I've heard mention infinite times that this or that action by the Bush administration will "whip the terrorist into a frenzy" so to speak. Now I've been wondering... is that necessarily a bad thing?

You can't shoot a mole in a hole, but a little bait may give you a target. Though it may cost lives, surely to do it now is better than later, since while they may kill people now, they won't be around to poison minds into who knows what sort of horrific bullshit later.

So I think it's really best to do a moderate amount to piss off the would be terrorists such that they come out to play.

A somewhat grim and cold addition to this is that it's even better if you can draw them out somewhere besides the US, which is Bush's mandate by the nature of his position, which is exactly what he's accomplishing. Really to me - from a strategic perspective, it's freakin beautiful.

I mean, the strategy here (disregarding the ability to rebuild the government) from the perspective of gaining an advantage in the "war on terror" seems pretty damned good to me. The stated goal is to take down states who harbor terrorists.... Iraq is the perfect place to start for a number of strategic/historical reasons.

- we already had a grudge against them, making them the perfect scapegoat
- prideful, horrific dictator so you get teh humanitarian thing for freeing the people.
- iraq is basically terrorist central at least geographically. basically the missouri or terror nation if you konw what I mean, bordering/near all the countries who need to be scared of us. (they need to be scared so they take the damn assertion 'you will not allow terrorists to play in your country' seriously). this allows us to set up camp right where we need to, as we'll likely have to have a military presence for years to come... so we get the bonus of being able to run intelligence operations/recon/attacks on cells from close in the region.

seems like a sound strategy to me... but I don't have the information that the fellas in washington are privy to either. hrmph.

Thoughts?

You can't shoot a mole in a hole, but a little bait may give you a targetI present for counterpoint the idea that shooting the mole isn't the only option. You can poison the mole, but that runs environmental risk. You can, apparently--I've never tried it--put chewing gum in a mole or gopher hole and that will do the job, but there is the risk that they won't take the bait. Nobody around here will let me drown them. Judging by what happens when it rains--not bad flooding by any means, but there's a pump under the house--I suppose there's wisdom in not putting a huge amount of water under my yard.

As to the rest, I'll give deeper consideration and get back to it.

do you have any idea how many innocents have been killed by our taxes on this 'war on terror'?

do you have a clue how much terror WE have wrought?
obviously not.

we have killed tens of thousands of people in afghanistan and iraq.. i can't imagine that we have made any friends at all with these efforts.. to the contrary we have created more terrorists than ever before.

this entire effort has set us back so far i can't imagine how long it will take planet earths people to recover.

establishing democracy with the club has NEVER worked and will never work.

it sounds like you only read american press.. keep yer head in the sand.. it feels better. er, ignorance is bliss.. enjoy

i suspect the blowback may very well destroy america.

and to top it off .. i'm with the pope on this one ;)

/do you have any idea how many innocents have been killed by our taxes on this 'war on terror'?

Yes. Do you have any idea how many US innocent citizens would have been killed if we hadn't indulged in a "war on terror"? Up till now? 50 years from now? I don't, but my guess is significantly fewer than the innocents who have died in the war up until now.

/do you have a clue how much terror WE have wrought?
obviously not.

Terror is in the eye of the beholder, that's for sure. Yes, I have an idea of it.

/we have killed tens of thousands of people in afghanistan and iraq.. i can't imagine that we have made any friends at all with these efforts..

I'm sorry but that is simply naive. Since when has killing innocence stopped international business/politics? HA. Unfortunately, there are casualities in any endeavor. I believe it imperative to try to minmize them. I further believe that is the intent of current US president, of course with respect to his mandate to promote US interests.

/to the contrary we have created more terrorists than ever before.

that's a mixed bag brother. try to validate that statement without presumption. I don't think you can. I'd say it's almost as valid to say that if they became a terrorist (from the US perspective) based on current history, then they were really already terrorists.. and it's better to draw them out and get rid of them before it gets worse. that is merely a perspective though, and I do see others that are valid. this is just the one that comes from me. it's somewhat of a gamble either way.

/this entire effort has set us back so far i can't imagine how long it will take planet earths people to recover.

that's simply conjecture.

/establishing democracy with the club has NEVER worked and will never work.

more conjecture. you cannot confirm you are right or wrong, though I agree it will be tough going and success will likely be elusive. i'm not sure

/it sounds like you only read american press.. keep yer head in the sand.. it feels better. er, ignorance is bliss.. enjoy

i'd prefer to keep this civil. please do not repeat this type of insult. if you were paying attention you'd realize that the goddamn american press has painted this exactly as YOU have painted it. so it sounds to me like you're talking out your ass.

/i suspect the blowback may very well destroy america.

it's possible.

/and to top it off .. i'm with the pope on this one ;

if that makes you feel better.

/I present for counterpoint the idea that shooting the mole isn't the only option. You can poison the mole, but that runs environmental risk. You can, apparently--I've never tried it--put chewing gum in a mole or gopher hole and that will do the job, but there is the risk that they won't take the bait. Nobody around here will let me drown them. Judging by what happens when it rains--not bad flooding by any means, but there's a pump under the house--I suppose there's wisdom in not putting a huge amount of water under my yard.

Your point is well taken, but you still gotta get rid of the damn moles. You have to take a course of action. It was chosen. It does have a significant number of risks, but overall I think it actually minimizes truly new risks by forcing the hand of those that already exist. Of course I'm not sure, but so far it's seemed pretty convincing to me and fully seems like a reasonable course of action, even it if is illegal or doesn't turn out to win the contest. The idea being that if we're gonna lose, we're gonna lose. Let's play this thing out while we think we have the advantage. All in all, that's about all one really has to go on. Again, from the perspective of US interests, it seems like a very wise move to me. *shrug*

I am frequently wrong and often misspeak though so you know.

/As to the rest, I'll give deeper consideration and get back to it.

I'll look forward to your analysis.

///Yes. Do you have any idea how many US innocent citizens would have been killed if we hadn't indulged in a "war on terror"? Up till now? 50 years from now? I don't, but my guess is significantly fewer than the innocents who have died in the war up until now.

ZERO. 9-11 was an attempted attack that was allowed to happen so that ... bla bla.. you've heard it before and I BELIEVE IT. because of the evidence cited in many places other than american journalism

///Terror is in the eye of the beholder, that's for sure. Yes, I have an idea of it.

oh so, sending a 19 year old american over to accidently shoot a family to death because they didnt understand our waving motion meant stop, and because that 19 year old was shitting his pants isnt terror? there's many examples of us bombing the wrong place.. or missing our target and children and pregnant mothers getting thier limbs and bodies blown up .. oops sorry.. but wee didn't mean to terrorize YOU.. we meant to aim at yer government.. sorry your nightmares are your governments fault don't blame us!

/we have killed tens of thousands of people in afghanistan and iraq.. i can't imagine that we have made any friends at all with these efforts..

///I'm sorry but that is simply naive. Since when has killing innocence stopped international business/politics? HA. Unfortunately, there are casualities in any endeavor. I believe it imperative to try to minmize them. I further believe that is the intent of current US president, of course with respect to his mandate to promote US interests.

well i don't feel it has been anything close to a priority to minimize casualties.. what with a pre-emptive strike on a disarmed nation.. tell me why if they had wmd's didn't they use them? most of saddams armies were unwilling fighters.. bush and crew knew this.. counted on it.. to win.
bush lied to get this war on.. how is that minimizing collateral damage? how is not negotiating minimizing? 12 years of sanctions without a single attempt at negotiating.. yes tis true clinton didn't either. but i'm no dem.. so the american government in general did not practice talking vs gun to the head at any point with iraq.. how is that minimizing casualties???

/to the contrary we have created more terrorists than ever before.

that's a mixed bag brother. try to validate that statement without presumption. I don't think you can. I'd say it's almost as valid to say that if they became a terrorist (from the US perspective) based on current history, then they were really already terrorists.. and it's better to draw them out and get rid of them before it gets worse. that is merely a perspective though, and I do see others that are valid. this is just the one that comes from me. it's somewhat of a gamble either way.

Validate?!! what the hell are you talking about.. you must have missed my point..
take one case.. pretent you live in iraq for a second and your entire family and home has been blown to little tiny bits by a misguided bomb.. what do you do then? appeal to the embassy?
ok, so they turn you away calling you a dirty sand nigger looking for a handout.. as many folks have done(i've read the reports) do you then think oh amerika meant the best and did the worst ill volunteer as a policeman for them.. No you sign up with the resistance.. how many folks do you think this happend to? a lot more than you think.

/this entire effort has set us back so far i can't imagine how long it will take planet earths people to recover.

///that's simply conjecture.

yea, well, we'll see.

/establishing democracy with the club has NEVER worked and will never work.

///more conjecture. you cannot confirm you are right or wrong, though I agree it will be tough going and success will likely be elusive. i'm not sure

HA!, read yer history again. democracy by the club has NEVER worked.

/it sounds like you only read american press.. keep yer head in the sand.. it feels better. er, ignorance is bliss.. enjoy

///i'd prefer to keep this civil. please do not repeat this type of insult. if you were paying attention you'd realize that the goddamn american press has painted this exactly as YOU have painted it. so it sounds to me like you're talking out your ass.

Lol

HA!, read yer history again. democracy by the club has NEVER worked.


Obviously some ppl never learn about the disaster of the British experiment with "democracy" in Iraq in the 20's and 30's... that's why they needed a dictatorial monarch to rule. :rolleyes: Well let some wallow and swim in their own ignorance.

Sadly, I think it might take a massive terrorist attack of the scale of 9/11 on European soil to get the point made across the big pond. The U.S. had a policy of containment prior to 9/11 and it failed miserably. Post 9/11 there was one option, and only one option: Hunt down the terrorists and eradicate them. I don't care who was the POTUS after 9/11, the course of action was clear. We had warning after warning that something on the scale of 9/11 was imminent and we ignored it. The Khobar Towers bombing, the Cole, Kenya and Tanzania, WTC '93, none of these seemed to rivet the attention of the U.S. It took 9/11 to get our full attention that we are at war, and the enemy has no boundaries when it comes to targets.

Bottom line: Containment failed. There can be no bargaining with this enemy. So do we sit back and wait for them to make the next move, or do we hunt them down and kill them before they kill us? It's absurd to think that if a dove like Kucinich were elected to the White House that suddenly Islamic Fundamentalists would suddenly have a sea-change in their attitudes toward the U.S. and the West in general.

If I understand the premise of this thread correctly, it is that provoking terrorist attacks will assist in identifying, locating and eliminating terrorists; further that "it's freakin beautiful" to have the conflict occur in someone else's country. This is a popular and highly dangerous misconception.

