Forums | MacLife

jerwin wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

You confuse multilateral realist policy for unilateral, both of which are realist.  You should know that realism is essentially rational choice theory with Nations as actors, right?

Oh god, so that's what passes for foreign policy these days:

ON RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY AND THE STUDY OF TERRORISM

Charles H. Anderton A1 and John R. Carter A1
Defence and Peace Economics Volume 16, Number 4 / August 2005
When rational choice theory is applied to the study of terrorism, it is important that attention be given to the derived principles of constrained utility maximization. Particularly useful is the smurf equation, which rigorously analyzes the quantity response in one activity to a price change in another. By directing attention to assumptions and/or information about compensated cross price elasticities, expenditure shares, and income elasticities, the smurf equation can provide critical guidance in both theoretical and empirical analysis.

If you would read your own content [which seems devoid of a link] that is for empirical analysis.  I am not talking about econometrics here, I am talking about the justification for unilateral action without the holy anointment of the UN.

I admit that one could easily argue the our actoins in Iraq may not be in our National interests, but I cearly feel and would counter that that is confusing the short-term of the long-term view.

But then, it seems many in this forum want us to withdraw from the region, which amounts to inviting the terrorist to double their efforts, since we are too timid and chicken smurf to respond and wih any force over a sustained period of time.

These people think in terms of centuries, not in terms of election cycles.

Now then, this is where some kneejerk lefty says "but that's just what the terrorists wanted US to do!" as if they are telling me something I and most people who follow International relations don't already now.

They want a fight.

We will then oblige them.

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-24 1:01 pm)

Ribtorus wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

The real aim of this war is a long term political and institutional transformation of the ME.

No. The goal is bases.

'Transformation' is one of those neo-con sucker-plays; enough truth to be supportable, but ultimately expendible if the greater goal is threatened.

The bases are merely the transitional cornerstones for establishing and maintaining transformative institutions.  You are stuck in the short-term view.

I guess you don't actually believe that Constitutional government is a good thing then?

Perhaps you should reconsider checks and balances then, because that is what I am talking about.  That is the use of institutions to transform a Nation.

I think it works.

See America, France, England, Japan and Germany and the rest of the Western liberal tradtion for examples.

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-24 1:15 pm)

Ribtorus wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

No. The goal is bases.

'Transformation' is one of those neo-con sucker-plays; enough truth to be supportable, but ultimately expendible if the greater goal is threatened.

The bases are merely the transitional cornerstones for establishing and maintaining transformative institutions.  You are stuck in the short-term view.

I guess you don't actually believe that Constitutional government is a good thing then?

Perhaps you should reconsider checks and balances then, because that is what I am talking about.  That is the use of institutions to transform a Nation.

I think it works.

See America, France, England, Japan and Germany and the rest of the Western liberal tradtion for examples.

Bases long term, and the convenient lies about democracy are short term.

What?  It's just shorthad for secular Islamic republics.  You do know most Americans will say we have a democracy rather than a limited democratic consitutional republic right?

Most people think of democracy as good, even though the truth is it must be limited by institutional structures.

Ribtorus wrote:

You don't spend that amount of blood and treasure on a particular notion of governance for others half a world away.

No, it's in our interests, both shrt and long term, to not to be assaulted by religious crazies and to destroy any groups that suscribe and perpetrate an ideology of hatred.

I see no meaninful differnce between radical Islam / Jihadists and Naziism.

Both are hateful ideologies than enable individuals to infilict great harm upon others based upon irrational beliefs.

I also fail to see how dragging the ME out of the dark ages is going to be easy.

Ribtorus wrote:

It's in Amertica's interest to establish control, or at least oversight, of a strategically vital region in the face of  growing Chinese and Indian apetite for oil and gas.  That's what blood and treasure buys, not the fairy tale of pipsqueak islamic movements threatening the very existance of Western civilisation.

Islamic states like Iran and Saudi Arabia are more than happy to sell their energy. It's not about their ideology or various versions thereof. It's about who gets a say over who gets what. And the 'what' that matters in the Mid East is Oil.

You are oversmiplyfying a complex issue.

The nature of the responce is indeed shaped by the factors you mention, but you wtill act as if 911 was not a major impact upon this nation.

You also act as if by doing nothing, we are providing a solution.

Let me spell it out a little clearer for you, who is the intended audience for the trial of Saddam Hussein?

You really need to reflect on that for a while.

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-24 3:06 pm)

gas huffer wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

It's in Amertica's interest to establish control, or at least oversight, of a strategically vital region in the face of  growing Chinese and Indian apetite for oil and gas.  That's what blood and treasure buys, not the fairy tale of pipsqueak islamic movements threatening the very existance of Western civilisation.

Islamic states like Iran and Saudi Arabia are more than happy to sell their energy. It's not about their ideology or various versions thereof. It's about who gets a say over who gets what. And the 'what' that matters in the Mid East is Oil.

You are oversmiplyfying a complex issue.

The nature of the responce is indeed shaped by the factors you mention, but you wtill act as if 911 was not a major impact upon this nation.

You also act as if by doing nothing, we are providing a solution.

Let me spell it out a little clearer for you, who is the intended audience for the trial of Saddam Hussein?

You really need to reflect on that for a while.

9/11 resulted in Afghanistan. We know Iraq was planned prior to 9/11 and resources drawn from Afghanistan to Iraq. That means Iraq was separate from the War On Terror and took precedence over the fight against those who sheltered bin Laden and those responsible for 9/11. The propaganda was dovetailed into Iraq, but little else.  So there's your importance of 9/11.

