Would it be better if Bush failed?

[Darth Wong]

This is a wonderfully entertaining exchange. One thing I thought I'd comment on:

This is not a war I am advocating. This is a war I am saying is completely inevitable.

Only if we buy into the False Dilemma of "either McDonalds and Disney or the Pan-Arabic Borg Collective".

I can't help but point out that I've heard about Marina's non-distinction between "advocating" a violent overthrow and merely "predicting" it in glowing terms before ... from Marxists.

[Vympel]

Yea, SD.net denizens, harken, for every once in a while- we have a Duchess vs Degan debate. And it is oh so stimulating to read.

[0.1]

How has any Middle East country seriously endangered anyone outside the Middle East?

Nice turn of words, although if you go back in history far enough, the Europeans barely hung on when the Arabs came through in the 500s I believe. And it wasn't until Lepanto, that the Arab dominance over Europe was really broken. Someone even made a reference to Martel up there somewhere I think. Although you could make a distinciton that Arabs aren't muslims.

BTW, love the way you put things in prespective:

spending BILLIONS of dollars a year in order to propagate a religious agenda of Zionist ascendancy in Israel despite its destabilizing influence on the region

Nicely done... then the solution to the problem seem very obvious in this context, doesn't it?

[Axis Kast]

You've got to be kidding. You really think the Islamofascists hold more real military power than Israel and the Amen Chorus in America? No offense to any members of Muslim nations, but militarily speaking, they're a bunch of half-assed losers. Israel is the only rogue state in the region which threatens its neighbours with WMD, and Marina is the only one here who is talking about using force to shove a system of thought down anyone's throat. Ironic, isn't it?

Israelis have never suggested, by and large, that everyone outside their own borders should convert to Judaism – by choice or otherwise. Islamofascism is the only form of theocratic government with a “crusading” air. Remember Khomeni and the fear of “export Islam” around 1980?

Israel is hardly “rogue.” It isn’t as if they’re going to launch a nuclear strike against an enemy in the region unprovoked. If you were so worried about Israeli rambunctiousness, it’s a wonder you don’t support our action in Iraq. After all, with Hussein out of power, the threat to Israel is reduced substantially.

Let me know when it starts to work in Palestine, since 50 years of occupation have so far had the opposite effect.

I’m proving an answer, not an opinion of it.

Why? How has any Middle East country seriously endangered anyone outside the Middle East? Even if you include 9/11, we've killed far more of them than they've killed of us. And which nation is spending BILLIONS of dollars a year in order to propagate a religious agenda of Zionist ascendancy in Israel despite its destabilizing influence on the region? Oh yeah, the United States.

Israel is a valuable ally. Given the strategic importance of the Middle East, it’s occasionally useful to stir up trouble with an area proxy. That was proven during the Cold War.

It’s also far more than Israel that destabilizes the region. Try our consumption of oil. Period. There’s no escaping it.

The only menace that they are uniting to fight right now is America; hardly the intended consequence. Why doesn't the option of simply leaving the Middle East to stew in its own juices occur to anyone?

Impossible. Oil is the lifeblood of the global economy. America is being hit because it’s the largest and most bombastic of all targets. That doesn’t mean there’s much alternative. These people have a “rape” mentality. Their governments thrive on exporting hate so it doesn’t fester on its own. And that hate is best channeled at the United States, a shining example of all that is corrupt and soulless in the world. While it helps them that we support Israel, we’d still be a target if not for the Jewish state.

The Islamic world depends on selling oil for its economic survival. They've got nothing else to bargain with and even more to lose by cutting off their own sources of revenue. Furthermore, the Russians would be most eager to fill in the gap with the rich Caucasus reserves under their control. If the Islamic world really attempted this strategy, we would not have to prosecute an active military campaign. We could let them starve themselves out. There might be some difficult months, but the world would adjust to the situation and with less chaos than what followed in the wake of the 1973 oil embargo.

Yes, the world would adjust. At Russia’s massive advantage. There are strategic reasons we use the Middle Eastern reserves.

[Darth Wong]

Israelis have never suggested, by and large, that everyone outside their own borders should convert to Judaism – by choice or otherwise.

Correct. That's more of a Christian/Muslim mentality.

Islamofascism is the only form of theocratic government with a “crusading” air.

Rather ironic that you use that word in this context. Perhaps a trip to the history section of your local library would be instructive.

Remember Khomeni and the fear of “export Islam” around 1980?

Yes. I also remember that they failed utterly. Your point about the omnipresent Islamofascist threat to global security?

Israel is hardly “rogue.” It isn’t as if they’re going to launch a nuclear strike against an enemy in the region unprovoked.

No, they prefer to launch unprovoked attacks with conventional weapons and use the threat of nuclear weapons to prevent retaliation.

If you were so worried about Israeli rambunctiousness, it’s a wonder you don’t support our action in Iraq. After all, with Hussein out of power, the threat to Israel is reduced substantially.

Ah yes, the massive Iraqi war machine that was about to roll over Israel was stopped in the nick of time. Whew!

Let me know when it starts to work in Palestine, since 50 years of occupation have so far had the opposite effect.

I’m proving an answer, not an opinion of it.

You are providing an incorrect answer.

Israel is a valuable ally. Given the strategic importance of the Middle East, it’s occasionally useful to stir up trouble with an area proxy. That was proven during the Cold War.

Please explain to me what material benefits the US has accrued from its support for Israel.

It’s also far more than Israel that destabilizes the region. Try our consumption of oil. Period. There’s no escaping it.

Actually, our consumption of oil is what keeps them talking to us, since the leaders of all those nations know that they need our money to run their otherwise utterly worthless economies.

Impossible. Oil is the lifeblood of the global economy. America is being hit because it’s the largest and most bombastic of all targets.

And because they believe that America has an aggressive plan to exterminate their culture and reduce them to perpetual marginalization and subjugation, for which they use its support for Israel, its territorial encroachment upon Mideast territory, and its insertion of troops into Saudi Arabia as proof. Additionally, more visible versions of people like Marina and yourself provide exactly the sort of public rhetoric that they need in order to justify their case to their own followers.

That doesn’t mean there’s much alternative. These people have a “rape” mentality. Their governments thrive on exporting hate so it doesn’t fester on its own. And that hate is best channeled at the United States, a shining example of all that is corrupt and soulless in the world.

And wealth and their beliefs of exploitation. Didn't anyone notice that the attacks have generally been made upon those perceived as wealthy and powerful? The bankers and lawyers of the WTC, the frolicking vacationers of Bali, the American multinational corporate presence in Saudi Arabia, etc? Are the dots so hard to connect?

