<strong>part of teh expressed reason for 911 is the American prescence in Arabia . . . since 1991 . . . that constitutes a reacction to a percieved invasion
as said so by the head terrorist himself</strong><hr></blockquote>
Part of it, yeah, you cannot attribute 9/11 to the Persian Gulf War. Did bin Laden ever mention the Persian Gulf War?
A nice little link from the BBC up there that states that bin Laden doesn't even dig Iraq all that much, so why in God's name would he attack America BECAUSE of a war with Iraq??
I know it's the lynchpin in your argument, pfflam, but you've gotta face facts.
Terrorism and the Iraq question are almost completely separate. You cannot have it both ways, either Iraq is connected to terrorist organizations and you can have your "terrorism will rise!" argument OR Iraq is not connected with terrorism and you can't have your "terrorism will rise!" argument.
[quote]Mr. de Villepin also suggested that Saddam's government pass "legislation to prohibit the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction." (I am not making this up.) That proposal alone is a reminder of why, if America didn't exist and Europe had to rely on France, most Europeans today would be speaking either German or Russian.<hr></blockquote>
How the hell did Matsu and his not so funny gender related jokes get back in here. I knew he wouldn't be gone long. They never are. Just like Nixon and his " Well you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore ".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
hey hey jimmimac, what's up? I just had a funny moment where my response to this complaint was too good to post, which happens from time to time as the I cruise the web fora of the cyber world (not always as Matsu either) looking for interesting time wasters. Thanks, one day you may identify me by my rantings.
Sufficeth to say, Gender equality demands that the vagina get equal time. You call a dick a dick, no? I didn't want to say cvnt, if I really was 100% non-sexist, I'd have said it, but good upbringing demands a more elegant presentation and vagina (phonetically) really is a very pretty word.
Back in the interbellum heydays, there were some pacifists proposing to outlaw wars.
Of course, it's understandable that having lived through the horrors of the Great War and its trenches many wished to put an obstacle to such eventuality, however their idea was just as irrealist as is the one put forth by Monsieur de Villepin*.
As for the mystic symbolism which could be found in tragic loss of Columbia, one could use the Notarikon and dish you some Gimetrias by the truckload, and it would be just as irrelevent.
Omens and oracles would be just as useless for any modern commander and statesman as they were for Nero or Honorius.
My biggest misgiving with Mr. Bush's upcoming little adventure is that it would make so many Islamists cheer in ecstatic joy, as they are wishing for more blooshed to fuel their dreams of apocalpotic and cataclystic war of worlds, or Â?clash of civilisationsÂ? as it's called these days.
To the best of my knowledge, the USA in already in a state of war with Iraq (as no peace treaty has been signed since Desert Storm), and the losing side (=>Iraq) hasn't been all that respectful of the cease-fire terms, or so I've heard. So, while I don't find renewing combat to be the wisest move available it is certainly a legitimate one.
And I don't think Iraq would prove more difficult to crack than Serbia was (for those expecting another Vietnam, don't).
As for fundamentalist and totalitarian Islamism, its intentions are very hostile to be sure but it's quite powerless.
In the only country where Islamism as a political proposition was able to establish itself as the ruling regime, Iran, it's been losing support and popularity for more than ten years. The relative successes of the Islamic republic in development and education in Iran are the very means of its ongoing decline.
In the Arab area, it hasn't even been able to topple any major regime, so it remains beneath the most modest achievement of Nasserism and Pan-Arabism.
That doesn't mean Islamism is harmless far from it, as a political ideology it's belongs with Marxism-Leninism and other forms of totalitarianism; only that it doesn't presently pose an existential threat to the West. It's an annoyance as it can pull off spectacular terrorist attacks, but it's not like it will be forcing the Limes and riding into the the shrine of Jupiter Capitoline tomorrow.
Yet Islamism should not be summarily dismissed as harmelss because of its present powerlessness, but neutralised so it cannot pose a real existential threat tomorrow, and while this certainly requires some use of force, it mostly requires brains.
The sources of backing of Islamist groups have to be cut its leaders prosecuted, and its organisations defanged. But mostly it should be opposed on the plane of ideas and of actions.
One does not oppose one aggressive fundamentalism with another.
Utlimately, communism was defeated, not by another totalitarianism but by its own failure, but it had also to be opposed an alternative to totalitarianism.
Part of it, yeah, you cannot attribute 9/11 to the Persian Gulf War. Did bin Laden ever mention the Persian Gulf War?
A nice little link from the BBC up there that states that bin Laden doesn't even dig Iraq all that much, so why in God's name would he attack America BECAUSE of a war with Iraq??
I know it's the lynchpin in your argument, pfflam, but you've gotta face facts.