You also act as if by doing nothing, we are providing a solution.

What does that mean? I 'act' and claim a solution by doing nothing? Where did I do that?  I made no claim that doing nothing was some kind of solution.

Who cares about Saddam's trial? It's for the benefit of those who want to stamp some legitimacy on the Iraq adventure. It's neither here nor there. He could have been shot early on and it'd make little difference.

Ribtorus wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

It's in Amertica's interest to establish control, or at least oversight, of a strategically vital region in the face of  growing Chinese and Indian apetite for oil and gas.  That's what blood and treasure buys, not the fairy tale of pipsqueak islamic movements threatening the very existance of Western civilisation.

Islamic states like Iran and Saudi Arabia are more than happy to sell their energy. It's not about their ideology or various versions thereof. It's about who gets a say over who gets what. And the 'what' that matters in the Mid East is Oil.

You are oversmiplyfying a complex issue.

The nature of the responce is indeed shaped by the factors you mention, but you wtill act as if 911 was not a major impact upon this nation.

You also act as if by doing nothing, we are providing a solution.

Let me spell it out a little clearer for you, who is the intended audience for the trial of Saddam Hussein?

You really need to reflect on that for a while.

9/11 resulted in Afghanistan. We know Iraq was planned prior to 9/11 and resources drawn from Afghanistan to Iraq. That means Iraq was separate from the War On Terror and took precedence over the fight against those who sheltered bin Laden and those responsible for 9/11. The propaganda was dovetailed into Iraq, but little else.  So there's your importance of 9/11.

wha?  I though you were brighter than that!

and yet most of the attackers were Saudi's and Egyptianswho were financed by....?  Not the Talban, the Taliban was only there shelter.

You do not really uinderstand that these decentralized groups transcend borders, they have no respect for nation-states and ll they care about in the long run can be found in a zealous reading of the Koran.

What physical nations are OBL and al-Zawahiri from?

Ribtorus wrote:

You also act as if by doing nothing, we are providing a solution.

What does that mean? I 'act' and claim a solution by doing nothing? Where did I do that?  I made no claim that doing nothing was some kind of solution.

Who cares about Saddam's trial? It's for the benefit of those who want to stamp some legitimacy on the Iraq adventure. It's neither here nor there. He could have been shot early on and it'd make little difference.

No, most of the region despised Saddam, as he despised the Koran. 

Will there be more or less religious freedom in Iraq now and in the future, for all groups?

Ribtorus wrote:

You claim I don't understand that terrorists can transcend borders. There's nothing in my post to lead you to that conclusion.   

I never made claims about the nationality of the terrorists. Their nationality has nothing to do with the position the Taliban took with regard to bin Laden prior to the attack on Afghanistan.

again, we did not attack afghanistan, we attacked the Taliban, and you stated that they "drew resources" from Afghanistan which is a stretch at best.  al-Zawahiri is Egyptian and I am sure you know about OBL.

Nations and borders are nearly irrelevant in this form of warfare.

Ribtorus wrote:

There will be less religious freedom in Iraq. Christians will leave, and shi'ites and sunnis will continue ethnic cleansing by neighbourhood, followed by region. The constitution will interpret Shari'a law according to mostly Shi'ite custom. Iran will be the model.

Oh, so you expect more Kurd VX gas attacks?  I don't.  You think all was well with the Sunni backed militia they had before?

No, I predict a three state federal system will emerge, and Baghdad will be divided not unlike Berlin.

They already have more freedom then now what to do with right now.  That's why it's like the Wild West there now...

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-24 4:34 pm)

Ribtorus wrote:

again, we did not attack afghanistan, we attacked the Taliban, and you stated that they "drew resources" from Afghanistan which is a stretch at best.  al-Zawahiri is Egyptian and I am sure you know about OBL.

Good lord.

I don't need lessons in Qutbism and its followers, thank you.

Afganistan wasn't attacked, the Taliban was? Way to spin.

So, according to you, we attacked some geography?  And you think that is a meaningful distinction?

We attacked anyone and everyone who couldn't move fast in the country of Afghanistan rather than being able to target just the Taliban. See Lebanon/Hezbollah. You cannot attack a ruling or entrenched group without infrastructure damage and disinterested and civilian casualties. GH, please try not to be a moron.

Ribtorus wrote:

I wouldn't have thought the concept of borders, geo-politics and accepted usage of words, like the names of countries for the purposes of identification, would need to be explained.

Then how, exactly, was I "spinning"?

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

We attacked anyone and everyone who couldn't move fast in the country of Afghanistan rather than being able to target just the Taliban. See Lebanon/Hezbollah. You cannot attack a ruling or entrenched group without infrastructure damage and disinterested and civilian casualties. GH, please try not to be a moron.

Oh yeah, I'm the moron.

Glad you agree.

Yes,

we attacked everyone and anyone in Afghanistan.

Say, how do you suggest we exclusively target only the Taliban and al-Qaeda?  Is Afghanistan the only place we will target al-Qaeda?


How will we exclusively target only the terrorists?

Please include a budget proposal in your solution.

gas huffer wrote:

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

Oh yeah, I'm the moron.

Glad you agree.

Yes,

we attacked everyone and anyone in Afghanistan.

Say, how do you suggest we exclusively target only the Taliban and al-Qaeda?

My point is that we did not attack the Taliban, we attacked a country and hence hurt the occupants of that country which is why "attacking the Taliban" is a byproduct of attacking Afghanistan not an actual conflict. Now we have a Taliban resistance in Afghanistan and but we are forced to attack regions and collateral people not just our enemy.