World Politics / Terror / War

[pk-]

surely it is israel as the occupying force, who should withdraw and put down its tanks, f-16s, artillery, guns, bulldozers...

i'm not talking about whether or not they should stop their violent conduct because it's wrong, or it's worse than the other side's, or anything like that. they should stop it because when they do israel immediately becomes the bad guy in the eyes of the world. for every artillery attack or helicopter missile launched by israel that goes unavenged by hamas their international support with wither even further until it eventually evaporates.

eye for an eye simply doesnt work, it just fucks the situation up even more

[paulie]

India is not particularily alligned with America, you don't know what you are talking about, the US is very wary of India because of the governments previous socialist tendencies. The US hates socialism because they like people to be in competition with each ther: divide and rule. Pakistan's governemnt is very pally with the Bush administration, seeing how they are both fundamentalist and rely on a large military complex, Pakistan even sends peacekeeping missions to other Muslim countries such as Somalia, when they were having a civil war. So it is clear that they have a large army and international influence. They are a powerful ally of Washington, despite the presence of anti-American Pashtun militias in the North Western Frontier Province of Pakistan border with Afghanistan, it is therefore very important for the Americans that they are in control of the central Pakistani government. Remember that "terrorists" are useful to gain support for the REAL terrorist states chiefly US, Britain and Israel. Bush can stir up the Muslim militias by bombing Afghanistan if he so wishes, this makes Musharraf scared so that he has to comply with American wishes in case he is overthrown and the Nukes fall into the hands of a Fundamentalist Islamic Governemnt. So there we have it, Bush is more interested with Pakistan than India because he can make them reliant on him whereas India is more internationalist and prefers to operate democratically.

You really shouldn't panic, that is exactly what they want you to do. the neocons that is. They have all sorts of methods to increase industry and profit for themselves, Want a war to boost the economy and use/test a whole load of new arms? Tell the lobbyists that the oil is running out. You can then steal oil from a sovereign state, under the pretense that you are "spreading democracy and preventing an attack on yourself" Even though the country you are looting has less oil than sources in your own backyard ie Venezuela that have stable but anti-American governments, or Mexico or Nigeria which don't, but hey they hedge their bets. THERE IS PLENTY OF OIL . And we wouldn't need ANY if the governemnt would invest in new ways of getting energy such as COMPLETELY SAFE Nuclear power (which is possible and easyish to set up) or Solar, or hydroelectric, or vegetable oil powered cars, or water powered cars etc. The fact is we need to do something to stop these rulers of the world pulling the wool over our eyes, the first is changing the way we think about and respond to the news. This "War on terror" is not even about grabbing oil because there is not enough, it is about eliminating the market competition or scaring it into control, like the Saudis.
The energy crisis is bollocks! Fear is the one of most powerful tools on the planet, no fear no control.

This misses so many points and shows such a lack of understanding on so many levels it's hard know where to begin!

[spaceboy]

India is not particularily alligned with America, you don't know what you are talking about, the US is very wary of India because of the governments previous socialist tendencies. The US hates socialism because they like people to be in competition with each ther: divide and rule. Pakistan's governemnt is very pally with the Bush administration, seeing how they are both fundamentalist and rely on a large military complex, Pakistan even sends peacekeeping missions to other Muslim countries such as Somalia, when they were having a civil war. So it is clear that they have a large army and international influence. They are a powerful ally of Washington, despite the presence of anti-American Pashtun militias in the North Western Frontier Province of Pakistan border with Afghanistan, it is therefore very important for the Americans that they are in control of the central Pakistani government. Remember that "terrorists" are useful to gain support for the REAL terrorist states chiefly US, Britain and Israel. Bush can stir up the Muslim militias by bombing Afghanistan if he so wishes, this makes Musharraf scared so that he has to comply with American wishes in case he is overthrown and the Nukes fall into the hands of a Fundamentalist Islamic Governemnt. So there we have it, Bush is more interested with Pakistan than India because he can make them reliant on him whereas India is more internationalist and prefers to operate democratically.

You really shouldn't panic, that is exactly what they want you to do. the neocons that is. They have all sorts of methods to increase industry and profit for themselves, Want a war to boost the economy and use/test a whole load of new arms? Tell the lobbyists that the oil is running out. You can then steal oil from a sovereign state, under the pretense that you are "spreading democracy and preventing an attack on yourself" Even though the country you are looting has less oil than sources in your own backyard ie Venezuela that have stable but anti-American governments, or Mexico or Nigeria which don't, but hey they hedge their bets. THERE IS PLENTY OF OIL . And we wouldn't need ANY if the governemnt would invest in new ways of getting energy such as COMPLETELY SAFE Nuclear power (which is possible and easyish to set up) or Solar, or hydroelectric, or vegetable oil powered cars, or water powered cars etc. The fact is we need to do something to stop these rulers of the world pulling the wool over our eyes, the first is changing the way we think about and respond to the news. This "War on terror" is not even about grabbing oil because there is not enough, it is about eliminating the market competition or scaring it into control, like the Saudis.
The energy crisis is bollocks! Fear is the one of most powerful tools on the planet, no fear no control.

