20 more we are digging our hole that much deeper.

While we might not be able to stop those who's children we've already killed and governments we've already toppled, surely that doesn't mean we should continue to keep committing these horrible atrocities...

I am studying Iran right now in class and something that sticks out in my mind as relevant to this discussion is how 50+% of the population in Iran is under the age of 30.

These kids were not around to live under the horrible "SAVOK" CIA trained secret police and watch their democratically elected leader be forcefully replaced by a military dictatorship at the hands of the US and the UK all for the sake of oil for BP...

These kids were in the streets by the tens of thousands after 9/11 holding candlelight vigils for the US in solidarity and compassion for the pain of that day.

& How did we respond?

We labeled their entire country part of the AXIS OF EVIL...

We let the warhawks rattle their sabers and threaten their government on a monthly basis...

I had my professor show this video to my class and it opened a lot of eyes...

YouTube - The other side of the Iran issue: Why our Foreign Policy MUST change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6bFjObhwV0)

2 Kids in the class from the middle east personally thanked me for showing the video...

I guess what I am getting at would be that at any given moment you, me, us, can change our course and direction should we choose to do so...

Horrible policy in the past is no justification for horrible policy in the future.

[silentshout]

Well, eventually we won't have the resources and we won't be able to fight "them" there anymore, so we really need to figure out what to do sooner rather than later. By that time, we won't have the resources to defend ourselves here, either.

[tremendoustie]

If we leave now, the number of people intent on doing violence against us will drop precipitously. As we continue to mind our own business, it will drop to negligible levels.

It will take some time to get to the levels we would be at had we not committed so many invasions, but there will be an immediate positive effect.

[Mini-Me]

It's too late to unmake enemies we've already made. If we leave, the people we've already radicalized will still hate the US, and some may still want to indiscriminately kill Americans, so we'll continue to face blowback for another generation or so...but the stream of suicidal young recruits will slowly dry up.

However, if we stay and keep interfering, we'll only continue to radicalize a growing number of people, and we [and our children, grandchildren, etc.] will never know peace. (Of course, all of this started before the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; ending those alone is necessary but insufficient. In order to really stem the tide, we need to close down our overseas bases, end all the damn CIA ops, stop being Israel's sword and shield, etc.)

It really comes down to a choice: Would we rather work towards peace and security in the long run, or would we rather [pretend like the US government has done nothing wrong in the first place and] "defend our honor" by starting endless wars with anyone remotely connected to people who attack us, completely blind to the violent cycle this perpetuates? (Hint: Even aside from morals, we can only financially afford one of these options anyway. Three guesses which one is economically suicidal as well as morally repugnant.)

[surf]

yes, if not immediately then over a short period of time - 1-2 years as funding drops off and "jihadists" lose interest and turn their attention to the local governments that have been installed and maintained by the US.

it's human nature to lose inspiration against someone that doesn't want to fight. another way of looking at it is like the old Nebraska vs Oklahoma game back in the day when the two were the powers of college football (and the Big 8 confence) - a huge hate-filled rivalry that has lost its luster - now Oklahoma hates Texas. from a local sports perspective it is similar to Washington vs Washington State - still a large rivalry but the hatred of Husky fans has moved from hating Pullman to hating Eugene (and Whoregon).

[Pericles]

I'm sure attacks will stop when we all convert to Islam.

We had incidents because the US supported Israel, before we sent troops into the region, there always seem to be some reason why the US should be attacked - supported the Shah 40 years ago, or some TV show showed Mohommed, or .....

[RM918]

Oh, there will always be a 'they'. The difference is many of 'them' there will be and how serious they're taken. Right now, with all the civilians deaths, the multiple fronts and the dehumanization, they're being taken more and more seriously and their numbers will continue to grow. The simple fact of the matter is what we're doing is not getting rid of them, the 'strong defense' types aren't actually advocating for a 'strong defense', they're advocating a broken policy that will only further endanger us.

If we get the hell out and mind our own business, the jihadists will eventually hold exactly as much power and be as much as a threat as the KKK.

[Southron]

I doubt they will stop any time soon.

I think stopping visas and immigration from certain Islamic countries will help.

Terrorism is generally only a problem of urban areas so I am not too worried personally.

