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

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

Ruatha

July 25th, 2003, 06:02 PM

Reading some Posts here about Australia becoming the next US state, and some other threads about other topics about other issues I started thinking.
Turkey really want to enter the EU but still hasn't qualified.
A lot of the former east states in central europe has qualified and will soon become members.
But the US wouldn't qualify neither by the economical criteria nor the human right criterias.

What are the thoughts on this from you US fellows, are we Europeans squemish about human rights? (I don't think so), aren't you worried about your federal budget defeceit?

[ July 26, 2003, 08:35: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Loser

July 25th, 2003, 06:07 PM

What are the details of exactly how we won't qualify?

Please detail both the requirements and how we don't meet them. Or link (http://www.homestarrunner.com/pop_tire.html) to something (http://www.something.com).

I know about the capital punishment thing and no, I don't think you all are squeamish. Having heard of French and Italian prisons I just think you lack follow-through. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 25, 2003, 17:08: Message edited by: Loser ]

General Woundwort

July 25th, 2003, 06:21 PM

An American commentator was in Bratislava July 3, giving a speech to the Hayek Foundation (http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak072303.asp). His speech was interesting in that it layed out the cultural and societal differences between Europe and the US today (http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak072403.asp), along with the similarities (http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak072503.asp). The differences go a long way toward demonstrating why a close US-EU relationship (to say nothing of union) would probably not work...

EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro

July 25th, 2003, 06:49 PM

I really wouldn't mind being a member of the E.U. If it means maintaining a higher standard of living and less seperation between the rich and poor, well sure! The E.U. isn't squeamish on human rights issues, It's just that you don't do anything about them when human rights are being violated. The Europeans whine about the conditions at camp X-Ray, but turn a blind eye to Mozambique, Croatia, Solomons, E. Timor, Kosovo (initially), They wine about air strikes in Iraq but everyday Russia bombs the hell out of Chechnya. Heaven forbid the Europeans should criticize Russia!
I really would like to see the Europeans taking more of an active role in the world and intervening in the worlds hot spots instead of letting the U.S. do it and gripe about it afterward.
Oh gawd was that a rant? sorry! Did I go O.T.? Hey I really am for this one world government thing, even if it does sound kinda scary.

General Woundwort

July 25th, 2003, 07:01 PM

Hmmm... well, maybe we could arrange for just Oregon to join the EU. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Would they take California too? Nah, that's too much to wish for. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro

July 25th, 2003, 07:08 PM

Actually Northern California?....Sure! Welkome Komrades!

Jack Simth

July 25th, 2003, 07:35 PM

I suspect it's Southern California he wants to get rid of.

geoschmo

July 25th, 2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
What are the details of exactly how we won't qualify?

Please detail both the requirements and how we don't meet them. Ok, well... quick look at a map of Europe... Nope, I don't see the US on here anywhere. So that alone probably disqualifies us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

As far as Turkey goes, I guess it was considered because it was at least close to Europe Geographically.

Geoschmo

Ruatha

July 25th, 2003, 08:00 PM

Maastrich economic criteria (http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1848/eu.html)

Copenhagen criteria for new members. (http://www.yenicag-net.com/kitap/belgeler/copenhagen_criteria.htm)

more specifics (Entire treaties can be found here) (http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm)

About human rights issues (Amsterdam treaty) (http://ue.eu.int/pesc/human_rights/en/99/main3.htm)

More about human rights and the EU (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/human_rights/doc/com01_252_en.pdf)

I don't have any statistics showing the percantage of US budget defecit so I can't be sure about it, but a quick opinion based upon scarse facts and much rumours and emotions makes me belive that the US don't meet many critera, am I worng? Perhaps...

And I do belive that Geo has a point there.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ July 25, 2003, 19:03: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Thermodyne

July 25th, 2003, 08:09 PM

Why would the US want to join the EU? The few products we supply to the EU will be exempted anyway. And the bulk of our exports are NATO contract items. I see the US backing away from the EU. We will reduce our roll in NATO, and shift the cost of defending Europe back to the EU, where it belongs. And let�s not forget that Europe has a long history of letting Nationalism take control of their leadership. With the two big boys removed from the picture, Europe will probably pick up where they left off prior to WW II.

As to the deficit, with 1% loans, we finance it long term and pay it off as the economy recovers. If you guys remember your basic US government classes, the government is expected to run deficits during times of recession, repaying the debt during time of economic growth. The two flaws in today�s deficit are the lack of bond funding of the war, and the lack of job creation in the recovery. The lack of job creation can be laid right at the feet of overseas job outsourcing. And this will most likely become a political issue for the upcoming elections. I look for outsourcing overseas to become a liability for the corporations involved with it. There is already a movement to back away from free trade and a return to status quo arraignments. Canada has already begun to feel the sting from this. There is quite a lot of talk about applying stiff tariffs to imports that originate from overseas companies that receive direct funding from their governments.

[ July 25, 2003, 19:10: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Arkcon

July 25th, 2003, 08:25 PM

I don't want to get started on a rant here. (Or maybe I do, stay tuned kids). But I do think Geo's got it all sewn up -- geography/cultural norms, etc. preclude a tight organization.

What is the point of the EU? As I understand it, a major reason was to normalize tariffs and strengthen economic power by presenting a unified economic policy across the countries and that's a worthwhile goal.

But how could the US join in that regard? If it did who's currency would the Euro trade against so it can grow?

I think the US still conducts trade with Europe. And Russia, China, and African and Middle Eastern nations. How close do you have to be to be optimal. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[ July 25, 2003, 19:27: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Ed Kolis

July 25th, 2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Ok, well... quick look at a map of Europe... Nope, I don't see the US on here anywhere. So that alone probably disqualifies us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
[/QB]Didn't Poland join NATO a few years ago? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

geoschmo

July 25th, 2003, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Didn't Poland join NATO a few years ago? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif True, but technically the Baltic could be considered a branch of the North Atlantic. And for that matter West Germany and then Germany after reunification has always been a part of Nato and it's right next door to Poland. So it's not as much of a stretch as calling the US part of Europe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geoschmo

oleg

July 25th, 2003, 08:50 PM

Unless I'm missing something some people think Europe ends on the est Germany border and including Baltic States into EU is as bizzare as US http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Just for reference: Europe goes up to Ural http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Edit: Oh, yes, I see - it was about Atlantic Ocean http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 25, 2003, 19:51: Message edited by: oleg ]

Phoenix-D

July 25th, 2003, 08:54 PM

"There is quite a lot of talk about applying stiff tariffs to imports that originate from overseas companies that receive direct funding from their governments."

Which is only fair. Free trade also implies -fair- trade.

Thermodyne

July 25th, 2003, 08:55 PM

IIR, The western parts of old Russia were considered part of Europe. When the USSR came on the scene, the demarcation began to move west. Then with almost fifty years of the iron curtain, it became the norm to partition the area based on form of government.

PS: Yep I just looked up Europe in a 1929 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. And I quote:

�Europe within the narrowest of physical limits (to the crest of the Urals and the Manych depression and the Caspian Sea,----)�.

About a 1000 words on the boundaries, but I�m not going to type them all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

oleg

July 25th, 2003, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
IIR, The western parts of old Russia were considered part of Europe. When the USSR came on the scene, the demarcation began to move west. Then with almost fifty years of the iron curtain, it became the norm to partition the area based on form of government.

PS: Yep I just looked up Europe in a 1929 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. And I quote:

�Europe within the narrowest of physical limits (to the crest of the Urals and the Manych depression and the Caspian Sea,----)�.

About a 1000 words on the boundaries, but I�m not going to type them all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Then how about such common terms as Western Europe, Central Europe and Easter Europe http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
And how did you guys called for example Bulgaria before 1990 ? Asia ?

[ July 25, 2003, 20:01: Message edited by: oleg ]

Thermodyne

July 25th, 2003, 09:06 PM

LOL, those of us who grew up as Americans during the cold war were taught that Bulgaria was deep in the dark evil heart of the communist block. We saw them as munitions suppliers of the Viet Cong. So to be politically correct, we couldn�t include them in the same geographical location as our European allies. Hence, the political partitioning of Europe.

[ July 25, 2003, 20:07: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Thermodyne

July 25th, 2003, 09:30 PM

As I look at the EU, I see it being a smaller Version of the world economic situation. There are the have�s in the west, and the have not�s in the east. There is the old established guard in the west and the re-emerging states in the east. There is religious hatred, racial tension and rampant socialism. (I am getting a feeling of dajavoux here.) There are two economic powerhouses and a few nations that are ripe for the exploitation of cheap labor. As the economic power of the EU grows, Asia and the Americas will move to protect themselves, and this will cause the members of the EU to look inward for markets. The two powers will again be in direct competition with each other. Only this time they will be propping up a common currency. (Now I really have a feeling of dajavoux.) How will the two powers handle this situation as it evolves? Germany will rearm, it will be required that they contribute to keeping the peace in the southeast regions. And they will fear a rearmed Poland, even though they won�t say so publicly. France has already demonstrated that they reject the idea that they are not a superpower, and are actively rearming. Perhaps we are genetically meant to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Note:

France has begun to very quietly modernize its nuclear forces. If I were a German that remembers that Last war, I would be calling for a deterrent force for Germany. Remember that it was France that declared war on the Germans. And many Germans still believe that their government was only interested in righting the wrongs of Versailles [sp] and barring the gates to communism.

Ruatha

July 25th, 2003, 09:31 PM

The issue of this thread is not that if US WANT to or CAN join the EU, the issue was that the US don't even fulfill the basic criterias.
Mostly that which also has hindered Turkey from joining; the death penalty.
But propably also some minority group issues and some economic issues.

That which Thermo says about Germans and French relations propably exists most in his mind and not in reality, the tensions now are mostly between Italy and Germany, tensions spanning from the end of WW2 and the war between them (After Germany occupied nort italy and instituted Mussolini again as a puppet).
Relations between Germany and France has propably never been better, and I do not belive any Germans feel threatened by Poland.
There are no reasonable possibilities of war inside the current EU for atleast 10-30 years, it might change if Turkey and/or the turkish part of Cyprus gets accepted into the EU, and some of the balkan countries including Serbia want's in.
The Coal and Steel union (EU) never existed prior to WW2 and I think that it is a good way to defuse any potential inflammations in Europe.

Germany are not required to keep peace in the south-east regions, there is no current large EU military force, there might be in the far future, but now we have only a small fast reaction force.
Most military cooperation is carried out in NATO and PFP, security issues are mostly handled in Europe by the OSSE, which is an organisation outside of EU.
The south border is guarded by the nations that have those borders.
Germany needs it money for other things right now.

And EU doesn't consist of two powers, there are alot of countries, including the powerful UK, so far all countries including our small Sweden has equal say in all issues, that might change in the future though.
Svensk f�rsvarutredning (http://www.forsvarsberedningen.gov.se/debattserien/pdf/forandring.pdf)

[ July 25, 2003, 20:51: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

tesco samoa

July 25th, 2003, 09:46 PM

Thermo....

France and Britain delivered an ultimatum to Germany on the 1st of Sept to withdraw forces from Poland

On the 3rd they declared war when this ultimatum was not met.

This is quite well known.

Loser

July 25th, 2003, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
... the US don't even fulfill the basic criterias.
Mostly ... the death penalty.
But propably also some minority group issues...I just have to ask. What, exactly are you talking about when you say "minority group issues"?

Please go into as much detail as you possibly can, as there is some chance for an anxious person to take offense to this and I am confident that you did not mean this in that sort of way.

Slynky

July 25th, 2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:

What are the thoughts on this from you US fellows, are we Europeans squemish about human rights? (I don't think so), aren't you worried about your federal budget defeceit?Death penalty? I'm certainly not worried about it. Of course, I believe in spanking children. To me, spanking children is the "junior" Version of the death penalty. Far as I'm concerned, there's a place and time for both. So, if getting rid of the death penalty, for example, helps us gain membership, to heck with it.

Deficit? Yeah, I don't like it. But you have to understand, this country runs on the premise that everyone needs to be in debt (spending all their money on crap they don't need so that corporations can make their dollars so that they can donate it to get "their" politicians elected/re-elected so that laws can be passed that benefit the corporations and allow them to make even more profit) and therefore, why not the government as well. Lead by example is what I say! After all, the money at the disposal of the US (and local) governments is there to be used to make sure favors are dispersed to the correct people (and a few dollars returning under the table) so that politicians can "invest" in getting re-elected and keeping the cycle going.

There are lots of "cycles", "vicious circles", and "scratch my back and I'll scratch your back" practices that have been going on for many many years. Just to darn bad the "lessor gods" don't understand there is an end to it coming. After all, we can't do ALL the US manufacturing outside the borders, all the IT support and design outside the borders, buy most of our energy outside the borders, have trade agreements with countries that continually favor the other countries, etc.

So, you see, those coffers you speak of are there for the legitimate looting of by the elected politicians. (of course, as long as a few bones are thrown to the "sheep" once in a while, it's OK http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

[ July 25, 2003, 21:01: Message edited by: Slynky ]

Ruatha

July 25th, 2003, 10:14 PM

About minority Groups I have no facts, just observations from my travel there as to how a lot of the native americans, asians, hispanics and afroamericans are treated, and how much of that bad treatment is allowed and systemized, I don't say that there is no racism here in Europe, far from it, but there is more struggle against it from goverments I belive. (Don't really know much about the current US govt's struggle against it though!)

I was just wondering, how big is the current defecit in the US budget right now.
I now that it's big but so is the entire US budget, so in percantage it mightn't be that big.
3% is allowed in the EMU.

Spanking children????
Do you spank your grown up friends? Why not? Becourse they can fight back??
I've never been hit by my parents, I've never hit my kids and never will.
As it is Banned to physicly harm your kids (spanking) here in Sweden, spanking isn't very common, the rate of violent injuries and deaths among children has also decreased since that law was made in 1979. And compared to countries where spanking is allowed the violence against kids (death by violence) is far lower in countries where it is Banned.
Hitting your child means you've failed as an adult, you propably feel powerless and can't find any other way, it can't possibly be for the best of the child, saying that is really sick!

[ July 25, 2003, 21:40: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

StormcloudCreations

July 25th, 2003, 10:39 PM

Ruatha

July 25th, 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by StormcloudCreations:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ruatha:
I was just wondering, how big is the current defecit in the US budget right now.
I now that it's big but so is the entire US budget, so in percantage it mightn't be that big.
3% is allowed in the EMU.I think (reading somewhere) that the deficit went over the $1 TRILLION dollar mark awhile back. That's a lot of money. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

The US state of California alone is about $30+ billion in the hole, and the inept, spend-happy governor (Gray Davis) is about to get the axe for it soon in a recall election.<hr /></blockquote>Yep, alot of money. But so is the US budget aswell, Do you now any % number?

(BTW, this thread is started only becourse I haven't gotten any PBW turn tonight!)

[ July 25, 2003, 22:11: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

spoon

July 25th, 2003, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:

What are the thoughts on this from you US fellowsThey're just afraid that if we sign a Trade & Research Treaty with them, we'll just use it to bypass their minefields.

Krsqk

July 25th, 2003, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by StormcloudCreations:
I think (reading somewhere) that the deficit went over the $1 TRILLION dollar mark awhile back. That's a lot of money. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Actually, the total debt is ~$1 trillion (or a billion for you EU types http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). The deficit (overspending for a given year) is much, much less than that. Although, I doubt if that's due to any good sense of Congress.

Ruatha

July 25th, 2003, 11:10 PM

About spanking:
In 1992 Accidental deaths in US was 13.3 in 100 000 and in sweden 5.

In 1965, half of the Swedish population believed that physical punishment is necessary in childrearing, only 6% of Swedes born since that time support its use today (SIFO, 1981; SCB, 1996). The implications of such a societal shift for reducing child physical abuse may be revealed in the following statistic: between 1975 and 1996, only four children died in Sweden from the effects of physical abuse

----------------------------------------------
"Haeuser points out that an interesting change in Swedish childrearing has occurred since passage of the 1979 law. By 1988, the picture had changed markedly. Child guidance professionals were admitting that permissive childrearing was a failed experiment, and parent educators were telling parents to "dare to be parents." She saw parents setting limits and disciplining their children - partly because the professionals were now giving this sort of advice, partly because the sociopolitical climate had become more conservative, and partly because the 1979 law had forced parents to think about childrearing options.

Swedish parents now discipline their children; and in doing so, they rely on a variety of alternatives to physical punishment. The method most commonly used is verbal conflict resolution, which invites parents as well as children to express their anger in words. Haeuser, whose Last study was more than a decade ago, concludes that the law appears to be effective and has demonstrated that it is indeed possible to bring up children without smacking and spanking."