"The stated goal is to take down states who harbor terrorists"

The prime motivator behind the growth of murderous organizations like Al-Qaeda is American military intervention in the mideast. As has been plain in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, extreme military superiority in such situations is counterproductive in combatting aggression that is not coordinated from within a political state apparatus. The political vacuum in the wake of the "take-down" provides the ideal breeding ground for terrorism and unconventional resistance.

"Taking down states who harbor terrorists" has already been clearly shown (but rarely acknowledged in the US) to increase the occurance of terrorism, especially when dismantling countries containing powerful centifugal forces of tribalism and competing ethnicities. Afghanistan and Iraq are now more conducive places for the recruitment and organization of terrorists than before the emotions of 9/11 were channeled into war.

If in "Taking down states who harbor terrorists" we have set an international precedent, providing cover for any nation to launch unprovoked invasions on such pretext, international stability has been seriously weakened. There is some comfort in the international isolation that has greeted this doctrine.

"iraq is basically terrorist central at least geographically. basically the missouri [of] terror nation[s] if you [know] what I mean, bordering/near all the countries who need to be scared of us."

In the Mideast, American forcefulness has always incited defiance and not aquiescence. It is bigotry to assert however obliquely that the only thing that will teach a grouping of people respect is force. Wesmorris is here wholeheartedly ascribing to the Saddam Hussein school of politics: Respect through fear. But because the US is a foreign power, our resemblance to bullies will be far more intolerable to the Arab world than have been indigenous tyrants.

Before 9/11, Al-Qaeda clearly communicated that the continued garrisoning of US troops in Saudi Arabia after the end of the 1st gulf war was unacceptable to them. Al-Qaeda clearly communicated that American manipulation and propping-up of mideastern regimes was unacceptable to them. Al-Qaeda clearly communicated that Saddam Hussein's regime was the enemy of Al-Qaeda. Americans were not listening. Neither did Americans understand that Al-Qaeda is not an isolated phenomena.

The large view of modern mideastern history shows the intractibility of stabilization in that region through foreign military intervention. In Iraq, Ottoman and British rule there are not distant memories. In the US, these histories are hardly familiar, and if you fit the American majority, here's a very short version for you:

The foreigners had to pick up their superior firepower and leave.

The Bush Administration is leading the United States into a period of protracted cultural conflict, that will be extremely disruptive, and will include a greater frequency and scale of desperate reprisals including terrorism. Compare the histories of other assymetrical modern war- Spend some time thinking from the perspective of an Arab resident of the Mideast-

You'll see.

INTERNATIONALISM! Iraq did no one any favours. We have to fight together, now the question is against who? :confused:

Originally posted by nico
Obviously some ppl never learn about the disaster of the British experiment with "democracy" in Iraq in the 20's and 30's... that's why they needed a dictatorial monarch to rule. :rolleyes: Well let some wallow and swim in their own ignorance.

Wallow all you like.

If I throw dice do they always come up snake eyes?

This coming from a man who can't even grasp the basics of international politics. I've told you before, this is not your place. And to think how pathetic one can be, in light of more relevant, and germane posts. He chooses mine... are we gay? Me thinks so, you've joined the elite group of the nico homosexual voyeur fan club, carnuth, 15of19, and now you. Hurrah! :rolleyes:

We have to fight together, now the question is against who? "

We can fight together, and do it far more effectively than the reckless reactionism we are witnessing in the behavior of the US.

Here are reactive/proactive alternatives that work: React to each terrorist act with standard police investigation and apprehension of perpetrators. Cooperate internationally with every nation in arresting and prosecuting terrorists. Every nation is equally vulnerable: Those who react with a police-state internally and foreign aggression externally are targeted the most. Proactively, international cooperation in combatting misery and state repression anywhere it is occuring destroys terrorist recruitment.

Originally posted by nico
INTERNATIONALISM! Iraq did no one any favours. We have to fight together, now the question is against who? :confused:

It sounds good, but I don't think you really alleviate theproblem as it I think it is cultural. Changing the name of a country doesn't necessarily affect their culture, so you don't get at the problem really at all in the near term. Further, I think we are inevitably heading towards it.... but there's a ways to go. I think certain cultures are mutually exclusive and couldn't really exist under one government without changing what they are, but again, that aint easy. Culture is ingrained in people to their core and passed from generation to generation. That's a tough nut to crack. Getting everyone on the same page really only seems to happen as a result of a catastrophe.

So what, now I have to hope for a really big catastrophe in order that the world acheive harmony? aint that a bitch.

you ignore the point to debate the man eh boy?

Originally posted by nico
This coming from a man who can't even grasp the basics of international politics. I've told you before, this is not your place.

Some gaul telling me what to do little one. I'll tread where I please child.

I'd rather not flame you kid, because it's not productive. I'd rather not ignore you, because I think it's silly to ignore people.

I would ask that you be civil, but I doubt someone so shallow could comprehend what that entails.

You don't realize it child, but I understand much more than you. I don't have the encyclopedia of international political data memorized, but I have a depth - which you lack completely. You should learn from me child. If you foster a positive relationship, you mind find we could learn from each other. Let me know if you can handle it. I certainly expect that you cannot.

Originally posted by nico
And to think how pathetic one can be, in light of more relevant, and germane posts. He chooses mine... are we gay? Me thinks so, you've joined the elite group of the nico homosexual voyeur fan club, carnuth, 15of19, and now you. Hurrah! :rolleyes:

nico, i'm an adult. i'm a father. i'm a man. i'm a contributing member of society and i'm significantly smarter than you in some ways. show me the respect i deserve child, and you'll find you get respect. otherwise we have nothign to say to one another.

"I think certain cultures are mutually exclusive"

Please elaborate. What you are expressing is coming through as nothing more than bigotry and ignorance- If you are comfortable as a bigot and ignoramus, then there's no need to reply.

"Getting everyone on the same page really only seems to happen as a result of a catastrophe."

If the goal of the "War on Terror" is truly to avoid catastrophe, your observation is nonsense.

"So what, now I have to hope for a really big catastrophe in order that the world acheive harmony? "

No. You have another think coming.

Nice post Wes.

It's sad to see a bright young mind like nico so corrupted by inferiority complexes and insecurity. Thankfully I was forewarned about his potential for irrational histrionics by the poster that turned me on to this site, but even so, I find it sad to see him constantly screaming and yelling through his keyboard at people.

I have been a long time poster on another political forum for years and one of the most valuable lessons I have learned is that no matter how much I think I know about a topic, someone will a lot more life experience than me can often shed insights that might not have occured to me.

I too am a man. I don't have to go to a message board for validation. I graduated cum laude in four years from a good university, I quickly worked my way into a project manager position at the first post-college job I took, and I started my own company at 26 years old. But frankly, I didn't know shit about the world at that point. This forum has a lot of smart, thoughtful people on it, and I have learned a bit from some of them. Let's hope that the kid doesn't blow a gasket before he learns that sometimes there is just no substitute for age.

oh no, citing yer family history doesnt help me respect you..

you don't want to hear about mine.. though maybe it would make a difference to you if i told you i was a combat veteran.. i won't go into it, get off it. calling people names doesnt help anything. if you don't like it from others don't do it yerself..

i might use the word ignorant because that implies you are missing information. other than that i deleted several references to lower species from my post before i sent it.. please try to do the same ;)

i will continue to stand on the concept of peace through peace.
peace through bludgeoning is unjust period.. i really don't understand how anyone can argue any different.

/Please elaborate.

Since you asked nicely:

It's pretty simple. Note zionists and people who hate zionists. Note the people in whereever that hate the people of wherever, like the serbs hating whoever, and blah blah blah. Easy enough to comprehend or would you like to accuse me of something else?

/What you are expressing is coming through as nothing more than bigotry and ignorance.

I'm sorry your reading comprehension is so lacking, or your image of me so disgusting. I suppose mine of you is somewhat that way so fair is fair. Hate on hating hater.

/If you are comfortable as a bigot and ignoramus, then there's no need to reply.

So you hide your ass behind a smile eh? Your passive aggressive bullshit is transparent. Can you be honest about it or are you gonna pretend that wasn't a pointless cheap shot? I forgot a bunch of damn children are runnign around in here - some of them older than myself.

"Getting everyone on the same page really only seems to happen as a result of a catastrophe."

/If the goal of the "War on Terror" is truly to avoid catastrophe, your observation is nonsense.

You confuse nonsense with irony.

"So what, now I have to hope for a really big catastrophe in order that the world acheive harmony? "

/No. You have another think coming.

Was that a typo or an attempt to be clever? That latter bombed. Hell maybe some people liked it. It's kidn of like saying "you better keep breathing" though, captain obvious. I always have another think coming.

It probably would have been less of a waste of our time though if you had actually contemplated the observaton, rather than expending your limited resources on a flippant comment.

Originally posted by ranxer
oh no, citing yer family history doesnt help me respect you.

I would assume you're talking to me?

My citation was meant for nico. He knows better. You are a newbie, so we are on a clean slate for now. I don't expect but nominal human respect automatically, and often get it, often don't. It can hardly be expected from a shallow child like our young friend/enemy nico.

BTW, welcome to sciforums. ;)

ranks
i missed a refresh

im with hyperwaders
there's lots of choices of solutions.. just don't choose among the represive violent ones in any situation and 50percent of our problems would go away. everything else has to do with coercion.

/you don't want to hear about mine.. though maybe it would make a difference to you if i told you i was a combat veteran.. i won't go into it, get off it.

then we sort of have something in common. i've attended (army)a couple of warrish type things (panama and gulf 1).

/calling people names doesnt help anything. if you don't like it from others don't do it yerself..

stating the obvious? why? did i call you something already? i thought i deleted all that.

/i might use the word ignorant because that implies you are missing information.

I'm familiar with the definition.

/other than that i deleted several references to lower species from my post before i sent it.. please try to do the same ;)

thought i did. did one slip under the radar?

/i will continue to stand on the concept of peace through peace.

to a degree I find that admirable.

/peace through bludgeoning is unjust period..

you paint black and white in a sea of shades of gray. at the level of a government, basic ethics just doesn't necessarily apply because there is no "right answer" to some questions IMO. my for instance being "if you regulate x then there is a 40 to 80 percent chance that you'll kill 100 people this week but you'll save 29923838 10 years from now". please tell me who should die. the 100 now or the 103104083 later? what if you don't have a realistic estimate, just your gut? what if you have overwhelming evidence where there is a 99% probability from every thing you know tha tyou have to kill you own child today to save the world tomorrow? IMO, the whole of politics is filled with these types of dillemas. an honest man with the mandate to do his best in the interest of his country finds himself in a position I do not envy. Of course it's not that big of a deal for someone who doesn't care. Anyway.