While it helps them that we support Israel, we’d still be a target if not for the Jewish state.

Take away support for Israel, take away territorial encroachment in the region, and let's see what happens. Frankly, I don't see how you can make statements of fact like that without backing them up.

Yes, the world would adjust. At Russia’s massive advantage. There are strategic reasons we use the Middle Eastern reserves.

I find it fascinating how you simply shift gears from one paper tiger to another. So today's bogeyman is the Russian Bear? There's always some inflated phantom menace against which we must mobilize our forces and strike first, eh?

[Sea Skimmer]

Excellent. The Russians will be pleased

And if they're lucky Iran will come running for more munitions with its foreign exchange reserves

The risk would be too great to take the chance and just do convoy escort, but I doubt those 877s would remain afloat for long against a canvasing of the gulf by the USN.

You'd be surprised; the gulf has utter shit sonar conditions. Its also a matter of convincing the insurance companies that those boats are indeed sunk.

Shit.

Indeed. Take a look at how long it took to sweep Iraq's field off Kuwait. That field had almost no decoys and most of the mines where designs that predated WW1. Iran has many crap mines, but also a large array of far more advanced magnetic and acoustical mines, and them mentioned pressure mines. They might not reach the same density, but all it takes is a single missed mine and one damaged shit and the straights are closed right back down until the whole process can be done over.

[quote
I doubt that they'd be able to pull that one off- it'd have to be a terrorist attack, and as for the 'Affordable Weapon'-esque cruise missiles, I doubt they'd have the range or accuracy of say Tomahawk or SS-N-21 SAMPSON/AS-15 KENT.[/quote]

Likely not. However Iran is currently able to and is working on a third generation fighter. Building a Tomahawk easier then that.

[Axis Kast]

Rather ironic that you use that word in this context. Perhaps a trip to the history section of your local library would be instructive.

Don’t presume to teach me the basics of history, Wong. For a supposedly mild-mannered Star Wars enthusiast who I’m told raises a child of his own and I presume holds a stable job in the real world, you’re a remarkable asshole. Do you give this kind of lip to the people with whom you live and work?

Only in the Middle East do we find theocracy today. For all their mistakes, the Israelis are at least contained largely on the Mediterranean shores. While a few hundred settlers make noise over land in the West Bank, you cannot tell me that it is the Zionist’s dream of uniting the entire world in Judaism. As for the Armenians, their Christian theocracy is secular in all but name. Only the world of Islam seeks constant expansion in the modern age. Marina has it correct. According to Islamofascists, the titanic battle of East and West has already begun. While you might not like her wording, try mine.

No matter what we do, we can’t escape fact: we’re in the Middle East to rape, pillage, and generally leave a massive imprint. Oil runs in the veins of global commerce – and most of it is pumped daily out of Arabian sands to be transported by hulking container ship out through the Persian Gulf and from thence to destinations worldwide. While we speak in private of the potential for hydrogen engines and sprawling valleys filled to overflowing with space-age windmills, there is in reality no worthwhile substitute for fossil fuel. The millions of jobs, billions of people, and trillions of dollars wrapped up in black gold are simply too great. We might have created a monster by driving that first boring iron into Arab ground over a century ago. But Deegan has a point: their world is oil. Do you honestly believe they’d be happier if we stopped consumption altogether? These people want us always to leave in spirit but never in person. The Western culture is to them abhorrent and alien, a bothersome speck on the windscreen of glorious Eastern history. And I say that in all seriousness. To them, we are an aberration. Just as we claim they’ve been made artificially strong by oil, they insist we’ve been made artificially strong by compromise. To the Arab world, the West clearly stands for nothing but self-service. They need anti-Americanism to function. They feed off of it. Their governments, like the Empress Dowager in China long before them, understand that an outward frustration is a valuable thing. Sustain it and you avoid legitimate trouble on the homefront – no matter how backwards your own nation and its governing dynamics. And we make a great target. We’re as stuck on oil as the Arabs – nevermind that the American footprint is impossible to hide and our decadent culture absolutely liquid. Any political move we make is immediately looked upon with suspicion. After all, if Western civilization is seen as ever-encroaching, when isn’t American policy anti-Islam? And so, you see, we run into a never-ending cycle of violence and fear. Islam feels the need for expansion to ward off Western dominance, even if it can go only so far.

Yes. I also remember that they failed utterly. Your point about the omnipresent Islamofascist threat to global security?

That Islamofascism exists and groups still move to achieve “global Islam” in the modern day. Western Christians and Israeli Jews are not a fraction as powerful.

No, they prefer to launch unprovoked attacks with conventional weapons and use the threat of nuclear weapons to prevent retaliation.

Whom has Israel attacked with conventional weapons in the past thirty years outside of Lebanon – where it was made clear they’d intervene in response to terrorism? Israel might be aggressive and over-protective, but it’s certainly not “rogue” from the point of view that it cannot be controlled.

Ah yes, the massive Iraqi war machine that was about to roll over Israel was stopped in the nick of time. Whew!

Saddam Hussein was an irrational man who often staked too much on his private quarrels with the Israelis. There was always a danger that Iraq would provoke a nuclear response from Israel if left unconfined. Bush eliminated that potential once and for all, even if you don’t believe Saddam could have grown in power over time had Hans Blix been left to do the job of disarmament all on his lonesome.

You are providing an incorrect answer.

No. I’m providing one that you don’t like. There’s a difference. Marina was very specific. It’s war she’s talking about.

Please explain to me what material benefits the US has accrued from its support for Israel.

Israel served a vital counter to Soviet power-politics in the Persian Gulf. A faithful American proxy. Today, Israel tests high-technology weapons systems for the United States, shares crucial intelligence, and continues to serve as a useful platform for destabilization of Arab opponents should we so choose.

Actually, our consumption of oil is what keeps them talking to us, since the leaders of all those nations know that they need our money to run their otherwise utterly worthless economies.

Our consumption of oil is also what keeps us in the region and necessitates our political and economic powerplays. Quite unpopular if you hadn’t noticed.

And because they believe that America has an aggressive plan to exterminate their culture and reduce them to perpetual marginalization and subjugation, for which they use its support for Israel, its territorial encroachment upon Mideast territory, and its insertion of troops into Saudi Arabia as proof. Additionally, more visible versions of people like Marina and yourself provide exactly the sort of public rhetoric that they need in order to justify their case to their own followers.

I’m outlining Marina’s argument in more conventional tones, Wong. You nor anyone else here has a true understanding of my political opinions about the region.

