Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Sanford:

I don't recall where it was on Osama's wish list.

I don't know about you, but I feel no particular obligation to fulfill bin Ladin's wish list.

The idea is not to please or satisfy him, but to render him, and other terrorist leaders, powerless. We could manage that in respect to Osama personally by killing him, if Bush League would get to it and quit farting around with Saddam, but others would spring up, Hydra-like, to replace him. To win the war on terrorism, we have to damp down the hatred among ordinary third world residents that makes them willing to die for the likes of Osama bin Ladin. That means being nicer, not to him, but to them.

I would agree with you, Brian, the Bush Administration is "farting around" with Saddam to divert public attention from the FACT that sixteen months after 911 we STILL not only don't have OBL's head on a platter, but that we haven't a friggin clue where he even IS. We quite likely will eventually have to go in and take Saddam out, but the current timing strikes me as rather disingenuous.

That said, I disagree wholeheartedly that we need to be "nicer" to these Islamicist fucks to deter them from launching more terrorist attacks upon us. That outlook smacks of Chamberlainism at its worst. We may indeed have rooms of our own house that need cleaning, but the root of Islamic hatred of the U.S. is not that we do in fact buy a great deal of petroleum from their quadrillionaire masters. Rather, it is simple envy-- of the freedom and prosperity that most of us have and most of them do not. The reason they don't is because they are too lame to rise up against their Sheikhs, Crown Princes and whoever. It is far, far easier for them to hate us then stage their own version of the American Revolution. If not for the American oil money hoarded by their leaders, I'm convinced they'd devise some other convenient excuse to despise us.

If we were to start "being nice" to them, the Islamicists would interpret such affections -- rightly or wrongly -- as weakness, which would in turn invite more terrorist attacks upon our soil, not fewer.

Kevin:

That said, I disagree wholeheartedly that we need to be "nicer" to these Islamic fucks to deter them from launching more terrorist attacks upon us.

Excuse me, but who exactly are "these Islamic fucks"? Are you referring to the entire population of every Muslim country? Because I was.

If you're referring to those who have already signed up with al-Qaeda, who could perhaps qualify for being called "these Islamic fucks," they are past dealing with and the only proper action is to hunt them down and kill them. But if we deal honorably and kindly with the Muslim world in general, there will be fewer of them -- hopefully a manageable number -- joining al-Qaeda to begin with.

Besides, these things I suggest we do (ceasing support for convenient dictators, taking a balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and tailoring our foreign policy to the genuine interests of the American people not the bottom line of U.S. corporations) are things we ought to be doing anyway. The Muslim world, and the third world in general, has a moral right to expect these actions of us. We cannot honorably do anything else.

I suppose we should also renounce, once and for all, our irredeemably wicked and Satanic Western Culture, and wholeheartedly convert to the one true faith of Islam. Well, you need not worry. Israel is done for, and Europe at the least will become Islamic within the century, while the US will be Latinized (and thus re-Christianized), unless the fundamentalist Christian interpretation of 'Revelation' is correct, and this 4T will be the End Times, with the Antichrist as the (false) GC. Brian, I hate to tell you this, but barring said Christian outcome, the Cultural Marxists (what you and others here call Cultural Creatives) will succeed in destroying the West from within, but it will be al-Islam, and Latin American Christendom, NOT your beloved Revolution, which will inherit all.

Originally Posted by monoghan

Thanks again for confirming that many years in the desert await those of you who really really really wanted the crisis to be a rerun of the FDR era.

Continuing our mutual admiration society--

This is indeed the bottom line. Each saeculum has seen fundamental change, NOT just a replay of the previous saeculum. We won't see capitalist vs. labor New Deal-type battles in this 4T as the central issue, because this is real history, not the movie Groundhog Day.

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

I suppose we should also renounce, once and for all, our irredeemably wicked and Satanic Western Culture, and wholeheartedly convert to the one true faith of Islam. Well, you need not worry. Israel is done for, and Europe at the least will become Islamic within the century, while the US will be Latinized (and thus re-Christianized), unless the fundamentalist Christian interpretation of 'Revelation' is correct, and this 4T will be the End Times, with the Antichrist as the (false) GC. Brian, I hate to tell you this, but barring said Christian outcome, the Cultural Marxists (what you and others here call Cultural Creatives) will succeed in destroying the West from within, but it will be al-Islam, and Latin American Christendom, NOT your beloved Revolution, which will inherit all.

thank you, nostrajds1958xgmus.


TK

Whether you agree with him or not, Brian Rush has a comprehensive and plausible view of what he believes will happen in this 4T, and he defends his position well. I'd like to hear a summary of what the 4T will be about from those who disagree with him, or a link to where you've explained it before if you have.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. With the right guy, or gal, at the top the next 4T will re-introduce the federal government as the father, son and holy ghost.

