An Interesting Article for You Geo-Political Aficionados

[Reel Deal]

I found this article on the Sydney (AU) Morning Herald web-site. It is one of the more well thought, dispassionate theses I've read on the subject of the US position in the world, and the future. The strategy statements are especially interesting. It's long, so you may want to download and print it.

I'd be interested in your thoughts. Even RichardNY's.

My primary disagreement with it is the exclusion of recreational fishing as a driving force of not just US world policy, but world peace in general.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/22/1032055033082.html

 

[Slinky Bender]

I'm having trouble getting past the beginning:

" It now admits it has no evidence that Iraq is preapring to use weapons of mass destruction against any other country"

I haven't seen that anywhere. Anyone have a referrence for that "fact" ?

 

[Slinky Bender]

Also, am I missing something, or is this really not a very long article.. just a short statement, followed by what is reported to be Pres Bush's new security strategy ?

 

[Reel Deal]

Originally posted by slinkybender
I'm having trouble getting past the beginning:

" It now admits it has no evidence that Iraq is preapring to use weapons of mass destruction against any other country"

I haven't seen that anywhere. Anyone have a referrence for that "fact" ?

Remember, this is from the Aussies who are deep into their own Socialist agenda. No doubt their media is cut from the same leftist fabric as ours.

I have not read Bush's Strategic Statement. I presented this as thought fertilizer. The article is 19 pages when I printed it. Quite intresting, IMO...

 

[daengman]

How quickly do you think that their tone would would change if all the sudden they found out that sometime in the not too distant future there was a real threat that a container ship with a nuke aboard was sailing into Sidney harbor?

 

[RichardNY]

Originally posted by slinkybender
I'm having trouble getting past the beginning:

" It now admits it has no evidence that Iraq is preapring to use weapons of mass destruction against any other country"

I haven't seen that anywhere. Anyone have a referrence for that "fact" ?

Slinky, I have not seen any such admission by the U.S. government. On the other hand, I have seen no evidence produced by the U.S. that Iraq "is preparing to use..." I think the wording there is key. The U.S. alleges that Hussein has such weapons. I don't think it has alleged that Hussein "is preparing to use" such weapons at this point.

I now return to reading the article. Thanks for posting it, btw, RD. Their first few paragraphs are exactly how I thought other countries might very well feel about the Bush Doctrine. I'm going to cross post a post I made elsewhere about this Bush Doctrine - before I ever heard of the Sydney Monring Herald.

 

[RichardNY]

The Bush Doctrine, or the Ugly American Returns with a Vengeance

Posted elsewhere on Sept. 22

I find the Bush Doctrine in regards to foreign policy arrogant and self-centered. Just as the classical ugly American of yesteryear expected the world to revolve around himself, so does the Bush Doctrine expect foreign powers to bow down and pay obeisance to the United States.

Bush proclaims the right to pre-emptive intervention. He believes that we have the right to stop any other "potentially hostile" country from becoming a rival to us as a superpower. He is invested in maintaining the status quo in relationship to us and in having America play the enforcer role.

While his doctrine also articulates positive American ideals, such as freedom, democracy, and capitalism, I cannot help but wonder if over time, this doctrine might not degenerate to a less noble ideal. If we maintain our superpower status, why not also maintain our super-rich status? Clearly, we no longer respect the sovereignty of other nations. They continue or are overthrown at our will.

The Bush Doctrine also ignores or rejects international laws and treaties, whether or not signed by us. Essentially Bush's doctrine seems to flip the birdie at other countries and their concerns. He holds America above the rest of them. An isolationist but also a ruler. Any Caesar would be proud of Bush.

What is wrong with this doctrine? As some more elderly folks may recall, the ugly American was despised in many foreign lands. Back in the 1950's, tourists were scorned. These days, similar tourists just might end up like Daniel Pearl or perhaps like some of those poor sailors on the Cole. In brief, I believe the Bush Doctrine does not give us security, but breeds increased hatred and attempts at terrorism against us.

The world is becoming uglier and uglier....and it is NOT just because of Al Qaida. It is also because of Bush et al. And that statement even ignores all the civil liberties his administration ignores and violates as well.

Both political parties are like sheep being herded to their slaughter. To question Papa Bush is to risk being labeled unAmerican and not patriotic. It is enough to be nauseating.

I truly believe with the configuration of events, both past and in the future, Bush has the chance to severely damage if not ruin this fine country.

God help us all. Think October 6th and 7th, and then Oct. 26th.!

 

[RichardNY]

Originally posted by slinkybender
Also, am I missing something, or is this really not a very long article.. just a short statement, followed by what is reported to be Pres Bush's new security strategy ?

Slinky, after I returned to reading the article - your comment above is right on. It is a very short statement, followed by Bush's Doctrine. That document was also published in the NY Times on Sept. 20 - which is how I reacted the way I did in my Sept. 22 post.

 

[skagen]

One part of that Australian commentary is the heart of many of todays "problems":

"So now American history screams from background discussion to the forefront of debate. The Americans - despite their promises to be a benevolent dictatorship, do not aim to build, stabilise, and promote democracies. They aim to impose puppets, and agree to Faustian deals which brutalise and disempower citizens. They pay no heed to the disastrous results of such dictatorships when imposed in the past."

