So the Taliban are advancing on Islamabad. Cool, potential failed states with nukes are my favorite after-breakfast snack. Luckily, the US and the EU and their retarded half-sibling the UN are all about "Respecting International Borders" (but only when there's a good reason for violating them, apparently) and so there's this big question about whether we should get involved or not.
So my first question is, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAINS? Why is this even a point of debate? Taliban + nukes = Europe held hostage. Even if there are plans in place to prevent the nukes from falling into Taliban control, the best that can come of them somehow overthrowing the Pakistani government is 25 years of bloodshed and failed statehood, followed by probably 50 years of Shariah Law.
My second question is, in a larger sense, when do we finally decide to gang up on these backward Shariah Law-imposing theocracies throughout the Middle East and tell them, "We're terribly sorry, but you are not allowed to do this on our planet. Fuck off." And then blow them up with large bombs until they can crawl out of the 10th Century?
I'm all in favor of the kind of world the "First-World Nations" seem to think we live in, unfortunately, that world is not the real world. And I understand we keep doing everything we can to avoid WW3, but every time we only go halfway in fighting it off, we just allow for it WW3 to become twice as bad as it should have to be.
Ideas?
I think I'll leave this one for Jenne.
My brain says you're right. My heart says no.
I tend to reserve judgement until those two agree.
As long as Germany is safe, IDC. We must protect The Hoff.
You really wanna scare these guys?
Pull out all U.S. troops with no explanation.
All of em. Just go pick em all up, don't tell anybody why or say anything other than "see ya".
Watch em squirm and keep looking up. Waiting. The way you used to do when mom would say "You wait till your father gets home", then when dad got home you'd just sit there quiet, watching him, waiting for the belt.
I sometimes wish I could explode peoples' heads from a distance. I'd just sit down in a comfertabuhl chair, and let my mind wander up into the ether making contact with other minds, sifting through other people's memories, until it contacted the mind of a complete bastard, maybe, you know, ONE OF THOSE CUNTS WHO STONED A 13 YEAR OLD RAPE VICTIM TO DEATH. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7708169.stm) :x
And I'd just squeeze. And somewhere in the world, some gun-toting, bearded Sharia-ponce would collapse, stricken, in a ruined, bloodied heap. I'd get 'em all, eventually.
But it's not good to think about that kinda stuff for too long. Ties my insides in knots...
Quote from: vexati0n on April 24, 2009, 03:52:26 PM
And then blow them up with large bombs until they can crawl out of the 10th Century?
I fucking love killing people in cities/government buildings at random. It makes the first world seem so much safer and doesn't inspire vengeance in people who were previously uninvolved.
Not one bit.
I would be very surprised if there is absolutely no intervention.
Oh wait, there has been intervention.
Also,
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/24/pakistan.taliban.control.gilani/index.html?eref=rss_latest
QuoteThe human rights agency issued a report on Friday raising concerns about Taliban rule in Buner, which it says includes a ban on music and mandatory beards for all men.
W ... T ... F :lulz:
Quote from: Squid on April 24, 2009, 05:14:25 PM
You really wanna scare these guys?
Pull out all U.S. troops with no explanation.
All of em. Just go pick em all up, don't tell anybody why or say anything other than "see ya".
Watch em squirm and keep looking up. Waiting. The way you used to do when mom would say "You wait till your father gets home", then when dad got home you'd just sit there quiet, watching him, waiting for the belt.
:lulz:
I love this idea!
That's something I would call "logistically retarded".
Also, we did this in the first invasion of Iraq and look how that turned out.
Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on April 25, 2009, 01:50:29 AM
That's something I would call "logistically retarded".
Also, we did this in the first invasion of Iraq and look how that turned out.
Quite well, as I recall.
Then Bush's kid thought he could do better.
Quote from: Faust on April 24, 2009, 06:40:39 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on April 24, 2009, 03:52:26 PM
And then blow them up with large bombs until they can crawl out of the 10th Century?
I fucking love killing people in cities/government buildings at random. It makes the first world seem so much safer and doesn't inspire vengeance in people who were previously uninvolved.
Not one bit.
Making war on the next generation FTW.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 24, 2009, 03:56:13 PM
My brain says you're right. My heart says no.
I tend to reserve judgement until those two agree.
^ This is very wise. When the heart & head are reconciled. (Similar to when the lion lays down with the lamb.)
Unfortunately I don't have any ideas about any of this, all I know is what we're doing isn't working.
(Cain?)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 24, 2009, 03:56:13 PM
My brain says you're right. My heart says no.
I tend to reserve judgement until those two agree.
The exact opposite for me. My heart says to stop this. My brain says that trying will only make it worse.
I deal with in in very simple terms. Brain says middle east/pakistan kinda area is dangerous. Ticking timebomb, eventually they'll nuke us. Solution kill em all and let allah sort them out. 0 smudgy people - 0 smudgy terrorists.
It's my heart that doesn't like this idea my brain is pretty sure it's sound logic. Yes there is still the threat of bad shit from other vectors and potential backlash shenanigans but on the whole I think it'd help.
The really scary thing is that the guys who make the decisions - they have no hearts. They're not even guys, they're beurocracy - human decision without the slightest hint of accountability or compassion.
Reserving judgment until the heart & mind are reconciled seems to be a good rule of thumb in most endeavors.
Fighting theocratic ideology with more of the same o same o theocratic ideology, does not seem to work. Case in point? most of history. Attaching a band aid to a major wound, along with the denial of the immense collateral damage (including & especially human lives lost or shattered) is a kind of Katma (combination of karma and dogma). A different level of thinking is required, I think, to even approach these kinds of things. Having mindless & heartless people making these decisions only escalates the problem.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 26, 2009, 09:08:23 AM
I deal with in in very simple terms. Brain says middle east/pakistan kinda area is dangerous. Ticking timebomb, eventually they'll nuke us. Solution kill em all and let allah sort them out. 0 smudgy people - 0 smudgy terrorists.
You've have to bomb most of the planet to eliminate smudgy people who hate America.
