If they call themselves the Celestials then they're more than a little arrogant. I prefer the Jack Kirby reference.

The WOT has given way to Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism.

I hope this is adequate to convince Eurasia and Eurasians to begin to shape up. However, as we are all GSAVErs now, I hope to aid and comfort Ms. Hughes and Mr. Rove,et al. with the following if the Not-War-like GSAVE doesn't do the trick:

Campaigns Attempting Rapid Reforms Helping Asia-Europe

I have seen my duty, and I hope I have done it to limits of my very meagre abilities.

ROTFLMAO!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

The WOT has given way to Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism.

I hope this is adequate to convince Eurasia and Eurasians to begin to shape up. However, as we are all GSAVErs now, I hope to aid and comfort Ms. Hughes and Mr. Rove,et al. with the following if the Not-War-like GSAVE doesn't do the trick:

Campaigns Attempting Rapid Reforms Helping Asia-Europe

I have seen my duty, and I hope I have done it to limits of my very meagre abilities.

I wonder if this means we must worship "Sin". :wink:

I completly do not understand.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I mean by Celestials the Chinese, not just the PRC commies or the heirs of the Kuomintang oppressing the Formosans or the two-system Hong-Kongers, but also the Overseas Chinese who run much of the economies in Indonesia, Indo-China, the Phillipines, Burma, and Singapore and have a "base" in Long Beach, a sturdy foothold in Vancouver, BC, GWN and iron ore mines 20 miles southwest of my farm. See one of Mr. Butler's recommendations, World on Fire by Ms. Chua for more.

Other than being both inclusive and cryptic, this does make some sense. Ms Chua is interested in 'ethnic dominant minorities.' In many parts of the world, a dominant nation expands its influence into nearby regions. Citizens of the dominant nation build up networks -- in varying degrees racist -- by which a foreign minority comes to 'lord over' the local majority. If the Soviet Union was one state that expanded into traditionally Islamic regions, causing lingering problems with the former communist ruling elite attempting to cling to power, the Chinese have networks of ruling elites spread through much of Asia. Chua is concerned with conflict between capitalistic power -- a rich elite controlling the means of production -- and democratic power -- a local majority with an entirely different agenda. This conflict takes many forms in many lands. If one views Iraq's Baathist Sunni population as a recently disenfranchised dominant minority dealing with imposed democracy, this would be another example of Chua's way of looking at the many ethnic - religious - political - military - economic crises developing around the world.

But lumping the 'Celestials' together in one big clump is simplistic... as is lumping all Islamics together. The many nations involved are in different situations. China is not the Phillipines. Solutions that might work in one place would not address the right problem elsewhere. Chua's perspective illuminates if one uses it to analyze any given nation. It is a spotlight, while the "Clash of Civilizations" perspective draws one to a much more distant and less detailed view of the world. I would suggest that the problems in China, Hong Kong, the Phillipines, and 20 miles from Virgil's home might each require a different perspective, a different set of solutions.

While my world view doesn't totally disregard the Clash of Civilizations perspective, I distrust it. Yes, wherever one civilization was recently dominant, where power is in the hands of one civilization, while the majority of the local people are culturally attuned to a different civilization, there are going to be problems. But the problems will be different from one nation to the next. Solutions ought to be customized to the local headaches. For one civilization to demonize the others, suggest that the solution is to fight for the perogatives of one's civilization, or impose one's supposedly superior civilization on one's neighbors by force, is not overly constructive.

Originally Posted by spudzill

I completely do not understand.

I Goggled CARRHAE, and discovered a Battle of Carrhae way back in Roman times, when Crassus, Caesar and Pompey were attempting to share power. The Romans got thwapped by the Parthians out Mesopotamia way. It would seem we are being reminded that the West and Middle East have been arguing for quite a while. It should be noted that the West has been known to lose some rounds.

Originally Posted by spudzill

I completly do not understand.

Neither do the reformers at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they grew up reading Mr. Lev Davidovich Bronstein's Defense of Terrorism of 1921 or his Permanent Revolution and Results and Prospects of a decade later in their fathers' book-lined rooms.