[Imaginos]

Not right away.
It'll take time to convince them that we really mean it.
But Muslim terror threats will be reduced big time.
I assume at least more than 90%
However, in the long run, leaving the Middle East is absolutely the best strategy for America.
As Ron Paul said, "JUST COME HOME!"

[Corto_Maltese]

They will be to busy with internal issues. Foreign troops leaving can create a vacuum in some countries, iraq and saudi for instance. The ruling "class" is depended on foreign support and a lot of hatred has been created throughout the decades. When the europeans left africa, conflicts within the african nations erupted, not against europeans. Same thing happened when the soviets left afghanistan. They werent followed to russia.
Huge imbalances have been created throughout time in the middle east, so there will be conflicts among the ppl there. I think USA would experience less threats by leaving.

[catdd]

Not right away.
It'll take time to convince them that we really mean it.
But Muslim terror threats will be reduced big time.
I assume at least more than 90%
However, in the long run, leaving the Middle East is absolutely the best strategy for America.
As Ron Paul said, "JUST COME HOME!"

+1

[BlackTerrel]

Will they stop if we stay? If they attack us regardless of our actions, we might as well get attacked while spending the least amount of money possible.

Pretty much nailed it.

To say all terrorism against us disappears is extremely naive. Terrorist doesn't just say "ok we won, now I'm going to become a hair stylist". No he probably stays a terrorist.

But what we're doing now is far worse. Spending money, losing lives AND creating MORE terrorists. Keep our people here and we'll be far better off.

[angelatc]

Michael Scheuer: http://non-intervention.com/282/mr-obama-is-dead-wrong-we-are-fighting-islamists/


4.) Opposition to and hatred for U.S. interventionism in the Muslim world is not resident solely in the Muslims who have picked up arms to fight us. Bottom line: This hatred is shared by 80 percent of the world’s Muslims, according to the results of polling Gallup conducted in every Muslim company over the course of several years. This hatred is shared equally by young and old, men and women, extremists and moderates, Arabs and non-Arab Muslims. The U.S. government’s policies — not the lifestyle of Americans — are thus a casus belli for Islamic civilization as a whole, and while only a tiny fraction of that civilization has so far resorted to war the number of fighters is growing in all areas of the Muslim world, including Europe and North America.

5.) The concept of a defensive jihad in Islam — which our Islamist enemies claim to waging against us — is absolutely part, and an honored part of Islamic theology and history, and, by invading Iraq, Mr. Bush provided the irrefutable predicate for waging such a jihad. Indeed, many Muslims believe a defensive jihad against Islam’s infidel attackers is a form of worship, a belief which was shared completely by the leaders and soldiers of the Catholic armies that set out repeatedly in the 11th and 12th centuries to invade the Levant and evict Muslims from Holy Land. Bottom line: We are fighting an Islamist enemy whose jihad is justified by both his theology and his history. We certainly feel better describing the Islamists’ jihad as a terrorist campaign, but it brings us no understanding whatsoever of our Islamist enemies. And over the long run, it blinds us to the Islamist threat to America and will lead to our defeat.

[johnrocks]

If we stop, terrorism isn't going to just stop, however, I do think it would (A) remove a huge incentive and recruiting tool and (B) put us in a much better position economically and in a much better defensive position but as long as we are aligned with Israel, let's not kid ourselves, the risk will remain,imho.

[PeacePlan]

It depends on if we continue to back Israel.

If we no longer stick our noses into everyone elses business they wont waste their time or money on the U.S..

[Wolverine302]

It depends on if we continue to back Israel.

If we no longer stick our noses into everyone elses business they wont waste their time or money on the U.S..

stop giving the muslims money, stop giving the jews money. why is it so hard to do? :mad:

[Reason]

stop giving the muslims money, stop giving the jews money. Why is it so hard to do? :mad:

end the fed!

[dean.engelhardt]

"Do you really think "they" will stop attacking us if we just leave now? "


I think the answer is no. We've been invading, occupying, and bombing for over eight years. We should expect blowback. We kill a Middle Eastern mother and father and hand the orphans some candy and maybe a payment of a couple of thousand dollars. Aren't we just creating the next generation of terrorist?

The question should be, Why should we stay at war in the Middle East? We need an immediate pullout of military. But we should expect blowback for what this country has done.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Imediately? No....of course not.