Terrorism and the Iraq question are almost completely separate. You cannot have it both ways, either Iraq is connected to terrorist organizations and you can have your "terrorism will rise!" argument OR Iraq is not connected with terrorism and you can't have your "terrorism will rise!" argument.</strong><hr></blockquote>Why does someone as intelligent as you often appear to NOT SEE the basic connection: our troops stayed in Suadi Arabia after the Gulf War:
1. they are there on account of our invasion of Iraq
2. They are seeen as an invasion of holy Islamic land
3. Our military bases, that will necessarily be based in that region after the war, in Iraq, Kuwait, Arabia etc will be potential grains of sand in their Islamic Oyster... they will be seebn as part of the invasion . . . just as the Roman Garrisons sent to help teh Greeks eventually lead to the conquering of Greece these garrisons will be seen as the same move
<strong>1. they are there on account of our invasion of Iraq</strong><hr></blockquote>
To protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq, per Saudi Arabia's request. Yes. The actual invasion of Iraq is a non-issue for bin Laden. So 9/11 was not sparked by the invasion of Iraq, but in part by troops being in Saudi Arabia. And the reason we were there was to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq, per Saudi Arabia's request. We could have carried out the attacks on Iraq from Kuwait with ease; SA was not a necessary staging ground. But they like having us there, or else we would not be there.
Saudi Arabia is a fascinating issue, when talking with their Arab neighbors they act as if they do not want our troops there. They tell Pakistan "No no, our government will not allow X or Y." but when whoever our president is at the asks, "We need to do X or Y from our bases in your country." the royal family says "Yes, yes, of course."
We like their oil and they like our money, but we don't like each other. I'd recommend to Osama that he look to the ruling family in Saudi Arabia to fix his grievances.
[quote]<strong>2. They are seeen as an invasion of holy Islamic land</strong><hr></blockquote>
American troops being in Saudi Arabia was seen as an invasion on the most holy of Islamic lands by fruitcakes like bin Laden, and was an especially big grip for bin Laden himself. Yes.
[quote]<strong>3. Our military bases, that will necessarily be based in that region after the war, in Iraq, Kuwait, Arabia etc will be potential grains of sand in their Islamic Oyster... they will be seebn as part of the invasion</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the radical Islamic people that become terrorists don't really seem to care about Kuwait and Iraq, just Saudi Arabia.
And even past that, is dictating your foreign policy to placate an unnamed and faceless enemy wise?
'm not just worried abut teh Islamists . . . I am also worried about the general world perception of the US . . . if we could just use diplomacy with more aplomb and grace I am sure that we would have been able to get the world's opinion behind us long ago . . . Bush and Rumsfeldt are like a herd of panicked bulls in Tiffanies... they will leave a wake behind them that will cut our feet for a very long time
and yes, the wackos are the one's that care about our presence . . . but their voice will sound sweeter to the dissaffected youth in search of a cause, throughout the mideast and the world if they have a very visible Great Satan to point to.
<strong>'m not just worried abut teh Islamists . . . I am also worried about the general world perception of the US</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understand that, but I wouldn't be so concerned with it if I were you.
[quote]<strong>if we could just use diplomacy with more aplomb and grace I am sure that we would have been able to get the world's opinion behind us long ago</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think I'd get much argument from anyone that Clinton was a fantastic foreign diplomat, yet even his (very strong) agenda against Iraq was met with skepticism and resistance in Europe.
I don't think I'd get much argument from anyone that Bush and Rumsfeld are the foreign diplomatic equivalents of the Keystone Kops compared to erstwhile President Clinton and their case is heard.
This has very little to do with how the president handles the situation. Very little of the worldwide perception of America has to do with what American government actually does.
Of course, there is a lot to be said for sabre rattling, a lost diplomatic art here in the United States. It's amazing how rumors of war and death can get countries moving and remove the malaise of fat and lazy diplomacy.
Thanks to 9/11 this is an issue that has to be dealt with, not because of a connection between Iraq and 9/11 but a startling realization that there's a world outside the West and that world can be dangerous.
Give Clinton 9/11 and he would do what Bush is doing now. Very little about anything our presidents do is unexpected or unique. Their very job requirements demand they not be unique.
[quote]<strong>but their voice will sound sweeter to the dissaffected youth in search of a cause, throughout the mideast and the world if they have a very visible Great Satan to point to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The evoluton of Iran tells a different story. You can't say that with any certainty. Perhaps? Perhaps yes. It can't be said with certainty.
Of course, there are still nations that aren't awake to the fact that there are nations outside of the West; France being chief among them. Of course, is France EVER aware of any nation aside from their own?