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2009, 07:02:37 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 26, 2009, 09:08:23 AM
I deal with in in very simple terms. Brain says middle east/pakistan kinda area is dangerous. Ticking timebomb, eventually they'll nuke us. Solution kill em all and let allah sort them out. 0 smudgy people - 0 smudgy terrorists.
You've have to bomb most of the planet to eliminate smudgy people who hate America.
He's not american.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 26, 2009, 09:08:23 AM
I deal with in in very simple terms. Brain says middle east/pakistan kinda area is dangerous. Ticking timebomb, eventually they'll nuke us. Solution kill em all and let allah sort them out. 0 smudgy people - 0 smudgy terrorists.
If most of the first world has that mentality then they are far more likely to nuke then the middle east. its this kind of mentality that makes me think the middle east should have a preemptive strike against the knee jerk western terrorists.
Quote from: Faust on April 26, 2009, 07:48:51 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2009, 07:02:37 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 26, 2009, 09:08:23 AM
I deal with in in very simple terms. Brain says middle east/pakistan kinda area is dangerous. Ticking timebomb, eventually they'll nuke us. Solution kill em all and let allah sort them out. 0 smudgy people - 0 smudgy terrorists.
You've have to bomb most of the planet to eliminate smudgy people who hate America.
He's not american.
Same goes for Britain.
Quote from: Faust on April 26, 2009, 07:51:30 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 26, 2009, 09:08:23 AM
I deal with in in very simple terms. Brain says middle east/pakistan kinda area is dangerous. Ticking timebomb, eventually they'll nuke us. Solution kill em all and let allah sort them out. 0 smudgy people - 0 smudgy terrorists.
If most of the first world has that mentality then they are far more likely to nuke then the middle east. its this kind of mentality that makes me think the middle east should have a preemptive strike against the knee jerk western terrorists.
Exactly true.
Let's look at who's terrorizing who; how many Western countries have had military invasions by the Middle East in the last 100 years?
How many Middle Eastern countries have been invaded by the West?
Hmmmm.
Of course, the West has been the aggressor. But that doesn't change the fundamentally incompatible ideologies of liberal democracy and fundamentalist theocracy. The entire Middle East isn't to blame, but specific, worthless elements of their culture are. We have our own worthless extremists but they aren't as violent or as organized as Islamic terrorist organizations.
These organizations are not concerned with concepts like Mutually Assured Destruction, either. They're addicted to the absurd notion of transforming the entire world into a caliphate, and regardless of how impossible that is, they will continue to fight and kill for it until they are all dead. I'm just saying we could speed up the "until they're all dead" part a little.
The logic is pretty straightforward really. Reductio ad absurdum: If I was the last man left on earth chances of nuclear war / dirty bomb terrorism = virtually* none
*depends how drunk I get
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 26, 2009, 08:54:17 PM
The logic is pretty straightforward really. Reductio ad absurdum: If I was the last man left on earth chances of nuclear war / dirty bomb terrorism = virtually* none
*depends how drunk I get
If you were the LAST PERSON why the hell not ya know
Quote from: vexati0n on April 26, 2009, 08:39:42 PM
Of course, the West has been the aggressor. But that doesn't change the fundamentally incompatible ideologies of liberal democracy and fundamentalist theocracy. The entire Middle East isn't to blame, but specific, worthless elements of their culture are. We have our own worthless extremists but they aren't as violent or as organized as Islamic terrorist organizations.
These fundamentalists were armed and exploited by the people who call them terrorists. Their tenacity and ability to be more then just another group of 'sand niggers' the military could arm and laugh when then blew each other came as such to the people at the top that we never stop hearing about them, oh poor America and Britain a couple of unexpected attacks one day back on september eleventh cleary justifies ongoing carpet bombings, military rule, random killings and imprisonments, invading a random country every couple of years etc. These people were created by the current system, I don't give a shit how hard it is, its the wests responsibility to find a peaceful solution, it will NEVER ease up unless efforts are made down that road.
There's not an easy answer to this. The whole damn region's a mess, not in part thanks to the US's FUBAR of Afghanistan. We needed to focus on that and not chase ghosts in Iraq. However, Bush 42 went ghost hunting and here we are, with a potentially nuclear mess on our hands.
Personally, my heart wants to stomp the shit out of the Taliban for all the Sharia law crap. But then, I want to stomp the shit out of
everyone who takes Sharia seriously.
But that's not plausible or any more humane then what they do (this is Brain talking). I don't think pulling out will do any good. If we drop Iraq, we might be able to get involved and have some good results. We're in the region already and this is intertwined with the Afghanistan problem.
I have a friend whose family is from the region and I want to see if I can finagle a chance to talk to her parents about it. Her father's effing brilliant so he'll have something interesting to say if nothing else ("We're fucked" might be what he says or he might have a good idea).
Quote from: Faust on April 26, 2009, 10:07:27 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on April 26, 2009, 08:39:42 PM
Of course, the West has been the aggressor. But that doesn't change the fundamentally incompatible ideologies of liberal democracy and fundamentalist theocracy. The entire Middle East isn't to blame, but specific, worthless elements of their culture are. We have our own worthless extremists but they aren't as violent or as organized as Islamic terrorist organizations.
These fundamentalists were armed and exploited by the people who call them terrorists. Their tenacity and ability to be more then just another group of 'sand niggers' the military could arm and laugh when then blew each other came as such to the people at the top that we never stop hearing about them, oh poor America and Britain a couple of unexpected attacks one day back on september eleventh cleary justifies ongoing carpet bombings, military rule, random killings and imprisonments, invading a random country every couple of years etc. These people were created by the current system, I don't give a shit how hard it is, its the wests responsibility to find a peaceful solution, it will NEVER ease up unless efforts are made down that road.
Problem is, there's really not going to be a peaceful solution to the extremists, unless you could becoming a Dhimi. Which I don't. We need to find a way to end the process that creates them, because the ones that already *are* crazy probably aren't going to become un-crazy any time soon.
Quote from: Laughtrack on April 26, 2009, 11:47:14 PM
There's not an easy answer to this. ...
