What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

DonPanic · 2004-05-15 15:52:45

LO

Each brutal crush leads to more uprising.
Quote (Cobra Commander @ May 13 2004, 09:30)
Historically this just isn't true. An occupied people can only take so much before they buckle under. temporarily, perhaps, but it works.
Doesn't work for Palestine,
This is another case where the effort is restrained. Not to the degree of the US forces in Iraq, it but the Israelis are being held back. They are taking half measures. If the leash was ever dropped and they were free to do what many in the Israeli government think needs to be done...

What would be your brilliant full measures ? If Israelis wanted to get rid of Palestinians who want them out of occupied territories, genociding or exoding Palestinians is the full measure.

Your problem is :we, we, we, you think US, you don't think iraqi, as far as I can see, and you need to think iraqi to deal with Iraqis.
I think in terms of what we need to do in order to win the support of some Iraqis, while killing the insurgents.

I see. Get Free n' Democratised my way or die...

Quote (ecrasez_l_infame @ May 15 2004, 07:52)
I'm wondering of any of our non-U.S. New Mars participants would be so kind as to tell me why, if you were a U.S. citizen, you WOULD vote for John Kerry instead of Bush. Why do you think Kerry would make a better U.S. President?
I'll refine the question a bit more. Can any Kerry supporter explain why they support him, without referring to George Bush? We know the reasons to vote against Bush, but for Kerry?

Because he reads books

Bill White · 2004-05-15 18:08:56

Because he reads books

Gennaro · 2004-05-15 22:33:52

Well, I believe so but many of my countrymen do not.

In that case I'm afraid we all have a problem.

Abu Ghuraib worries me, not only because of the baseness human beings are able to stoop to, not only because what may happen (and which already has happened) to honest Americans who are in Iraq simply because they think they can help reconstruct society and wants to make a contribution and not only because prolonged miltary presence/war will infringe on space efforts more than anything else.

It also worries me because what it might imply in way of sentiments of the large groups of mid-east people European countries have unwittingly allowed within their borders.
Now, the criminals who assault and murder ethnical Swedes will simply be fed another shadow of excuse for their wrong-doings and general hatred of us, their beneficiaries.

To be honest, I think America went down the wrong path by entangling itself in the internal affairs of the mid-east. If you stoke a hornet's nest everyone will get stung.
This is no way to treat the Muslim world, even if the strange war in Iraq in itself could be justified in some mysterious manner.
If nothing else, Muslims are generally proud people who certainly think themselves capable of dealing with their own future.
We should simply let them go about their business and instead think about how best to save ourselves from cultural and demographical extinction from mass immigration.
Current US policy doesn't seem really helpful in either regard.

Thanks for your reply, Cindy. Yours is an America I certainly can respect.
Oh yes, I almost forgot, Bush or Kerry. Well, it's not any of my business but from the little I get from this Kerry guy he fails to induce confidence in me. On the other hand, if you're displeased with the current administration you should show it by voting against it. I've behaved that way for years. Can't remember a single election where I didn't end up choosing between bad and worse.

Trebuchet · 2004-05-16 01:37:16

If you stoke a hornet's nest everyone will get stung.

One mighty big hornet's nest got whacked on 9/11.

It also worries me because what it might imply in way of sentiments of the large groups of mid-east people European countries have unwittingly allowed within their borders.
Now, the criminals who assault and murder ethnical Swedes will simply be fed another shadow of excuse for their wrong-doings and general hatred of us, their beneficiaries.

Well, look at the second part of this comment I quoted here... if they already hate, attack, and murder you, they would do it with any excuse or none. You are in SWEDEN of all countries, it's not like Sweden has been involved in the Middle East in any meaningful way.

