Old 10-02-2009, 02:12   #61
Sigaba
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by frostfire View Post
Sigaba, if I may know, why decline?
Rhetorical tactic or not, this response may suggest that you fear you'd actually share the LTC's interpretation if you do read his reading-list recommendations?
To answer your second question first, it is unlikely that he and I would come to the same conclusion for the same reasons. It has been my life-long experience that if everyone in the room agrees on "X" for reasons 1, 2, and 3, my reasons will be √-1, π, and 'purple.' (I get laughed at. A lot. But over time, certain people will back into their parking spaces, change the way they name computer files, shop at Costco, watch comedies more often, use the word 'strategy' less casually, read more carefully, have less confidence in Democrats, and take matters that they consider important more seriously. Yet somehow, most folks won't try Miracle Whip on their sandwiches. What gives?)

I believe that the rest of post #47, above, answers your first question. If not, I would refer you to the following comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frostfire View Post
Just like in real estate, it's location, location, location, in reading and interpretation of the Book, it's context, context, context. Time frame and cultural references come to mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frostfire View Post
To compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, wouldn't one first need to "read" much about apples' and oranges' structure, look, taste, etc. in order to properly differentiate?
What (or who) constitutes proper differentiation? What kind of an apple are we talking about? How are the apples being used? Are they being used in a fruit salad, a chicken salad, a pie, a strudel, a curry dish, to make chips, or to make juice? Are all of these dishes being made according to the same recipe or are there variations by region, by clan, or by tribe? Have the recipes changed over time? Or is it just enough to examine the apple and read the recipe? (What about the dates, the figs, the quinces, and the pears?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by frostfire View Post
Would you please elaborate more on this. Point out any logical inconsistencies.Lay all the cards out, as I do wish to learn and seek clarity.
At this time, I would rather not, for many reasons. I will disclose two.

Here's the first. In 1973, Robert James Maddox undertook the exercise you are requesting in an article on Gar Alperovitz's Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam: The Use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation with Soviet Power (1965). This article and Alperovitz's reply, IMO, marked the acceleration of a downward spiral in the historiography of American foreign relations.* The exchange embittered further already caustic debates and undermined the growth of the field. The shockwaves of this brawl and others like it were so long lasting that Charles S. Maier attempted an intervention in 1980 in the form of a scathing critique that took to task Americanists for losing step with broader concerns of their Europeanist counterparts and the profession at large.** Maier's comments, offered as a wake up call, went largely unremarked. The field did not begin to make up the ground it had lost until the late 1980s. (Indeed, it remains debatable if the field has caught up all the way.***)

Because of this long spiral to nowhere, the historiography of American foreign relations was for decades of limited utility to those seeking to place their understanding of contemporaneous international relations in a useful historical context. Consequently, while the discourse in American strategic culture during the Cold War had ample representation of the fields of political science, international relations, and strategic studies, Klio's voice was muted because too many historians were too busy rolling around in the mud rather than getting up out of the muck, going back to their offices and asking and figuring out on their own "Why are those who respect me, value my contributions, and want me to succeed losing confidence in what I'm doing? What am I missing?" <<LINK>>

The second reason is that numerous examples have been provided already. Five by me, the rest by other members of this BB (including at least five by you). In combination, these examples lay out several approaches of inquiry to discern other examples.


__________________________________________________
* Robert J. Maddox, "Atomic Diplomacy: A Study in Creative Writing," The Journal of American History, 59:4 (Mar., 1973): 925-934; Gar Alperovitz, Communications, The Journal of American History, 59:4 (Mar., 1973): 1062-1067.
** Charles S. Maier, “Marking Time: The Historiography of International Relations,” in Michael Kammen, ed., The Past Before Us: Contemporary Historical Writing in the United States (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1980). In 1993, as a new arrival in a graduate program, the chairman of the department went out of his way to teasingly ask if I had read this essay. Interestingly, after many years of studying diplomatic history under the guidance of top flight guys, I had never heard of it, because, I surmised, they had not heard of it. (How out of touch must a field of study be for its practitioners to know not that they were being laughed at? Zoiks!)
*** Earlier this year, Thomas W. Zeiler attempted to make the case that the field was back on track in his "The Diplomatic History Bandwagon: A State of the Field," The Journal of American History 95:4 (March 2009): 1053-1073. While Fredrik Logevall offered his enthusiastic but qualified agreement, Mario Del Pero, Jessica C. E. Gienow-Hect, and Kristin Hoganson seem less sanguine. Logevall, "Politics and Foreign Relations," ibid., 1074-1078; Del Pero, "On the Limits of Thomas Zeiler's Historiographical Triumphalism," ibid., 1079-1082; Gienow-Hect, "What Bandwagon? Diplomatic History Today," ibid., 1083-1086; Hoganson, "Hop off the Bandwagon! It's a Mass Movement, Not a Parade," ibid., 1087-1091.
Sigaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2009, 12:12   #62
Warrior-Mentor
Quiet Professional
 
Warrior-Mentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: America, the Beautiful
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
The three questions concern the credibility of an interpretation offered by a person using said sources in addition to the reliability of those sources themselves.
And what are those three questions?