/i really don't understand how anyone can argue any different.

i felt the same way for a very long time.

First Try

I'm seeing two specific parts here that I haven't meshed in my brain quite yet, so perhaps I'm looking at it from the wrong angle, but I'll start with this:So I think it's really best to do a moderate amount to piss off the would be terrorists such that they come out to play. There is wisdom here that I do not deny, but rather limit to a condition whereby we might presume, conclude, determine, or otherwise arrive at the value X to represent the number of terrorists existing on any given day.

If this base number declines as we pick off terrorists, then I think we're examining a sound strategy. But I feel--and in the long run must endeavor to determine for sure--that X is at least remaining constant, if not growing, as time passes.

And that's where my sense of disagreement arises. Perhaps in a theoretical field, the idea still bears merit, but it seems to me that people who were mere spectators rooting for "their team" might be prepared to take the field whereas a different political and military strategy might not have called them to arms.

Here I'll admit to sloth: I'm too lazy to go look up a link. I've posted around here a political cartoon, I think by David Horsey or Steve Benson, that shows a split-frame with Rumsfeld on the one hand declaring that events have had no negative impact on recruiting while the other shows a terrorist recruiter voicing his full agreement.

And therein lies the danger I perceive.Really to me - from a strategic perspective, it's freakin beautiful.A counter-strategy isn't just "Iraqnam," but "Iraqestine." We might pause for a moment to recall the recent topic about the IDF training US military hit squads, for lack of a better phrasing. If the terrorists can draw this out and cast the American occupation as something akin to Israeli methods regarding the Palestinians, they'll dent the American prestige that Bush's strategy has made so vulnerable.a number of strategic/historical reasonsWould it be petty to include that the Iraqi contributions to terror had the full endorsement of at least two United States presidents?

I consider it important insofar as we might consider here Saddam Hussein, or even the Legend of Osama bin Laden.° He has one last chance to be of service to the world, and that is by taking down key players that helped make his reign of terror possible, including our Defense Secretary. And I'm not referring to anything like Schwarzkopf's blunder at the table during cease-fire talks; you can't account for every possible insanity brought forth by someone like Hussein, and while they should have seen it coming, yes, people make mistakes, and I won't hold Schwarzkopf morally responsible for allowing the gunships back in the air. But the Rumsfelds, Chiracs, and others who helped arm the Hussein regime.

He ought to crow proudly on his way down about how he "conned" Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration, about how Chirac was so willing to sell him what he needed.

He can still hurt the Bush administration insofar as he can give them a black eye on his way down.

But by and large it does seem a sound strategy, though I question its produce and intent. I'm looking for something to illustrate the concern without resorting to severe analogies like the soundness of certain Nazi strategies. The severity is unwarranted. But perhaps that hint can suggest the mechanics of idea that I'm describing. It's a sound strategy, if . . . .

Notes:

° A note on the title - I was really trying to avoid "(Insert Title Here)." Maybe that decision was unwise.

° Legend of Osama bin Laden - Not to be superstitious, but I referred to the legends of OBL and Saddam Hussein only days ago, and shortly thereafter Hussein was roped in. So I might as well push the Legend of OBL. Can't hurt, can it?

War is terrorism :rolleyes:

split-frame with Rumsfeld on the one hand declaring that events have had no negative impact on recruiting while the other shows a terrorist recruiter voicing his full agreement.

where?! i missed it, i soo want that toon, i've been saying it for a year, um with so many others i guess heh

Call me cynical but I really don't think that the actions of the U.S. still have a causal relationship with regards to the amount of "new" terrorists that are lining up to fight. I really think that the gauntlet has been thrown down and there is no picking it up. We are in this fight for a long haul and our best strategy is to promote more freedom of thought in the Muslim world. We have got to attack this problem at the Madrassa level. There are ten year old kids in Pakistan being taught that a woman who bears any flesh in public is going to hell. How we combat that sort of assinine, backwards, stone-age thinking will be the best measure of how we are really doing with regards to combatting terrorism. When you have 10 year old kids, who can't read, but can recite the Koran, (as if that somehow makes them educated) growing up to think that the highest station they can acheive in life is to fight the West, you have a problem that can't be solved with bombs. It's the duty of the West to get deeply entrenched in this culture to explain to these poor bastards that we aren't the source of their misery. It's their refusal to join the rest of world in accepting the inevitability of progress. The Wahhabi wingnuts would have them believe that man is inherently evil, that women are evil, that progress is evil, etc., etc.

That's what always amazes me about the Blame America First crowd when it comes to the issues of the ME. They actually think we are to blame for these people being stuck in the dark ages. Last time I checked Wahhabism didn't come out of the West.

Ranxer, (and Wes) and anyone else who wants it,

Okay, I decided sloth wasn't enough of an excuse.

Link: Horsey on Iraq: "Translating Donald Rumsfeld's Pronouncements," October 24, 2003. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20031024/cartoon20031024.gif)

A Short Note for 15ofthe19We have got to attack this problem at the Madrassa level.Something about not establishing and funding the madrassas with American money goes here.

Are you making a point or not?

I opened that cartoon link. Surely that's not the meat of your post, is it?

The United States and Madrassas (http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3453)

By Martin Schram | Sunday, September 21, 2003

Looking back, it seems unbelievable that the U.S. government would ever hatch such a scheme. But during the presidency of Ronald Reagan — when all vision was still focused on the Cold War — the United States got itself into the business of sponsoring militant Islamic schools for Afghanistan, then a nation under the influence of the Soviet Union. Martin Schram explains.

THanks for the link tiassa, i just printed 10 of those =)

Originally posted by tiassa
[b]Would it be petty to include that the Iraqi contributions to terror had the full endorsement of at least two United States presidents?

Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Counterterrorism Method A:

Go out hunting terrorists with lethal force in any foreign land regardless of international mandate- apprehend or kill every one. Minimize "collateral" killing all you can.

Counterterrorism Method B:

Deal with crimes with civil police action, and with international cooperation. Don't be an oppressor, and don't support oppressors. Keep your constituency well apprised of the actions being taken to identify and remove the sources of terrorism. Desist and divest from activities causing harm, oppression, and resentment.


The efficacy of Methods A and B have already been demonstrated. Terrorism, perhaps the world's 2nd oldest profession, persists after diligent implementation of either Method A or B. However, acts of terrorism increase under Method A, and decrease with method B.

We would have a seemingly simple choice, in a simple country where national issues and responses were revealed and popularly considered. But it is not so simple.

Does an increase in terrorist activity strengthen the Bush Administration's political position?

Has the Bush Administration exhibited honesty in foreign policy?

Method A is attractive in Washington. Method A is appealing to exceptionalism, anger, and desire for power. Method A easily builds its own momentum, can become even, well... a Crusade.

But we have no stomachs for Crusade, especially one that unexpectedly tears your ears, pounds your chest, shatters your street into a sickening tangle of misshapen brick, metal, and body parts. We don't want it: Crusades jump all rules and borders now. After we see the horror and loss vividly enough through insight, through a camera lens, with our own eyes, or with our own wounds, Method A will clearly have been a mistake.

We don't have to go through all that to put Method B into action. Technology propels the lethality of battlefields shockingly to peaceful cityscapes, but it can also transport calming solutions to cauldrons of hate before they explode into conflict.

It's a simple choice, that is hardly considered, but very real.

Has anybody seen a show called "The Lone Gunman?"

It aired on Fox Televison TV on March 2, 2001. In the show, the bad guys control a passenger airplane by remote control with intentions of flying it into the World Trade Center. The villains were from the arms industry; the motive being to inflame the public and thereby increase arms sales to use gainst “terrorists.”

15ofthe19I opened that cartoon link. Surely that's not the meat of your post, is it? No, it's just a reflection on an important aspect of the discussion.

RanxerTHanks for the link tiassaBackatcha. It wasn't sloth this time out, but the need to feed (the child that is).

At any rate, some links:

• Chossudovsky, Michael. Who Is Osama Bin Laden? Montreal: CRG, 2001. See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
• Moran, Michael. "Bin Laden comes home to roost." MSNBC.com, August 24, 1998. See http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp
• Rashid, Ahmed. "Osama Bin Laden: How the U.S. Helped Midwife a Terrorist." The Public i, September 13, 2001. See http://www.public-i.org/excerpts_01_091301.htm
• Islam, Shamul. "The creation called Osama." The Hindu, September 27, 2001. See http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/creat.htm

Edit: I forgot to actually include the Chossudovsky link. Whoops.

This dumb ass of a president we have surely does not know history:

Why the hell send in 130k troops right to the heart of muslims ideology fundamentalists. This war is not seen as a liberation it is seen by many as a Jihad, borders in Irag are not been protected properly everyday people are entering to battle our troops, surely many lives will be lost on both sides.

At least daddy had the decensy to get the un approbal and went there not alone but with much help from the world community.

This dumb ass, thought he could handle it alone, slowly he is going to drain this country on his quest for oil.

http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=72396

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1071251599224&p=1012571727162

And as yet no evidence of any WMD comes out of Irag, though things are looking up, with the ones we've planted by now, with the capture of Saddam soon will see the "good news" (WMD found were Saddam said they were) to make this sob so popular as to defenetly get the vote for next year.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/12/17/still_no_mass_weapons_no_ties_to_911_no_truth/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/121703stageddiscovery.html

He might just pull out Osama out of his ass to seal the cofin for next year. Albright seems to think so. LOL..

http://www.prisonplanet.com/121703hidingbinladen.html

Meanwhile they use the tactic of keeping dumb ass americans afraid of attack within our borders as highly probable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6345-2003Dec16.html

Actually bush would love another attack here, this would prompt the Patriot Act to it's fullest, be damned with the constitution, wipe your ass with the Bill of Rights, Prison State, is comming.

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws149.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/global/wacquant.htm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/pris-a10.shtml

This "war on Terroris" reminds me of Orwel's 1984, here have a read and see if you can see the similiarities of this fiction novel with the reality of today.

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/


Godless.

Very interesting reading. I especially enjoyed the PublicI article. I don't recall hearing about the CIA's snatch squad in 1997 prior to this article. Would like to hear more about that and why they decided to abort. It would be nice to think that if they had been successful in apprehending him that we might not have had 9/11, but I'm not convinced that Bin Laden was even relevant to that operation by 1999. There are indications that the attacks were planned for many years and that they would have been carried out with or without Bin Laden still in the picture.

What did you think about Madeleine Not-to-Brights assertion that we might already have OBL on ice and ready to trot out next september? I thought it was highly unprofessional of Kondracke to repeat something on the air that was said off the record in the Green Room, but even more ridiculous for a for a former Head of State to engage in such absurd speculation.