My general feelings on the whole matter are that, regardless of whether the great majority of Arabs would be capable of dealing with their future (I think they would be) they may not have a future if extremist groups continue along their current path. Some terrorist group gets a nuke - the Chechens, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, it doesn't really matter who - they'll attack a major nuclear power with it and... and what? Russia/US/Israel sit on their hands and arsenal? Hell no, they'd shoot off a bunch of stuff in a rage and obliterate half the region. So something needed to be done, and sweet reason wasn't working. I certainly have problems with who and how this was done, but it's better than the alternative, which is hoping all the turmoil in the Middle East goes away of its own volition.

Gennaro · 2004-05-16 04:41:20

My general feelings on the whole matter are that, regardless of whether the great majority of Arabs would be capable of dealing with their future (I think they would be) they may not have a future if extremist groups continue along their current path.

You must ask yourself why the extremists are there. In the '50's and '60's, the region was dominated by Arab nationalism and socialism, that is progressive and future oriented movements and governments.
Enter the air dropped state of Israel and all problems start from there. Islam is one vengeful culture if there ever was one and their failure was pitted on the west, not without reason since this bickering has gone on for decades. Hence the retardist Islamic extremists. These guys are no friends of the secular socialists. In response what do you do? You declare the only surviving regime related to Arabic nationalism an enemy of humanity and that it will attack the west with nuclear and chemical weapons, despite the fact that this regime has never showed any signs of planning such and the only chemical weapons it ever possessed and used atrociously against domestic insurgents, was supplied by the US.
Iraq had absolutely no connections with the war on terror which in itself is meant to be perpetrated by groups close or previously close to US intelligence. Had for instance the US normalized relations with Iraq following the first Gulf War Hussein would have turned into a lamb, a lot of suffering would have been avoided and Iraq itself turned into an asset. In fact, Bath party groups within Iraq would probably had an easier time disposing of him since he's himself a usurpor, a third and probably the best approach.
But no, your ally wouldn't have it, because Arab nationalism is still anti Israel and the agents of that paranoid country is more likely the ones calling the shots in the White House nowadays. Don't you see, they are using you to fight a war by proxy that fundamentally is not in the interest of America nor the west as a whole.
As for the real dangers those are related to immigration and demographics, you'll find out in America only a little later since it has not been going on as long in your case, not the occassional terrorist act (which in themselves are reactions to pursued policy). The answer to that is containment, not intervention which only serves to make the situation ever more unstable.
We don't need the Middle-East. Let them get on with their own world as best they wish.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-16 07:57:47

Gennaro brings up some good points, though they all become academic when one considers, as Trebuchet pointed out, they already attacked us. We no longer have the option of leaving them alone.

We are dealing with international groups. We don't have the luxury of fighting countries this time out. Afghanistan didn't attack us, but they aided those who did. They were at the top of a fairly long list.

So we have a group of people that hate us and will kill us at any opportunity. Responding, trying to protect ourselves, only makes them hate us more and try harder to kill us. We have essentially two options.

1) Wipe them out. This is relatively easy, we could have it done before lunch using the ol' 'reset button.' I'm not certain of the practicality of drilling oil through glass, but I'm sure something could be worked out.

2) We have to eliminate the cultural and social factors that lead to their actions. This does include mitigating the poverty of many citizens in the region, but far more importantly it means eradicating fundamentalist Islam.

The catch is, that fundamentalist Islam is not quite the perverse mutation of the more mundane variety it's made out to be. It has elements that easily lend themselves to the sort of behavior we see today. Islam is in many respects a religion of force and conquest, from it's ealiest days and it gives a stiffening base for the more material hatred of the (non-Muslim) West.

This may have to become a war against Islam, a Crusade if you will.

We tend to think of this is the world's superpower smacking around a few third-world troublemakers. This is a fight between two radically different societies for dominance. The West and Islam have been in conflict since the latter's inception, our present conflicts are really nothing new in that regard. If we do nothing, "let them get on with their own world as best they wish" to use Gennaro's wording, they will continue attacking and killing us. That is what they wish.

We can continue dragging on centuries of conflict between Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb, or we can finish it in our lifetime.