You call into question the credibility of the sources but fail to cite which source you question and why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
(Also, respectfully but bluntly, the notion that a single book on any topic gives a "full answer" to any question is at odds with the conventions of intellectual inquiry in the Western world that have been practiced the last seven centuries.).
What conventions are those? There are plenty of simple questions that can be answered with a word, a paragraph or a page.
Not EVERY question requires a book, let alone many.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
(Please do not take offense but I decline what appears to be an invitation. It is my observation that you frequently use this rhetorical tactic when you respond to viewpoints that disagree or question yours. The logic appears to be if I've read what you've read, I'll interpret it as you do.
Why not? I frequently use this to footnote the sources of my information. It is for EXACTLY that reason - so people can read the information and decide for themselves. If they read it and have a different interpretation, then we can discuss it intelligently.

Your argument seems to be ANTI-INTELLECTUAL in nature.

What is the alternative you are proposing?

That we shouldn't encourage people to read more? That they should take us at our word? That's something that might expect from a Mullah - "How dare you question what I say?"

I thought we pride ourselves on the intellectual tension between the various debates....(as epitomized and summarized in the book 13 American Arguments).
http://www.amazon.com/Thirteen-Ameri.../dp/1400065445


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
Unfortunately, on those occasions where I've taken a look at some of the sources you cite, not only do I disagree with you but the sources themselves do not support your position or they contradict other sources that you site or positions you've taken elsewhere or the sources just are not reliable. Or all of the above.
And so because you disagreed with what I cited in the past, you don't feel the need to read what I cite - yet you are willing to criticize my argument?

Seems more like intellectual laziness to me.

It seems more like all you're offering is an ad hominem of "I disagree with everything you ever said. "

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
And these are sources that are in English.
I'll save you the trouble of getting the book. Attached below are 5 pages of easy reading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
The most convenient, if not recent, examples are your discussion of 'Stockholm Syndrome' and the historiography of Nazism, which I addressed above.
You are correct. I am not qualified to make a psychological diagnosis. Let's agree and drop that charge.

Is it acceptable for a middle-aged man to marry a 6 year old girl?

Is it acceptable, moral, ethical, for a middle-aged man to have sex with a 9 year old girl?

No one (except Hollyweird) seems willing to rush forward to defend Roman Polanski. And she was 13!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
Your interpretations of the religious, political, social, intellectual, strategic, economic, diplomatic, military, naval, and cultural history of Europe and America are similarly at odds with what little I know about those topics.
More ad hominem attacks. Let's throw in the kitchen sink - you forgot that.
Refresh my memory, aside from religion and politics, when have I discussed the military, naval and cultural history of Europe and America?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
For these reasons and many others--not the least of which is the tone you use when people have the temerity to disagree with you--I do not have as high a level of confidence in your expertise on these topics as I need to accept your guidance on the topic at hand.
Tone, as explained in the opening post of this thread, is irrelevant.
I'm glad you don't accept what I've said. Challenge me intelligently. Don't just throw out charges without being specific.
Let's discuss the specific areas where you find weakness in my arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
FWIW, your posts on the topic at hand have occasioned substantial changes to my reading/research agenda. Indeed, earlier this week I encountered a useful summary of the two prevailing views of the Islamic world offered in the West since 9/11. (Your comments are in line with the first view.) The summary is followed by an interesting piece of analysis.
And what are those two prevailing views? Do you have a footnote or a link so I can read them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
Two additional comments.
I understand that you disagree with Said's critique. I do not understand why you demonstrate your dislike for his analysis by posting comments that exemplify the man's points.
Is your point that anyone who doesn't like islam or wants to expose it's warts is a racist? Because that's what Said effectively said. And that's not the case. i just happen to abhor a totalitarian, supremacist politician ideology masquerading as a religion.