The Founding Fathers had recourse to Plutarch, writing 1700 years previous, in the "Dryden" edition:

Originally Posted by the author of [i

Parallel Lives[/i]]...but Crassus was so transported with his fortune, that it was
manifest he thought he had never had such good luck befall him as
now, so that he had much to do to contain himself before company
and strangers; but amongst his private friends he let fall many
vain and childish words, which were unworthy of his age, and
contrary to his usual character, for he had been very little given
to boasting hitherto. But then being strangely puffed up, and his
head heated, he would not limit his fortune with Parthia and
Syria; but looking on the actions of Lucullus against Tigranes and
the exploits of Pompey against Mithridates as but child's play, he
proposed to himself in his hopes to pass as far as Bactria and
India, and the utmost ocean. Not that he was called upon by the
decree which appointed him to his office to undertake any
expedition against the Parthians, but it was well known that he
was eager for it, and Caesar wrote to him out of Gaul, commending
his resolution, and inciting him to the war. And when Ateius, the
tribune of the people, designed to stop his journey, and many
others murmured that one man should undertake a war against a
people that had done them no injury...

and is this not the like of Mr. Chalabi who sat most near to the First Lady at a SOTU:

Originally Posted by the Founder's favorite

While Crassus was still considering, and as yet undetermined,
there came to the camp an Arab chief named Ariamnes, a cunning and
wily fellow, who, of all the evil chances which combined to lead
them on to destruction, was the chief and the most fatal. Some of
Pompey's old soldiers knew him, and remembered him to have
received some kindnesses of Pompey, and to have been looked upon
as a friend to the Romans, but he was now suborned by the king's*
generals, and sent to Crassus to entice him if possible from the
river and hills into the wide open plain, where he might be
surrounded. For the Parthians desired anything, rather than to
be obliged to meet the Romans face to face. He, therefore, coming
to Crassus, (and he had a persuasive tongue,) highly commended
Pompey as his benefactor, and admired the forces that Crassus
had with him, but seemed to wonder why
he delayed and made preparations, as if he should not use his feet more than any arms,
against men that, taking with them their best goods and chattels,
had designed long ago to fly for refuge to the Scythians or
Hyrcanians. "If you meant to fight, you should have made all
possible haste, before the king should recover courage, and
collect his forces together; at present you see Surena and
Sillaces opposed to you, to draw you off in pursuit of them, while
the king himself keeps out of the way."


*{Hyrodes's (the Parthian's)-VKS}

Crassus, Parallel Lives

Originally Posted by some old Greek

In actual service, Nicias did much that deserves high praise.
He frequently defeated the enemy in battle, and was on the
very point of capturing Syracuse; nor should he bear the whole blame
of the disaster, which may fairly be ascribed in part to his
want of health and to the jealousy entertained of him at home.
Crassus, on the other hand, committed so many errors as not to
leave fortune room to show him favor. It is no surprise to find
such imbecility fall a victim to the power of Parthia; the only
wonder is to see it prevailing over the wonted good-fortune of
Rome. One scrupulously observed, the other entirely slighted
the arts of divination; and as both equally perished, it is
difficult to see what inference we should draw. Yet the fault
of over-caution, supported by old and general opinion, better
deserves forgiveness than that of self-willed and lawless
transgression.

Crassus and Nicias Compared, Parallel Lives

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by spudzill

I completly do not understand.

Neither do the reformers at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they grew up reading Mr. Lev Davidovich Bronstein's Defense of Terrorism of 1921 or his Permanent Revolution and Results and Prospects of a decade later in their fathers' book-lined rooms.


The Founding Fathers had recourse to Plutarch, writing 1700 years previous, in the "Dryden" edition:

Originally Posted by the author of [i

Parallel Lives[/i]]...but Crassus was so transported with his fortune, that it was
manifest he thought he had never had such good luck befall him as
now, so that he had much to do to contain himself before company
and strangers; but amongst his private friends he let fall many
vain and childish words, which were unworthy of his age, and
contrary to his usual character, for he had been very little given
to boasting hitherto. But then being strangely puffed up, and his
head heated, he would not limit his fortune with Parthia and
Syria; but looking on the actions of Lucullus against Tigranes and
the exploits of Pompey against Mithridates as but child's play, he
proposed to himself in his hopes to pass as far as Bactria and
India, and the utmost ocean. Not that he was called upon by the
decree which appointed him to his office to undertake any
expedition against the Parthians, but it was well known that he
was eager for it, and Caesar wrote to him out of Gaul, commending
his resolution, and inciting him to the war. And when Ateius, the
tribune of the people, designed to stop his journey, and many
others murmured that one man should undertake a war against a
people that had done them no injury...

and is this not the like of Mr. Chalabi who sat most near to the First Lady at a SOTU:

