Geo-Politics

[charvelguy]

"Name a significant achievement or contribution to the world (other than oil) made by Arabs living in an area where Arab culture in predominant in the last 50 years. No? The last 100 then? You'll find that the research will provide slim pickings for a rebuttal."

Negative: terrorism, guerilla warfare

Positive: Burj Al Arab Hotel

[jjw]

nothing wrong with a majority of arabs or persians mate!this terrorist war is hyped up by the puppet masters to make them evil fuckers more money.Just because one SMALL group is fanatical and extreme that doesnt mean we can invade their country!I bought the I.R.A into this thread for that reason alone to ask whether we should have bombed dublin back to the stone age and the same with their money gathering wing in Boston-i see it was ingnoredWe did it the right way(made many misstakes along the way)and have a ceasefire.That was done by fucking talking!not mass murder!
This with me or against me bollox that bush says is frankly stupid and false, also the saudi group who flew planes into the twin towers wanted america to pull its forces out of its country
you know what they have after all his huffing and puffing he bent over backwards and gave them one of the things they wanted.
and as for this freedom crap...lol.that is sprouted by funny enough only americans.Do you honestly think you are the land of the free?gods children..lol
Your all cool bastards but the religous ones are slightly scary!

[YetAnotherOne]

Positive: Burj Al Arab Hotel

The architect and engineer for the project was Atkins, the UK based multidisciplinary consultancy. The hotel was built by South African construction company Murray & Roberts.

Keep trying.

[charvelguy]

nothing wrong with a majority of arabs or persians mate!this terrorist war is hyped up by the puppet masters to make them evil fuckers more money.Just because one SMALL group is fanatical and extreme that doesnt mean we can invade their country!I bought the I.R.A into this thread for that reason alone to ask whether we should have bombed dublin back to the stone age and the same with their money gathering wing in Boston-i see it was ingnoredWe did it the right way(made many misstakes along the way)and have a ceasefire.That was done by fucking talking!not mass murder!
This with me or against me bollox that bush says is frankly stupid and false, also the saudi group who flew planes into the twin towers wanted america to pull its forces out of its country
you know what they have after all his huffing and puffing he bent over backwards and gave them one of the things they wanted.
and as for this freedom crap...lol.that is sprouted by funny enough only americans.Do you honestly think you are the land of the free?gods children..lol
Your all cool bastards but the religous ones are slightly scary!

I think you make some valid points and I agree with what you say on alot of these.

Right now, the rouge nations are at times listening but they are using that only as a stalling tactic. Meanwhile, we seek a unified diplomatic means for coercion outside of the usual occasional saber rattling. How nations look out for their own self interests is now by arming/protecting themselves with the most lethal weapons they can develope quickly and spend their money on.

With the advent of the "Bush Doctrine", deterence wasn't no longer enough. America, GB are losing credibility even tho they are attempting to do good. The good that they are attempting to do is being hijacked by very small groups to cause a political change in the ME much like we used to do ourselves when instilling groups, money, even trained military & hardware to assist in overthrowing the present regime and/or tilt the odds in our favor of a regime change.
In a nutshell..militant groups and 'rouge' nations are using our own tactics against us.
It comes down to every nation will look after their own self interests the best way possible given the circumstances on the constant change of geopolitical push me pull me. Did the Bush doctrine cause this? IMO.. one could view it as the push that smacked the first domino in the line down.

[Tashtego]

YAO, you are truly a breath of fresh air. I have mostly given up arguing with those unable to grasp the difference between the IRA and Islam. The imaginary world of puppet masters, Bilderbergers, unicorns, and Moslem victims is an unshakable matter of faith for them and must fulfill some unmet emotional requirement. However, I don't think it is accurate to allow oil production as an Arab/Moslem contribution to modern civilization. They were handed this golden goose by Europeans and Americans. It is gratifying to see someone writing intelligently on this subject here in my favorite guitar forum though.

[YetAnotherOne]

Just because one SMALL group is fanatical and extreme that doesnt mean we can invade their country!

Prove the groups are "SMALL". Public opinion in Islamic nations seems to disagree with your view:





Source.

Let's lowball those numbers and assume they'd project to 20% support for each view across the Islamic world. That's 300,000,000 people who would support suicide bombers killing civilians and have great confidence in Osama bin Laden. Small problem? I don't really see any evidence for that assertion.

I bought the I.R.A into this thread for that reason alone to ask whether we should have bombed dublin back to the stone age and the same with their money gathering wing in Boston-i see it was ingnored!

Which Irish Republican Army? You weren't specific enough to allow an answer to your question. But in general if the government of Massachusetts was openly raising money for one of the paramilitary IRAs and sending them weapons, and if they and the US government refused to halt the practices or to take action then yes, by all means, bomb Boston if you can and if you'd feel justified in doing so.