They are correct in that America is hurting Islam. It always hurts Islam. Its very presence hurts Islam. It’s unavoidable. A sad Catch 22. And so we remain in conflict. Every moment we consume their oil, we keep them alive. But in order to consume their oil, we must also alter their culture. Nevermind that the US is only one of dozens making powerplays in the region. For the time being, we’re simply “number one.” What’s your solution, Wong?

And wealth and their beliefs of exploitation. Didn't anyone notice that the attacks have generally been made upon those perceived as wealthy and powerful? The bankers and lawyers of the WTC, the frolicking vacationers of Bali, the American multinational corporate presence in Saudi Arabia, etc? Are the dots so hard to connect?

Part of the rape mentality.

Take away support for Israel, take away territorial encroachment in the region, and let's see what happens. Frankly, I don't see how you can make statements of fact like that without backing them up.

Take away support for Israel and the Jews would be slaughtered wholesale. We cannot remove our bases. Since 1982, the Persian Gulf has been a strategic focus of the United States of America. We cannot allow the Russian Federation or European Union to gain any more of a disproportionate foothold. Nor can we continue to rely on a secure supply of oil on a regular basis if we pull out of our bases altogether and eliminate our presence and regional power-projection. It’s fantasy. Yours is the way it should be in your eyes, not the way it can be in reality.

I find it fascinating how you simply shift gears from one paper tiger to another. So today's bogeyman is the Russian Bear? There's always some inflated phantom menace against which we must mobilize our forces and strike first, eh?

Today’s “bogeymen” are the Russians, Europeans, and Chinese. What part of “power politics” do you not comprehend? We’re in a perpetual struggle for influence, power, and wealth. It doesn’t stop just because people like you believe those other nations have the moral highground or don’t represent a military threat anymore.

[0.1]

I think people have seriously underestimated Israel for years, but let's simply ask the question:

If the U.S. withdraws unconditional support for Israel. The rest of the world which already does not have great love for the country follows suit, and Israel becomes a paraih. What happens next?

Mike, I defer to you on this, as you are quite vehement that Israel is the root cause of the problems in the middle east.

[Dahak]

I think people have seriously underestimated Israel for years, but let's simply ask the question:

If the U.S. withdraws unconditional support for Israel. The rest of the world which already does not have great love for the country follows suit, and Israel becomes a paraih. What happens next?

Mike, I defer to you on this, as you are quite vehement that Israel is the root cause of the problems in the middle east.

Their economy goes finally down the drain for good, for a starter.

[Darth Wong]

Don’t presume to teach me the basics of history, Wong.

Why not? You're the one ranting that Islam is unique in its "crusading" philosophy.

For a supposedly mild-mannered Star Wars enthusiast who I’m told raises a child of his own and I presume holds a stable job in the real world, you’re a remarkable asshole. Do you give this kind of lip to the people with whom you live and work?

Of course not, because they're not the kind of jackasses who claim, among other things, that hypocrisy is good.

Only in the Middle East do we find theocracy today.

And you figure the solution is to invade and occupy them? That's what Marina's been saying, and by defending her argument, that is what you are supporting.

For all their mistakes, the Israelis are at least contained largely on the Mediterranean shores. While a few hundred settlers make noise over land in the West Bank, you cannot tell me that it is the Zionist’s dream of uniting the entire world in Judaism.

No, but the Zionist dream of Greater Israel is very much alive, and by supporting it, America creates a great many enemies. But please, go on and continue to beat your idiotic strawman distortion of my position; it's quite amusing.

As for the Armenians, their Christian theocracy is secular in all but name. Only the world of Islam seeks constant expansion in the modern age. Marina has it correct. According to Islamofascists, the titanic battle of East and West has already begun. While you might not like her wording, try mine.

It's not a matter of wording; you are confusing rhetoric for action, anger for impending war. Your only evidence for this massive looming clash of titans is the florid rhetoric employed by Middle East politicians, and if you haven't managed to figure out after recent events that such rhetoric is nothing but hot air and bluster, you are beyond help.

No matter what we do, we can’t escape fact: we’re in the Middle East to rape, pillage, and generally leave a massive imprint. Oil runs in the veins of global commerce – and most of it is pumped daily out of Arabian sands to be transported by hulking container ship out through the Persian Gulf and from thence to destinations worldwide. While we speak in private of the potential for hydrogen engines and sprawling valleys filled to overflowing with space-age windmills, there is in reality no worthwhile substitute for fossil fuel. The millions of jobs, billions of people, and trillions of dollars wrapped up in black gold are simply too great. We might have created a monster by driving that first boring iron into Arab ground over a century ago. But Deegan has a point: their world is oil. Do you honestly believe they’d be happier if we stopped consumption altogether?

Do you really believe any of this contradicts my points in any way? I like the way you quietly distort "we should not invade the entire Middle East to ram our values down their throats at the point of a gun" to "we should stop all oil consumption". Do you honestly believe that was my position, or do you deliberately engage in these ridiculous strawman distortions with a big shit-eating grin on your face?

These people want us always to leave in spirit but never in person.

They want us to leave in spirit AND in person, dumb-fuck. They want us to simply conduct BUSINESS with them, like any other business arrangement: they give us product, and we give them money. At no point does our use of Middle East oil require invasion of the countries which happen to possess it.

The Western culture is to them abhorrent and alien, a bothersome speck on the windscreen of glorious Eastern history. And I say that in all seriousness. To them, we are an aberration. Just as we claim they’ve been made artificially strong by oil, they insist we’ve been made artificially strong by compromise.

Of course they're contemptuous of our culture. So what? The French are contemptuous of our culture too, and I don't see anyone screaming that we must invade them before the teeming French Hordes overrun us. Cross-cultural contempt is as old as human civilization, but that hardly substantiates your delusional leap in logic from "contempt" to "clear and present danger" or its corollary justification for pre-emptive invasion.

To the Arab world, the West clearly stands for nothing but self-service. They need anti-Americanism to function. They feed off of it. Their governments, like the Empress Dowager in China long before them, understand that an outward frustration is a valuable thing. Sustain it and you avoid legitimate trouble on the homefront – no matter how backwards your own nation and its governing dynamics.

The irony of you saying this while simultaneously attempting to create fear and uncertainty on your own home front about imaginary Islamofascist Hordes about to overrun our civilization is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

And we make a great target. We’re as stuck on oil as the Arabs – nevermind that the American footprint is impossible to hide and our decadent culture absolutely liquid. Any political move we make is immediately looked upon with suspicion. After all, if Western civilization is seen as ever-encroaching, when isn’t American policy anti-Islam? And so, you see, we run into a never-ending cycle of violence and fear. Islam feels the need for expansion to ward off Western dominance, even if it can go only so far.