Problem is, there's really not going to be a peaceful solution to the extremists, unless you could becoming a Dhimi. Which I don't. We need to find a way to end the process that creates them, because the ones that already *are* crazy probably aren't going to become un-crazy any time soon.
^^^ & they probably say the same thing about us.
I think we can admit the previous administration allowed torture & continues to lie about it. I think we can also admit they fooled us into believing we were entering a war to protect democracy against Al Qaeda & in the words of GWBII, other evil doers. I think they used the September 11th horrors to market an unnecessary (however highly lucrative for some) war we are still engaged in. They capitalized on peoples worst fears & I don't know how they can sleep at night. I don't trust the motivations here either.
I would be interested in hearing what your friend's father has to say.
Quote from: Honey on April 27, 2009, 12:02:59 AM
I would be interested in hearing what your friend's father has to say.
When I get a chance to talk to Boris, I'll definitely report back.
I'm with Faust here. Violence only feeds more violence. (The exception is cataclysmic territorial pissing contests like WWII which cause so much destruction all those involved decide the borders are fine just like they are, actually.)
The West will never win with bombs, because the extremists have learned to use bombings/attacks/defeats/general violence to rally the people and gather conscripts. Take a look at Israel (where I come from, mind you) - they've been using violence on the turrrrists again and again, sometimes with more precision, sometimes with less, and the net result is that Hamas and Fat'h are as strong as ever.
I think the solution has to be peaceful, or it won't be a solution at all. What that actually means I'm not sure. I've given much more thought to the Palestinians' situation that that further east... For the Palestinians, I believe the solution has to be improving their living conditions so there are less people with nothing to lose (which are the perfect conscripts for crazy-ass mofos who wanna shoot things up) while at the same time working extensively on reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, on a huge scale but on an individual basis, to finally forge a single state for both peoples together (since agreeing on a border seems impossible, and they're already economically intertwined.) By extension, the solution in Pakistan would be to help them improve their living conditions, stabilize the politics and the economy, and try to shift the culture to a more Western one... No idea if that idea's worth shit, but shooting things up won't discourage the smudgy mofos from shooting thigns up, I'll tell you that.
Maybe the West should look at places it has successfully Westernized and see how all that went down... Even though, with the example of Japan coming to mind, I guess there's a limit to how well it can work out...
Firstly, WWI did end in large part because of the destruction and the sheer amount of carnage, but it would have continued if Germany had felt she could continue the war. Starvation, blockades and lack of materiel pretty much forced them to the negotiating table. The effects on "popular consciousness" had long lasting repercussions in the combatant nations. It could also be argued that the way peace was implemented after WWI actually led to a far more destructive and violent war in WWII.
Secondly, I don't think it's a question of westernising these places. Cultural imperialism is just as bad as any other form of it in many of these cultures eyes.
Yes, some form of liberalism would be good, but they would need to find some way to incorporate and implement that within the existing framework of their various cultures.
Generally speaking, Japan was never "westernised" as such, it was more industrialised, and had various economic enclaves within which some Japanese were more "western" than the rest of their brethren in the interior. Japan as a nation was never truly westernised, and still in many respects isn't.
I think mostly, we should be looking at dialogue, compromise, diplomacy by usual means, economic relief and education in these problem areas and then there may be a dim chance of peace. Any other response will likely exacerbate the problem further.
Maybe if the West simply got off the arrogant horsie and realized that other people think differently and accept it then they wouldn't feel the need to name us enemy. Who gave us the authority to force our way of life on the rest of the world? I damn sure didn't vote for it.
That could be a good start.
Then the western powers need to start paying attention to people in the middle east and elsewhere who are saying "They need to be aware of the history of their foreign policy", and maybe making some restitution for some of the more egregious blunders that they're made.
Quote from: vexati0n on April 24, 2009, 03:52:26 PM
My second question is, in a larger sense, when do we finally decide to gang up on these backward Shariah Law-imposing theocracies throughout the Middle East and tell them, "We're terribly sorry, but you are not allowed to do this on our planet. Fuck off." And then blow them up with large bombs until they can crawl out of the 10th Century?
I'm kind of on board with this, to a point.
I understand all the arguments that say the West is to blame, and it's true that in large part we are to blame, if not for the affinity of Islam for extremism then for creating cultural and economic conditions in the ME that make large numbers of people actually consider joining a bunch of suicidal maniacs bent on overtaking the world and imposing 7th Century theocratic rule on it.
But given the current situation, the West could from this point forward implement a 'hands off' approach to the ME, let them develop however they want, pay fair prices to honest sellers for the goods they produce that we need, and keep everything above-board, and there would still be a problem with extremism in the ME that would latch onto the cultures there, grow, expand, and continue to export bigotry, intolerance, and violence.
Any attempt to educate the people, liberalize their governments, subvert their grassroots movements or undermine their absurd Shariah law would be seen as trying to infiltrate and adulterate their pure culture, and would help terrorist organizations recruit new members just as well as bombing them does. So it looks like a "peaceful solution" is just as futile as the half-assed military solution we're trying now.
Personally, I think we need to redefine the "War on Terror," drop the surgically precise language, and make it clear that we are not just after terrorists, we are going to destroy the Middle East's capability to form cultures and movements that have no place in a civilized world. It isn't just terrorism. It's all the societal elements that makes terrorism so viable in the ME: Shariah Law, fundamentalist Islam in general, theocratic governments, and all the other things reduce humans to the status of drooling, obedient drones (not that we are necessarily against drooling, obedient drones, it's just that we'd prefer them to be the kind that sit in their basements and complain about popular kids on the Internet, rather than the kind that strap explosives to themselves and go to the mall). All these things should be declared internationally prohibited, and then any country that tries it out goes to the top of a list of exceptions to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
In short, we can't keep saying "It's alright to be a crazy extremist as long as you don't act violently." Eventually, we're going to have to let them know that as long as they permit their societies to produce this kind of unsalvageable human filth, they are targets.