This misses so many points and shows such a lack of understanding on so many levels it's hard know where to begin!

uh-oh he's been marking his exam papers again.

i used to get so many similar-esque comments on my essays.

[ifp]

ok, last thing im goin to post in this thread.

1. while its true hamas doesnt have control over a lot of the smaller groups, it does have political and ideological influence over them. up until june this year there were only 3 suicide bombings in israel.

2. it doesn't matter to israel about its international support. it is the subject of worldwide criticism, and countless UN resolutions, all of which it ignores. it knows it can count on US support so it doesn't care what anyone else says.

yes an eye for an eye doesn't work, and neither does a head for an eye. the way for the conflict to end is for both sides to stop the violence and abide by international law.

[rickyricardo]

i'm not talking about whether or not they should stop their violent conduct because it's wrong, or it's worse than the other side's, or anything like that. they should stop it because when they do israel immediately becomes the bad guy in the eyes of the world. for every artillery attack or helicopter missile launched by israel that goes unavenged by hamas their international support with wither even further until it eventually evaporates.

eye for an eye simply doesnt work, it just fucks the situation up even more

While I see you're reasoning I'd have to disagree. There are plenty of peoples who have perished under the weight of more powerful regimes, much to the indifference of the rest of the world. East Timor springs immediatly to mind.

Sphere's of influence play a big role in all this. Other countries need the Israeli presence too much (economically, strategically, etc) to afford being cut off access by criticising it. Additionally, they need to be on good terms w/ the Americans, which includes being on good terms w/ Israel. Foreign powers accept Israels sphere of influence, and will tacitly accept whatever atrocities they commit. They will tacitly accept the West Bank land grabs, or the paramilitary raids into a supposedly independent Gaza. Where is the rest of the world right now while Lebanon is being destroyed......while their civilians and military are being punished despite not having fired a single shot?

In turn, the palestinians realize that the geopolitical odds are stacked against them, and use the perpetual violence to keep attention focused on the region and to their cause. That's really the key purpose of terrorism....it's not a military action, it's a political one.

Don't underestimate the power of these sphere's of influence. They are the reasons why the world doesn't howl with outrage at the some of the most grevious actions perpetuated by nation-states. They are the reason why some of the most vile dictators are allowed to act w/ impunity and why some of the most heinous war crimes go unproscecuted.

You're right, violence doesn't solve anything, but acquienscence solves even less.

[obiwan]

[ Arse 'N' Wanker says:
This misses so many points and shows such a lack of understanding on so many levels it's hard know where to begin![/quote]

Interesting the way you criticise my views, which i admit were not vigorously researched but more based on conversations with university lecturers etc, and yet do not contribute any of your own. You must know everything there is to know about the geopolitical climate. Why don't you stick to business studies like your little mate in the avatar; Arsing Wanker.
If I'm so wrong and you know so much, make corrections to what I wrote, seriously, I want to know what my mistakes were.

[spaceboy]

uhoh tottenham alert

[obiwan]

uhoh tottenham alert

Hahahahaha gotta love the underdog, or is it the undergod? no thats ManU, hahahaha.

[paulie]

Arse 'N' Wanker says:
This misses so many points and shows such a lack of understanding on so many levels it's hard know where to begin!

Interesting the way you criticise my views, which i admit were not vigorously researched but more based on conversations with university lecturers etc, and yet do not contribute any of your own. You must know everything there is to know about the geopolitical climate. Why don't you stick to business studies like your little mate in the avatar; Arsing Wanker.
If I'm so wrong and you know so much, make corrections to what I wrote, seriously, I want to know what my mistakes were.

Alright then Socrates, here you go:

India is not particularily alligned with America, you don't know what you are talking about, the US is very wary of India because of the governments previous socialist tendencies.

You have completely missed the original point here which was that India has been sucking up to the US, which they clearly have with the recent nuclear issue. You rightly point out that the previous government was socialist in outlook, but this is completely insignificant.

The US hates socialism because they like people to be in competition with each ther: divide and rule.

That’s just a bizarre statement. Care to expand a little? If you think capitalism is about controlling the population you might want to read up on the Soviet Union a bit.

Pakistan's governemnt is very pally with the Bush administration, seeing how they are both fundamentalist and rely on a large military complex,

How is Pakistan’s government fundamentalist? Come to think of it, how is the Bush administration fundamentalist? And even if they were, why would a Muslim fundamentalist government be “very pally” with a Christian fundamentalist one?!

