The Pentagon's New Map

[dotw]

I'm still in the center. This sounds nice, but i'm afraid it's a bit too fluffy for me to believe. How about this one:

The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no
point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in
history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them,
been more absolutely required.

William Rivers Pitt: 02/25/03

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based
think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one
thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of
all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last
remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military
force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new
socio-economic Pax Americana.

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper
produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses:
Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines
what is required of America to create the global empire they envision.
According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia
and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft,
submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a
strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic
product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.


Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the
American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to
"fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and
to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security
environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America
to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In
order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars
one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.

Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry
in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand
above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could?
Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the
disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th.
When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the
imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense
Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw,
at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive
policy.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the
group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for
Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position
with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.


PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of
the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody
gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The
Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a
nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."


PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the
Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza
Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about
the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to
support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed
Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to
22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which
he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his
Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the
Bush administration's plans.


PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization
of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men
currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is
signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb
Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many
others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard,
is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert
Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.


The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony
by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush
administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida
electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush
are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows
at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary,
and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise
to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however,
is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their
comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.

On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open
wide before them, and stormed right through it.


Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the
United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding
America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses
exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world.

Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8%
of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in
defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.


In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard
Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand
Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final
slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi
Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would
purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush
has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously
engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken
with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major
theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.


Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a
central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases
in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in
the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that
region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for
American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The
American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America
defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.


All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense
contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for
arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media
will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewership goes through the
stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the
administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon
laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their
dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at
gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from
the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire
planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in
the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy
Money Can Buy."


There will be adverse side effects. The siege mentality average Americans
are suffering as they smother behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct
tape will increase by orders of magnitude as our aggressions bring forth
new terrorist attacks against the homeland. These attacks will require the
implementation of the newly drafted Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the
previous Act that has profoundly sharper teeth. The sun will set on the
Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense
spending, and by the aforementioned "constabulary" duties in Iraq,
Afghanistan and elsewhere. Former allies will turn on us. Germany, France
and the other nations resisting this Iraq war are fully aware of this game
plan. They are not acting out of cowardice or because they love Saddam
Hussein, but because they mean to resist this rising American empire, lest
they face economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush.
Richard Perle has already stated that France is no longer an American ally.

As the eagle spreads its wings, our rhetoric and their resistance will
become more agitated and dangerous.


Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want,
from famine and disease. At home, the social fabric will be torn in ways
that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS
seem tame by comparison.


This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now
control the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it. For
them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.


The plan was running smoothly until those two icebergs collided. Millions
and millions of ordinary people are making it very difficult for Bush's
international allies to keep to the script. PNAC may have designs for the
control of the "International Commons" of the Internet, but for now it is
the staging ground for a movement that would see empire take a back seat to
a wise peace, human rights, equal protection under the law, and the
preponderance of a justice that will, if properly applied, do away forever
with the anger and hatred that gives birth to terrorism in the first place.
Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his
countrymen in Rome. "You fight terrorism," he said, "by creating more
justice in the world."


The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no
point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in
history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them,
been more absolutely required. The tide can be stopped, and the men who
desire empire by the sword can be thwarted. It has already begun, but it
must not cease. These are men of will, and they do not intend to fail.

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books -
"War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and
"The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press.
He teaches high school in Boston, MA.
Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.

[mixu]

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

Damn neo-cons...

[cosmo]

Yep. Thanks to some good posts and discussions here I've noticed myself shifting a little to right lately, but I think it's for the better. Though I'll probably be a no-good lefty to some people here... :wink:

And it's a damn Christmas tree allright.

If you're intrested in a certain author, if you haven't checked him out already, his name is Thomas Sowell. He has published many books, and is one of the great thinkers of our time.

https://www.tsowell.com

Go to his 'speeches' area and read his articles. I have bought and read the following books, and all are great:

A Conflict of Visons
The Vision of the Anointed
Affirmative Action Around The World
The Quest for Cosmic Justice
Basic Economics
Applied Economics

[Yao]

The top one looks interesting, might try and find it over here...

Thanx the links!!

No need to say who I'm imitating here uh? First to guess gets a bottle of Akpeteshie bought by me in Ghana. It'll kill you quicker than any known nerve-agent and is only 50 cents per half litre.

But seriously, thanks for the links, will look into it.