Thomas Mann inspired me. "Tolerance when applied to evil is a crime."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
The second comment centers around your apparent disdain for what you label "revisionist" history. Sir, please know that your tone,
I continue to argue that tone is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
the structure of your argument,
What specifically don't you like about the structure? This is a red herring to distract from the actual debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
your historiographical sensibilities,
We had a an academic come into our office yesterday. He started out by stating "I'm a serious academic." Then proceeded to give the working title of the book he was composing ...and it already had the conclusion in the title. How serious an academic is this Professor?

If I were writing a thesis, perhaps my methodology would be different.

Given the deconstruction of your previous post, it seems your historiographical sensibilities are even weaker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
your selection of sources,
Because citing the actual Islamic Law from their definitive manual is a bad idea?
Or is it bad form to quote the Koran itself when discussing Islam?
Which sources don't you like? Ibn Warraq - one of the most respected intellectuals brave enough to expose the truth about the ugliness of islam?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
and your use of those sources are strikingly similar to the practices of the so-called revisionist historians of American foreign relations.
It’s CAIR and other Islamic activist groups that are actively engaging in revisionist history as previously discussed here:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=507056

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
Please also know that while these scholars have given historians a different way to look at the past, the energy they brought to the discussion proved to be counterproductive not only to their own intellectual interests but also damaging to themselves and to others.
I disagree. Are you proposing that it’s better not to fully invest in an intellectual debate? That it’s better to be slovenly and lazy about the issues of this importance? Although you may not have agreed with a differing opinion, a full and robust discussion – a spirited debate if you will – is essential to the healthy life of a democracy. We deserve nothing less.

READ IBN WARRAQ's REMARKS ON "OUT OF CONTEXT" HERE:



.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Warraq Leaving Islam Appendix A pp400-405.pdf (616.1 KB, 10 views)

Last edited by Warrior-Mentor; 10-02-2009 at 12:18.
Warrior-Mentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2009, 16:18   #63
Sigaba
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,476
In response to post #62

Warrior Mentor--

I respectfully disagree that tone is irrelevant. From the training I've received, I've learned that one gives respect to get respect. The fact that you continue to act disrespectfully towards those who do not agree with you suggests that you have different sensibilities. I reckon that we'll have to agree to disagree.

I urge you strongly to reconsider your apparent decision to try to belittle me. Although some have suggested otherwise, I have remained polite--if not friendly--in my responses to members of this BB with whom I disagree.

I am a guest in an august house. It is a privilege to be here. I do my best to be worthy of that privilege by behaving respectfully, staying in my lane, contributing intelligently to the discussions, staying in my lane, and adhering to the rules. And staying in my lane.

It is a mistake to confuse my restraint for weakness. There are things in the wild other than accipiters, wolves, wolfhounds, and "sheep." There are strengths in the world other than fang, claw, sinew, and steel.

In regards to your characterization of me as "intellectually lazy" and your questioning of my historiographic sensibilities, I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves. I would ask that interested parties ask themselves a rhetorical question as they deliberate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
* Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006), p. 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor View Post
And what are those two prevailing views? Do you have a footnote or a link so I can read them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor View Post
Thanks Richard. What did you find on Christianity or Judaism?
What is laziness?
Sigaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2009, 17:34   #64
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
I'm feelin' a lot of love here tonight, folks.

You guys continue as long as you want, just keep it polite and turn out the lights in the Library when you are done. First Aid kit is over in the TMC 13 forum if you need it.

I know both of you, and I am confident that you can make your points without undue rancor, argue the merits of your positions thoughtfully, cite your claims and references, and leave without anyone getting too far out of line, or it becoming personal.

Y'all have fun.

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2009, 17:38   #65
frostfire
Area Commander
 
frostfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lone Star
Posts: 2,153
clarity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
I reckon that we'll have to agree to disagree.
Age, knowledge, and experience-wise, I am probably the most junior around here, but over the years I've learned and observed that clarity --> actionable items.

WM stance in the issue has been succinctly expressed as
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor View Post
"Love the Muslim, hate islam."
What is yours, Sigaba?

Per your signature, yes, simple answers are not (always) possible. However, more often than not more details = more muddling and the further one gets from clarity and basic tenets of truth. Another thread also mentioned that one truly understands a concept when one can present it in several sentences/words on a 3x5 card.

Please note that I've long given up the idea of discussion/debate as competition. "The heart is deceitful above all things..." Now I do my best to evaluate my own thought process before passing any judgement on others thought process. When I invest time/effort in a discussion, I must get something out of it that is not personal gratification or stroke of ego.