For the record, I don't like it and I hate being the bearer of bad news, but we're in this for the long haul and nothing short of remaking the entire Islamic world is going to end the war. Only one side is going to survive this intact. They deeply understand that, we need to accept it.

Bill White · 2004-05-16 08:42:03

For the record, I don't like it and I hate being the bearer of bad news, but we're in this for the long haul and nothing short of remaking the entire Islamic world is going to end the war. Only one side is going to survive this intact. They deeply understand that, we need to accept it.

True or not, the worse news is that there are others willing to stand aside and let Islam and the US fight. China, for example.

That is why we need friends. Frankly, I prefer the paper pushing liberal bureaucrats in Brussels and Paris to the masters of Beijing.

= = =

I do wish to accept this too cavalierly, yet lets "assume" Cobra is correct here:

The catch is, that fundamentalist Islam is not quite the perverse mutation of the more mundane variety it's made out to be. It has elements that easily lend themselves to the sort of behavior we see today. Islam is in many respects a religion of force and conquest, from it's ealiest days and it gives a stiffening base for the more material hatred of the (non-Muslim) West.
This may have to become a war against Islam, a Crusade if you will.

This is why Ronald Reagan sought to empower Saddam in the 1980s and this is why Saddam thought the United States would allow his annexation of Kuwait without objection.

Here is a "what if" - - what if Bush-41 had allowed the annexation of Kuwait to stand? Where is Wahabi-ism today?

We empowered bin Laden (to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets) and we empowered Saddam for our early power politics purposes and now we must kill the monsters we ourselves created.

Palomar · 2004-05-16 09:35:45

what if Bush-41

*Bill, why do you call him [Senior] "Bush-41"?

Maybe you've explained that previously, and I missed it or forgot. Anyway, just wondering.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-05-16 11:21:30

what if Bush-41
*Bill, why do you call him [Senior] "Bush-41"?
Maybe you've explained that previously, and I missed it or forgot. Anyway, just wondering.
--Cindy

He was the 41st President.

Clinton was the 42nd President.

GWB is the 43rd President.

I saw it used on some Washington blog.

Trebuchet · 2004-05-16 11:36:51

Ahh, Gennarro's true colors are revealed!

1) No, the US did not supply the chemical weapons. Several European countries were involved in that.

2) No, President Bush never said they were about to launch a WMD strike. What he said was that Iraq had the capability to provide terrorists such materials in the future. He never used the 'imminent threat' language wrongly attributed to him. His reasoning was that by the time it was an imminent threat, it would already be too late. As it turns out, he was wrong about the WMD, though in all fairness the only people who knew the truth appear to have been the Iraqis who were supposed to be making the WMD's, as everyone (including Saddam) thought he had them before the war.

3) "Ask yourself" is always asked with the overtone of "It's your fault!" It isn't, at least here; Islamic fundamentalism crops up from time to time whenever there's a general failure in Islam as a whole. It's a historical pattern and has more to do with economic sluggishness and other (non-Israel) factors. Rage over Israel is a symptom, not a cause.

4) No, Israel does not call the shots. Get a grip. Conspiracy theories aren't worth squat.

Palomar · 2004-05-16 11:46:54

Rage over Israel is a symptom, not a cause.

*Thanks for the explanation, Bill.

Israel: I've mentioned before my thoughts that the Arabs in control are likely a lot -less- p.o.'d about the existence of Israel than they purport to be, and use Israel as a chain-rattling device amongst their own people. Israel is their little "I Hate America" trump card (flash the Palestinian flag around, rile 'em up).

The Arabs calling the shots need Israel more than we do.

Israel's been around since 1948 (or 1947...arrghh...don't have time to Google for it). The less bright bulbs over there might want to realize Israel seems "here to stay" (so get over it).