[robprunzit]

I once heard someone say, we are all brought up (school, etc.) to be liberal (personally I was), but we learn to be conservative thru reason and logic, good thought processes. Emotion breeds liberalism, Logic and Reason breed conservatism.

Think about it. In school, your taught to think liberal. And emotional content is the fuel. But in so many areas, logic and reason, lead the thinker toward the right, where morals and good ethics prevail.

[mixu]

I once heard someone say, we are all brought up (school, etc.) to be liberal (personally I was), but we learn to be conservative thru reason and logic, good thought processes. Emotion breeds liberalism, Logic and Reason breed conservatism.

Think about it. In school, your taught to think liberal. And emotional content is the fuel. But in so many areas, logic and reason, lead the thinker toward the right, where morals and good ethics prevail.

Sorry Rob, been dying to use that emoticon...

[cosmo]

Emotion breeds liberalism, Logic and Reason breed conservatism.

This is not BS. It's spot on. All of the liberal policies are based on good intentions, but in the end spawn negative results.

Emotion is the core to these good intentions. It's all based on emotion.

[Yao]

Sorry, but it is

Every side uses AND logic AND emotion to convince people. Simple as that. There's no such thing as one side only resorting to emotion or logic, if that were the case liberals wouldn't even be a party with any power in politics, just like the KKK. Those are he ones using emotion and rhetorics.

You can go on fighting about this for ages because of the simple fact that neither of you wishes to give in the least bit on this.
In the last US elections, I've seen this argument become one of the primary ones to just discard what the opposing party said or proposed, which IMO has devaluated them gravely.

Both parties want what they think is best for the country, not destroy it.

[cosmo]

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

Every side uses AND logic AND emotion to convince people. Simple as that. There's no such thing as one side only resorting to emotion or logic, if that were the case liberals wouldn't even be a party with any power in politics, just like the KKK. Those are he ones using emotion and rhetorics.

Liberal positions are far more emotion-based than reason-based. Take the widely held liberal chant "War is not the answer." It is purely irrational. War has ended more evil than anything the left has ever thought of. In the last 60 years alone, it ended Nazism and the Holocaust. It saved half of Korea from genocide. It kept Israel from national extinction and a second Holocaust. It saved Finland from becoming a Stalinist totalitarian state. It's all based on emotion. Fairness. Not wanting to offend anyone. Using the marxist theory to help the poor, rather than letting the free market raise the standard of living. Always wanting to equalize wages and other disparities in order to lift people out of the lower class, without realizing the implications of these policies. The 'war on poverty' program that was supposed to lift people out of poverty. It felt good to help the so called 'poor'. But all it did was make more people dependent on the government as the number of individuals added to the plan skyrocketed.

The list goes on.

You can go on fighting about this for ages because of the simple fact that neither of you wishes to give in the least bit on this.
In the last US elections, I've seen this argument become one of the primary ones to just discard what the opposing party said or proposed, which IMO has devaluated them gravely.

Can you list a number of policies or goals that are emotion based that come from the right?

[Yao]

Liberal positions are far more emotion-based than reason-based. Take the widely held liberal chant "War is not the answer." It is purely irrational. War has ended more evil than anything the left has ever thought of. In the last 60 years alone, it ended Nazism and the Holocaust. It saved half of Korea from genocide. It kept Israel from national extinction and a second Holocaust. It saved Finland from becoming a Stalinist totalitarian state. It's all based on emotion. Fairness. Not wanting to offend anyone. Using the marxist theory to help the poor, rather than letting the free market raise the standard of living. Always wanting to equalize wages and other disparities in order to lift people out of the lower class, without realizing the implications of these policies. The 'war on poverty' program that was supposed to lift people out of poverty. It felt good to help the so called 'poor'. But all it did was make more people dependent on the government as the number of individuals added to the plan skyrocketed.

The list goes on.

If what you are saying is true, than I am not a liberal.

1: It seems to me you?re not really talking about liberals here, but those tree-hugging hippies (let?s call them the emotional part of liberal thinking people). Liberalism is not based on emotion as some might like to believe, merely a different way of looking for solutions. If you say liberalism is more emotion-based, then I think: wait?.who cried war first after 9/11? You can?t tell me that was a decision based on logic and reason, and it involved reps as weel as dems.

2: I am for free market, and well aware that not everything can be made equal. There?s no such thing as equality in the world, although I do believe in the theory that everyone is at birth a Tabula Rasa, a blank tablet. It?s the circumstances that create the inequality, and circumstances can be changed.

A free market will usually raise the standard of living, and supports a merit-based economy as far as I know, which is favourable in my opinion. But for practical reasons it might sometimes be good have a little influence from the government, for example: when the health care system doesn?t work as supposed: how can health care be monopolized by a few large companies, making it too expensive for a large art of the population?
Is it because they don?t work hard enough? Is it because they are too lazy to undergo some education? Don?t think so?some jobs are underpayed, and nobody knows why. But I do know that a lot of people working at least as hard as people with lots of money cannot pay for health care?now, if it was truly a merit-based economy, those people should not have any trouble paying for that, should they?

If you had an honest system, people working with their hands, and ending their carreers with screwed up backs (just a example) should be able to pay for those basic needs. I?m not saying they should make the same amount of money, an exec. At a large company has way more responsibility and therefore should be payed more, but I think that everybody should be ale to make use of the facilities tu fulfull his/her basic needs.

This will keep your working population well fed, educated and healthy, which in the long term is favourable to the economy. Or am I wrong? Not much emotion in here yet.

As for the emotion: There?s nothing wrong with emotion, as long as it does not undermine the effectivity of the decisions made. It keeps more people satisfied, a government working without any emotion will have only little legitimacy in the end. Right now a little over half of the US is still in favour of the policies from the Bush administration, but outside the US the ideological support is almost non-existent. Supporters are in the coalition to suck up or because they hope to gain politically or economically, not because they are so convinced about the ideals from B. It is also a form of self-protection: being with the good guys diminishes the chances of being put in the corner with the bad guys.

Oh, but what you said about ?war not being the answer ? being irrational: totally true! Sometimes you need to kick somebody?s ass to make him stop what he?s doing, some people/governments/religious fanatics won?t listen to talk.
But that doesn?t mean it is the solution to every problem, and that?s exactly how it is presented these days. THAT is my problem with the current american policy, but als with the European one. Both are too extreme in their approaches, and better results could be achieved by mixing the two policies IMHO.

Can you list a number of policies or goals that are emotion based that come from the right?

Expanding the influence of the US in the Middle East to secure it?s own interests there (politically and economically) is a result of egoistic features. An emotion too, I guess. No decision is made without emotion. They just differ.

Apart from that, I was actually talking about the elections, the mud-throwing. Both parties excelled in spewing rhetorics about the other one (the Waffles and the Hicks??!).

I hope you?ve noticed that I am not about condemning one side or the other, though I may still be biased in your opinion. More, I am wondering why people keep bashing each other instead of coming together and see what they can come up with when they combine their thoughts! I think that is that way people and in this case governments should try to work: contructive, not destructive.

[cosmo]

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

1: It seems to me you?re not really talking about liberals here, but those tree-hugging hippies (let?s call them the emotional part of liberal thinking people). Liberalism is not based on emotion as some might like to believe, merely a different way of looking for solutions. If you say liberalism is more emotion-based, then I think: wait?.who cried war first after 9/11? You can?t tell me that was a decision based on logic and reason, and it involved reps as weel as dems.

It is indeed based on emotion. After 9/11, the rightists(conservatives) knew it was 7th century fascism. The left looked at it emotionally: Why do they hate us? The liberals looked inward in regards to emotion, you see?

2: I am for free market, and well aware that not everything can be made equal. There?s no such thing as equality in the world, although I do believe in the theory that everyone is at birth a Tabula Rasa, a blank tablet. It?s the circumstances that create the inequality, and circumstances can be changed.

I'm glad you think like that. The leading liberals in Washington are steadily trying to equalize the desparities among the citizens of this country, and are failing. Always putting things in 'classes', trying to move people from the bottom bracket to the top, knowing well that the huge majority of individuals that are in the bottom bracket are there for only a few years as they work their way UP. It's all class warfare here with the liberals. The far left marxists have hijacked the democratic party.

A free market will usually raise the standard of living, and supports a merit-based economy as far as I know, which is favourable in my opinion. But for practical reasons it might sometimes be good have a little influence from the government, for example: when the health care system doesn?t work as supposed: how can health care be monopolized by a few large companies, making it too expensive for a large art of the population?
Is it because they don?t work hard enough? Is it because they are too lazy to undergo some education? Don?t think so?some jobs are underpayed, and nobody knows why. But I do know that a lot of people working at least as hard as people with lots of money cannot pay for health care?now, if it was truly a merit-based economy, those people should not have any trouble paying for that, should they?