Since the only people talking about military expansion here are YOU and MARINA, this argument rings rather hollow, does it not? American culture is anti-Islam, but that does not mean that Americans must go to all of the Islamic countries of the world and try to shove western values down their throats at the point of a gun, as Marina insists. You leap in logic (again) from "our values are in opposition to theirs" to "we must invade them, crush their values, and replace them with ours".

If that happens through the inevitable march of capitalism, so be it. But if it is done peacefully, the mullahs and ayatollahs and other idealogues of the Middle East would have a lot less fuel for the rhetorical fire. As it is, they can run around claiming that the Americans are out to conquer them by force, and the present administration is not doing a particularly good job of contradicting this claim.

Yes. I also remember that they failed utterly. Your point about the omnipresent Islamofascist threat to global security?

That Islamofascism exists and groups still move to achieve global Islam” in the modern day. Western Christians and Israeli Jews are not a fraction as powerful.

Western Christians and Israeli Jews are not a fraction as powerful as the Great IslamoFascist Horde, eh? Please show me the vast, well-equipped Islamic militaries that stand ready to annihilate our culture

No, they prefer to launch unprovoked attacks with conventional weapons and use the threat of nuclear weapons to prevent retaliation.

Whom has Israel attacked with conventional weapons in the past thirty years outside of Lebanon – where it was made clear they’d intervene in response to terrorism?

Iraq, when they bombed a nuclear plant under construction. What were you saying about my arrogance in presuming to lecture you about history?

Israel might be aggressive and over-protective, but it’s certainly not “rogue” from the point of view that it cannot be controlled.

Ah yes, whenever the US applies diplomatic pressure or the UN passes resolutions demanding that Israel stop settling in the occupied territories, they respond by building more settlements. Eminently controlled.

Ah yes, the massive Iraqi war machine that was about to roll over Israel was stopped in the nick of time. Whew!

Saddam Hussein was an irrational man who often staked too much on his private quarrels with the Israelis. There was always a danger that Iraq would provoke a nuclear response from Israel if left unconfined.

You blame Israel's itchy trigger finger on Iraq? Lovely.

Bush eliminated that potential once and for all, even if you don’t believe Saddam could have grown in power over time had Hans Blix been left to do the job of disarmament all on his lonesome.

Even if Saddam had been completely re-armed to his 1991 levels, so what? How is he a threat to anyone outside the Middle East? How is he even a threat to Israel, with its advanced military and nuclear arsenal? And why should we give a damn what happens to Israel anyway? They have been consistently intransigent and defiant for decades; what purpose is served by sticking our necks out for them?

You are providing an incorrect answer.

No. I’m providing one that you don’t like. There’s a difference. Marina was very specific. It’s war she’s talking about.

No, you are providing an INCORRECT ANSWER. I asked how military invasion is supposed to make people become logical, you answered "generations of occupation", I pointed out that every historical precedent says otherwise, and you simply whinny that I must be wrong because I don't like your position, as if the point I made about historical precedent did not exist.

Please explain to me what material benefits the US has accrued from its support for Israel.

Israel served a vital counter to Soviet power-politics in the Persian Gulf. A faithful American proxy.

And what would have happened had Israel not been there? Do you believe the Red Horde would have invaded and conquered the whole area? There was no way to manage the situation except to foment religious hatred and destabilize the entire region by arming Israel?

Today, Israel tests high-technology weapons systems for the United States, shares crucial intelligence, and continues to serve as a useful platform for destabilization of Arab opponents should we so choose.

There are many ways to test weapons systems apart from shipping them to Palestine for use against the people living there. Israel is just as apt to spy on America as it is to spy on anyone else, and their only real interest is Greater Israel, not hunting down Al-Quaeda. What have they contributed toward that end, hmmm? And saying that America benefits from having a "platform for destabilization of Arab opponents" is merely conceding the point: that the only thing Israel does is destabilize the area and galvanize those people against us.

Actually, our consumption of oil is what keeps them talking to us, since the leaders of all those nations know that they need our money to run their otherwise utterly worthless economies.

Our consumption of oil is also what keeps us in the region and necessitates our political and economic powerplays. Quite unpopular if you hadn’t noticed.

Again, you repeat your groundles leap in logic that it is impossible to do business with someone unless you attempt to meddle in his internal politics and destabilize the whole region. Care to justify it? Or do you prefer to maintain your present policy of vomiting forth streams of unsupported assertions stated as fact?

I'm outlining Marina’s argument in more conventional tones, Wong. You nor anyone else here has a true understanding of my political opinions about the region.

You are defending it, so stop playing the guerilla. If you disagree with Marina's claim that the Arab world is headed for some titanic Clash of the Titans with the western world and that we must strike pre-emptive and invade them in order to bring "The Age of Reason" to them, then say so. Otherwise, by defending her position, you give away your right to scream "strawman!" when I criticize it.

They are correct in that America is hurting Islam. It always hurts Islam. Its very presence hurts Islam. It’s unavoidable. A sad Catch 22. And so we remain in conflict. Every moment we consume their oil, we keep them alive. But in order to consume their oil, we must also alter their culture. Nevermind that the US is only one of dozens making powerplays in the region. For the time being, we’re simply “number one.” What’s your solution, Wong?

There's this quaint little notion that some people have, in which you simply purchase goods from someone and that's the end of your relationship unless that party is under threat and asks for your assistance. There is no reason that you have to share religious beliefs with someone in order to buy oil from him. The "solution" is to simply stop creating more of the sort of problems which Marina's warmongering would create if implemented.

And wealth and their beliefs of exploitation. Didn't anyone notice that the attacks have generally been made upon those perceived as wealthy and powerful? The bankers and lawyers of the WTC, the frolicking vacationers of Bali, the American multinational corporate presence in Saudi Arabia, etc? Are the dots so hard to connect?

Part of the rape mentality.

And how does that address the point? Marx claimed that this kind of jealousy would INEVITABLY lead to global class war, because (like you), he lacked the ability to foresee any other resolution to the hostility created by a perceived inequity. It did not occur to him that it is possible to maintain a certain level of class hostility forever as long as it is kept below a flashpoint level, just as it obviously does not occur to you that the same is true of religious and cultural hostilities. He insisted that the hostility must be dealt with by the complete subjugation of one side to the other, just as you and Marina do.

Take away support for Israel and the Jews would be slaughtered wholesale.

Oh yes, that's right. The Arabs, who have had their asses kicked by Israel in every single direct conflict even before they had nukes, will now steamroll effortlessly over Israel and crush them under the heel of the Evil Islamofascist Horde Do you really take this stuff seriously?

We cannot remove our bases. Since 1982, the Persian Gulf has been a strategic focus of the United States of America. We cannot allow the Russian Federation or European Union to gain any more of a disproportionate foothold.

