Ahhhh.....Canadas Vietnam

[xpanda]

I don't know much about PNAC, but I know plenty about the US. I don't think either the US government or its citizens desire or would benefit from a "one world government."

That's not really what I meant, though I'd argue that there are certain individuals who would like a one world government. Most of those I'd name are Leftists, however.

What I meant was that the West is trying to change the social and political makeup of not only the Middle East, but other parts of the world as well. Every politician and NGO is guilty of this ... spreading democracy, championing feminist movements, 'tolerance', etc.

This is not to say that I think democracy or women's rights are a bad thing. Only these things are not being fought for by the peoples themselves, and so we are, therefore, imposing our will.

(Certainly you can see that radical Islamists think we'd all be much happier if we converted to Islam, no? Humans are always inclined to believe that their way is better, no matter the reality of such.)

It doesn't sound like freedom to me, which is what I'd like to be established all over the world. Of course under some set of humanitarian laws in each country, determined by its citizens, and not some religious or other authoritarian decree.

It is not up to you nor I to 'establish freedom around the world.' It is up to oppressed peoples to fight for their own freedom, if they so choose. If they do not choose it, then so be it. In the same vein we are free to reject Islamism as a form of social rule.

Then you write that if we just stay in our own land and fortify our position they can't take over. Of course that's correct (for now), but the logic is flawed. As our technology improves by natural advancement of our societies, those who want to kill us also benefit. If we don't invent the airplane........And look how they use the internet and our media.

These technologies are equally available to us.

The fundamentalists first want to gain control over the entire middle east. If they did that it would choke us economically.

Which is what this whole thing is about, isn't it? I mean, let's be realistic here. If the Middle East had no oil, upon which our society is based, the meddling of the past century in their affairs would be minimal at best.

Okay, so let's say we retreat. Entirely retreat. No more embassies, no more UN representation, etc.

Are Middle Eastern oil producers, state and privately owned alike, going to raise the price of oil so high that we won't buy it? What would they gain from this? More importantly, what would they lose? Don't forget that their economies - and ipso facto expansionist aims - are dependent on foreign oil consumption. Raising the price of oil so high we are economically fucked would be counterproductive for them as well.

But if they do, so what? What will this cost us? Will it cost us more, in the long run, than the cost of maintaining wars, bases, embassies, and scores of governmental layers to keep up with the constant game of Oil Control? Maybe. And if it does cost us more, will our terribly ingenious society not begin to flood dollars into alternative energies, as the laws of supply and demand will eventually dictate anyway?

Then they want to spread out from there. If they gain control of Afg, Iran, and Iraq, it wouldn't be long before they had Pakistan's nukes, or somehow gained access to nuclear material. If in their version of armagadeon we all go to hell and they all go to heaven do you think they would hesitate? Or that your strategy of circling the wagons at home would prevail?

Mutually assured destruction.

(I don't buy your theory that ALL STATEHEADS in the ME would be happy to become martyrs for the cause.)

I'm not stating all jihadis follow this rule, but bin Laden now has clerical permission to kill 10 million people.

So? He does not have the means.

No, I don't think they can overtake us militarily. What they envision is a form of takeover by threat. The Madrid bombings are an illustration. First you control the middle east. Take over the Saudi oil fields, which they could without our protection. Destroy Israel and replace it with Hamasstan. Destroy India. Kill Musharraf and gain control of Paki nukes. What's next? Blow up New York and tell Americans 5 more cities go next Tuesday unless there's a CRESCENT over the Whitehouse!

You must have very little faith in your fellow Americans if you think that threat would work.

Your view has Americans running to the nearest Walmart to buy hajibs if they threatened the US. There's not an ounce of evidence throughout US history to support such a view.

I'm not saying their crazy strategy is going to work. It's just my belief that they are not angered by our actions, or responding/retaliating for anything we do. They are simply and steadfastly determined that their way is the only way.

As are we. So why engage them?

 

[barman]

HEAD ponders: Yes Barman but its clear their expressed means of destruction STILL remains blowing up planes to kill lots of people.They were obsessed with it in the 90s and still are today.Since weve only had 1 hijacked plane crash into numerous building and kill thousands I guess we should consider it a lucky shot

SH: That's exactly what it was - a lucky shot that got through once in 30+ years and that was likely due less to the actual hijacking itself as to passenger and crew not aggressively engaging them once they pulled out their weapons.

No one will ever succeed in hijacking a passenger airline again and deliberately flying it into a designated target. No one will ever succeed again in hijacking a passenger plane period.

And that's not due to the TSA forcing me to take my boots off every time I fly.

It's because passengers will collectively never permit such actions again.

 

[ScottL]

X, I didn't recopy your last post in this response as it would have ended up being confusing as to who posted each statement. Allow me to paraphrase and respond to your thoughts if I may.

You wrote that it's not up to us to change Arab/Muslim societies. That if the people want freedom, women's rights, tolerance, they should rise up and win it for themselves. You also wrote that Islamists think we'd be happier if we adopted their way of life.

My response would be that under an authoritarian regime it would be difficult for individuals to stand up without being arrested, or having themselves and their families killed. I wrote about it in post # 22 of this thread:

http://forum.therx.com/showthread.php?t=396451&highlight=ahmed

Also, I don't believe for one minute that bin Laden and his ideological companions are happy. They are driven by a ridiculous ideology of hate, and they kill indiscriminately, using whatever methods at their disposal. And I don't think we're trying to spread freedom only because it's a good thing for them. We're doing it because free societies are less likely to attack us.....Those who are attacking us don't wish to allow us the option of rejecting Islamism.....And yes, excuse me for the proclamation, but Western culture is superior:

http://www.suanews.com/articles/2003/westerncultureissuperior.htm

I then unfortunately introduced oil into the debate and you ran with it. The struggle against Islamic jihad is not about oil; it's about security. I was stating oil would become an issue if terrorists gained control over the oil fields.