But this isn't blindly defending Israel on my behalf (and no, I'm not anti-Semitic either), nor am I suggesting the Palestinians are devoid of some very legitimate complaints.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-05-16 11:51:01

Rage over Israel is a symptom, not a cause.
*Thanks for the explanation, Bill.
Israel: I've mentioned before my thoughts that the Arabs in control are likely a lot -less- p.o.'d about the existence of Israel than they purport to be, and use Israel as a chain-rattling device amongst their own people. Israel is their little "I Hate America" trump card (flash the Palestinian flag around, rile 'em up).
The Arabs calling the shots need Israel more than we do.
Israel's been around since 1948 (or 1947...arrghh...don't have time to Google for it). The less bright bulbs over there might want to realize Israel seems "here to stay" (so get over it).
But this isn't blindly defending Israel on my behalf (and no, I'm not anti-Semitic either), nor am I suggesting the Palestinians are devoid of some very legitimate complaints.
--Cindy

As for Israel, I agree. Its a way to distract the Arab masses from their misery. So why do we make it so easy for these corrupt leaders to do exactly that?

Bill White · 2004-05-16 12:43:47

Words from Edmund Burke, a conservative from 18th century England, written before our US Declaration of Independence:

"We may say that we shall not abuse this astonishing and hitherto unheard of power," Burke wrote of the British empire in the 1770's. "But every other nation will think we shall abuse it. It is impossible but that, sooner or later, this state of things must produce a combination against us which may end in our ruin."

Trebuchet · 2004-05-16 15:05:57

Burke said that in 1770; it took until the 20th century for his prediction to come true. The loss of power and destruction of great states comes from either other great states or going a bridge too far. The United States has not yet begun to fight with any seriousness, nor is there another great state rising to replace it (yes, I know about China and the EU; neither are going to be at that level for at least a generation).

There will be a time when events conspire against the United States and, like all things, it slips from summer to fall. But this is not that time.

Mundaka · 2004-05-16 15:47:15

DonPanic · 2004-05-16 17:35:35

LO

Anybody up to being tried in a world court system packed with judges from Communist China and advocates of Sharia Law?
Interesting times . . .

I saw a TV reportage on a Yemenite village council, imagine a hall with village leaders and a crowd of people chewing khat, smoking narguilees, tchating, and then they had to judge a man who had killed his neighbour after arguing and hand fighting.
The man told he didn't intend to kill, nevertheless the village old leaders sentenced him to death.
Then the victim's wife stood up, said that the murderer's death wouldn't give her back her husband, that she was left alone with three children and that she wasn't not strong enough to cultivate,
that the murderer had a wife and children that would be left without ressources, too.
Therefore she wished that the murderer should be sentenced to cultivate for her and her children half of each day of his life, cultivate for his own family the other half.
After a short discussion, the village jury agreed on the woman's request.
I don't know if this is yemenite or Sharia justice, what you think of it, but it seemed to me as quite a fair trial and a real good decision

Bill White · 2004-05-16 19:05:25

Burke said that in 1770; it took until the 20th century for his prediction to come true. The loss of power and destruction of great states comes from either other great states or going a bridge too far. The United States has not yet begun to fight with any seriousness, nor is there another great state rising to replace it (yes, I know about China and the EU; neither are going to be at that level for at least a generation).
There will be a time when events conspire against the United States and, like all things, it slips from summer to fall. But this is not that time.

Life moves faster, today.

No one country will replace us in the near term yet many countries will conspire to offset our hyper-power status. Brazil wants a seat in the UN Security Council. China has started preliminary efforts to support Brazil's objective.

In the space realm, Soyuz at Kouru is a mind blowing development. Imagine its 1975 and France and Russia were on the verge of merging their space programs. The US would be terrified.

Galileo is directly aimed at giving Europe a foothold in the struggle for space dominance.

= = =

Anybody up to being tried in a world court system packed with judges from Communist China and advocates of Sharia Law?

What is truly ironic is that GWB is popping the "bubble of American supremacy" far faster than I ever would have thought possible.