I don't see either of them invading Saudi Arabia or massing on its borders. Was there some news article that I missed, perchance?

Nor can we continue to rely on a secure supply of oil on a regular basis if we pull out of our bases altogether and eliminate our presence and regional power-projection.

The US seemed capable of successfuly prosecuting a war against Iraq at the height of its power in 1991 with precious little in the way of local bases. All you need is some nations more pliable than others; a bizarre notion in your worldview which assumes a monolithic IslamoFascist Horde of uniform opinion and policy, but an option nonetheless.

It's fantasy. Yours is the way it should be in your eyes, not the way it can be in reality.

"Reality" being your world in which fanaticism can be stamped out through occupation, the entire Muslim world is of uniform opinion, the IslamoFascist Horde is vastly more powerful than Israel and its Amen Chorus in America, and we are heading toward an inevitable Clash of the Titans so there is no solution other than pre-emptive invasion?

Puh-lease; you argue the same way every other knee-jerk standard-issue right-wing idealogue does; you simply try to pidgeonhole your opponent as some sort of naive tree-hugging peacenik who wouldn't pick up a gun if biker gangs were coming to slit his childrens' throats. In your mind, it is impossible to do business with anyone in the Middle East unless we have our heel on their throats, because any other situation allows a normal business relationship, and you find that unacceptable. "Secure source" is your codeword for "captive supplier with a gun to his head".

Today's “bogeymen” are the Russians, Europeans, and Chinese. What part of “power politics” do you not comprehend? We’re in a perpetual struggle for influence, power, and wealth.

We are in a perpetual COMPETITION for influence, power, and wealth. People like you try to replace competition with open military conflict, because you are so filled with fear and loathing that you cannot imagine dealing with someone unless you have a gun to his head while he signs contracts. You wish to replace the figurative gun of business incentive and economic power with a literal gun, just to be sure.

It doesn’t stop just because people like you believe those other nations have the moral highground or don’t represent a military threat anymore.

When Marina proposes invading another country for the purpose of ramming our values down their throats against their will, that other nation DOES have the moral high ground, like it or not. And when you have not even attempted to establish a clear and present military threat, then you have no grounds to mock or dismiss any statement that such threat has not been established.

[HemlockGrey]

Why not? You're the one ranting that Islam is unique in its "crusading" philosophy.

It's the only one that today that follows through. There is no fanatical Christian leader exhorting other Christians to martyr themselves.

No, but the Zionist dream of Greater Israel is very much alive, and by supporting it, America creates a great many enemies. But please, go on and continue to beat your idiotic strawman distortion of my position; it's quite amusing.

America would have enemies regardless. If we stopped supporting Israel tomorrow the nations of the Middle East would not instantly drop all their grievances against us.

[Darth Wong]

Why not? You're the one ranting that Islam is unique in its "crusading" philosophy.

It's the only one that today that follows through. There is no fanatical Christian leader exhorting other Christians to martyr themselves.

So when George Bush praises soldiers who make the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, there's no symmetry with Islamic leaders praising people who make the ultimate sacrifice for Allah? If we were to carry through on Marina's warmongering notions of invading nations to shove our values down their throats, it is WE who would be the crusaders. And since I haven't seen Arab armies rolling over and crushing secular nations lately, you'll have to forgive me if I take your "follows through" comment with a grain of salt.

America would have enemies regardless. If we stopped supporting Israel tomorrow the nations of the Middle East would not instantly drop all their grievances against us.

Black/white fallacy; we don't need them to instantly drop ALL of their grievances against us. We only need to reduce the hostility to a manageable level. What part of the Marx analogy did you not understand?

[Patrick Degan]

The Islamic world depends on selling oil for its economic survival. They've got nothing else to bargain with and even more to lose by cutting off their own sources of revenue. Furthermore, the Russians would be most eager to fill in the gap with the rich Caucasus reserves under their control. If the Islamic world really attempted this strategy, we would not have to prosecute an active military campaign. We could let them starve themselves out. There might be some difficult months, but the world would adjust to the situation and with less chaos than what followed in the wake of the 1973 oil embargo.

Yes, the world would adjust. At Russia’s massive advantage. There are strategic reasons we use the Middle Eastern reserves.

The point I was making was to demonstrate why any attempted strategy by Duchy's Pan-Arabic Borg Collective to starve the Enlightened West into submission would backfire disasterously. You quoted me out of context.

[0.1]

Well, Dahak... I guess Mike won't answer on that particular score. No huge surprise.

That's ok. You were kind enough to answer, so let's continue.

So, their economy goes down the drain. What's next? There tends to be a logical progression of things that goes on. What is the next logical step after that for the state of Israel?

Remember, we're dealing with a realistic scenario, not the time machine where we go back to 1948, and unmake Israel.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But...I want to go back to 1948 and unmake it...

[Alyrium Denryle]

But...I want to go back to 1948 and unmake it...

But then again, the remmifications tohistory would be...I doooont knooooow

[MKSheppard]

If the U.S. withdraws unconditional support for Israel. The rest of the world which already does not have great love for the country follows suit, and Israel becomes a paraih. What happens next?

Jericho 1

The Israeli arsenal reportedly contains over 100 French-designed Jericho 1 SSMs (500-750 km/500 kg). The Jericho was test-fired in 1968 and is reportedly deployed in the Negev and near the Syrian border in the Golan Heights on mobile launchers. According to an assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency made public in November 1989, Israel has chemical and nuclear, as well as HE warheads for its Jericho 1 missiles.

Jericho 2

An improved version of the Jericho, the Jericho 2 reportedly has enhanced accuracy and puts most Arab capitals and the southern areas of the former Soviet Union within striking distance from Israel.

[Ace Pace]

Let me know when it starts to work in Palestine, since 50 years of occupation have so far had the opposite effect.

Until the start of the intifada, the palastines were rebuilding their economy, finely had something resembling free press, and were building an industrial base (not to mention using Israel's Industry for jobs).

It is only in the last 3 years, that the situation has detiorated, with Israel closing the routes.


Also from another perspective on the Intifada, the "popular" opinion, is peace, it is only a bunch of rightists (who admittedly control the Parliament) that are holding up the process.

[Ace Pace]

srael is just as apt to spy on America as it is to spy on anyone else, and their only real interest is Greater Israel

we stole our first nuclear weapons from the US....

Jericho 1

The Israeli arsenal reportedly contains over 100 French-designed Jericho 1 SSMs (500-750 km/500 kg). The Jericho was test-fired in 1968 and is reportedly deployed in the Negev and near the Syrian border in the Golan Heights on mobile launchers. According to an assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency made public in November 1989, Israel has chemical and nuclear, as well as HE warheads for its Jericho 1 missiles.

