 |
| |
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Sikander... I recommend you to a book called The New Jackals by Simon Reeve written in 1998... that's where I got a large portion of this information, but by no means all... a lot of the rest of it came from a New York Time's book called Out of the Blue about September 11th. |
I knew that you were working from a very few sources as the tone of your post reminded me of a book outline. That's why I'm asking you to break down your claims on certain things to the original source. Either the book you read is footnoted and may be the result of solid research (or may not), or it is mostly opinion which may or may not be based upon some decent knowledge of events.
You seem to have come away with a thesis more or less, but not one that makes all that much sense. Are you saying that the U.S. created the groups that we are currently fighting? If so, you are wrong. In some cases we worked with some of these groups for what was perceived to be our mutual benefit. But these groups exist for their own reasons much as we exist for our own reasons. The fact that Britain and France have from time to time worked with one another says very little about their origins or raison d'etre of either group. It is not enough to show a tenuous link between a part of the U.S. government and a particular group to vindicate your thesis that we helped create these groups. If that is the case than we have helped create almost every group of whatever sort on the planet. We have global interests and our economy makes up about 25% of the GDP of the planet. Point by point:
Saddam Hussein existed before the U.S. decided to back his war against the Iranians. We didn't like him, but he was very useful in taking a lot of the steam out of the Iranian revolution which we liked even less. We could have helped him more than we did, but we weren't interested in his regime emerging victorious from that war, only in the survival of the Iraqi state as a bulwark against Iranian fundamentalism and revolution. We were successful in this.
In Afghanistan we were mainly interested in drawing Soviet energy away from their Western border with Europe and into their southern border region. This was part of a much larger struggle that had been going on for over 30 years already, the cold war. Millions of troops were lined up to face each other in this struggle, along with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. Proxy warfare, often using guerillas was often the only means of testing one another in this struggle, and Afghanistan was by no means the only theatre of its type. It did stand out as the only theatre where we could do damage to Soviet forces directly however, and we made the most of it as did our allies.
We weren't the only ones who viewed the Soviets as a major threat. When the Afghan war started the U.S. military was quite weak, having never been properly rebuilt after Vietnam. Soviet activity in Afghanistan concerned China, Pakistan, Iran as much as it concerned us, as they all shared a border with the Soviet Union as well as Afghanistan. Pakistan had been a cold war ally for years, while China had moved from our mortal enemy to a position of slightly more than a benevolent neutral in regards to the Soviet Union. Iran was our enemy, but nonetheless saw a useful opportunity to help deny Afghanistan to the godless communists as well as develop its own sphere of influence in Afghanistan.
I think that it is fair to say that the U.S. took the lead in stirring the Afghan pot that would eventually cook the Soviet goose. (metaphor-o-rama!) We found people who would oppose the Soviets. We would have preferred that these people be products of the Enlightenment, or staunch Capitalists, or even Christians. But one does not find those sort of people in sufficient numbers in Afghanistan to do much damage. What one does find in Afghanistan are plenty of local leaders, mostly Muslims who are often quite willing to thumb their noses at any central government. They bring to the table smallish groups of hardy fighters who happen to be fairly expert at guerilla warfare.
The war was a long and complex one, and a single volume history couldn't do it justice, so I'll not attempt to either. Suffice it to say that between the extraordinarily complex interplay amongst the Afghans themselves, their main foe the Soviets and the various foreigners who meddled there, the Soviets were bled white after 10 years as were the Afghans themselves. China made some good money supplying arms to the Mujahedeen and were satisfied to see the Soviets humbled, while Pakistan expanded its influence in Afghanistan enormously as did Saudi Arabia. Both of the latter countries also enjoyed the fact that they were able to bleed off some internal opposition by promoting the struggle against the godless communists to help fellow muslims. The U.S. for its part saw a very large swing in its fortunes. While the Soviet Army was being destroyed and shown for a paper tiger in Afghanistan for a very cheap price as far as the U.S. was concerned, the U.S. was rebuilding its forces both quantitatively and especially qualitatively. Within a couple of years after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan the Soviet Union itself collapsed.