It is a mistake to fixate on individual personalities in the conflict now escalating between the United States and revolutionary Islamists. OBL is not the source of these troubles- he is emblematic of a struggle persisting even now after his probable death. Personal revenge for his complicity in 9-11 would have unpreditable but certainly not a calming effect on the larger conflict.

There is no heirarchy to dismantle on the side of this conflict that is intent on toppling Mideast governments perceived as corrupt Western puppets, and that is intent on evicting American and Western military forces from the region. As foreign intervention, chaos, poverty, and despair intensifies, these movements are gaining in popularity.

Each affected country under this onslaught must bolster its own legitimacy domestically, addressing its own corruption and inequality in order to remove the motivations of revolutionaries. Each affected country must conduct investigation, arrest, and public prosecution of terrorists, enhancing their own stability and legitimacy. US diplomacy and support could have (and once had) very significant influence in these efforts that keep critical aspects of national unity and pride intact, in a region riddled with dangerous, complex, and subtle fault lines of political power.

Several regimes in the Mideast are fragile, and reform and survival is more advantageous than collapse and rising fundamentalist influence. As the West fixates on individuals and organizations, and in unilateral pursuit of them causes insult to powerful sentiments of religion, ethnicities, nationalities, and human pride, the result is uncontrollable radicalization of the disaffected majority, who in modern times have access to funds, communications, and techology to cause large-scale disruption on a global scale.

We don't have to back down. We have to undertand the situation, and fight smarter and more cooperatively, to avoid actions that acutely exacerbate the problems that trouble us.

Originally posted by firdroirich
War is terrorism :rolleyes:
.. and terrorism is war. The self proclaimed philosopher wesmoris thinks that there are a finite number of terrorists out there and we should “piss off” .. “ such that they come out to play”. Has the philosopher ever asked himself the question “what makes a terrorist?” or does he “think” that terrorists are born terrorists?
“Terrorism” is as legitimate (and effective) type of warfare as any other.

/and terrorism is war.

brilliant.

/The self proclaimed philosopher wesmoris

i am instinctually compelled to attempt understand stuff. i also seek wisdom. that makes me a philosopher. what is your problem with that. are you just an asshole?

/thinks that there are a finite number of terrorists out there and we should “piss off” .. “ such that they come out to play”.

this discussion is about supposed to be about strategy. i think if you have an enemy that is hiding away, it's better to do something to draw them out. of course it's possible that they'll just forget their your enemy and stop fighting after hiding for a while. that is a risky assessment. at this time yeah there are a defined number of terrorist who are members of groups, etc. who would see the end of the western way for a number of reasons. i'm not saying that these reasons are invalid. I'm saying that they make them our enemy, and as long as they believe in their reasons (which could be perfectly valid) we have to kill them before they kill us.

/Has the philosopher ever asked himself the question “what makes a terrorist?” or does he “think” that terrorists are born terrorists?

Why are you an asshole? You try to imply I'm stupid. You think that helps? We can take the opportunity to benefit each other, or you can act like a little bitch like hype with your passive aggressive bullshit. What shall it be?

A terrorist is pretty simple. They are not born that way, they are shaped that way and it's not really right or wrong, just fundamentally opposed. If you for instance, think I am an infidel and should die for it - and are willing to train to kill me and seek out methods by which to do so - it is my surival imperative to kill you before you get the chance to kill me.

I am not a terrorist, because I don't want to personally kill anyone. From a valid perspective, the US government is a terroristish kind of thing, as from the perspective that directly opposes it, the exact same reasoning is applicable.

/“Terrorism” is as legitimate (and effective) type of warfare as any other.

Where did I imply it wasn't? It's still warfare, and has to be addressed as such.

417 US soldiers died. Much more Iraqi people lost their lives. (Civilians deaths estimated at least 7376 and military death was between 13,500 and 45,000.) All based on Bush's unilateral opinion, or your doctrine of mouse bait. Because none of the death hurt you. It's easy to wage a war at others' cost. Just like Mahathir said, "they get others fight and die for them."

What kind of war is it? The "librated" Iraqis said,
Quote, "Through opinion polls we now know a great deal about what the people of Iraq think of the invasion of their country. According to the recent Gallup poll, 43 per cent believe America invaded to "rob Iraq's oil"; 37 per cent to get rid of Saddam Hussein; 6 per cent to change the Middle East in the interest of Israel; 5 per cent to assist the Iraqi people; 4 per cent to destroy WMDs; 1 per cent to introduce democracy.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/16/1068917668650.html

What did you think about Madeleine Not-to-Brights assertion that we might already have OBL on ice and ready to trot out next september? I've read through Lakely's article for the Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031217-115113-2173r.htm):Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state in the Clinton administration, in a conversation with Morton Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call and a Fox News Channel political analyst, suggested that Osama bin Laden has been captured by U.S. forces and will soon be produced to the public.

"Do you suppose," she asked, "that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?" . . . .

. . . . Mr. Kondracke said yesterday there were others in the room "and they didn't think it was a joke. But if Ms. Albright said she was joking, then I take her at her word."I think there's a number of things we must consider:

• The article makes it sound as if Albright offered the comment without prompt, without relevance, entirely of her own motivation. I doubt this idea because it places her in too much of a vacuum at the moment she said it.
• It makes for a story.
• I technically have no problem even with Howard Dean's words; he just shouldn't be saying them at times like that.
• We must consider that Madame Secretary Albright's words are well within the range of sentiments imagined or believed by many Americans.
• Which is why I don't entirely understand the big deal about either Dean or Albright. Do we look at our friends who espouse similar ideas and treat them with similar contempt, or is it a professional distinction, that she is Madeleine Albright and shouldn't be influenced by such speculation?
• In the event of the latter, I look to Kondracke and question his integrity.
• Nonetheless, Kondracke merely points out that journalists are bound to have only "professional" friends, as genuine people should be smarter than to say anything like Albright said around anyone in alleged news media. Two point deduction to Albright for her naîvete: Never trust someone like Kondracke to be intelligent when there's ratings at stake. Journalists serve a social purpose, but part of the price is that they simply should not be trusted in the confidence of friendship or even marriage.

That said, there are a couple of problems with Albright's words that nobody seems to be talking about.

• While it is plausible, especially in light of the administration's record, that Bush might have known something was coming, Dean needs to realize that the people need to sit in quiet confidence, discussing among themselves, and not in a public forum, such ideas until that evidence arises. Despite Americans' habit of wild speculation, wild speculation against the grain is simply unacceptable to most, and Dean ought to be smart enough to know that.
• To the other, in Albright's case, she needs to stop and consider the size of the whopper she's suggesting, even in jest. I repeat here the point that during my youth (e.g. Reagan years) to even speculate that America the Beautiful would come to look anything like this was considered anti-American. The most controversial sections of the USA-PATRIOT Act are the kind of intrusion that we used to write off to the damned Commies. As a measure of how far we've come in my lifetime, I point to Madeline L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time, an award-winning children's book that consistently makes the top twenty most-protested books lists. The story contains a strong anti-Communist message, but in recent years, the character and idea of "IT," a sinister governing force holding an entire planet in its sway, has come to be perceived as a slam against the American post-capitalist Information Technologies age, and the book has been protested on the grounds that it advocates Communism. Albright seriously needs to consider the size of the whopper she's suggesting. The run-up to the Iraq war set a new standard in political fiction; admittedly, even I figured we would have found WMD by now. So it's fair to question the gullibility of the American people, but come on ... if we had Bin Laden, the economy would have demanded his presentation a long time ago. It is beyond my capacity to seriously consider the possibility that we already have Osama Bin Laden. That reality would simply transcend all measure of governmental transgression. To suggest a scandal, even in jest, of such ludicrous magnitude . . . .
• Of course, that all points back to Kondracke, who chose to take her seriously in exchange for ratings. Albright should have known better, but so should Kondracke.

I think the only reason that it's an issue at all is because the people pushing the issue in the media have that little respect for the American people. There's a lot going on in the world, and suddenly we get overcoverage of a significant event--yes, I'm happy we have Saddam, but that's not the only thing that happened for those forty-eight hours. So the Halliburton tab gets put aside--I'm not worried about conspiracy, merely the intelligence or lack thereof of the American collective mentality so well-defined by news media--for Saddam's capture, and then coming off that story, we get a FOX News scandal that really is overblown.

The Times article mentions McDermott's (D-WA) suggestion that the US has known where he is for a while and decided to go get him for political timing. There's a few things to note about that, as I don't see a huge scandal going on:

• We in the Seattle area are used to this. McDermott is officially "doing his job" in this case. Seriously--we continually endorse this fellow up here. He may catch sh@t for the way he goes about his job--opposing the Bush administration, opposing the war, traveling to Iraq in search of peace, and so forth--but we like it enough up here that he keeps getting rehired. We'll see what the future brings.
• Although the Times article is the first I've heard about it (that's how not-out-of-character this is for McDermott, though I can't imagine the P-I resisting the story ... I'll check in on it) I see where that will become a very popular conspiracy theory. DEBKAfile (http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=743), which is generally of pro-Israeli political persuasions, suggests that we did not "capture" Saddam inasmuch as he was handed over. It's an interesting article. McDermott's assertion may become a very popular conspiracy theory, and tends also to work toward Albright's expectation that she would not be taken seriously.

My official opinion is that if Albright's words are news enough for Kondracke to rush the story to the air, well, it speaks ill of FOX News' audience.

The moral of the story seems to be that if you're of any prominence whatsoever, you cannot trust anyone around you when you choose to be a human being and not a celebrity.

The response of Scott Reed, a GOP consultant, actually does more to hurt the party and the Bush administration than it does to help it. Mr. Reed apparently forgot that it's not just Democrats and liberals who wonder about these things. I doubt conservative conspiracy theorists will rush to a Democratic ticket, but as the last election came down to one state and a whole heap of unresolved controversy, the GOP should learn from Mr. Gore and not alienate their marginal support by demeaning plausible suggestions in such a manner. There are plenty of responses. To demean is just irresponsible, because there are some right-wingers out there who are paranoid and conspiracy-prone, and some of them believe anti-Israeli and other odd theories that could still prove to have some merit, though probably not truth in representation of history.

It's an interesting news item insofar as it demonstrates the cotton-candy nature of the American political mentality. Inflated, oversweetened, and blown about by the wind while the pinkos and the bluebloods rumble about the town. And it's no better in a bucket than it is on a stick.

Two cents in the fountain ....

