RichardPrins wrote: 

Sorry your taking it that way. 

I meant it as a compliment.  You took the time to construct your own reply instead of responding with a copy and paste.  That is what I meant by original.  Sure we all use factoids and collected thoughts of others.  I recognized the validity of your points without requesting 'facts' to support them.  The points you expressed yourself with are basically correct as I have come to learn them, its just a different perspective and linkage of the same generally agreed upon things that anyone with more than a casual interest on the subject would generally know.

I enjoy broader and consenting (to sometimes use mild hyperbole and stretches) conversations that are not afraid to look at the edges for a better view of the center and its location to the present, which constantly changes.

I got feedback on the matter, as to the degree of importance of this idea to others.  I'm not here to win anything, and if you really want to help yourself understand me for the future, I'm not paranoid.  I see and hear alot of stuff as do you.  I'm not bringing things up out of paranoia.  I'm bringing things up in the realm of plausibility as opposed to crying the sky is falling.  The failure to discuss plausibilities is censorship of free thinking.  Placing certain discussions as off limits is unhealty IMO.

There are many here who just plain don't like to discuss conjecture at any level and the mere appearance of it is like fingernails on the blackboard to them.

So I'm just encouraging you to do more writing as you took the time to do earlier.  Its refreshing, seriously.

 RichardPrins wrote: 

Truly original thoughts have long been extinct, but so few have been heard they bear repeating.

 aflanigan wrote: 
See Greece. See historical Nazis. See Tea Parties. Etc., etc.

As I learned in history classes, there's always the need for a scapegoat (real or imagined) in such circumstances.

 kurtster wrote: 
Thanks for the condescension. My thoughts aren't original and neither are yours. They are usually based on the stuff we read, or for some the speaking points we hear, from others that tend to be more knowledgeable than we are on specific topics.

 kurtster wrote: 
Kurt,

I think the thing that's important in terms of the influence extremism and far-fetched notions is the economic well-being of the majority of people in a given region, nation, group, culture, etc.

People who are relatively content and feel that their society is relatively stable economically, and offers them a chance to survive and even thrive, are less likely to be lured into believing in extremist points of view.  In cultures or nations where the economy is bad, extremist points of view are more likely to find fertile ground in which to grow and flourish.

The idea (call it Jihad or what you will) that people need to lash out at perceived oppressors at home or abroad is more likely to become popular in a culture where there is high unemployment, social inequity, and a perception of gross unfairness.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

We have gone around the block on the 20th Century in the Middle East.  You did forget to mention that Libya was a jurisdiction of Italy, but no matter.

Getting back to my original point which was that IMO, Jihad was the single greatest organized threat to world peace.  It was based on the premise that something as simple as a caricature or cartoon was all that was necessary to declare an all out war to the death of the object of the Jihad.  I went out of my way to distinguish it as a small radical part of a whole, but a potent part nonetheless.

You see it diferently, that Jihad is not a real threat to much of anything.  So I will leave it at that and thank you for the discussion and input.  I really did enjoy seeing you express your original thoughts for a change and look forward to further discussions of this kind.

Thanks for the dialogue !

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Ayup. Tanks in particular being a great example of a weapon that is rapidly becoming less important. We still own over 8,000 of the things with virtually no real potential enemy to use them against. Since the Cold War ended European nations have let their tank fleets shrink to just a few hundred because there's no longer a viable threat they're needed for. That and the fact that the current generation of tanks are so capable - and expensive - it just doen't make sense to keep thousands of them around.

(...) That link between profit and war sticks out in a recent Center for Public Integrity (CPI) investigation. The U.S. Congress could be spending $3 billion on tanks the army does not want. That includes repairing many M1 Abrams tanks the army won’t use. As Aaron Mehta, one of the authors of the CPI report puts it: the army “has decided it wants to save as much as $3 billion by freezing refurbishment of the M1 from 2014 to 2017, so it can redesign the hulking, clanking vehicle from top to bottom.” Congress disagreed.

Of course, the lawmakers batting for the tanks spoke about jobs. Their concern, in theory, is for the workers involved. If their factories shut down, the workers making the tanks could lose their jobs. But it seems the lawmakers’ own jobs were the real cause of their worry. The tank’s manufacturer, say the report’s authors “has pumped millions of dollars into congressional elections over the last decade.” A sound move, it seems. The CPI studied spending and lobbying records that showed donations targeting “the lawmakers who sit on four key committees that will decide the tank’s fate.” It also found that: “Those lawmakers have received $5.3 million since 2001 from employees of the tank’s manufacturer, General Dynamics, and its political action committee.” (...)

 kurtster wrote: 
No, I don't agree. Using silence to form a conclusion is called an argument from silence. It's usually pretty silly, since you can't assume anything from a lack of evidence (silence), other than that you really have nothing to base your conclusion on.

Where I reside is irrelevant and it's also not important what you make of me. Focus on the arguments instead which are about the current cause of belligerence.

