Terrorism????...Blame America!!!!

[Atilla]

Because he (Bush) isn't talking to Iran, that's why. Maliki is not supposed to be friendly with those with whom Bush is at odds. Personally, if Maliki. by talking to Iran, can help get Bush out of some of the mess he is in, so much the better, I would have thought-

Split

Reality check -

"Military chiefs in the US have been "dismayed" by the threat of a unilateral pull-out from southern Iraq by British forces."

US prepares to plug hole left by British troops
Sean Rayment and Philip Sherwell, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:23am BST 12/08/2007

 

[grantx]

Dcraig1,

Asia Times online - excellent reading.

Grant.

 

[zambuck]

I'm light on fact here, so forgive my vagueness and any mistakes.

How effective is a UN mandate and how often do all members of the security council agree on a particular issue. Sometimes to do the right thing you have to go it alone, look at Kosovo, Blair took a stand, the US was inititally against it but i was the right course of action.

...I don't make any claim that I am know all too......But in response to your question....How effective is UN mandate opens up can of worms....

You say that UK went along without UN mandate in Kosovo because it was the right thing to do.....

If we take that as a scenario then presumably Russia can take action alone without UN mandate in say Afghanistan........India towards Pakistan.....China against Taiwan, Japan...so on....By your reckoner it is a 'free' world.....

If you are saying that UN has no effective existence then yes let's get rid of it and everyone on this plant will take 'decisive' action against anyone because it is the right thing to do....!!....But then don't complain on any Russian adventure anywhere else.....Because like UK they are also takig an action as it is right thing to do...!

If US and UK want this then why is UN being 'kept' on.......That is the question...!

 

[Splitlink]

...I don't make any claim that I am know all too......But in response to your question....How effective is UN mandate opens up can of worms....

You say that UK went along without UN mandate in Kosovo because it was the right thing to do.....

If we take that as a scenario then presumably Russia can take action alone without UN mandate in say Afghanistan........India towards Pakistan.....China against Taiwan, Japan...so on....By your reckoner it is a 'free' world.....

If you are saying that UN has no effective existence then yes let's get rid of it and everyone on this plant will take 'decisive' action against anyone because it is the right thing to do....!!....But then don't complain on any Russian adventure anywhere else.....Because like UK they are also takig an action as it is right thing to do...!

If US and UK want this then why is UN being 'kept' on.......That is the question...!

You are right, this is a can of worms. But do not expect the US or Russia, Iran, Israel, or anyone else, to take any notice of what the UN wants, if it is against their interests. North Korea has developed the hydrogen bomb and the rocket to deliver it. Is the US going to wait for the UN to come up with a workable solution? Of course not.

Anyone who waits for the UN to keep an enemy at bay is playing with its own national security, IMO. Apart from dreaming.

I heard a UN official talking, this morning, on BBC. He said how difficult it was going to be to get a workable UN presence in Darfur. He's warning us in advance!

He, also, said that it would take time to get UN forces out of other war zones. So you know who he is talking about using, even though the surface talk is about using African troops. I'm hoping that the US and British refuse, point blank, to go.

Split

 

[Atilla]

To all those people out there who think slagging America off is fashionable blah blah blah...

Karl Rove known as Bush's brain has walked out. (Claims he want's to spend more time with his family.) Some people say it's more like he is refusing to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the sacking of nine court prosecuters because they did not share the neo-cons vision of the world and their actions.

Prosecuters should be independent so for not bowing to the White House gets them sacked.

WHAT DOES THIS TELL YOU ABOUT BUSH'S BRAIN OR HIS CONDUCT?

How do you imagine the American people are dealt justice? Who are the real winners or losers in this debate? IMHO both the American and Iraqi people are losers. Handful of whitehous administrators and Pentagon contractors are the real winners... Call me Mr fashionable if you must.

PS. Karl Rove apparently was also investigated about the leaking of the identity in 2005 CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame because her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson, worte a report denying Nuclear materials being sold from Africa to Iraq and no justification for invading. Libby's being convicted of 4 counts of conspiracy but the brains behind it is you guessed right Karl Rove.

Guess again - he will be writing a book whilst spending more time with his family.

To all you fashion critiques out there read this interesting comparison with the fall of Rome written by an American... I agree with him...

America is a great nation (debatable-imo), probably the greatest in history (debatable-imo). But if we want to keep America great, we have to recognize reality and make needed changes. As I mentioned earlier, there are striking similarities between America’s current situation and that of another great power from the past: Rome.

PS Bush has the lowest popullarity rating for an American president ever. This goes out to all the supporters of Bush's actions and policies in Iraq. You lot can go an convince the great American people and tell them they are not being realistic but just fashionable

 

[fibonelli]

Imperial Hubris and Brzezinski’s Second Chance

"I’m not sure what Brzezinski’s intentions are with his recent scathing criticisms of the Washington neocons. Has he had a genuine change of heart? Is he now opposed to imperial warfare? Or is he merely questioning the strategy of Bush and company in pursuing the natural prerogatives and noble objectives of empire?