Quote from: vexati0n on April 27, 2009, 06:21:49 AM
Personally, I think we need to redefine the "War on Terror," drop the surgically precise language, and make it clear that we are not just after terrorists, we are going to destroy the Middle East's capability to form cultures and movements that have no place in a civilized world.
This kinda makes me feel a little sick.
I know people living under Shariah law who find the entire thing dispicable. You are assuming that there is no balance in these places. There are a great deal of liberal people in these countries who could well have come to power had the west not given the opposition such a firm grip through panic and fear.
Yes there are barbaric practices in the middle east, the stonings etc. But there are pleanty of barbaric practices in the cultures of the west as well. Were just more
used to them at this stage.
Cultures do change over time through awareness and through the strenghth of people like MLK and such. Bombing the fuck out of a culture and keeping them in military rule doesn't give people time to think or question the practices of their culture. If anything it reinforces them.
I agree with Faust there.
And while I do say that the west has to shoulder a great deal of the blame, I agree with vex in that the extremist government and societal elements in the middle east and elswhere must shoulder a good chunk of that blame too.
Blame, however, isn't really the important thing here. One of the problems that Liberal Democracy has is that it seems obvious to proponents of it that others want to live under it. Its natural superiority is all the propaganda and justification Liberal Democrats need to effect the implementation of it in places were a standard western Liberal Democracy doesn't really work.
It also follows that anyone who doesn't want Liberal Democracy is an extremist, and anyone who fights against it is a terrorist. Of course there are other things these people disagree and fight against that can earn them these epithets, but at it's most basic level it comes down to their rejection of our patently superior ideology. And all the rhetoric, fear mongering and demonisation that follows serves to dehumanise The Terrorist and makes any kind of compromise or dialogue impossible.
Why should we be so sure that Liberal Democracy is The One True Way? Why shouldn't we listen to the people who believe something different, and find a way to improve things for everyone? Why is it so vitally important to defend our interests now at the expense of our interests in the future? And if we are so sure that Liberal Democracy is so great, why do some of us advocate throwing away those principles and engage in an actual genocide because we fear the people with smudgy skin?
That road leads to Fascism. Some of it is fully blown Fascism. And I can never agree to this as a solution to our problems.
~~~Payne: Got slightly idealistic there, and needs his first coffee of the day yet.
Idealism / Ideologies are 99% of the shit that's wrong with the world today.
The remaining 1% is a split between cancer and pop idol
As ideologies go though, I'd rather the guys with guns weren't Fascists.
you guys are completely ignoring one of the MAJOR points of any discussion about a "middle east solution".
y'know, that whole "access to petroleum is VITAL to our national interests" thing.
It's for real, and no bullshit about "well we need to not be dependent on oil!" fucking DUH. But we are, and unless you have the solution sitting in your basement/garage/workshop, it's pointless wankery to have any discussion about solving the problems in the ME without discussing the impact of their massive oil reserves on both their internal politics and on our external foreign policies.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 27, 2009, 12:38:05 PM
you guys are completely ignoring one of the MAJOR points of any discussion about a "middle east solution".
y'know, that whole "access to petroleum is VITAL to our national interests" thing.
It's for real, and no bullshit about "well we need to not be dependent on oil!" fucking DUH. But we are, and unless you have the solution sitting in your basement/garage/workshop, it's pointless wankery to have any discussion about solving the problems in the ME without discussing the impact of their massive oil reserves on both their internal politics and on our external foreign policies.
TITCM. Any other reason your government comes up with for having troops over there is just some complete bullshit they come up with to make them look more re-electable.
Yeah, I agree that oil is both the knife held to the western powers throats, and also the object of a great deal of greed and envy. It's probably the singular most important factor in our policy in the region.
Still, I'd rather that policy was dictated by more Liberal than Fascist ideals.
Unfortunately liberalism, by it's very nature, doesn't stand a chance against fascism.
Fascists seize power ruthlessly and often violently. Liberals whine about how unfair it all is. I know which one I'd be betting on.
Troof.
Liberalism is always getting fucked over by 'stronger' ideologies.
It's kinda cyclic tho - fascism can only hold power for so long before the whole thing collapses (usually from the inside as much as from external influence)
Then there is the opportunity for a spot of liberalism before the next bunch of jackbooted psychos show up.
Maybe I'm not thinking this through enough, but does anyone else notice that the common element in all these arguments is Force?
Doesn't it seem like the common problem here is that you can't force people to change, you need to convince them, instead?
Yeah, sure, you can force them to comply to your demands, but it seems the goal is to get another country to willingly do what we ask.
To me, the issue becomes what other methods/techniques/strategies can we use other than Daisy Cutters and Bunker Busters?
If force works at all it is in the Short Term. The only way it would work in the Long Term is if you killed everyone. That's why, as corny as it sounds, the "Heart and Minds" argument does have some merit to it. In the long term it would work better if we could find some way to get people to not hate us anymore. Or, at least, not hate us to the point where they are willing to end their lives to get us. Not that I have any clue of how you do that. Just sitting down and having a chat alone is obviously not going to do it. But that, with some tailored policies may at least be able to get some chinks in the armors.
I think there are things we can do on our end too. We can get more Americans to stop thinking that all smudgy people who live "over there" aren't thinking about killing us 24/7. Perhaps if we aren't projecting so much prejudice that would at least begin to put things in the right direction, or contribute to it, or something.
Quote from: LMNO on April 27, 2009, 02:03:03 PM
... get another country to willingly do what we ask.
This.
sheeit y'know what?
FUCK EM! BLOW EM UP TILL THEY HAS DEMOCRUSY!
\
:mullet:
AMERICUUUUH
(http://www.celluloid-dreams.de/content/images/kritiken-filmbilder/team-america-world-police/team-america-world-police-1.jpg)
FUCK YEAH!
(please note my sarcasm)
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 27, 2009, 12:38:05 PM
you guys are completely ignoring one of the MAJOR points of any discussion about a "middle east solution".
y'know, that whole "access to petroleum is VITAL to our national interests" thing.
It's for real, and no bullshit about "well we need to not be dependent on oil!" fucking DUH. But we are, and unless you have the solution sitting in your basement/garage/workshop, it's pointless wankery to have any discussion about solving the problems in the ME without discussing the impact of their massive oil reserves on both their internal politics and on our external foreign policies.