Jericho 2

An improved version of the Jericho, the Jericho 2 reportedly has enhanced accuracy and puts most Arab capitals and the southern areas of the former Soviet Union within striking distance from Israel.

add the jericho 3, a new version, range up till baghdad, information is easy to peice together from the new "restricted" areas, in the north.



Israel has many nuclear weapons, and with a fanatic like Sharon at the head of the goverment, there are dangers NOW (not later) of leaving Israel holding the sack.

[Crown]

Quite simply, the Age of Reason must now be brought to the Mid-East by the bayonet, because the Mid-East has realized that modern culture and its love of Reason threatens their own reactionary and superstition-based society.

Tell that to the Iranians.

Honestly though Duchess you really are a person of extremes aren't you? Before the war it was; Turkey will be raised to devinety as our right hand, and they shall punish the evil Kurds in Kirkurk, and stay those un-deserving Hellenic bastards and bring forth the Age of Reason to the Middle East... blah, blah, blay, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Fundamentalism breeds of percieved injustice. Look at Iran for an example, at how the US's major collosal fuck up there set that country back for a decade or two. Since the US has kept the fuck away the alloytolahs and other religious fuck nuts (while still officially 'incharge') have slowly been losing their grip on power. More and more Iranians are seeking reform by themselves, and the government is gaining more and more, but every time fucked up morons try and strong arm Iran, it gives more power to the religious leaders.

Do you honestly believe that your policy would actually stop this circle? The only way of it succeeding is if you kill all those over a certain age and then raise the babies under false pretences. But even then you had better make damn sure they never find out what happened to their families.

[Crown]

Today’s “bogeymen” are the Russians, Europeans, and Chinese. What part of “power politics” do you not comprehend? We’re in a perpetual struggle for influence, power, and wealth. It doesn’t stop just because people like you believe those other nations have the moral highground or don’t represent a military threat anymore.

You would lose. And if you actually want me to explain that to you then there is no hope for you at all.

[0.1]

Yep Sheppard,

The Jerichos are well known, and there is also the fact that the Israelis almost used the nuclear tipped versions in 1973 when it looked like the Golan heights was about to be lost. But luckily for everyone involved, the 7th Brigade and the Barak brigade held back the Syrians long enough for reinforcement to start pouring in on the ground.

But, that of course doesn't answer the real question? Which is, if U.S. support for Israel is withdrawn, what happens next? Does Israel become the equivalent of Iran in that it becomes an outcast state in the world community surrounded by hostile neighbors? Then, how does that country respond to that status.

And while the rest of the world might consider Sharon to be fanatical, I think I see a lot of pragmatism involved in his actions especially of late.

[Axis Kast]

Why not? You're the one ranting that Islam is unique in its "crusading" philosophy.

That’s because in the modern, Wong, Islam is unique in the ability to make good on its “crusading” philosophy.

Of course not, because they're not the kind of jackasses who claim, among other things, that hypocrisy is good.

Hypocrisy on the international level is a fact. Why bind our own hands? It’s not as if the Chinese or Russians will fall in line anytime soon. Or Europe, for that matter. And never mind the Axis of Evil.

I separate my personal life from geopolitics, Wong. The rules – or rather lack of rules – governing one does not carry over into the other.

And you figure the solution is to invade and occupy them? That's what Marina's been saying, and by defending her argument, that is what you are supporting.

No. I am clarifying Marina’s position.

In my opinion, the best solution is now being carried out on the back of neoconservative policy in Washington. Let’s just say I subscribe to a more conventional view of Marina’s philosophy: that the Arab world is a basket case that sees itself hemmed by the West and can react to our policy with little more than intense paranoia. Unfortunately, we two are bound. The solution is thus to create proxies in the region – i.e. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and now Iraq – and rebuild them along secular lines or use them as catalysts to keep the Arabs from doing that first thing all “new” nation-states in the Third World tend to do: marshal military power to no good ends. Our major objective is oil. Our secondary objective is secular dilution of Islamofascism.

No, but the Zionist dream of Greater Israel is very much alive, and by supporting it, America creates a great many enemies. But please, go on and continue to beat your idiotic strawman distortion of my position; it's quite amusing.

Isn’t this what they call a red herring? Israel’s rather limited ambitions for territory technically within its own contiguous borders can hardly be likened to the stated objective of many Islamofascists: that is, total conversion of the rest of the world.

It's not a matter of wording; you are confusing rhetoric for action, anger for impending war. Your only evidence for this massive looming clash of titans is the florid rhetoric employed by Middle East politicians, and if you haven't managed to figure out after recent events that such rhetoric is nothing but hot air and bluster, you are beyond help.

In the immediate region – where, mind you, we’ve planted our strategic foot -, all of that rhetoric is very much translated into action. And it’s getting to the point that we’re seeing some of it exported elsewhere – Africa and Asia.

Do you really believe any of this contradicts my points in any way? I like the way you quietly distort "we should not invade the entire Middle East to ram our values down their throats at the point of a gun" to "we should stop all oil consumption". Do you honestly believe that was my position, or do you deliberately engage in these ridiculous strawman distortions with a big shit-eating grin on your face?

The two are one and the same. We cannot conceivably reduce our footprint in the Middle East without inviting danger. The only way to stop the cycle of violence and revulsion is to pull out altogether. Our very presence is provocative to that entire region and its peoples. We ram out ideals and values down their throats by simple virtue of our presence. Unfortunately, the consequences of a pullout would be far worse.

They want us to leave in spirit AND in person, dumb-fuck. They want us to simply conduct BUSINESS with them, like any other business arrangement: they give us product, and we give them money. At no point does our use of Middle East oil require invasion of the countries which happen to possess it.

To conduct business, we cannot leave in person. Our citizens and our military will always remain so long as we trade in the Middle East. It’s come to the point that our military presence can only be reduced, not removed. And given that we’ve just invaded Iraq, that’s a rather poor suggestion.

Ensuring safe flow does require invasion according to some, Wong.

Of course they're contemptuous of our culture. So what? The French are contemptuous of our culture too, and I don't see anyone screaming that we must invade them before the teeming French Hordes overrun us. Cross-cultural contempt is as old as human civilization, but that hardly substantiates your delusional leap in logic from "contempt" to "clear and present danger" or its corollary justification for pre-emptive invasion.

Because some circles of French aren’t suggesting that everybody else should become French, too.