Of course you and I know it wouldn't come to that because if there were a new IRA flare-up Tony Blair could just pick up the phone and say, "Yo Bush! We're having a spot of trouble with your lads in Boston sending a few quid to the IRA. Mind putting a stop to that?" To which Bush would reply, "Sure, no problem." (Well he'd probably say something more like, "Gee Tony I'd love to but these damn Democrats keep putting obstacles in the path of all of our efforts to track terrorist funding in this country and they've severely eroded our capabilities to implement these programs to defend ourselves and our friends but I'll do what I can."

We did it the right way(made many misstakes along the way)and have a ceasefire.That was done by fucking talking!not mass murder!

That presupposes that the other side can be reasoned with. The UN and others have been talking with Israel's Arab neighbors and nicely asking them to stop killing Jews for over a half-century now. Anyone without a severe case of cranial rectal inversion should realize by now that the only thing that will satisfy many in the Islamic world is the absolute destruction of the state of Israel and the death or deportation of every Jew in the region. You can't negotiate with folks who have that worldview.

Further, the absolute worst thing one can do with a terrorist is show them that their tactics will give them power. Negotiating with terrorists following their perpetuation of acts of terrorism demonstrates to every would-be terrorist on the planet that killing a few civilians will earn them a spot at the bargaining table from which they can extract concessions from the world powers. This discourages terrorism exactly how?

...the saudi group who flew planes into the twin towers wanted america to pull its forces out of its country

you know what they have after all his huffing and puffing he bent over backwards and gave them one of the things they wanted.!

Precisely! And it's far from the only example. The international community abandoned Lebanon in 1982 after Islamic terrorists killed a large number of French and American troops with car bombs. Following the Madrid bombings, the Spanish elected a leftist government that had trailed badly in the polls only a couple of days before but which promised the terrorists precisely what they then wanted: a quick Spanish withdrawal from Iraq. Israel on many occasions in the past has exchanged prisoners for kidnapped Israelis. I could go on all day but the point is the same in every case: when terrorism is rewarded, terrorism is encouraged.

The only logical course of action is to crush terrorists rather than giving them even the smallest victory. It is *only* when the world stops allowing the terrorists to win victories through their behavior that terrorism will begin to wane. A perfect corollary is that nations that act through terrorist proxies must also be shown, by any means necessary, that their employment of terrorist proxies will be extremely painful to them. Failure to do so will only encourage developing world powers to utilize these means to their own ends. See e.g., the book Unrestricted Warfare by Chinese senior Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui in which they propose such actions as the targeting of financial institutions and the employment of terrorists against civilian populations as a counter to western power. As Qiao says, “The first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden." If we don’t disabuse the Chinese military of the thought that they can employ terrorism without cost as Muslim nations do today the world will be in for an extremely dark and violent period that will make current events look like a walk in the park.

.. and as for this freedom crap...lol.that is sprouted by funny enough only americans.Do you honestly think you are the land of the free?gods children..lol

More so than anywhere else on the planet, yes. Prove otherwise ... if you can.

[jjw]

YAO, you are truly a breath of fresh air. I have mostly given up arguing with those unable to grasp the difference between the IRA and Islam. The imaginary world of puppet masters, Bilderbergers, unicorns, and Moslem victims is an unshakable matter of faith for them and must fulfill some unmet emotional requirement. However, I don't think it is accurate to allow oil production as an Arab/Moslem contribution to modern civilization. They were handed this golden goose by Europeans and Americans. It is gratifying to see someone writing intelligently on this subject here in my favorite guitar forum though.

my father was in a bar in guildford close to where a pub was bombed my grandfathers side of the family come from Ireland and was a founder member of the original I.R.A.My parents live in southern Ireland I see both sides of the story.They had support in this country when they targeted the army but when civilians where targeted that eroded fast
lol at imaginary puppet masters...money rules,you fund a party with BIG money or a person running for power YOU will dictate what YOU want them to do.Your right the IRA where nothing like the so called TERRORISTS these days,their cowards compared to the new breed.As our troops are finding out in afghan these backward ak47 clutching natives hold no fear for us!they will bring the attack to us and fight us with their bare hands and teeth if they run out of ammo in battle!so yeahh the irish where nothing like that
how many people have you talked to about Islam and ira then?come on over here and ask.Plenty of squadies live in this area of the woods i am sure they will say the sameNo hard feeling mate,just remember over here in England we were targeted but didnt bomb them back to the stone age like other countries did(i think thats the best way to do it)

[hippietim]

Tim, you've had a problem with the other admins in the past and were suspended for a brief period. Wanna talk about it?

You are precious aren't you...