The ideal distribution of the worlds oil is never going to happen so i wont insult you by going into that.
A step down from that is that the ME nations are allowed to set fair prices on their oil and use its income to develop itself out of the current sick joke that it is.
What we currently have is the "National interest" system, we (or rather our governments) encourage them to blow each other to pieces.
We encourage a skcizm in their politics and keep them unstable.
But heres the funny thing, any terrorist actions only allow a greater control on the area. Give or take a few subway bombings and a couple of unplanned demolitions of the occasional tower and we have a good stake at what is eventually going to be one of the last oil supplies.
its in the national interest not to solve the problems in the middle east.
But its also in the national interest to allow its own people to be killed by disgruntled ME'erns.
Quote from: Payne on April 27, 2009, 12:55:26 PM
Yeah, I agree that oil is both the knife held to the western powers throats, and also the object of a great deal of greed and envy. It's probably the singular most important factor in our policy in the region.
Still, I'd rather that policy was dictated by more Liberal than Fascist ideals.
problem is, once the situation gets to the point where your choices are between an illiberal use of force or losing control over your single most vital strategic resource, there aren't going to be any liberals.
Quote from: Faust on April 27, 2009, 09:43:43 PM
its in the national interest not to solve the problems in the middle east.
But its also in the national interest to allow its own people to be killed by disgruntled ME'erns.
This. which is why any effort towards solving the problems in the Middle East begin and end with finding a cost-effective alternative fuel source which can be produced domestically. Then the ME won't be our problem any more and shortly after that we won't be their problem either.
Of course, half of them will starve to death and the other half will be crushed by the tanks of their own governments in bloody revolutions that will occur after all the oil money runs out and no one has any reason to protect people like the Sauds anymore, but this is going to happen no matter what anyone does so the best we can hope for is to have politically and economically (as if there's a difference) extricated ourselves from the situation when that happens.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 27, 2009, 10:44:47 PM
Quote from: Faust on April 27, 2009, 09:43:43 PM
its in the national interest not to solve the problems in the middle east.
But its also in the national interest to allow its own people to be killed by disgruntled ME'erns.
This. which is why any effort towards solving the problems in the Middle East begin and end with finding a cost-effective alternative fuel source which can be produced domestically. Then the ME won't be our problem any more and shortly after that we won't be their problem either.
Of course, half of them will starve to death and the other half will be crushed by the tanks of their own governments in bloody revolutions that will occur after all the oil money runs out and no one has any reason to protect people like the Sauds anymore, but this is going to happen no matter what anyone does so the best we can hope for is to have politically and economically (as if there's a difference) extricated ourselves from the situation when that happens.
^ Good long term solution.
However, we still have the Taliban in the mean time. I still think we need to drop Iraq and prevent the nukes from ending up in the Taliban's hands. They won't hesitate to push the button.
Do you HONESTLY think that the Pakistani army is going to allow a bunch of dirty-bearded goatfuckers to take control of Islamabad and/or Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?
Surely I'm not the only one who sees the Taliban's "push" into Pakistan as an ISI-orchestrated maneuver designed to cultivate support among the Pakistani populace (and local politicians) for the idea of going to "extreme" measures to "regain" control of their territory and border?
The taliban are not exactly a real army, and they'd get their asses handed to them in a stand-up fight. Islamabad could not be taken surreptitiously and even the taliban themselves know they'd be incapable of taking it AND holding it.
Now, Pakistan is going to have alot of influence on what happens in Afghanistan in both the short and long-term. I wouldn't put it past them to push for concessions for the taliban (regional governmental appointments, etc.) in return for a big public show that gives them room to operate in the manner they see fit.
Oh yeah, I totally believe this was all maneuvering for Pakistan to have a foothold in Afghanistan and also a move in shoving aside the intelligentsia of Pakistan that have been a mite too vociferous in their disapproval of the way the country's being run these days. HOWEVER, that's not totally surprising, given how incestuous the relationship between southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan has always been. What's dispicable is how close Afghans were to kicking out the Talibs on their own until the US decided to spend all its money chasing AQ around and creating civil war in Iraq, instead of building the infrastructure in Afghanistan that would've kept the Talibs out of there for the most part.
Divide + Conquer
The wild goose chase was no accident. What was majorly fucking retarded was that the most people seemed to believe it had something to do with some guy called Osama. :lulz:
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 27, 2009, 12:38:05 PM
you guys are completely ignoring one of the MAJOR points of any discussion about a "middle east solution".
y'know, that whole "access to petroleum is VITAL to our national interests" thing.
It's for real, and no bullshit about "well we need to not be dependent on oil!" fucking DUH. But we are, and unless you have the solution sitting in your basement/garage/workshop, it's pointless wankery to have any discussion about solving the problems in the ME without discussing the impact of their massive oil reserves on both their internal politics and on our external foreign policies.
truth maybe if the us was more honest about the oil thing, "uh we need lots of this stuff and you have it of course we're coming to get it, no offense to your way of life, beside burkas just get caught in car doors we'll make better use of it, please send inquiries to the gun toting gi joe robots"
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 28, 2009, 02:03:46 AM
Do you HONESTLY think that the Pakistani army is going to allow a bunch of dirty-bearded goatfuckers to take control of Islamabad and/or Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?
Surely I'm not the only one who sees the Taliban's "push" into Pakistan as an ISI-orchestrated maneuver designed to cultivate support among the Pakistani populace (and local politicians) for the idea of going to "extreme" measures to "regain" control of their territory and border?
The taliban are not exactly a real army, and they'd get their asses handed to them in a stand-up fight. Islamabad could not be taken surreptitiously and even the taliban themselves know they'd be incapable of taking it AND holding it.
Now, Pakistan is going to have alot of influence on what happens in Afghanistan in both the short and long-term. I wouldn't put it past them to push for concessions for the taliban (regional governmental appointments, etc.) in return for a big public show that gives them room to operate in the manner they see fit.
