• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would radical Muslims leave the U.S. alone if....

If we completely left the Muslim countries, would they make peace with the U.S.?

  • Total voters
    47
Temporal said:
Disrupted their countries? We destroyed their civilizations and killed their families. They will never stop hating us now, and terrorism against us is going to INCREASE because of this.
Click to expand...

Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan will have lasting consequences. Iraq espeically was a reckless act.
 
Juiposa said:
Yea, I think many radical Muslim terrorists would leave the US alone. They may still be a bit vengeful, but a withdrawal and a nice official apology would satisfy many people, including myself. Yet, the US has not only ****ed with the Middle East. They've had their hand in every nook and cranny of the planet. Pissing off Christians, Muslims and Jews alike. The things they've done to say, Central America, is irreversible and hate will always radiate from that part of the world.
Click to expand...

It's a hegemony. Enjoy it. Perhaps in the decades to come we will see another. Should we see the same people protest that? Probably not. But that is because it might be someone they can agree with. That being said, Americans would likely protest the hegemonic actions of another as well.

In summary, spare me the tears.
 
No. They are radicals for a reason

What it would do is drain any support and future recruitment they may have to draw upon
Radical Muslims need the United States in Muslim countries. It needs it to support dictators, bomb Muslim countries, take the oil. That is where the majority of their support comes from.

Muslims had little to no problem with the United States only a few decades ago. How many Americans know it was a Muslim country that was the first to recognize the United States as a Independent country from British colonialism?
If US withdrew from all ME affairs including Israel which is a source of contention despite the fact many Muslims do not really care for Palestinians, it may not neutralize all radicals but it would most certainly drop the threat level and Muslim countries themselves would have to finally face up the radicals amongst them rather than blaming US and using it as a scapegoat :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
Muslims had little to no problem with the United States only a few decades ago. How many Americans know it was a Muslim country that was the first to recognize the United States as a Independent country from British colonialism?
If US withdrew from all ME affairs including Israel which is a source of contention despite the fact many Muslims do not really care for Palestinians, it may not neutralize all radicals but it would most certainly drop the threat level and Muslim countries themselves would have to finally face up the radicals amongst them rather than blaming US and using it as a scapegoat :shrug:
Click to expand...

The Republic of Ragusa was a CATHOLIC republic, not Muslim. But, to be fair, the SECOND country to officially recognize the U.S. was an Islamic one (Morocco).

The U.S. should never, EVER abandon Israel to the tender mercies of the Arabs and Persians...
 
SE102 said:
Not subsidizing them and not giving them free weapons would be abandonment?
Click to expand...

No but "withdrawing" from ME affairs would be. To truly "withdraw" from middle east affairs with regards to Israel implies not recognizing them as a legitimate country. Or at the very least not coming to their aid as we would any other ally if they were attacked. Or well, not treating them the same as we treat other allied countries. There's not a country on the planet that the United States is an ally with that we don't have some kind of involvement beneficial to both sides. To truly "withdraw" from middle eastern affairs with regards to Israel you're asking us not to essentially ignore that Israel even exists...that's far fare more than not giving them weapons or subsidizing them.
 
Juiposa said:
Yea, I think many radical Muslim terrorists would leave the US alone. They may still be a bit vengeful, but a withdrawal and a nice official apology would satisfy many people, including myself. Yet, the US has not only ****ed with the Middle East. They've had their hand in every nook and cranny of the planet. Pissing off Christians, Muslims and Jews alike. The things they've done to say, Central America, is irreversible and hate will always radiate from that part of the world.
Click to expand...
An "apology"? LOL

As far as having our hand in "every nook and cranny" of the planet, those nooks and crannies seem to have no trouble accepting foreign aid from us.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
An "apology"? LOL

As far as having our hand in "every nook and cranny" of the planet, those nooks and crannies seem to have no trouble accepting foreign aid from us.
Click to expand...

Few ever do have trouble taking help, but that doesn't mean you own them. Nor does it forgive every sin. Just saying . . . . . :coffeepap
 
X Factor said:
An "apology"? LOL

As far as having our hand in "every nook and cranny" of the planet, those nooks and crannies seem to have no trouble accepting foreign aid from us.
Click to expand...

You mean their govenrment's if they know whats good for them, will allow the establishment of a USAID office and accept our aid. Not that it's effective in any way.
 
Tucker Case said:
No. The existing radicals will hate us regardless of what we do from this point onward. They already hate us. It ain't changing.
Click to expand...

I've found nothing about Arab hating us in media reports, only that that one group of Arabs has a blood feud with another group, and that our soldiers are killed by land mines.

Source of your info please...

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
I've found nothing about Arab hating us in media reports, only that that one group of Arabs has a blood feud with another group, and that our soldiers are killed by land mines.

Source of your info please...

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Well, since I didn't say that arabs hate us, I don't really have to source anything.
 
Boo Radley said:
Few ever do have trouble taking help, but that doesn't mean you own them. Nor does it forgive every sin. Just saying . . . . . :coffeepap
Click to expand...
It goes to show, doesn't it, that it doesn't matter the good we try to do, some will always see the US as the great evil. I remember there were some who claimed we were occupying Hataii when we went to help.
 
Muslims are the kookiest of all organized religions. No they would just keep on keeping on. The only reason they are even tolerated now is oil. It is the ONLY marketable commodity they possess, unless you're Charlie Sheen and want the heroin...or is he a coke head. If the oil fields are ever compromised they will be contained and then revised much like after the first WW.
 
LookingGlass said:
Muslims are the kookiest of all organized religions. No they would just keep on keeping on. The only reason they are even tolerated now is oil. It is the ONLY marketable commodity they possess, unless you're Charlie Sheen and want the heroin...or is he a coke head. If the oil fields are ever compromised they will be contained and then revised much like after the first WW.
Click to expand...