The contempt for Western culture in the Middle East is a clear and present danger to what has become our immobile, irrevocable presence. And barring our removal – which is in its totality unacceptable for both sides and in any form unacceptable to us -, a strong military presence – with proxies – is necessary.

The irony of you saying this while simultaneously attempting to create fear and uncertainty on your own home front about imaginary Islamofascist Hordes about to overrun our civilization is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

So the situation is ironic. As I’ve said, the entire situation is chock full of self-fulfilling prophecies and unavoidable contradictions.

Since the only people talking about military expansion here are YOU and MARINA, this argument rings rather hollow, does it not? American culture is anti-Islam, but that does not mean that Americans must go to all of the Islamic countries of the world and try to shove western values down their throats at the point of a gun, as Marina insists. You leap in logic (again) from "our values are in opposition to theirs" to "we must invade them, crush their values, and replace them with ours".

If that happens through the inevitable march of capitalism, so be it. But if it is done peacefully, the mullahs and ayatollahs and other idealogues of the Middle East would have a lot less fuel for the rhetorical fire. As it is, they can run around claiming that the Americans are out to conquer them by force, and the present administration is not doing a particularly good job of contradicting this claim.

I’m not advocating for as wide an offensive against the Arab world as Marina. I’m arguing that we’ve got to secure our foothold and safeguard the future of our necessary presence. I’m also arguing that on very basic levels, Marina’s analysis is correct. Her larger picture is mirrored in microsm by the Middle East itself. Her theories still apply to everything we do between Constantinople and Islamabad.

Like you, I argue that dilution is the best medicine. Let capitalism and secularism leak into the Middle East by virtue of our presence and trade. Unfortunately, it was a problem even before we invaded Iraq. The situation in the region became so volatile on its own that we were forced to begin a perpetual occupation (but not conquest) to ensure our own needs were met. This fed fear and led to aggressive behavior that required additional military action. We had no choice but to strike Afghanistan. And so the vicious circle continued. It would have been so even had we not struck at Iraq. And I still maintain that if done properly, reconstruction will have a positive effect.

Western Christians and Israeli Jews are not a fraction as powerful as the Great IslamoFascist Horde, eh? Please show me the vast, well-equipped Islamic militaries that stand ready to annihilate our culture.

Islamofascists toppled the Twin Towers. Islamofascists are currently the most likely to commit terrorism with WMD. Now I don’t believe it’s a clash of civilizations across the globe. But I do believe they could do disproportionate amounts of damage via unconventional means. Don’t be fooled. Danger can come from other sources than the barrel of a tank cannon.

Iraq, when they bombed a nuclear plant under construction. What were you saying about my arrogance in presuming to lecture you about history?

In response to a provocative action on Iraq’s part.

A rogue state is uncontrolled. Israel is for the time being still on America’s leash. The destruction of the Ba’ath Party in Iraq and our current “Road Map to Peace” has only made that bond stronger.

Ah yes, whenever the US applies diplomatic pressure or the UN passes resolutions demanding that Israel stop settling in the occupied territories, they respond by building more settlements. Eminently controlled.

Red herring. That has nothing to do with military expansionism outside their own borders or the threat of their deploying nuclear weapons. And Marina was correct. If they are forced to deploy nuclear weapons, they are “over” as a nation. Revolt from within.

You blame Israel's itchy trigger finger on Iraq? Lovely.

I look at the situation and ask only how I can reduce the “itchy trigger finger” of an ally and whether or not doing so would be in my best interests. The answer was to invade Iraq – which was already a liability to our security even outside of the potential of being forced to defend Israel or contending with nuclear retaliation on Baghdad. The Israelis are guilty of being over-zealous and obstinate, but they are far more an ally than Saddam Hussein. I can tollerate some of their actions, but not Iraq’s.

Even if Saddam had been completely re-armed to his 1991 levels, so what? How is he a threat to anyone outside the Middle East? How is he even a threat to Israel, with its advanced military and nuclear arsenal? And why should we give a damn what happens to Israel anyway? They have been consistently intransigent and defiant for decades; what purpose is served by sticking our necks out for them?

He is a threat because we don’t want him putting pressure on Israel to launch any kind of strike at Baghdad. That puts our interests in the region – as an ally of Israel – at risk and at the same time ignites a shooting in which we are bound to have to send the majority of troops as part of an international peacekeeping force.

What purpose is served? We preserve a conventional giant with the ability to keep the Arabs from concentrating military power of their own, share intelligence with one of the world’s best networks, and enjoy the benefit of technological cooperation. Not to mention the great service they did us during the Cold War.

No, you are providing an INCORRECT ANSWER. I asked how military invasion is supposed to make people become logical, you answered "generations of occupation", I pointed out that every historical precedent says otherwise, and you simply whinny that I must be wrong because I don't like your position, as if the point I made about historical precedent did not exist.

You said I was “providing an incorrect answer.” You asked what Marina had in mind to do that. I told you. It wasn’t a question of “correct” or “incorrect.”

And what would have happened had Israel not been there? Do you believe the Red Horde would have invaded and conquered the whole area? There was no way to manage the situation except to foment religious hatred and destabilize the entire region by arming Israel?

Had Israel not been there, we’d have seen a great deal of the Egyptian model. Socialism combined with Islamic fundamentalism. In the Middle East, that’s rather unattractive.

It’s now whether the Red Horde would have invaded but whether they would have taken suggestions from the Soviet Union.

There was no way to manage the situation except to arm Israel. We later shifted to Iran and Saudi Arabia, but that fell through. Until around 1980, Israel was the only legitimate option. Nothing else had half the infrastructure or pre-existing military worth our time, Wong.

There are many ways to test weapons systems apart from shipping them to Palestine for use against the people living there. Israel is just as apt to spy on America as it is to spy on anyone else, and their only real interest is Greater Israel, not hunting down Al-Quaeda. What have they contributed toward that end, hmmm? And saying that America benefits from having a "platform for destabilization of Arab opponents" is merely conceding the point: that the only thing Israel does is destabilize the area and galvanize those people against us.

Again, Israel had the functioning infrastructure with which to meet our needs. Greater Israel runs into al-Qaeda. They’ve contributed a great deal, since al-Qaeda were caught in Israel.

Everything galvanizes the Arabs against us. My argument is that the hatred we take is problematic because of other factors anyway and that reducing support for Israel would be antithetical to our goals. An unnecessary move based off incomplete understanding of other problems in the region. Remember that until around 1980, none of these nations was a threat to us anyway. The scheme worked well until then. I’d argue that it still can, though with changes we see Bush attempting to implement today. Never mind that keeping the Arabs from being able to deploy strong, conventional forces was always a major boon.