You brought up the apparent justification for aggression, in relation to Jihad being the greatest threat, that some country is/countries are building armies, nuclear weapons and sponsoring terrorism, as opposed to Muslims that do not reside in the Middle East or North Africa, i.e. Asia. And your reply evades the points I made w.r.t. to that particular justification.

There is a difference historically in who the players were before and after 1945. Different empires in play and different influences up to today. The dream/myth of re-establishing a Caliphate is one that may or may not be held by a small amount of Jihadists, but it isn't sufficient to get the whole Ummah to act upon (that 1.6 billion), let alone some nations (there are different powers at play such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia with their own agendas).

One factor that easily can be shown to be more important is Arab nationalism. Quite a few of the countries that formed as a result of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire had people that strove for independence (and in some cases was promised), much like in other countries that managed to get themselves removed from the era of colonialism/imperialism. In lots of cases those people were unable to achieve that independence due to the mingling in the affairs of their countries. Two years after the Caliphate broke up, a meeting was held to reestablish it, however most Muslim countries simply did not show up). And why would they want to be back under Turkish rule? (Nowadays Turkey is trying to reestablish itself as a credible regional power, albeit differently in a world that has changed quite a bit.)

Now you might ask yourself who has been doing most of the mingling in that area, post 1945, and who insists on having the most belligerent attitude towards the region (of course there are others who will be quite happy to join in such aggression UNder a certain umbrella), as can be seen in Libya or today in Mali. What characterizes the Middle East post-WWII is the growing influence of the US and the waning influence of the British (who were the dominant force in the Middle East). One of the last actions concocted together was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran because of the fear of seeing the oil industry nationalized. North Africa, aside from Egypt, has been the domain of France, but they lost most of their influence as well.

Thus, to get back to your point, Israel came about through influence by the UK in 1917 (pre-WWII) via the Balfour Declaration as well as the US (via the UN) in 1947/8. But what happened after that with the other countries in the area (e.g. Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia) is more relevant to today's situation (unless you stubbornly want to see some Muslim empire reestablished) and has been driven more by the US than any other country (see Iran above, see Iraq with Saddam and the CIA, and Egypt in the post-Nasser era up until your 'friend' Mubarak got axed).

You may also remember your role in Lebanon, before you got blown up and out of there. Today you can see where your military bases are located in the area and the relations that you have over there. As mentioned Iraq didn't work so well, seeing how they kicked you out despite your contrary desires, and Afghanistan isn't any better. While you could hide behind the UN facade, it is obvious that the bulk of the action that has taken place was/is driven by the US, both in the form of propping up puppets as well as by military action. The people in those countries are quite aware of who's been pulling the strings of their puppets, as the revolution in Iran of '79 shows, and as can be seen to some extent in Egypt as well.

The last 70 years simply matter more than anything else. It goes for the area in question, but it also holds true for Europe.

PS: Blaming the Muslims

 RichardPrins wrote: 
You just tried to lump all Muslims in the world together in the post I responded to.  I simply made a distinction that not all Muslims are engaged in the same practices.  Not all Muslims are Arab or Semetic.  In fact the vast majority are not IIRC. 

And you criticize us for building armies.  I don't really know where you reside.  You seem to seperate yourself from Europe as well.  So I just don't know what to make of you.  You've made no response to my charge that Europeans are responsible more than anyone for turning the Middle East upside down and creating Israel and all the resulting tension that we are living with presently.  Do I take by your silence that you agree ?

 kurtster wrote: 
So who's building armies, nuclear weapons, and sponsoring terror around the world? And what is the hard evidence for that? As far as I know your country's intelligence services, as well as the saner heads in Israel have no evidence that there is in fact a nuclear weapons program in the country that you are alluding to above (and mentioned earlier). Iran is a signatory to the NPT (and thus has a right to use nuclear technology for civil purposes, like as used in medicine or for power/electricity), whereas other countries already equipped with nuclear weapons are not (one being arguably your closest ally and another is a country whose sovereignty you trespass upon with abandon despite protests by said country).

Building armies isn't a crime, and as your balance sheet (and deficit) shows, it brings jobs and cash. The Saudis are building an army, if we are to gauge their purchases. They are fundamentalist Muslims just like the ones in Iran. They destroy shrines and "idols" like the Taliban and, more recently, groups in Mali and Libya did. Shrines or monuments that are either historic or of other sectarian Muslims such as Sufis. As far as I know Iran is proud of its historic Persian heritage and doesn't destroy it. They do all share a disregard for human rights, but that isn't particular to Muslims either, since we can see your own (and other) governments engaged in similar dubious practices.

As for terrorism, we can find many actions perpetrated by your own government or your closest ally that qualify equally. So you and your allies can sponsor or engage in terror around the world, while others can't? We can think of drones that kill scores of civilians, as mentioned above, as well as scientists that get assassinated. Also, if terrorism is defined as violence aimed at civilians intended to bring about political change, we might include Iraq, and even Afghanistan.

After reading the above (and as backed up by polls) who do you think the people in the Middle East as well as in Europe consider the greatest threat to peace? A hint: there are two countries.

 kurtster wrote: 
1) Done.
2) Done.
3) When pigs become kosher. Or halal.