The Mujahedeen were the warriors who brought the Soviets low in Afghanistan. We did not create them, nor were they terrorists. We did have a hand in starting that war, but the Mujahedeen were willing participants for their own reasons, just as the Pakistanis or the Saudis were. The longer the war dragged on the less the U.S. had to do with it. Our influence was limited in large part by the fact that the Saudis were providing huge amounts of funding as well as not inconsiderable numbers of foreign Jihadis for the cause, which was turning the conflict more and more into a religious one. Likewise the Pakistanis were determined to exert as much influence as possible over the conflict for which they were providing a base area and considerable material assistance. When the Soviets packed up and left the U.S. washed its hands of the conflict.
The war raged on after the Soviets left, with the rump Communist apparatus and the various ethnic armies the main players. None managed to come out on top permanently, as alliances crumbled whenever anyone seemed to be on the verge of final victory. As each group exhausted itself in turn, the Pakistanis formed The Taliban as described in my previous post. These fresh troops swept in like a hurricane against the exhausted remnants of the Mujahedeen and tribal militias, and took control of Afghanistan by 1996. The Taliban were not terrorists either, but a religious army. They established one of the bleakest regimes on the planet. The only good thing that they managed to do was end the civil war in a vast majority of the country, with only about 10% of the country managing to resist them by the time they were swept out of power by the U.S. and its allies in 2001-2002.
As for OBL, again the U.S. did not create him. We didn't train him or the Jihadis who fought with him. We merely shared a goal of defeating the Soviets with him, just as we shared a goal with the Soviets of defeating Nazi Germany in WW2. It was OBL himself who came up with the idea for Al Qaida, and the Saudis who used the Afghan war to diffuse internal pressure by venting it into Pakistan and Afghanistan.
quote:
Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
And no, it's not like a butterfly flapping its wings. We're not talking chaos theory here. The government most certainly had a very integral role in the creation of terrorists. |
Which terrorists are you talking about here? If you mean the Contras, then I would agree for the most part. If you mean Al Qaida then I don't agree. Terrorist groups created by states for their own narrow purposes tend to be very small and very vulnerable to dissolution once the sponsorship of the state that created and fed them is withdrawn. No one fears the Red Brigades or the Baader-Meinhoff people these days for good reason. Al Qaida is not one of these groups. The Taliban aren't even a terrorist group at all. Hussein's remnants never depended upon the U.S. for their existance, though again we shared a common goal in holding off the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. Our natural antipathy for one another had us at war with them within 3 years after the end of that war.
quote:
Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
My father worked with the CIA for years, had family members worked FOR the CIA, knew people involved with the CIA, and so he is very familiar with CIA tactics, and they DID DO these kind of things. And if you don't believe it, then you're just plain naive.
|
I'll match my intel credentials against yours anyday. I worked for Army intelligence during this period, and I know many people who worked for NSA, CIA, DIA, other intelligence agencies both civilian and military as well as U.S. Special Forces in SW Asia and North Africa, including Chad, Sudan, Lebanon, the Persian Gulf, Pakistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada etc. I paid attention to what was going on at the time both because of personal curiosity as well as professional interest. My contacts gave me a number of individual perspectives on a host of operations during this time period. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know half of what happened during this time period, but the half that I do know along with my familiarity with the organizations who operated in various places, their goals and methods give me a pretty good idea of when someone is talking out their as$.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
WRangler Rhymer
|
|
The terrorist are stupid Iraq will be a lesson that they will never forget. There are special operation groups that are just for getting terrorist, like FAST teams, and marine antiterrorist teams roaming the globe at present. FAST teams can deploy around the world in seconds. There are also many more antiterrorist squads out there just more secret then these.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
WRangler Rhymer
|
|
They were deployed after the USS COLE bombing and they neutralized any further terrorist threats, they have done many other things as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
You spew copious quantities of meaningless drivel constantly.
|
I get that a lot. It usually boils down this this... I speak, you do not understand. My views and my language are perfectly viable and I debate them with those who understand.. of which there are many. However, perhaps you can provide some examples to back up your ad hominem?
Last edited by Whaleboy on 21-08-2003 at 17:28
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:30
|
|
More seriously, Elijah:
I didn't read this thread carefully (especially your discussion with yavoon), but from what I understood, you think that rational / logical decisions are better than emotion-based decisions. No, not "better" decisions, but rather "best" decisions actually.
This philosophical stance is extremely unoriginal and dates back to Descartes already (and I'd guess quite a few Greeks figured this intellecutal w@nking). To imagine there is any originality in this position is to completely inore it has been rehashed and rehashed for centuries.
Maybe we don't speak about the same game theory, but the one I learned actually teaches that if everyone follows his rational interest, the situation will be suboptimal as a whole. The only way for players to reach the optimal situation is to have a positive hunch about the other players' intention.
