 |
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Do you think that all organs of the Pakistani government are working together toward any sort of clearly defined goal? I don't, Pakistan like many countries is more like a medieval state than a modern nation state. There may only be one King, but there are many armies and a lot of the weapons in the country are pointed inward. |
You're dead right with what you say and that's one of the dangers that Pakistan poses. At the moment, there is a relatively friendly government in charge, but it could easily change.
The situation you describe is why it is so hard to fight terrorism and why many different techniques must be used.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
You're dead right with what you say and that's one of the dangers that Pakistan poses. At the moment, there is a relatively friendly government in charge, but it could easily change.
The situation you describe is why it is so hard to fight terrorism and why many different techniques must be used. |
It is an enormously complicating factor no doubt. A lot of people here are saying that we (meaning our government) should reach out to the people of these states in order to try and accomodate their feelings. This is not only very difficult for a foreign government to do, it is also seen as interference by the local government and resisted both by the local government as well as local nationalists. It also flies in the face of the international system that is the basis of almost all of our dealings with every other state and people in the rest of the world, leaving us open to charges of using a double standard etc., which really leaves us in an untennable position. I also think that attempting to reach out directly to the populations of these countries will be badly handled by our government, which is designed to use the state to state system, and badly received in the target country both by the government there as well as nationalist factions and other factions who might tend to oppose any activity by our government on it's face.
I think the solution lies within these countries themselves. They have to develop internally to the point that they become functional nation states (and by this I mean that their government and their people cannot be so far removed from one another that they are as often opposed to one another as share the same goal), and I don't really know how much we can help that process move forward. Obviously we can refrain from the sort of imperialistic interference with these developments that was never all that common but nonetheless occurred during the cold war era. I honestly feel that those actions were better grist for propoganda than all that influential in retarding the development of states that were ready for it. Examples of this abound, from Chile to Vietnam.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Roland
|
 |
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999
time: 06:20
|
|
Chris:
"2004 actually, he's no shoe-in to be re-elected, in fact, he's looking less and less like a two term chief executive. "
I'd love to hear more about that. So far it seems that even having "corrupt little rat" tattooed on his forehead doesn't hurt him politically.
I also think the time horizon is 2008. It's not just about reelection, that "war" is extremely convenient for pushing the agenda.
Sikander:
"Do you think that all organs of the Pakistani government are working together toward any sort of clearly defined goal?"
No, and there are many shades of grey from looking away to actively sponsoring. But the point remains that it is ultimately the State of Pakistan that is responsible for this. And the US telling Israel"go ahead" and India "ohh, no, restraint" will further undermine the already low credibility of US foreign policy.
" except in the West it tends to take form as legislative foot dragging by minority parties or bureacratic sabotage of policies"
Funny you should mention this. I've been wondering how to describe the US political/government system, and it has some eery similarities to feudalism....
"... in order to try and accomodate their feelings."
No. We just shouldn't do the islamists the favour of fitting the imperialist-zionist stereotype (Bush does an excellent job as such). Apart from that, I'd usually say let'em alone. Governments shall deal with governments, and societies with societies. Crossovers will usually fail.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
Sikander:
"Do you think that all organs of the Pakistani government are working together toward any sort of clearly defined goal?"
No, and there are many shades of grey from looking away to actively sponsoring. But the point remains that it is ultimately the State of Pakistan that is responsible for this. And the US telling Israel"go ahead" and India "ohh, no, restraint" will further undermine the already low credibility of US foreign policy. |
Don't you think that the U.S. in trying to defuse a potential nuclear exchange in the case of Pakistan and India is given a little credit for adapting their policy to the situation? I'm sure Bangladesh is pleased that we have acted as we have in this situation, even if it is morally inconsistent from a dogmatic viewpoint.
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
" except in the West it tends to take form as legislative foot dragging by minority parties or bureacratic sabotage of policies"
Funny you should mention this. I've been wondering how to describe the US political/government system, and it has some eery similarities to feudalism.... |
And the EU (your equivalent scale government) is better? It's not even doing all that much yet and I only hear muttering about Brussels bureaucrats etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
"... in order to try and accomodate their feelings."
No. We just shouldn't do the islamists the favour of fitting the imperialist-zionist stereotype (Bush does an excellent job as such). Apart from that, I'd usually say let'em alone. Governments shall deal with governments, and societies with societies. Crossovers will usually fail. |
I agree completely. We deal with their leaders, and if they don't like the deal they can overturn the government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
I think the solution lies within these countries themselves. They have to develop internally to the point that they become functional nation states... and I don't really know how much we can help that process move forward. Obviously we can refrain from the sort of imperialistic interference with these developments that was never all that common but nonetheless occurred during the cold war era. I honestly feel that those actions were better grist for propoganda than all that influential in retarding the development of states that were ready for it. Examples of this abound, from Chile to Vietnam. |
One thing the west can do is to remove trade barriers in order to encourage economic development. The West also needs to look at ways to encourage more private investment into the Middle East. The ideal solution is to replicate what has happened in China: massive amounts of foreign investment effectively forces China to stay neutral towards the West.
OF course, the problem with the investment solution is that we're caught in deadly cycle at the moment. Increased investment would create jobs and reduce the number of recruits for terrorists, but terrorist are strong enough right now to scare off investors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
On second thought, the hell with it, your not worth it.
Last edited by Chris 62 on 18-07-2002 at 22:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
Neither can I. So I don't bother.
Actually, our society stopped preaching self reliance a ways back. We're currently preaching "Me, Me, Me, MEEEEEEEE! Or I'll sue!"
-Arrian
(threadjack in full swing)
Last edited by Arrian on 18-07-2002 at 22:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
An invasion isn't as difficult as you believe, it's all a matter of what kind of losses your willing to take.
The reason there was a long term build-up for dessert storm was a desire to:
a) keep losses low
b) Insure a quick victory.
Saddam's military will not fight for him, especially in the face of arial attack.
The US can, if no other help is offered, gather at least 8, possibly 12 carriers worth of aircraft (that means 600-1200 planes), as well as long range bombers from Deigo garcia (B-52s and B-1s flying arc-light missions, the dreaded carpet bombing so many mention and yet hasn't been done since Vietnam).
The US can put at least 2 divisions of marines ashore in an intial assault, as well as at least one full airborne divisions, backed by several infantry and armored divisions following the assault wave.
Keep in mind special forces will also try to soften the defense before hand.
IF the Iraqis stand and fight, losses could rise, but historically against this enemy, they will figure the US to leave after Saddam is dead, so they won't engage heavily.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-07-2002 10:16
|