[jjw]

YAO-your and my countries piss poor illegal war with Iraq has turned a lot of islam against us.Thank bush and bliar for that.

more freedom than anyone else on the planet then?ROFL

as for the I.R.A angle i have already mentioned that-if you want to spin it off to other groups then fair enough-spin it to suit you-There is only ONE I.R.A i didnt refer to any splinter groups as the chain of command leads back to the top lineI used tht angle to show how gun crazy Israel is and also there backed up by the gun polishing flag kissing yank brigade we ENGLAND would never bomb Dublin or Boston,our police force handled things with our lovely special forces slotting a few when we had too

i dont like to see inocent people die,you on the other hand dont seem to mind

nevermnd,no big deal mate and no hard feelings

[YetAnotherOne]

YAO-your and my countries piss poor illegal war with Iraq has turned a lot of islam against us.Thank bush and bliar for that.

I realize that you probably believe that the use of the term "illegal" to describe the resumption of hostilities with Iraq adds a bit of cachet to your view but the reality is quite the opposite since the action was unarguably legal.

Consider: A invades B, B requests help from C, and C removes A from B's territory. A, B, & C then enter into a cease fire agreement conditioned on certain actions by A. A blatantly violates the terms of the cease fire agreement and after a period of years of this behavior on A's part C resumes hostilities against A. In this situation C is absolutely unarguably within their rights under the longstanding laws governing warfare.

Consider: As above but C's action is sanctioned by X, an international body claiming sole authority to authorize the use of force (never mind that no one on the planet other than C is expected to follow X's orders). X has no standing as a nation and therefore is not a party to the ABC cease fire agreement. Because X is not a party to the cease fire agreement, X may not legally prohibit C (or B) from resuming hostilities against A if A does not meet the conditions of the ABC cease fire agreement. I can fill in the names for you if you need help understanding the above.

Argue that the resumption of hostilities against Iraq was wrongheaded, immoral, useless, catastrophic, unnecessary, ill advised, or any of a slew of other things that state your opinion but please refrain from wrongly asserting that it was illegal, doing so just lessens the impact of your argument.

more freedom than anyone else on the planet then?ROFL

Having trouble substantiating your assertion eh? Can't say that I'm surprised at all by your inability to do so.

I used tht angle to show how gun crazy Israel is and also there backed up by the gun polishing flag kissing yank brigade we ENGLAND would never bomb Dublin or Boston,our police force handled things with our lovely special forces slotting a few when we had too

Do you propose that Israel send an expeditionary police force to Syria and Iran so that they, like you, can "handle things" with their police? If not, your argument by analogy is specious.

i dont like to see inocent people die,you on the other hand dont seem to mind

Quite the opposite actually. I'd like to see as little suffering and death as possible in the world but I firmly believe that excessively pacifist approaches will only encourage violent factions and guarantee far larger losses of life and far more suffering in the long run.

Consider the following purposefully abstract hypothetical: You know with 100% certainty that 1,000,000 innocent persons will be killed exactly 24 hours from now. On your desk there is a large red button that will destroy the instrumentality that will kill these persons, no other action or instrumentality will save even a single life but merely by pressing the button the 1,000,000 innocent civilians will be spared. Unfortunately, a number of other innocent civilians will be killed if you choose to press the large red button. Query: What number of innocent persons must be killed by pressing the large red button before that action becomes immoral?

[fett]

All these words. It's real simple. We, the West, have had hundreds of years of getting where we are now. Revolutions, the Magna Carta and all the stuff within our frame of reference. Iraq is very much like the US with the various indian tribes (sorry for not being PC). It's all a matter of historical tribal territory. We screwed up then and we are screwing up now. You can not instill and or force a method of governance that flys in the face of tradition. Ya, we overpowered the indians and killed most of them off. In the middlle-east, their tribal loyalty on top of two forms of Islam will make us look like fools thinking we can impose "democracy". West is West and East is a place where we don't have a clue.

[YetAnotherOne]

You can not instill and or force a method of goverance that flys in the face of tradition.

Japan. Discuss.

[fett]

Japan. Discuss.

Japan had a brain fart during WWII. If you are talking post-WWII, Japan was beat in many ways. Where we shined there was we got the bad guys; left the EMP; and gently let the almost Westernized people get back to business. This whole trip into Iraq was an invasion to....... We can't do what we did in Germany and Japan. There is one reason: Iraq doesn't have the same rule book.

[YetAnotherOne]

So you admit that the blanket assertion that one, "...can not instill and or force a method of goverance that flys in the face of tradition" is patently false?

[fett]

Not at all. Both Japan and Germany had institutions and a form of government that was steeped in Western traditions before WWII. For them, it was a matter of getting them back on track. Iraq and the the whole Middle-East was a Western creation after WWI. They didn't want to buy it then and they sure as hell don't want it now. We, as a nation, know we are right in our method of government. We are a 10 year old trying to tell a 100 year old how to act and we aren't from the same 'hood.