Hence, this is not rhetorical, but personal/practical. I simply desire one thing out of this discussion: clarity. When I squeeze that trigger before another human being who has made his/her choice, I have to have clarity so that I can successfully complete the task at that moment, and the next moment, and so on.
__________________
"we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope" Rom. 5:3-4

"So we can suffer, and in suffering we know who we are" David Goggins

"Aide-toi, Dieu t'aidera " Jehanne, la Pucelle

Der, der Geld verliert, verliert einiges;
Der, der einen Freund verliert, verliert viel mehr;
Der, der das Vertrauen verliert, verliert alles.

INDNJC

Last edited by frostfire; 10-02-2009 at 18:00. Reason: grammar
frostfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2009, 18:05   #66
Warrior-Mentor
Quiet Professional
 
Warrior-Mentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: America, the Beautiful
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
* Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006), p. 2.
Picked one up at Amazon for $0.18. Guess will talk in a week or so when it arrives and I have a chance to look it over.

Judging by Yale's short summary on their website, I can agree with this much:

"September 11 can be seen as simply the latest expression of this dream, and such attacks have little to do with U.S. international behavior or policy in the Middle East, says Karsh. The House of Islam’s war for world mastery is traditional, indeed venerable, and it is a quest that is far from over."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
I respectfully disagree that tone is irrelevant. From the training I've received, I've learned that one gives respect to get respect. The fact that you continue to act disrespectfully towards those who do not agree with you suggests that you have different sensibilities. I reckon that we'll have to agree to disagree.
We'll agree to disagree on tone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
It is a mistake to confuse my restraint for weakness. There are things in the wild other than accipiters, wolves, wolfhounds, and "sheep." There are strengths in the world other than fang, claw, sinew, and steel.
Since intonation is lost on the web, I'm not sure how to take that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
In regards to your characterization of me as "intellectually lazy" and your questioning of my historiographic sensibilities, I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves. I would ask that interested parties ask themselves a rhetorical question as they deliberate.
What is laziness?
That's fair enough.

Last edited by Warrior-Mentor; 10-02-2009 at 18:21.
Warrior-Mentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2009, 18:59   #67
Sigaba
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by frostfire View Post
What is yours, Sigaba?
Frostfire--
  • Do not engage in the rhetoric of a war of civilizations. An "us" versus "them" approach privileges Ares over Athena. The rhetoric pushes us towards a war of all against all, a general war involving nuclear weapons; if there is no prospect of political compromise tomorrow, one may as well get to it and vaporize Mecca today. To clarify a position I staked out months ago, I am a Mahanian navalist, so if it comes to unleashing the Blue Sword and putting "ordinance on target" in an exercise of "bang, boom, mushroom," that's fine by me. But I'd be much more pleased if the sensibilities of the quiet professionals carried the day.
  • When it comes to matters of national security, do not make an intellectual argument when a strategic argument will do the job better.
  • Neither love the Muslim nor hate the Muslim. Seek to understand the Muslim in her/his own terms. Empathy entails understanding not necessarily agreement.
  • Neither love Islam nor hate Islam. While the tenants of Islam are clear cut, it is only an OS. OS's that suck lead to bad end user experiences. Dissatisfied end users will be interested in hacks, patches, fixes, new builds, upgrades, or even a different OS. (I swear my next computer is going to be an Apple. This time I mean it.)
  • Engage in respectful dialog with those who are willing to talk. Talk, talk, and then talk some more. Those who are unwilling to talk, watch what they do and go from there.
  • Listen to one's peers. Remember one's training. If members of your own profession are saying in many different ways "Well...not exactly," it may be time to ask "Is it time for me to go back to square one?" It is a sucky question to ask oneself, but sometimes it is the only way to go.
Sigaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 08:45   #68
Richard
Quiet Professional
 
Richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 15,370
Quote:
I'm glad it's just al-Qaeda we're concerned with. It makes me wonder what Professor Telhami is reading when he makes a statement like this one:

It is primarily al-Qaeda and its allies as organizations that must be defeated. It is not terrorism broadly and it is not Islamism broadly. Professor Telhami

Who were the "islamic" terrorists that held 50 Americans 444 days? Oh, right, that was an islamic republic, not a islamic terrorist group.

Funny we forget so quickly.
I may seem to have forgotten much in my life, but strategically I agree with the Professor's thesis that al-Qaeda and its allies as organizations (e.g., Taliban) should remain - at present - the schwerpunkt for US efforts - and that a diffusing of our national efforts to include broadly and equally the many sub-state groups - which historically have and continue to exist in nearly every nation with varying degrees of legitimacy and effectiveness - is both unnecessary and dangerously hinders the success of our primary national security goals.