Pakistan even sends peacekeeping missions to other Muslim countries such as Somalia, when they were having a civil war. So it is clear that they have a large army and international influence.

This is far from clear, actually. Pakistan does have a strong army and because of their nukes they obviously command influence. But is this really that significant? And anyway, aren’t you arguing that the Pakistani government is basically controlled by the US? That’s not very influential is it?

They are a powerful ally of Washington, despite the presence of anti-American Pashtun militias in the North Western Frontier Province of Pakistan border with Afghanistan, it is therefore very important for the Americans that they are in control of the central Pakistani government.

It’s true that Musharraf is an ally of Bush (as much as he can be) and that this is despite bitter domestic opposition, although saying it’s “powerful” is stretching it a bit. Pakistan is constantly on the brink of collapse, hardly a stable, powerful state with far-reaching influence as you suggest.

Remember that "terrorists" are useful to gain support for the REAL terrorist states chiefly US, Britain and Israel.

That’s just hilarious. You can’t get any more lazy and/or ignorant that this really.

Bush can stir up the Muslim militias by bombing Afghanistan if he so wishes, this makes Musharraf scared so that he has to comply with American wishes in case he is overthrown and the Nukes fall into the hands of a Fundamentalist Islamic Governemnt. So there we have it, Bush is more interested with Pakistan than India because he can make them reliant on him whereas India is more internationalist and prefers to operate democratically.

This is incredibly confused, but I think what you’re saying is that because Pakistan has nukes and fundamentalists (in and out of government apparently, LMAO), Bush is more interested in Pakistan than India. Obviously that issue is significant, but there’s a whole range of issues that make India a far more valuable ally than Pakistan. The notion that Bush might be less interested in India because it previously had a socialist government and is being a bit slow in liberalising it’s economy is one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard.

You really shouldn't panic, that is exactly what they want you to do. the neocons that is.

LMAO @ the use of the term “neocon”. Can you name any neocons currently in the Bush administration? If you think Bush is one, you’re mistaken. Condi is a possibility, but all the proper ones have left. They had quite a lot of influence with foreign policy up to 2003, but since the Iraq fiasco the traditional conservatives have taken over.

They have all sorts of methods to increase industry and profit for themselves, Want a war to boost the economy and use/test a whole load of new arms? Tell the lobbyists that the oil is running out. You can then steal oil from a sovereign state, under the pretense that you are "spreading democracy and preventing an attack on yourself"

There were lots of reasons for the Iraq war, but it’s highly unlikely that even Bush would have been stupid enough to think it would have boosted the economy!

Even though the country you are looting has less oil than sources in your own backyard ie Venezuela that have stable but anti-American governments, or Mexico or Nigeria which don't, but hey they hedge their bets.

What do you mean by this? Are you saying that the US should have invaded Venezuela instead of Iraq?! Or maybe it wasn’t just about getting hold of the oil. There’s a thought!

THERE IS PLENTY OF OIL .

Well, there’s quite a lot of oil, but unfortunately the people who have most of it are difficult to deal with, hence the high oil price and subsequent strain on the world economy.

And we wouldn't need ANY if the governemnt would invest in new ways of getting energy such as COMPLETELY SAFE Nuclear power (which is possible and easyish to set up) or Solar, or hydroelectric, or vegetable oil powered cars, or water powered cars etc.

Nuclear power is extremely expensive and takes a long time to set up, and it can never be completely safe. A possible solution is nuclear fusion, but that’s a long way off yet (that may have been what you were referring to, if so it’s currently NOT possible, and IMPOSSIBLE to set up). As for the other sources you list: completely insufficient.

The fact is we need to do something to stop these rulers of the world pulling the wool over our eyes, the first is changing the way we think about and respond to the news. This "War on terror" is not even about grabbing oil because there is not enough, it is about eliminating the market competition or scaring it into control, like the Saudis.

Eliminating market competition? I thought you said the US hated socialism! And what’s that about the Saudis?! LMAO!!!

The energy crisis is bollocks! Fear is the one of most powerful tools on the planet, no fear no control.

Yeah, yeah and I shot JFK.

[spaceboy]

Let me correct both you on matters pertaining to India and Pakistan of which neither of you have a danny:

1. India is the world's largest democracy and therefore an immediate ally to the US, purely on that basis. India has just signed a massive nuclear deal with the US allowing them to use each others equipment, but the US cannot touch India's missles. This is merely for energy purposes, as India is a massive consumer of energy.

2. Pakistan is torn between pro Musharaff's and anti. Pakistan is actually the next growth economy in that region, due to China. It has a fairly stable and buoyant stock market.

3. The main threat to the US is China, that is what they are really worried about, hence siding with India.

[spaceboy]

Good to see everyone is as hard at work as I am!

i failed very hard in that respect today. guilty.