Here is truth. The reason they have been successful is they force you to come after them on their terms, in their territory. This is the only way a smaller and inferior force stands a chance. You are absolutely correct that in a face to face fight they would be crushed. The Apache Indians used the same tactic to hold two nations at bay for 20 years with an effective fighting force of about 30.
Half-assed tactical analysis of the options of the USA:
USA needs oil.
ME has oil.
option 1:
USA invades ME and kills/deports (nearly) everyone and replaces them with americans.
The fight will be relatively short and cheap and the newly acquired territory will be easy and cheap to keep under control.
Main flaw: Control of information flow and its influence on re-election chances.
option 2:
Trade. Make the ME as dependent on you as you are on them. Preferably more dependent.
The america-hating groups will find its very hard to recruit when their actions would result in a massive reduction in the local quality of life.
Main flaws: Trade is hard to control in the west, if an american corporation makes stuff for the ME they will most likely just become a multinational corp. and start an office in the ME with strongly reduced costs(labor, transport, etc).
In reality the USA govt doesnt have enough control over itself to actually, properly and succesfully execute either of these options.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 28, 2009, 02:03:46 AM
Do you HONESTLY think that the Pakistani army is going to allow a bunch of dirty-bearded goatfuckers to take control of Islamabad and/or Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?
Surely I'm not the only one who sees the Taliban's "push" into Pakistan as an ISI-orchestrated maneuver designed to cultivate support among the Pakistani populace (and local politicians) for the idea of going to "extreme" measures to "regain" control of their territory and border?
The taliban are not exactly a real army, and they'd get their asses handed to them in a stand-up fight. Islamabad could not be taken surreptitiously and even the taliban themselves know they'd be incapable of taking it AND holding it.
Now, Pakistan is going to have alot of influence on what happens in Afghanistan in both the short and long-term. I wouldn't put it past them to push for concessions for the taliban (regional governmental appointments, etc.) in return for a big public show that gives them room to operate in the manner they see fit.
Finally, someone said the most obvious thing about this whole insurgency theatre.
There are five major factions in Pakistan, roughly speaking. The military, the ISI, the Government, the Judiciary and civil society (ie journalists, the middle class etc). The military and the ISI have a tacit alliance against the other three, and the Pakistani Taliban are the dagger at their enemy's throats.
I mean, come on, lets think about this. South and Central Asia have been the contesting grounds for great powers for
160 years. Russia/the USSR, China, Iran, the British Raj/India & Pakistan and the USA have all been trying to exercise massive influence over the region, at one time or another (even Saudi Arabia tried playing the game - badly, but still). The Taliban ain't got shit on the strategists in the Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff, and that's a fact evidenced by Pakistan still existing, and the Taliban getting their asses handed to them with less than a decade of rule under their belts.
Lets put it this way - Pakistan's army is not locally called Military Inc. for nothing. They're big money makers, political movers and shakers, and geopolitical players with deep pockets, long memories and a very far reach. They've carried out coups, assassinations, black flag operations and deal in drugs and arms and slaves - and we're meant to believe people like this are having their asses handed to them by the
Taliban?
No, what's happening is this: the ISI and military have ties to the Taliban because it gave them power and influence and practically an entire new state to do whatever the fuck they wanted with. What can you do with an entire country, big budgets, an even bigger illegal budget and no oversight? Make a few millionaires, at the very least. Additionally, you've got pressure on India and a potential threat to China, your bestest buds in the world, under your control, as well as a gateway from Central Asia to the nearest warm sea port, all under your command. Empires used to spring up on trade routes, you know.
Basically, the ISI and military are in a win-win situation. Either the Taliban threat causes the government to get its shit together, and funds and arms and all manner of black ops and deniable slush funds are opened to them and the scenario plays out as above. Or else, the government caves under the pressure and the military and ISI carry out another coup and take control again, because clearly the Pakistani civilian parliament is too incompetent to be allowed sharp knives, let alone be trusted with running the country.
Its not like the Pakistani Taliban are a serious guerrilla force. Hell, the advance that caused the whole OMG ISLAMOFASCISTS WIFF NUKES bed-wetting was a massive failure. They overextended their forces and had to withdraw, begging promises from Islamabad that shariah law would be instituted in certain regions or else, um, President Zadari would be, like, totally beaten up for his lunch money tomorrow, or something. In other words, they don't have the manpower to occupy those regions and institute it themselves, or else they would be doing that right now. Equally, they don't have the manpower to attack Islamabad, or else they would.
And now, not only the Pakistani Taliban knows the true extent of their power, so does everyone else.
Quote from: Cain on May 01, 2009, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 28, 2009, 02:03:46 AM
Do you HONESTLY think that the Pakistani army is going to allow a bunch of dirty-bearded goatfuckers to take control of Islamabad and/or Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?
Surely I'm not the only one who sees the Taliban's "push" into Pakistan as an ISI-orchestrated maneuver designed to cultivate support among the Pakistani populace (and local politicians) for the idea of going to "extreme" measures to "regain" control of their territory and border?
The taliban are not exactly a real army, and they'd get their asses handed to them in a stand-up fight. Islamabad could not be taken surreptitiously and even the taliban themselves know they'd be incapable of taking it AND holding it.
Now, Pakistan is going to have alot of influence on what happens in Afghanistan in both the short and long-term. I wouldn't put it past them to push for concessions for the taliban (regional governmental appointments, etc.) in return for a big public show that gives them room to operate in the manner they see fit.
Finally, someone said the most obvious thing about this whole insurgency theatre.
There are five major factions in Pakistan, roughly speaking. The military, the ISI, the Government, the Judiciary and civil society (ie journalists, the middle class etc). The military and the ISI have a tacit alliance against the other three, and the Pakistani Taliban are the dagger at their enemy's throats.
I mean, come on, lets think about this. South and Central Asia have been the contesting grounds for great powers for 160 years. Russia/the USSR, China, Iran, the British Raj/India & Pakistan and the USA have all been trying to exercise massive influence over the region, at one time or another (even Saudi Arabia tried playing the game - badly, but still). The Taliban ain't got shit on the strategists in the Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff, and that's a fact evidenced by Pakistan still existing, and the Taliban getting their asses handed to them with less than a decade of rule under their belts.