Richard
__________________
“Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another)… There are just some kind of men who – who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.” - To Kill A Mockingbird (Atticus Finch)

“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” - Robert Heinlein
Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 13:46   #69
nmap
Area Commander
 
nmap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 2,760
But isn't al-Qaeda largely a creature of the Wahabist subgroup?

And doesn't KSA support madrasas that spread the Wahabi views?

So is a focus on al-Qaeda attacking the leaves while ignoring the root of the problem?
__________________
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero

Acronym Key:

MOO: My Opinion Only
YMMV: Your Mileage May Vary
ETF: Exchange Traded Fund


Oil Chart

30 year Treasury Bond
nmap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 14:26   #70
Scimitar
Area Commander
 
Scimitar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hobbiton
Posts: 1,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
Frostfire--
Do not engage in the rhetoric of a war of civilizations. An "us" versus "them" approach privileges Ares over Athena. The rhetoric pushes us towards a war of all against all, a general war involving nuclear weapons; if there is no prospect of political compromise tomorrow, one may as well get to it and vaporize Mecca today. To clarify a position I staked out months ago, I am a Mahanian navalist, so if it comes to unleashing the Blue Sword and putting "ordinance on target" in an exercise of "bang, boom, mushroom," that's fine by me. But I'd be much more pleased if the sensibilities of the quiet professionals carried the day.

At risk of speaking for WM, I don't think he is suggesting an all against all war.

I believe Churchill once said that diplomacy is saying "Nice Doggy until you can reach that large rock over there" (butchered).

Yes, let's talk with our enemy; lets 'melt away' the 80% of any disagreement which is misunderstanding; let's do this process. But while we do this process how about we stop inviting our enemy into our house to baby-sit our children while we go out for the night.

Our enemy WILL say nice doggy until it is too late for us...hudna...and he won’t necessarily realize he’s doing it. My limited understanding says that our enemy believes at least subconsciously that this is a battle of cultures; a battle that can have but one victor...

We most certainly want to kill his culture…legalized porn…woman’s rights…individual rights over the groups…legalized prostitution.

I wonder if our overly liberalized persona has left us thinking that deception is evil, that if we just take the high road and stand weapon-less with our arm wide to embrace our enemy he too will drop his guard.

We are at war folks! That I believe I can say with no doubt..and guess what…we fired the first shot…or wait did they?

We most certainly want them to think like us…..and because of this they feel we attacked them…they don’t believe pluralism can really exist so it is kill or be killed culturally…but hey what the hell do I know…I’m probably wrong…Luckily for me all this doesn’t matter right now.

What does mater right now is that we think if we ignore it, it will go away. There IS a war on…can we PLEASE keep our enemy at arms length until we work out what the hell IS going on!? And can we stop thinking he embraces pluralism when most obviously (at this point in time any way) his default setting does not.

Recently I had a business situation where trust broke down due to some misunderstandings. I distanced myself from this situation to mitigate risk until the truth became clear. We on the other hand try to pretend there is no mistrust or even worse are oblivious to the signs. And all along take no real steps to mitigate the risk.

Scimitar
__________________
"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men! Do not pray for tasks equal to your powers. Pray for power equal to your tasks."
-- Phillip Brooks

"A man's reach should exceed his grasp"
-- Robert Browning

"Hooah! Pushing thru the shit til Daisies grow, Sir"
-- Me

"Malo mori quam foedari"
"Death before Dishonour"
-- Family Coat-of-Arms Maxim

"Mārohirohi! Kia Kaha!"
"Be strong! Drive-on!"
-- Māori saying
Scimitar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 14:28   #71
Richard
Quiet Professional
 
Richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 15,370
Strategically, his point is that al-Qaeda and its identifiable allies are the 25 meter target and - for now - remain the greatest potential danger amongst the existant terrorist groups to our national security; it does not mean we ignore everything else but keep that point in mind as we continually assess/reasses the threat(s) and allocate/reallocate resources to neutralize their capability in support of our strategic goal(s).

Quote:
Chapter 1. Strategic Assessment
Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism

Country Reports on Terrorism 2008

April 30, 2009

TRENDS IN 2008

AL-QA’IDA AND ASSOCIATED TRENDS: Al-Qa’ida (AQ) and associated networks continued to lose ground, both structurally and in the court of world public opinion, but remained the greatest terrorist threat to the United States and its partners in 2008.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2008/122411.htm
Richard
__________________
“Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another)… There are just some kind of men who – who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.” - To Kill A Mockingbird (Atticus Finch)

“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” - Robert Heinlein
Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 12:15   #72
afchic
Area Commander
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: IL
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scimitar View Post
At risk of speaking for WM, I don't think he is suggesting an all against all war.

