Planetarion Forums

Baron Morte · 12 May 2004, 17:59

So the other day i was watching that higly historically inacurrate movie about Atila the hun, and i remembered that at some point rome would give him loads of gold so that he wouldnt obliterate it. And then i thought "wow, such a traditional empire got raped real nice this time. It must be really embarassing not to have any troops and having to reccur to that" and then i thought "well, to assemble and maintain an army, on the other hand, might be as expensive and sucky as to give shitloads of gold to the barbarian bloke". Following that, It struck my mind that the US could do the same. It could pay a reasonable sum of 10 bi dollars a year so that al kaeda stop killing people. I assume that it would be A LOT cheaper than trying to deracinate the movement.
There was a plead of truce going on by their side, something on the lines of "take your troops out of muslim places", which is quite reasonable. Al kaeda isnt really asking much there. Not even money as atila did.
How do you see this idea?
Are terrorists devils that cant be bargained with, much like the media depicts them?
Even the attack of 9/11 was related to Westerners in places where they dont belong.
Something to think about

ChubbyChecker · 12 May 2004, 18:05

Wasn't Atilla a few hundred years after the fall of the Roman Empire?

Baron Morte · 12 May 2004, 18:09

no it was before and the romans "defeated" him. Romans are great. it was in the 400.... western roman empire fell in 476

ChubbyChecker · 12 May 2004, 18:19

Oh, OK

You learn something new every day

nickhall · 12 May 2004, 18:40

yes but the point is if you give into one set of terorists then another will want the same thing, exactly why the UK and i think Europe has a policy of never paying kidnapers as doing so would encorage them.

Stew · 12 May 2004, 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickhall

never paying kidnapers

Well not telling the world when they do....

Tactitus · 12 May 2004, 18:51

The term for this is appeasement and it's neither popular nor very effective (at least in the long term).

Unlike Attila, al Qaeda isn't really in it for the plunder--not that they would necessarily reject such an offer. I'm sure they'd love to refinance and rebuild their organization, but it would be foolish to give them the time and resources to do so.

Al Qaeda has a long list of demands, of which troops in muslim countries is only one. I'm sure support for Israel would be near the top of their list, as well as support for governments of muslim countries which are not pro-al Qaeda--that is, not Islamic fundamentalists--such as Pakistan, Jordan, etc. In the end, they'd probably demand Spain back too.

MrL_JaKiri · 12 May 2004, 19:19

I'm liking the way that you think the best way to make people stop thinking the americans are rash capitalistic minded fools is to give terrorsists lots of money.

Nodrog · 12 May 2004, 19:24

The problem isnt any individual (group of) terrorists, it's that there are a lot of people who (for whatever reasons) happen to harbour a strong dislike of the West, in an era where it is possible for a small group of individuals to potentially annihilate an entire country. Unless the majority of these people are neutralised by the time large-scale biological/nuclear weapons acquistion becomes viable at a personal level, youre probably going to see some rather 'bad' things happening.

Marilyn Manson · 12 May 2004, 19:43

Even if it were possible to bribe OBL, which I doubt it is, as he is a genuine fanatic, that would only succeed in pacifing a set group of of people, and wouldn't tackle the underlying problem and it's causes. (I.E, Islamic-inspired terrorism.)

Tomkat · 12 May 2004, 19:45

There's also the problem that the terrorists aren't interested in the money, it's more a matter of principles. If they cared about earthly possessions, I doubt they'd have suicide bombers.

Sandsnake · 12 May 2004, 19:45

I still find humor in people thinking the terrorists will "stop if we stop meddling". and when they say meddling, they mean "permit them to do whatever they want to whomever they want, whenever they want".

riiiight....it's not a crime if it's legal, I guess....

queball · 12 May 2004, 19:47

If we redistributed wealth among everyone in the world there'd be no more poverty and everyone would find there are more constructive things to do than kill each other and we could all live in peace.

Marilyn Manson · 12 May 2004, 19:48

Well, Al Qaeda's aims are not particularly realistic anyway. Unless you consider a Pan-Arabic state and the restoration of The Caliphate realistic.

They don't actually have to deal in sensible politics, and they never will, so there's no reason why they should have an achievable set of goals.

1-X · 12 May 2004, 19:57

it's only a matter of time before oil is the resource of the past. Then what have the arab/muslim countries got to offer? Sand?

Marilyn Manson · 12 May 2004, 19:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1-X

Then what have the arab/muslim countries got to offer? Sand?

International terrorism, if present trends are anything to go by.

Dante Hicks · 12 May 2004, 20:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1-X

it's only a matter of time before oil is the resource of the past.

This is merely a truism, but it depends what you mean by "a matter of time". We could be dependent on oil for the next hundred years (I hope and doubt we will, but there's nothing obvious on the horizon). If the largest known supply of economically extractable oil is in a region which has a serious problem with the West then the next century will not be fun.

Tactitus · 12 May 2004, 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This is merely a truism, but it depends what you mean by "a matter of time". We could be dependent on oil for the next hundred years (I hope and doubt we will, but there's nothing obvious on the horizon). If the largest known supply of economically extractable oil is in a region which has a serious problem with the West then the next century will not be fun.