But if we continue what we are doing we will be getting attacked for the foreseeable future. Atleast if we stopped, we will be able to make inroads and begin a path to peace.

Just Imagine if Obama was able to follow up his "Apology Tour" with the withdrawl of troops instead of Drone attacks.

[pcosmar]

"Do you really think "they" will stop attacking us if we just leave now? "

Do you think that would have ever "attacked" us if we hadn't been attacking them for years. :(

[charrob]

upon coming home from a training class on 9/11, i opened my email to find a friend from Germany enquiring to make sure we were all okay.

i answered his email stating we were fine, and that what had happened didn't scare me as much as what my government's response might be. i wrote him that what happened didn't surprise me because of our foreign policy in the middle east, and that this was revenge for things we had done over there.

i also wrote him that after going over there and finding the perpetrators, we should hold a world conference to be communicated everywhere; -that there needed to be discussion about why it happened, and this needed to be made clear so that everyone was on the same page. And in this televised conference we needed to work together with these people so that this never happened again. -that if this was done in revenge for actions we did over there, that we would change our policies so that they would no longer have reason to hate us.

i saw this as an opportunity for Bush to embrace the world, at a time when we had the rest of the world's sympathy, and show the goodness of the United States for what we are.

the only way we can now achieve this, imo, is to first bring home all troops and contractors immediately.

Second, imprison Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. for war crimes against humanity: this needs to be done in the eyes of the world so they know we are not the evil they now think we are because of Bush's actions. Obama also needs to be accountable for his actions since he has taken office.

Third, we need to apologize for the horrors we've created over there since 9/11.

Fourth, we should stop all funds to all countries around the world and use, at least some, of these funds to help the muslims rebuild particularly Iraq which has totally been decimated because of our presence.

in total, we need to show humility and it needs to be done in the eyes of the world.

there will still be some that hate us for our crimes, that's to be expected...but through earnest communication and action with the rest of the world, i believe we can lessen that hatred by a good amount.

[lester1/2jr]

I doubt they will stop any time soon.

I think stopping visas and immigration from certain Islamic countries will help.

Terrorism is generally only a problem of urban areas so I am not too worried personally.

lol. that's great. so people can, not you neccasruily, can keep voting for people who want to stir the hornets nest knowing we in the big cities, not they, will be on the receiving end.

isn't that a jihad in and of itself?



agree with others it won't be a magic cure all but it will certainly lessen the ability of the terrorists to recruit and so forth. for that alone we should embrace non intervention

[Southron]

lol. that's great. so people can, not you neccasruily, can keep voting for people who want to stir the hornets nest knowing we in the big cities, not they, will be on the receiving end.

isn't that a jihad in and of itself?



agree with others it won't be a magic cure all but it will certainly lessen the ability of the terrorists to recruit and so forth. for that alone we should embrace non intervention

Well I don't mean that I don't want to stop our intervention but that some of you have more to lose if we don't.

[virgil47]

Pretty much nailed it.

To say all terrorism against us disappears is extremely naive. Terrorist doesn't just say "ok we won, now I'm going to become a hair stylist". No he probably stays a terrorist.

But what we're doing now is far worse. Spending money, losing lives AND creating MORE terrorists. Keep our people here and we'll be far better off.

So you think it's better to save frn's and spend our countries human capital instead? You'd rather fight them in the streets of the USA then in the deserts of the middle east?
While we may have over stayed our time in the middle east leaving is kind of like trying to let go of a tiger that you have by the tail. Can be done but only at a great cost.

[eproxy100]

If all foreign aid is cut chances are the middle east will be rather busy in their own wars. Without US support Israel is pretty weak. That'll encourage its neighbors to attack. The one type of terrorism that may occur though are false flag attacks, like the Lavon Affair (Operation Susannah). If you're not familiar with that here's the wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair).

[Reason]

//

[The Patriot]

No, I don't think Islamic Terrorism will stop, ever. But I don't think our nation building missions are the best way to secure our nation from the threat of Islamic Terrorism. Terrorism cannot be quelled by large standing armies and large scale invasions, but rather by special forces and/or drones rapidly attacking hotspots to eliminate high level targets, police action, intelligence gathering, eliminating visas from terrorist nations and enhancing border security. I think like Michael Scheuer that is we change our foreign policy we can reduce the threat significantly though. We effectively remove the causus belli for recruitment for Islamic extremist groups.