So many of these places which we percieve as sources of terrorism are places that we have - now or in the past - supported or collaborated with fucked up govts for our own purposes: Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria. The list is long.

I'm wondering when America will own up to the fact that it has contributed greatly to its own problem today. But instead we're fixating on "Osama". No wait, that's so outdated - todays fashionable and futile war chant is "Saddam". And on top of that Bush now wants to breed MORE hate against us. And THIS guy is a Yale graduate? I guess Ivy league education is overrated.

 

[Reel Deal]

Skagen

Originally posted by skagen
So many of these places which we percieve as sources of terrorism are places that we have - now or in the past - supported or collaborated with fucked up govts for our own purposes: Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria. The list is long.

I'm wondering when America will own up to the fact that it has contributed greatly to its own problem today. But instead we're fixating on "Osama". No wait, that's so outdated - todays fashionable and futile war chant is "Saddam". And on top of that Bush now wants to breed MORE hate against us. And THIS guy is a Yale graduate? I guess Ivy league education is overrated.

I don't hear a "Saddam" war chant. I hear "We will not forget 9/11. We hold radical Islam responsible. We hold any who support Radical Islam responsible. Saddam is the 800 lb. gorilla in support of the terrorism wrought by Radical Islam. World, pay attention to the hell-fire about to rain down on Saddam. Picture yourself in his shoes, and act accordingly. You will be next if you f*** with us".

As I have stated before, my preference is to be liked and respected. Absent that (which will never happen with Radical Islam or Communists), I want to be feared. In that case, I want the world to be VERY afraid. But to strike fear into the heart of our enemies, we have to show the resolve and willingness to use whatever violent force we have.

BTW-we aren't the only ones to f*** in the affairs of other countries. You don't think the Soviet Union, through the Communist Party, hasn't f***** with OUR affairs? But HERE we call some of them Senators.

But I DO agree with one thing: an Ivy League is greatly overrated. Bill Clinton had one, too. Hell, most of what I learned that cute Mary Sue Broadnax taught me down by the creek...

 

[skagen]

Re: Skagen

Originally posted by Reel Deal
We hold radical Islam responsible. We hold any who support Radical Islam responsible. Saddam is the 800 lb. gorilla in support of the terrorism wrought by Radical Islam.

Get the facts straight: Saddam is a SECULAR leader and is DISLIKED by Islamic extremists. In case you forgot, he was going to annex the Islamic holy land after he had done Kuwait. They have about as much in common as Pat Robertson does with an aethist.

All this talk about "radical islam" is a) hateful and b) incorrect, considering the major target is not even accepted by that group. If you have a problem with the existence of islam or non-wester values itself , just come out and say it directly.

Saddam is one of the middle eastern dictators that the US used to deal with covertly. So were the Taliban. You can't go around supporting people like that and then turn around later to pretend like you suddenly discovered that they are "the axis of evil". That's some dumb, disingenous shit - not to mention a complete abdication of ones own responsibility for the subsequent problem.

 

[Stecchino]

World, pay attention to the hell-fire about to rain down on Saddam. Picture yourself in his shoes, and act accordingly. You will be next if you f*** with us".

Do people really believe this stupid shit? Don't they realize that the reason we're despised IN THE FIRST FUCKIN PLACE isn't because we let our women wear mini-skirts or whatever stupid shit these assholes in power try to make you think (you STUPID motherfuckers), but we're hated for precisely the type of shit that Bush and his fuckbuddies are attempting to do with Iraq right now. Anyone who thinks that the US going into Iraq (AGAIN) will make "terrorists" think twice about attacking us is one DUMB SOB. It'll only make it more likely that it happens.

And i wish that "country" that's REALLY the one who's worried about Hussein would fight it's own fuckin battle.......what, they haven't had enough of mowing down rock-throwers with their custom-made US tanks yet?

 

[pjorourke]

Originally posted by Stecchino
And i wish that "country" that's REALLY the one who's worried about Hussein would fight it's own fuckin battle.......what, they haven't had enough of mowing down rock-throwers with their custom-made US tanks yet?

I think I'll just step out of the way and watch the explosion.

 

[redleg609]

Hateful

Originally posted by skagen
SNIP....
All this talk about "radical islam" is a) hateful and b) incorrect, considering the major target is not even accepted by that group. If you have a problem with the existence of islam or non-wester values itself , just come out and say it directly. ....SNIP

It may be incorrect, option (b), but I am a little troubled about option (a) "hateful".

Hateful has become a phrase lately is used to shut people up. What makes something hateful these days anyway? Usually, it is the opinion of someone who disagrees with you. Calling something hateful is like calling someone racist. You just apply the label and figure no one can argue back, since it is hard to prove a negative.

There either is or is not such a thing as radical Islam. And if there is, radical Islam either is or is not responsible as asserted by Reel Deal.

Why not just argue for your POV and avoid the this hateful crap. If RD is wrong, it is easy enough to show him for an imcompetent twit without playing the hateful card.

 

[RichardNY]

Re: Hateful

Originally posted by redleg609

What makes something hateful these days anyway? Usually, it is the opinion of someone who disagrees with you. Calling something hateful is like calling someone racist. You just apply the label and figure no one can argue back, since it is hard to prove a negative.

There either is or is not such a thing as radical Islam. And if there is, radical Islam either is or is not responsible as asserted by Reel Deal.

I believe the term as used by RD is hateful, in that it simplifies and distorts groups in Islam, leading to prejudice, negative attitudes, and possible discrimination against numerous practitioners of radical Islam. I'm not even sure what he means by radical Islam. Does that refer to any Muslim that is devout? Does it refer only to fundamentalists within Islam? Or does the term refer to those who advocate terrorism as a means of advancing Islam. Those are three different groups that could be included in the radical Islam term. There may be more - I am no expert on Islam.

Unfortunately, our administration is engaging in much sloppy thought, and it seems to be dribbling down into sloppy thinking in the citizenry....or maybe it is the other way around.

 

[pjorourke]

Re: Re: Hateful

Originally posted by RichardNY
Unfortunately, our administration is engaging in much sloppy thought, and it seems to be dribbling down into sloppy thinking in the citizenry....or maybe it is the other way around.

I know RD and can attest to the fact that he often dribbles.

 

[redleg609]

Re: Re: Hateful

Originally posted by RichardNY
SNIP....

Unfortunately, our administration is engaging in much sloppy thought, and it seems to be dribbling down into sloppy thinking in the citizenry....or maybe it is the other way around.

Sloppy thought is now hateful? I would argue that sloppy thought is due to ignorance, lack of training in critical thinking, or lazyness.

In your reply you say

I believe the term as used by RD is hateful, in that it simplifies and distorts groups in Islam, leading to prejudice, negative attitudes, and possible discrimination against numerous practitioners of radical Islam.

OK, distorting is a bad thing. Simplifing may not be. I am not sure that what you say about prejudice, etc necessarily follows but it could. However, i just see that as bald assertion with no proof in this case.

But then you say.

I'm not even sure what he means by radical Islam. Does that refer to any Muslim that is devout? Does it refer only to fundamentalists within Islam? Or does the term refer to those who advocate terrorism as a means of advancing Islam. Those are three different groups that could be included in the radical Islam term.

Oh, wait a minute, not sure want he means! Are the three groups you menton an exhaustive list. Is Radical Islam a standard term used by official or quasi - official, eg news orgs, groups? (I did a search for "Radical Islam" in Google. I don't know how many pages of results there are because, after 55, I stopped counting.) If you don't know what it means, shouldn't you find out?

And conclude

There may be more - I am no expert on Islam.

If you BOTH don't know what RD means AND are no expert on Islam, why don't you ask RD for more detail? That could go a long way to leading to rational discourse. You could point out where he is incorrect, if you learn more about Islam. And perhaps, you could learn something as well.

OTH, he may be right. I don't know.

Dropping a label is easy and the lazy persons way to argue. If you want to make a point, you must do the work.

 

[Reel Deal]

Re: Re: Re: Hateful

Originally posted by pjorourke


I know RD and can attest to the fact that he often dribbles.

But isn't that what your shirtsleeve is for? Or my Sunday-best tie?

Chawin' Terbacky be like that...plus it keeps the bugs off'n the crickets.

 

[Slinky Bender]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hateful

Originally posted by Reel Deal


But isn't that what your shirtsleeve is for? Or my Sunday-best tie?

I know you're kidding, but I think the answer is that they were both actually originally used for that purpose.

 

[Reel Deal]

Gentlemen-

I consider my words to be "hateful" only to the extent that I DO, in fact, hate anyone would kill 3,000 innocents without provocation. Or the people who danced in the streets rejoicing in the tragedy that befell the families, friends, and colleagues of those innocents. Those are the ones I would put in the "Radical Islam" box.

Anyone who would conceive of such an act I DO hate. Anyone who actually performs acts of terrorism against innocent people I DO hate.

I hate the Fundamental Christian terrorists who bomb abortion clinics.

I hate the Soviet Communists who sentenced dissidents to the Siberian Gulags because of their “mental health”.

I hate the narco-terrorists who kidnap opponents for ransom, and pollute our shore with their poison.

I hate the African tribesmen who mutilate their women and children in an effort to stifle their opposition to their oppression.

So I plead guilty to "hate". I suppose I have a lot of it. I DO, in fact have ”prejudice, negative attitudes, and possible discrimination” against all the above. And there may be more.

But I do NOT the local Islam leader who led a peace march. Nor do I hate any Muslim who does not abide by the type of venom spewed by the Al Quaida and Taliban group.

But more fundamentally, I find that liberals use the term ”hate” to intimidate, and try to control thought. Hate can be a good thing. Do you think it was “love” that defeated the Nazis or Japanese in WWII? Nope-it was hate, good weapons, and men and women driven by love of their country that literally saved the world from REAL hate.

Yes, I am simple minded. All that schooling (and those lessons down by the creek which were MUCH more fun) didn’t do a damn thing for me. I guess I’m destined for a life of sloppy thinking and dribbling…