-----------------------------------

In an article entitled, Spanking of Children Much Less Common, on the Statistics Sweden website, Sanden and Lundgren conclude that a clear majority of the Swedish people are against all forms of physical punishment of children. Of pupils born abroad coming to Sweden after 1990, 21 per cent have been subjected to occasional physical punishment in comparison to four per cent of all children born in Sweden. This information was taken from two surveys commissioned by the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs in the Spring of 1994 and 1995 and which were carried out by Statistics Sweden.

http://www.nospank.net/durrant.htm

[ July 25, 2003, 22:16: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Slynky

July 25th, 2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Spanking children????
Do you spank your grown up friends? Why not? Becourse they can fight back??
I've never been hit by my parents, I've never hit my kids and never will.
As it is Banned to physicly harm your kids (spanking) here in Sweden, spanking isn't very common, the rate of violent injuries and deaths among children has also decreased since that law was made in 1979. And compared to countries where spanking is allowed the violence against kids (death by violence) is far lower in countries where it is Banned.
Hitting your child means you've failed as an adult, you propably feel powerless and can't find any other way, it can't possibly be for the best of the child, saying that is really sick!Well, it's not particularly allowed in the US. I say particularly because I'm not really sure what's allowed. I'm pretty sure you can slap a hand when a toddler reaches for candy at the store. And slap it again (and say NO") when the child reaches for it again. I also think one can swat a child on the butt/fanny. But, I'm pretty sure the belt and paddle and such or "out the door". So, for the most part, it's not really allowed here.

Now, from a guy without credentials in all this sort of stuff, all I can say is that even with these types of laws and rules, the US still has a shameful amount of infant deaths due to physical abuse. My opinion is that, regardless of the laws, idiots and *******s will physically harm their children. And, if spanking were allowed, responsible parents would deal that type of punishment out in an organized manner without any harm to the child other than some stinging.

Now, we don't spank our kids any more. We stopped when they were able to understand enough english to know that what they did was wrong and "this" is what their punishment is/was (around 2-3 years old). But, considering what I see around me, read in the papers, see on TV, hear on the radio, our youth, which receives much less corporal punishment than it did 40 years ago, is much more violent, much more likely to kill parents, schoolmates, and complete strangers. (of course, this Last statement, I feel, isn't just due to lack of any painful and corrective spankings while growing up, it's due to MANY other factors, worthy of its own thread).

I was spanked when I was very bad growing up. I think I deserved it. I didn't leave my parents with much choice. So, am I "screwed up" because of it? I doubt it.

Ruatha

July 25th, 2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:

I was spanked when I was very bad growing up. I think I deserved it. I didn't leave my parents with much choice. So, am I "screwed up" because of it? I doubt it.I don't belive you become screwed up from being spanked, but how did it feel?
Why would you subject your kids to that feeling?

Has juvenile violence really increased? Propably not very much; (US links)
http://home.earthlink.net/~mmales/chap-2.htm

http://accuracy.org/press_releases/PR051099.htm

[ July 25, 2003, 22:26: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Ruatha

July 25th, 2003, 11:27 PM

Now that I have stirred up a discussion I can go to bed, see ya all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Phoenix-D

July 25th, 2003, 11:43 PM

"In 1992 Accidental deaths in US was 13.3 in 100 000 and in sweden 5."

Population of Sweden: 8 million
Population of the US: 287 million.

Thanks for bringing that little difference up too. It makes you so much more persuasive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Thermodyne

July 25th, 2003, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Thermo....

France and Britain delivered an ultimatum to Germany on the 1st of Sept to withdraw forces from Poland

On the 3rd they declared war when this ultimatum was not met.

This is quite well known.So, who started the war in the west? Had France and England let Poland go would Germany have turned west in 39 or 40? I think they would have kept going east. War would have come, but France and England would have had two years to prepare.

Thermodyne

July 26th, 2003, 12:07 AM

In 1992 Accidental deaths in US was 13.3 in 100 000 and in Sweden 5.I think we need to remove death by motor vehicle from both sides of the equation. No place in the world has the miles traveled by car percapita as the US. And no one has the number of basically dangerous recreational vehicles that we do. Often the figure for death by firearm is quoted as an indication of the state of our society. But its just a big number to people that are not used to thinking that large. In 1999, more people died from car accidents on one weekend than were killed by firearms for the whole year. And if we gave the same percentage of overpowered motor vehicles to the young people of Sweden, the death rate would soar. Add to that the legal protection that our constitution gives to drunk drivers and substance abUsers, and the number would rise again.

In Sweden, if I got drunk and killed someone in a car accident, what would happen to me as a first offense? Would I get my license back? Would I go to jail? What if I didn�t hurt anyone just wrecked my car? What would the penalty for that be?

In America we do put people to death for high crimes and attacks of an exceptionally violent nature. But on the other side of the coin, we let a lot of people off very lightly. And the vast majority of convicts on death row are repeat offenders.

Pax

July 26th, 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Hitting your child means you've failed as an adult, you propably feel powerless and can't find any other way, it can't possibly be for the best of the child, saying that is really sick!While spanking or other forms of "get physical" discipline should always be a Last resort, trust me when I tell you that there ae some children who will never respond to anythign less.

And not all spanking even causes DISCOMFORT; a quick swat on a well-padded-by-a-diaper bottom doesn't do much except guarantee you have that particular unruly smallfry's attention, but good.

Generally, nonphysical forms of discipline and behavior-reinforcement are far and above the preferable approaches; one good one (that grows MORE effective as the child hits adolescence, up to about 16 or 17) is the age-old, tried-and-true "go sit/stand in that corner for X minutes" ... believe me, it's highly effective. To the very young, 5 minutes is a literal eternity. To young adolescents, sitting in the corner for ONE minute is humiliatingly embarrassing. Either way, the point is made: do something inappropriate, suffer something unpleasant as a consequence.

But again ... some children and youths simply will not respond to anything less than some physical discomfort -- including spankings. So, as a Last resort is, IMO, acceptible, so long as "Last resort" means "all else has been tried, and has completely failed."

And at any rate, it should never be done while the disciplining adult is angry.

And with that said: yes, I would put a fellow adult over my knee and tan their backside, given three things: (a) the authority and jurisdiction, (b) sufficient cause, and (c) the exhaustion of alternate remedies or solutions.

And those three things are the case regardless of age: authority and sufficient cause combined with having exhausted alternate means of resolving the issue.

Ruatha

July 26th, 2003, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"In 1992 Accidental deaths in US was 13.3 in 100 000 and in sweden 5."

Population of Sweden: 8 million
Population of the US: 287 million.

Thanks for bringing that little difference up too. It makes you so much more persuasive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif 13.3 in 100 000 and 5 in 100 000 means that the total population plays no part whatsoever.
Thanks for understanding that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ July 25, 2003, 23:39: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Thermodyne

July 26th, 2003, 12:33 AM

U.S. budget deficit put at $455 billion. This from an article published on the 16th. Income is down and expected to top out at 1.8 trillion. But, if the upturn continues, this is expected to rise to 2.6 trillion after the 4th quarter returns. It�s bad, but it has been worse in the past. You can bet that higher taxes will return, and cuts to services will be around the bend. It cost money to play war games for real.

A note on state budgets, many of the short falls were caused by the over-reliance on investment income. And many of the states hardest hit had spent this year�s money covering Last years bills, as they had done the prior three years. Paying Last years bills the day the new physical year starts does this. Sitting governors are often reluctant to force cuts; this is left until after the election. But by then the cycle is out of control. When you take this type of accounting and toss in a market that plummets, you have a disaster. There are a few states that chose to maintain their bond Ratings at the expense of the budget. My state is one of them. When the reserve fund value dropped off the chart, it was all in stocks and securities, general funds were added to maintain the value. This caused a tremendous hit on the budget. As did the return to physical accounting. We had a one party system here; the other party held only a few seats in the legislature. And as always happens, there was no one to say NO! So we spent away a fortune in tobacco money just because it was there. Problem is that now that it�s gone no one can seem to remember what we got for it.

Ruatha

July 26th, 2003, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> In 1992 Accidental deaths in US was 13.3 in 100 000 and in Sweden 5.I think we need to remove death by motor vehicle from both sides of the equation. No place in the world has the miles traveled by car percapita as the US. And no one has the number of basically dangerous recreational vehicles that we do. Often the figure for death by firearm is quoted as an indication of the state of our society. But its just a big number to people that are not used to thinking that large. In 1999, more people died from car accidents on one weekend than were killed by firearms for the whole year. And if we gave the same percentage of overpowered motor vehicles to the young people of Sweden, the death rate would soar. Add to that the legal protection that our constitution gives to drunk drivers and substance abUsers, and the number would rise again.

In Sweden, if I got drunk and killed someone in a car accident, what would happen to me as a first offense? Would I get my license back? Would I go to jail? What if I didn�t hurt anyone just wrecked my car? What would the penalty for that be?

In America we do put people to death for high crimes and attacks of an exceptionally violent nature. But on the other side of the coin, we let a lot of people off very lightly. And the vast majority of convicts on death row are repeat offenders.<hr /></blockquote>Killing someone while driving drunk will put you in prison for a couple of years, not sure how many, I'd guess 0.5-6 years depending on circumstances (prior history etc)

When taking the license become more expansive a couple of years ago the traffic deaths decreased alot, now I'd guess it costs approx 1-200 dollars if you take it through a driving school, you can do it cheaper by having a parent or friend as driving instructor, but those who do seldom pass on the first attempt.

Now I'm really off to bed so if Phoenix-D still don't understand statistics I'll have to explain it better tomorrow http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ July 25, 2003, 23:40: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

DeadZone

July 26th, 2003, 12:39 AM

Well, I can say this, most Brits hate the fact that we are apart of the EU because of how they have decided to screw up our justice system, need I say more?

Ruatha

July 26th, 2003, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by DeadZone:
Well, I can say this, most Brits hate the fact that we are apart of the EU because of how they have decided to screw up our justice system, need I say more?What do you mean ? (Will read the answer tomorrow)
Our justice system hasn't changed very much since joining EU (I voted against joining though)

Slynky

July 26th, 2003, 12:46 AM

Tks Pax (how much do I owe you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) (J/K)

Sometimes, I think 2 or 3 swats on the butt (and 5 minutes of crying and injured feelings) would be more acceptable than some of the punishments that were dealt out in this household. Our 8-year old (really, too old to spank) stole/took some Pokemon cards from a playmate. When I found out, I hit the roof. Stealing is abhorent to me. So, she had 2 weeks restriction to the house, no TV, no PC, no Gameboy, no Nintendo, no phonecalls...you get the idea. She thought it was a living hell.

But, all I can add to what Pax has said is that when administered under calm conditions, and it is over, you hold the child and talk to him/er. The Last time I spanked her was when she was about 4 or 5. When it was over, and I was back in our bedroom, I cried.

But, I have seen parents yank their children by the arm (several possibilities for injury), slap them in the face (more possibilities), and throw them into the back seat of their car (in a parking lot). That's wrong.

As to my comparison with the death penalty? I just think some people don't belong in society. Usually, they've proved it several times over. For all the bleeding hearts out there, how would you feel if a person had been declared rehabilitated from raping, murdering, and dancing in the blood of an 8-year-old girl as a culmination to many other "black marks" on their history moving into the apartment/house beside you? I guess that's just fine with you. Not with me. I don't believe in hanging them, chopping off their head, electrocution, or gas. Just insert the needle and put them to sleep, permanently.

Fyron

July 26th, 2003, 12:48 AM

When taking the license become more expansive a couple of years ago the traffic deaths decreased alot, now I'd guess it costs approx 1-200 dollars if you take it through a driving school, you can do it cheaper by having a parent or friend as driving instructor, but those who do seldom pass on the first attempt.
It generally costs a lot more than that around here...

Pax

July 26th, 2003, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Tks Pax (how much do I owe you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) (J/K)The usual amount, sent to the usual address, of course.

...

Wait ... did I say that out loud? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif hehehe.

But, I have seen parents yank their children by the arm (several possibilities for injury), slap them in the face (more possibilities), and throw them into the back seat of their car (in a parking lot). That's wrong.Yes, it is. OTOH, it is equally wrong for the parents to ignore the child's inappropriate behavior -- which is what many parents do when in public places: nothing. Oh, they may ground the kid when they get home, or deny them TV privileges, or whatever.

But in the meantime, the brat is screaming loud enough that I am getting a splitting headache, and am no longer enjoying the meal I've paid for, the movie I bought tickets for, etc, etc, etc. And yes -- been there, done that, watched the establishment's management wring their hands impotently when complained-to.

There's something to be said for nonphysical discipline. However, there's nothing good that can be said about no discipline.

As to my comparison with the death penalty? I just think some people don't belong in society. Usually, they've proved it several times over. For all the bleeding hearts out there, how would you feel if a person had been declared rehabilitated from raping, murdering, and dancing in the blood of an 8-year-old girl as a culmination to many other "black marks" on their history moving into the apartment/house beside you? I guess that's just fine with you. Not with me. I don't believe in hanging them, chopping off their head, electrocution, or gas. Just insert the needle and put them to sleep, permanently.I've got my own ideas for an effective penal system.

Step one: no more plea bargains that change the actual charge; cooperating in solving other crimes may pass for mitigating circumstances when it comes to sentencing, but X crime is always X crime, not Y and/or Z lesser crimes if you play nicey-nice after the fact.

Step two: if you are convicted, serve your time, and re-offend, the sentence for your second offense is automatically extended by the entire term of ALL prior sentences; you pay any FINES over again, you do any TIME over again, etc. Obviously you didn't learn your lesson the first time around, so, you should try again from the beginning.

Step three: institute a sort of "three strikes" program. Assign comparative-weight point values to various crimes (or ranges thereof, to account for differences in which acts constitute X criminal act(s)). Pick a good, solid point total and draw a line.

Anyone who accumulates that many (or more) points, is faced with a choice: you have 48 hours to leave the country forever, or, choose to have your life terminated in a humane fashion, chosen by you form a list of approved methods. (inability to find a nation willing to accept you is your problem).

Step four: ditch the majority of privileges in prisons. This doesn't have to be cruel; you can keep TV available ... in a single TV room per block of cells, with access only to news and educational programming.

Eliminate this "no convict labor" nonsense; make the convicts do some form of work ... the army needs uniforms? Fine, build the right facility onto the prison, and have a company come in and manage the process. No competition with the private sector (youw on't be making Levis in there, just stuff for government consumption). Similar could be done for basic tools, stationary/letterhead for government offices, and so on. Pay participating convicts a (very) small stipend, set up a commissary in the prison, and if they want cigaretts or a candy bar or whatever, they can pay it out of their salary. No job, no money; no money, no luxuries.

Get in a fight and break something, get billed for it -- no luxuries until the bill is paid, 'cause the whole stipend goes towards that cost.

...

Would it be perfect? Heck, no. But it'd be somethign we haven't TRIED yet, withotu being (IMO) inhumane or needlessly cruel.

Pax

July 26th, 2003, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> When taking the license become more expansive a couple of years ago the traffic deaths decreased alot, now I'd guess it costs approx 1-200 dollars if you take it through a driving school, you can do it cheaper by having a parent or friend as driving instructor, but those who do seldom pass on the first attempt.
It generally costs a lot more than that around here...<hr /></blockquote>Jeeze; it cost more than that HERE, back when I was a kid. Let's see, when I was 18, IIRC each lesson cost around $40US, and you had to take 6-12 lessons before you got your drivers' ed. certificate ...

... at which point you still had to get yoru actual liscense, which was yet more money (not to mention having to get a learner's permit before you could take those lessons in the first place). And the expense of providing a vehicle for your test (most driving schools would provide one of theirs, for about the cost of one lesson).

All told, it could cost from about $300US to almost $600US to get a license ... and that was nearly fifteen years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if it was $80-$100 per lesson now ... not in the slightest. That'd mean double those total amounts, mind.

geoschmo

July 26th, 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
So, who started the war in the west? Had France and England let Poland go would Germany have turned west in 39 or 40? I think they would have kept going east. War would have come, but France and England would have had two years to prepare.I don't think that would have been a good thing Thermo. They would have had two more years to for the appeasement factions within their governments to take hold as well. In the end they likely would have been no more ready for war, and possibly less so. Having to fight on two fronts was a major factor in Germany not being able to defeat either Russia or England. Being able to deal with those fights seperatly would have likely allowed them to defeat both. Russia would have been unable to hold them off without allied distraction in the west and direct aid. France and the rest of continental Europe would have fallen. And even if Germany still wasn't able to ultimatly defeat England because of the Channel, the RAF and US assistance, Germany not having to fight Russia would have made the allied liberation of Europe difficult if not impossible.

The world would have been a very different place if England and France had not had the courage to draw that line in the sand. So say they started the war if you want, but thank God they did.