HEH

/I'm seeing two specific parts here that I haven't meshed in my brain quite yet, so perhaps I'm looking at it from the wrong angle, but I'll start with this:There is wisdom here that I do not deny, but rather limit to a condition whereby we might presume, conclude, determine, or otherwise arrive at the value X to represent the number of terrorists existing on any given day.

I don't think the number is important at all. If you're putting a salt lick out to see if deer will congregate in your back yard, the number that show up isn't important until you run out of salt. Maybe I missed your point.

/If this base number declines as we pick off terrorists, then I think we're examining a sound strategy. But I feel--and in the long run must endeavor to determine for sure--that X is at least remaining constant, if not growing, as time passes.

Yeah, you're right. It's a tough nut to crack for sure. You might be making things worse by trying to fix it. I'd say the pro-active agressive approach seems to be working if you can wade through all the people saying that the other people are lying, but I gotta say I can't tell who is lying, who is misinformed, who is insane or who is sincere. I'm pretty sure what I'm getting is that in general the Iraqis are mostly digging that Sadam is gone. That is about all I'm pretty sure about regarding the situation. I realize that most of you will disagree with that assessment and quote polls etc. I base my opinion on what I've heard from people who are/have been in the region. I figure pretty much everyone else has an agenda to satisfy.

Oh, and the aforementioned approach seems to be working, I don't know that it is, i just think it's a pretty good idea given what I think I know.

/And that's where my sense of disagreement arises. Perhaps in a theoretical field, the idea still bears merit, but it seems to me that people who were mere spectators rooting for "their team" might be prepared to take the field whereas a different political and military strategy might not have called them to arms.

I assume you're talking about the strategy in question of deliberately pissing them off to an extent? As such, I'd say that they were already at arms as evidenced by 9/11 and the number of other terrorist activity type things around the world for the last decade or few.

/Here I'll admit to sloth: I'm too lazy to go look up a link. I've posted around here a political cartoon, I think by David Horsey or Steve Benson, that shows a split-frame with Rumsfeld on the one hand declaring that events have had no negative impact on recruiting while the other shows a terrorist recruiter voicing his full agreement.

Well, if it's time for the ship to sink, it will sink.

/And therein lies the danger I perceive.A counter-strategy isn't just "Iraqnam," but "Iraqestine." We might pause for a moment to recall the recent topic about the IDF training US military hit squads, for lack of a better phrasing. If the terrorists can draw this out and cast the American occupation as something akin to Israeli methods regarding the Palestinians, they'll dent the American prestige that Bush's strategy has made so vulnerable.

That is quite true, but I'd say that his strategy hasn't made it more vulnerable than it already was with those susceptable to that message. It's not like he created terrorist, he's responding to them in what I think is a risky but reasonable strategy. Inaction has a much greater set of risks to me. I think a position of strength and aggression is likely the only way to manage this. Get the majority of them dead, then keep close tabs on the leftovers and a heads up for new developments. Really there seems to be little choice. Even you draw the line of pacificism somewhere. We got punched. I'd say that's indicative of punches to come. It's hard to say what effect punching back will have, as you never know what's gonna happen in a fight. I'd say though, that the smart move is to bet on yourself. Of course that doesn't mean you'll win.

/Would it be petty to include that the Iraqi contributions to terror had the full endorsement of at least two United States presidents?

Not petty, but maybe a little naive.

/He ought to crow proudly on his way down about how he "conned" Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration, about how Chirac was so willing to sell him what he needed.

I don't think he is sane, so I don't think he is of much use. Maybe I'm wrong.

/He can still hurt the Bush administration insofar as he can give them a black eye on his way down.

I have to agree there, but I'm guessing Bush will take measures to ensure that doesn't happen. Just my opinion.

/But by and large it does seem a sound strategy, though I question its produce and intent. I'm looking for something to illustrate the concern without resorting to severe analogies like the soundness of certain Nazi strategies. The severity is unwarranted. But perhaps that hint can suggest the mechanics of idea that I'm describing. It's a sound strategy, if . . . .

I follow you, but I'd say the bane of the president is that your if cannot be clearly resolved, so he is stuck with "i gotta make a decision".

"You might be making things worse by trying to fix it. I'd say the pro-active agressive approach seems to be working if you can wade through all the people saying that the other people are lying, but I gotta say I can't tell who is lying, who is misinformed, who is insane or who is sincere. I'm pretty sure what I'm getting is that in general the Iraqis are mostly digging that Sadam is gone. That is about all I'm pretty sure about regarding the situation. I realize that most of you will disagree with that assessment and quote polls etc. I base my opinion on what I've heard from people who are/have been in the region."

If that is the case, and you are sincere, please address what "a little bitch like hype with your passive aggressive bullshit" has been trying to introduce to this discussion:

There are proven and immediately applicable alternatives to the American overkill and "showdown" mentality that is inflaming and destabilizing the mideast, and compromising America's security and international legitimacy. These alternatives I have been pointing out do not include inaction. You can repeatedly make insinuations about my masculinity or psychological profile to our mutual entertainment, but to dismiss what I am offering as a retreat to apathy just pisses me right off.

Now: The most notorious enemies we are so up in arms about are very familiar to those who take a more than superficial interest in world events, because the United States was instrumental in giving them their starts as our proxy mujaheddin against the Soviets and Iranians. There would be advantages in letting the record show how the CIA, so much more than Allah, gave them their start: Our past intimacies with our present enemies are far more embarrassing to them than to us- Remember, we are operating from an established political base and they are not. There would be advantages in giving greater voice to moderate Muslims who can effectively expose the sins against Islam not only in terms of violence, but in terms of heresy, that most prominent militant islamist groups have committed. It would then be would be of immense tactical advantage for all Western participants in this conflict to move beyond fixation on personalities and organizational facades among militant Islamic groups and secular dictatorships like erstwhile Iraq (and yes, we're all happy Saddam is in a cage). American war cries are very effectively promoting the terrorists' agendae, and working very much against our goals of diffusing this situation and enhancing our own security.

As I have already mentioned, and will refrain from reiterating in detail, using military force in large scale (instead of police force in minimal scale) is extremely counterproductive in a conflict where foreign military presence is at the very root of the wounded Arab and Muslim pride that is stirring up the troubles. Fought as a war of attrition, the United States will lose, as popular support increases in the Mideast, and decreases in the Midwest. If fought as a war of colonialism, support will multiply among the natives, and falter in the homes of the legionnaires. If allowed to degenrate into cultural or religious war- and don't dismiss this, it's happening- only hate and fear will gain ground everywhere.

We can cooperate in ending this dangerous conflict, but we cannot dictate. The greatest weapon militant Islamists are deftly weilding is American arrogance and ignorance of human nature and history. Our enemies are inciting us to over-react, and acting with absolute certainty of success. Outsiders have had their times of dominion in the mideast, and it is now well understood how to cast them out: An anguished process of sacrificing lives and prosperity for generations forever awaits foreigners who come in force. The more the United States militarizes this needless conflict, the more enemies we will face. We can influence the Mideast profoundly, and do in so many ways- but placing this region at gunpoint, whatever our intentions, we will only be despised.

The remnants of the killers who hit us on 9-11 are in Saudi Arabia and the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They require money. They have other enemies (we are not their primary foe). Quietly wait where they seek both and kill them. This makes few headlines, doesn't stir the passion for Hollywood-inspired glory in young American men , and doesn't feed the urge for conquest. But that's the whole point: We can't get distracted about what we're doing.

"War on Terror" is embarrassingly indicative of our dangerous confusion: We must get about the business of catching terrorists spawned by foreign intervention, and in the process, we must avoid any new interventions of a scale and character that has been shown to spawn more terrorists. American arrogance and forcefulness drew us into this conflict, and responding with the same will certainly and explosively worsen the situation.

Didn't read all of your comments in this thread, but I agree in almost every way with your opening statement. Your rational analysis of the situation stands out starkly here at sciforums.

I would be the last to suggest that the Bush administration or the Pentagon really though that Iraq had much left in the way of WMD.

However, I do think that there is an ever-present fear in this and former administrations that a terrorist will deploy a chemical or nuclear weapon in an American city. Apart from the destruction that this will cause to life and property, great damage will be done to our economy, which as was observed after 9/11, is extremely fragile.

That's the unspoken reality, know by every administration; that terrorists actually have a LOT of power. It will take only one or two weapons deployed under the right circumstances to cripple the West's economic engine.

All of which underscores the importance of a presence in Iraq - not because they had any WMD, but because it is an ideal position from which to control the flow of weapons in the regions.

***************************************

Originally posted by Watcher
Didn't read all of your comments in this thread, but I agree in almost every way with your opening statement. Your rational analysis of the situation stands out starkly here at sciforums.

I appreciate your kind words of encouragement. You too 12ofsomething.

hype, I know you're well intentioned, but you and I have a serious communication/ideology gap. i have a hard time justifying to myself the effort required to reply, when I know from experience that you will select what you wish from my argument and ignore most of the stuff I feel to be important at your convenience. while i don't want to compell you to do anything you don't want to do, you might see why I'm reluctant to bother with YOU, konw what I mean? I respect you as a well-intentioned intelligent man but ...well, I also think you're insane. :)

Hehe.

I'm very sorry to intimidate you so, wes. Now on with the thread with a retraction:

"They require money. They have other enemies (we are not their primary foe). Quietly wait where they seek both and kill them."

I must correct the above stupid and brash statement on my part: Apprehension, not assassination is most effective in dealing with perpetrators of terrorism- Deadly force, of course, when necessary.

Watcher: Please explain how US forces in the midst of an unpopular occupation of Iraq somehow blockade the introduction of nasty things into the USA. Also, please explain why importation of material from the mideast (granted more DU is available there now for easy collection) is necessary or even practical for creating havoc here in the USA. Nothing has to be infiltrated under our radar- much technology and materials available in our country are easily convertible to WMDs.

What most increases the likelihood of the unleashing of some terrible weapon on American citizens at home is the our governments' overseas provocation of rage against us. There is no such rage at how Americans live their lives in America, no such rage over what America stands for, no such rage over America's most popular religions, customs, clothing, music, or any domestic activity.

The terrorism the US is confronting has very clear origins. These are acutely disaffected movements who want to reshape the mideast (not the United States). These are significant movements with dire and legitimate issues involving brutal oppression, and lack of political leverage and representation, like any revolutionary movement including that of the original United States. The adoption of terrorist methods is not the choice of an entire movement- but the entire movement nevertheless fuels and reinforces terrorism when there are few visibly effective means of expression and change.

The objectives of terrorism are very important to understand: Terrorism is employed specifically in order to provoke a superior power structure into eroding its own legitimacy through undisciplined application of force.