[The Patriot]

Personally my instant response would be that every time we drop another bomb at a funeral in N Pakistan and kill 1 "enemy" and create 20 more we are digging our hole that much deeper.

While we might not be able to stop those who's children we've already killed and governments we've already toppled, surely that doesn't mean we should continue to keep committing these horrible atrocities...

I am studying Iran right now in class and something that sticks out in my mind as relevant to this discussion is how 50+% of the population in Iran is under the age of 30.

These kids were not around to live under the horrible "SAVOK" CIA trained secret police and watch their democratically elected leader be forcefully replaced by a military dictatorship at the hands of the US and the UK all for the sake of oil for BP...

These kids were in the streets by the tens of thousands after 9/11 holding candlelight vigils for the US in solidarity and compassion for the pain of that day.

& How did we respond?

We labeled their entire country part of the AXIS OF EVIL...

We let the warhawks rattle their sabers and threaten their government on a monthly basis...

I had my professor show this video to my class and it opened a lot of eyes...

YouTube - The other side of the Iran issue: Why our Foreign Policy MUST change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6bFjObhwV0)

2 Kids in the class from the middle east personally thanked me for showing the video...

I guess what I am getting at would be that at any given moment you, me, us, can change our course and direction should we choose to do so...

Horrible policy in the past is no justification for horrible policy in the future.
Iran has nothing to do with Pakistan, they are of different Islamic sects, you are mixing apples and oranges here. And it isn't like the Mullahs are noble executors of justice, they torture, eliminate and imprison people just like the Shah did. Only the Shah imprisoned, tortured, and eliminated Islamic radicals where as they do so to western minded democratic and loyalist dissidents. The Iranians who supported the Islamic Republic weren't mad because the Shah politically repressed communists and Islamic radicals. They were mad because he was a social reformer who wanted to modernize and westernize Iran and wanted to give rights to women, end child marriage, and end polygamy. He wanted to return to a secular government and put an emphasis on Persian as opposed to Islamic culture.

Carter was one of our worst Presidents, not only for his short sighted economic policies, but for also support embargoes on Rhodesia, leading to the removal of Ian Smith from office with the radical communist dictator Mugabe who destroyed the breadbasket of Africa. He also let the Shah fall out of power, refused him entry into America, and refused to help him return to power to oust the psycho and backwards mullahs. He should have bombed the shit out of Iran for invading American territory(US Embassy) and rescued the hostages.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Retracted without explanation.

[Reason]

The forum sure is experiencing a surge of quota setting, isolationist, interventionalists building up quick post counts of late.

Explain?

[Reason]

//

[tremendoustie]

I'm sure attacks will stop when we all convert to Islam.

We had incidents because the US supported Israel, before we sent troops into the region, there always seem to be some reason why the US should be attacked - supported the Shah 40 years ago, or some TV show showed Mohommed, or .....

How would you react if your country was bombed, occupied, embargoed, and/or its leaders were overthrown? How about if it was one of your family members blown up because they happened to be near somebody the invading army wanted to kill?

How about we stop trying to run the world, and mind our own business? Go after the people who participated in any attack, and that's it.

[BlackTerrel]

So you think it's better to save frn's and spend our countries human capital instead? You'd rather fight them in the streets of the USA then in the deserts of the middle east?

I don't believe it's an either/or proposition. Fighting them over there doesn't stop us from fighting over here.

[RM918]

I don't believe it's an either/or proposition. Fighting them over there doesn't stop us from fighting over here.

Exactly. If anything, it makes it more likely. If we withdraw from all over the place, quit sticking ourselves where we don't belong, the environment will change radically.

[tremendoustie]

Yep. Suppose China invades the US. A lot of people get really pissed, there's widespread "insurgency", etc. A few misguided Americans express their anger by attacking Chinese civilian targets. The Chinese then justify their continued occupation by saying, "we can fight them over there, or fight them here".

How silly would that be? Hello, the reason for 95% or more of the conflict is your own @#$#@ actions!

When the shoe's on the other foot, sometimes the truth is a little more obvious.

[LibertyBrews]

No, the attacks will never stop, but they will be fewer and the recruiting of new radical Islamists will be much less than it's now.