Lets put it this way - Pakistan's army is not locally called Military Inc. for nothing. They're big money makers, political movers and shakers, and geopolitical players with deep pockets, long memories and a very far reach. They've carried out coups, assassinations, black flag operations and deal in drugs and arms and slaves - and we're meant to believe people like this are having their asses handed to them by the Taliban?
No, what's happening is this: the ISI and military have ties to the Taliban because it gave them power and influence and practically an entire new state to do whatever the fuck they wanted with. What can you do with an entire country, big budgets, an even bigger illegal budget and no oversight? Make a few millionaires, at the very least. Additionally, you've got pressure on India and a potential threat to China, your bestest buds in the world, under your control, as well as a gateway from Central Asia to the nearest warm sea port, all under your command. Empires used to spring up on trade routes, you know.
Basically, the ISI and military are in a win-win situation. Either the Taliban threat causes the government to get its shit together, and funds and arms and all manner of black ops and deniable slush funds are opened to them and the scenario plays out as above. Or else, the government caves under the pressure and the military and ISI carry out another coup and take control again, because clearly the Pakistani civilian parliament is too incompetent to be allowed sharp knives, let alone be trusted with running the country.
Its not like the Pakistani Taliban are a serious guerrilla force. Hell, the advance that caused the whole OMG ISLAMOFASCISTS WIFF NUKES bed-wetting was a massive failure. They overextended their forces and had to withdraw, begging promises from Islamabad that shariah law would be instituted in certain regions or else, um, President Zadari would be, like, totally beaten up for his lunch money tomorrow, or something. In other words, they don't have the manpower to occupy those regions and institute it themselves, or else they would be doing that right now. Equally, they don't have the manpower to attack Islamabad, or else they would.
And now, not only the Pakistani Taliban knows the true extent of their power, so does everyone else.
Damn, Cain.
It's good to have you resurrected.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 27, 2009, 12:58:55 PM
Unfortunately liberalism, by it's very nature, doesn't stand a chance against fascism.
Fascists seize power ruthlessly and often violently. Liberals whine about how unfair it all is. I know which one I'd be betting on.
:cn:
I seem to recall some sort of war in central Europe or something...
The stereotypical movie fascist will beat the stereotypical FoxNews cartoon liberal every time, because the former is stretched to resemble a Mike Meyers Boogieman, and the latter is diminished to appear weak and ineffectual.
Real life tends to be much more complicated.
Yes, precisely.
Also http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-05-01-voa13.cfm
QuoteThe Pakistani military says up to 60 militants have been killed in the last 24 hours of a major offensive against Taliban fighters in the northwest.
Military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said Friday the militants were killed in Buner district.
(http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7181/roflbotmfnn.jpg)
Quote from: LMNO on May 01, 2009, 02:24:30 PM
Damn, Cain.
It's good to have you resurrected.
Seriously. That summation was brilliant. I said it in that other thread, but Welcome Back!
BOOM, HEADSHOT!
http://www.juancole.com/2009/04/readers-have-written-me-asking-what-i.html
Quote[...]
Some 55 percent of Pakistanis are Punjabi, and with the exception of some northern hardscrabble areas, I can't see any evidence that the vast majority of them has the slightest interest in Talibanism. Most are religious traditionalists, Sufis, Shiites, Sufi-Shiites, or urban modernists. At the federal level, they mainly voted in February 2008 for the Pakistan People's Party or the Muslim League, neither of them fundamentalist.
[...]
Another major province is Sindh, with nearly 50 mn. of Pakistan's 165 mn. population. It is divided between Urdu-speakers and the largely rural Sindhis who are religious traditionalists, many of the anti-Taliban Barelvi school. They voted overwhelmingly for the centrist, mostly secular Pakistan People's Party in the recent parliamentary elections.
Residents of Sindh and Punjab constitute some 85% of Pakistan's population, and while these provinces have some Muslim extremists, they are a small fringe there.
Pakistan has a professional bureaucracy. It has doubled its literacy rate in the past three decades. Rural electrification has increased enormously. The urban middle class has doubled since 2000. Economic growth in recent years has been 6 and 7 percent a year, which is very impressive. The country has many, many problems, but it is hardly the Somalia some observers seem to imagine.
Opinion polling shows that even before the rounds of violence of the past two years, most Pakistanis rejected Muslim radicalism and violence. The stock of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda plummeted after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
[...]
The NYT's breathless observation that there are Taliban a hundred miles from Islamabad doesn't actually tell us very much, since Islamabad is geographically close to the Pushtun regions without that implying that Pushtuns dominate or could dominate it. It is like saying that Lynchburg, Va., is close to Washington DC and thereby implying that Jerry Falwell's movement is about to take over the latter.
The Pakistani Taliban amount to a few thousand fighters who lack tanks, armored vehicles, and an air force.
The Pakistani military is the world's sixth largest, with 550,000 active duty troops and is well equipped and well-trained. It in the past has acquitted itself well against India, a country ten times Pakistan's size population-wise. It is the backbone of the country, and has excellent command and control, never having suffered an internal mutiny of any significance.
[...]
Or is the fear that some junior officers in the army are more or less Taliban and that they might make a coup? But the Pakistani military has typically sought a US alliance after every coup it has made. Who would support Talibanized officers? Not China, not the US, the major patrons of Islamabad.
[...]
All the talk about the Pakistani government falling within 6 months, or of a Taliban takeover, flies in the face of everything we know about the character of Pakistani politics and institutions during the past two years.
My guess is that the alarmism is also being promoted from within Pakistan by Pervez Musharraf, who wants to make another military coup; and by civilian politicians in Islamabad, who want to extract more money from the US to fight the Taliban that they are secretly also bribing to attack Afghanistan.
Advice to Obama: Pakistan is being configured for you in ways that benefit some narrow sectional interests. Caveat emptor.
[...]