[quote]Of course, there are still nations that aren't awake to the fact that there are nations outside of the West; France being chief among them. Of course, is France EVER aware of any nation aside from their own?<hr></blockquote>If you're being funny that's fine, but you should learn a little colonial history as France has very recently just pulled out of their colony called Algeria and more recently illegally helped the Algerian Army overthrow the freely elected, but mostly fundamentalist islamic government there in a very nasty and very brutal civil war that also featured terrorist attacks in Paris.
Comments
<strong>part of teh expressed reason for 911 is the American prescence in Arabia . . . since 1991 . . . that constitutes a reacction to a percieved invasion
as said so by the head terrorist himself</strong><hr></blockquote>
Part of it, yeah, you cannot attribute 9/11 to the Persian Gulf War. Did bin Laden ever mention the Persian Gulf War?
A nice little link from the BBC up there that states that bin Laden doesn't even dig Iraq all that much, so why in God's name would he attack America BECAUSE of a war with Iraq??
I know it's the lynchpin in your argument, pfflam, but you've gotta face facts.
Terrorism and the Iraq question are almost completely separate. You cannot have it both ways, either Iraq is connected to terrorist organizations and you can have your "terrorism will rise!" argument OR Iraq is not connected with terrorism and you can't have your "terrorism will rise!" argument.
[quote]Mr. de Villepin also suggested that Saddam's government pass "legislation to prohibit the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction." (I am not making this up.) That proposal alone is a reminder of why, if America didn't exist and Europe had to rely on France, most Europeans today would be speaking either German or Russian.<hr></blockquote>
I've really grown to love him over the past year.
<strong>
How the hell did Matsu and his not so funny gender related jokes get back in here. I knew he wouldn't be gone long. They never are. Just like Nixon and his " Well you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore ".
hey hey jimmimac, what's up? I just had a funny moment where my response to this complaint was too good to post, which happens from time to time as the I cruise the web fora of the cyber world (not always as Matsu either) looking for interesting time wasters. Thanks, one day you may identify me by my rantings.
Sufficeth to say, Gender equality demands that the vagina get equal time. You call a dick a dick, no? I didn't want to say cvnt, if I really was 100% non-sexist, I'd have said it, but good upbringing demands a more elegant presentation and vagina (phonetically) really is a very pretty word.
Do feminists want to be called dicks?
Of course, it's understandable that having lived through the horrors of the Great War and its trenches many wished to put an obstacle to such eventuality, however their idea was just as irrealist as is the one put forth by Monsieur de Villepin*.
As for the mystic symbolism which could be found in tragic loss of Columbia, one could use the Notarikon and dish you some Gimetrias by the truckload, and it would be just as irrelevent.
Omens and oracles would be just as useless for any modern commander and statesman as they were for Nero or Honorius.
My biggest misgiving with Mr. Bush's upcoming little adventure is that it would make so many Islamists cheer in ecstatic joy, as they are wishing for more blooshed to fuel their dreams of apocalpotic and cataclystic war of worlds, or Â?clash of civilisationsÂ? as it's called these days.
To the best of my knowledge, the USA in already in a state of war with Iraq (as no peace treaty has been signed since Desert Storm), and the losing side (=>Iraq) hasn't been all that respectful of the cease-fire terms, or so I've heard. So, while I don't find renewing combat to be the wisest move available it is certainly a legitimate one.
And I don't think Iraq would prove more difficult to crack than Serbia was (for those expecting another Vietnam, don't).
As for fundamentalist and totalitarian Islamism, its intentions are very hostile to be sure but it's quite powerless.
In the only country where Islamism as a political proposition was able to establish itself as the ruling regime, Iran, it's been losing support and popularity for more than ten years. The relative successes of the Islamic republic in development and education in Iran are the very means of its ongoing decline.
In the Arab area, it hasn't even been able to topple any major regime, so it remains beneath the most modest achievement of Nasserism and Pan-Arabism.
That doesn't mean Islamism is harmless far from it, as a political ideology it's belongs with Marxism-Leninism and other forms of totalitarianism; only that it doesn't presently pose an existential threat to the West. It's an annoyance as it can pull off spectacular terrorist attacks, but it's not like it will be forcing the Limes and riding into the the shrine of Jupiter Capitoline tomorrow.
Yet Islamism should not be summarily dismissed as harmelss because of its present powerlessness, but neutralised so it cannot pose a real existential threat tomorrow, and while this certainly requires some use of force, it mostly requires brains.
The sources of backing of Islamist groups have to be cut its leaders prosecuted, and its organisations defanged. But mostly it should be opposed on the plane of ideas and of actions.
One does not oppose one aggressive fundamentalism with another.
Utlimately, communism was defeated, not by another totalitarianism but by its own failure, but it had also to be opposed an alternative to totalitarianism.
