justin_o_guy2 wrote on 09/08/13 at 00:18:54:


Perhaps you refer to the US State Dept's "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list?
It currently includes:
Cuba
Iran
Sudan
Syria

Former countries on the list that have been removed are:
Iraq
Libya
North Korea
South Yemen

Out of four former countries on the list, only two had American military intervention. Could be the other two got the message?

It is possible you know that countries are on the list because they deserve to be so. because they actually sponsor terrorism and are a threat. Protecting it's citizens from security threats is fundamentally what nation states exist for.

Tony S wrote:
Quote:


We don't even disagree about that. I think what happens in Syria will matter a good deal in the unfolding events in that part of the world. What we disagree about is that I think a US military strike is pointless. Both sides involved in the actual fighing over there apparently do too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10293591/Syrias-re...

Tony S wrote on 09/07/13 at 09:10:45:


As a former high school student in the  US schooling system, I unfortunately DO understand the level of geographical and political nearsightedness of many.

I remember the "World Maps" hung on classroom walls, nice big North&South America, with US Dominions (=colonies) patched in otherwise empty bits of ocean, and Europe, Africa and Asia squashed to the sides, looking smaller and smaller, less and less important as the geographical areas approached the edges of the map.

Of course, it was all a matter pf perspective and "planar projection", but the point is, far too many people think "There is America, and then the rest of the world out there somewhere..."

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

From 1945 to 1990, two major superpowers played a chess game on the playing board of the World, namely the US and the USSR, with other "also rans" such as the UK, France, and China. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union, the USSR crumbled into the Russian Federation and its CSI satellite states and China grew to take 2nd place in "The Great Game".

Today, the US are the only superpower to still use the same strategy since 1945, that is, puppet governments where possible and exporting its own industry asap.
And if both fail, find a way to strongarm them with a military demonstration or two.

Unless any of you have served in Europe, Africa or Asia in the US Forces in the rank of LTC or above, you may have little grasp of the tension that sometime runs even between the US and its own allies.

The US is playing a dangerous game of "tails I win, heads you lose" with the smaller nations, but has not been in a one-on-one confrontation, serious confrontation, since the Korean War...

Actually... since the Civil War 1861-1865.

Isolated and protected by two Oceans, the US has fought its last  five or six wars sending troops and equipment overseas, much unlike European and Asian Nations which have seen the fighting on their own soil.
Whereas, I'm sure, every town and village in rural US has a monument to its own military KIA / MIA, nowhere is there a plaque to remember the civilians killed by enemy bombings.

On the other hand, Europeans have been involved in wars, one way or another, since time immemorial, and these days village elders will sigh in beatitude when they comment one to another "we've been in peace for the last 70 years..."

That is why I mentioned 9/11. It hurts, I know it hurts.
Nor was I trying to be a smart aleck.
I was trying to say, in as few words as possible, that if one plays fair, there is nothing to fear.
But if one plays dirty, things will get dirty.

TonyS, you asked me to mention a Nation which was not hit by international terrorism ?

Italy: the last time we had an internaitonal terrorist attack was 27 december 1985, and even then it was PLO gunmen against Israelis in an International Airport Terminal, not in the streets somewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_and_Vienna_Airport_Attacks

Please note the same PLO also attacked Vienna Airport, Austria being a neutral Country which, in those days, did NOT play ANY role anywhere.
So much for minding its own business and being neutral.

Italy has been sending troops to ALL UN-or EU- backed international missions since 1981 with UNIFIL-1.
In fact, in many instances Italy was the THIRD contributing Country after the US and the UK - which, when you consider the number of troops sent compared to the overall number of serving men, is quite a feat.
Italy is also well known for being one of a handful of Nations to open its field hospitals to the local civilian population.
There were times when more children were born in Italian Field Hospitals in Mogadishu or Kabul or Beirut or Herat than in their own homes.

YET WE HAVE NO TERRORIST ATTACKS.

What does this tell you ?