Geoscmo

[ July 26, 2003, 00:25: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Fyron

July 26th, 2003, 01:26 AM

Germany only had to fight on two fronts because they attacked the Russians long before it was wise to do so. If they had kept their non-aggression treaty with them, they would have been able to overwhelm England, and then it would have been really, really difficult for the US to have a chance of helping out and finally defeating them.

oleg

July 26th, 2003, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Germany only had to fight on two fronts because they attacked the Russians long before it was wise to do so. If they had kept their non-aggression treaty with them, they would have been able to overwhelm England, and then it would have been really, really difficult for the US to have a chance of helping out and finally defeating them.I tend to agree with you, Hitler made a fundamental mistake here. However, Red Army was at its lowest readiness in 41. It did not recover from purges of 37-38 and was in the middle of reconstruction of the material base. For example, there were only 150 T-34 in service - only 3 months of large scale production. If Germany postpone the attack till summer of 42, there will be 1500 or even more.

geoschmo

July 26th, 2003, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Germany only had to fight on two fronts because they attacked the Russians long before it was wise to do so. If they had kept their non-aggression treaty with them, they would have been able to overwhelm England, and then it would have been really, really difficult for the US to have a chance of helping out and finally defeating them.That is true, but I was responding to Thermo's belief that if England and France had not given Germany an ultimatum they would have attacked Russia first.

It's no secret that Germany made a lot of mistakes. We were in a lot of ways very lucky that the war turned out he way it did. But many of those mistakes were forced errors because England and France did not continue to appease Hitler and the way he expected them to do. This caused him to have to change plans and improvise, something he didn't do very well.

Geoschmo

oleg

July 26th, 2003, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Note:

France has begun to very quietly modernize its nuclear forces. If I were a German that remembers that Last war, I would be calling for a deterrent force for Germany. Remember that it was France that declared war on the Germans. And many Germans still believe that their government was only interested in righting the wrongs of Versailles [sp] and barring the gates to communism.The reason may be more subtle. Once US install SDI, France nuclear deterrent will almost disappear. It is China and France who would be most affected by SDI. Russia has too much arsenal and UK, well, we all know http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I don't know how many missiles France has but I doubt it will be enough if US is serious about SDI.

geoschmo

July 26th, 2003, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by oleg:
If Germany postpone the attack till summer of 42, there will be 1500 or even more.Maybe, or maybe there would have been another purge, or maybe Stalin would have been fitted for a hemp necktie. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Russia wasn't exactly a smooth running machine prior to the German invasion united the people and government together in a great patroiotic cause.

Geoschmo

Thermodyne

July 26th, 2003, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Note:

France has begun to very quietly modernize its nuclear forces. If I were a German that remembers that Last war, I would be calling for a deterrent force for Germany. Remember that it was France that declared war on the Germans. And many Germans still believe that their government was only interested in righting the wrongs of Versailles [sp] and barring the gates to communism.The reason may be more subtle. Once US install SDI, France nuclear deterrent will almost disappear. It is China and France who would be most affected by SDI. Russia has too much arsenal and UK, well, we all know http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I don't know how many missiles France has but I doubt it will be enough if US is serious about SDI.<hr /></blockquote>France does not need these weapons for protection from the US. And they have to few to be called a superpower these days. The systems they are working on are tactical. These will only have deterrence against people who are somewhat closer to them. They are working on the same types of systems that the US removed some years back. Prior to the removal, they objected to the positioning of the weapons. Now they are deploying their own.

DeadZone

July 26th, 2003, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DeadZone:
Well, I can say this, most Brits hate the fact that we are apart of the EU because of how they have decided to screw up our justice system, need I say more?What do you mean ? (Will read the answer tomorrow)
Our justice system hasn't changed very much since joining EU (I voted against joining though)<hr /></blockquote>Cmon look at how weak our justice system has become, its laughable, the police are scared of criminals nowadays cos of how light sentencing is and the fact that police cant do anything to criminals incase it 'breaks' their human rights, and EU's human rights is stupid as it tends to protect the criminal instead of the victim.

tesco samoa

July 26th, 2003, 06:27 AM

the plan failed in 41.... Germany never did secure their left flank.... But Novemember of 41 they had suffered 750000 casualties out of 3.4 million. Their panzer forces were spent.

Russia had 20000 tanks at the start of that war. The Keiv disaster was never repeated. And the 'lightening war' was never effective in the east due to the vast size and horrible roads and weather.

In late 41 the soviet airforce held its own. And Stalin learnt via Kiev that withdrawl was needed to save army Groups and that at Kiev the Field commander was correct and should be allowed to make the judgement call.

Nov 41 the germans also faced the reality that their tanks were outclassed and that they had to attack the 34 from behind. The soviets figured this out very quickly. Hence the long withdrawl battles of 42...

And at the end of 41 the okl and okh were controlled by hitler completely.

But then again this is all what if ? ( which are great books )

P.S. you do not win a war when you have 15 different rifles

geoschmo

July 26th, 2003, 06:38 AM

Yes, but the issue was very much in doubt for a while. The Germans could have beaten the Russians with a few breaks and some better decision making. It makes you wonder if the Germans had their full force attacking the Russians, instead of holding much in reserve to defend the Atlantic Wall, and the Russians had not had the support of the lend lease program if they would have been able to hold out.

Geoschmo

tesco samoa

July 26th, 2003, 06:57 AM

the baltics was a mistake as well.

This was one area that helped start the nails in the coffin as 15 divisions were tied up there.

And 2 panzer Groups were used there. This had grave effects on the equipment in August during the dust storms. Not to mention the troops themselves.

I also believe that the Africa campaign was a mistake as well.

The divisions should have been sent there to finish that theater off as it was very important to capture suez and the middle east.

The war on two fronts could not be avoided as the german navy could not support a landing on english soil. The losses from norway were felt during the build up of Sealion. Germany could only hope for a truce with England.

Also the their was the famous undersizing of the main gun for the iv's which proved to be very costly in experienced panzer tanks during the cruel winter of 41 and the spring of 42.

And also remember that Japan did not declare war on Russia. THis freed up many units from the far east. WHich showed their weight during the December and January battles

A very intersting topic. Indeed. Better with pints. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Will

July 26th, 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
I was just wondering, how big is the current defecit in the US budget right now.
I now that it's big but so is the entire US budget, so in percantage it mightn't be that big.
3% is allowed in the EMU.Well, IIRC...
... about 20% of the budget each year goes to paying interest on the national debt.
... annual US Federal budget is about 2.25 trillion dollars.
... current estimated US Federal budget deficit is about 450 billion dollars.

And that puts the deficit as about 20% of the budget. Which is quite a bit more than 3%...

And I don't like that at all... I think the current government of the US is completely incompetent. I would rather have seen no tax cuts, no expansions to medicare, etc., and devote the next several years to making the debt not so big. I don't want to be paying outrageous taxes a few decades from now because some selfish boomers want the Government to pay all their bills for them. I'm not happy about going into the workforce and paying a bunch of money to social security when I know it won't be there when I hit 70. And I don't like all the privitization crap they've thrown around with SS either. If I want to make myself a retirement account, I can make my own damned account, I don't need a bunch of pencil-pushing buerecrats making one for me. And if the "dot com" bust taught us anything, it's the fact that the average person has no ****ing clue on how to invest money wisely, so institutionalizing it in government is definitely a Bad Thing. Of course, eventually all of this will be passed in some sort of legislation, because the baby boomers want it, and they vote.

I guess that was a bit of a rant... I guess I don't like the feeling of virtual indentured servitude at the hands of the US Government if I choose to stay here.

Ruatha

July 26th, 2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by DeadZone:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ruatha:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DeadZone:
Well, I can say this, most Brits hate the fact that we are apart of the EU because of how they have decided to screw up our justice system, need I say more?What do you mean ? (Will read the answer tomorrow)
Our justice system hasn't changed very much since joining EU (I voted against joining though)<hr /></blockquote>Cmon look at how weak our justice system has become, its laughable, the police are scared of criminals nowadays cos of how light sentencing is and the fact that police cant do anything to criminals incase it 'breaks' their human rights, and EU's human rights is stupid as it tends to protect the criminal instead of the victim.<hr /></blockquote>EU has not much to do with your justice system becoming weak, EU has nothing to do with criminal law yet, what do you mean that EU has made to it?

I missed a zero in the driving license, it should be $1000-2000, sorry.

About spanking, doing it when your angry is wrong but I can understand why you do it, (I've felt the urge myself from time to time, but never done it), I don't condone it, but understand it.
Doing it when you are calm is worse, then it is planned and executed in cold blod.
Simple learning theory tells you that any punishment (If you must use punishment, sometimes some kind of punishnment is needed (time-out, removing of positive enhancements etc), not often but sometimes), the punishment must come immediatly to the punished act/behaviour. If you must calm down, it won't be immediatly.

If not immidiatly the punishment isn't connected to the act/behaviour but with the punisher, and the next time they do it they make sure they don't get caught. Spanking doesn't show them how they should have handled this situation.
It's a simple stimuli/response thing, you must directly connect act/punishment.

If you discover that they have stolen it's to late to make a direct connection, so how would I handle that?
I'd make the child go back to his friend, return the cards, ask for forgivness, and make them ask their friend how they could make things right again (Buy their friends extra cards from their allowence?).
Try to premiate good behaviour, if they themself tell about bad things they've done, while being angry about what they've done praise them for coming forward aswell.
Encourage all good behaviour, use positive reinforcement, if they give pokemon cards away to their friends of free will, buy them extra cards or praise them for it, vocal praise is a strong positive reinforcer!
And they'll like you better and will be more prone to tell you when they've done something wrong.
If you spank them they sure won't tell you of their misbehavings of free will, and when they get older and starts with alcohol and such you won't know about it.
If they have been given positive reinforcements instead as primary raising method they will come and tell you about it, and then you can discuss the pros and cons of what they've done (There are pros to stealing and drinking, be honest, but also point to the cons wich are larger!)

About the cards, include a discussion about why they stole, was there some special cards they wanted, could they have gotten them some other way? trade? saving? Show altarnate ways to achieve the goal she had when she/he stole.

Read "Don't shoot the dog" by Karen Pryor, an animnal trainer, but animal training techniques work equally good at humans (kids, matess, friends, working collegues, all can be trained http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

[ July 26, 2003, 09:18: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

tesco samoa

July 26th, 2003, 03:55 PM

Unknown_Enemy I believe Oleg was talking about the number of missles vs SDI. Well that is what I read from it. So with not enough missles their program becomes obsolete vs SDI.

Thermodyne

July 26th, 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Unknown_Enemy I believe Oleg was talking about the number of missles vs SDI. Well that is what I read from it. So with not enough missles their program becomes obsolete vs SDI.600km's is the range being talked about. With HAVLY warheads that are all the rage these days.

Is it just me, or do some of you worry that very low yield devices will make it more likly that someone will use one?

General Woundwort

July 26th, 2003, 07:30 PM

Amazing how far a thread can go in 24 hours...

Tell me, Ruatha, have you ever read Heinlein's Starship Troopers? What do you think of the way he portrays the use of pain as a moral deterent (in both children and adults) in that novel? I will qualify my statement by saying that I don't agree with the evolutionary basis he uses for that theory, but there seems to be a recognition of the non-rationality in people that sometimes can only be restrained by non-rational means.

tesco samoa

July 26th, 2003, 08:02 PM

an interesting book starship troopers.

that government was scary. A combination of Hitlerism and Stalinism with a little bit of Sparta.

Ruatha

July 26th, 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Amazing how far a thread can go in 24 hours...

Tell me, Ruatha, have you ever read Heinlein's Starship Troopers? What do you think of the way he portrays the use of pain as a moral deterent (in both children and adults) in that novel? I will qualify my statement by saying that I don't agree with the evolutionary basis he uses for that theory, but there seems to be a recognition of the non-rationality in people that sometimes can only be restrained by non-rational means.Yep. I've read it but it was so many years ago that I don't recall all the details, sorry.

When I was younger I liked Heinlein but now I don't find them entertaining, "Friday", "The cat who", "Lazarus long", "have spacesuit" etc etc, many of them where quite pubertal, (So I can see why I liked them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )
"Starship troopers" was a bit different I think but still, didn't it have that boy gets attractive girl story that most Heinlein books centers around?
When I read it that was propably what interested me most I guess, will have to reread it someday. I saw the movie but it didn't remind me all that much of the book, only superficial, but then i don't recall the book all that much do I http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ July 26, 2003, 19:18: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Unknown_Enemy

July 26th, 2003, 09:14 PM

Unknown_Enemy I believe Oleg was talking about the number of missles vs SDI. Well that is what I read from it. So with not enough missles their program becomes obsolete vs SDI. I read again Oleg's post and I am not sure.
But in doubt, I edited/deleted my previous post.

General Woundwort

July 27th, 2003, 12:41 AM

Tesco - Are you refering to the government as portrayed in the "movie" (note scare quotes indicating my abject refusal to grant that piece of bantha fodder any positive relation to the book), or the one in the book? The government in the book was specifically stated by one of the characters to be almost identical to America's present system, except you had to be a discharged veteran to vote. What's so "totalitarian" about that?

Ruatha - First, there was no "boy gets girl" theme in Troopers. Yes, Juan was attracted to Carmen, but nothing came of it in the book and it leaves their relationship totally unresolved.

Second, to jar your memory, in Troopers corporal punishment was not only accepted and practiced in childraising, but also in the criminal justice system. Jail time for non-capital crimes was replaced with public floggings (alluded to numerous times in the book, and even endured by the main character on one occasion). The idea was that pain and humiliation were the best ways to inculcate social behavior when appeals to reason were exhausted (which Heinlein would set at a far lower bar than most today IMHO).

Unknown_Enemy

July 27th, 2003, 01:55 AM

edited and deleted due to misanderstanding.

[ July 26, 2003, 20:11: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ]

oleg

July 27th, 2003, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Yes, but the issue was very much in doubt for a while. The Germans could have beaten the Russians with a few breaks and some better decision making. It makes you wonder if the Germans had their full force attacking the Russians, instead of holding much in reserve to defend the Atlantic Wall, and the Russians had not had the support of the lend lease program if they would have been able to hold out.

GeoschmoGermany could never win. I do not think most people on the West fully understand how strong was the determination and resolve of russians. I know it from what my granddad told - he fight from 41 to 43 (he was sapper and Last both fists when mine exploded but survived). Even if Germans made no mistakes and capture Moscow - so did Napoleon. France surrended after losing Paris, but Russia is just to big. Fall of Moscow and Leningrad would be a severe loss and death of many more millions of people but it would only prolong war not change the outcome. It is rather pointless to speculate now, history does not know "what if", that is just what I feel.

oleg

July 27th, 2003, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Unknown_Enemy I believe Oleg was talking about the number of missles vs SDI. Well that is what I read from it. So with not enough missles their program becomes obsolete vs SDI. I read again Oleg's post and I am not sure.
But in doubt, I edited/deleted my previous post.<hr /></blockquote>I missed your first Posts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif What I mean is if SDI can shoot down for example 100 missiles, China' nuclear arsenal would become useless, they have only dozens or so missiles. Not sure about France, it may have more missiles.

This is the major problem with SDI, IMHO. It may prompt creation of more nukes then there is now on the Earth.

Thermodyne

July 27th, 2003, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Tesco - Are you refering to the government as portrayed in the "movie" (note scare quotes indicating my abject refusal to grant that piece of bantha fodder any positive relation to the book), or the one in the book? The government in the book was specifically stated by one of the characters to be almost identical to America's present system, except you had to be a discharged veteran to vote. What's so "totalitarian" about that?

Ruatha - First, there was no "boy gets girl" theme in Troopers. Yes, Juan was attracted to Carmen, but nothing came of it in the book and it leaves their relationship totally unresolved.

Second, to jar your memory, in Troopers corporal punishment was not only accepted and practiced in childraising, but also in the criminal justice system. Jail time for non-capital crimes was replaced with public floggings (alluded to numerous times in the book, and even endured by the main character on one occasion). The idea was that pain and humiliation were the best ways to inculcate social behavior when appeals to reason were exhausted (which Heinlein would set at a far lower bar than most today IMHO).A few flogging would go a long way in this country. We could start with Ms. Stewart and then move on to the Enron gang. I�ll bet there would be some accounting adjustments made then, the corporate world would be scrambling to get the books corrected.

Thermodyne

July 27th, 2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by geoschmo:
Yes, but the issue was very much in doubt for a while. The Germans could have beaten the Russians with a few breaks and some better decision making. It makes you wonder if the Germans had their full force attacking the Russians, instead of holding much in reserve to defend the Atlantic Wall, and the Russians had not had the support of the lend lease program if they would have been able to hold out.