Or mother, daughter and apple pie.

Tribalism already infects the Democratic Party (always has), and will someday take root in the GOP. "We're your children," is always the cry from the benighted in times of great peril. Thus our totaliltarian benevolent saviour, the vaunted GC, returns from heave, or um, hell, to save us from ourselves. At the cost, of course, of a few hundred millions, give or take a few poor, lost souls.

History, after all, does repeat itself. Right? :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by David '47

Why we should have to repeat this is anyones guess, but apparently it's necessary.

I think I know. The problem is globalization. The ability of corporations to expand beyond national boundaries has empowered them to play one national government off against another, and ratchet standards downward. It has hugely increased corporate power worldwide. The balance established in the last Crisis between private profit and the public interest has been upset.

I' m more baffled by the need to convice ourselves. My comment came from a sense of frustration, not amazement.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We could manage that in respect to Osama personally by killing him, if Bush League would get to it

Osama is dead. The Bush League killed him. Prove me wrong.

Asking to prove a negative, Sanford?

Osama may or may not be dead. Al-Qaeda is definitely not.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Asking to prove a negative, Sanford?

Osama may or may not be dead. Al-Qaeda is definitely not.

You can't deny saying "we could manage that in respect to Osama personally by killing him, if Bush League would get to it ", as if you knew they hadn't.

And you have said as much a number of times before.

Now, I have got you to admit that he may be dead.

No, of course, you cannot personally prove things one way or the other. Neither can I.

And when wars are fought by dropping thousands of thermobaric bombs into thousands of caves scattered across Afghanistan, you cannot expect the Bush administration to be able to prove it, either.

The recent recording was declared a fake by some experts

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...386358602.html

and not a fake by others. (Ironically, the latter were U.S. intelligence experts, but U.S. intelligence experts have been known to be wrong before.)

Al Qaeda is on the run on all fronts. There are new Al Qaeda operatives captured or killed each week. The U.S. can walk and chew gum at the same time. Or, are you going to argue that the U.S. government should cease all social programs until we finish sweeping every cave in Afghanistan for Osama's DNA?

Sanford:

If you read the context of what I said earlier about bin Ladin, I was actually dismissing his importance, by pointing out that if he were dead, he would be replaced, Hydra-like.

I do not share your confidence with respect to al-Qaeda. They are rebuilding training camps in Afghanistan itself, right under our noses. They are acquiring many new recruits, by all accounts. There is much concern that they might be able to build a so-called "dirty" bomb from nuclear material (i.e., not a nuclear explosive but a conventional explosive that would scatter radioactive contaminants). They are far from a spent force. To say they are "on the run on all fronts" is absurd. They aren't even on the run any more in Afghanistan, and there are many more places where they can receive support and concealment.

The Bush administration is doing a terrible job in handling the war on terrorism. The problem with his obsession with Iraq is not so much that it diverts resources (though it does), as that it exacerbates the underlying problem: a fierce and growing hostility on the part of the developing world toward the United States, that manifests at the fringes in movements like al-Qaeda. Those who won't actually join such a movement, and this is still a majority, also cause us problems by not opposing it as wholeheartedly as we would like -- or, sometimes, at all.

Like it or not, and true or not, the rest of the world perceives Bush's desire to go to war with Saddam as a thinly-disguised oil grab. The cooperation we can expect from our allies is deteriorating, the hostility of our foes increasing, with every action Bush takes. Bush claims to be worried about the possibility that Saddam Hussein may develop nuclear weapons, and that terrorists may get their hands on them. But the fact is that Russia already has lots of nuclear weapons, security around many of the weaker ones is dangerously lax, THIS, not Saddam, is the biggest possible source of a terrorist bomb, and Bush is CUTTING aid to Russia that was intended to improve nuclear security. What this suggests to me is that Bush is not really concerned about nuclear terrorism, and that has nothing to do with why he wants to take out Saddam -- who, incidentally, could be counted on to sharply control and monitor his own nukes if he had any, and not let them get into the hands of people who might turn around and use them against him.

Under Bush's leadership, we are losing the war on terrorism. He is going about it entirely the wrong way. Almost surely, some time during the next year, another terrorist attack of considerable magnitude will be mounted successfully against us.

At the same time, we are also losing the struggle to stabilize the global economy. It is in complete disarray. Technically, the U.S. economy is in "recovery," but it is a recovery to a lower level of performance, and that will continue to be true until the imbalances in the global economic structure begin to be remedied. Bush will not remedy them; he is fully committed to the present system, which panders to corporate crooks much like himself.

As for his performance on the third issue, the threat to the global ecosystem, it is a complete and miserable failure.