It tells ME if you reach out with a helping hand, they will not bite it.
But if the helping hand smacks them in the face, they will smack back.

I don't believe using that stick anywhere would do anygood unless we are attacked first. We've spent way too much time and money trying to rule the world and all its done is let this country go to hell and fall apart.

oldNslow wrote on 09/08/13 at 10:18:43:


One of my most senior colleagues is Dutch.

The Netherlands had colonies in the Far east, however they adopted a most unique strategy: let them do whatever suits them, provided business is good.

From the Dutch perspective, since "New Amsterdam" and Guyana in the New World  and other nice places in the Indian and Pacific Oceans were essentially merchant outposts in foreign lands... much as the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians did in the Mediterranean... the Dutch always had very good relations with the local population and their priestly and ruling classes.

Hence, today if you travel to the Netherlands you will see plenty of Asians but no "Integralistic Islamic" attitudes...
...much UNLIKE what happens in the UK, France, Belgium (who had the Congo and squandered it)...

We shpuld learn from them.

Believe it or not... our real enemies are NOT the Islamists (who, incidentally, up until the 1980s were nice and minded their own business) but the major western corporations, some of which are so rich and powerful they have their own armies, air forces and security services... and have a GIP much larger than the GDP of the smaller African and Asian Nations where they do business...

Did BP actually PAY any damage for the Gulf oil spill ?
Can you imagine a similar spill in Nigeria ? They would just gun down the local protesters and blame some "extremist terroristic cell" for the violence.

Dig up Bob Dylan's "Masters of War" and listen to the lyrics...

Regards,

Our real enemy is our economic terrorist right here. No one overseas can do the damage they've done.

[quote author=2B36233525273229342F460 link=1377976418/45#57 date=1378714347][quote author=54585A5E54515B56445F06370 link=1377976418/45#55 date=1378691340]mpescatori wrote on 09/08/13 at 13:37:40:


I miss the point of your post.

If you are saying the Christian Fundamentalist extremists can be as dangerous as their Islamic counterparts - I agree

If you are saying Southern Baptists are pretty conservative, I agree. As are the leaders and most followers of large, non denominational Evangelical churches. I know a fair number of Christians that fall into those two camps - SB and Evangelicals and they are not extremists with a violent bent. Just conservative.

Creationists come in a lot of flavors. The great majority of Christians - for instance Methodists and Catholics - believe that God created the universe but the Biblical account of six days is symbolic and it is all cool with science. "The bible is literal in it's account of six days" type creationist is both in the minority and harmless. They like to open mueseums and pester school boards, but that's about it.

I don't like the Blackwater Security thing. I don't understand why the US military contracts out a lot of things that they do. While the war was still being fought in Iraq we had private contractors hauling fuel in unguarded convoys to our troops and forward bases.  Back to Blackwater - maybe in 20 years someone will write a book that explains a lot of whys and what for.

Not having lived in Europe I cannot say how it is there. But the difference between Christian Extremists in the USA and Islamic Extremists in the Middle East and Africa are pretty easy to see. The Christian Extremists  don't rule in America like they do in Iran. Nor do they have control of parts of the entire country where they have set up their own shadow goverment - judicial system, (religous) police, prevent females from attending school. etc as they have in say Afghanistan  Nor do the Christian extremists in the USA even effectively, behind the scenes. call all the shots like say in Saudia Arabia.

"Such attitudes" are kept under control her in the USA. While Individual acts of violence occur. America doesn't have Extremist Christian groups controlling parts of our country, nor are they destablizing our government or assisinating police, politicians and reporters that speak out against them.  

Instead the call themselves "Social conservatives" and along with the Tea party elect in the Republican primaries republican candidates that more closely represent their views. They enjoy success in the smaller, more conservative states especially at the local levels of government. They have actually hurt the republicans in the larger states and at the national level. I live in Indiana. Richard Lugar couldn't have lost his Senate seat in a general election to Mother Theresa.  But a tea party/social conservative candidate beat him in the Republican primary - and then lost the general election in a State Romney easily carried.