GeoschmoGermany could never win. I do not think most people on the West fully understand how strong was the determination and resolve of russians. I know it from what my granddad told - he fight from 41 to 43 (he was sapper and Last both fists when mine exploded but survived). Even if Germans made no mistakes and capture Moscow - so did Napoleon. France surrended after losing Paris, but Russia is just to big. Fall of Moscow and Leningrad would be a severe loss and death of many more millions of people but it would only prolong war not change the outcome. It is rather pointless to speculate now, history does not know "what if", that is just what I feel.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry my friend, but the Soviets were putting out feelers for a negotiated settlement prior to Stalingrad. Had 7th Army wheeled east and crossed the river, the war in Russia would probably have ended that fall. West of the Urals would have been Germany�s and the Soviets would have kept everything to the east. Stalin would have gotten a new neck tie, and history would have been different.

oleg

July 27th, 2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
...Sorry my friend, but the Soviets were putting out feelers for a negotiated settlement prior to Stalingrad. Had 7th Army wheeled east and crossed the river, the war in Russia would probably have ended that fall. West of the Urals would have been Germany’s and the Soviets would have kept everything to the east. Stalin would have gotten a new neck tie, and history would have been different.This is nonsense. Stalin would never capitulate in 1942. Fall of 41 - may be. And it was 6th Army.

Thermodyne

July 27th, 2003, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Unknown_Enemy I believe Oleg was talking about the number of missles vs SDI. Well that is what I read from it. So with not enough missles their program becomes obsolete vs SDI. I read again Oleg's post and I am not sure.
But in doubt, I edited/deleted my previous post.<hr /></blockquote>I missed your first Posts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif What I mean is if SDI can shoot down for example 100 missiles, China' nuclear arsenal would become useless, they have only dozens or so missiles. Not sure about France, it may have more missiles.

This is the major problem with SDI, IMHO. It may prompt creation of more nukes then there is now on the Earth.<hr /></blockquote>You guys need to think it through a little further. If 1000 ICBM fly and all get shot down, the human race has very few years to live. All of that material will contaminate the atmosphere. And Plutonium is the deadliest substance known to man. SDI if for the third world bastards like North Korea. It will remove much of the power they expected to gain from deploying their weapons.

SDI is already deployed by the way. The new Standard II missile has the ability to catch and shoot down ICBM during early boost. So long as the distance between the launch points is short and detections is immediate. The Standard III will extend the range quite a bit, but will still require rapid deployment on launch notice. A look at the sea around Korea will show a couple of Aegis cruisers, they are not just there to piss the NK�s off.

The main thing that SDI is doing for now, is funding research. The first beam weapons will probably come from this work. America has about a 10-20 year lead in weapons systems over the rest of the world. This gap will replace our atomic warheads as the deterrent of the next fifty years and beyond.

BTW, did any of you catch the commissioning of the Ronald Reagan a few weeks ago? It is a little strange to look at with its redesigned island.

[ July 27, 2003, 01:54: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Thermodyne

July 27th, 2003, 03:06 AM

I stand corrected it was 6th Army. But the documents are public now, go check the Archives. The Soviet government was putting the pieces in place for a negotiated peace. When the British found out they came screaming to Washington.

oleg

July 27th, 2003, 04:55 AM

No question, total nuclear war is the end of the mankind. I know very well the actual reason behind SDI is a noble one and has nothing to do with underminding the world security. However, that can become a side effect and a very serious one. OK, US will become secure against Noth Korea missiles.
But take a place of Chinese Gensek (sorry, don't know his name). How can he be sure it was not just a ruse to nullify China' arsenal ?? His first and totally justified reaction would be to review and modernize his nuclear deterrant.

oleg

July 27th, 2003, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
I stand corrected it was 6th Army. But the documents are public now, go check the Archives. The Soviet government was putting the pieces in place for a negotiated peace. When the British found out they came screaming to Washington.Hmm, can you please give a link ? After all, Comic Ali statements are public documents now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Battle of Stalingrad was an important moment in WWII, but its fall could not imperill USSR in a bit. I was born not far from Stalingrad (300 miles up the Volga river). There is NOTHING to the east from Stalingrad. Just Kazakh steppe with the population density of Australia Nothern Territories. There is no reason whatsoever to surrender.

Just take it into perspective: suppose Germany build a bridge to US or dry out Atlantic. In the first year, US heroicaly defends Washington and New York but lose Boston and Atlanta. Next year, Germany changes the direction, capture Atlanta and attack Saint Louis (sp. sorry.) The rational is of course to cut off the Texas oil fields. Once Germans crosses Mississipi, American President sidently surrende all states East from the river and moves to LA. Does it makes any sense whatsoever ???

BTW, Caspian oil was extremely important for 3rd Reich but not as much as to USSR. Tatarstan and Bashkirstan oil was at plenty. Loss of Stalingrad would have a very small effect on the Russian economy in 1942.

[ July 27, 2003, 04:17: Message edited by: oleg ]

Fyron

July 27th, 2003, 06:32 AM

The loss of Stalingrad would have had a much more psychological effect on the Russian people, not an economic one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

oleg

July 27th, 2003, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The loss of Stalingrad would have had a much more psychological effect on the Russian people, not an economic one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Ohh, why ? Only because it has Stalin name ? Stalingrad by itself was just another ordinarily average city. Nothing compared to Minsk, Kiev or Kharkov. It got its place in the history not because either its capture or heroic defence would be the turning point in the war but because it is the site of the most crushing and painfull defeat of Wermacht. From what I know, the loss of Kiev in August 41 was the worst blow. By the end of 42 loss or recapture of another city become almost routine news. War sucks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Fyron

July 27th, 2003, 07:36 AM

It was a symbol, thats why.

Thermodyne

July 27th, 2003, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thermodyne:
I stand corrected it was 6th Army. But the documents are public now, go check the Archives. The Soviet government was putting the pieces in place for a negotiated peace. When the British found out they came screaming to Washington.Hmm, can you please give a link ? After all, Comic Ali statements are public documents now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Battle of Stalingrad was an important moment in WWII, but its fall could not imperill USSR in a bit. I was born not far from Stalingrad (300 miles up the Volga river). There is NOTHING to the east from Stalingrad. Just Kazakh steppe with the population density of Australia Nothern Territories. There is no reason whatsoever to surrender.

Just take it into perspective: suppose Germany build a bridge to US or dry out Atlantic. In the first year, US heroicaly defends Washington and New York but lose Boston and Atlanta. Next year, Germany changes the direction, capture Atlanta and attack Saint Louis (sp. sorry.) The rational is of course to cut off the Texas oil fields. Once Germans crosses Mississipi, American President sidently surrende all states East from the river and moves to LA. Does it makes any sense whatsoever ???

BTW, Caspian oil was extremely important for 3rd Reich but not as much as to USSR. Tatarstan and Bashkirstan oil was at plenty. Loss of Stalingrad would have a very small effect on the Russian economy in 1942.<hr /></blockquote>Army group south would have crossed and driven into the flank of the soviets massed in front of 6th. With no room to move, it would not have been good for the soviets. Then 6th would have been in position to drive north and attack moscow from the south east as the froces in front of the city drive west. A good general could have made a fight of it, but this was not the issue. Stalin was not secure in Moscow. Saving his government had become more important than winning the war. In the end, the US gave him billions of dollars in aid, so that he would continue the fight. Many of the items sent were valued at pennies on the dollar so that the US people would not realize how much was being sent.

Sorry, the US archives are not on line, but I will look up my notes and forward them.

Thermodyne

July 27th, 2003, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It was a symbol, thats why.It was a strategic city and a political liability. Had the Germans moved swiftly and bypassed the city, after reducing it of course, the defeat would have been tremendous for the Soviets. The loss of the troops in theater would have been bad, but the loss of the troops in route would have been worse. If the Germans kept moving, it would have been very difficult to mass them. The key point of the theater is that 6th army would have been done in the south, and free to drive on Moscow. Also, it would have appeared to the Soviets that they could not stop the Germans, even after Stalin had given an ultimatum for the city to hold. There is only so much defeat that a nation will stand for, even a communist nation. The party grip on the army did not extend all that far down into the conscript ranks.

A minor point on the battle, it was the Italians that folded and allowed the Soviets to flank 6th to the north, then the Romanians folded in the south. By then the weather did not allow the German air power and mechanized mobility to become a factor. Not to mention that German armor was rotting in pastures while the crews fought as infantry. The Italians and Romanians should have been in the city mopping up while 6th was across the river acting as an anvil for army group south. 6th did actually put pathfinders across the river early on, but the opportunity to cross in mass was allowed to slip away.

tesco samoa

July 27th, 2003, 02:48 PM

The problem with the summer campaigns of 42 were that the objectives were too great for Army Group Centre and Army Group South to complete.

The troops were still recovering from the winter battles. Runstead, Guidarian. Fired. Tank production was still around 400 a month. Now Hitler wished for chassises to be used to mount motors/ fixed guns ( which competed against regular tank chassises ) By summer 42 only 4500 tanks had been built. ( This shows you that the German Govn't underestimated the strenght of the tank and its role ) Russia was building half of that number a month and increasing.

Army Group Centre goal after Stalingrad was to push south.

I guess what i am saying is the the goals set in stone by the okh and hitler were unattainable with the standing army in 42.

Had the city fallen in the month of Novemember The Russian Armies would have been forced to attack the northern and southern flanks earlier.

I believe the outcome would have been the same. As the option of manoverablilty had been removed from the german field commanders. And this is a very important decission to be analyzized while looking at what if's.

The German Military was streched beyond its capacity in 42.

geoschmo

July 27th, 2003, 02:51 PM

I'm sorry Oleg. It's normal for people to feel pride and all in their country. But realistically the war came very close to being a disaster for Russia. Our discussion was not meant to insult you or your country. There is no shame in admiting it. In fact you can be that much more proud that despite how bad things were they prevailed.

The loss of Stalingrad wouldn't actually have been as devastating as the loss of the soldiers defending it. Moscow is the same way. Once you capture the armies and the cities in a war, it's over. You said yourself, there was nothing east of Stalingrad. The Soviet government may not have offically capitulated, but with no more armies or or industrial capacity west of the Kamchatka peninsula, and no effective means of transportation accross the vast middle of the country except for a few easily defended or destroyed roads and railways, they would have been irrelevant to the events of the rest of the war in europe.

Likely there would have been resistance movements and pockets of figthing, as there were in all the occupied countries. But without outside support those are merely distractions.

Geoschmo

geoschmo

July 27th, 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
The German Military was streched beyond its capacity in 42.That was my original point. If as the supposition stated the French and English had not given Hitler an ultimatum after Poland, would he have continued east and attacked Russia witout conquering western Europe? If he had there would have been no stretching thin. He would have had the full force of his armies undepleted by the battle in France and Belgum, and undiluted by the need to defend his western flank from invasion from England. Not to mention it would have likely come earlier in the course of the war, before the Russians came close to developing the tank technolgy that helped turn the tide.

You could argue that if this happened he would have still had to protect his flank from an invasion from France. But if the western allies had not held firm over Poland who was an ally, why would they have done so over Russia who wasn't?

Geoschmo

[ July 27, 2003, 14:02: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Ruatha

July 27th, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I'm sorry Oleg. It's normal for people to feel pride and all in their country. But realistically the war came very close to being a disaster for Russia. Our discussion was not meant to insult you or your country. There is no shame in admiting it. In fact you can be that much more proud that despite how bad things were they prevailed.

The loss of Stalingrad wouldn't actually have been as devastating as the loss of the soldiers defending it. Moscow is the same way. Once you capture the armies and the cities in a war, it's over. You said yourself, there was nothing east of Stalingrad. The Soviet government may not have offically capitulated, but with no more armies or or industrial capacity west of the Kamchatka peninsula, and no effective means of transportation accross the vast middle of the country except for a few easily defended or destroyed roads and railways, they would have been irrelevant to the events of the rest of the war in europe.

Likely there would have been resistance movements and pockets of figthing, as there were in all the occupied countries. But without outside support those are merely distractions.

GeoschmoWas there any industrial capacity left in Moscow?
I thought it was all moved east in case Moscow would fall.
Wasn't the Soviet army bad trained and under equipped? In that case it wouldn't be very hard for Soviet to fill the ranks again as they had a vast population to recruit from.

So I also belive that even if Stalingrad and Moscow had fallen the Russians would have eventually recaptured it.

(We've fought them all our history until we stopped fighting almost 200 years ago (our Last war was with Russia, and when they set foot on Swedish soil we realized war wasn't for us....) , and they've always retaken everything we've occupied, even if it took them hundreds of years to do it sometimes!)

[ July 27, 2003, 14:48: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Erax

July 27th, 2003, 03:53 PM

I've seen this discussion among many wargamers. The consensus seems to be that the Germans could have won IF they had planned for a 2-year campaign from the start. By spring 1942 they still had the upper hand in the East, but the chances for victory were remote.

For a good East Front simulation on the computer, try Gary Grigsby's War in Russia. It is too large and complex even for me, but some of you might like it.

geoschmo

July 27th, 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Was there any industrial capacity left in Moscow?
I thought it was all moved east in case Moscow would fall.
Wasn't the Soviet army bad trained and under equipped? In that case it wouldn't be very hard for Soviet to fill the ranks again as they had a vast population to recruit from.
They were only able to do that because they had the industrial capacity to begin with, and the troops avaialabe to allow them to slow the Germans with a fighting retreat.

The location of Tankagrad was chosen because it was far enough east to avoid German air power, but still close enouhg to support the defenders of the western Russian cities. If those cites had fallen and the armies captured or destroyed there would have been nothing between the Germans and the relocated factories. They would have been destroyed by waves of German bombers taking off from the captured airfields east of Moscow.

There would have been nothing to move farther east, and nowhere suitable to place it. Even if there were the Russians would have nothing to slow the German persuit. You can move an armored division faster then you can a factory. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As poorly prepared as the Russian army was at the begining of the war, it was still the cream of the crop that they had available. Some training is better then none, and with no industrial capacity at all there would be no way to equip them. Determination and patriotic ferver won't do much to stop a bullet. You have to have something to fight back with. Hammers and scythes against Tanks and machine guns isn't going to do much.

And actually east of Moscow there was no vast population. As oleg alluded to it's mostly undeveloped wilderness and rural areas. At least that was the case during the time we are talking about. I don't know if it's much different now or not.

Geoschmo

[ July 27, 2003, 15:18: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Slynky

July 27th, 2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
No question, total nuclear war is the end of the mankind. I know very well the actual reason behind SDI is a noble one and has nothing to do with underminding the world security. However, that can become a side effect and a very serious one. OK, US will become secure against Noth Korea missiles.
But take a place of Chinese Gensek (sorry, don't know his name). How can he be sure it was not just a ruse to nullify China' arsenal ?? His first and totally justified reaction would be to review and modernize his nuclear deterrant.Well, I don't have the education and knowledge that others here seem to have. However, from my time in the army and my time in ASA, INSCOM, NSA, etc., I think I can safely say worries of missile delivery systems are misplaced a bit. More likely, IMHO, the "world" needs to worry more about tactical nuclear devices (some call them "backpack warheads") and devastating biological poisoning.

With the number of people around the world that hate the US and the (seemingly) unending number of people who are willing to give their life in order to take lives and cause destruction, I'd say THAT is the "delivery system" we (speaking from a US POV now) should fear. And, THAT'S a hard "delivery system" to halt.

Thermodyne

July 27th, 2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by oleg:
No question, total nuclear war is the end of the mankind. I know very well the actual reason behind SDI is a noble one and has nothing to do with underminding the world security. However, that can become a side effect and a very serious one. OK, US will become secure against Noth Korea missiles.
But take a place of Chinese Gensek (sorry, don't know his name). How can he be sure it was not just a ruse to nullify China' arsenal ?? His first and totally justified reaction would be to review and modernize his nuclear deterrant.Well, I don't have the education and knowledge that others here seem to have. However, from my time in the army and my time in ASA, INSCOM, NSA, etc., I think I can safely say worries of missile delivery systems are misplaced a bit. More likely, IMHO, the "world" needs to worry more about tactical nuclear devices (some call them "backpack warheads") and devastating biological poisoning.

With the number of people around the world that hate the US and the (seemingly) unending number of people who are willing to give their life in order to take lives and cause destruction, I'd say THAT is the "delivery system" we (speaking from a US POV now) should fear. And, THAT'S a hard "delivery system" to halt.<hr /></blockquote>The shipping container bomb is much worried about. Buried under a stack of other containers, it would be very hard to detect. That is why we need to begin to look at the threat from a different angle. The only defense is deterrent. We return the favor 1000 fold. You�re not actually from any one country, no problem, we have more than enough to go around. And let�s not forget that if NY or LA, or even Baltimore were to be nuked, there would be no need for smart bombs. We would be back in the business of making civilian populations suffer. If it were a chemical/biological attack, our stated policy is that we will respond with our nuclear arsenal. Do any of you have any idea of how bad it would be if a several kiloton device went off in Baltimore harbor? How many people live between there and Boston? Where would they be moved to?

SDI is not intended to stop terrorist, other than if they were to seize a silo somewhere. Its intent is to reduce the diplomatic influence that small nuclear arsenals offer to the third world. Korea has a little leverage because they can put a weapon on top of a missile. The greater the range of the weapon, the greater the influence. What they don�t realize is that we are old hands at this game.

Question, if an Ohio class sub were to pull up to a coral atoll, and declare itself a county. Where would this new country rank as a nuclear power?

And America has how many Ohio�s?

Thermodyne

July 27th, 2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It was a symbol, thats why.Stalingrad was the historic gateway to Asia. This is why it was fought over so many times in the past. And with � a million people, it was a major city by anyone�s standards. A quick look at the map will show that once the Volga was crossed, there were no natural defensive lines on the way to Moscow. Originally, the mission was to continue on and secure the resources of the region. But this had changed, 6th was going to be sent north to the capital in the spring. This was known in exacting detail by the Russians because of Lucy. The Germans had no intention of taking the whole country; they expected a negotiated peace on their terms. This was how war was fought in Europe at that time.

primitive

July 27th, 2003, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The only defense is deterrent. We return the favor 1000 fold. You�re not actually from any one country, no problem, we have more than enough to go around.
Do you really think that such policy will scare madmen away from terrorist actions against the US ? Remember, we are talking about suicide bombers here. People who are mad enough to hijack planes and crash themselves into buildings. People who are mad enough to train their children to strap on a bomb and blow up a bus or a cafe.

Thermodyne

July 28th, 2003, 12:37 AM

Nope, but it will limit the support that other nations are willing to give to them. It will take much more than deterrence to protect America, but I don�t think we are ready to accept that much protection.

primitive

July 28th, 2003, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Nope, but it will limit the support that other nations are willing to give to them. No it will not. If such was ever to become official US policy the cold war would be back in an instant. Only this time the US would find itself alone and isolated.

Thermodyne

July 28th, 2003, 01:47 AM

And your solution would be?

primitive

July 28th, 2003, 03:19 AM

People do not become terrorists for fun. Most people would need a serious grievance against someone before they take the step. As for soulutions: Ask the British, they have some success getting rid of the terrorism in/from Northern Ireland. They did not get it by lining up a random selection of people and shoot them each time somebody blows a bomb. The Germans tried that tactic in occupied Europe during WW2. It didn't work then, it don't work now. Very few people will have trouble accepting "police" type actions agains terrorists, but random return violence is the sure path to more violence.

TerranC

July 28th, 2003, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
As for soulutions: Ask the British, they have some success getting rid of the terrorism in/from Northern Ireland. They did not get it by lining up a random selection of people and shoot them each time somebody blows a bomb.Yes they did. Heck, they burned whole villages by the dozen in Kenya. They stormed into other people's houses without their consent in America. And I'm sure the British were so benign in India.

If you ask me, the British, along with all the other Colonial powers, created this mess we're in. I hardly believe that asking them for advise is the best way to go at this.

Thermodyne

July 28th, 2003, 03:45 AM

They become terrorists because they have a need to free themselves from occupation, from tyranny, or because they are taught that it is the honorable thing to do. And then there are some that are just plain anarchists. In the situation we have now, the terrorism is state sponsored. This requires that we bring force to bear on the states involved.

As this war, and it is a war, go on America will sacrifice some of its freedoms and become a more difficult place to attack. Then more and more often the attacks will occur on foreign soil. When your oil supply becomes a target, will your country sit back and not respond?

Also, the main ***** of the 9-11 crew was that Americans were defiling holy ground and polluting the Islamic culture. As long as they have this view, there will be no way to dissuade them. Islamic culture is anti human rights. The world is not going to toss out 100 years of technology and advances in the human condition and adopt a feudal way of life to appease these bastards. And America will not let the Islamic world push Israel into the sea, so that problem will also be with us for the next generation or so.

So again I ask, what would you suggest as a more fitting solution.

primitive

July 28th, 2003, 03:49 AM

TerranC:
I couldn't agree more, many of todays problems are leftovers from the days of colonalism and blatant imperialism. But it seems like the British actualy have learned something these Last few years.

[ July 28, 2003, 02:50: Message edited by: primitive ]

primitive

July 28th, 2003, 04:24 AM

Thermo:
First:
Where do you get the information from that all/most terrorism are state sponsored. Proof / links would be in order.

Second:
We are already on the Al Queada list of priority targets. Probably due to our guys beeing in the first line at the Bora-Bora caves. One thing is for sure though, if the bombs start to go off here, we will not stoop to random bombing of innocent people.

Third:
Your right, the Israel/Palestina problem have to be fixed somehow. It would not require pushing Isreal into the Mediteranian, but it would take large concessions from Israel (giving up the settlements on the West Bank, restore water rights and so on), and it would cost a lot of money. And terrorism would not stop instantly. Many of those who had already taken the step would continue on their path, regardless of what happens. But recruitement would be harder.

Solution:
Start fix the problems, stop creating more. Fight against the terrorists, not their mothers and childrens. Work on your defences. Tough it out.

tesco samoa

July 28th, 2003, 04:25 AM

build a big dome over the usa and seal it shut for a few hundred years. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

thermo i think it is you who hates and/or misunderstands islamic culture not islamic culture who hates you.

Terrorism is rare. Not an everyday occuance. It is the fear of terrorism that is an everyday occurance for some. I speak this from being from Nothern Ireland.

Thermodyne

July 28th, 2003, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
build a big dome over the usa and seal it shut for a few hundred years. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

thermo i think it is you who hates and/or misunderstands islamic culture not islamic culture who hates you.

Terrorism is rare. Not an everyday occuance. It is the fear of terrorism that is an everyday occurance for some. I speak this from being from Nothern Ireland.It�s not Islam that I hate, its religious intolerance that I hate. It is lack of separation between religion and state that I hate. Religion has become a dictatorial influence in parts of the world. Iran is run by Islamic fundamentalists. The Saudis rule so long as they appease the clerics. As does the king of Syria. I do not see the clerics in the west sending kids out as bombs. I do not see the western religions taking control of western countries. Is any western church off limits to people of the wrong religion? I think not. I realize the men have perverted Islam from what it once was, but this is no excuse or reason to give them freedom to spread there cancer.

As to terror not being a daily occurrence, it is only the hard work of the democratic world that prevents this. If the Islamic nations of the world decided to prosecute terrorism and those who preach it, the Islamic terrorism would subside. If we in the west continue to absorb the blows, it will get worse. War is diplomacy by other means. Terrorism is war against the innocent.

Now I pose a question. What reason did the 9-11 crew have for their attacks? What was America doing that was causing them so much harm that they needed to go to war?

IMHO, their goals were not as is stated in the media.

Thermodyne

July 28th, 2003, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
Thermo:
First:
Where do you get the information from that all/most terrorism are state sponsored. Proof / links would be in order.

Take five minutes and search goggle. Take a few hours and read some of the press releases from the world intel services. Look at what is already admitted to by the Saudis. Ask some Israelis were the weapons taken from the Palestinians come from.

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 (http://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)

____________________________________________

Ruatha

July 28th, 2003, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
Start fix the problems, stop creating more. Fight against the terrorists, not their mothers and childrens. Work on your defences. Tough it out.I belive you are quite right here.
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.

Erax

July 28th, 2003, 02:41 PM

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."

primitive

July 28th, 2003, 03:26 PM

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

oleg

July 28th, 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It was a symbol, thats why.Stalingrad was the historic gateway to Asia. This is why it was fought over so many times in the past. And with � a million people, it was a major city by anyone�s standards. A quick look at the map will show that once the Volga was crossed, there were no natural defensive lines on the way to Moscow. Originally, the mission was to continue on and secure the resources of the region. But this had changed, 6th was going to be sent north to the capital in the spring. This was known in exacting detail by the Russians because of Lucy. The Germans had no intention of taking the whole country; they expected a negotiated peace on their terms. This was how war was fought in Europe at that time.<hr /></blockquote>I don't remember correctly, but think it is more than 1500 miles from Stalingrad to Moscow. In fact, German army fas moving AWAY from Moscow when it pushed from Kharkov to Stalingrad. It was never meant to turn back and go north toward Moscow. The whole 1942 compain was focused on securing Norh Caucasses with its oil fields. Germany had a very big problem maintaining armies so far away from Romania oil. Rail road were constantly sabotaged. After 41 disaster Stalin was very afraid of another attack on Moscow. He kept most of the army in the center. The south front was defended only by armies Stalin wanted to spare. I read in Marshal Zhukov memmoirs generals begged Stalin many times to send reserves to Stalingrad but he refused. It is only in deep Autumn he finally became convinced there would be no attack in the Central Front and send Zhukov and two armies to South front. Stalin was a bloody coward.

oleg

July 28th, 2003, 05:25 PM

Thermodyne

July 28th, 2003, 05:30 PM

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.

oleg

July 28th, 2003, 05:34 PM

...And actually east of Moscow there was no vast population. As oleg alluded to it's mostly undeveloped wilderness and rural areas. At least that was the case during the time we are talking about. I don't know if it's much different now or not.

Geoschmo[/QB]No, no, no, Moscow was in the center of the Russian Motherland. There were many big industrial cities to the East. Stalingrad is very far away to South East. That is where wilderness was - East and South east from Stalingrad.

primitive

July 28th, 2003, 07:46 PM

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.

oleg

July 28th, 2003, 08:12 PM

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.

Fyron

July 28th, 2003, 08:15 PM

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

July 28th, 2003, 08:24 PM

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

July 28th, 2003, 08:27 PM

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

July 28th, 2003, 09:11 PM

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 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1007495,00.html)

Fyron

July 28th, 2003, 09:28 PM

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

July 29th, 2003, 08:32 PM

PHUTDAWUK????

Alpha Kodiak

July 31st, 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
21 July 2003

by Dr. George Friedman

U.S. Strategy: Perception vs. Deception

<snip>

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.

<snip>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? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Wardad

July 31st, 2003, 06:18 PM

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

July 31st, 2003, 06:38 PM

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 ]

Thermodyne

July 31st, 2003, 08:18 PM

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 ]

Unknown_Enemy

August 1st, 2003, 01:49 AM

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.

General Woundwort

August 2nd, 2003, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
build a big dome over the usa and seal it shut for a few hundred years. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif You Cannucks wouldn't know what to do with yourselves if you didn't have us to kick around, so just sit back and quit griping. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Terrorism is rare. Not an everyday occuance.So is an outbreak of Ebola. But both can have devastating consequences. The 9/11 attacks were a picnic in the park compared to what will happen when some ecoterror/islamofascist/whatevergroupwithwhatevergreivance gets ahold of a WMD and uses it. It's just a matter of time...

tesco samoa

August 2nd, 2003, 05:08 AM

i am worse ... a canuck who is a immigrant.

Thermodyne

August 2nd, 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
i am worse ... a canuck who is a immigrant.From Ireland IIR? Orange or Green?

tbontob

August 2nd, 2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
i am worse ... a canuck who is a immigrant.Directly or indirectly, we are all immigrants including the peoples of the First Nations who try to avoid admitting it.

oleg

August 2nd, 2003, 08:44 PM

Yeap. We all come from Africa. One way or another.

Narrew

August 2nd, 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
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.Good points Thermodyne. I have been watching the History Channel and they had a show on post WWII, there was a large contrast in post Japan and post Germany. We were there for a real long time in both countries, and Germany had many SS soldiers in hiding (just like Iraq). Japan didn't perform any type of armed resistance, also they had no idea of democracy (just like Iraq).

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.

Will

August 3rd, 2003, 07:30 AM

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.

Narrew

August 3rd, 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Will:
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.I know there have been many examples where "good intentions" have brought "bad" results. And though I do not wish to be argumentative, I hope you are wrong in your assessment. I know that the Middle East has unique religious obstacles, but I don't think that should stop us from attempting to help the Iraqi's form a new government. Things will not happen over night, nor will it be easy.

I sincerely hope that our good intention brings opportunities to both Iraqi men and women not death and fear that the previous goverment did.

tesco samoa

August 14th, 2003, 05:46 PM

anyone see this flash

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/onearmy.html

Thermodyne

August 14th, 2003, 06:02 PM

A little EU news

http://www.comcast.net/News/BUSINESS//XML/1310_General_financial_business_news/0c4490c5-71c7-4c75-88b1-146f41c42b0f.html

oleg

August 14th, 2003, 06:47 PM

A little US news

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1018361,00.html

Thermodyne

August 14th, 2003, 07:26 PM

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

TerranC

August 14th, 2003, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Now if they can just port the technology into roach spray http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Ugh. I'd hate to clean up your floor after you've finished playing with your UV ray roach killer. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

tesco samoa

August 19th, 2003, 08:03 PM

anyone catch this

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1021534,00.html

about Blair knowing in advance that Iraq was not a threat.

geoschmo

August 19th, 2003, 08:22 PM

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.

Alpha Kodiak

August 19th, 2003, 08:34 PM

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/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

tesco samoa

August 19th, 2003, 08:48 PM

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

TerranC

August 20th, 2003, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
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/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Of course! The world would be a harmonious paradise if the US wasn't in it-- Our beutiful, harmonius paradise under Her majesty Queen Elizabeth the VIII. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

tesco samoa

August 20th, 2003, 03:06 AM

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/images/smilies/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.

Alpha Kodiak

August 20th, 2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
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 Who knows, maybe the French would own the place. That sure would have put an interesting twist on history!

Alpha Kodiak

August 20th, 2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
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/images/smilies/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.Sorry Tesco, it was a bad day by 11am. Just a little tired, I guess. You've got to admit that this thread really stretches its off-topicness, though. (And, I'm still trying to figure out what on earth we would want to have to do with a mess like the EU, anyway. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

Alpha Kodiak

August 20th, 2003, 08:30 AM

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

Erax

August 21st, 2003, 07:30 PM

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. I'm sure this has been said a thousand times here, but I'll say it again : with great power comes great responsibility. Some other governments can be as evil as they please because it won't affect anyone besides themselves and their neighbors, but everyone keeps an eye on the US, because if they mess up, the whole world is affected.

Or as we say down here : when the US sneezes, South America catches double pneumonia.

Loser

August 21st, 2003, 07:53 PM

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. Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
Who knows, maybe the French would own the place.This is improbable for many reasons. Some of which would come off like flames, so I'd best watch myself.

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?

oleg

August 21st, 2003, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
...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?Roman Empire should give plenty examples, I think. It was the most impressive Empire building in human history IMO.

Loser

August 21st, 2003, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
Roman Empire should give plenty examples, I think. It was the most impressive Empire building in human history IMO.Quite possibly the most impressive, especially because unlike Genghis Kahn's it Lasted many generations, but it wasn't one man. Genghis didn't get his continent spanning empire until late in his life (he was over fifty, I believe), but it was all under the period of his own rule.

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 ]

Alpha Kodiak

August 21st, 2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
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. <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
Who knows, maybe the French would own the place.This is improbable for many reasons. Some of which would come off like flames, so I'd best watch myself.

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?<hr /></blockquote>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

oleg

August 21st, 2003, 11:54 PM

...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 [/QB]If US was not around, WWI could end other way - Germany forcing France to surrender. There would be no Versale treaty, Prussian empire survived and hence no fascism in Germany. But may be in France instead. The history would be trully different. There would be no USSR too, I pretty sure.

sparhawk

August 22nd, 2003, 07:14 AM

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

General Woundwort

August 22nd, 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by sparhawk:
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...Yes, and we rectified the situation as soon as we were made aware of it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Originally posted by Loser:
Now if we could just model the development and exploitation of exceptional individuals in SE IV...We already do. Atrocities, Geoschmo, Fyron, SJ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Cyrien

August 23rd, 2003, 11:46 PM

First the Lousiana purchase... can't say how that would have gone without a US. Unlikely it would have been sold to England as the French and English were big rivals, which is one reason it went to the US, since at the time relations between England and US were very strained (War of 1812, smuggling, piracy, stopping American commerce vessels etc, colony that just gained independence with French help etc etc etc...)

As for Spain. Very unlikely since large tracks of that land had been Spains just a little while ago which they gave to France due to not being able to afford to garrison it, and of course it came with certain agreements attached, such as we will not under any circumstances sell this land to the United States, blah blah blah. Too bad Spain wasn't a big enough power at the time (a decling power as it where) to enforce the agreement when Napolean sold the land anyway.

It fact it could be argued that without the US purchasing it however that Napolean could not have fully funde his invasions of other countries and might have been forced to stop early... say without Russia in the fold. Which might have allowed for a big change in history with France as a major power.

Alternatly however the USSR almost certainly would still have arisen as a power the British held American colonies probably wouldn't have been as advanced industrialy wise and very doubtfully would have gone any further than the eastern coast of Mississipi all of which would drastically changed the course of WWI and might have superceded WW2 and made it never come to be with a German victory instead of Allied in WWI.

People always seem to forget that though the US didn't enter WWI until very late they profited off of it a great deal as the "Arsenal of Democracy" selling to the British. With British Colonial doctrine being what it was it is unlikely that the USA as colony would have had that kind of production capability, just look at India and Egypt and Australia or other British colonies for what it probably would have been. A source of raw materials for export to the British manufacturing base and a source of young men to be used as cannon fodder, sorry, artillery and heavy machine gun fodder...

In short without a USA the world would either be dominated by Germany, England, France, or the USSR depending on how things went. Despite what many of my fellow US citizens would like to think the US had very little impact on global affairs *read European affairs* until the late 1800's early 1900's. See the Spanish American War and the Chinese open door policy for notes on early US interest in global affairs.

So in conclusion the events of Europe would likely be much the same without a US as they where with a US until WWI or just before it. Then things can get very confusing.

PS: There is no reason Communism and Marx wouldn't have occurred without a US. Marx was based on the European Experience of Industrialization and the Russian Revolution was during the same year that the US entered into WWI. Other than a small expeditionary force that had little affect on the Soviet Revolution the US would not have influenced its outcome or happening in any meaningful way. So there is no reason the USSR wouldn't have formed, just no cold war between it and another Super Power afterwards.

Thermodyne

August 25th, 2003, 08:45 PM

OT:

This is the worst picture I have seen from Iraq to-date

http://www.robert-fisk.com/030401AlKindi6.jpg

Loser

August 25th, 2003, 08:54 PM

GAH!!!!

A bit more warning in the future, please.

[ August 25, 2003, 19:54: Message edited by: Loser ]

Thermodyne

August 25th, 2003, 08:54 PM

http://www.robert-fisk.com/1_145859_1_6.jpg

This one is hard to look at too

Phoenix-D

August 25th, 2003, 09:51 PM

Something doesn't jive about those pictures. Maybe its just the low quality..

Wardad

August 26th, 2003, 10:10 PM

> >Now that Uday & Qusay have been eliminated, a lot of the
> >lesser-known family members are coming to the attention of
> >American authorities.
> >
> >Among the brothers:
> >
> >Sooflay ............the restauranteur
> >Huray...............the sports fanatic
> >Sashay..............the gay brother
> >Kuntay & Kintay.....the twins from the African mother
> >Sayhay..............the baseball player
> >Ojay................the stalker/murderer
> >Gulay...............the singer/entertainer
> >Ebay................the internet czar
> >Biliray.............the country music star
> >Ecksray.............the radiologist
> >Puray...............the blender factory owner
> >Regay...............the half-Jamaican brother
> >Tupay...............the one with bad hair
> >
> >Among the sisters:
> >
> >Lattay..............the coffee shop owner
> >Bufay...............the 300 pound sister
> >Dushay..............the clean sister
> >Phayray.............the zoo worker in the gorilla house
> >Sapheway............the grocery store owner
> >Ollay...............the half-mexican sister
> >Gudlay..............the prostitute
> >
> >Finally, there is Oyvey, but the family doesn't like to talk about him.

jimbob

August 26th, 2003, 11:55 PM

People always seem to forget that though the US didn't enter WWI until very late they profited off of it a great deal as the "Arsenal of Democracy" selling to the British. With British Colonial doctrine being what it was it is unlikely that the USA as colony would have had that kind of production capability, just look at India and Egypt and Australia or other British colonies for what it probably would have been. A source of raw materials for export to the British manufacturing base and a source of young men to be used as cannon fodder, sorry, artillery and heavy machine gun fodder... Hmmm... Riddle me this: I can think of another country in North America that remained an Imperial colony, managed to connect sea to sea under the authority of a single federal government, industrialize (ie produce tanks), and played a pivotal role in the outcome of both WWI and WWII by jumping in at the start with the Imperial "overmaster". In the process of becoming a nation it managed to not wage a costly war against the imperial power, not wage a costly civil war against itself and it managed to not perform genocide against it's indigenous tribes (though the nation did institute a number of destructive policies against the indigenous people, it did not have a policy of open warfare against them per se).

10 points and a piece of toast http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif to the person who answers my riddle correctly!

Thermodyne

August 27th, 2003, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by jimbob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />People always seem to forget that though the US didn't enter WWI until very late they profited off of it a great deal as the "Arsenal of Democracy" selling to the British. With British Colonial doctrine being what it was it is unlikely that the USA as colony would have had that kind of production capability, just look at India and Egypt and Australia or other British colonies for what it probably would have been. A source of raw materials for export to the British manufacturing base and a source of young men to be used as cannon fodder, sorry, artillery and heavy machine gun fodder... Hmmm... Riddle me this: I can think of another country in North America that remained an Imperial colony, managed to connect sea to sea under the authority of a single federal government, industrialize (ie produce tanks), and played a pivotal role in the outcome of both WWI and WWII by jumping in at the start with the Imperial "overmaster". In the process of becoming a nation it managed to not wage a costly war against the imperial power, not wage a costly civil war against itself and it managed to not perform genocide against it's indigenous tribes (though the nation did institute a number of destructive policies against the indigenous people, it did not have a policy of open warfare against them per se).

10 points and a piece of toast http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif to the person who answers my riddle correctly!<hr /></blockquote>And what a world power they became!

tesco samoa

August 27th, 2003, 03:04 AM

Thermo http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Thermodyne

August 27th, 2003, 02:29 PM

I did?

Loser

August 27th, 2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
I did?Sure enough. Your reply to Jimbob got a chuckle out of me.

Thermodyne

August 28th, 2003, 01:29 AM

What?

Loser

August 28th, 2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
What?He's grinning at you, because you made with teh funny.

Cyrien

August 28th, 2003, 07:07 AM

Indeed. Funny. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Originally posted by jimbob:
[QUOTE]In the process of becoming a nation it managed to not wage a costly war against the imperial power, not wage a costly civil war against itself and it managed to not perform genocide against it's indigenous tribes (though the nation did institute a number of destructive policies against the indigenous people, it did not have a policy of open warfare against them per se).

10 points and a piece of toast http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif to the person who answers my riddle correctly!Canada! And you forgot to mention not become a World Super Power... which is probably a mark in their favor. Nobody likes World Super Powers.

Now to some numbers!

While Canada did indeed make large contributions to both WWI and WW2 I don't think you can put it on the same footing as the US at the same time in regards to industrial output and manpower mustered.

A few quick statistics. Sorry no numbers on hand for WW1 and as it is almost midnight here no inclination to go on a web search to find some. But here are some handy dandy ones for WW2.

Top Canadian Contribution to WW2 -
Monetary, Millions of US dollars = 20,104
Max Military Size at Peak = 780,000
Naval Vessels #'s = 32
Total Tonnage = 23,811

Top US Contribution to WW2 -
Monetary, Millions of US dollars = 288,000
Max Military Size at Peak = 12,364,000
Naval Vessels #'s = 19,034
Total Tonnage = 5,457,000

The numbers do not equate. Now look at an alternate history with US as British Colony...

Royal Proclamation of 1763 which restricted colonial expansion beyond the Appalachian Mountains to almost nothing and was a leading cause of the revolution.

Extreme dislike of English and French for each other during Napoleonic times + English with own monetary problems = No Louisiana Purchase = No expansion that way.

No Mexican American War = No Texas / Arizona / California / etc lands.

So at best the US under British control would likely only have had as much production power as Canada all over again. Twice the Canadian contribution to WW2 does not = US contribution to WW2.

In fact my calculator says

Monetary US > 14 x Canada
Military # US > 15 x Canada
Ship # > 594 x Canada
Ship Tonnage > 229 x Canada

So I stand by my statement that without the US in existence save as a colonial holding WW1 maybe and WW2 certainly would have been lost. Save maybe for Soviet intervention, however a strong case can probably be made that without the US threat the Japanese would not have hesitated to support German war efforts against the Soviets, in which case bye bye Soviets, as one of the things that kept them going was unaffected Eastern Soviet production power (No German bombers with great enough range and no war declared against Japan, thus no worries there) and eastern military reserves arriving just in time. Throw Japan in the mix and that goes bye bye.

Oooo... I just realized I need to update my profile. I am no longer a student of history/political science but now a degree holding Bachelor of History/political science...

PS: If you want my sources I can post them. But the numbers are easily verified through any number of sources, even a bunch of Online ones. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ August 28, 2003, 06:16: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Unknown_Enemy

August 28th, 2003, 10:07 AM

It is my duty to make sure this thread stay completely out of topic.
So, here is the following article about....Saudia Arabia.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

STRATFOR'S GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
http://www.stratfor.com
27 August 2003

Saudi Arabia: The Fracture Widens

Summary

Saudi Arabia is scrambling to save collapsing relations with Britain and the United States. However, Riyadh's unwillingness or inability to dismantle the financial networks supporting al Qaeda will limit chances for saving these alliances.

Analysis

The United States and Britain are giving Saudi Arabia the cold shoulder, prompting a high-level aide to Crown Prince Abdullah, Adel al Jubair, to go on the diplomatic offensive. Jubair recently told The Associated Press that Saudis were not crossing the border into Iraq -- days after U.S. officials blamed Riyadh for not securing the border in efforts to prevent terrorism. Last week, the senior Saudi spokesman gave another interview to BBC Radio 4, trying to counter bad publicity in connection with the six British citizens recently deported from the kingdom. The citizens had been imprisoned there since 2000 in connection with a bombing campaign against Westerners in Riyadh.

London and Washington now are pressing the Saudis both to prevent militants from crossing the border into Iraq and to close the financial networks funding al Qaeda. Riyadh apparently is doing neither. Because targeting al Qaeda's Saudi backers undermines the kingdom's economic and political structure, Riyadh can neither ignore the demands from Washington and London nor comply. This means the quandary will further erode the kingdom's relations with Britain and the United States.

A cornerstone of the House of Saud's stability has been its relationship with London and Washington -- and with Houston. However, the Sept. 11 attacks fundamentally changed Riyadh's alliance with Britain and the United States. Since then, the government of de facto ruler Crown Prince Abdullah has scrambled to develop a cohesive strategy for regaining U.S.-British confidence. Squelching al Qaeda in the kingdom, sharing intelligence about the militant network's global operations and cooperating with the U.S. invasion of Iraq all have been intended to revive the deteriorating relations.

The strategy hasn't worked. U.S. officials have claimed that Saudi fighters are crossing the border into Iraq to wage war against the U.S. military. The Saudi government denies this, but it is logical to conclude that some militants in the kingdom might move into Iraq to escape Riyadh's crackdown. Riyadh is quite happy to push the militants into Iraq and complicate the U.S. military occupation, and the situation has intensified the the diplomatic problem.

Saudi Arabia's approach is a public relations offensive combined with a ride-the-storm-out attitude. Jubair's press offensive is meant to stake out a Saudi position of innocence, while the government sets up a joint task force with FBI, IRS and U.S. Treasury officials to investigate the financial networks connected to the May 12 suicide bombings in Riyadh. The task force's mandate will mean little unless Riyadh follows the investigation by seizing the assets of al Qaeda's supporters.

Riyadh has taken a few tentative steps toward gaining control of alleged or suspected al Qaeda financial networks. For instance, the commercial Saudi American Bank (SAMBA) closed the account of Jeddah-based businessman Khaled bin Salim bin Mahfouz, the London-based al Sharq al Awsat daily reported Aug. 25. The wealthy Saudi businessman is the former owner of the National Commercial Bank in Saudi Arabia and also is named as a defendant in the lawsuit brought by the families of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks.

The decision to close the account likely originated in Riyadh, since the report said the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency was aware of the decision but that bin Mahfouz knew nothing of the closure until SAMBA notified him. However, the move will do little to satisfy Washington, since SAMBA returned to bin Mahfouz the entire value of his deposit. U.S. intelligence and government officials are looking for substantive measures, and failure to seize Mahfouz's assets -- or those of any alleged financier -- will not build confidence in Washington.

Al Qaeda's financial backers in the kingdom pose a clear and present danger to the ruling House of Saud. Exiled Osama bin Laden's primary goal is the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in the Arabian Peninsula. He denies the legitimacy of the House of Saud and has encouraged its downfall. The al Qaeda presence in the kingdom, the enouncements of the kingdom's leaders and its ties with the U.S. military all are intended to lead to the House of Saud being overthrown -- to be replaced by a radical Wahabbi Islamist government that is friendly to bin Laden. The men who provide the network with money are vital to al Qaeda's ability to continue operations inside the kingdom and around the globe.

Given this, it is startling that Riyadh isn't eager to seize the assets of alleged or suspected al Qaeda backers. However, Riyadh is trapped in a nightmarish catch-22. At its core, the House of Saud might be intimately intertwined with the Saudi businessmen and merchants, religious leaders, tribal chieftains, public officials and philanthropists funding al Qaeda. For instance, behind every major business leader in Saudi Arabia is a prince from the House of Saud.

The relationship is profitable for both Groups and critical to the Saudi economy. Without the business relationship, many princes could not maintain their wealthy lifestyles -- and without the princes' influence, many businessmen would not win the government contracts that fuel the economy's growth.

Despite the establishment of the joint task force, there are few indications that Riyadh is ready to redraw the country's economic and political landscape, which is exactly what tackling the moneymen would entail.

However, both the United States and Britain are growing impatient. The guerrilla war in Iraq is making things worse, but it is the fundamental dispute over al Qaeda's finances that is causing the rift. Until Riyadh takes serious steps to stop the cash flow, the kingdom's relations with Britain and the United States will continue to disintegrate.

[ August 28, 2003, 13:27: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ]

General Woundwort

August 28th, 2003, 02:00 PM

UE, I'm guessing this came from Stratfor, right?

It gets even better. Turns out the Ambassador's wife (Saudi Amb to US) is a real Wahhabist firebrand...

The problem is at the center of power, in the person of prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, minister of the interior and the real ruler of the country; he's the uncle of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

Yet notwithstanding continuing revelations about Saudi funding of terror, Bandar remains untouchable in Washington, along with his wife, Princess Haifa. Although her convoluted financial links to Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, the two lead hijackers among the 15 Saudis out of the 19 9/11 terrorists, attracted widespread attention late Last year, she somehow fell through the cracks when the congressional report on the terror conspiracy was recently released. The sojourn of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar in San Diego was reexamined, but Princess Haifa's Islamic covering billowed out, masking her from renewed publicity.

This is appropriate, if immoral, because Princess Haifa has much more to hide than her propensity for charity to terrorists. To certain defenders of the Saudi monarchy, any discussion of Princess Haifa is an unspeakable insult. James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, which once paraded itself as a legitimate and moderate advocacy group for those loyal to American institutions and concerned for peace, has become especially strident on this issue. Recently, he loudly decried how "the donations made by Saudi Princess Haifa to 'needy Saudi women' [have] been transformed into a scandal."

But no magic was necessary to "transform" Princess Haifa into a paragon of Wahhabi obscurantism and anti-Western hatred. It is well-known among Saudis residing in this country that the princess compels the wives of Saudi diplomats in Washington to attend "lectures" intended to reinforce their Wahhabi bigotry and contempt for the West, the better to "protect" them from temptation during their time as our guests. It is similarly notorious that the religious-affairs section of the Saudi embassy, a black hole of Wahhabi hatemongering, enjoys a separate status, with immense financial resources and extraordinary powers, which it abuses to foster Wahhabism in America through, among other channels, Saudi-controlled "Islamic academies" � i.e., locally accredited primary and secondary schools. Prince Bandar's closest associates within the diplomatic staff are troglodytic Wahhabis who don't speak English and have no interest in the affairs or sensibility of Americans.Full Disclosure - quote is from Send Bandar Home: The U.S. can change the face of Saudi Arabia, by Stephen Schwartz (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-schwartz082703.asp)

EDIT - correct spelling of "Wahhabist"

[ August 28, 2003, 13:01: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Unknown_Enemy

August 28th, 2003, 02:38 PM

UE, I'm guessing this came from Stratfor, right? Indeed. I forgot to show my sources. That have been taken care of. As said in the article, the Saudia leadership are in a completely impossible situation. They cannot topple radical islam without toppling their primary power base, but if they don't do so, they destroy their alliance with USA, which is their second power base.

I am really glad I do not live in that part of the world. Their future will probably not be a peaceful one, even if NO ONE can allow chaos to spread in that country. Too much oil there.

jimbob

August 29th, 2003, 12:31 AM

Top Canadian Contribution to WW2 -
Monetary, Millions of US dollars = 20,104
Max Military Size at Peak = 780,000
Naval Vessels #'s = 32
Total Tonnage = 23,811

Top US Contribution to WW2 -
Monetary, Millions of US dollars = 288,000
Max Military Size at Peak = 12,364,000
Naval Vessels #'s = 19,034
Total Tonnage = 5,457,000
Okay, this is true (well, as far as I believe you, which I have no reason not to http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ), and well said. Even if one considers contributions of each nation on a per capita basis (which I think we should do, if only to be fair to the arguement, especially as the US had nearly 12 x more population with whom to contribute), the USA definitely put up a larger contribution. Now your arguement, as far as I've interpreted it (which may be erronious on my part) is:

had the US remained a member of the Commonwealth (ie subordinate to the Imperial master, Britian) it would not have been as helpful in the battle against Germany

I'm not yet convinced of two things:

1) that the USA would not/could not have attained a high population, and subsequently high industrial base, if it had remained a British Colony. Granted, Canada did not become a world power, but it had a different immigration policy (and damn cold weather to boot http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) that hindered the degree of immigration as compared to the United States. I do not know my American history well enough to comment on the royal proclaimations visa vie the expansion of the colonies beyond the original borders, but I think it is interesting to note that the Canadian colony(s) were allowed to expand beyond their original boundaries at a later date (which yes, one could argue, was allowed by the Crown as an attempt to check American expansion into the west. Though I may be mistaken, I don't think the Crown was still calling the shots by this time, as Canada had developed a very independent legislative lower-house fairly early in it's history. This would argue that membership in the Commonwealth would not have been a long term hindrance to the American colonies expansion). So, while Texas may have managed to remain independent of the United States of America, I don't easily accept that renunciation of the British colonial system would have cost the USA the west. It could be noted at this time that, had the USA not rebelled against the British yoke, slavery would have been banished at an earlier date. This may have reduced the construction of the American industrial giant, but that too is another arguement...

2) that the USA would have contributed less had it jumped in earlier. Many have commented that the USA best contributed to the war by staying uninvolved in the early years, building up it's military, and then jumping in for a decisive ending action. However, had the US remained a British colony, and then evolved an independance as some other countries had (ie Canada, Australia) it would have joined in the battle from the very beginning. This may well have had a more profound effect, as this would have allowed a more concerted effort from many nations, rather than allowing for the complete exhaustion of individual countries before others joined in. Even had the US not remained a non-beligerant state, and supplied the UK with it's 1000 or so dry-docked destroyers, the battle of Britian could have turned out quite differently. This earlier involvement may well have cost the USA more, but it would have left the other combatants (ie the UK) in better shape post-WWII. Had Britian not been so damaged by it's drawn-out, nearly solo battle with the German forces, it would have been far more effective in the subsequent cold war against the USSR.

Hey, nothings perfect in historical recreationism, but I think that the USA could still have played an important role in the outcome of WWI and WWII, regardless of the revolution several hundred years prior to these conflicts.

Thermodyne

August 29th, 2003, 01:35 AM

All is not well in the kingdom. The king is a drooling invalid who has been known to foul himself in public. His favorite son would appear to have been fathered by Saddam [sic], and at the moment seems to have the most influential position in the family.

When the king dies, his brothers and adult sons will choose a new king. And you can bet that there will be outside influence brought to bear upon this process. The US has someone in mind, and would probably take what ever steps are needed to put him on the throne.

It should also be noted that the royal family is well on the way to insolvency. Stipends now far out run income.

Cyrien

August 29th, 2003, 07:43 AM

That is possible though even if the Proclomation hadn't held and expansion was later allowed there would have still been conflict over the Lousiana territories which where in French control who at that time and for a great deal of time afterward until the rise of Germany as a power were not close friends at all and far closer to being enemies than anything else in regards to the UK. Also the French could not really afford the Lousiana areas, neither could the Spanish and even if the English had been inclined there is no way that the French would sell to them. So the Lousiana purchase area remains rather underdeveloped, in keeping with Spanish/Mexican ideas and culture most of the west remains mostly subsistence farming and wild indian lands.

Thus expansion of the US is cutoff by the French territories, which would also block any access to Spanish and later Mexican Territorial claims. This at the very least cuts off the western coast from US claims. Assuming US production capacity for the rest of it is still developed you lack the developed Western field of operations against the Japanese. This frees them from worries there and allows them to focus on aiding there German ally against the USSR.

In the case best case scenario... Hitler betrays the Japanese as he did the Soviets. Worst case... most of the world would then speak German or Japanese, or I would hope you have many many years of occupations and eventual overthrows of occupying forces. Either way nothing is the same.

Also worth noting is that if the US remained a colony then there is no reason for it to have its own large navy that is just under the total strength of the British navy. At best you probably have a British navy only a little larger than it would otherwise have been. It is worth noting that combined British and US naval might were barely enough to defeat Germany and Japan naval might in the first place. British and US Naval might being the first and second best but spread thinly and Japan and Germany being third and fourth largest but concentrated in small areas.

As for population. Most of the US population was gained through imigration through the promise of endless lands to expand to in the West (no longer the case) the land of Freedom and Religious Choice (most likely, no longer the case as many colonies before hand had their own religions established as did England) and lets not forget the several gold rushes in the west and the massive influx of people that those caused, no longer in the US.

No doubt the US would have been industrialized and had some impact.

My arguement isn't that it wouldn't. My arguement is that looking at the most probably things it probably wouldn't have been enough to stop what they were up against.

You make a case for it being better off in the outset with all of them working together, but it is unlikely that they could have coordinated fast enough to make a difference in the initial stages and with Japan now an unchecked power in the Pacific everything is different.

Quite simply the possibilities are staggering and I get a slight headache just thinking about them. Suffice to say it could possibly work out either way. No way to know without going through it.

But knowing what I know and seeing the way things worked out I tend to think that the changes would not have been for the better in terms of cost of life and outcome.

Imagine having to fight two seperate wars first against the Germans then against the Japanese after the Japanese had time to solidify their pacific position unopposed without need for naval surprise attacks or major fleet actions or losses and cementing their control over the oil and steel supplies they wanted to gain. With the added possibility of putting the Soviets on a two front war that they likely could not have won.

Another question? Who then finances the Panama canal? Is there even one? Does that make easy transit between the Atlantic and Pacific impossible?

Endless questions and no way to answer them.

Ah well... Time for sleep.

Atrocities

August 29th, 2003, 09:21 AM

I think it would have been very interesting to live during those times. Think about it, the whole mass of the great unexplored territories. What a wonderment that must have been. I know what I would have been doing. I often wonder what it must have been like to have all of what is now the U.S. to roam, no borders, no taxes, no cops, just you, your people, and the great unknown. Of course there are those who believed this qoute, forget who said it or where it came from; "How dare the indians be on our land before we ever even knew it exsisted!"

In time all that is a national treasure, IE parks, will be comericallized and you will have to pay big bucks to go to them. They will become a business run by corperation and only SUV
driving, cell phone additic, therapy going, spoiled rotten, self absorb, ultra yuppies will be allowed in.

Phoenix-D

August 29th, 2003, 08:09 PM

More likely they'll be paved over, unfortunatly. It doesn't help that the various legislatures are too often run by idiots.

Want a good example? I'm in school in Arizona. If I graduated and moved to Oklahoma right now, I could be classified as a terrorist almost immediately. Why? Because in their 'wisdom', they've decided to pass a law that states anyone who causes more than $500 worth of economic damage for political reasons is a terrorist..even if the political reasons are just, say, pointing out that a factory is polluting far more than the law allows.

General Woundwort

August 29th, 2003, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Want a good example? I'm in school in Arizona. If I graduated and moved to Oklahoma right now, I could be classified as a terrorist almost immediately. Why? Because in their 'wisdom', they've decided to pass a law that states anyone who causes more than $500 worth of economic damage for political reasons is a terrorist..even if the political reasons are just, say, pointing out that a factory is polluting far more than the law allows.Labelling environmentalist laywers as terrorists...

... I like it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

jimbob

August 30th, 2003, 12:37 AM

Okay, I hadn't realized that the Louisiana purchase was so formitive/foundational to the maturation of the United State's industrial complex, though it definitely makes sense. I concede that you have some excellent arguments, and I stand enlightened by this debate! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

cheers,
jimbob

Unknown_Enemy

September 3rd, 2003, 10:17 AM

is the Great Game restarting ? Indeed we live in interesting times.

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
02 September 2003

by Dr. George Friedman

An Unlikely Alliance

Summary

Though the recent death of SCIRI leader Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim would appear to be raising the level of turmoil within Iraq, it might in fact help to push the United States and Iran toward a powerful -- if seemingly unlikely -- alignment.

Analysis

The death of Shiite Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), appears to have exacerbated the turmoil in Iraq. In fact, it opens the door to some dramatic shifts that might help stabilize the U.S. position in Iran. Indeed, it might even lead to a fundamental redrawing of the geopolitical maps of the region -- as dramatic as the U.S.-Chinese alignment against the Soviet Union in the 1970s.

To understand what is happening, we must note two important aspects of the al-Hakim affair. First, though far from being pro-American, al-Hakim was engaged in limited cooperation with the United States, including -- through SCIRI -- participating in the U.S.-sponsored Iraq Governing Council. Second, upon his death, Iran announced a three-day mourning period in his honor. Al-Hakim, who had lived in exile in Iran during much of Saddam Hussein's rule in Baghdad, was an integral part of the Shiite governing apparatus -- admired and loved in Iran.

We therefore have two facts. First, al-Hakim was engaged in limited but meaningful collaboration with the United States, which appears to be why he was killed. Second, he was intimately connected to Iranian ruling circles, and not just to those circles that Americans like to call "reformers." If we stop and think about it, these two facts would appear incompatible, but in reality they reveal a growing movement toward alignment between the United States and Iran.

The United States has realized that it cannot pacify Iraq on its own. One proposal, floated by the State Department, calls for a United Nations force -- under U.S. command -- to take control of Iraq. This raises three questions. First, why would any sane country put its forces at risk -- under U.S. command, no less -- to solve America's problems if it doesn't have to? Second, what would additional outside forces, as unfamiliar with Iraq as U.S. forces are, add to the mix, save more confusion? Finally, what price would the United States have to pay for U.N. cooperation; for instance, would the U.N. presence place restrictions on U.S. operations against al Qaeda?

Another proposal, floated by Defense Advisory Board Chairman Richard Perle, suggests that the way out is to turn Iraq over to Iraqis as quickly as possible rather than prolonging a U.S. occupation. The problem with Perle's proposal is that it assumes a generic Iraq, unattached to any subgrouping -- religious, ethnic or ideological -- that not only is ready to take the reins, but is capable of governing. In other words, Perle's proposal would turn Iraq over to whom?

Putting the Kurdish issue aside, the fundamental fault line running through Iraqi society is the division between Sunni and Shiite. The Shiite majority dominates the area south of Baghdad. The Sunni minority, which very much includes Hussein and most of the Baath Party's national apparatus, spent the past generation brutalizing the Shiites, and Hussein's group also spent that time making certain that Sunnis who were not part of their tribe were marginalized. Today, Iraq is a fragmented entity where the center of gravity, the Baath Party, has been shattered and there is no substitute for it.

However, embedded in Perle's proposal is a simple fact. If there is a cohesive group in Iraq -- indeed a majority group -- it is the Shiites. Although ideologically and tribally fragmented, the Shiites of Iraq are far better organized than U.S. intelligence reports estimated before the war. This is due to the creation of a clandestine infrastructure, sponsored by Iranian intelligence,
following the failure of U.S.-encouraged Shiite uprisings in the 1990s. While Washington was worried about the disintegration of Iraq and the growth of Iranian power, Tehran was preparing for the day that Hussein's regime would either collapse or be destroyed by the United States.

As a result, and somewhat to the surprise of U.S. intelligence, organizations were in place in Iraq's Shiite regions that were able to maintain order and exercise control after the war. British authorities realized this early on and tried to transfer power from British forces in Basra to local control, much to U.S. displeasure.

Initially, Washington viewed the Iranian-sponsored organization of the Shiite regions as a threat to its control of Iraq. The initial U.S. perception was that the Shiites, being bitterly anti-Hussein, would respond enthusiastically to their liberation by U.S. forces. In fact, the response was cautious and sullen. Officials in Washington also assumed that the collapse of the Iraqi army would mean the collapse of Sunni resistance. Under this theory, the United States would have an easy time in the Sunni regions -- it already had excellent relations in the Kurdish regions -- but would face a challenge from Iran in the south.

The game actually played out very differently. The United States did not have an easy time in the Sunni triangle. To the contrary: A clearly planned guerrilla war kicked off weeks after the conquest of Baghdad and has continued since. Had the rising spread to the Sunni regions, or had the Sunnis launched an intifada with massed demonstrations, the U.S. position in Iraq would have become enormously more difficult, if not untenable.

The Sunnis staged some protests to demonstrate their capabilities to the United States, but they did not rise en masse. In general, they have contented themselves with playing a waiting game -- intensifying their organization in the region, carrying out some internal factional struggles, but watching and waiting. Most interesting, rather than simply rejecting the U.S. occupation, they simultaneously called for its end while participating in it.

The key goes back to Iran and to the Sunni-Shiite split within the Islamic world. Iran has a geopolitical problem, one it has had for centuries: It faces a threat from the north, through the Caucasus, and a threat from the west, from whatever entity occupies the Tigris and Euphrates basin. When both threats are active, as they were for much of the Cold War, Iran must have outside support, and that support frequently turns into domination. Iran's dream is that it might be secure on both fronts. That rarely happens.

The end of the Cold War has created an unstable area in the Caucasus that actually helps secure Iran's interests. The Caucasus might be in chaos, but there is no great imperial power about to push down into Iran. Moreover, at about the same time,
the threat posed by Iraq abated after the United States defeated it and neutralized its armed forces during Desert Storm. This created a period of unprecedented security for Iran that Tehran exploited by working to reconstruct its military and moving forward on nuclear weapons.

However, Iran's real interest is not simply Iraq's neutralization; that could easily change. Its real interest is in dominating Iraq. An Iranian-dominated Iraq would mean two things: First, the only threat to Iran would come from the north and Iran could concentrate on blocking that threat; second, it would make Iran the major native regional power in the Persian Gulf. Therefore, were Iranian-sponsored and sympathetic Shiite Groups to come to power in Iraq, it would represent a massive geopolitical coup for the United States.

Initially, this was the opposite of anything the United States wanted. One of the reasons for invading Iraq was to be able to control Iran and its nuclear capability. But the guerrilla war in the north has created a new strategic reality for Washington. The issue at the moment is not how to project power throughout the region, but how to simply pacify Iraq. The ambitions of April have given way to the realities of September.

The United States needs a native force in Iraq to carry the brunt of the pacification program. The Shiites, unlike the United Nations, already would deliver a fairly pacified south and probably would enjoy giving some payback to the Sunnis in the
north. Certainly, they are both more likely to achieve success and more willing to bear the burden of pacification than is the United States, let alone any U.N. member willing to send troops. It is not, at the moment, a question of what the United States wants; it is a question of what it can have.

The initial idea was that the United States would sponsor a massive rising of disaffected youth in Iran. In fact, U.S. intelligence supported dissident university students in a plan to do just that. However, Iranian security forces crushed the rebellion effortlessly -- and with it any U.S. hopes of forcing regime change in Iran through internal means. If this were to happen, it would not happen in a time frame relative to Washington's problems in Iraq or problems with al Qaeda. Therefore, the Iranian regime, such as it is, is the regime the United States must deal with. And that regime holds the key to the Iraqi Shiites.

The United States has been negotiating both overtly and covertly with Iran on a range of issues. There has been enough progress to keep southern Iraq quiet, but not enough to reach a definitive breakthrough. The issue has not been Iranian nuclear power. Certainly, the Iranians have been producing a nuclear weapon. They made certain that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency saw weapons-grade uranium during an inspection in recent days. It is an important bargaining chip.

But as with North Korea, Iranian leaders know that nuclear weapons are more valuable as a bargaining chip than as a reality. Asymmetry leads to eradication of nuclear threats. Put less pretentiously, Tehran must assume that the United States -- or Israel -- will destroy any nuclear capability before it becomes a threat. Moreover, if it has nuclear capability, what would it do with it? Even as a deterrent, retaliation would lead to national annihilation. The value of nuclear weapons in this context is less real than apparent -- and therefore more valuable in negotiations than deployment.

Tehran has hinted several times that its nuclear program is negotiable regarding weapons. Officials also have indicated by word and deed to the United States that they are prepared to encourage Iraqi Shiites to cooperate with the U.S. occupation. The issue on the table now is whether the Shiites will raise the level of cooperation from passive to active -- whether they will move from not doing harm to actively helping to suppress the Sunni rising.

This is the line that they are considering crossing -- and the issue is not only whether they cross, but whether the United States wants them to cross. Obviously, the United States needs help. On the other hand, the Iranian price is enormous. Domination of Iraq means enormous power in the Gulf region. In the past, Saudi Arabia's sensibilities would have mattered; today, the Saudis matter less.

U.S. leaders understand that making such an agreement means problems down the road. On the other hand, the United States has some pretty major problems right now anyway. Moreover -- and this is critical -- the Sunni-Shiite fault line defines the Islamic world. Splitting Islam along those lines, fomenting conflict within that world, certainly would divert attention from the United States: Iran working against al Qaeda would have more than marginal value, but not, however, as much as Saudi Arabia pulling out the stops.

Against the background of the U.S.-Iranian negotiation is the idea that the Saudis, terrified of a triumphant Iran, will panic and begin crushing the extreme Wahhabis in the kingdom. This has delayed a U.S. decision, as has the legitimate fear that a deal with Iran would unleash the genie. But of course, the other fear is that if Iran loses patience, it will call the Shiite masses into the streets and there will be hell to pay in Iraq.

The death of SCIRI leader al-Hakim, therefore, represents a break point. Whether it was Shiite dissidents or Sunnis that killed him, his death costs the Iranians a key ally and drives home the risks they are running with delay. They are vulnerable in Iraq. This opens the door for Tehran to move forward in a deal with the United States. Washington needs to make something happen soon.

This deal might never be formalized. Neither Iranian nor American politics would easily swallow an overt alliance. On the other hand, there is plenty of precedent for U.S.-Iranian cooperation on a covert level. Of course, this would be fairly open and obvious cooperation -- a major mobilization of Shiite strength in Iraq on behalf of the United States -- regardless of the rhetoric.

Currently, this seems to be the most likely evolution of events: Washington gets Tehran's help in putting down the Sunnis. The United States gets a civil war in the Muslim world. The United States gets Iran to dial back its nuclear program. Iran gets to dominate Iraq. The United States gets all the benefits in the near term. Iran gets its historical dream. If Roosevelt could side with Stalin against Hitler, and Nixon with Mao against Brezhnev, this collaboration certainly is not without precedence in U.S. history. But boy, would it be a campaign issue -- in both countries.

tesco samoa

September 9th, 2003, 08:07 PM

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/03/09/10.html

A good read about the Last few years.

Fyron

September 9th, 2003, 08:15 PM

It could be noted at this time that, had the USA not rebelled against the British yoke, slavery would have been banished at an earlier date. This may have reduced the construction of the American industrial giant, but that too is another arguement...
Slavery had nothing to do with the construction of the American industrial giant. ALL of the slave states had very poor industrial facilities, as they were primarily agricultural. The colonies/states that became heavy industrial centers made very little use of slavery, and abolished it early on in their statehoods. This is what allowed the North to win the US Civil War; they had a powerful industrial base, whereas the South had almost none. The Confederacy only Lasted as long as it did due to their excellent military leadership compared to the poor leadership of the Union armies up until Grant.

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
More likely they'll be paved over, unfortunatly. It doesn't help that the various legislatures are too often run by idiots.

Problem is that national parks are run by the Federal government and not state governments, so idiots in state legislatures can't pave them over. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Of course, the idiots in the Federal legislature could, but that is far less likely because of the need to get legislators from at least half of the states to agree to paving over any particular national park. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ September 09, 2003, 19:21: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Loser

September 9th, 2003, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The Confederacy only Lasted as long as it did due to their excellent military leadership compared to the poor leadership of the Union armies up until Grant.Minor note: The Confederacy not only had superior generals, the men of their military were better suited to war right down to the average grunt. Men from the south had better 'wilderness' and 'survival' skills, more experience with firearms, better morale, and were more resiliant in hardship. Northern solders were unlikely to have ever fired a gun, didn't know anything about conserving food or water, were frequently disheartened conscripts, and generally couldn't find North with a compass on a clear night.

There is something to be said to the effect of the Industirla Revolution, and even the socialogical changes that directly proceded it, on agricultural peoples.

Men and skill may win battles, but economy wins wars.

[ September 09, 2003, 19:36: Message edited by: Loser ]

rextorres

September 9th, 2003, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/03/09/10.html

A good read about the Last few years.Good read.

Another reason that Cheney doesn't want the UN involved is that Haliburton et. al. wouldn't get some of that $87 billion dollars that the administration requested.

It's funny how there is no money to deal with issues like the U.S. power grid - but plenty of money to pay Haliburton to fix Iraq's infrastructure.

rextorres

September 9th, 2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Slavery had nothing to do with the construction of the American industrial giant. ALL of the slave states had very poor industrial facilities, as they were primarily agricultural. The colonies/states that became heavy industrial centers made very little use of slavery, and abolished it early on in their statehoods.
I saw an interesting documentary that argues the same point regarding the Roman Empire.

According to the argument the Romans had the potential for an Industrial Revolution - there are technical schematics by Archimedes i.e. for the steam engine - but that Slavery made the development of these technologies uneconomical.

Fyron

September 9th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Wow... think of where the world would be today if the Romans had an industrial revolution! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Archimedes Didn't Archimedes live centuries before the rise of the Roman Empire? He was Greek. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ September 09, 2003, 20:19: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

General Woundwort

September 9th, 2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Wow... think of where the world would be today if the Romans had an industrial revolution! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Yeah... imagine Genghis Khan with nukes... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

rextorres

September 9th, 2003, 09:39 PM

Didn't Archimedes live centuries before the rise of the Roman Empire? He was Greek. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif According to a site on the internet he died in 212 BC.

[ September 09, 2003, 20:40: Message edited by: rextorres ]

tesco samoa

September 9th, 2003, 09:55 PM

they actually used the steam engine. But unfortantly for the Roman empire it was used to open doors at bath houses and temples ( yep pressure plates in the floors )

I studied them in University...

Cyrien

September 10th, 2003, 06:01 AM

The Greeks did develop the first steam engines, but used them as toys for the most part. The Romans made the first use of it, but not for industrial use. As stated earlier by others the Roman economy was dominated by slaves and their simply was no need (in their view) to develop steam engines and other technologies.

As also noted this was also a draw back of the US slave states. So much capital was tied up in land ownership and slavery that very little was diverted to industrial development.

Unknown_Enemy

September 10th, 2003, 10:04 AM

No-No-No...This thread is back on topic !

Here is my part to help it stay OT.

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
09 September 2003

by Dr. George Friedman

Two Years of War

Summary

Two years into the war that began on Sept. 11, 2001, the primary pressure is on al Qaeda to demonstrate its ability to achieve its goals. The events of Sept. 11 were primarily intended to change the internal dynamics of the Islamic world, but not a single regime fell as a result of the Sept. 11 attacks. However, the United States -- unable to decline action -- has taken a huge risk in its response. The outcome of the battle is now in doubt: Washington still holds the resources card and can militarily outman al Qaeda, but the militant network's ability to pull off massive and unpleasant surprises should not be dismissed.

Analysis

Old military communiques used to read, "The battle has been joined but the outcome is in doubt." From Stratfor's viewpoint, that seems to be the best way to sum up the status of the war that began on Sept. 11, 2001, when al Qaeda operatives attacked U.S. political, military and economic targets.

Though the militants were devastatingly successful in destroying the World Trade Center and shutting down U.S. financial markets, al Qaeda did not achieve its primary goal: a massive uprising in the Islamic world. Its attack was a means toward an end and not an end in itself. Al Qaeda's primary goal was the radical transformation of the Islamic world as a preface for re-establishing the Caliphate -- a multinational Islamic empire that, at its height, stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans.

To achieve this end, al Qaeda knew that it had to first overthrow existing regimes in the Islamic world. These regimes were divided into two classes. One was made up of secular, socialist and
military regimes, inspired by Gamel Abdul Nasser. This class included countries such as Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Libya. The second class comprised the formally Islamic states of the Arabian Peninsula, which Osama bin Laden referred to as "hypocrites" for policies that appeared Islamic but actually undermined the construction of the Caliphate. Finally, bin Laden had to deal with the problem of Shiite Iran, which had taken the lead in revolutionizing Islam but in which the Wahhabi and Sunni al Qaeda had little confidence.

Al Qaeda's political objective was to set into motion the process that would replace these governments with Islamist regimes. To achieve this, al Qaeda needed a popular uprising in at least some of these countries. But it reasoned that there could be no rising until the Islamic masses recognized that these governments were simply collaborators and puppets of the Christians, Jews and Hindus. Even more important, al Qaeda had to demonstrate that the United States was both militarily impotent and an active enemy of the Islamic world. The attacks would serve to convince the masses that the United States could be defeated. An ongoing war between the United States and the Islamic world would serve to convince the masses that the United States had to be defeated.

Al Qaeda had to stage an operation that would achieve these ends:

1. It had to show that the United States was vulnerable.
2. Its action had to be sufficiently severe that the United States could not avoid a counterattack.
3. The counterattack had to be, in turn, countered by al Qaeda, reinforcing the perception of U.S. weakness.

The events of Sept. 11 were intended primarily to change the internal dynamics of the Islamic world. The attacks were designed so that their significance could not be minimized in the Islamic
world or in the United States -- as had been the case with prior al Qaeda strikes against U.S. interests. Al Qaeda also had to strike symbols of American power -- symbols so obvious that their significance would be understandable to the simplest Muslim. Thus, operatives struck at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and -- in a failed attack -- Congress.

As expected, the attacks riveted global attention and forced the United States to strike back, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. The United States could not decline combat: If it did so, al Qaeda's representation of the United States as an essentially weak power would have been emphatically confirmed. That was not
an option. At the same time, optimal military targets were unavailable, so the United States was forced into suboptimal attacks.

The invasion of Afghanistan was the first of these. But the United States did not defeat the Taliban; Knowing it could not defeat U.S. troops in conventional combat -- the Taliban withdrew, dispersed and reorganized as a guerrilla force in the Afghan countryside. It is now carrying out counterattacks against entrenched U.S. and allied forces.

In Iraq, the Islamist forces appear to have followed a similar strategy within a much tighter time frame. Rather than continuing conventional resistance, the Iraqis essentially dispersed a small core of dedicated fighters -- joined by an international cadre of Islamists -- and transitioned into guerrilla warfare in a few short weeks after the cessation of major conventional combat operations.

However, al Qaeda did not achieve its primary mission -- Sept. 11 did not generate a mass uprising in the Islamic world. Not a single regime fell. To the contrary, the Taliban lost control of
Afghanistan, and the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein fell. Nevertheless, given its goals, al Qaeda was the net winner in this initial phase. First, the U.S. obsession about being attacked by al Qaeda constantly validated the militant network's power in the Islamic world and emphasized the vulnerability of the United States. Second, the United States threw itself into the Islamic world, adding credence to al Qaeda's claim that the country is the enemy of Islam. Finally, Washington drew a range of Islamic regimes into collaboration with its own war effort, demonstrating that these regimes -- from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan -- were in fact collaborating with the Christians rather than representing Islamic interests. Finally, by drawing the United
States into the kind of war it is the least competent in waging --guerrilla war -- al Qaeda created the framework for a prolonged conflict that would work against the United States in the Islamic world and at home.

Therefore, on first reading it would appear that the war has thus far gone pretty much as al Qaeda hoped it would. That is true, except for the fact that al Qaeda has not achieved the goal toward which all of this was directed. It achieved the things that it saw as the means toward the end, and yet the end is nowhere in sight.

This is the most important fact of the war. Al Qaeda wins if the Islamic world transforms itself at least in part by establishing Islamist regimes. That simply hasn't happened, and there is no sign of it happening. Thus far, at least, whatever the stresses might have been in the Islamic world, existing regimes working in concert with the United States have managed to contain the threat quite effectively.

This might be simply a matter of time. However, after two years, the suspicion has to be raised that al Qaeda calculated everything perfectly -- except for the response. Given what has been said about the Islamic world's anger at the United States and its contempt for the corruption of many governments, the failure of a revolutionary movement to take hold anywhere raises the question of whether al Qaeda's core analysis of the Islamic
world had any truth, or whether other factors are at play.

Now turn the question to the United States for a moment. The United States clearly understood al Qaeda's strategy. The government understood that al Qaeda was hoping for a massive counterattack in multiple countries and deep intrusions into other countries. Washington understood that it was playing into al Qaeda's plans; it nevertheless did so.

The U.S. analysis paralleled al Qaeda's analysis. Washington agreed that the issue was the Islamic perception of U.S. weakness. It understood, as President George W. Bush said in his Sept. 7 speech, that Beirut and Somalia -- as well as other events -- had persuaded the Islamic world that the country was indeed weak. Therefore, U.S. officials concluded that inaction would simply reinforce this perception and would hasten the unraveling of the region. Therefore, they realized that even if it played directly into al Qaeda's plan, the United States could not refuse to act.

Taking action carried with it a huge risk -- that of playing out al Qaeda's scenario. However, U.S. leaders made another bet: If an attack on the Islamic world could force or entice regimes in the area to act against al Qaeda inside their borders, then the threat could be turned around. Instead of al Qaeda trapping the United States, the United States could be trap al Qaeda. The central U.S. bet was that Washington could move the regimes in question in a suitable direction -- without their disintegration. If it succeeded, the tables could be turned.

The invasion of Iraq was intended to achieve this, and to a great extent it did. The Saudis moved against al Qaeda domestically. Syria changed its behavior. Most importantly, the Iranians shifted their view and actions. None of these regimes fell in the process. None of these actions were as thorough as the United States wanted, either -- and certainly none were definitive. Nevertheless, collaboration increased, and no regime fell.

But at this point, the battle is in doubt:

1. The United States must craft strategies for keeping both the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns at manageable levels. In particular, it must contain guerrilla activities at a level that will not be
perceived by the Islamic world as a significant victory.
2. The United States must continue to force or induce nations to collaborate without bringing down any governments.
3. Al Qaeda must, at some point, bring down a government to maintain its own credibility. At this point, merely surviving is not enough.

Both sides now are caught in a battle. The United States holds the resource card: Despite insufficient planning for manpower requirements over the course of the war, the United States is still in a position to bring substantial power to bear in multiple theaters of operation. For al Qaeda, the card is another massive attack on the United States. In the short run, the network cannot do more than sustain the level of combat currently achieved. This level is insufficient to trigger the political events for which it hopes. Therefore, it has to up the ante.

The next months will give some indication of the direction the war is going. Logic tells us that the United States will contain the war in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, in Afghanistan. Logic
also tells us that al Qaeda will attempt another massive attack in the United States to try to break the logjam in the Islamic world. What al Qaeda needs is a series of uprisings from the
Pacific to the Atlantic that would topple existing regimes. What the United States needs is to demonstrate that it has the will and ability to contain the forces al Qaeda has unleashed.

At this moment, two years into the war, the primary pressure is on al Qaeda. It has not yet demonstrated its ability to achieve its goals; it has only achieved an ability to mobilize the means
of doing so. That is not going to be enough. On the other hand, its ability to pull off massive and unpleasant surprises should not be underestimated.

Ruatha

September 10th, 2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
Men and skill may win battles, but economy wins wars.Usually yes, but some ships equipped with Talismans may make an economicly inferior empire defeat an empire with stronger economy.

Alpha Kodiak

September 10th, 2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Loser:
Men and skill may win battles, but economy wins wars.Usually yes, but some ships equipped with Talismans may make an economicly inferior empire defeat an empire with stronger economy.<hr /></blockquote>So if Al Quaeda can figure out how to afix talismans to rifles, we are in big trouble! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Cyrien

September 10th, 2003, 05:17 PM

Ahh but even the Talismans would be unable to overcome if the economy was too advanced. Say 10 Talisman battleships to 100 baseships. Or say a well placed star destroyer or ten. Doesn't matter how accurate your fire is when the star in front of you is going nova.

So I suppose what I am saying is enough technological and economic advantage and the power to use it and even talismans won't save you.

For instance the Afghans could develop all the Talismans they want on their rifles, but in the end picture the US could still just drop a few nukes... or 50,000 more soldiers... etc etc... But it of course won't.

The key difference in modern warfare is CAN and WILL. In the olden days of war, say Civil War and before and even upto World War I, there was no difference between CAN and WILL. If you had it you were free to use it.

So discussions that equate those earlier conflicts with more modern ones are inherently flawed by overlooking a new fundamental that must be taken into consideration. I for one am thankful for this new fundamental.

For something a little scary...
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Russia/Sovwarhead.html

tesco samoa

September 10th, 2003, 05:19 PM

if it is developed the cia will have a hand in it.

Has anyone ever read the 9-11 time line from

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

it is long long long.... but again another good read. As it is good to read from all sides.