And THIS is the Republican Party that you and Monoghan are presenting as the Gray Champion party? Yeah, right. And Benedict Arnold was GC in the Revolution.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They are rebuilding training camps in Afghanistan itself, right under our noses.

Laughable on its face. There are rumours of such, but if they were confirmed, the training camps would be destroyed from the air before the sun rose on a new day.

Getting the training camps is the easiest part. Even Clinton took a stab at that.

We are killing Al Qaeda all over the world, in places such as Yemen, Kenya, Somolia, etc. Places we don't even have significant numbers of ground troops.

Given that, isn't it obvious that any confirmed Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, which is practically an American client state at this point, are not long for this world?

Surely you must see that this complaint is absurd, like a woman watching a man putting out a house fire, and complaining that new flames have appeared in the foyer. He's got the hose, and he's spraying it on the flames. If the foyer isn't out yet, he'll spray it again.

You remind me of the people who started talking about a "quagmire" in October, 2001.

And don't lecture me about regions of Afghanistan that aren't exactly under the sway of our guys in Kabul. This is Afghanistan we're talking about. Establishing order there was never going to require anything less than a long time, no matter what anybody did.*

The fact is, the transition in Afghanistan after only a year is nothing short of astonishing. One by one, the "independent warlords" are falling into line or being destroyed.

===
*Personally, I think we should gradually withdraw out troops from Europe (except perhaps the Balkans) and base them in places like Afghanistan. Europe's done, our troops aren't needed there. The Soviet Union is no more. This is a new century, with new nations in need of defending.

Sanford,

In your Afghani analysis you ignore the border area, where Taliban-like Pakistanis provide the al Qaida support structure. This is not a military issue, unless you wish to destabilize Musharaf. Diplomacy is also a problem, since we insist on "our right" to attack Iraq. We have a self-manufactured PR problem, and its fomenting the next terrorist crisis.

This is not about who's right; its about pragmatism. While we stand precariously on principle, what we really need is a less risky option.

And another thing: Why, if Bush is serious about the war on terror, is he going ahead with a missile defense system? Such a system will do nothing to protect us from terrorist use of WMD, since they aren't likely to employ ballistic missiles for the purpose. But the Russians have already cautioned that it will lead to a new arms race, which means more Russian nuclear weapons, which means a bigger security problem and a greater chance that nukes will fall into the hands of terrorists -- who will bypass our missile defense system (even assuming it works as advertised) to attack in their usual fashion.

Bush is going about this all wrong. All the signs are that he doesn't even care about protecting Americans from terrorists. All he cares about is using the issue politically, and using it as a wedge to do other things he wants, like hand tax money to his cronies for building a missile defense system, or hand Iraqi oil to his other cronies after conquering the country.

Taking out the Taliban was good. Since then, he's screwed the pooch big time.

Brian,

As everyone with the ability to draw air can hardly forget, Bush came to town with an agenda. Most of the things on that agenda were moved to the back of the stove after 9-11 ... but they're coming forward.

Now, are we also going to push some things that are currently in front to the back to make room? Remember, Bush was adamant that nation building is wrong-wrong-wrong. Is Iraq a case of nation building, or are we just planning to level the place and go home?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

And another thing: Why, if Bush is serious about the war on terror, is he going ahead with a missile defense system?

Well, I don't feel as strongly about this subject, but Bush seemed determined to get the U.S. started on a missile defense system from his first day in office, so one could conclude that he thinks it's important on it's own, terrorism notwithstanding. (Not everything has to be about terrorism.)

I will not argue that missile defense as the technology stands is very effective, and obviously it has little at all to do with terrorism, as terrorists probably wouldn't use ICBMs.

If you look at missile defense as a long term commitment (i.e., decades), and if you conclude that it can eventually be effective enough to be worthwhile, then you might say "We have to start somewhere."

Of course, one could agree with that paragraph and still argue that the technology is still premature and thus it is not smart to start now. This is an intelligent argument.

However, with something as big as missile defense, technical ability is only part of the equation. Political will to make it happen is another.

My reading is, Bush thinks that some president some day has to commit the U.S. on the path of missile defense, for the sake of getting the ball rolling, even if the technology won't be very effective for ten years after he leaves office.

The arguments that it advances the arms race are totally lost on Bush, I think, because he thinks arms races are inevitable. (The Russians have sneakily developed supercavitating underwater torpedoes that make our torpedoes obsolete, but who's accusing them of perpetuating the arms race?) He also thinks defensive systems are morally superior to offensive systems, and it shouldn't be any other country's business that the U.S. invests in a missile defense system.

The approach being taken (building upon current AEGIS systems, etc.) is much closer to our current capabilities then the space-based Star Wars schemes were.

While it is certainly true that WMD can be delivered without ICBM's, that doesn't mean that in some war scenarios, ICBM's aren't still pivotal. Again, not everything is about terrorism.