I think the region is more dependent on oil profits than the West is dependent on oil. The West at least has some alternatives (coal, nuclear, etc), albeit expensive ones.

JonnyBGood · 12 May 2004, 20:13

The whole economically viable thing is just daft. I mean do we honestly expect the technology required for extracting oil to not progress at all over the next 60-100 years? Is this due to the fact this technology hasn't developed much at all since 1920?

Dante Hicks · 12 May 2004, 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I think the region is more dependent on oil profits than the West is dependent on oil. The West at least has some alternatives (coal, nuclear, etc), albeit expensive ones.

Perhaps, but the West has got further to fall. The Palestenian's (say) aren't massively wealthy to start with. But yeah, any conflict will hurt "them" more than "us" (simply because the upper hand militarily the West has at the moment). That doesn't mean there aren't Al Qaeda type people who will still desire conflit (irrespective of the pain).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The whole economically viable thing is just daft. I mean do we honestly expect the technology required for extracting oil to not progress at all over the next 60-100 years? Is this due to the fact this technology hasn't developed much at all since 1920?

I'm not sure on drilling technology, but it's not quite that simple. Oil will never "run out". There will always be oil somewhere. But if it's under the deepest part of the Pacific (or whatever) that's not amazingly useful. It'll gradually become more and more expensive to mine.

Getting oil from the Persian Gulf is a lot cheaper than the North Sea, or Alaska, or the equivalent. When oil prices rise (through OPEC's actions and such) these alternate sources seem a lot more attractive.

Technology will help with some things, but it doesn't solve all the problems. There are some areas we know/think there is oil, but it'll cost more than a barrel of oil in energy (as it were) to extract a barrel of oil. Maybe tech will have some breakthrough, but as with oil alternatives, that's a scary thing to bet the future of civilisation on.

JonnyBGood · 12 May 2004, 21:16

Oil is hardly the only energy source there is though. I find your last line kind of strange though, I mean imagine if people thousands of years ago had the same approach, I doubt we'd have made it out of the caves. I'm unsure quite what your point is, are you aiming for a conservation approach? Appeasing Muslim terrorists? Moving in with huge armed force and taking over the Persian Gulf? Research into alternative (renewable) energy sources?

Dante Hicks · 12 May 2004, 21:27

Mainly the latter, although I'm always up for a good bit of Arab killing. Conservation would also be a good idea, yeah.

Oil is not the only energy source, but by a staggering margin it's our most important. Yes, there is coal and nuclear, but they are not currently in a position to even vaguely replace oil (cars, fertilizers, general oil power stations, etc). Countries like India and China are going to need massive amounts of oil in the future and they don't have significant domestic supplies (well, nowhere near enough to talk about Persian Gulf type levels). So we've got a continually increasing demand with a static (and eventually declining) supply of one of our most important commodities.

We'll be OK I'm sure, but it seems a rather blasé attitude a lot of people seem to take. "Don't worry dudes, something will turn up!". One of the heavily overlooked reasons in the Soviet collapse (and prior to that, relative decline) was the effect oil supply had on them. Their peak production happened sometime in the 70's (I think) and their decline was somewhat delayed by the Middle East oil crisis. Peak production is due to hit the Persian Gulf (I think) sometime in the next fifty years.

JonnyBGood · 12 May 2004, 21:33

I have faith (lol) in the market economy you dirty red. A few famines in India and China wouldn't go amiss either

Dace · 12 May 2004, 23:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

A few famines in India and China wouldn't go amiss either :up:

Just wait 30-40 years and it'll happen (NewScientist tells me that massive droughts are expected then) :twothumbsup:

JonnyBGood · 12 May 2004, 23:49

How in the name of god can they predict a drought thirty years in advance when they can't get the weather for next week right?

Dace · 12 May 2004, 23:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

How in the name of god can they predict a drought thirty years in advance when they can't get the weather for next week right?

They can predict general trends more easily than specific daily effects (i think).

Global Warming.

Moutain Glaciers melt.

Rivers rise for a few decades (lots of flooding).

After that time no more moutain ice so no more water.

Baron Morte · 12 May 2004, 23:54

the one man show - man bombs western hemisphere to smitherins - is something to be paid attention to.
This idea doesnt sounds so nice right about now.

JonnyBGood · 13 May 2004, 00:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dace

They can predict general trends more easily than specific daily effects (i think).

Global Warming.

Moutain Glaciers melt.

Rivers rise for a few decades (lots of flooding).

After that time no more moutain ice so no more water.

I don't get weather

Dace · 13 May 2004, 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I don't get weather :(

You live in Ireland OF COURSE YOU GET WEATHER!!!!!!!!11

Tactitus · 13 May 2004, 02:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dace

They can predict general trends more easily than specific daily effects (i think).

Yeah, because in 40 years nobody's going to remember or care about the idiotic predictions made today. In that sense, it's surprisingly easy to predict long term trends.