As Americans engage in international conflict it is extremely irresponsible and extremely dangerous not to understand the motivations of the enemy, and not to stay focused. Because we are a democracy every citizen has a responsibility far beyond flag-waving and "supporting our troops" in being selective about what we democratically support even through apathy. So pay attention.

Iraq is henceforth fertile ground for myriad groups like Al-Qaida, unlike during the days of Saddam's regime, which brutally suppressed any movement not devoted to Saddam's self-centered and secular interest. What the US has now wrought in Iraq is going to be very counterproductive in limiting terrorist activity; it has made groups like Al-Qaeda jubilant. But bear with me as we set Iraq aside, and go back to the specific roots of Al-Qaida.

Al-Qaida is not a heirarchically organized movement, but rather an affiliation of revolutionary extremist, fundamentalist islamic organizations that are waging an internal long-term conflict in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The primary objective of movements we have come to associate as "Al-Qaida" is the creation of a cornerstone revolutionary fundamentalist Sunni Islamic state. Think of it as the Project for a New Islamic Century: One radical vision for the future among many.

OK leave PNIC aside for a moment, and zoom out to the Mideast as a whole. This is a region undergoing a transition in many ways similar to Europe's move from monarchies to democracies. In this case it is a transition from monarchies and autocracies to democracies (similar). Also similarly, there is sharp division of wealth, and flagrant institutional favoritism and corruption. Dissimilarly and significantly, there is what I call historical acceleration whereby higher technology and flow of information increases volatility and accelerates change. Some very sick governments are on some very thin ice. Some immense stress points are geoethnic, i.e. the Arab-Israeli land dispute (also issues of Kurds, Armenian, Druzeetc.). Other serious stress points are religious, i.e. the shia-sunni schism in Islam. The entire creaking lattice is an obsolete structure that rapidly coagulated during the end of the colonialist, and dawn of the zionist eras. Needless to say, this teetering powder keg is nothing to idly poke at from the outside: Turbulent times are inexorably and tragicly ahead in the mideast.

Zooming out further, observe the United States, the "lone superpower" wielding the greatest observable influence on the region from without. In recent history, the US was dependent on mideast oil (we no longer are), and suspicious of Soviet designs on the very same resources. During that period, relationships born of necessity and not political affinity/similarity were developed with the Saudi, Iraqi and Gulf States. From a perspective of US interests, a point has come where propping up these regimes will unavoidably come at ever increasing cost to the US. A revolutionary Saudi movement, understanding not only this but also (from a popular fundamentalist perspective) the ridiculous and insulting dependency of the ruling elite on protection from Washington, endeavored to rock the boat by antagonizing the United States as shockingly as possible. From there I need not illustrate, except to point out the notable sleight-of-hand by the US government to keep Saudi Arabia as far from the limelight as possible, fearing scandal and collapse from within and around the isolated Saudi Royal Family.

So where does this towering house of Semtex cards leave the United States in it's duel with Islamic terrorists? First of all, as the inner circle of American power understands, Terrorism is not as big a concern as are other events increasingly likely to unfold. The War on Teror is cover for some heaviweight positioning prior to a coming hot war. With hardly a media ripple, Israeli submarines have slid under the waves with nuclear WMDs. Saudi Arabia has been armed and trained with front-line (conventional, what are we, stupid?) weaponry, and her deserts are crammed with hardware that Saddam could only have dreamed of. A grab has been made for massive additional permanent US bases in Iraq and Qatar. While these momentous strategic moves attract little attention in the eye of the American public, they are a source of white-hot rage for Arab and Muslim revolutionaries.

They want these weapons unleashed. The United States is entering a predicament, whether by the design or providence of revolutionaries, is a trap. The mentality of the "War on Terror", and the collision of PNAC with PNIC are bringing the world to the brink of a furious mideastern war.

Wake up and stop it. America's reckless involvement/exacerbation of mideast war is not necessary. The United States is in a position to help the region avoid conflict, but is instead falling into a trap. Every American is complicit.

If you would please elaborate on the specifics of a furious mideastern war. Are you suggesting an Arab coalition vs. the U.S. and Israel?

I am suggesting a conflict with many unpredictable courses, all very complex and probably impossible to predict. Here is one dark scenario, and I want to emphasize that it is not inevitable, but increasingly likely with continued "War on Terror" nonsense.

US overextension in Iraq, caught in middle of a civil war. US public disillusionment with involvement in fighting in the mideast. Collapse of the Saudi government. Israel demands US not abandon its war materiel in the Arabian desert, and threatens to force America's hand.

This is obviously not the only way to a large conflict can be ignited in the region.

Basicly, in any number of ways, the political structure of the mideast region is ready for a shakedown, and the US is not only missing the point, but injecting massive weaponry into a potential theater of conflict in which they will not be able to "secure the perimeter".

As long as the U.S. and Israel are allies in that region, they will control the sea and the air without question. Yes, SA has a decent Air Force, but they would not challenge the might of the U.S. and Israel. And nobody has a Navy to speak of in the region. I think the U.S. has proven without a doubt that when you have total air superiority you can make the job of your ground troops exponentially easier.

But I don't even think what you suggest is worth discussing on a tactical level. There is simply no way that Saudi Arabia is going to bite off the hand that feeds it. And I am aware that they are no longer the #1 supplier to the U.S., but they aren't stupid enough to disconnect themselves from the world (see Afghanistan under the Taliban) and cut off the money pipeline. For all the connections on a religious level to the Taliban, Saudi Arabia is light years ahead in terms of its population being westernized and having an irrestible craving for MP3's, Range Rovers and free access to the West.

I don't mind you're disagreement, but I hope you don't misunderstand: I am not fretting over, or postulating a war launched by a state or group of states deciding to take on Israel and the US. I am talking about a collapse of any of several states precipitating panic on the part of neighbors. I am suggesting that America is falling into a trap by intervening in and arming up a region that is poised for political upheaval. The US has some very careful maneuvering to do, and in the event that things get out of hand, the weapons we have sold and doled out in the region will be a horrific liability.

/I'm very sorry to intimidate you so, wes.

LOL.

Thanks for your sincere apology.

No doubt the idea of SA collapsing is a disturbing prospect considering that if we somehow did wind up in a fight against them we would fighting F-15's of our own design flown by Saudi pilots. Indeed that is a frightening prospect. But I still don't think the collapses that you speak of are imminent. As is pretty obvious from my monniker, I am no fan of the Saud government, but I counter that by thinking that they rule with such an iron fist that the militants (OBL) that oppose them stand very little chance of overthrowing the Royals anytime soon.

Provocative talk of hot war is seductive, and I'm obviously as ghoulishly guilty as any of us. But what I think is more interesting and important at the present juncture, and in a thread addressing the War on Terror, is that we focus more on what this War on Terror really is, and not on it's longer-term implications.

Somebody, please. Write something brilliant.

"F-15's of our own design flown by Saudi pilots"
Interesting you should mention that, because I strongly suspect that it was former Saudi F-15 pilots (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30590) who flew airliners at high speed onto target on 9-11.

wesmorris & 15ofthe19 are here defending the effectiveness of the War on Terror. I come not to demean them, but to politely share my reflections in a spirit of friendship at their pathetic and muddle-headed positions. With my own complicity, this discussion has become convoluted. Perhaps a summary can get us back on track. Perhaps the fans of the WoT will only scurry. So here goes, from the top:

wesmorris: "I've heard mention infinite times that this or that action by the Bush administration will "whip the terrorist into a frenzy" so to speak. Now I've been wondering... is that necessarily a bad thing?"

(another honorable antagonist of the WoT fans)

Ranxer: "we have killed tens of thousands of people in afghanistan and iraq.. i can't imagine that we have made any friends at all with these efforts.. to the contrary we have created more terrorists than ever before."

wesmorris then postulated that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq headed off coming attacks that would have killed more Americans in greater numbers than the victims of American invasions. He then unsteadily discounted the probability that US actions have inspired more terrorists

"ranxer: "to the contrary we have created more terrorists than ever before."

wesmorris: "that's a mixed bag brother. try to validate that statement without presumption. I don't think you can. I'd say it's almost as valid to say that if they became a terrorist (from the US perspective) based on current history, then they were really already terrorists.. and it's better to draw them out and get rid of them before it gets worse. that is merely a perspective though, and I do see others that are valid. this is just the one that comes from me. it's somewhat of a gamble either way."

Things deteriorated from there from a standpoint of the transfer of information. I was of course compelled to leap into the fray when the following got to me:

wesmorris: "I think certain cultures are mutually exclusive"

hypewaders: "Please elaborate."

wesmorris: "Since you asked nicely: It's pretty simple. Note zionists and people who hate zionists. Note the people in whereever that hate the people of wherever, like the serbs hating whoever, and blah blah blah. Easy enough to comprehend or would you like to accuse me of something else?"

Not at all easy to comprehend , because it is untrue. Wesmorris did elaborate on hatred, but made no case that certain cultures are mutually exclusive. In spite of the clashes he mentions, there is also coexistence which has been the long-term norm between spasms of ethnic violence. I would now like to accuse wesmorris of missing the point: No cultures are mutually exclusive, and history is increasingly interposing all cultures more time goes on. In some cases vexing hatreds and competitions appear, but human coexistence and survival requires compromise, which we are learning. No cultures are mutually exclusive: This is Earth, not a Star Trek episode.

wesmorris: "Getting everyone on the same page really only seems to happen as a result of a catastrophe."

hypewaders: "If the goal of the "War on Terror" is truly to avoid catastrophe, your observation is nonsense." Wesmorris: "You confuse nonsense with irony." (my mistake) But then Wes took it up again:.

wesmorris:"So what, now I have to hope for a really big catastrophe in order that the world acheive harmony?"

hypewaders: "No. You have another think coming."

wesmorris:"Was that a typo or an attempt to be clever? That latter bombed"

A "really big catastrophe" is obviously not what we need for world harmony, but The War on Terror draws us in that direction. Those inciting the WoT are endeavoring to bring about a clash of civilizations. What I'm trying to bring together through this thread is that such a clash will benefit none of us, and those of us who are sincere need to recognize the deception and resist it.

White House rhetoric is calling Americans to continued violent sacrifice that is claimed to be necessary for our security. Although the "Crusade" word rarely slips out, the present mentality that has come to the fore in USA is furthering the objectives of radicals in the Mideast. This veiled and easily morphing crusade is seriously compromising the political base of moderates in the mideast. Similarly, in the USA, a fundamentalist but well-accepted minority is amenable to direct and open conflict with Islam. Like multiple explosives connected by det chord, the Arab-Israeli conflict is entangled at many points of US government and American mainstream religion. The War on Terrorism can very likely jump the tracks and become a clash of civilizations: All it needs is a little more speed.