I don't know what the hell to do over there, frankly. Sure, Israel is a strong ally, but they also have extremists who will not, under any circumstances, including use of force by Israeli security forces, accede to any accommodations with the Palestinians.

 steeler wrote: 

We are supporting Israel, although tacitly right now.

I'm thinking in a period of 5 years or so.  Until we get out, we support Israel unilaterally.  We arm them to the teeth and tell them to figure out how to defend themselves and coexist, if their neighbors allow them.

Then its adios !  The US did not create Israel in the first place.  Again, it is Europe's creation, via the UN.  It is Europe that has originated all the problems in the Middle East.  We didn't colonize it, Europe did.  We have paid whatever the imagined debt to Europe is manifold over.

And your thoughts on returning to the Monroe Doctrine ?

 kurtster wrote: 

I think I've asked this of you before:

How do you reconcile this position with your postion that we should be supporting Israel?

You made a point in your other post immediately before this one that Romney would be a more reliable supporter of Israel than Obama, implying that you believe that our foreign policy should be to support Israel against its enemies in the Middle East.  Yet, you also advocate our removing ourselves from matters in the Middle East.  

 kurtster wrote: 
What would happen if a small group of extremists highjacked a religion for political purposes? What if religious fanatics used fundamentalism as a cover to perpetrate violence and oppression? And the government tacitly approved of their actions, by doing nothing to stop the spread of hatred? In fact the government explicitly created laws that discriminated against people based on their religious beliefs. That would be horrible. Good thing it can't happen here in the U.S.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
The use of Jihad seems to have a major role in a small part of the Muslim world, mostly Northern Africa and The Middle East.  SE Asia doesn't seem to be all wrapped up in the concept.  Indonesia and Malaysia are not building armies, nuclear weapons and sponsoring terror around the world.

I'm not paranoid, just offering my take.  Either one considers Jihad a real threat or one doesn't.  If one doesn't then what I have offered is meaningless.  No worries on my part.  I'm just along for the ride. like everyone else.

But as far as the Monroe Doctrine is concerned, absolutely ... with modifications to reflect the 21st Century.  The US needs to stick to the Western Hemisphere.  We only verred away from it to save Europe's a$$, twice and for the Cold War, which is over.

Time for the US to come home and mind our own business and leave the Middle East and all the crap that goes with it behind.  We've paid for it long enough.  Time for the slackers of the world to take it over.

 RichardPrins wrote: 

Stop confusing the issue with facts!

 kurtster wrote: 

Rather reaching. As usual I agree with RichardPrins.

 sirdroseph wrote: 

I'll risk crawling farther out on my limb ...

These are my assumed givens ... in no particular order.

Jihad is seperate from Islam in the senses I am speaking.
Obama has clearly thrown Israel under the bus.
Jihadists only respect power.  Negotiation is interpreted as a sign of weakness, therefore to be regarded as inferior and the negotiators culled.
Arminajad or however you spell his name is serving his last term in office.
Arminajad seeks to bring the Islamic version of End Times on the world.
He is hell bent of wiping out Israel and will use the bomb as soon as he can.

As long as Obama is in office, there is doubt that the US will back Israel should they elect to act on their own and are highly vulnerable to unchallenged retaliation.  Romney as POTUS clearly represents unwavering support for Israel, making any initial hostile actions towards them less likely.  How much I don't pretend to know, but there would certainly be an effect.

The mullahs in Iran are getting unhappy with A...d and if there is chance to wait him out, that is the best strategy.  The mullahs are looking at him like a loose cannon.  I don't think they really want to bring about End Times.  There is no way we can stop Iran from getting a nuke without a military action and even that is uncertain.  I would prefer to have someone in office who might make the mullahs think twice about it and slow down A....d internally.

Meanwhile, we secure our own energy resources and make us totally independent of the Middle East so when it does go nuclear, we will not suffer immediately and directly.  It becomes Europe, Russia and China's problem as they are the ones dependent on the oil, not us.  We will cut Israel loose, but later rather than sooner.  Eventually Israel will have to stand up for itself.

We need to get back to where the US was at its peak and strongest.  That was when we didn't need the rest of the world, they needed us.

The Monroe Doctrine again comes into play as a guide for our future foreign policy.
All the above is incomplete, oversimplified and broadbrushed.  And it only matters if we can survive our domestic economic problems.

 kurtster wrote: 
If that historical enmity were true to such an extent, then why would Saudi Arabia, with its holiest of holies, Mecca, have such a close relationships with the West, and the US in particular, when they are one of the most fundamentalist countries (see Wahhabism) out there? Why sell them state-of-the-art weaponry and consider them a close ally?

Why would the US use the Mujahideen (those brave "freedom fighters" fighting those godless commies) in their fight against Russian influence in Afghanistan, or in reverse why would they let themselves be used by the US (or the West) to do the fighting? Same goes for Libya and Syria.

If Jihad would be as important as you claim, 1.6 billion Muslims would have a considerable and possibly devastating impact on the West. It has not. What does appear to have a huge impact is institutionalized paranoia.