|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
Here are a few that I have been sent. I can provide you with several Megs of this a month. But it can all be found published elsewhere. DATE=06/03/2003 TYPE=EDITORIAL NUMBER=0-10657 TITLE=EDITORIAL: IRAN SUPPORTS TERRORISM INTERNET=Yes CONTENT=THIS EDITORIAL IS BEING RELEASED FOR USE BY ALL SERVICES. Anncr: Next, an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government: Voice: Since the liberation of Iraq, the government of Iran has been trying to complicate efforts by the U.S.-led coalition to bring stability to Iraq. Iran is providing covert support to hard-line Shiite Muslim Groups that are promoting Iranian-style radical Islamic rule, rather than democracy, for Iraq. As U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made clear, such outside influence will not be tolerated: (ACT1 :14 - DALET: POLICY/EDITORIALS) "Interference in Iraq by its neighbors or their proxies will not be permitted. Indeed, Iran should be on notice that efforts to remake Iraq in Iran's image will be aggressively put down." (END ACT) Not only is Iran trying to export instability to Iraq, it is also harboring terrorists. For many years, Iran has provided funding, safe-haven, training, and weapons to terrorist Groups, including Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, and Hezbollah. There are reports that Iran is also harboring members of al-Qaida, the terrorists who attacked America on September 11th, 2001. As White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer said, Iran has failed to respond to demands that it crack down on all terrorists: (ACT2 :27 - DALET: POLICY/EDITORIALS) "We continue to get the message across about the importance of Iran acting as a nation that does not seek to harbor terrorists and that does its part in making certain that terrorists are not able to use -- or al-Qaida is not able to use -- Iran as any type of place to have operations out of or just even to collect or (to) be. We don't rule out the possibility that a nation with as long a border that some may cross, but we also are concerned about the fact that some may be able to find some level of safety there." (END ACT) After the recent terrorist car bombings in Saudi Arabia that killed more than thirty people, Iran claims it arrested several al-Qaida members. But this is not enough. It is time for Iran, once and for all, to stop its support for terrorism. Anncr: That was an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government. If you have a comment, please write to Editorials, V-O-A, Washington, D-C, 20237, U-S-A. You may also comment at www-dot-voanews-dot-com-slash-editorials, or fax us at (202) 619-1043. U.S.: Bush To Call On Arab Leaders To Crack Down On Financing for Militants By Charles Recknagel U.S. President George W. Bush is due to meet several Arab heads of state in Egypt tomorrow to talk, in part, about cracking down on financing for militant Groups. The meeting picks up an initiative to cut off international funds for terrorism that began after 11 September 2001 but, until now, has had mixed success. Prague, 2 June 2003 (RFE/RL) -- When U.S. President George W. Bush meets Arab leaders in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh tomorrow, a key topic for discussion is expected to be how to cut off financing for Arab-based militant Groups. The Groups that concern Washington have a wide variety of ideologies and purposes. One is America's archenemy, Al-Qaeda, which carried out the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. Others are Israel's archenemies, the Palestinian Islamic organizations Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the Lebanese Shi'ite Hizballah. Washington believes all of the Groups have grown strong partly due to generous contributions from sympathetic individuals and charitable organizations in a number of Arab countries. Bush will hold talks with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Bahrain, plus Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, and is expected to ask them to fully cut off terrorism funding within their countries. He also is expected to ask the leaders for help in encouraging other Arab heads of state to do the same. Analysts say that Bush's message is designed to give new impetus to U.S. initiatives to cut off international funds for terrorism which began after 11 September 2001 but so far are reported to have had mixed success. Paul Wilkinson of the Center on Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrews University in Scotland told RFE/RL that Washington is particularly concerned over terrorism funding in Saudi Arabia and several other Persian Gulf states. "Unfortunately the financial efforts [since 11 September] have not really managed to stop the hemorrhage of money in the Middle Eastern states. It is not just Saudi Arabia, it is also other Gulf states, for example, where wealthy sympathizers of [Al-Qaeda leader Osama] bin Laden, of course keeping their support hidden from the authorities, have been able to use the 'hiwala' system. So that's one area where the [U.S.] president and his advisers, I am sure, want to tighten up," Wilkinson said. The hiwala system is an informal money-transfer method common in the Muslim world. It allows an individual to deposit a sum with a money changer in one city so that an individual in another city can withdraw a similar amount from the money changer's associates there. The transactions are hard to track because the money changers usually do not register them with state banking authorities. Wilkinson said Bush also will call on the Arab leaders to tighten their supervision of Islamic charities that may be used to funnel money to militant Groups. "Another area is the use or the abuse of charities," he said. "In the Middle Eastern countries there are many, many charities which have been used, very often without the knowledge of the people who founded them and who may be on the board of governors. Money being siphoned off in particular offices of the charity for essentially the purposes of assisting Al-Qaeda's activities." In contrast to the situation in the Middle East, Wilkinson said that authorities have made good progress in cracking down on terrorism financing in Western countries. The U.S. government says that Western banks and police investigating terrorist financing have been able to block some $121 million which otherwise might have gone to militant Groups to buy materials and maintain support networks. The analysts called that a significant blow to terrorist Groups, whose budgets are in the tens of millions of dollars. Bush's efforts to now encourage new Arab measures against terrorism financing are likely to be helped by the suicide bombing attacks in Saudi Arabia Last month which killed 35 people, including nine Americans. The attacks, which U.S. and Saudi officials have blamed on Al-Qaeda, demonstrated that the group is as hostile to the Saudi government as to Washington. Following the attack, the Saudi government acknowledged that the bombings were evidence of "shortcomings" in their security operations. Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that combating terrorism "does not just include [dealing with] those who commit it, but also standing up to whoever feeds it and sympathizes with it." Observers say that tone is far more aggressive than previous Saudi statements on terrorism. After the 11 September attacks -- in which 15 of the 19 plane hijackers were Saudi citizens -- Riyadh was initially reluctant to admit that Saudis could be involved in terrorism and that there could be financing sources within the kingdom. Only after sharp U.S. criticism did Riyadh begin to take some measures to counter extremists and share intelligence. In December, the Saudi government announced it had frozen bank accounts containing some $5 million, required Saudi charities to undergo audits, and created a unit to investigate money laundering. Those measure have won praise from Washington, with State Department spokesman Philip Reeker saying recently that the United States had had "good cooperation" from the Saudis on counterterrorism initiatives. But Bush's meeting at Sharm el-Sheikh makes it clear that Washington wants to see far more and is ready to exert the pressure of presidential-level talks to force the pace. How much the Arab leaders respond to the pressure will depend on their willingness to confront their own domestic public opinion, which often supports the militant Groups' goals though it may disapprove of their means. Public opinion in Saudi Arabia runs strongly against U.S. policies in the Middle East and Al-Qaeda has previously benefited from those sentiments. The group condemns Washington's support for Israel, U.S. support for the Saudi monarchy, and the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. recently announced it is withdrawing its military personnel in the kingdom, a step that many observers see as an effort to now end the tension over their presence. Throughout the Middle East, public opinion is also strongly against Israel's policies toward the Palestinians, and against Washington as Israel's closest ally. Palestinian Islamic Groups have tried to capitalize on this anger by representing their suicide bombers as front-line forces battling Israeli occupation of Arab land. As a result, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are widely viewed among Arabs not as terrorist Groups but as liberation movements. Still, Bush appeared determined to get new action from Arab leaders as he prepared Last week to attend the Sharm el-Sheikh summit. The U.S. president told the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite television network that at Sharm el-Sheikh he intends to ascertain "the extent of [the Arab leaders'] desire to join the United States and other countries to stop assistance and funding of terrorist organizations." He also called cutting off funding for militant Groups necessary, he said, "to realize peace and security." Copyright (c) 2003. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. www.rferl.org 02 June 2003 Wolfowitz Highlights Saddam Hussein's Terrorist Links (Deputy Secretary of Defense May 31 interview, Singapore) (3630) The United States went to war with the regime of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein because of the regime's weapons of mass destruction, its ties with terrorists, and the way it mistreated the Iraqi people, according to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. In a May 31 interview with Cable News Network in Singapore, Wolfowitz said America's perception of the Iraq regime changed after the September 11 terrorists' attacks on the United States, and focused on the possibility that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could end up in the hands of terrorists. "Before September 11 terrorism was viewed as something ugly, but you lived with it," Wolfowitz said. Saddam Hussein, too, "was viewed as something ugly," Wolfowitz said, but also as "something that was for the Iraqi people to take care of." After September 11, 2001, "terrorism looked different," to the United States and the American people, Wolfowitz said. "Saddam Hussein, who played with terrorists, and had weapons of mass destruction, looked much more threatening to United States than just to his own people," he continued. Turning to the terrorist threat in the Southeast Asia region, Wolfowitz said the terrorists' bombing in Bali in 2002 that killed nearly 200 people "brought home just how bad it is" in the region. "The fact is it doesn't take more than a few hundred people of that kind, in a country of 200 million to create a serious problem," Wolfowitz said. "But I'm very impressed by the professionalism with which the Indonesian police has gone after the Bali bombers," he continued. "We are not going to eliminate terrorists overnight or with one magic bullet but I do believe that (in) the Last year (there) has been much more a series of defeats for them with minor tactical successes here and there," Wolfowitz said. Following is the transcript of the May 31 Wolfowitz interview with Cable News Network in Singapore: (begin transcript) NEWS TRANSCRIPT from the United States Department of Defense DoD News Briefing Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz Saturday, May 31, 2003 Q: There is a report in Vanity Fair today that just quoted you as saying that the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was just a bureaucratic reason. Can you respond to that? Wolfowitz: No, it's a misquote. In fact, the full quote you can see on our website where the whole interview is there. What I was trying to explain there is a complicated situation. We had, in fact, three concerns about Iraq, from the beginning, and it's repeated in Colin Powell's statement in the UN. One was weapons of mass destruction, about which I've never seen as unanimous a view in the intelligence community on almost any issue. Second was the Iraqi connection with terrorism, about which there is a range of views, although everyone agrees that there is a connection there. And the third was Iraq's mistreatment of its people, which has unfortunately never been in any doubt. But in many ways, it's the first two reasons that were crucial, and as I said in that interview, there is really a fourth reason, which is that connection between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. That's the axis the President originally was talking about in his State of Union message, is that connection between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. It's complicated, it's not a simple issue, but when people say our rationale keeps changing, it's not that keeps changing. We've had all three of those reasons from the beginning but people who often choose to focus exclusively on the weapons of mass destruction piece of it. Q: Even this article seems to highlight the distrust that's around that. The perception seems to be that weapons of mass destruction was an excuse to move in. How did you respond Wolfowitz: I can tell you quite emphatically it was not an excuse. What really changed in our whole perception of this issue was September 11. Before September 11 terrorism was viewed as something ugly, but you lived with it. Saddam Hussein was viewed as something ugly, something that was for the Iraqi people to take care of. After September 11, terrorism looked different. Saddam Hussein, who played with terrorists, and had weapons of mass destruction, looked much more threatening to United States than just to his own people. And so it changed the calculation entirely. I mean, without that perception of threat, I don't believe the President would have considered it something that American lives should be risked for, as terrible as the regime is -- I mean there is no question the regime was a horrible thing. Q: The fact that there hasn't been a substantial Cache of weapons of mass destruction -- is that an embarrassment? Wolfowitz: No. Is it an embarrassment to people on the other side that we've discovered these biological production vans, which the defector told us about? Look, this dictator had twelve years to develop innumerable ways to hide his program, and we've said from the beginning, the only way you get to the bottom of it is when people start to talk to you. That's why we gave the UN inspectors unprecedented powers to interview people. I think it is evidence in itself that Saddam never allowed a single one of the scientists to go outside the country for interview. In fact he never allowed a single one of them to be interviewed in the country without monitors present or at least tape recorders present. So he was a man with something to hide, and we'll have to find it. Q: What kind of repercussions do you think this will have now, in the Arab world and in Southeast Asia? Wolfowitz: I heard from one Arab foreign minister that it's a shame that we weren't able to do this for ourselves, but it had to be done and thank heavens you did it. This is an Arab official. I think in the Arab world it was actually not a surprise that thousands of mass graves turned up. I think the Arab people understand that this man was responsible for killing more Muslims than I think any other single individual and there is an opportunity now to build a much better Arab society and to demonstrate to the rest of the world that Arabs are capable of democracy. I believe they are. Q: And yet at the same time as the Senior Minister said Last night, there also seems to be a growing concern and in some nations a fear that the US will go it alone. Senior Minister Lee kind of chided the US a little bit Last night. Wolfowitz: I found it surprising frankly. Why don't you chide President Chirac for going it alone? There were 15 NATO nations on our side and France had Belgium and Luxemburg and Germany with it, in what seemed frankly like a rather cynical disregard of facts and disregard of the suffering of the Iraqi people. In all of this discussion about multilateral, unilateral, we had 46 countries with us. But more importantly, and I would say we had 95% of the 20 million Iraqi people with us and their voices ought to count for something. Q: So you don't see it as a unilateral action at all, do you? Wolfowitz: No, I don't. In fact we had more international legal sanction I think for what we did than for the action in Kosovo that NATO did a few years ago, and no one disputed that. Q: How do you respond to things like the Senior Minister and what other diplomats have said? Wolfowitz: First of all, to say that we had a coalition of 46 countries, that we weren't acting unilaterally, that the time came that some action had to be taken. Frankly, it was I think France's action that has weakened the United Nations. We've seen in times past in history when the failure to come together to act is terribly damaging to the international community. And I think we were acting not just in behalf of our own interest, although our own interests were definitely involved, but I think we had very major regard (inaudible) quite significantly. We had all the support that we needed in the region. None of the terrible things that people said were going to happen -- there weren't terrible mass casualties in Iraq, there wasn't a food crisis or refugee crisis. We, I think, did a lot to take care of the concerns that people had. Q: What about Iran? What policy will the U.S. pursue? Wolfowitz: We have concerns about Iran. It's sort of actually a welcome development that our concern about Iran's nuclear program is now finally being shared by other countries that were dismissive about that concern for a long time. We have a big concern about Al Qaeda in Iran. We are not quite sure whether the Iranians hold them or don't hold them or what they are going to do with them if they are holding them. We are concerned more generally (about) Iran's support for terrorism. But I believe that one of the ways that we can help to influence Iran to a different kind of policy is by getting things right in Iraq, because the example of a free and democratic Iraq I think is going to increase the pressure the Iranian regime already feels to its own people and that s a good thing. Q: Is the threat of military action a possibility in Iraq? Wolfowitz: You know, I think you know, we never rule out that kind of thing. But let me put it this way. I think the most effective way we have to persuade the Iranian regime to change is the fact that some 75 percent of the Iranian people voted (a) few years ago for a different government. They didn't get the government they voted for, but nevertheless this is a regime that is susceptible I think to some extent to pressure from its own people. Q: The thoughts of Senior Minister Lee have been mirrored often by other Muslim leaders in Southeast Asia, by the Indonesian, by the Malaysians. And within the Muslim world, it seems to be amplifying into a paranoia that the U.S. is going to attack and pick them out one by one. I've heard that said also. How do you respond to something like that this growing paranoia in the Muslim world that the U.S. with its power can pick them out one by one? Wolfowitz: I think there are many Muslims, like the foreign minister I referred to earlier, including many Arabs, who welcome the positive change in Iraq. They wish that they had been able to do it and didn't need us to do it. But they don't see it as picking off. They see it as liberating a major important Arab people. I do think it is important to make progress now in the Arab-Israeli issue. That is something that will do a great deal to balance the concerns that we are one-sided and that we only worry about one kind of justice. I think it is very important also to see this Iraq thing through to success, and while we've had some spectacular gains - it's barely two months since the war began, let's remember that -- there