*Avec tous ces noms Ã* particules dans le service dipolmatique de la Républque c'est Ã* se demander Ã* quoi ça servit que l'on décapitasse Louis Capet XVIème du nom.
<strong>
Part of it, yeah, you cannot attribute 9/11 to the Persian Gulf War. Did bin Laden ever mention the Persian Gulf War?
A nice little link from the BBC up there that states that bin Laden doesn't even dig Iraq all that much, so why in God's name would he attack America BECAUSE of a war with Iraq??
I know it's the lynchpin in your argument, pfflam, but you've gotta face facts.
Terrorism and the Iraq question are almost completely separate. You cannot have it both ways, either Iraq is connected to terrorist organizations and you can have your "terrorism will rise!" argument OR Iraq is not connected with terrorism and you can't have your "terrorism will rise!" argument.</strong><hr></blockquote>Why does someone as intelligent as you often appear to NOT SEE the basic connection: our troops stayed in Suadi Arabia after the Gulf War:
1. they are there on account of our invasion of Iraq
2. They are seeen as an invasion of holy Islamic land
3. Our military bases, that will necessarily be based in that region after the war, in Iraq, Kuwait, Arabia etc will be potential grains of sand in their Islamic Oyster... they will be seebn as part of the invasion . . . just as the Roman Garrisons sent to help teh Greeks eventually lead to the conquering of Greece these garrisons will be seen as the same move
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>1. they are there on account of our invasion of Iraq</strong><hr></blockquote>
To protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq, per Saudi Arabia's request. Yes. The actual invasion of Iraq is a non-issue for bin Laden. So 9/11 was not sparked by the invasion of Iraq, but in part by troops being in Saudi Arabia. And the reason we were there was to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq, per Saudi Arabia's request. We could have carried out the attacks on Iraq from Kuwait with ease; SA was not a necessary staging ground. But they like having us there, or else we would not be there.
Saudi Arabia is a fascinating issue, when talking with their Arab neighbors they act as if they do not want our troops there. They tell Pakistan "No no, our government will not allow X or Y." but when whoever our president is at the asks, "We need to do X or Y from our bases in your country." the royal family says "Yes, yes, of course."
We like their oil and they like our money, but we don't like each other. I'd recommend to Osama that he look to the ruling family in Saudi Arabia to fix his grievances.
[quote]<strong>2. They are seeen as an invasion of holy Islamic land</strong><hr></blockquote>
American troops being in Saudi Arabia was seen as an invasion on the most holy of Islamic lands by fruitcakes like bin Laden, and was an especially big grip for bin Laden himself. Yes.
[quote]<strong>3. Our military bases, that will necessarily be based in that region after the war, in Iraq, Kuwait, Arabia etc will be potential grains of sand in their Islamic Oyster... they will be seebn as part of the invasion</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the radical Islamic people that become terrorists don't really seem to care about Kuwait and Iraq, just Saudi Arabia.
And even past that, is dictating your foreign policy to placate an unnamed and faceless enemy wise?
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
and yes, the wackos are the one's that care about our presence . . . but their voice will sound sweeter to the dissaffected youth in search of a cause, throughout the mideast and the world if they have a very visible Great Satan to point to.
<strong>'m not just worried abut teh Islamists . . . I am also worried about the general world perception of the US</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understand that, but I wouldn't be so concerned with it if I were you.
[quote]<strong>if we could just use diplomacy with more aplomb and grace I am sure that we would have been able to get the world's opinion behind us long ago</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think I'd get much argument from anyone that Clinton was a fantastic foreign diplomat, yet even his (very strong) agenda against Iraq was met with skepticism and resistance in Europe.
I don't think I'd get much argument from anyone that Bush and Rumsfeld are the foreign diplomatic equivalents of the Keystone Kops compared to erstwhile President Clinton and their case is heard.
This has very little to do with how the president handles the situation. Very little of the worldwide perception of America has to do with what American government actually does.
Of course, there is a lot to be said for sabre rattling, a lost diplomatic art here in the United States. It's amazing how rumors of war and death can get countries moving and remove the malaise of fat and lazy diplomacy.
Thanks to 9/11 this is an issue that has to be dealt with, not because of a connection between Iraq and 9/11 but a startling realization that there's a world outside the West and that world can be dangerous.
Give Clinton 9/11 and he would do what Bush is doing now. Very little about anything our presidents do is unexpected or unique. Their very job requirements demand they not be unique.
[quote]<strong>but their voice will sound sweeter to the dissaffected youth in search of a cause, throughout the mideast and the world if they have a very visible Great Satan to point to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The evoluton of Iran tells a different story. You can't say that with any certainty. Perhaps? Perhaps yes. It can't be said with certainty.