As long as we're allied with Israel, the Islamists will have a reason to attack us. Israel should fight it's own battles. That doesn't mean that i support the Islamist cause, for all i care the Israelis can blast these cavemen back to the stoneage.

[Pericles]

How would you react if your country was bombed, occupied, embargoed, and/or its leaders were overthrown? How about if it was one of your family members blown up because they happened to be near somebody the invading army wanted to kill?

How about we stop trying to run the world, and mind our own business? Go after the people who participated in any attack, and that's it.

I noted with interest that when some Jews were annoyed with the portrayal of their ancestors in "The Passion of the Christ" there were no Jewish suicide bombers blowing up Catholic Cathedrals. Those offended decided their differences in a civilized manner.

Am I being unreasonable to have the same expectation of everyone?

[pcosmar]

Am I being unreasonable to have the same expectation of everyone?

Well yes. In the light of certain facts.
Suicide bombing is neither new nor is it unique to Muslims.

It is simply a tactic of the desperate.
It was used by the Japanese. It was used in VietNam.

We just carpet bomb.
:(

[LibertyMage]

They will certainly attack us if we stay there. If we leave, the attacks will subside as our people build relationships with theirs rather than our government creating a negative opinion of our country. That may be politically painful in the short term. However, any any responsible person will choose long term stability over short term political expediency.

[BlackTerrel]

I noted with interest that when some Jews were annoyed with the portrayal of their ancestors in "The Passion of the Christ" there were no Jewish suicide bombers blowing up Catholic Cathedrals. Those offended decided their differences in a civilized manner.

Am I being unreasonable to have the same expectation of everyone?

I think you're confusing issues.

The fact that some people are now afraid to criticize or make fun of Islam while all other religions are fair game is a problem. But I do not see how that correlates with us bombing them "over there".

[M House]

If we leave the middle east, they probably will fight more among themselves than against us. Alot of people in the middle east don't like their government. Also there's no logical reason to support Israel. It has nukes, tanks, ships, an air force and plenty of guns. It would then be in its best interest to make peace with it's neighbors. Not that it has too, but I'd kinda recommend it. Also, when has Israel given us foreign aid?

[Pericles]

I think you're confusing issues.

The fact that some people are now afraid to criticize or make fun of Islam while all other religions are fair game is a problem. But I do not see how that correlates with us bombing them "over there".

There is Iraq as an exception in that the US invaded without a declaration of war - outside the realms of norms (using UN resolutions as legal cover is bogus in my view).

Wrong headed or stupid as US foreign policy may be, every country (including the USA) has a right to pursue its policies within the bounds of established custom in diplomatic relations. If I don't like the policy of the country of Smalldorf, then it is up to me to persuade my country to pursue policy objectives that hinder the ability of Smalldorf to realize its aims. I don't get to blow up Smalldorf's financial center to make my point.

Groups that pursue their policy aims by violence because they can not get their own governments to pursue them, tend to be a common danger - wheter they be the Irish Republican Army, Al Queda, Red Army Faction, etc. Those who don't play by the rules get hunted down wherever they may be.

It is folly to expect other cultures always to act in a way we find rational. This is not limited to Islam. A joke from the '90s Balkan War makes the point:

A Serb and Croat conversation -

"I hate you because your family collaberated with the Nazis."

"How can you say that! The Nazis murdered 47 of my relatives!"

"See - that proves my point. The Nazis murdered 79 of my relatives, and I'm going to kill you for that!"

[Juan McCain]

It would maybe take some of the immediate terrorist pressure off . . .
changes the political stage scenery some . . . it would be a good thing in the right direction.

like the French in Algiers in the 1950s against Muslims . . . the longer you wait the more money is wasted - either way that is all you accomplished by it all anyway.

[eproxy100]

I noted with interest that when some Jews were annoyed with the portrayal of their ancestors in "The Passion of the Christ" there were no Jewish suicide bombers blowing up Catholic Cathedrals. Those offended decided their differences in a civilized manner.

Am I being unreasonable to have the same expectation of everyone?

Umm, so you're saying that the situation of a set of Jews being called murdurers in a movie is the same as the oppression of an ethnic group in a region? That's pretty funny.

[Reason]

//