This is the man who, in 1998, in a Paris interview, said he had no regrets as to having orchestrated the CIA funding, arming and training of Islamic militants in Afghanistan and creating Al Queda (”The Base”), for the purpose of luring the Soviet Union into “their own Vietnam” - a war they could not win, that would cause destabilization of the Soviet regime, and hopefully contribute to its ultimate downfall. “Zbig,” as he likes to be called, was the man who, as National Security Adviser to Carter, dreamed up and implemented the creation of the Mujahadeen. Imperial warfare is his specialty................"
http://jtoddring.wordpress.com/2007/03/29/imperial-hubris-and-bzezinskis-second-chance/

THE IMPERIAL ROAD: ORIGINS OF THE PAX AMERICANA
http://the-moneychanger.com/outside/imperial_road.phtml

 

[A Dashing Blade]

To all you fashion critiques out there read this interesting comparison with the fall of Rome written by an American... I agree with him...

To compare a pre-industrial empire (that actually lasted until 1453 rather than 550ish), whose main method of money supply creation was via conquest with America today is, quite frankly, absolute rubbish.

 

[dcraig1]

To compare a pre-industrial empire (that actually lasted until 1453 rather than 550ish), whose main method of money supply creation was via conquest with America today is, quite frankly, absolute rubbish.

I have to agree with you on this one. That doesn't mean however that the United States is not an imperialist power. and one that has pulled off the historically unique feat of getting somebody else to pay for it's imperial wars.

This linked document is very long, somewhat academic but provides some fascinating insights into the United States place in the 20th and 21st centuries:

http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303critic/030317hudson/superimperialism.pdf

 

[Splitlink]

To compare a pre-industrial empire (that actually lasted until 1453 rather than 550ish), whose main method of money supply creation was via conquest with America today is, quite frankly, absolute rubbish.

In the context you mention, yes, but the fall of all these empires has been due to corruption , decadence and the ability to govern because of distance,not whether they were industrial, or not. Supplying an army abroad is still an expensive business but Britain lost America because of a war with France and the distance we had to travel to fight insurgents in the Colonies. The same happened to the Romans, Spanish. French and Dutch.

When a dominated people are uneducated they can remain dominated. As soon as education and indignation at being governed by a foreigner comes into the equation, that, plus distance is a decisive factor in the fall of an empire.

Split

 

[zambuck]

....Yes and that was the reson of British Empire's fall.....

...All the ruling class and top elite's childrens were educated or sent to UK for further education....thinking that if we convert the top we would be able to Govern the Country under their name.....

But it failed spectacularly....Both Nehru (Educated at Harrow) and Gandhi (Called to Bar in UK) went against the grain....and rest is history...

 

[Atilla]

To compare a pre-industrial empire (that actually lasted until 1453 rather than 550ish), whose main method of money supply creation was via conquest with America today is, quite frankly, absolute rubbish.

Let's simplify it for you DB... Take Rome and empire out of the equation. Read the three points below and see if you can fill the squares with recent US activities?

David Walker, head of the Government Accountability Office says:

three reasons are worth remembering:

1. declining moral values and political civility at home,
2. an overconfident and overextended military in foreign lands, and
3. fiscal irresponsibility by the central government.

Some people can't see the woods from the trees...

 

[Splitlink]

When you come to think of it, we and all the rest, had a bloody cheek! Of course, it must not be forgotten that the majority of the English were just as brainwashed by bull**** as the foreigners were. This is the case today. The man in the street has no say in the foreign policy of his government. That is the final straw in the downfall of empire and, probably, it will be the downfall of the US, as we know it, today.

Split

 

[zambuck]

Let's simplify it for you DB... Take Rome and empire out of the equation. Read the three points below and see if you can fill the squares with recent US activities?

David Walker, head of the Government Accountability Office says:

three reasons are worth remembering:

1. declining moral values and political civility at home,
2. an overconfident and overextended military in foreign lands, and
3. fiscal irresponsibility by the central government.

Some people can't see the woods from the trees...

....yes.....

 

[chump]

Before a country really matures there are relatively very few rules ...ergo the risks are high ,but the rewards are also very high...you can starve and you also get unbelievably wealthy ...all of this is dependant upon the political will to allow it.
As the country matures people get comfy ,less inclined to take the high risks etc etc and they build up the rules that make up the safety net and they elect govts that will follow their will for same...that's phase 1 ...in phase 2 they go from being comfy to outright taking for granted that all they have will continue to develop as it has in the recent past ,but at this stage they are already living off the productivity gains / competitive advantage that they built up over these first two phases...in phase 3 everything is now so 'guaranteed' that they start to think that their standard of living can be maintained regardless of their productivity ..in fact it is becoming increasingly passive and completely unrelated to what they have to do for it...in fact their previous advantages are now increasingly supported by other people who they may have never met ,but whom they have conquered either militarily ,economically , or both. Their advantages now rely more and more upon the acquiesence of others to allow the status quo of this arrangement to continue.
They are now at their zenith and from this point they will not look up again (if ever) until they have seen their advantages destroyed and had their habitual behaviours transformed.
Now I'd say the US and indeed quite a lot of Europe are reasonably described here although there might be some argument about exactly which phase they are in.