Originally Posted by the Founder's favorite

While Crassus was still considering, and as yet undetermined,
there came to the camp an Arab chief named Ariamnes, a cunning and
wily fellow, who, of all the evil chances which combined to lead
them on to destruction, was the chief and the most fatal. Some of
Pompey's old soldiers knew him, and remembered him to have
received some kindnesses of Pompey, and to have been looked upon
as a friend to the Romans, but he was now suborned by the king's*
generals, and sent to Crassus to entice him if possible from the
river and hills into the wide open plain, where he might be
surrounded. For the Parthians desired anything, rather than to
be obliged to meet the Romans face to face. He, therefore, coming
to Crassus, (and he had a persuasive tongue,) highly commended
Pompey as his benefactor, and admired the forces that Crassus
had with him, but seemed to wonder why
he delayed and made preparations, as if he should not use his feet more than any arms,
against men that, taking with them their best goods and chattels,
had designed long ago to fly for refuge to the Scythians or
Hyrcanians. "If you meant to fight, you should have made all
possible haste, before the king should recover courage, and
collect his forces together; at present you see Surena and
Sillaces opposed to you, to draw you off in pursuit of them, while
the king himself keeps out of the way."


*{Hyrodes's (the Parthian's)-VKS}

Crassus, Parallel Lives

Originally Posted by some old Greek

In actual service, Nicias did much that deserves high praise.
He frequently defeated the enemy in battle, and was on the
very point of capturing Syracuse; nor should he bear the whole blame
of the disaster, which may fairly be ascribed in part to his
want of health and to the jealousy entertained of him at home.
Crassus, on the other hand, committed so many errors as not to
leave fortune room to show him favor. It is no surprise to find
such imbecility fall a victim to the power of Parthia; the only
wonder is to see it prevailing over the wonted good-fortune of
Rome. One scrupulously observed, the other entirely slighted
the arts of divination; and as both equally perished, it is
difficult to see what inference we should draw. Yet the fault
of over-caution, supported by old and general opinion, better
deserves forgiveness than that of self-willed and lawless
transgression.

Crassus and Nicias Compared, Parallel Lives

Waycool.

Originally Posted by Mr. Alan Bock

It would be foolish to try to parse all the sanctimony and hypocrisy that will
accompany this shift in policy. I would just as soon let them have their hypocrisy,
let them pretend that nothing has changed in their devotion to democracy and
fighting terrorism, so long as they do what they seem to have decided to do
– begin extracting U.S. resources from the quagmire, or sand trap, or whatever.

"global war on terror" has been transmogrified into "a global struggle against violent extremism,"

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. Alan Bock

It would be foolish to try to parse all the sanctimony and hypocrisy that will
accompany this shift in policy. I would just as soon let them have their hypocrisy,
let them pretend that nothing has changed in their devotion to democracy and
fighting terrorism, so long as they do what they seem to have decided to do
– begin extracting U.S. resources from the quagmire, or sand trap, or whatever.

"global war on terror" has been transmogrified into "a global struggle against violent extremism,"

Jon Stewart noted that the other night (and it was very funny). According to Xenakis we can now know with "100% certainty" that everyone under 40 is aware of it.

The final statement of the above (anti-war.com) article:

"The meltdown of the Iraq adventure has given us an opening we should not ignore."

Is it time to bomb Saudi Arabia and give its eastern provinces to Shiites?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...073100221.html

A Long Tradition from the GOP, the Stupid, err Innumerate Party

Originally Posted by Mr. Steve Sailer

[Hey man, are you {General George W. Casey, Commanding General of the Multi-National Force in Iraq} a General or are you a fag? You oughtta be telling me, "By this time next year, an Iraqi force of eleven million highly-trained security forces, all of whom are professed Seinfeld fans, will be deployed not only to take control of Iraq, but to invade, occupy, and Americanize every neighboring country, including, if necessary, Russia and China. God bless these men, and God Bless America!"]

Originally Posted by Gen. Casey

“insurgencies need progress to survive, and this insurgency is not progressing.”

quoted by Mr. Ivan Eland in
The Politics of Troop Withdrawal.

Originally Posted by IE

In fact, as George Washington, the North Vietnamese, and the anti-Soviet Mujahedin fighters in Afghanistan demonstrated, insurgents need only to keep an army in the field and “not lose” until the big power gets exhausted and goes home.

I'm upset about this new title.

Extremism is even more difficult to define than terrorism, so much so that it defines the problem with the Bush Administration and Congress as well as global terrorism. Using this word to refer to terrorist bombers means we can't meaningfully use it to describe extremism in our own country.

I think we have to look at it as a strategic domestic opinion-shaping move. Why change the name if it's not to achieve some desired public opinion result? Labeling your enemy is important because it defines who you are: If my enemy is darkness, then I must be light. The perfidy is, they know that "extremism" is a relative term that they can apply broadly to any convenient target--and yet using this term to describe America's enemies creates the impression that the White House is in fact the foil, or opposite, of extremism.