I believe Churchill once said that diplomacy is saying "Nice Doggy until you can reach that large rock over there" (butchered).

Yes, let's talk with our enemy; lets 'melt away' the 80% of any disagreement which is misunderstanding; let's do this process. But while we do this process how about we stop inviting our enemy into our house to baby-sit our children while we go out for the night.

Our enemy WILL say nice doggy until it is too late for us...hudna...and he won’t necessarily realize he’s doing it. My limited understanding says that our enemy believes at least subconsciously that this is a battle of cultures; a battle that can have but one victor...
We most certainly want to kill his culture…legalized porn…woman’s rights…individual rights over the groups…legalized prostitution.

I wonder if our overly liberalized persona has left us thinking that deception is evil, that if we just take the high road and stand weapon-less with our arm wide to embrace our enemy he too will drop his guard.

We are at war folks! That I believe I can say with no doubt..and guess what…we fired the first shot…or wait did they?

We most certainly want them to think like us…..and because of this they feel we attacked them…they don’t believe pluralism can really exist so it is kill or be killed culturally…but hey what the hell do I know…I’m probably wrong…Luckily for me all this doesn’t matter right now.

What does mater right now is that we think if we ignore it, it will go away. There IS a war on…can we PLEASE keep our enemy at arms length until we work out what the hell IS going on!? And can we stop thinking he embraces pluralism when most obviously (at this point in time any way) his default setting does not.

Recently I had a business situation where trust broke down due to some misunderstandings. I distanced myself from this situation to mitigate risk until the truth became clear. We on the other hand try to pretend there is no mistrust or even worse are oblivious to the signs. And all along take no real steps to mitigate the risk.

Scimitar
I don't see given what you have stated, or what WM has stated how we cannot have an all out war with Islam, in which there can only be one victor.

Either than can be negotiated with, or they cannot.

Either they can be forced to see our way of thinking, or they cannot.

If everything WM has quoted to this point is in fact the way Islam TRULY is, the only viable answer is All Out War, there can be no negotiating, there can be no way to get them to see things our way. They will always be trying to bring us down, no matter what, because that is what their faith calls for.

What does that mean for us as a) military members b)Americans c)members of the human race?

Because the way I see it, it makes us hypocrits. We fault Muslims for calling for the annihilation of nonbelievers, yet is essence, even though no one on this board is willing to put it into words, we are advocating the very same thing!
afchic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 14:02   #73
nmap
Area Commander
 
nmap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 2,760
Afchic, may I offer a different perspective on the problem? I hasten to add that it is not particularly hopeful or pleasant. However, perhaps it will at least offer some possibilities for discussion.

When resources are abundant, different groups with substantial ideological differences can cooperate to mutual advantage. Some friction may exist at the edges, but the benefits to each society by cooperating with the other outweigh the benefits available from general conflict. For example, fundamentalist Saudi Arabia can sell crude oil to the US. While they may view the US as a group of infidels, they benefit from the transaction. Likewise, the Saudis invest in US securities, with the beneficiaries of such transactions not worrying overly much about the rights of women in Saudi Arabia. More pointedly, I can fill my gas tank without worrying about how the Saudis are using the money they get from the transaction, and they can take my money without being disturbed by my fondness for bacon.

However, this brings us to an argument which has raged for 200 years. On one side, Thomas Malthus suggested that there are limits to resources, and hence to human population. Thus, as the population increases, the availability of resources to individuals and groups declines. As groups compete for resources, cooperation may be subordinated to the benefits gained through conflict. Those engaged by the Malthusian ideas might also be called doomers. In contrast, there are those who believe in unending perpetual growth. Perhaps we can call them cornucopians, or even (derisively) cornys.

In examining the problem, we can see that Islamic countries tend to have high populations, rapidly growing populations, and limited economic opportunity. This suggests a population that is either experiencing resource shortages, or soon will. When the Rivers Run Dry, by Pearce, examines the problem of water - including the effect of water shortages in Pakistan, and its contribution to conflict in that and other regions. In addition, the Western nations use large amounts of resources to maintain their economies and their lifestyle. Furthermore, developing nations such as China clearly aspire to the resource rich environment of the Western nations. Thus, the demand for resources leads the various populations toward conflict.