Anyone who understands me, and who loves their country, who loves prosperity and peace should seriously consider doing something to avoid a very unpleasant possibility in our future, while there is time to make a difference. Right here and now, identifying the danger is important. I realize that I come off a bit radical and disturbing to many, but this is because a majority unfamiliar or only superficially interested in these issues is being deceived into complacently falling in behind radical, volatile, and potentially catastrophic movements. The War on Terror as it is being carried out is heading America and the mideast toward conflict and misery, due to a zealous minority in power, and a confused and unaware majority.

I hate sounding apocalyptic, but history is accelerating, and if we don't keep up there will be hell to pay. So: I'm inviting a return now to the thread wesmorris so appropriately began, because the ability of the moderate majority to understand and act on what this War on Terror is going to mean to us all is of extreme importance.

Those who wish to expound some braindead Dr Strangelove ignorance about "fuggin nukin em all anyway" or "they don't like us, so let's go in shootin" can certainly do that too, and if so, I only ask that you show some backbone, instead of whining about being asked to explain yourself.

I am offering a challenge for proponents of the War on Terror to explain here how, in the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorist recruitment is not outstripping the detainment and killing of terrorists. I am calling on proponents of the WoT to explain the controls by which this conflict will not escalate into a devastating clash of cultures that will by its nature take developed countries back much farther than lesser-developed ones.

Answer, War on Terror supporters!

Hi.

I personally believe that the war on terror hasn't been very effective. I was watching some special on CNN, it was a expose on growing Islamist terrorism in the SE Asian corner. Since nations like Indonesia and Malaysia, etc are Muslim, yet they are western. We have a clash, and recruitment to al qaeda and other radicals (neither negative nor positive connotation) is growing. How do the SE Asians deal with it? Well the Pilipinos are dealing with it as a war scenario, Indonesia as a police action. They have arrested the leader of their "Al Qaeda" without a singe shot. Terrorism in that region is the fastest growing. A major raison why is the abject poverty that millions live in Indonesia, and general ignorance of tolerance. There you have Christians vs. Muslims, Hindu's vs. Muslims. It's a clash btwn modernism and traditionalism. To us in the west surely modernism is best, but to them it isn't. I think that our sometimes obvious or subtle influence has shown them that we "commercialist westerners" are just out for their money and we really don't care about them. You have understand the basic premise of the war on terrorism from the other side. It is a war of survive, to maintain the Islamic way of life, to significantly reduce western influence. I don't think the basic premise is hatred of America, no I think it's hatred of America in the ME. Actually psychically in the ME, and economically. Is it jealously? I don't know, maybe some feel that way, but I won't dare say that it's a premise. You have to ask yourself a simple question though. Why do they attack America and not Japan? They both represent western culture, Japan more so. It is impossible to fight a war on terror without deal with the premise of the war on terror. You can kill, maim, defame, deface, invade, pillage, democratize Stalinize, etc. all you want, it only makes the situation worse. What I think should be done, is that the US should work with nations and secretly and effectively work with the local populations, and get rid of the support for terrorism. Also to have a special wing of the US military that does covert missions (more then the green beret's or seals) one's who very purpose is to be so mobile so fast that no one would know what hit them, literally. Invasions like Iraq could have been avoided. Killing isn't helping anyone here, working together is.

I remember the day when Bush get "elected" very well, me and my friends were driving to the countryside to our summer-house to spend relaxing weekend and we did talks about politics hole way trough there. We were very "not so happy" because of the new president of US. We just couldnt believe that Bush have something good to offer to world-politics. Hes agendas was so transparent, and nothing good didnt echoes from hes words.
Well, world kept on turninig, Bush did hide in hes vacation untill...Yes, the day of sorrow, the 9/11 happened. That day we all remember I´m sure, but what everybody does/doesnt remember of that day is a different story. My first reaction was "this couldnt be happening", then "damn those frikin terrorist" and then when the dust had settled and the mass-hysteria wasnt so bad, I started to do some researching
of that horrible day. And thousands of question did rise, something was so badly wrong about those official reports of that day...When I did try to discuss of those illogicals in official reports, I found out that (allmost) everybody didnt give a shaaaait about those, they did have their opinions allready, based on the mass-media TV and newspapers; Osama did it, lets kill all the frikin ragheads !
Now, I´m not starting here to talk about the 9/11 bullshit official reports since its been around so long in every forum and none of those questions answered (classified information they say, surprise) but this much I can ask for you, nothing technical, just common sense questions...If buildings are builded to survive of an impact of commercial aeroplanes, and most of the kerosin is burning straigt away in impact (the firestrom-ball)
how the hell is possible that the towers did collapse like builded with matches ? The meltdown theory, ofcourse ! Why didnt airforce act ? They were nearby and normally in situation like this there would be some planes in the air. And what about the identification of quilty ones, first they can run all over US and FBI was on their trail, next, with boxcutters they hijacked the plains and hole US airdefence paralyzes, and then in the next
day their faces were everywhere, like they were under surveillance all the time, but not in the 9/11 day ? This was just sracth on the surface, there are unbelievable things in official reports to buy, but thats that...Few days after Bush slams the Patriot act 1 to the table, its clear that it has been written long before the 9/11 day, then comes Patriot act 2, then comes the wars...
What has been amusing is that in forums like this there is mentality like... "if you against the war you are with terrorist ! (does that ring the bell ?) "you dont like a capitalism, so you are a communist" and so on...
Only black and white exist and soon you are forced to take a side, no questions asked. Sure I dont like terrorist, but was this the only way to fight them ? Its funny that there is no need to black ops or anything like that now, just the old fashion war is the only answer ? During the "peace-times" black ops were running wild but now that it could be a good tool with international consensus, those were not needed, bombs away.
In my eyes world look very Orwellian (1984) at the moment, with the faceless enemy the war have been brought to us, inside of us. No matter of the ways, but the means... And for arguments; tell me a better way to deal with terrorists ? its just too late, Bush did make sure of that there will be no open debate how to deal with them. They did have all the answers and rest of the world just watched mouths full open him raging the holy war...So, here we are, the terrorist didnt push us here, they were just
showing the way so to speak. These tactics now in hand, first bombing and then winning the hearts and minds, the Middle East is boiling hotter than ever, we will see if US really can win the hearts and minds (does that sound naive or is just me ?)
So why did the victorious Allies draw the maps like they did after WW2, why wasnt there example nation called Kurdistan and so on ? one word; GREED...As for myself, I havent take the side, because all the smoke and mirrors, I´m standing here in polar circle and learning, I must be pain in the ass for those who "got all the answers".
Peace, cheers, Moose

In my eyes world look very Orwellian (1984) at the moment, with the faceless enemy the war have been brought to us, inside of us.


not to say you are wrong .... i justed wanted to make clear that not the whole world lives in fear now !
in the place where i live - we sit aside and watch the show :D

BlueMoose, the WTC simply wasn't capable of withstanding the heat, and neither was America. The floors just buckled and cascaded, as did American restraint. Given sufficient time without further escalation, a calmer and more detailed understanding can emerge for the American majority, and though we may never have all the answers we want, our choking fear and blinding rage can't endlessly billow down the streets of foreign cities. My hope is that as things do become clearer, Americans will see that we especially, because of our high estate, need cooler heads in power to prevent so much more from crashing down.

Little by little, my heart grieves
Little by little, I call your name
Little by little, my tears fall
Little by little, everything changes
Little by little, the time goes
Little by little, the days pass by
Little by little, the air clears
Little by little, I can breathe again
I can breathe again -
Back at the mirror, your good friend
Talk to the mirror, to play out your game
Slap in the middle, I stop then
Look at the winner, and the price you pay
Hum! Cold was the winter, I tremble
Long was the fall, that had no end
Now little by little, the air clears
little by little, I can breathe I can breathe again
I can breathe again I can breathe again,
Call your name-
Everything changes-
I can breathe again-

-Robert Plant

As I see the towers going back up on the NY skyline:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=31504

Hopefully America can finally move on. 9/11 was a horrible event, and any nation that suffered it would feel the same way Americans felt. But Americans still don't get it, Americans (i guess out of naivety) believe that somehow war is going to stop terrorism. Osama has already said the problem is America. You would think it's America's plain existence...but it isn't. The major issue facing the US is her support of secular terrorist states. No one here can deny that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, etc. are major human rights abusers, and are basic monarchial or dictatorial regimes. America does support these regimes, and for the most understandable of reasons. America needs security in the ME, but are they really getting it? I think 9/11, and the constant apartment bombing in Saudi Arabia are telling. They tell us of a policy that is logical for the US, but is harming her. America is a great state, and I know she can stop terrorism. But war is not the way to do it. What is the way is to play the propaganda war, America and Americans have to court the Arab world. But to avoid Americanizing the Arab world. Democracy in Iraq is Americanization, and it's not welcome. Wouldn't it have been better for the US to use Turkey, or Lebanon as a example of democracy? Also I think the US should invest in relationships in the region like Iran, and Syria. So the US looks like a honest broker. Or the other alternative...just plain get out altogether.

buildings are builded to survive of an impact of commercial aeroplanes, and most of the kerosin is burning straigt away in impact (the firestrom-ball)
how the hell is possible that the towers did collapse like builded with matches ?

Blue Moose, the WTC were designed to survive attacks by 707's at a significantly lower speed. I think those 757's. and 767's were going over 400 mph?

Interesting points, undecided.

"Wouldn't it have been better for the US to use Turkey, or Lebanon as a example of democracy?"

There are some aspects of the PNAC agenda that I like: The mideast does sorely need true democracy, but it's the means so many of us beg to differ with the Busheviks on. I was appreciative when Bush criticized Syria's lording it over Lebanon. We have got to return to true diplomacy to make any headway, and there is a great deal of receptivity to more moderate, progressive visions for the future- Look at what is happening in Iran.

Obviously the US can decisively strengthen democracy, security, and stability in ways that the Arab world can share credit in- But instead we're learning a bitter lesson that gunboat diplomacy and gunpoint coercion will only bring tyrrany, terrorism, conflict, and resentment.

I don't like PNAC at all, mainly because it is not the place of any nation to decide the fate of another. The pre-emptive option has weakened some states, like Libya. But Libya has been gravitating towards the west for a long time now anyways. PNAC is only strengthening the hawks in Tehran or Pyongyang. Can we really blame those states for being scared? Democracy can only flourish if it is homegrown. If it takes a civil war to do it, then so be it. But at the end of the day it will work, because the ppl on the home country willed it. Some places in the ME can't have democracy with her current borders, and demographic issues. Also many countries in the region would prefer that certain states have strong stable un-democratic leadership. Does anyone really want to see a democratic Saudi Arabia? Surely US policy doesn't, and frankly neither do I. But if the Saudi ppl will it, then so be it. We cannot forget that the ME was democratizing back in the 50's in Iran, but that was crushed by the Imperial claims of the British and the new power the US. The US should use it's powers to persuade not to maim.