If China attempted to invade Taiwan, for example, and we decided to try to stop them, the war would be decided in hours. It is unlikely that China's plan, in such an eventuality, involves shipping containers.

Bush seems to want our military to be strong in all arenas, including the sort of scenarios in which ICBM's are being fired.

My position is that some sort of strategic missile defense is probably an inevitablilty, but it is not clear that now is the time to start. However, since we already had theater-level missile defense sort-of kind-of working (Patriots, etc.), how far away can it really be?

If it can work, I'd like the U.S. to be the first to find out.

Originally Posted by David '47

Remember, Bush was adamant that nation building is wrong-wrong-wrong.

That was G.H.W.B. And that position may have been 3T thinking.

Originally Posted by David '47

Brian,

As everyone with the ability to draw air can hardly forget, Bush came to town with an agenda. Most of the things on that agenda were moved to the back of the stove after 9-11 ... but they're coming forward.

Now, are we also going to push some things that are currently in front to the back to make room?

Yeah, are we going to see that "humble" in our Foreign Relations moved to the place of honor that Dubya wished for it?

Gee, I thought Bush was being pretty "humble" when he decided to let Hans Blick and the U.N do their thing, one more time.

Oh, you meant "humble," as in Let Saddam support terrorism and get his bloody nukes, if he wants to.

Aren't you confusing "humble" and utter stupidity, as in the Clinton Foreign Policy approach? Like let the Red Chinese have our missile tecchnology, so they can hit L.A., if they want it. Like help North Korea to build their, um, nuke power plants, if they want to...

After all, they got campaign cash. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Gee, I thought Bush was being pretty "humble" when he decided to let Hans Blick and the U.N do their thing, one more time.

Oh, you meant "humble," as in Let Saddam support terrorism and get his bloody nukes, if he wants to.

Aren't you confusing "humble" and utter stupidity, as in the Clinton Foreign Policy approach? Like let the Red Chinese have our missile tecchnology, so they can hit L.A., if they want it. Like help North Korea to build their, um, nuke power plants, if they want to...

After all, they got campaign cash. :wink:

And while we're at it, no doubt we'd be supposed to extend the bounds of our newfound humility to blaming ourselves for the next terrorist atrocity aimed at us, instead of having the unmitigated gall to retaliate, or even try to defend ourselves. Give me some good old-fashioned AMERICAN PRIDE any day, over that left-wing BS!

So Boeing has cancelled its futuristic airliner. I thought of this as a late High/early Awakening project like the Super Sonic Transport. Do you suppose that those at the top of the Boeing totem pole feel-in their bones-that we are on the verge of a Saecular winter?

Originally Posted by David '47

Brian,

As everyone with the ability to draw air can hardly forget, Bush came to town with an agenda. Most of the things on that agenda were moved to the back of the stove after 9-11 ... but they're coming forward.

Now, are we also going to push some things that are currently in front to the back to make room? Remember, Bush was adamant that nation building is wrong-wrong-wrong. Is Iraq a case of nation building, or are we just planning to level the place and go home?

From my perspective, missile defense will eventually be a good idea. If we had something similar to a budget surplus, I'd favor continued research. Deploying something that isn't working is another story.

The other question is whether we are spending money effectively and agains the most likely threat. I don't see how to stop the poor autocratic nations from developing the weapons, or how to prevent them from smuggling them into the country. We have never been able to block our borders from drug or booze smuggling. I don't expect we could start now. Thus, wasting money protecting ourselves from the semi-developed nations might be less a waste than trying to defend ourselves from the terrorists.

But eventually, we won't be able to maintain the developed world's military dominance. The division of wealth put in place by the old blatant Imperialist powers, now held in place with smoke and mirrors, might have to go. New technology favors massive destruction. I don't see trying to prevent the massive destruction by force. While the world isn't ready for a truly global government, or a system that offers truly global economic opportunity, we might have no choice but move that way anyway.

Originally Posted by Sanford

Originally Posted by David '47

Remember, Bush was adamant that nation building is wrong-wrong-wrong.

That was G.H.W.B. And that position may have been 3T thinking.

No, it was Dubya. In fact, here's a report on the foreign policy positions of both Bush and Gore published prior to the 2000 election.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Gee, I thought Bush was being pretty "humble" when he decided to let Hans Blick and the U.N do their thing, one more time.

Oh, you meant "humble," as in Let Saddam support terrorism and get his bloody nukes, if he wants to.

Aren't you confusing "humble" and utter stupidity, as in the Clinton Foreign Policy approach? Like let the Red Chinese have our missile tecchnology, so they can hit L.A., if they want it. Like help North Korea to build their, um, nuke power plants, if they want to...

After all, they got campaign cash. :wink:

Once again, a reference to the source.