We can see an example of how this develops in an examination of Easter Island, which was written about by Jared Diamond in his book Collapse. There, the population went from about 20,000 down to 1000 - a decline of 95%. In addition, Dieoff by Catton suggests that the global population has gone substantially above the level supported by the available resources, and will revert to the mean. This in turn supports the premise of conflict and global population decline. Of course, if the proponents of perpetual growth are correct, then this scenario can never occur.

In examining the impact of such conflict on the US military, Americans in general, and the human race, we face the possibility of a new type of conflict and the new type of war. If those nations with resources choose to reserve those resources for themselves and their population, and other nations seek to obtain those resources by force, then there is a possibility of widespread and extensive resource wars. These could exceed the scope and intensity of previous wars, since the battles would all be for survival in the most literal sense. It is also worth considering that mass migrations, under the impetus of famine or other shortages, might create further challenges.

For the US military, nation building, winning hearts and minds, and avoidance of collateral damage might be supplanted by the need to take and hold critical areas, the prevention of mass migrations, and the deterrence of attacks by other nations on resource rich areas. For Americans, previous tendencies toward generosity might be stretched to the breaking point and beyond. The realities of global population reduction, extending over decades, and involving a population reduction of as much as 90% might be transformative of our national character. If we suppose that the most likely scenario for such a development would involve large populations weakened by famine succumbing to disease, along with multiple conflicts such as experienced in Rwanda, then we might pause to consider the reaction of Americans. In addition, Americans might find themselves giving up a great deal of butter in order to afford more guns and bullets in a national fight for survival. And finally, should the human race face such an event it is likely to create critical turns in future development. It is illustrative to consider an insult that developed on Easter Island: "The meat of your grandmother sticks in my teeth." Such a global event would surely cast a long shadow.

If such effects underlie the conflicts we observe, even partially, then they are likely to escalate without regard to efforts by political leaders. Ideology will define an "us" and "them" - and the conflict may prevent negotiation or even reason.
__________________
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero

Acronym Key:

MOO: My Opinion Only
YMMV: Your Mileage May Vary
ETF: Exchange Traded Fund


Oil Chart

30 year Treasury Bond
nmap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 14:46   #74
afchic
Area Commander
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: IL
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmap View Post
Afchic, may I offer a different perspective on the problem? I hasten to add that it is not particularly hopeful or pleasant. However, perhaps it will at least offer some possibilities for discussion.

When resources are abundant, different groups with substantial ideological differences can cooperate to mutual advantage. Some friction may exist at the edges, but the benefits to each society by cooperating with the other outweigh the benefits available from general conflict. For example, fundamentalist Saudi Arabia can sell crude oil to the US. While they may view the US as a group of infidels, they benefit from the transaction. Likewise, the Saudis invest in US securities, with the beneficiaries of such transactions not worrying overly much about the rights of women in Saudi Arabia. More pointedly, I can fill my gas tank without worrying about how the Saudis are using the money they get from the transaction, and they can take my money without being disturbed by my fondness for bacon.

However, this brings us to an argument which has raged for 200 years. On one side, Thomas Malthus suggested that there are limits to resources, and hence to human population. Thus, as the population increases, the availability of resources to individuals and groups declines. As groups compete for resources, cooperation may be subordinated to the benefits gained through conflict. Those engaged by the Malthusian ideas might also be called doomers. In contrast, there are those who believe in unending perpetual growth. Perhaps we can call them cornucopians, or even (derisively) cornys.

In examining the problem, we can see that Islamic countries tend to have high populations, rapidly growing populations, and limited economic opportunity. This suggests a population that is either experiencing resource shortages, or soon will. When the Rivers Run Dry, by Pearce, examines the problem of water - including the effect of water shortages in Pakistan, and its contribution to conflict in that and other regions. In addition, the Western nations use large amounts of resources to maintain their economies and their lifestyle. Furthermore, developing nations such as China clearly aspire to the resource rich environment of the Western nations. Thus, the demand for resources leads the various populations toward conflict.

We can see an example of how this develops in an examination of Easter Island, which was written about by Jared Diamond in his book Collapse. There, the population went from about 20,000 down to 1000 - a decline of 95%. In addition, Dieoff by Catton suggests that the global population has gone substantially above the level supported by the available resources, and will revert to the mean. This in turn supports the premise of conflict and global population decline. Of course, if the proponents of perpetual growth are correct, then this scenario can never occur.

