The Logic Off Topic list

Hi gang,

This is what I started to write to Dennis, but it got pretty offtopic for
the thread, so here it is with its own.

Being the idealist-pacifict that I am, I used to think that we wouldn't
have any of these problems if we adopted a neutral, hands-off,
friendly-to-all foreign policy.  You don't have to know a whole lot about
what's going on to suppose that you'd have fewer enemies with legitimate
gripes if you never took sides and never hurt anyone.  I think that's
valid, but unrealistic.  I can't say that's the way the people you're
referring to think, but that's certainly how I felt when I thought about
it... before I realized that you can't just stop all these ancient human
forces so easily.  Loyalties, ideologies, alliances and conflicts have
been splashing around between civilizations for generations, losing a
little more clarity and sanity with each.  You can't stop a swinging
pendulum by slapping it as hard as you can in the opposite direction (take
THAT, evil bastards!), as it will just swing around and hit you in the
ass.  You have to neutralize it by applying a well-timed equal and
opposite force.  What's the opposite of fear, anger, hatred, and
retaliation?

What would be the Muslim world's response if we stopped bombing 
Afghanistan, pulled troops out of Saudi Arabia (after talking to the king 
about it of course), met with Islamic leaders to tell them that we'll end
the Iraqi embargo as soon as we capture Saddam (and then send in special 
operatives to carry this out-- nobody likes Saddam :-), explain our 
motives for each military action they cite as part of our war on Islam,
deliver a few eloquently translated speeches along with huge amounts of   
aid to Afghanistan and post-Saddam Iraq, and strike a deal that includes  
an end to global terrorism in exchange for a defended state of Palestine?

All we have to do is keep reasonable peace and comfort for at least a
generation... long enough to suppress the anger and install a few nice
gardens and fountains.  Nice stuff that it would be a shame if the US had
to bomb because they violated something in our 2002 peace agreement...

I'll anticipate the response of critics... let's see...

1.  Osama will cooperate long enough to betray us once our naive trust has
    made us once again vulnerable.

2.  Meeting any demands will reinforce the effectiveness of terrorism as a
    political means, thus legitimizing it, and encouraging its future use.

3.  We can't reconcile our alliances with the comprimises this policy
    would require. (Israel)

4.  We will appear as (and feel like) cowards for caving into demands
    against what we supposedly believed in the moment our security and
    lifestyles were threatened.

5.  The current demands of the militant fundamentalist Muslims are just 
    the tip of the iceberg.  They will continue to employ these tactics
    until they achieve a list of goals far less reasonable than a mere
    withdrawal of the meddlesome West from the affairs of the Islamic
    world.

Feel free to ridicule my silly naive peacenik pot-smoking tie-dyed
idealistic ideas, but ONLY when you explain to me why they're bad ones.
Not saying they're not, but I sincerely want to know.

What would happen?

-Denizen