If there is an iron law of international relations, it is this: Things change. Nations are the best of allies in one era, mortal enemies in another. In its own brutal self-interest, the US is very close to having to choose between being the enemy of one billion Moslems or 4 million Israelis.
The math speaks for itself.
>We should also get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, which
>is a good deal more like, at least it will happen
>within our lifetimes, and probably within the decade.
>But that wouldn't be enough to placate the Islamists.
How do you know?
>In fact, for a substantial minority of them, nothing
>would. However, at this point you show a really
>startling naivete about human motivation. People do
>not act like rational economic agents who formulate
>goals and stop doing the things they think they need
>to achieve them when the goals are attained. They
>commit themselves to values or visions, the Islamists
>not least, and they keep on going long after anyone
>would say that they have either attained what they
>wish or that any rational person would see that what
>they wish unattainable, or anyway by those methods.
This seems like a wordy version of, "Who can deal with these crazy Arabs?" Am I missing something?
>Finally, your approach here is really subject
>changing, unless you actually agree with Chris'
>sarcastic comment that we should ignore terrorist
>activity and hope they don't bother us.
No, that's too simplistic. I favor a more comprehensive two-pronged approach: (a) ignore the terrorists and (b) tell Israel to go fuck itself. I think the US could drain the global swamp of Islamic resentment pronto that way. At least I think that stands a better chance of success than calling Islamists irrational and letting it go at that.
Carl