In examining the impact of such conflict on the US military, Americans in general, and the human race, we face the possibility of a new type of conflict and the new type of war. If those nations with resources choose to reserve those resources for themselves and their population, and other nations seek to obtain those resources by force, then there is a possibility of widespread and extensive resource wars. These could exceed the scope and intensity of previous wars, since the battles would all be for survival in the most literal sense. It is also worth considering that mass migrations, under the impetus of famine or other shortages, might create further challenges.

For the US military, nation building, winning hearts and minds, and avoidance of collateral damage might be supplanted by the need to take and hold critical areas, the prevention of mass migrations, and the deterrence of attacks by other nations on resource rich areas. For Americans, previous tendencies toward generosity might be stretched to the breaking point and beyond. The realities of global population reduction, extending over decades, and involving a population reduction of as much as 90% might be transformative of our national character. If we suppose that the most likely scenario for such a development would involve large populations weakened by famine succumbing to disease, along with multiple conflicts such as experienced in Rwanda, then we might pause to consider the reaction of Americans. In addition, Americans might find themselves giving up a great deal of butter in order to afford more guns and bullets in a national fight for survival. And finally, should the human race face such an event it is likely to create critical turns in future development. It is illustrative to consider an insult that developed on Easter Island: "The meat of your grandmother sticks in my teeth." Such a global event would surely cast a long shadow.

If such effects underlie the conflicts we observe, even partially, then they are likely to escalate without regard to efforts by political leaders. Ideology will define an "us" and "them" - and the conflict may prevent negotiation or even reason.
You provide some great points to ponder. I wrote a paper in school not too long ago, that basically talked about what you have described above. What becomes "important" to a nation, and if it is "important" are we willing to go to war over it. A great deal of the paper revolved around how we treat our allies and friends. If push came to shove, and their was a global food shortage, would we be willing to go to war with our neighbors/allies/friends, if it meant the survival of our nation? My answer is yes we would, and our neighbors/allies/friends would probably do the same.

But my point was more to the many posts in this thread that state Islam can not be a friend of the West, and anyone who is a true believer of Islam must want the annihilation of all non-believers. That those that practice Islam can never be trusted, because they are obliged to lie to the infidel, if it in the end meets their needs.

We have discussed the concept that Islam can never change because Mohammed was perfect, and therefore there is no way things can ever change. That would mean Mohammed was wrong, and thus the entire religion a farce. Many here have stated that will NEVER happen.

My point is that if that is true, then we have no choice but to call for all out war against Islam, in order for our way of life to survive. If that is true, we have now become what we claim to loathe.
afchic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 15:38   #75
Scimitar
Area Commander
 
Scimitar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hobbiton
Posts: 1,198
Quote:
Our enemy WILL say nice doggy until it is too late for us...hudna...and he won’t necessarily realize he’s doing it. My limited understanding says that our enemy believes at least subconsciously that this is a battle of cultures; a battle that can have but one victor...
We most certainly want to kill his culture…legalized porn…woman’s rights…individual rights over the groups…legalized prostitution.
Sorry....I'm not saying that there's no chance for the majority of Islam, But I am saying there is damning evidence that they are our enemy so lets distance ourselves and mitiagte the risk until the truth becomes clear. When one suspect that a business deal is perhaps not 'kosha' when possible and practical one distances himself to mitigate risk until the truth can be sorted.

Yet when we as a culture have very strong evidance that all is not what it seems, to me it seems that we don't distance ourselves but instead hug the individual even tighter.


Quote:
Because the way I see it, it makes us hypocrits. We fault Muslims for calling for the annihilation of nonbelievers, yet is essence, even though no one on this board is willing to put it into words, we are advocating the very same thing!
We are not hypocrites if we are right and they are wrong.

.....Arrogant....yes.....but pluralism doesn't ask us to say their right it just asks us to put up with them if they'll put up with us. Unless Islam in general is willing to wash its hands of anti-pluralism then this could work, if it chooses not to then it won't.

I don't think we're advocating their annilation physically...but lets be honest as a nation politically we are advocating their annilation culturally.

Scimitar
__________________
"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men! Do not pray for tasks equal to your powers. Pray for power equal to your tasks."
-- Phillip Brooks

"A man's reach should exceed his grasp"
-- Robert Browning

"Hooah! Pushing thru the shit til Daisies grow, Sir"
-- Me

"Malo mori quam foedari"
"Death before Dishonour"
-- Family Coat-of-Arms Maxim

"Mārohirohi! Kia Kaha!"
"Be strong! Drive-on!"
-- Māori saying

Last edited by Scimitar; 10-05-2009 at 15:47.
Scimitar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:07.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies