The Cellar - View Single Post

Undertoad · 02-28-2007, 04:59 PM

Either I just plain don't know or it's still too difficult to sum up. There are so many schools of thought here. Plus I'm describing a discounted theory... let me try.

To start, "Terrorism" is actually code for "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism" or perhaps, "the network of support in money, safehousing, and weapons that permit these assholes to do what they do."

One theory would say that the US should remain as active as possible overseas, because it is a benefit to the world, and necessary for orderly trade and diplomacy etc.. for *somebody* to be policing it.

That said, one thing you might do to stop "terrorism" is to pressure to reform or eliminate countries that are known to be friendly to such things. Countries that actually use terrorism, house terrorists, fund terrorists that sort of thing.

You can't change the entire Islamic world, so you just change the squares on the chessboard that will give you more influence, and -- in the worst case -- take the squares that will give you bases with 500 miles of flight, without refueling or overflight problems, if you have to run sorties to the other trouble countries.

So... where's most of the worst shit coming from? Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Can we eliminate and pro-US-ize two of the others, and thus pressure the other three to reform? Let's see: S.A. is OUT, since that will cause ALL of Islam to go fundamental on our ass. Iran is out, because they're Persians, and won't affect the Arab world at all. Afghanistan is an easy choice, now who's next?

The reformation of Iraq into a pro-western democratic nation was also to provide an example for the Arab world of a nation that succeeds. Iraq has a history of being more western, somewhat more educated society than many other Arabic nations. The Arab world needs a non-Western model for how Democracy can work for them. They resent the west their success, they need more of a self-made success of their own.

That was the point of view, but it's kind of in tatters now.

02-28-2007, 04:59 PM	#13
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Either I just plain don't know or it's still too difficult to sum up. There are so many schools of thought here. Plus I'm describing a discounted theory... let me try. To start, "Terrorism" is actually code for "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism" or perhaps, "the network of support in money, safehousing, and weapons that permit these assholes to do what they do." One theory would say that the US should remain as active as possible overseas, because it is a benefit to the world, and necessary for orderly trade and diplomacy etc.. for somebody to be policing it. That said, one thing you might do to stop "terrorism" is to pressure to reform or eliminate countries that are known to be friendly to such things. Countries that actually use terrorism, house terrorists, fund terrorists that sort of thing. You can't change the entire Islamic world, so you just change the squares on the chessboard that will give you more influence, and -- in the worst case -- take the squares that will give you bases with 500 miles of flight, without refueling or overflight problems, if you have to run sorties to the other trouble countries. So... where's most of the worst shit coming from? Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Can we eliminate and pro-US-ize two of the others, and thus pressure the other three to reform? Let's see: S.A. is OUT, since that will cause ALL of Islam to go fundamental on our ass. Iran is out, because they're Persians, and won't affect the Arab world at all. Afghanistan is an easy choice, now who's next? The reformation of Iraq into a pro-western democratic nation was also to provide an example for the Arab world of a nation that succeeds. Iraq has a history of being more western, somewhat more educated society than many other Arabic nations. The Arab world needs a non-Western model for how Democracy can work for them. They resent the west their success, they need more of a self-made success of their own. That was the point of view, but it's kind of in tatters now.