It gives them license to define the norm and the center, and takes the complaint of extremism away from those of us who are just getting ready to fight the extremism battle here in America on a generational level (i.e., Millennials coming of age are very likely going to fiercely oppose those candidates who threaten to polarize or fracture the parties through personal extremism). Changing the title of the War on Terror obfuscates this rallying point.

Does anyone have any theories on reasons behind the name change? (I'd ask for published reasoning from the White House, but why bother. It will probably tell me I advocated the name change myself.) :evil:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by IE

In fact, as George Washington, the North Vietnamese, and the anti-Soviet Mujahedin fighters in Afghanistan demonstrated, insurgents need only to keep an army in the field and “not lose” until the big power gets exhausted and goes home.

Tell that to Hopeful Cynic.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by IE

In fact, as George Washington, the North Vietnamese, and the anti-Soviet Mujahedin fighters in Afghanistan demonstrated, insurgents need only to keep an army in the field and “not lose” until the big power gets exhausted and goes home.

Tell that to Hopeful Cynic.

Nah. Inadequately cynical. :P

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. Alan Bock

It would be foolish to try to parse all the sanctimony and hypocrisy that will
accompany this shift in policy. I would just as soon let them have their hypocrisy,
let them pretend that nothing has changed in their devotion to democracy and
fighting terrorism, so long as they do what they seem to have decided to do
– begin extracting U.S. resources from the quagmire, or sand trap, or whatever.

"global war on terror" has been transmogrified into "a global struggle against violent extremism,"

GSAVE is out, GWOT is back in!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/po...rtner=homepage

GSAVE: the 2005 equivalent of New Coke.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

GSAVE: the 2005 equivalent of New Coke.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8)

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

GSAVE: the 2005 equivalent of New Coke.

I actually think that whatever the neoconservatives call their imperial project it is something like the new coke. What the neoconservatives want is a post-American America, where sovereignty, cultural integrity, and a fair deal for the middle class (the pillars of paleo-conservatism, or coke classic) give way to a trans-national, pseudo-democratic corporatist plutocracy under the protection of an American-led military imperium and global police state that imprisons, tortures, and murders dissenters. The American republic has been dying for sixty years, but at least we used to leave the torturing and murdering to thugs in client governments rather than forcing our own kids to get their hands dirty. But now America is a "homeland" not a country. The likes of DA and the other Bush cons I think either secretly support cultural liberalism and the globalist, corporatist kleptocracy or they're the stupidest, most deluded people in America.

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

GSAVE: the 2005 equivalent of New Coke.

I actually think that whatever the neoconservatives call their imperial project it is something like the new coke. What the neoconservatives want is a post-American America, where sovereignty, cultural integrity, and a fair deal for the middle class (the pillars of paleo-conservatism, or coke classic) give way to a trans-national, pseudo-democratic corporatist plutocracy under the protection of an American-led military imperium and global police state that imprisons, tortures, and murders dissenters. The American republic has been dying for sixty years, but at least we used to leave the torturing and murdering to thugs in client governments rather than forcing our own kids to get their hands dirty. But now America is a "homeland" not a country. The likes of DA and the other Bush cons I think either secretly support cultural liberalism and the globalist, corporatist kleptocracy or they're the stupidest, most deluded people in America.

I wouldn't go so far as to say our republic has been "dying" for the past sixty years, but I like the gist of your post.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

GSAVE: the 2005 equivalent of New Coke.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8)

Yes. That was good.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

GSAVE: the 2005 equivalent of New Coke.

I actually think that whatever the neoconservatives call their imperial project it is something like the new coke. What the neoconservatives want is a post-American America, where sovereignty, cultural integrity, and a fair deal for the middle class (the pillars of paleo-conservatism, or coke classic) give way to a trans-national, pseudo-democratic corporatist plutocracy under the protection of an American-led military imperium and global police state that imprisons, tortures, and murders dissenters. The American republic has been dying for sixty years, but at least we used to leave the torturing and murdering to thugs in client governments rather than forcing our own kids to get their hands dirty. But now America is a "homeland" not a country. The likes of DA and the other Bush cons I think either secretly support cultural liberalism and the globalist, corporatist kleptocracy or they're the stupidest, most deluded people in America.

I wouldn't go so far as to say our republic has been "dying" for the past sixty years, but I like the gist of your post.

True, Sean, about not going that far. I'd more likely say 'for the past 40 years'.