Again, you repeat your groundles leap in logic that it is impossible to do business with someone unless you attempt to meddle in his internal politics and destabilize the whole region. Care to justify it? Or do you prefer to maintain your present policy of vomiting forth streams of unsupported assertions stated as fact?

We cannot secure the oil unless we take a hand in internal politics. Our reliance on the Middle East is so great that it demands political and military protection. Hence the dilemma.

There's this quaint little notion that some people have, in which you simply purchase goods from someone and that's the end of your relationship unless that party is under threat and asks for your assistance. There is no reason that you have to share religious beliefs with someone in order to buy oil from him. The "solution" is to simply stop creating more of the sort of problems which Marina's warmongering would create if implemented.

It’s not that simple. Part of the oil is the price. Unless we have political ties and disproportionate influence – which necessitate military ties themselves -, there’s no way to stabilize the cost and flow.

And how does that address the point? Marx claimed that this kind of jealousy would INEVITABLY lead to global class war, because (like you), he lacked the ability to foresee any other resolution to the hostility created by a perceived inequity. It did not occur to him that it is possible to maintain a certain level of class hostility forever as long as it is kept below a flashpoint level, just as it obviously does not occur to you that the same is true of religious and cultural hostilities. He insisted that the hostility must be dealt with by the complete subjugation of one side to the other, just as you and Marina do.

No. In fact, I’m arguing something very similar to your position. I’m merely acknowledging that in microsm, Marina’s commentary holds some truth. Not to mention at least putting in other, more simplistic words the gist of her argument.

Oh yes, that's right. The Arabs, who have had their asses kicked by Israel in every single direct conflict even before they had nukes, will now steamroll effortlessly over Israel and crush them under the heel of the Evil Islamofascist Horde.

The nuclear weapons preserve Israel’s conventional toughness because it’s folly to attempt to challenge them anyway. Take away those nuclear weapons and American financial assistance and you face the risk that Israel will have to defend itself from without while beset also from within. At best, millions dead. In my opinion, a sure means to the destruction of the Jewish state – and its Jews.

I don't see either of them invading Saudi Arabia or massing on its borders. Was there some news article that I missed, perchance?

Economic presence. We lose out. Especially because the world is headed toward multipolarity.

The US seemed capable of successfuly prosecuting a war against Iraq at the height of its power in 1991 with precious little in the way of local bases. All you need is some nations more pliable than others; a bizarre notion in your worldview which assumes a monolithic IslamoFascist Horde of uniform opinion and policy, but an option nonetheless.

Try a willing Saudi Arabia and unoccupied beachheads. To try the same thing today would probably be quite costly either in terms of time and munitions or men and materiel.

“Some nations more pliable than others” means political footprints. Remember that until Osama Bin Laden, we were the “good guys” for defending Kuwait and the Saudis.

I don’t accuse the Middle East of uniform opinion and policy, but I sure as hell accuse them of having something similar and predictable.

"Reality" being your world in which fanaticism can be stamped out through occupation, the entire Muslim world is of uniform opinion, the IslamoFascist Horde is vastly more powerful than Israel and its Amen Chorus in America, and we are heading toward an inevitable Clash of the Titans so there is no solution other than pre-emptive invasion?

Puh-lease; you argue the same way every other knee-jerk standard-issue right-wing idealogue does; you simply try to pidgeonhole your opponent as some sort of naive tree-hugging peacenik who wouldn't pick up a gun if biker gangs were coming to slit his childrens' throats. In your mind, it is impossible to do business with anyone in the Middle East unless we have our heel on their throats, because any other situation allows a normal business relationship, and you find that unacceptable. "Secure source" is your codeword for "captive supplier with a gun to his head".

No. Reality being a cycle of violence far into the foreseeable future, punctuated by spirts of peace and possible progress for a proxy.

“Secure source” is my word for “potential to provide that gun,” whether ourselves or via a proxy. That breeds dissatisfaction. We can’t just trade if we want stability, Wong. We need security for that trade.

We are in a perpetual COMPETITION for influence, power, and wealth. People like you try to replace competition with open military conflict, because you are so filled with fear and loathing that you cannot imagine dealing with someone unless you have a gun to his head while he signs contracts. You wish to replace the figurative gun of business incentive and economic power with a literal gun, just to be sure.

Proxies, Wong. For now – and for us -, it’s only economic and political. That, I fear, will soon change.

When Marina proposes invading another country for the purpose of ramming our values down their throats against their will, that other nation DOES have the moral high ground, like it or not. And when you have not even attempted to establish a clear and present military threat, then you have no grounds to mock or dismiss any statement that such threat has not been established.

The threat isn’t military. It’s economic.

And the moral snipe was at all those who feel the Europeans supported Blix out of a desire for to maintain international law for the global community’s sake. They did it for their own sake. Do I begrudge them? No. Do I think it’s naïve to think otherwise? Yes.

You would lose. And if you actually want me to explain that to you then there is no hope for you at all.

We’ll eventually take second seat to China. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to keep our heads above the crowd. See my sig.

[Axis Kast]

You are defending it, so stop playing the guerilla. If you disagree with Marina's claim that the Arab world is headed for some titanic Clash of the Titans with the western world and that we must strike pre-emptive and invade them in order to bring "The Age of Reason" to them, then say so. Otherwise, by defending her position, you give away your right to scream "strawman!" when I criticize it.

Defending the validity of the outlook in the microcosm of the Middle East. In my opinion, we'll never achieve more than the "just below breaking-point" level of managable anger and frustration. Because without any kind of occupation - which I agree is ridiculous on a general scope - and enforced secularism, we'll never escape the finacial ineptitude of Islamic régimes and their oligarchical leadership.

While I don't subscribe to the Clash of the Titans, everything leading up to Marina's conclusion is essentially correct. She hits the nail on the hand - especially if we're going to constrict the arena to the Middle East, which I do.

I'm attempting to clarify and work from Marina's position, not adopt it unchanged as my own.

And in case I missed the "rape" issue, the Arabs will continue to view themselves as victims for the extent of Western reliance on their oil - which always comes with a military and political imprint. Oil is too much a valuable component of our economy to keep political and military issues out of this. And that's aside from the "Great Power jockeying" problem or the fact that Islamofascism will errode by exposure to capitalism anyway and that we'll see one or two groups try and change that on their own. And, of course, there's no way to complete your pullout except gradually, which means new concerns will develop over the twenty or so years it'd take to extract ourselves completely. Not that we would for the other reasons cited above however.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I can't help but point out that I've heard about Marina's non-distinction between "advocating" a violent overthrow and merely "predicting" it in glowing terms before ... from Marxists.

Marx borrowed dialectic progression from Hegel and piled lunacy atop it.