[rickyricardo]

LMAO @ the use of the term “neocon”. Can you name any neocons currently in the Bush administration?

Well, Rumsfeld for one. He is one of the signatories for the PNAC, and shares an ideological affinity w/ most of those guys. If that doesn't get you in the neocon club, I dunno what does. Richard Perle no doubt still has the presidents ear, despite stepping down from the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee. Alot of the other major neocons have left the administration (Wolfowitz, Libby, etc)...but that doesn't mean they're out of the game entirely. They're certainly sharping their swords for a possible engagement w/ Iran though. Bill Kristol was making the rounds this weekend, w/ talking points that sounded like they were written 3 years ago ("targeted military strikes", "the iranians will love us", blah, blah). I wouldn't underestimate the influence they still have within the administration, especially considering that Rummy is still Sec of Defense and the US these days "diplomacy" is largely coming from the Defense Department instead of the State Department.

If you think Bush is one, you’re mistaken. Condi is a possibility, but all the proper ones have left. They had quite a lot of influence with foreign policy up to 2003, but since the Iraq fiasco the traditional conservatives have taken over.

I think Condi is alot more pragmatic than people give her credit for. But she spends so much time parroting administration policy that it's difficult to know *what* she really thinks. Is she loyal to the neocons...or is she just loyal to Bush?

[paulie]

2. Pakistan is torn between pro Musharaff's and anti. Pakistan is actually the next growth economy in that region, due to China. It has a fairly stable and buoyant stock market.

Until the political situation stablises it won't do much.

[spaceboy]

it already is! very healthy gdp growth

[paulie]

it already is! very healthy gdp growth

Yeah, but that's not very hard when your starting position is around 1000 years behind the west.

[paulie]

LMAO @ the use of the term “neocon”. Can you name any neocons currently in the Bush administration?

Well, Rumsfeld for one. He is one of the signatories for the PNAC, and shares an ideological affinity w/ most of those guys. If that doesn't get you in the neocon club, I dunno what does. Richard Perle no doubt still has the presidents ear, despite stepping down from the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee. Alot of the other major neocons have left the administration (Wolfowitz, Libby, etc)...but that doesn't mean they're out of the game entirely. They're certainly sharping their swords for a possible engagement w/ Iran though. Bill Kristol was making the rounds this weekend, w/ talking points that sounded like they were written 3 years ago ("targeted military strikes", "the iranians will love us", blah, blah). I wouldn't underestimate the influence they still have within the administration, especially considering that Rummy is still Sec of Defense and the US these days "diplomacy" is largely coming from the Defense Department instead of the State Department.

Yeah OK, but you can't deny that the influence of neocon thought is tiny compared to what it was.

[spaceboy]

does that matter? No.

what matters is its enterprise value.

There is a big risk in the region, I agree. But, Musharraf is the best thing for the country - there is no viable alternative and he is in agreement with Bush - you can't ask for more.

[paulie]

does that matter? No.

Of course it matters, the further behind you start the more you "catch up" and therefore more benefit from prior innovations etc. Growth rates are affected as such.

There is a big risk in the region, I agree. But, Musharraf is the best thing for the country - there is no viable alternative and he is in agreement with Bush - you can't ask for more.

Unfortunately half the population want him dead. If one of those assassination attempts ever succeeds there will be serious, serious issues to deal with.

[rickyricardo]

LMAO @ the use of the term “neocon”. Can you name any neocons currently in the Bush administration?

Well, Rumsfeld for one. He is one of the signatories for the PNAC, and shares an ideological affinity w/ most of those guys. If that doesn't get you in the neocon club, I dunno what does. Richard Perle no doubt still has the presidents ear, despite stepping down from the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee. Alot of the other major neocons have left the administration (Wolfowitz, Libby, etc)...but that doesn't mean they're out of the game entirely. They're certainly sharping their swords for a possible engagement w/ Iran though. Bill Kristol was making the rounds this weekend, w/ talking points that sounded like they were written 3 years ago ("targeted military strikes", "the iranians will love us", blah, blah). I wouldn't underestimate the influence they still have within the administration, especially considering that Rummy is still Sec of Defense and the US these days "diplomacy" is largely coming from the Defense Department instead of the State Department.

Yeah OK, but you can't deny that the influence of neocon thought is tiny compared to what it was.

Oh without a doubt....Iraq certainly saw to that.

(I'm reminded of a recent "Colbert Report", where Stephen Colbert leans over to Bill Kristol and says "So how's that New American Century coming?" )

No, they certainly aren't what they once were, but their ideology only gains currency in an environment of fear over insecurity. Just look how quickly they drove policy after 9/11. Heaven forbid, but if either the situation in Lebanon spirals out of control enough to involve Syria and/or Iran...or if another terrorist attack were to happen here, they'd be right back at the reigns once again.