= = =

Suggested reading:

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/MEL … MELIAN.HTM

and this:

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/THU … /THUCY.HTM

Athens fell from power rather quickly, in the long view of things. Iraq may well prove to be like the invasion of Syracuse.

Mundaka · 2004-05-16 19:27:57

Bill White · 2004-05-16 20:21:31

What is truly ironic is that GWB is popping the "bubble of American supremacy" far faster than I ever would have thought possible.
Well said. Remember "Brewster's Millions", where even the iceberg makes a profit? If only we had somebody who was inept at blowing that bubble . . .

Real life example of my point is http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld … lines]Hong Kong - - we express our tepid political protests as Beijing assimiliates Hong Kong more deeply into the communist regime. Being mired in Iraq and looking to China for help with North Korea, we are powerless to exercise any genuine diplomatic pressure on Beijing, and they know it perfectly well.

Trebuchet · 2004-05-16 20:22:08

Bill White, I have to disagree with you. There are -zero- countries that can overtake the US in the next 50 years. None. Not unless an asteroid hits North America or something of that nature happens. Those that have the economic base to do so will not have the demographic base (population implosion/social welfare problems in EU, crazy demographics in China from one-child) and those that have the people won't have the cash (Middle East, much of the rest of the planet).

Even were the US led by the most inept and corrupt President possible, the US will keep its lead by default. That's nothing to be proud of, but it's reality.

I give us until 2075 or so before someone emerges to give us a scare. My money's on India, BTW.

Bill White · 2004-05-16 20:33:03

Bill White, I have to disagree with you. There are -zero- countries that can overtake the US in the next 50 years. None. Not unless an asteroid hits North America or something of that nature happens. Those that have the economic base to do so will not have the demographic base (population implosion/social welfare problems in EU, crazy demographics in China from one-child) and those that have the people won't have the cash (Middle East, much of the rest of the planet).
Even were the US led by the most inept and corrupt President possible, the US will keep its lead by default. That's nothing to be proud of, but it's reality.
I give us until 2075 or so before someone emerges to give us a scare. My money's on India, BTW.

Hmmm. . .

I am not being clear. Today we lead by 10 laps, or by 4 touchdowns, depending on your choice of metaphor. I agree with you, we not not be passed for a long time to come, but our lead will diminish significantly and unnecessarily.

Things will be a lot closer than they need to be.

Our inability to effectively protest about Hong Kong for example.

= = =

Edit: Related, the rest of the world more actively conspires to contain our power than they did 4 years ago.

Chirac, Putin and Schroeder are rapidly becoming good buddies because of American policy.

Trebuchet · 2004-05-16 22:21:17

That other nations would be conspiring against us like that is pretty straightforward Balance-Of-Power stuff, which has nothing to do with US policy. That sort of BS was already underway before Bush's administration, it's just that under the Clinton administration, it was a quiet period in history, a gap between the Cold War and whatever this little part of history will be called. That alliances would shift and shift unfavorably to the US after it won the Cold War is elementary stuff.

As far as needlessly pissing away part of our lead, I actually agree with you on that, though I don't think it's as bad as you think. I also think that while Bush has done shortsighted things, he's no worse in that regard than his father or Clinton before him, nor would Kerry be any improvement. The blame for squandering effort and capital (of all kinds) goes much further than Presidents; it goes to Congress, the courts, and to the citizenry as well, and IMHO mostly derives from an indecisiveness of the national spirit, toying with a new right, toying with a new left, and with no clear vision of the future.

That sort of thing has happened before - I think here of the post-Civil War period and pre-FDR period - and it will be resolved when someone takes the helm... hey, is anyone running a candidate named Rooseveldt? Same family ended the spinning both times. :laugh:

Mundaka · 2004-05-16 22:42:58

Trebuchet · 2004-05-17 01:20:26

Actually, your examples reinforce the argument for slow decline, if any.