 

[dick_dastardly]

Before a country really matures there are relatively very few rules ...ergo the risks are high ,but the rewards are also very high...you can starve and you also get unbelievably wealthy ...all of this is dependant upon the political will to allow it.
As the country matures people get comfy ,less inclined to take the high risks etc etc and they build up the rules that make up the safety net and they elect govts that will follow their will for same...that's phase 1 ...in phase 2 they go from being comfy to outright taking for granted that all they have will continue to develop as it has in the recent past ,but at this stage they are already living off the productivity gains / competitive advantage that they built up over these first two phases...in phase 3 everything is now so 'guaranteed' that they start to think that their standard of living can be maintained regardless of their productivity ..in fact it is becoming increasingly passive and completely unrelated to what they have to do for it...in fact their previous advantages are now increasingly supported by other people who they may have never met ,but whom they have conquered either militarily ,economically , or both. Their advantages now rely more and more upon the acquiesence of others to allow the status quo of this arrangement to continue.
They are now at their zenith and from this point they will not look up again (if ever) until they have seen their advantages destroyed and had their habitual behaviours transformed.
Now I'd say the US and indeed quite a lot of Europe are reasonably described here although there might be some argument about exactly which phase they are in.

chump

May I ask, do you subscribe to the theory of EW ?

Just curious that's all.

dd

 

[chump]

EW...not particularly...although I can see why you have asked...what I just described was simply a cycle that fits economies and at a micro level ...companies...and at a microscopic level the lifecycle of most individuals. It's a view based upon creative destruction.
It's applicability to the US is obvious enough.....they are in the midst of trying to hold onto their advantageous position at a time when there is a considerable amount of opposition from others in allowing that status quo to happen...if not now then in the near future I would suspect it is going to cost them increasingly more to do that than is returned by way of reward (it may already be the case) and at that point they will start to turn inwards in terms of what they do.

 

[fibonelli]

Robert Prechter has set up a foundation to study elliot wave theory and its application to understanding economics, sociology and political science. It is called the Socionomics Foundation.

"Socionomics is a new paradigm for the social sciences, derived inductively from years of research into collective human social behavior. Mechanistic theories of human behavior are failing to yield accurate predictions for future events and trends in fields like economics, sociology, and political science. In contrast to these theories, socionomic theory considers collective human behavior to be more like complex biological phenomena than like machine or computer behavior. Its key principles are that in human self-organized complex systems and in contexts of uncertainty, people's shared unconscious impulses to herd lead to the emergence of social mood trends (trends in mass psychology). These social mood trends are patterned and therefore are predictable in the probabilistic sense".

Here's an interesting paper about US Politics and economy.
http://www.socionomics.org/pdf/Hummel_US_Econ.pdf

 

[chump]

LOL...as usual someone got there before me.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Let's simplify it for you DB... Take Rome and empire out of the equation. Read the three points below and see if you can fill the squares with recent US activities?

David Walker, head of the Government Accountability Office says:

three reasons are worth remembering:

1. declining moral values and political civility at home,
2. an overconfident and overextended military in foreign lands, and
3. fiscal irresponsibility by the central government.

Some people can't see the woods from the trees...

Apologies gentlemen

1) Declining moral values and political civility at home . . . as has been pointed out on this thread earlier, it is rediculous to use twenty-first century, first-world moral standards to judge a socio-political organisation that existed 1500 years ago

2 )Please do your own research and try to explain, with examples, in what way the Roman army was "overconfident" after (say) 400AD.

It wasn't. In was in retreat pretty much accross it's entire western and northern frontiers (with a couple of decades of exception during Diocletions (?) reign) for the next 1000 years*

3. fiscal irresponsibility by the central government.
Yes, both regimes were/are fiscally irresponsible but, yet again, you're not comparing like with like (eg the Roman economy was pretty much gold/silver based rather than fiat based) so this point is, imo, invalid.


Bottom line, this argument is typical lazy, sound-bite rubbish that, altho sounds good, fails to stand up to any rigorous academic examination.

E&OE as I'm at work atm.

* you appreciate that the Empire was split into East & West with Constantinople being the East's capital untill it's fall to an islamic army in the 1450's?

Note to anyone who want's to take this further, I'm not gonna respond to anyone who thinks that Wikipedia (or actually pretty much anything off tinternet) is a valid source of info for this sort of thing.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

When a dominated people are uneducated they can remain dominated. As soon as education and indignation at being governed by a foreigner comes into the equation, that, plus distance is a decisive factor in the fall of an empire.

Nicely put!

Having said that, communications during the roman era were far from quick, iirc (from some reasearch document at home) the quickest an Imperial message could travel from Damascus to Rome was at least one week.