Besides, you're rambling about absolute rationality and somesuch. This absolute rationality is on the one hand impossible to human beings : even the most ivory-tower types have their feelings which lead their thinking processes - among them, their belief in rationality.
On the other hand, even if we accept the idea that some people can have purely rational thinking processes, the results won't be optimal because of the limitations in information and attention. You might want to read the theories of limited rationality to see how limited the human being is when he's looking for information and judging this information.
This was a non ad-hominem post to tell that your position of looking for most rational decisions as possible is unoriginal, unreasonable, impossible, and ignores the fundamental limitations of the human being.
I guess the others simply didn't bother writing as much as I did.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
More seriously, Elijah:
I didn't read this thread carefully (especially your discussion with yavoon), but from what I understood, you think that rational / logical decisions are better than emotion-based decisions. No, not "better" decisions, but rather "best" decisions actually.
This philosophical stance is extremely unoriginal and dates back to Descartes already (and I'd guess quite a few Greeks figured this intellecutal w@nking). To imagine there is any originality in this position is to completely inore it has been rehashed and rehashed for centuries.
Maybe we don't speak about the same game theory, but the one I learned actually teaches that if everyone follows his rational interest, the situation will be suboptimal as a whole. The only way for players to reach the optimal situation is to have a positive hunch about the other players' intention.
Besides, you're rambling about absolute rationality and somesuch. This absolute rationality is on the one hand impossible to human beings : even the most ivory-tower types have their feelings which lead their thinking processes - among them, their belief in rationality.
On the other hand, even if we accept the idea that some people can have purely rational thinking processes, the results won't be optimal because of the limitations in information and attention. You might want to read the theories of limited rationality to see how limited the human being is when he's looking for information and judging this information.
This was a non ad-hominem post to tell that your position of looking for most rational decisions as possible is unoriginal, unreasonable, impossible, and ignores the fundamental limitations of the human being.
I guess the others simply didn't bother writing as much as I did. |
Another thing is, people use their emotions to makes decisions, and while this may not produce the best decision, we live in a democracy, and popular support of a course of action has to be taken into account when making a decision.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
At a wild guess I would say elijah stretches "rationality" so much because he thinks it justifies his morale views when he presents them as "rational".
|
My emotional views, to a point, say that when terrorists attack, I want to kill them. Other emotions lead to a different conclusion that is stronger in me, hence my logic supports the latter position. Without that emotional/logical hybrid, I'd be as conservative as the rest of you!  jk
quote:
Elijah, I understand what you say. I'd say most of us on Poly are smart enough to understand what you say. We just disagree with it.
|
And that is good and encouraging. In that case, I'd appreciate it if you attacked my arguments, not me and the language I use.
quote:
Despite what you think (this is self-evident from your attitude and your sig), you are not the most intelligent being on this planet.
|
Now now now, a little dillusion never hurt anyone  . Besides, its spiffor dammit!
quote:
you think that rational / logical decisions are better than emotion-based decisions. No, not "better" decisions, but rather "best" decisions actually.
|
quote:
This philosophical stance is extremely unoriginal and dates back to Descartes already (and I'd guess quite a few Greeks figured this intellecutal w@nking)
|
Who said I was being original? Indeed, it is this existing outlook that I adopt and use. Nonetheless, with the slow death of philosophical post-modernism, it is fair to say that I am one of a dying breed in this respect.
quote:
Maybe we don't speak about the same game theory, but the one I learned actually teaches that if everyone follows his rational interest, the situation will be suboptimal as a whole. The only way for players to reach the optimal situation is to have a positive hunch about the other players' intention.
|
It depends on what you call rational interest. I assume that to mean long term, so, cost of war vs short term benefits etc in this case. Nonetheless, Drogue taught me everything I know about game theory, you're better off asking him.
quote:
Besides, you're rambling about absolute rationality and somesuch. This absolute rationality is on the one hand impossible to human beings : even the most ivory-tower types have their feelings which lead their thinking processes - among them, their belief in rationality. |
NO!!! Not absolute rationality, we are all human, we have our limits. I know that its possible for humans to think rationally in these times because many including myself do so. Why theyre not the people making the decisions in government is self-explanatory. We are not popular   .