is a lot of work to be done. I think those are two very positive contributions that when, if we can achieve them, I think the whole issue will look different. Nobody likes war. It's not a pretty thing. It's only compared to mass graves and the kind of terror that Saddam Hussein was putting forward that you can say it's the lesser of two evils. Q: (Inaudible) A: Well we have an opportunity now. The President is meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, I think Monday, with leaders of three Arab countries and with Prime Minister Sharon and the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, and then he'll go on to Aqaba to meet with just the Israeli and Palestinian. There is a new atmosphere there. There was a new atmosphere there, it's worth remembering, in 1991 after the defeat of Saddam Hussein that I think is what opened the way to the Madrid conference, opened the way to the Oslo agreements, which were two of the most positive steps that we have seen in that process. Removing the neighborhood bully has got to improve the environment. But also the United States now goes into this with a credibility we didn't have before. And I think that's going to make a difference for everybody. Q: Do you think that that is the source that fueled a lot of the extremism? Do you agree with that analysis of it? The Middle East? Wolfowitz: I think it's overstated. There's no question that it fuels extremism. But the idea that if you take that away, none of the funding of Madrases would take place, nonsense. None of the hatred of the United States would be there, nonsense. In fact, let's be clear, if you read Bin Laden's proclamations, the thing that he most complained about was the presence of American forces in Saudi Arabia as part of the containment of Iraq. So that I believe is progress also -- that the Saudis have no longer have to carry the burden of large American forces on their territory, bombing Iraq almost daily, to support a containment policy that was failing. Q: But wasn't the U.S. in its own way supporting the Saudis who were also exporting Wahabism. Isn't that going to be changing? Wolfowitz: Well, it doesn't mean we are supporting the Saudi export of Wahabism. It does mean there are worse things than the government in Saudi Arabia, and we certainly didn't want to see it taken over by a hostile neighbor. I believe in fact that the bombing that took place in Riyadh about two weeks ago, ten days ago, was a kind of wake-up call for Saudi Arabia just as I believe Bali was a wake up call for Indonesia, and 9-11 was a wake up call for us. And while the terrorists achieved a certain, from their point of view, tactical success, I think it was a strategic failure and I think the Saudis are much more serious now about dealing with their own problems than they were before. And they have a much freer climate to do it because Saddam Hussein isn't over their shoulder and the Americans aren't on their doorstep. Q: In Southeast Asia, there has been a lot of arrests over the Last month. Intelligence reports are saying that there were really two main places Al Qaeda operatives fled to post-Afghanistan -- there were five areas where Al Qaeda was operating but two main places the Horn of Africa and southeast Asia, southeast Asia having the most Al Qaeda operatives coming in here. How large of a threat remains here in your perception? Wolfowitz: It's hard to know because if we knew it, we d pick them up. So we are guessing about what we know we don't know. And by the way you have to count Pakistan and Iran as two other major places. And northeastern Iraq, by the way, which is no longer a sanctuary. So it wasn't one place. My sense of the Al Qaeda problem here is that it was more indigenous, not so much that people fled from Afghanistan into southeast Asia, but that the penetration into southeast Asia was more extensive than we had understood at least before 9-11, and in some ways we first started to get an inkling it from materials we captured from Afghanistan that led us to that group in Singapore and those arrests. But Bali brought home just how bad it is here. The fact is it doesn't take more than a few hundred people of that kind, in a country of 200 million to create a serious problem. But I'm very impressed by the professionalism with which the Indonesian police have gone after the Bali bombers. I think there is a new spirit in Indonesia. The Philippines and Malaysia and Thailand were already quite serious and of course Singapore -- well they were a little shocked that terrorists could be even in this nice tightly controlled little country. We are not going to eliminate terrorists overnight or with one magic bullet but I do believe that the Last year has been much more a series of defeats for them with minor tactical successes here and there. Q: Despite that there has been a lot said about Indonesia doing a lot to dismantle the network, but the network still remains. As late as April you still have JI and Al Qaeda still meeting in Indonesia. I guess from you, a sense of how this network that is here, JI, how large a threat of -- Wolfowitz: Look, there are still terrorists operating in United States and in the UK and in Europe. Particularly I think in democratic countries, it takes time, and you have legal restrictions on what you can do and political constraints on what you can do, and even in less democratic countries these people go underground. So that's why our President had said from the beginning it is going to be long war, it's not going to be won with one victory in Afghanistan or a second one in Iraq. It's not going to be won just by arresting 3,000 people, although we have done that. It's going to take time and I do believe it's also important during that time that we build up the positive forces. Q: Redeployment of U.S. troops. Looking at the threat, and then bringing the troops. Where in Southeast Asia are we looking at? We know they are coming to the Philippines, but where -- Wolfowitz: No they are not. Here is the basic thing. We are looking at our military posture worldwide including in the United States, Congress has given us authority and it's not easy to get that authority to do a base realignment and closure commission in the United States starting in 2005. That's a big thing. We are doing it in United States, we are doing it worldwide, because we have to figure out how to make the most effective use of our military forces. I know we have a lot, but the requirements are large as well, and the threat has changed. The threat turns up in places in the world we had never imagined we'd be in before. But the technology has changed also, and allows us to do things with an efficiency and an effectiveness and a reach that didn't exist when we set up many of these bases. So we need to approach our posture differently. But some of these announcements in the press that come if anything from some ninth level bureaucrat, and I'm not even sure that it came from there. We are not about to move our Marines from Okinawa to Australia -- that's wrong. We are not about to base forces in the Philippines -- that's wrong. And in any case we are not going to make any of these changes without consulting with our Congress and consulting with our allies and our friends in this part of the world. So, the general principle is correct, most of the details that I have read are either inaccurate or extremely premature. Q: What are the key ideas that are going to motivate this new change? Wolfowitz: I think there are really three things. One, that we can do things at long range with precision in a way that was never possible before. Secondly, the same sort of internet revolution that you can see on your home computer brings together disparate forces with an effectiveness that never existed before. But the third thing is that the threat is so dispersed that you need a kind of mobility and flexibility in how you move your forces around. It's very different from old Cold War posture in Germany, where you thought you knew exactly what the Soviet war plan was, and exactly what you had to do to meet it, or the threat you face on the Korean Peninsula. Those are very fixed, they are very calculable. You need a very big force in place to deal with them. The new threats are unpredictable, widely dispersed, and what you may need is a much smaller force, much more quickly. Q: There is a growing paranoia or fear among the Muslim nations that the U.S. power, will result in them getting picked off one by one. How do you respond to that? Wolfowitz: I think by my count, seven times in the Last ten years or so, U.S. military forces have gone into harm's way to rescue people from aggression or from ethic cleansing or from war-induced famine. I'm thinking about Kuwait, I'm thinking about northern Iraq after the Gulf War, I'm thinking about Somalia, I'm thinking about Bosnia, I'm thinking about Kosovo. I'm thinking of Afghanistan. I'm thinking Iraq. All seven of those countries were majority Muslim populations. We were there helping Muslims who were suffering, not because they were Muslims, but because our interests were engaged and because in many cases our moral impulses were engaged as well. I think what we're trying to accomplish in Iraq is to help the Iraqi people build a free and democratic country, which I think will have a powerful political effect throughout the Muslim world and the Arab world. Not all change is accomplished by the use of force. (end transcript) (Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) ____________________________________________ |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
If we could raise the living situation for people so that no one is raised in refugee camps etc the recruiting fround fro the fanatics (and the number of fanatics) would lessen dramaticly. There will always be mad people, there are some american internal terrirists aswell, but by removing most of the harsh conditions around the world would remove a lot of the terrorists. What future do you belive that the kids growing up in the refugee camps see? Those who promise them a better future are the ones who promises them a grand future in heaven, here on earth the future for most of them seems quite unpromising. |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Thermo, your Posts come directly from the US government. I read them through and I don't disagree with them but if I did it would be quite easy to call them biased.
I especially like the parting remark by Wolfowitz : "Not all change is accomplished by the use of force." |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Thermo:
That was a whole load of BS you managed to paste in. Stupid me even wasted valuable vacation time reading it. I did find no evidence in there of terrorism being state sponsored. Just some old ramblings from Rummy from the middle of the propaganda war in March which accuses Iran of harbouring/supporting terrorists. Ramblings which has no cred anymore (missing WMDs anyone), and which Wolfowitz also tries hard to downplay in his interview from May 31st. I did however find this (newer) quote: Washington believes all of the Groups have grown strong partly due to generous contributions from sympathetic individuals and charitable organizations in a number of Arab countries. There is a vast difference between individuals and Groups within in Muslim countries sponsoring terrorists (which there undoubtedly are a lot of) and their governments actively sponsoring the terrorists (which may or may not be true). So, once again: If you have any proof other than old propaganda speeches, please post |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Primitive:
The majority of this information is going to originate from the intelligence services of the United States. And other then recent new clips will be somewhat dated. I really don’t care if you consider it credible, your opinion has little weight in this situation. In the end, congress is the body that needs to be convinced. But here are a couple of items that will support the position that states support terrorism. The first is a quote from a statement made to members of the House of Representatives by Ambassador Philip C. Wilcox Jr. It is included because it was made in 1996. This shows that the Last administration knew about the links and as we all know, took very little action. The is appeasement, and we all know where it got us. Here is a link to the updated Version of the report that the Ambassador speaks of at the end of the quote. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/ Quote: Syria continues to provide safe haven and logistic support to a variety of terrorist Groups, both Arab and non-Arab, such as the Kurdish PKK. Several of these Groups maintain a presence in Damascus and terrorist training facilities or forces in Syria. Terrorist Groups also have bases in parts of Lebanon either controlled or strongly influenced by Syria. Personnel of several other international terrorist Groups are allowed to transit Syria. Syria does not define the activities of the Groups as "terrorism." We strongly disagree. The Palestinian group Hamas openly operates a political office in Damascus, where it maintains close contacts with Iranian officials and other rejectionist Groups. The leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which, like Hamas, has claimed responsibility for suicide bombings in Israel, is resident in Damascus. Damascus has allowed the Iranian-backed Hizballah terrorist organization to operate freely from areas of Lebanon under Syrian control; Syria also permits Iran to resupply periodically Hizballah through Damascus airport. We have described these facts in our annual report to Congress "Patterns of Global Terrorism." End Quote: Here is the oficial list as of 4/01. Sorry but this is the most recent one I have, but it has grown every year and would be asumed to have continued to do so. Patterns of Global Terrorism - 2000 Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism April 30, 2001 The designation of state sponsors of terrorism by the United States--and the imposition of sanctions--is a mechanism for isolating nations that use terrorism as a means of political expression. US policy seeks to pressure and isolate state sponsors so they will renounce the use of terrorism, end support to terrorists, and bring terrorists to justice for past crimes. The United States is committed to holding terrorists and those who harbor them accountable for past attacks, regardless of when the acts occurred. The US Government has a long memory and will not simply expunge a terrorist's record because time has passed. The states that choose to harbor terrorists are like accomplices who provide shelter for criminals. They will be held accountable for their "guests'" actions. International terrorists should know, before they contemplate a crime, that they cannot hunker down in safehaven for a period of time and be absolved of their crimes. The United States is firmly committed to removing countries from the list once they have taken necessary steps to end their link to terrorism. In fact, the Department of State is engaged in ongoing discussions with North Korea and Sudan with the object of getting those governments completely out of the terrorism business and off the terrorism list. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. It provided increasing support to numerous terrorist Groups, including the Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which seek to undermine the Middle East peace negotiations through the use of terrorism. Iraq continued to provide safehaven and support to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist Groups, as well as bases, weapons, and protection to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. Syria continued to provide safehaven and support to several terrorist Groups, some of which oppose the Middle East peace negotiations. Libya at the end of 2000 was attempting to mend its international image following its surrender in 1999 of two Libyan suspects for trial in the Pan Am 103 bombing. (In early 2001, one of the suspects was convicted of murder. The judges in the case found that he acted "in furtherance of the purposes of...Libyan Intelligence Services.") Cuba continued to provide safehaven to several terrorists and US fugitives and maintained ties to state sponsors and Latin American insurgents. North Korea harbored several hijackers of a Japanese Airlines flight to North Korea in the 1970s and maintained links to other terrorist Groups. Finally, Sudan continued to serve as a safehaven for members of al-Qaida, the Lebanese Hizballah, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the PIJ, and HAMAS, but it has been engaged in a counterterrorism dialogue with the United States since mid-2000. State sponsorship has decreased over the past several decades. As it decreases, it becomes increasingly important for all countries to adopt a "zero tolerance" for terrorist activity within their borders. Terrorists will seek safehaven in those areas where they are able to avoid the rule of law and to travel, prepare, raise funds, and operate. The United States continued actively researching and gathering intelligence on other states that will be considered for designation as state sponsors. If the United States deems a country to "repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism," the US Government is required by law to add it to the list. In South Asia, the United States has been increasingly concerned about reports of Pakistani support to terrorist Groups and elements active in Kashmir, as well as Pakistani support, especially military support, to the Taliban, which continues to harbor terrorist Groups, including al-Qaida, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. In the Middle East, the United States was concerned that a variety of terrorist Groups operated and trained inside Lebanon, although Lebanon has acted against some of those Groups. Lebanon also has been unresponsive to US requests to bring to justice terrorists who conducted attacks against US citizens and property in Lebanon in previous years. Cuba Cuba continued to provide safehaven to several terrorists and US fugitives in 2000. A number of Basque ETA terrorists who gained sanctuary in Cuba some years ago continued to live on the island, as did several US terrorist fugitives. Havana also maintained ties to other state sponsors of terrorism and Latin American insurgents. Colombia's two largest terrorist organizations, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the National Liberation Army, both maintained a permanent presence on the island. Iran Despite the victory for moderates in Iran's Majles elections in February, aggressive countermeasures by hardline conservatives have blocked most reform efforts. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. Its Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) continued to be involved in the planning and the execution of terrorist acts and continued to support a variety of Groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals. Iran's involvement in terrorist-related activities remained focused on support for Groups opposed to Israel and peace between Israel and its neighbors. Statements by Iran's leaders demonstrated Iran's unrelenting hostility to Israel. Supreme Leader Khamenei continued to refer to Israel as a "cancerous tumor" that must be removed; President Khatami, labeling Israel an "illegal entity," called for sanctions against Israel during the intifadah; and Expediency Council Secretary Rezai said, "Iran will continue its campaign against Zionism until Israel is completely eradicated." Iran has long provided Lebanese Hizballah and the Palestinian rejectionist Groups--notably HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Jibril's PFLP-GC--with varying amounts of funding, safehaven, training, and weapons. This activity continued at its already high levels following the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May and during the intifadah in the fall. Iran continued to encourage Hizballah and the Palestinian Groups to coordinate their planning and to escalate their activities against Israel. Iran also provided a lower level of support--including funding, training, and logistics assistance--to extremist Groups in the Gulf, Africa, Turkey, and Central Asia. Although the Iranian Government has taken no direct action to date to implement Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the decree has not been revoked, and the $2.8 million bounty for his assassination has not been withdrawn. Moreover, hardline Iranians continued to stress that the decree is irrevocable. On the anniversary of the fatwa in February, the IRGC released a statement that the decree remains in force, and Ayatollah Yazdi, a member of the Council of Guardians, reiterated that "the decree is irrevocable and, God willing, will be carried out." Iran also was a victim of Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK)-sponsored terrorism. The Islamic Republic presented a letter to the UN Secretary General in October citing seven acts of sabotage by the MEK against Iran between January and August 2000. The United States has designated the MEK as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Iraq Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2000. Although Baghdad focused on antidissident activity overseas, the regime continued to support various terrorist Groups. The regime has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait. Czech police continued to provide protection to the Prague office of the US Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which produces Radio Free Iraq programs and employs expatriate journalists. The police presence was augmented in 1999, following reports that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) might retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasts critical of the Iraqi regime. To intimidate or silence Iraqi opponents of the regime living overseas, the IIS reportedly opened several new stations in foreign capitals during 2000. Various opposition Groups joined in warning Iraqi dissidents abroad against newly established "expatriates' associations," which, they asserted, are IIS front organizations. Opposition leaders in London contended that the IIS had dispatched women agents to infiltrate their ranks and was targeting dissidents for assassination. In Germany, an Iraqi opposition figure denounced the IIS for murdering his son, who had recently left Iraq to join him abroad. Dr. Ayad `Allawi, Secretary General of the Iraqi National Accord, an opposition group, stated that relatives of dissidents living abroad are often arrested and jailed to intimidate activists overseas. In northern Iraq, Iraqi agents reportedly killed a locally well-known religious personality who declined to echo the regime line. The regional security director in As Sulaymaniyah stated that Iraqi operatives were responsible for the car-bomb explosion that injured a score of passersby. Officials of the Iraqi Communist Party asserted that an attack on a provincial party headquarters had been thwarted when party security officers shot and wounded a terrorist employed by the IIS. Baghdad continued to denounce and delegitimize UN personnel working in Iraq, particularly UN de-mining teams, in the wake of the killing in 1999 of an expatriate UN de-mining worker in northern Iraq under circumstances suggesting regime involvement. An Iraqi who opened fire at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) office in Baghdad, killing two persons and wounding six, was permitted to hold a heavily publicized press conference at which he contended that his action had been motivated by the harshness of UN sanctions, which the regime regularly excoriates. The Iraqi regime rebuffed a request from Riyadh for the extradition of two Saudis who had hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad, but did return promptly the passengers and the aircraft. Disregarding its obligations under international law, the regime granted political asylum to the hijackers and gave them ample opportunity to ventilate in the Iraqi Government-controlled and international media their criticisms of alleged abuses by the Saudi Arabian Government, echoing an Iraqi propaganda theme. While the origins of the FAO attack and the hijacking were unclear, the Iraqi regime readily exploited these terrorist acts to further its policy objectives. Several expatriate terrorist Groups continued to maintain offices in Baghdad, including the Arab Liberation Front, the inactive 15 May Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). PLF leader Abu `Abbas appeared on state-controlled television in the fall to praise Iraq's leadership in rallying Arab opposition to Israeli violence against Palestinians. The ANO threatened to attack Austrian interests unless several million dollars in a frozen ANO account in a Vienna bank were turned over to the group. The Iraq-supported Iranian terrorist group, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), regularly claimed responsibility for armed incursions into Iran that targeted police and military outPosts, as well as for mortar and bomb attacks on security organization headquarters in various Iranian cities. MEK publicists reported that in March group members killed an Iranian colonel having intelligence responsibilities. An MEK claim to have wounded a general was denied by the Iranian Government. The Iraqi regime deployed MEK forces against its domestic opponents. Libya In 2000, Libya continued efforts to mend its international image in the wake of its surrender in 1999 of two Libyans accused of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Trial proceedings for the two defendants began in the Netherlands in May and were ongoing at year's end. (The court issued its verdict on 31 January 2001. It found Abdel Basset al-Megrahi guilty of murder, concluding that he caused an explosive device to detonate on board the airplane resulting in the murder of the flight's 259 passengers and crew as well as 11 residents of Lockerbie, Scotland. The judges found that he acted "in furtherance of the purposes of...Libyan Intelligence Services." Concerning the other defendant, Al-Amin Kalifa Fahima, the court concluded that the Crown failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy the high standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" that is necessary in criminal cases.) In 1999, Libya paid compensation for the death of a British policewoman/*/, a move that preceded the reopening of the British Embassy. Libya also paid damages to the families of victims in the bombing of UTA flight 772. Six Libyans were convicted in absentia in that case, and the French judicial system is considering further indictments against other Libyan officials, including Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi. /*/In April 1984, a British policewoman was killed and 11 demonstrators were wounded when gunmen in the Libyan People's Bureau in London fired on a peaceful anti-Qadhafi demonstration outside their building. Libya played a high-profile role in negotiating the release of a group of foreign hostages seized in the Philippines by the Abu Sayyaf Group, reportedly in exchange for a ransom payment. The hostages included citizens of France, Germany, Malaysia, South Africa, Finland, the Philippines, and Lebanon. The payment of ransom to kidnappers only encourages additional hostage taking, and the Abu Sayyaf Group, emboldened by its success, did seize additional hostages--including a US citizen--later in the year. Libya's behavior and that of other parties involved in the alleged ransom arrangement served only to encourage further terrorism and to make that region far more dangerous for residents and travelers. At year's end, Libya had yet to comply fully with the remaining UN Security Council requirements related to Pan Am 103: accepting responsibility, paying appropriate compensation, disclosing all it knows, and renouncing terrorism. The United States remains dedicated to maintaining pressure on the Libyan Government until it does so. Qadhafi stated publicly that his government had adopted an antiterrorism stance, but it remains unclear whether his claims of distancing Libya from its terrorist past signify a true change in policy. Libya also remained the primary suspect in several other past terrorist operations, including the Labelle discotheque bombing in Berlin in 1986 that killed two US servicemen and one Turkish civilian and wounded more than 200 persons. The trial in Germany of five suspects in the bombing, which began in November 1997, continued in 2000. Although Libya expelled the Abu Nidal organization and distanced itself from the Palestinian rejectionists in 1999, it continued to have contact with Groups that use violence to oppose the Middle East Peace Process, including the Palestine Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. North Korea In 2000 the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) engaged in three rounds of terrorism talks that culminated in a joint DPRK-US statement wherein the DPRK reiterated its opposition to terrorism and agreed to support international actions against such activity. The DPRK, however, continued to provide safehaven to the Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction members who participated in the hijacking of a Japanese Airlines flight to North Korea in 1970. Some evidence also suggests the DPRK may have sold weapons directly or indirectly to terrorist Groups during the year; Philippine officials publicly declared that the Moro Islamic Liberation Front had purchased weapons from North Korea with funds provided by Middle East sources. Sudan The United States and Sudan in mid-2000 entered into a dialogue to discuss US counterterrorism concerns. The talks, which were ongoing at the end of the year, were constructive and obtained some positive results. By the end of the year Sudan had signed all 12 international conventions for combating terrorism and had taken several other positive counterterrorism steps, including closing down the Popular Arab and Islamic Conference, which served as a forum for terrorists. Sudan, however, continued to be used as a safehaven by members of various Groups, including associates of Usama Bin Ladin's al-Qaida organization, Egyptian al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and HAMAS. Most Groups used Sudan primarily as a secure base for assisting compatriots elsewhere. Khartoum also still had not complied fully with UN Security Council Resolutions 1044, 1054, and 1070, passed in 1996--which demand that Sudan end all support to terrorists. They also require Khartoum to hand over three Egyptian Gama'a fugitives linked to the assassination attempt in 1995 against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Ethiopia. Sudanese officials continued to deny that they had a role in the attack. Syria Syria continued to provide safehaven and support to several terrorist Groups, some of which maintained training camps or other facilities on Syrian territory. Ahmad Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Abu Musa's Fatah-the-Intifada, and George Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) maintained their headquarters in Damascus. The Syrian Government allowed HAMAS to open a new main office in Damascus in March, although the arrangement may be temporary while HAMAS continues to seek permission to reestablish its headquarters in Jordan. In addition, Syria granted a variety of terrorist Groups--including HAMAS, the PFLP-GC, and the PIJ--basing privileges or refuge in areas of Lebanon's Bekaa Valley under Syrian control. Damascus generally upheld its agreement with Ankara not to support the Kurdish PKK, however. Although Syria claimed to be committed to the peace process, it did not act to stop Hizballah and Palestinian rejectionist Groups from carrying out anti-Israeli attacks. Damascus also served as the primary transit point for terrorist operatives traveling to Lebanon and for the resupply of weapons to Hizballah. Damascus appeared to maintain its longstanding ban on attacks launched from Syrian territory or against Western targets. Now a thought on your quote. The main person that the statement was directed at was the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. She has been linked to support of terrorism by way of alleged charitable contributions. The Charities are shams and as a member of the royal family, she gets her money from the State of Saudi Arabia. That is state money supporting and encouraging terrorism. To repair the damage done to our relations with the Saudis, this is now being played down to the public. |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Thermo:
Strangely enough, reading your document I find this statement: State sponsorship has decreased over the past several decades. Kinda oposite of your statement that todays terrorism are state sponsored. I do not dispute that some of the Palestinian splinter Groups operates from within Syria and Iran, but that are "local" Groups, bad enough, but not a part of the new "global" terrorist picture brought forward by 9/11 and the Bali bomb. There's just nowhere you can do your carpet bomb revenge thing to stop that kind of actions. |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Syria and Iran support palestinian Groups. But they have no links with Al-Queda. Neither did Saddam. When Al-Queda will do a next terrorist act against US - and sooner or later they will if not hunted down before, who will you bomb ? Saudi Arabia ? Or may be Germany because terrorists had and may still have cells in Hamburg ?
BTW, any news about Osama ? He must be very happy these days watching the growing Arabs anger. |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Primitive, that statement actually supports Thermo's claim that there is state-sponsored terrorism. I don't recall him saying that it had increased in the Last few decades, just that it is there.
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
That’s weak Primitive. The documents make the case as you requested. I made no statement on growth or reduction.
As to my opinion that force should be used, there we will just have to disagree. I will continue to vote for candidates that take an aggressive stand against terrorism. And you can do with your vote as you see fit. And we will both watch as the situation unfolds. I would note that I have seen more arrests of suspected terrorists in Iran and Saudi Arabia since the west destroyed Saddams Army then I was seeing before. The ease with which four divisions defeated the strongest Arab army in the world has already produced some dividends. And the myth that a western army could not occupy Iraq is disproved. To address your quote, the subject speaks to the lessened efforts of the soviet sponsored Groups and a diminished amount of activity by European Groups. And the statement is actually a little different when taken in a little larger bite. “State sponsorship has decreased over the past several decades. As it decreases, it becomes increasingly important for all countries to adopt a "zero tolerance" for terrorist activity within their borders. Terrorists will seek safehaven in those areas where they are able to avoid the rule of law and to travel, prepare, raise funds, and operate. The United States continued actively researching and gathering intelligence on other states that will be considered for designation as state sponsors. If the United States deems a country to "repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism," the US Government is required by law to add it to the list” [ July 28, 2003, 19:25: Message edited by: Thermodyne ] |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Fyron, I believe primitive was taking exception to this statement:
Quote:
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Thermo (and Fyron):
As Will quoted: The original full statement goes: Quote:
Hmmmm. And re Iraq: Yes, the Saddam goverment and army colapsed quite nicely. Kudos to the coalition forces for a well fought campaign with a minimum of casualities on both sides. However, its to early to claim victory in Iraq yet. Until your guys are safe out of there and a stable democratic goverment are established, the objectives for the war are not met. As it is now, guerilla warfare are on the rise and more soldiers are lost every day. Link |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
That still has nothing to do with Thermo being wrong because state sponsored terrorism has decreased, as he never said it remained constant, increased, or decreased, just that it is there. Now, I am not saying whether it is there or not, just that this is what Thermo said.
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
PHUTDAWUK????
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
I am concerned about some of the apparent lack of preparedness in dealing with the situation on the ground in Iraq after the war, but to say there is no strategic plan at all is a little much. As for the situation in Iraq, during the war, those against Bush kept saying that the army was bogged down and would fail, yet the military operation succeeded spectacularly. I see no reason to discount the possibility that the situation now is actually working out, since there is progress toward a future government and local control, despite what those who want Bush to fail are saying. Of course, a broader question would be, why is this in a thread about the EU, spanking and WWII history? Or maybe the question is, what doesn't fit in such a thread? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Personally, I am glad the world is not giving a mountain of wealth to a mad dog warmongering butcher.
Iraq was not just about oil, it was about what could be done because of it. Oil can become wealth, wealth can become influence, influence can become power. Oil can drive industry and purchase arms. I am glad that bunch of cromags no longer have control of the oil. It is terrible that Iraqis had to die in the war. But, they have been dying all along because of the terrible missmanagement of this oil wealth. |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
If you're a big buff of Samuel Huntington (Clash of Civilizations) you would suppose that the best thing the world could experience right now would be the production of a strong/leading Islamic nation who is developed enough to desire stability and prosperity. This civilizational leader would work to keep the smaller nations and Groups within it's civilizational group "in line", giving them some rope to play, but also having the ability to reel them in when they embarass the civilization on the global stage.
However, at this time there isn't a civilizational leader for the Islamic states. Iran is getting close, but doesn't have the necessary wealth and military strength, the Saudi's in Arabia have the financial capability but not the population base to ever create a military that is relevant... Indonesia perhaps in a few decades could fill this role, but it is fairly distant from the other nations in their civilization (geographically and ethnically speaking) so would have a tougher time leading the pack, so to speak. While Huntington would suggest that unification of the civilization behind a leader would actually decrease the amount of conflict, he does note that demographically the majority of Islamic states are currently "volatile" due to their average/mean age. I think that this is a bit of a challenge to the dominant western view that these nations most desperately need to experience an elevation in their standard of living - and that such an elevation would result in an almost automatic cessation of suicide bombings and local wars. While I personally believe that an increase in their standard of living would help (c.f. the suicide bomber numbers from the ethnic Palistinians living in Isreal vs. those living in the as-yet to be declared Palistine), I do also believe that a country with a population with an average age below 25 will be far more hot headed than those with higher aged populations. If you don't believe me, check and see what the average ages of France and the Colonies were at the time of their revolutions. Oh, and the Iranian revolution too. Old guys led, but young punks did all the heavy lifting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif With this in mind, I don't think the current American administrations' ideas are all that stupid. There is no probable leader of the Islamic "bloc" in the near future, and the populations need time to age, have children (responsibilites) and settle down. Making them more wealthy will not in-and-of-itself make for peace. Apeasing with land is not the only answer. I think Bush and crowd are just hoping to keep the lid on the whole thing, and let things simmer down a bit - the old fashioned way: let people grow old! Plus the fact that Iraq just came off having a horrible dictator (so some gratitude for "liberation", at least as compared to how Iranians would have responded) and that the nation has some degree of history with the separation of church and state/government secularism makes Iraq the "most likely to succeed" middle eastern nation when it comes to having a successful democracy. (Let it be noted that there are only three democratic Islamic states at this time: Egypt, Turkey, and Indonesia, all at the edges of the Islamic geographical world. Imagine the effect of having one in the centre!!) I think the administration is gambling on the reformation of Iraq into a democratic, wealthy, powerful, centralized Islamic leader. The Iraqi are a fierce and proud people, unlikely to follow, but very likely to lead... If only they could i) become democratic (and thus self-interested and thus interested in stability and peace) ii) stay democratic until the majority of the population is old enough to want a better future for their children via economic growth rather than the destruction of their "oppressor(s)" iii) begin interacting on the international stage to the degree that they become inter-dependent with the leaders of other civilizational Groups. Edit: Oh, and I believe the majority of Muslims would believe that "sparing the rod" is a poor way to develop one's children into mature, God-obeying members of a society. I don't think many would qualify for EU membership if non-spanking legislation is a requirement http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif [ July 31, 2003, 17:50: Message edited by: jimbob ] |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Dr. Friedman is a renowned debunker of the government policy as it relates to defense vs. foreign adventures. And I would not want to be in the position of debating an issue against him. But I see one weakness with his statement.
We had a war that was predicted to Last at least a year, but was finished with the major combat phase in a few weeks. Now Iraq is expected to set aside its internal differences and form a functioning government in a matter of weeks. And it is expected to do this without the use of marshal law or a general lockdown of the population. I would say that if they turn the corner in six months, and have an interim government in a year, that it will have been a success. Remember, these people have little experience with the day to day activities of running a nation, and the act of negotiating and compromising is almost unknown to them as relates to government. They were ruled by an absolute dictator and his loyal band of henchmen. It will take the good people of Iraq a while to hone and practice the skills that will be required to put a functioning government in place. Now a word on the resistance. For a country that was defeated in a few weeks, and allowed parole for it men in uniform, Iraq is quite subdued. The level of attacks against Americans is quite low considering that the former leader is free and in possession of the majority of his loyal [sic] fighters. [ July 31, 2003, 20:15: Message edited by: Thermodyne ] |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
21 July 2003 by Dr. George Friedman U.S. Strategy: Perception vs. Deception Summary The Bush administration's continued unwillingness to enunciate a coherent picture of the strategy behind the war against al Qaeda -- which explains the war in Iraq -- could produce a dangerous domino effect. Lurking in the shadows is the not fully articulated perception that the Iraq war not only began in deception but that planning for the Iraq war was incompetent -- a perception driven by the realization that the United States is engaged in a long-term occupation and guerrilla war in Iraq, and the belief that the United States neither expected nor was prepared for this. Ultimately, this perception could erode Bush's support base, cost him the presidency and, most seriously, lead to defeat in the war against al Qaeda. Analysis We keep waiting for the moment when Iraq does not constitute the major global event of the week. We clearly are not there yet. In Iraq, the reality is fairly stable. The major offensive by the guerrillas forecast by both U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and what seemed to be a spokesman for al Qaeda Last weekend did not materialize. The guerrillas tried to shoot down a C-130 coming into Baghdad International Airport, and that was a significant escalation, but they missed -- and it was only a single act. Casualties continue to mount, but with the dead averaging at just more than 10 per week, it has not come close to reaching a decisive level. The deterioration of support in Washington and London is not yet decisive. Support for U.S. President George W. Bush sank from a percentage in the high 70s in the wake of the war, to just more than 50 percent in the past 10 days. But as we read the successive polls, the slump that hit when the WMD issue came to the fore -- along with the realization that the United States was dealing with a guerrilla movement -- has not accelerated. It slumped and held. Meanwhile, London headlines have focused on the apparent suicide of weapons expert David Kelly, the probable source for a BBC story about British Prime Minister Tony Blair's manipulation of intelligence data. It is unclear whether these reports have had an impact on public opinion. However, the current issue is not public opinion. Lurking behind this issue is the not fully articulated perception that the Iraq war not only began in deception but that planning for the Iraq war was incompetent -- a perception driven by the realization that the United States is engaged in a long-term occupation and guerrilla war in Iraq, and the belief that the United States in particular was neither expecting nor prepared for this. A cartoon republished in the New York Times News of the Week section by Mike Smith of the Las Vegas Sun sums up this perception. A general, holding a paper titled "Guerrilla War In Iraq," says to a table full of generals, "We need to switch to Plan B." Another general responds, "There was a Plan A?" The media loves the trivial and can't grasp the significant. If the United States fabricated evidence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as critics are claiming, the question is not whether it did so. The question is: Why did it do so? In other words, why was invading Iraq important enough to lie about -- if indeed it was a lie, which is far from clear. The emerging perception is that there was no Plan A and there is no Plan B -- that the decision to invade was arbitrary and that the lying was therefore gratuitous. In other words, the Bush administration has a four-part public relations problem: 1. The perception that it lied about weapons of mass destruction 2. The perception that it had no strategic reason for invading Iraq 3. The perception that it was unprepared for the guerrilla war 4. The perception that it is at a loss for what to do next As we argued Last week, lying in foreign policy does not bother the American public. From Woodrow Wilson's "too proud to fight" slogan in the 1916 presidential campaign, to Franklin D. Roosevelt's war planning with the British while publicly denying such plans, to John F. Kennedy claiming that the United States had nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs, what bothers the American public is the idea that the lying is not designed to hide the strategy, but to hide the fact that there is no strategy. The media are clever. The public is smart. The media have the ability to generate intellectual mayhem within Washington. What should be troubling for Bush is that, as we review the local papers this past weekend, the deepest concern creeping into letters to the editor is that there is no underlying strategy, no point to it -- and no exit. Bush clearly retains a massive support base that is not, as we have said, continuing to erode. The media's fixation on "what did he know and when did he know it" will not erode it by itself, but the administration's continued unwillingness to reveal a strategy behind the war on al Qaeda likely will. The core problem the United States has had in enunciating a strategy rests on this: Since Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda has not carried out a strategic operation. It has carried out a series of tactical operations -- Bali, Mombassa, Riyadh, Casablanca and so on -- but it has not struck again at the United States in an operation of the magnitude of Sept. 11. The operations outside the United States are not, by themselves, sufficient to justify the global war the United States is waging. Preventing another Sept. 11 is worth the effort. However, as time passes, the perception -- if not the reality -- grows that Sept. 11 was al Qaeda's best and only shot at the United States. If that is true, then the level of effort we have seen on a global basis -- including the invasion of Iraq and certainly the continued occupation of Iraq in the face of insurrection -- simply isn't worth it. Or put differently, the United States is fighting an illusion and exhausting resources in the process. The mere assertion of the threat will work if Bush and his advisers have a pristine record of honesty with the public. At the point where the public has reason to doubt the word of the president on anything concerning the war, it will affect his ability to be authoritative on anything concerning the war. Moreover, the president's basis for information on al Qaeda's intentions and capabilities rests with confidence in the quality of intelligence he is getting. The current crisis over who failed to identify the forgery is trivial. However, it melds into two other serious intelligence crises. First, did the intelligence community fail in its analysis of Iraqi WMD? Second, and more serious in our view, did the intelligence community fail to understand former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's war plan and, therefore, fail to understand that the fall of Baghdad was not the end of the war but the beginning of the guerrilla phase? Reasonable arguments can be made to justify each of these failures. However, at the end of the day, if the CIA did not know about the forgery, did not understand the WMD situation in Iraq and did not anticipate the guerrilla war, then why should the public believe it regarding the on-going threat of al Qaeda? Pushing the argument further, if the intelligence community did in fact know about each of these things and the president chose to ignore them, then why should the public believe Bush when he talks about al Qaeda? Bush cannot afford a crisis in the intelligence community or in the public perception of his use of intelligence. More than any of the other world wars in which the United States has participated, this is an intelligence war. Al Qaeda does not have a geographical locus. It does not have a clean organizational chart. It is as much an idea as an organization. Everything that followed Sept. 11 has depended on the public's confidence in its intelligence community. If that confidence is destroyed, then everything else said about al Qaeda -- including that it is an ongoing threat that justifies a global war -- becomes subject to debate. If the CIA cannot be trusted, then the president can't be trusted. If the president can't be trusted, then the urgency of the war cannot be trusted. If the urgency of the war can't be trusted, then the massive exertion being demanded of the U.S. military and public cannot be justified. Thus, having CIA Director George Tenet fall on his sword and accept responsibility for the 16 words in the President's speech might make a lot of sense inside the beltway, but it is an act of breathtaking recklessness in the rest of the country. Even if he were responsible -- which we regard as pretty dubious -- the White House does not seem to understand that destroying the credibility of the CIA is the same thing as destroying the war effort. The entire war effort is based on the public's trust of the CIA's portrayal of the ongoing threat from al Qaeda. If the CIA isn't to be trusted, why should anyone believe that al Qaeda is a threat? This self-destructive behavior by the Bush administration is not at all confined to undermining the credibility of the CIA. Rumsfeld's incomprehensible behavior regarding the guerrilla war in Iraq was another axis of self-destruction. Back in May, any reasonable observer of the situation in Iraq -- including Stratfor -- saw that there was an organized guerrilla war under way. However, Rumsfeld, as late as June 30, not only continued to deny the obvious, but actually hurled contempt at anyone who said it was a guerrilla war. Rumsfeld's obstinate refusal to acknowledge what was obvious to everyone was the sort of behavior designed to undermine confidence in U.S. strategy by both the public and the troops in the field. Rumsfeld kept arguing that this was not Vietnam, which was certainly true, except in the sense that Rumsfeld was behaving like Robert McNamara. As in Vietnam -- and this is the only comparison there is between it and Iraq -- the behavior of the leadership made even supporters of the war and the troops in the field feel that there was no strategy. Napoleon once said, "In battle, the morale is to the material as 2 is to 1." Maintaining the morale of one's forces depends on maintaining confidence in the military and political commanders. When forces are killing U.S. troops -- forces that the defense secretary dismisses -- the only conclusion the troops can draw is that either they are not very good soldiers, since they can't stop them, or that the defense secretary has taken leave of his senses. Either way, it undermines morale, increasing the need for the material. It is militarily inefficient to tell self-evident lies to troops. Similarly, the United States is fighting a war against a barely visible force that cannot be seen by the naked eye, but only by the esoteric tools of the intelligence community. Making the head of that community appear to be a liar or a fool might make good sense in Washington, but it undermines trust in the one institution in which trust is essential if the war is to be prosecuted. It is not casualties that undermine public morale. It is the reasonable belief that if the CIA is incompetent, then neither the justification for the war nor the strategy driving the war can be trusted. Bush has created a crisis. It is far from a fatal crisis, but it is a crisis that requires a radical readjustment in approach. The public explanation of the war and the reality of the war must come into alignment. Stratfor has extensively chronicled the underlying strategy of the war, and we will not repeat it here. That strategy has never been enunciated publicly. The connection between the war against al Qaeda, the Iraq campaign and future actions throughout the world never has been laid out in a conceptual framework. This is a complex war. It does not reduce itself to the simple dictum of Desert Storm enunciated by Secretary of State Colin Powell: First we will cut off the enemy, then we will surround the enemy, then we will kill the enemy. That was a good line and truly reflected the solution. This war does not reduce to one-liners. However, there is a threat and there is a strategy. WMD make wonderful one-liners and they are not altogether irrelevant. But that is not what the war against Iraq was about, it is not the reason for fighting a guerrilla war and it is certainly only part of the broader war. The most dangerous thing Bush can do from his standpoint is to continue to play a bad hand rather than endure the pain of having to throw it in and reshuffle the deck. However, it will be easier to explain the real force driving U.S. strategy than to allow his presidency to degenerate into an argument of who forged a letter and whether he knew it. The basic strategy behind a war always has been publicly discussed. In World War II, after Dec. 7 and the German declaration of war, the basic outlines of the war plan were widely discussed in the media -- in spite of censorship. Everyone knew the Germany First strategy, the goal of landing in France at some point, the purpose of the bombing campaign, the nature of island hopping. No one expected to know the landing site in France or the next island to be invaded in the Pacific, but everyone understood the core strategy. This is a much more complex war. That increases -- not decreases -- the need for strategic clarity among the public and the troops. The United States is not randomly in Iraq, and it is not there because Hussein was a butcher or because he might have had WMD. Those are good reasons, but not the real reason. The United States is in Iraq to force Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran to change their behavior toward al Qaeda and other Islamist Groups. The United States already has overwhelmed the Saudis and is engaged in threatening Syria and Iran. This is visible to everyone who is watching. That is why the United States is in Iraq. It might or might not be good strategy, but it is a strategy that is much better than no strategy at all. Admitting this undoubtedly will create a frenzy in the media concerning the change in explanation. But there will be nothing to chew on, and the explanation will be too complex for the media to understand anyway. They will move on to the next juicy murder, leaving foreign policy to the government and the public. We suspect that before this is over, both Tenet and Rumsfeld will have to go, but that matters more to them than to the republic, which will endure their departure with its usual equanimity. Alternatively, Bush will continue to allow the battle to be fought over the question of "what did he know and when did he know it," which is a battle he cannot win. Bush has a strategic decision to make. He must align strategy with public perception or have his presidency ripped apart. |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
i am worse ... a canuck who is a immigrant.
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Yeap. We all come from Africa. One way or another.
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
Though there are differences there are also similarities, the anti-war-Bush crowd wont admit it, but we have a great opportunity in Iraq. Lets just hope things go well, but it will take time. |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
The opportunity to bring a democratic form of government to Iraq (and, I would assume, it is hoped to spread throughout the rest of the Middle East with a little time) is the only arguement for the war that I've heard that didn't have some big holes in it. But I still don't think it was a good idea on an idealogical level. It's pretty much summed up in a quote I heard somewhere (I don't remember where I heard it):
"Democracy imposed from without is the highest form of tyranny." Just something to think about. Our intentions are good, but I don't think for a second that the new "government" we set up will be much better than any that came before it, including the one it replaced. |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
I sincerely hope that our good intention brings opportunities to both Iraqi men and women not death and fear that the previous goverment did. |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Cool, reminds me of the neutron bombs from the eighties. Now if they can just port the technology into roach spray http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
anyone catch this
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly...021534,00.html about Blair knowing in advance that Iraq was not a threat. |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Heard that earlier today as well Tesco. Although as usual the details don't match the hedalines. There is no proof here that Blair "knew Iraq wasn't an imminent threat". All we have here is a memo from one of the people advising Blair. The opinoin of one of his analysts that Iraq wasn't a threat.
It was never stated that the belief of Iraq's threat was unanimous. Of course there were desenting opinions among Blair and Bush's cabinets. In any group of advisors you are going to get twice as many opinions as you have advisors. There were many people advising them that Iraq was a serious and imminent threat as well. They decided to believe them. That doesnt mean they lied. |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
I wonder whether the information about what was going on prior to the Iraq war fits under the US not qualifying for EU membership, not spanking children or WW2 history. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Everytime I see this threads title, I feel like we need a new thread about "European countries do not qualify for US statehood." It would be interesting to see what tidbits of information would pop up there. We do so need another thread pointing out all of the evils of the US and its allies. It would be so much better for the world if we just didn't exist. I'm sure that the world would be a harmonious paradise if the US wasn't around to mess everything up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
if the USA was not around then we would replace the word USA with either canada or mexico. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Ak how about a thread called if some one Posts something i don't like or agree with then they are making fun of my country and me personally etc... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif
p.s. yea i got nothing. and i am most likely the worst come back typer going. i look forward to the reply http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif take care ak. |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Of course, the one great disaster if there was no US: no SEIV! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
Or as we say down here : when the US sneezes, South America catches double pneumonia. |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
To start with, I agree with Erax, but I also think we're doing fine. There will always be noise, and usually it will come from expected places.
Quote:
Most importantly, though, the Last chance the French had at regional domination was under Napoleon during the birth of modern nationalism. Unfortunately Napoleon, like Alexander and Hitler, did not have that so-necessary skill of empire-building: restraint. Take-and-hold or take-and-take-and-lose-and-lose-and-lose. Few warlords have both the patience necessary to do this and the initiative to take over the world, though. Genghis Khan had it, who else? |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
I'm not going to knock the Roman Empire for Empire building, but it wasn't anything that could be mistaken for the work of an single individual. Rather it would have been the work of a system that developed and exploited quite a number exceptional individuals. Now if we could just model the development and exploitation of exceptional individuals in SE IV... [ August 21, 2003, 20:23: Message edited by: Loser ] |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
Most importantly, though, the Last chance the French had at regional domination was under Napoleon during the birth of modern nationalism. Unfortunately Napoleon, like Alexander and Hitler, did not have that so-necessary skill of empire-building: restraint. Take-and-hold or take-and-take-and-lose-and-lose-and-lose. Few warlords have both the patience necessary to do this and the initiative to take over the world, though. Genghis Khan had it, who else?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, I was just referring to the fact that if the US didn't make the Louisiana Purchase, the French would still own a significant part of what is the US. Of course, given France's situation, they probably would have sold to someone else (most likely, England or Spain) but it still makes for an interesting thought. Then again, if the US wasn't around, the post WWII world would have probably been dominated by a Stalinist USSR, and the rest of the world could be trying to figure out how to deal with that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif |
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
Quote:
|
Re: OT:US don\'t qualify for EU membership, don\'t spank children, WW2 history.
But!!, with no europe there should be no US...
In fact US was just a colony of europe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif some time ago... Sparhawk |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.