Of course, the government has to intervene in the economy in some cases. As for health care. Health care here in America is affordable. You can purchase insurance for 30-40 dollars here per month. That's very affordable. I'm sure the huge majority of Americans aren't wise with their money, either, much less the decisions they make on a daily basis.

As for the emotion: There?s nothing wrong with emotion, as long as it does not undermine the effectivity of the decisions made. It keeps more people satisfied, a government working without any emotion will have only little legitimacy in the end. Right now a little over half of the US is still in favour of the policies from the Bush administration, but outside the US the ideological support is almost non-existent. Supporters are in the coalition to suck up or because they hope to gain politically or economically, not because they are so convinced about the ideals from B. It is also a form of self-protection: being with the good guys diminishes the chances of being put in the corner with the bad guys.

The countries that do not support our agenda are mainly the ones that have not been attacked. We weren't even involved with the war on terror UNTIL it hit our shores. Do you really think the countries overseas really care that much about our intrests? They may care, but we are much more involved because we are trying to save our asses.

But that doesn?t mean it is the solution to every problem

It's used alot these days because it is needed. We are in the middle of WWIII. It's the solution to the problem we face today no doubt.

Expanding the influence of the US in the Middle East to secure it?s own interests there (politically and economically) is a result of egoistic features. An emotion too, I guess. No decision is made without emotion. They just differ.

Apart from that, I was actually talking about the elections, the mud-throwing. Both parties excelled in spewing rhetorics about the other one (the Waffles and the Hicks??!).

I hope you?ve noticed that I am not about condemning one side or the other, though I may still be biased in your opinion. More, I am wondering why people keep bashing each other instead of coming together and see what they can come up with when they combine their thoughts! I think that is that way people and in this case governments should try to work: contructive, not destructive.

Egoistic features? . There we go, repeating the imperialist mantra.

You reading Chomsky again?

[Yao]

Hahaha, to be honest, I've never read anything by Chomsky...yet. But all this fuss about him is making me really curious, and by now I have a considerable list of books to read already, thanks to you guys here...no problem though, always seeking to expand my knowledge.

Frankly, I didn't see the 'imperialist mantra' in my remark, until I thought a little further. So far I've not been supporting that, but I'm watching things closely because some of the points it's supporters make are viable IMO, for instance the military jump-off point theory in Iraq. I'll only be convinced when the elections have taken place, and the US withdraws it's troops and does not keep on a military basis in Iraq.
Those are the primary conditions I think to prove to the world the good intentions every supporter is boasting about.

Do you really think this is WWIII? I Think it is a serious situation, which will last longer than the past WW's, but I would only use that term for a conventional war. This is not a war between countries, it's a boundary-ignoring war, an ideological war. Violence is needed in some cases here, yes, but not the way it is used now.
Do you think it is too emotional if I disagree with levelling whole countries to get just a few people? I don't...I just want to use the most effective way to get the bad guys, with as little collateral damage possible.

BTW: the links between A-Q and Saddam didn't become apparent until recently. I'm pretty sure that they would've been used as a (better) argument instead of the WMD's if they'd known at the time.

[cosmo]

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

Hahaha, to be honest, I've never read anything by Chomsky...yet. But all this fuss about him is making me really curious, and by now I have a considerable list of books to read already, thanks to you guys here...no problem though, always seeking to expand my knowledge.

Well, I don't see any fuss, just rebuttals to his constant distortions. The european elites just love the guy, mainly because his literature is something that's used for them to fret their anger and hatred towards us. A stepping stone if you will.

Frankly, I didn't see the 'imperialist mantra' in my remark, until I thought a little further. So far I've not been supporting that, but I'm watching things closely because some of the points it's supporters make are viable IMO, for instance the military jump-off point theory in Iraq. I'll only be convinced when the elections have taken place, and the US withdraws it's troops and does not keep on a military basis in Iraq. Those are the primary conditions I think to prove to the world the good intentions every supporter is boasting about.

The military bases will be there for a VERY LONG TIME. We still have bases in S Korea(which was Korea at the time), and Germany. And throughout the world as a matter of fact.