We are all emotional, they influence all our lives. Indeed for the most part, rationality is a slave to emotion. Of emotions at their most fundamental level are logic but thats largely irrelevant here. I am not proposing that we turn into vulcans, but that we try to eliminate emotional influence from our decision making, particularly in areas like this, which are of much importance. Of course it wont happen, but since when was I pragmatic? It "should" happen, thats all I'm bothered about.
quote:
On the other hand, even if we accept the idea that some people can have purely rational thinking processes, the results won't be optimal because of the limitations in information and attention.
|
The way I see it is this. We have emotions and rationality on a certain level in our minds. They forge our, what you might call wildcards - the factors that make us who we are, and in this case, our opinions. We already have in our minds the conclusion to our arguments, but logic henceforce is merely a slave, working backwards to form an argument. If you think I am assuming or hoping for humanity turning into a race of biological computers you are mistaken. However, I want the best decisions to be taken, and currently we have emotional decisions being taken, supported and proposed, both here and in RL, and I do not concur, as I think a more rational approach is required. Not ultimately rational, but more rational.
quote:
You might want to read the theories of limited rationality to see how limited the human being is when he's looking for information and judging this information.
|
It is my view that some people are better at that than others. Its really as simple as that.
quote:
This was a non ad-hominem post to tell that your position of looking for most rational decisions as possible is unoriginal, unreasonable, impossible, and ignores the fundamental limitations of the human being.
|
Its cool, it not ad hominem, its a valid well constructed argument  . I know its unoriginal, no-one suggested otherwise and kudos to the men upon whose shoulders I now stand. My argument that "we should try to be more rational than we are now" is not unreasonable. I am not saying we remove the amygdala from the human brain here! Its certainly not impossible, I myself am proof of that. It does not ignore the fundamentals of the human mind, people will always want revenge etc, but I'm saying governments should rise above it and be more rational. In that sense, I suppose I am ignoring the fundamentals of modern democratic government.
quote:
Another thing is, people use their emotions to makes decisions, and while this may not produce the best decision, we live in a democracy, and popular support of a course of action has to be taken into account when making a decision.
|
 We covered this. People do use their emotions to make decisions but it is my belief that when decisions are on the table, some better than others, we take the best ones. Those are, without exception, the more rational decisions. It is just a matter of a) seeing it, and b) factoring that into a system of democracy, but neither of those two are my concerns. I'm writing an essay on democracy though, perhaps that will clarify my positions. The update will be announced on my sig.
Let me reiterate. I am not saying we eliminate emotions from our decision making process. They are essential to the human condition, to our opinions. However, they are irrelevant in a debate and under any critical analysis, and governmental actions are determined by critical thinking as much as is possible, or rather I would like to think so. Even then, one can only control emotions, eliminating them is impossible unless one has a kind of AI government or judge...*lapses into utopian dreams* I am saying that we take the most logical decision available to us at a time. In this context, we should disregard the populist revenge-based strategy that in reality does not work, and we take measures that do work. Needless to say, I suspect that stopping terrorism is not a primary concern of the governments that claim otherwise, hence the current courses of action.
By the way, my sig says "intellectual", not "intelligent"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
It depends on what you call rational interest. I assume that to mean long term, so, cost of war vs short term benefits etc in this case. Nonetheless, Drogue taught me everything I know about game theory, you're better off asking him. |
Which wouldn't be much. Spiffor is mostly right, in most cases complete rationality will not lead to the most desireable outcome. Whether common knowledge of rationality will is a matter under debate still.
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
However, I want the best decisions to be taken, and currently we have emotional decisions being taken, supported and proposed, both here and in RL, and I do not concur, as I think a more rational approach is required. Not ultimately rational, but more rational. |
I agree with that. Kinda goes with why I'm against leaders who are religious. I know it is natural for people to want to believe in something, but to me, someone elses religious is just emotion, and shouldn't be used to make legal decisions IMHO. I was angry after 9/11, but I'm not going to decide to bomb the crap out of the entire Middle East, as I may want to. I think leaders have to be rational. To rule a country effectively, you have to think clearly and logically about the best way to rule, at least that is my opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
By the way, my sig says "intellectual", not "intelligent" |
The difference would be? However, I do take issue with that statement. Intellectual is as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary (don't have an OED on me) as: quote:
A highly educated person whose interests are studying and other activities that involve careful thinking and mental effort. |
So are you saying that no conservative can enjoy studying and mental effort? 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-08-2003 11:22
Didn't Hezbollah carry out a bombing in Argentina?
|