"Some places in the ME can't have democracy with her current borders"

Another very important and problematic aspect of the Bushevik crusade's proclaimed goals.

"The US should use it's powers to persuade not to maim."

I hope we in the USA also reach the understanding in time, that diplomatic persuasion increases our power and prosperity, while colonialesque aggression will fritter it away to the point where, like "Great" Britain, we will find ourselves someone else's poodle.

will fritter it away to the point where, like "Great" Britain, we will find ourselves someone else's poodle.

Well I don't see that happening, the US won't become someone's poodle, she will always be a relatively powerful state. Surely the hegemonic cries from China are increasing, but Beijing doesn't really care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and so she shouldn't. India will also become a very important player, and her proximity to the ME is also important. I predict that we will have a nuclear Iran, I already believe that she may have bought a nuke from NK, and that's why she is so wiling to have her nuclear sites looked into. We already have a nuclear North Korea, a possible nuclear Saudi Arabia, and increasing proliferation in China. PNAC doctrine is one of the reasons for this, but surely not the only one. I wouldn't want to live in a world where the US wasn't a power, because who be the counter weight to the other power? China will be a larger power then the US, but the US is the more experienced power. I wonder how the US or the UK or Poland would feel when China begins her "PNAC."

Another very important and problematic aspect of the Bushevik crusade's proclaimed goals.


Indeed that is a issue that can only be resolved through civil war, or a international meeting alas the treaty of Versailles.

"I wonder how the US or the UK or Poland would feel when China begins her "PNAC."
Poodley.

You apparently actually believe things like this:

/A "really big catastrophe" is obviously not what we need for world harmony,

Okay, not that I want it that way, but flat stating it as "obviously not what we need" is simply uhm, well indicative of a self-involved habit of ignoring anything but your own retarded notion of reality and what YOU think is good for us. Have you considered that people might not agree? I mean, I don't think anyone would agree "hey let's have an asteroid crash into the plant" but you can't say that it wouldn't significantly increase global harmony unless you're as I mentioned, indulgin gin "a self-involved habit of ingoring anything but your own retraded notion of reality and what YOU think is good for US.

/but The War on Terror draws us in that direction.

Then you are fool enough to make a blind conjecture and follow up on it as if we should just all assume you're correct. You don't even notice yourself doing this. This drives me insane and you repeat and repeat and repeat it, pretending that you didn't do it.

YOU JUST DID. ASSUMING THAT IT IS DRAWING US IN THAT DIRECTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND IS PART OF WHAT IS IN QUESTION HERE. You'd think me intimidated eh? Yes, I suppose I'm intimidated by those who would present such arguments as rational, since you are a danger to me as you would promote you would have your insane bullshit overtake weaker minds. It's insidious.

/Those inciting the WoT are endeavoring to bring about a clash of civilizations.

SAME THING HYPE. YOu make a massive assumption, assume that everyone should just buy it and then wonder why i don't want to debate with you about it. THIS IS NOT RATIONAL BEHAVIOR, yet in the interest of your own mental stabilty, you'll be forced to claim that it is.

/What I'm trying to bring together through this thread is that such a clash will benefit none of us

*sigh*. This is insane. You would conclude that since I mention "certain cultures are mutually exclusive" than I am racist or bigoted, when I'm merely TALKING ABOUT RACISM AND BIGOTRY. It has existed since long before my birth, but by acknowleding it's existence, that must mean I endorse it. YOU SIMPLETON IDEOLOG. ARGH. I'm just sick knowing how you're going to twist this all into a defense of your position rather than understanding that I'm not saying this to appear superior, or to win, or for any other reason that it's goddamn true.

you don't see that you just made like three baseless assumptoins in a row, passed them off to yourself as obvious, expeceted everyone here to agree, and then drew some idealistic conclusion from it? CULTURE CLASH IS THOUSAND OF YEARS OLD YOU IDIOT. Yet you act as if it's something new that the evil conservatives are using as a secret weapon to foil the plans of the all that is pure and good with the world. SAD Hype, very sad. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you used your intellect to actually THINK, rather than defend your ideology. Maybe you could even question your ideology? Who's crazy now eh? :rolleyes:

/and those of us who are sincere need to recognize the deception and resist it.

you are ensconced in a web of lies you tell yourself and then you pretend you know something. it's simply flabbergasting.

"you just made like three baseless [assumptions] in a row"

OK, I'll try and give them some basis, and if I'm missing the point please straighten me out.

"flat stating it as "obviously not what we need" is simply uhm, well indicative of a self-involved habit of ignoring anything but your own retarded notion of reality and what YOU think is good for us. Have you considered that people might not agree? I mean, I don't think anyone would agree "hey let's have an asteroid crash into the plant" but you can't say that it wouldn't significantly increase global harmony unless you're as I mentioned, indulgin gin "a self-involved habit of ingoring anything but your own retraded notion of reality and what YOU think is good for US."

If I follow the above as you intended, you are critiquing my opinion "catastrophe is not conducive to harmony" as pretentious and baseless assumption.

I'll concede on pretentiousness, since it doesn't matter anyway. Let's move on to baseless, where I have not been clear, or haven't sufficiently substantiated or qualified.

The War on Terror experience we are all sharing is an example of catastrophe undermining harmony. Without projecting into the future, and without delving into blame, the course of events of the past 2 years has been catastrophic, and has caused discord between the USA and the rest of the world, most specifically the Arab world. If you wish, I will elaborate, but I expect we can agree that this is clear. Looking ahead, it is reasonable to expect that further catastrophe, or escalation of this confrontation will bring increased discord, or bring the opposite of harmony. I realize that this part is less acceptable to you: Nobody is going to cry "Uncle" at American use of force in this region of the world; rather, popular resentment to forced American presence will continue to increase. There is ample contemporary evidence for this, as well as overwhelming historical precedent. I will elaborate on this, if you wish, and if you are contending that history and current events indicate that American force is going to have the desired effect of furthering harmony, stability, prosperity, democracy, profit, US national interest, or any desireable outcome you would like to raise for our examination, well, I'll be happy to address any specific points you have.

"...conjecture [that the War on Terror draws us in that direction] and follow up on it as if we should just all assume you're correct."

I don't want you to assume. Neither do I understand what you are charging that I am unreasonably assuming. Please point out specifically where I am going wrong.

I may be using too much shorthand when I say "Those inciting the WoT are endeavoring to bring about a clash of civilizations".

Al-Qaeda is one group inciting this conflict, and they specifically announced in multiple written and audio manifestos from 9-11 onward that their goal is to draw the United States into full-scale war in the mideast, and in those same communications depicted the anticipated conflict as a war between Islam (Al-Qaeda's fundamentalist version) and Western culture, most specifically the USA. If you would like me to look up specific statements for you, just ask and I will do so. On the other side of the battle lines, it is not necessary to dig very deep behind America's present foreign policy thrust to find powerful people who publicly hold their own extremist views regarding both the correct political and religious destiny of the mideast, and also America's authority in implementing historic change by force. Again, I will verifiably substantiate that these people exist in power in the present US government if you want me to do that. What I was stating with perhaps too many leaps of argument is that this War on Terror is being incited by reactionaries on both sides.

"YOu make a massive assumption, assume that everyone should just buy it and then wonder why i don't want to debate with you about it."

I am not demanding that you just buy it: Show me exactly where I am going wrong.

[The War on Terror] will benefit none of us. There is nothing to be gained in its methods for either side. Everyday people in Milwaukee and Medina are not sufficiently invested in this culture clash to see it through the level of devastation it will inevitably bring, to the conclusive advantage of either side. Eventually the wheels will fall off the political wagons of the reactionaries, with their objectives unfulfilled. This is not a baseless premise.

Al-Qaeda, and other contemporary revolutionary terrorist organizations (that are primarily using Islam, and secondarily socioeconomic disaffection as a vehicle) are not in the majority anywhere. "Neoconservatives" with an agenda for forceful change in the mideast (who are primarily using nationalist insecurity as a vehicle, and judeochristianity secondarily), are not in the majority anywhere, including the USA. Although greater numbers of combattants and weaponry can be introduced on both sides, and devastation can exponentially increase, economics and the exhaustion of popular zeal will take effect long before either side gains meaningful advantage. In the interdependent times we live in, this is the geopolitical equivalent of Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction. A worrisome contingency is that should Israel become involved in an escalation, there could be a nuclear resemblance to MAD.

"CULTURE CLASH IS THOUSAND OF YEARS OLD..."

So is tribal warfare. So are stone tools. There is much precedent for reactionary gavernmental hijacking. Sometimes they succeed, and sometimes they fail.

I realize that I am offering for your consideration something extremely pretentious, and that it upsets you: I am asserting that I understand the world better than the men in power both in my country, and in Al-Qaeda. I will be in your debt if you will explain to me where my reasoning is flawed, and the epithets are entertaining, too (though they don't really strengthen your argument). So don't hold back ;)

And sincerely, from the bottom of my arrogant know-it-all heart:

Thanks for participating.

Well Hype you might be insane but at least you seem mature, I can appreciate that. I could defend myself with a long drawn out blah blah but I'll suffice it to say it's simply a matter of style and I find mine to be a currently somewhat effective work in progress. Further, I don't stifle my emotions. I just deal with them on the spot. It's not very pretty sometimes, but it works for me.

/OK, I'll try and give them some basis, and if I'm missing the point please straighten me out.

:argh: I can't promise I'll have the patience but I'll try.

"flat stating it as "obviously not what we need" is simply uhm, well indicative of a self-involved habit of ignoring anything but your own retarded notion of reality and what YOU think is good for us. Have you considered that people might not agree? I mean, I don't think anyone would agree "hey let's have an asteroid crash into the plant" but you can't say that it wouldn't significantly increase global harmony unless you're as I mentioned, indulgin gin "a self-involved habit of ingoring anything but your own retraded notion of reality and what YOU think is good for US."

/If I follow the above as you intended, you are critiquing my opinion "catastrophe is not conducive to harmony" as pretentious and baseless assumption.

while i think you are pretentious, i was not arguing that point no. i was arguing that your statement does not stand without assuming that "harmony isn't increased due to catastophe" - to which events like last summers' blackout and 9/11 are direct contradictions, as both at least temporarily brought folks together. further, you .... wait. try this: why should I believe you? You sate:

"A "really big catastroph