Do you really think this is WWIII? I Think it is a serious situation, which will last longer than the past WW's, but I would only use that term for a conventional war. This is not a war between countries, it's a boundary-ignoring war, an ideological war. Violence is needed in some cases here, yes, but not the way it is used now. Do you think it is too emotional if I disagree with levelling whole countries to get just a few people? I don't...I just want to use the most effective way to get the bad guys, with as little collateral damage possible.

It's WWIII for the fact that the radical Islamicists are blazing through scores of countries(mostly their neighbors) in order to extend their jihads to the infidels. This is a worldwide problem. Not just 'al qaeda'. Of course there are states involved. Iraq. Lebanon. Syria. Afghanistan. Iran.

Regarding emotion, I do not see emotion controlling the thought of what you call levellling whole countries. It's a matter of judgement, planning and logical reasoning.

BTW: the links between A-Q and Saddam didn't become apparent until recently. I'm pretty sure that they would've been used as a (better) argument instead of the WMD's if they'd known at the time.

For you they havent become apparent. To the intelligence agencies, they have been there since the early 90's.

I agree. The war was sold in a horrible manner to the world. Horrible.

[Yao]

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

Well, I don't see any fuss, just rebuttals to his constant distortions. The european elites just love the guy, mainly because his literature is something that's used for them to fret their anger and hatred towards us. A stepping stone if you will.

I'll see if I can find some influence from Chomsky here, although I can already tell you that he is quite popular at universities here.
I should read something by him, just to know what we're talking about here.

The military bases will be there for a VERY LONG TIME. We still have bases in S Korea(which was Korea at the time), and Germany. And throughout the world as a matter of fact.

I know, and I'm not totally opposed tot that, but most of them lack reason right now, especially in the one in Germany: that one is a remainder of the cold war, and I still don't understand why Germany puts up with that.

I'm also opposed to permanent bases in the Middle East, for reasons I've given you before I think: primarily as long as there is US or Western military presence in the M-E, religious violence will continue to be provoked form extremists. They love having a reason to fight.

It's WWIII for the fact that the radical Islamicists are blazing through scores of countries(mostly their neighbors) in order to extend their jihads to the infidels. This is a worldwide problem. Not just 'al qaeda'. Of course there are states involved. Iraq. Lebanon. Syria. Afghanistan. Iran.

Regarding emotion, I do not see emotion controlling the thought of what you call levellling whole countries. It's a matter of judgement, planning and logical reasoning.

I won't bitch about the use of a term here, It's of no real imortance here I think. The conflict is in any case global right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if that article you posted about the involvement from Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi-Arabia is at least for a large part true, though of course I will give it a critical look later on.

If terrorism was fought with sound judgement, planning and logical reasoning, there would've been used methods with a better cost-effectivity IMO. EG: Special Ops, good intelligence. In that case, I think with backdoor politics, you would've gotten all the support you needed.

For you they havent become apparent. To the intelligence agencies, they have been there since the early 90's.

I agree. The war was sold in a horrible manner to the world. Horrible.

I didn't say they weren't apparent to me now :wink:

And at least we agree on one thing, finally!! *shake hands*

[cosmo]

Re: The Pentagon's New Map

I'll see if I can find some influence from Chomsky here, although I can already tell you that he is quite popular at universities here.
I should read something by him, just to know what we're talking about here.

I have a couple 'favorites' websites documented that detail Chomsky's inconsistent pattern, and his apparent anti-american dialogue. It's as if he doesn't want to accept the facts, and how history blatantly contradicts his claims. He lives in his own bubble.

I know, and I'm not totally opposed tot that, but most of them lack reason right now, especially in the one in Germany: that one is a remainder of the cold war, and I still don't understand why Germany puts up with that.

$$$$$$ cha-ching

I'm also opposed to permanent bases in the Middle East, for reasons I've given you before I think: primarily as long as there is US or Western military presence in the M-E, religious violence will continue to be provoked form extremists. They love having a reason to fight.

Well, that's who they are, literally. They need secular rule. As opposed to these hardline tyrants with a 6th-9th century greivances.

It seems that the tribes, or the individuals themselves have been brought up to think that they need to lash out at anyone who doesn't think like they do. And it's not just that. Someone down the line did something to their family, so they have to seek some type of revenge.

Surely, in time, they will sort all of this out.

Something over there has got to change.