And here I thought it was the Scientologists who are the kookiest of them all.

I mean no offence to practicing scientologists in the forum, of course.
 
LookingGlass said:
Muslims are the kookiest of all organized religions. No they would just keep on keeping on. The only reason they are even tolerated now is oil. It is the ONLY marketable commodity they possess, unless you're Charlie Sheen and want the heroin...or is he a coke head. If the oil fields are ever compromised they will be contained and then revised much like after the first WW.
Click to expand...


Nah, something like that could never happen, could it?

"Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis
Sunday Herald, The, Oct 6, 2002 by Exclusive By Neil Mackay

President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that "Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East" and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US "military intervention" is necessary.

Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report on "energy security" from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Snr.

The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: "The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.

"The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies."

Baker who delivered the recommendations to Cheney, the former chief executive of Texas oil firm Halliburton, was advised by Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron, the US energy giant which went bankrupt after carrying out massive accountancy fraud. The other advisers to Baker were: Luis Giusti, a Shell non- executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco. Another name linked to the document is Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister and a fellow of the Baker Institute.

Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis | Sunday Herald, The Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET
 
Islam’s meteoric rise in her first few centuries of existence naturally led to a confident theological world view. Muslims explained the speed and expanse of their conquest as Gods’ favor toward the community He had entrusted as the sole custodians of His Truth. As He had commanded them to spread it over the entire globe; they could no more fail than could He. Christianity, in contrast, was established largely under the assumption that its members would be periodically persecuted by the state. In situations where another, hostile, force is dominant they have a clear and available lens to interpret the world and their role in it. Muslims have no such theological fall-back position, and the rise of the West - and its subsequent conquest of the lands of Islam - has thrown its inhabitants into a form of cultural cognitive dissonance. Humiliation, shame, and anger fuse with each other in attempting to explain How This Could Be. The result is a Napoleonic inferiority complex. This expresses itself in a number of ways.

The most obvious is the reach to selectively redefine the world around them. It is worth noting that the one area in which both official “state” and “popular” nationalistic expressions agree in the Middle East is in the speed with which they spread and accept conspiracy theories to explain national deficiencies. Misdeeds by members of the Arab community are often ignored or even blamed on the West. When Syria crushed the city of Hama in 1992 (killing an estimated 10,000-25,000 people to put down an Islamist-inspired revolt), the general response was comparatively muted. Mere months later, the slaughter of 700-800 Palestinian refugees by Maronite allies of Israel provoked shocked and widespread condemnation of Israel, and the West was blamed for both disasters. The Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) is relatively uninterested in brutal civil wars or repressions within its member-states (Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Somalia), and instead prefers to focus only on the human rights of Muslims living in non-Islamic states, such as Palestinians in Israel. Even actions by allies cannot be decried; when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, an Islamic country, the response from the nationalist / militarist nation-states was muted at best. Some states (including the Palestinian Liberation Organization) even defended the move.

For that matter, the alliance with the Soviet Union demonstrates the need to restructure and redefine history. The USSR was no natural ally of the Arabs, as it played a significant role in ensuring that the United Nations General Assembly would vote to establish Israel, was among the first of foreign governments to grant it recognition, and authorized its satellites to sell Israel weaponry. What provided the popular support for Egypt, Syria, et. al. allying with the USSR was the perception that this would give the hated West a black eye. Anything was defendable so long as it revenged the humiliation and relieved the pressure of inferiority.

Even former enemies could become purified through their opposition to the West. Saddam Hussein’s initial invasion of Kuwait prompted Osama bin Laden to extend an offer to the Saudi royal family to place his organization at their service – to fight Saddam. Their rejection and Saddam’s opposition to the United States, however, turned the tables and by 1998 in his Declaration of the World Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders bin Laden was describing the American actions in Iraq as “aggression.” The ideological necessity of opposing the West (and the US in particular) required that Osama decry them for undertaking the same mission that he himself had earlier offered to do. For those suffering most intently from this condition, acts of violence in service of a selective reality became an instrument of self-expression, a means of relieving the pressure stemming from the anger towards a world not obedient to ones’ preferred reality.
 
cpwill said:
Anything was defendable so long as it revenged the humiliation and relieved the pressure of inferiority.

For those suffering most intently from this condition, acts of violence in service of a selective reality became an instrument of self-expression, a means of relieving the pressure stemming from the anger towards a world not obedient to ones’ preferred reality.
Click to expand...

/disagree on these points.

Nice post, however.
 
I have to agree with my libertarian brother.
If we completely left all Muslim countries the radicals would have a harder time bring in recruits and in time the US and the Muslim countries can open up a dialog, etc.
If we want peace we need to pull our support for Israel and be neutral; of course, pulling our support for Israel is good for the US but, that is another topic.
 
peepnklown said:
I have to agree with my libertarian brother.
If we completely left all Muslim countries the radicals would have a harder time bring in recruits and in time the US and the Muslim countries can open up a dialog, etc.
If we want peace we need to pull our support for Israel and be neutral; of course, pulling our support for Israel is good for the US but, that is another topic.
Click to expand...

yes. nothing mollifies a bully like showing weakness.

Dane-geld

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: –
"We invaded you last night – we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: –
"Though we know we should defeat you,
we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
And see, what I see is making excuses. Both religions attract a radical element. Both radical elements can be violent. Both try and demonize the other.
Click to expand...

Agreed. At the moment, however, radical Muslims are far deadlier and have racked up thousands of more deaths than radical Christians or even radical Tree Huggers.
 
or even radical Tree Huggers
Click to expand...

i don't know if i'd go that far. deaths attributable to the banning of DDT, for example, easily range around 60 million, the vast majority of them children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom