OT:US don't qualify for EU membership, don't spank children, WW2 history.

[Fyron]

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.

[Thermodyne]

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 ]

[Will]

Fyron, I believe primitive was taking exception to this statement:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
In the situation we have now, the terrorism is state sponsored. This requires that we bring force to bear on the states involved.

Primitive is saying that all the evidence of state-sponsored terrorism has been local, not global (ie, Hamas targets Israel, and only Israel, not all westernized cultures). He's also saying that the force that would be used against the states that sponsor local terrorism will only spawn more fanatics that will be prime recruits for al Qaida (sp?). bin Laden's group doesn't recieve support from governments, but rather from individuals and small Groups. The entire nature of their beliefs is pretty much a religious anarchy. There is no state but the nation of Islam, and the only leader is Allah and His Prophet, etc...

[primitive]

Thermo (and Fyron):
As Will quoted: The original full statement goes:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
In the situation we have now, the terrorism is state sponsored. This requires that we bring force to bear on the states involved.

With my poor language skills I interpret the "now" as something different from what was "before".
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

[Fyron]

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.

[Wardad]

PHUTDAWUK????

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
21 July 2003

by Dr. George Friedman

U.S. Strategy: Perception vs. Deception



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.

While there are some interesting points in this article, this one is strange. It seems to be saying, "The US was attacked once, it took steps to prevent any other attacks, and its enemy has not been able to attack again. Therefore, there must have not been a significant threat to react against."

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?

[Wardad]

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.

[jimbob]

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

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

[ July 31, 2003, 17:50: Message edited by: jimbob ]

[Thermodyne]

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 ]