Remember, the Soviet Union had profound economic problems; apart from a clunky consumer economy in which the black market was rampant and widespread, they were spending a truly mindboggling percentage of their GNP on defense, something like 20% IIRC, and they were also propping up their satellites and allies with whatever aid they could. Also, they were chronically short on foreign exchange, which was not helped by the fact that the US realized that and did whatever was expedient to make that shortfall a crisis. Add to that a general lack of real support for the government and economic system, you can see that they are something of an aberration. Their economy was so strongly tied to and identified with their government that when one collapsed the other followed. This is not true of the United States.

On the other hand, there was little difference between Britain at the start of the 20th Century and Britain in 1938 in terms of relative power in the world. The decline came after 1945. In the intervening period:

1) There were two world wars, conflict on a hitherto unimaginable scale, requiring total mobilization of the country's resources.

2) A horrible, catastrophic worldwide economic depression occured.

That would be a lot of history to cover. While the 21st Century has started off with a bang, I don't see any World Wars on the relative level of the other two occuring (by which I mean that countries with the military power of the US, Russia, and China have to fight with everything they have), mostly because the countries that can fight such a war are not flamboyantly suicidal. So military action which would seriously weaken the United States is not likely to pass. That leaves economic catastrophe, and the only plausible economic collapse would revolve around oil, but that's the whole world's Achilles heel, not just the USA's, so a sudden depression because of oil prices, while bad, would be equally bad everywhere. The relative power of nations would not shift much.

The only possible alternative is the sort of slow, boring historical processes that take generations to play out. As that is what is left, that is what will happen.

DonPanic · 2004-05-17 03:27:20

LO

I have no doubt that any decision rendered by stoned village eldars would seem fair -- to anyone accustomed to the Napoleonic Code of justice. Off with their heads! Let them eat cake! (OK, that pastry moment was good old Marie, not Napoleon, but you have to see my point: guilty until proven innocent? Go ahead, prove a negative. I dare ya!)

D'you alcootest Courts, lawyers and jury members ? ???
May be you've got to up to date your knowledge of french justice.
Nowadays suspects aren't to be called suspects, but "set under investigations"...
Unlike in your country, penalty of death is abolished, killing means by Justice are in museums, therefore we do not take the risk to send back a corpse to innocent's families.
May be the Frenchies are among the less clerical peoples in the world, maybe they dismiss any reference to Christianhood in Europeean Constitution, may be they have not written "In God We Trust" over banknotes, nevertheless, their Justice admits God's Commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill"

Related, the rest of the world more actively conspires to contain our power than they did 4 years ago.

Chirac, Putin and Schroeder are rapidly becoming good buddies because of American policy.

Result of cons ideology of "Good against Evil" and "who is'nt with US is against US", if not scared by such a simplism, they would be disputing at each other, as usual...

In the space realm, Soyuz at Kouru is a mind blowing development.

Froggies took opportunity to cheap bargain half of Soyuz launchers production from a ruined russian space industry, acting diplomaticly like partners and not like bosses

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2004-05-15 15:52:45

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#127 2004-05-15 18:08:56

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#128 2004-05-15 22:33:52

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#129 2004-05-16 01:37:16

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#130 2004-05-16 04:41:20

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#131 2004-05-16 07:57:47

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#132 2004-05-16 08:42:03

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#133 2004-05-16 09:35:45

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#134 2004-05-16 11:21:30

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#135 2004-05-16 11:36:51

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#136 2004-05-16 11:46:54

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#137 2004-05-16 11:51:01

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#138 2004-05-16 12:43:47

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#139 2004-05-16 15:05:57

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#140 2004-05-16 15:47:15

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#141 2004-05-16 17:35:35

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#142 2004-05-16 19:05:25

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#143 2004-05-16 19:27:57

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#144 2004-05-16 20:21:31

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#145 2004-05-16 20:22:08

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#146 2004-05-16 20:33:03

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#147 2004-05-16 22:21:17

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#148 2004-05-16 22:42:58

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#149 2004-05-17 01:20:26

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#150 2004-05-17 03:27:20

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

Board footer