[I think we will be off oil in a few decades. Sooner or later we'll demand to be off oil, as much as we now demand it. I grew up with 3 over the air TV channels with poor reception. I saw 3 Fred Flintstones instead of one. As a college freshman at PSU we got nothing up there over the air. 4 years later I had 13 cable channels, including Sal Marchiano saying, "Good Night Sweet Prince," when a boxer got KO'd on ESPN. The whole university had ONE COMPUTER when I graduated! Now you and I can disagree on our home computers across thousands of miles. It's demand. IMO we will get off oil. Progress demands it and we have to!]

I don't believe, or recall writing that, "ALL STATEHEADS in the ME would be happy to become martyrs for the cause."
However, I DO BELIEVE that the fundamentalists, at least the pawns they brainwash and train, do not fear but welcome mutually assured destruction. They do so "knowing" they'll be upstairs celebrating the snap, crackle, pop while we burn below like Rice Krispies.

I never said Americans would run to Walmart to buy hajibs [good one though lol]. I guess we just disagree on what constitutes a threat, and how far along you let it materialize before you eradicate it. We disagree on what will happen if we choose to leave the area where the battle is being waged right now. In as much as you think we have provoked this war, we also disagree about that. It goes back to my initial post in this thread. You think it's what we do. I think it's who we are. I also believe if we follow your strategy and retreat, the radicals will win out in the ME, and in time we will be nuked.

 

[xpanda]

My response would be that under an authoritarian regime it would be difficult for individuals to stand up without being arrested, or having themselves and their families killed.

Sure. But that still doesn't make it our right to impose our society on them.

Moreover, I think there is a tremendous lack of historical perspective here. Western liberal democracy did not spring up straight out of the middle ages ... it was a slow build, based on slow societal and political evolutions that eventually led us here. And even in the midst of democracy, we had slavery and women's oppression, things we fought against much later.

The point is that we seem to think we can show up out of the clear blue, drop democracy on them, and watch as they embrace all of our liberal values of individualism, freedom, and liberty. It's a preposterous notion, and not one that even has any parallel in our own societal development. (The election of Hamas says much, no?)

It is also true that at one time Christianity was morbidly violent, as are factions of Islam now. That, too, will come to pass, as the people subjected will morph out of it. Their own survival will eventually dictate it. (Historically speaking, at least.)

And I don't think we're trying to spread freedom only because it's a good thing for them. We're doing it because free societies are less likely to attack us.....

Nations we trade with are less likely to attack us. The reasons for this are obvious, from stateheads on down to civilians.

Those who are attacking us don't wish to allow us the option of rejecting Islamism

Well, goody for them. Watch as we reject Islamism anyway.

And yes, excuse me for the proclamation, but Western culture is superior

I agree. But that doesn't mean I think anyone else ought to agree.

I then unfortunately introduced oil into the debate and you ran with it. the struggle against Islamic jihad is not about oil; it's about security. I was stating oil would become an issue if terrorists gained control over the oil fields.

Explain, in a non-fantastical sort of way, the logistics of a terrorist faction taking over the oil fields. I see this as pure fantasy.

I don't believe, or recall writing that, "ALL STATEHEADS in the ME would be happy to become martyrs for the cause." However, I DO BELIEVE that the fundamentalists, at least the pawns they brainwash and train, do not fear but welcome mutually assured destruction.

Maybe so. But if you, as a ruler, are not going to die in the destruction, what will you have left to rule? I mean, you are painting a picture of nuclear armageddon here, a picture that will wipe out whole populations. What incentive does any ruler have to see its territory and subjects completely anhillated?

I never said Americans would run to Walmart to buy hajibs [good one though lol]. I guess we just disagree on what constitutes a threat, and how far along you let it materialize before you eradicate it. We disagree on what will happen if we choose to leave the area where the battle is being waged right now. In as much as you think we have provoked this war, we also disagree about that. It goes back to my initial post in this thread. You think it's what we do. I think it's who we are. I also believe if we follow your strategy and retreat, the radicals will win out in the ME, and in time we will be nuked.

Time for some perspective.

The United States currently has more nuclear weapons than the entire world combined. Given the fixed costs/time of starting up a nuclear programme, vs. expanding an existing one, the chances of any nation in the Middle East, or even a coalition of nations in the Middle East, catching up to any great extent are virtually nil.

This in mind, should one nuke, or even one (legit) THREAT of a nuke, come this way, the US is well within its (moral) rights to strike the offender with as much force as can be mustered. In a nuclear showdown, the US will win. Yes, you might lose a city first, but that possibility is not worth GUARANTEEING that you kill hundreds of thousands of their civilians first.

I believe that if you continue on in the Middle East as you are, that you will simply increase anti-US and anti-Western sentiment. This has two consequences:

1. it increases Islamic fundie recruitment;
2. it pushes the people further from, not closer to, embracing Western values.

 

[BASEHEAD]

1. it increases Islamic fundie recruitment;
2. it pushes the people further from, not closer to, embracing Western values.

1.Handing them a "victory" by running away would certainly destroy their recruitment efforts and their fortitude,right?This kind of retreat is exactly what the terrorists hope to achieve.Is is all they can do to combat the daily pummelling they take...make displays of horror for the MSM and hope the US gets cold feet.The act of pulling out under their conditions is what would drive them to another level.Would make a bad problem ten times worse.

2.Letting them fester in thier shithole country tending to their sheep with dictators that muzzle any and all dissent,recreation,democracy,public opinon certainly are prime conditions for western lifestyles and mindsets to take hold.<!-- / message -->