All the military coups in Pakistan have been made from the top by the army chief of staff. Therefore Gen. Ashfaq Kayani is the man to watch. He was Benazir Bhutto's army secretary and has ties to the Pakistan People's Party. Not a Talib.
The hype about Pakistan is very sinister and mysterious and makes no sense to someone who actually knows the country.
QuoteIt is like saying that Lynchburg, Va., is close to Washington DC and thereby implying that Jerry Falwell's movement is about to take over the latter.
That. Right there.
Bump to remind everyone that the Pakistani Army is now sponsoring death squads in the Swat region, who are churning out scores of dead Taliban fighters and sympathizers from the months of sharia law and rule in the region. Often their bodies have unusual cuts and burns, and are put on public display.
Meanwhile, the ISI is sponsoring Afghan Taliban attacks from across the Turkmenistan border, for reasons explained below by a former Deputy Minister of the Interior:
QuoteBy creating trouble near the borders with our Central Asian neighbors, Pakistanis can say "Look you see, there is instability all over Afghanistan, not just along the Durand Line. By stirring up instability in formerly stable areas, it may make the new NATO negotiations with CIS countries seem less appealing. Again, Pakistan does not want to lose the revenue from the Western military freight that transits through its territory. It also does not want to seem less of a crucial ally of the United States because Pakistan is deathly afraid of India, as we all know. So now we are having trouble near the border with Turkmenistan and this scares their leaders.
And this is why Americans look at Afghanistan and say, "We're outta there!" If fucking Bush would have left Iraq alone, this might not be such an issue. The Talibs would likely have not gotten much of a foothold back into Afghanistan, and the damned Pakistanis wouldn't be so quick to run roughshod over anything they officially tell anyone about their maneuvering.
But at this point, Afghanistan looks way too complicated and harsh for anyone to linger in.
My husband and his brothers (the 24 year old and the 21 year old we "imported" along with my mother-in-law and their 2 sisters from Afghanistan by way of Pakistan 5 years ago) were sitting at the dinner table last Thursday, talking about the unrulyness of their homeland. Their very words are that someone should come in and fist-fuck everyone, HARD, and then they'll have order.
But allowing the general populace to run around like chickens with their heads cut off, letting warlords warlord it over everyone, letting this faction at this border tangle here, there, and everywhere, just won't work and will tangle the skein further.
I'm not sure there IS such a fist-fucking entity...I'm not sure there is ANYONE with the balls, the know-how and the money to do such a thing. The US obviously screwed the pooch in pandering to every side they could in a scramble to gain anything in that wasteland...and Europe seems to just be wading in deeper than anyone back home wants with little or no effect.
But abandoning Afghanistan when only 30% of the objective has been reached may not be plausible, either. I said last week in the Afghan-Men-Summit Chez Jenne: "Just cut it all up and hand it over to the factions already running the place in their parts."
They didn't seem to think that this was such a bad idea, either.
Its all about the cost/benefit analysis as far as I'm concerned. Sure, leaving Afghanistan now leaves everyone open to more terrorist attacks, but by how much? Could the money that will be saved by not having to support a military force in the field for another decade go into intelligence, policing and border controls budgets, and offset that chance of an attack? Would pulling out pull the rug from under Pakistan's military budget by leaving damage their ability to play games with their own government and the states of central Asia? What about the much overlooked civilian and political support? Can wiping out corruption in Afghanistan solve the governance problem, meaning less troops are needed?
And so on and so forth. I'm not convinced a surge in troops is necessary, or even that it would work. It would be better to get the troops in country to stop acting like idiots. I'd advise rotating everyone who is not already in a position where they have direct influence on important Afghani tribal leaders, police officers, politicians etc out, and rotating the veterans of Iraq 2006-Present in, only I feel kinda sorry for those guys, since they've already had to clean up one person's ill considered mess.
But then, I'm not exactly a fan of the occupation at all, as you may have noticed. I think NATO works best as an offshore balancing force, given the nature of our armed forces and general geographic position. Periphery powers do not prosper in central Asia, Russia and China will always have more influence. Break shit, set up a semi-functional system for withdrawal and let them pick up the pieces - with input via the UNSC, NATO-Russia Council, G8 etc to make sure our interests are protected. I'm willing to give McChrystal another year, to see if meeting the new objectives in Afghanistan is even possible, but after that, I've had it with Bush and Obama's Most Bogus South Asian Adventure
Quote from: Cain on September 23, 2009, 02:51:09 PM
Its all about the cost/benefit analysis as far as I'm concerned. Sure, leaving Afghanistan now leaves everyone open to more terrorist attacks, but by how much? Could the money that will be saved by not having to support a military force in the field for another decade go into intelligence, policing and border controls budgets, and offset that chance of an attack? Would pulling out pull the rug from under Pakistan's military budget by leaving damage their ability to play games with their own government and the states of central Asia? What about the much overlooked civilian and political support? Can wiping out corruption in Afghanistan solve the governance problem, meaning less troops are needed?
And so on and so forth. I'm not convinced a surge in troops is necessary, or even that it would work. It would be better to get the troops in country to stop acting like idiots. I'd advise rotating everyone who is not already in a position where they have direct influence on important Afghani tribal leaders, police officers, politicians etc out, and rotating the veterans of Iraq 2006-Present in, only I feel kinda sorry for those guys, since they've already had to clean up one person's ill considered mess.
But then, I'm not exactly a fan of the occupation at all, as you may have noticed. I think NATO works best as an offshore balancing force, given the nature of our armed forces and general geographic position. Periphery powers do not prosper in central Asia, Russia and China will always have more influence. Break shit, set up a semi-functional system for withdrawal and let them pick up the pieces - with input via the UNSC, NATO-Russia Council, G8 etc to make sure our interests are protected. I'm willing to give McChrystal another year, to see if meeting the new objectives in Afghanistan is even possible, but after that, I've had it with Bush and Obama's Most Bogus South Asian Adventure
I agree with all of this. I'm not sure a year will do it, but you know what's sad?: That fucker Bin Laden predicted we'd want to give up and take our toys home before anything was done in a definitive way about Afdamnistan.