Gyroscopic Investing

Coffee wrote: And herein lies the problem with your "Fortress America" foreign policy approach: It naively assumes that if we mind our own business, everybody will leave us alone. 

Just like the Japanese left China alone, right?  And then the Filipines.  And then Hawaii.  And then California. 

Coffee wrote: It also suggests that we should leave our friends to drift in the wind the minute they are in trouble.  Could you imagine the Chinese invading the Western Coast of Canada and raping and killing 300,000 Canadian citizens... and we not doing anything???  Huh???

Coffee wrote: If we can keep both Iran and Iraq fighting each other rather than invading Saudi Arabia and cutting off our oil supply, then so be it.  Better they fight each other than our boys have to do it.  And if that doesn't work, better to fight them in Iraq and put a stop to it, before they roll into Saudi Arabia and cut off our supply lines.  (Or those of our allies.)

Coffee wrote: You're being hyper-selective.  It's like backtesting an investment strategy and choosing your start dates.  I can list all kind of interventions that turned out favorably. 

Ad Orientem wrote: I must admit to being somewhat disturbed by the suggestion in some of the posts of a global religious war. It's as though some believe we are at war with the entire Islamic world.

Benko wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: I must admit to being somewhat disturbed by the suggestion in some of the posts of a global religious war. It's as though some believe we are at war with the entire Islamic world.

So you consider the actions of a handful of religious fanatics as evidence that we are at war with the entire Islamic world? That would be akin to Roman Catholics declaring war on Protestantism based on the actions of Ku Klux Klan.

The Fort Hood shootings occured because we are in denial, criminal, insane denial that many muslims are at war with us.  There were warnings, but it is PC to ignore them.

Pointedstick wrote:

Coffee wrote: And herein lies the problem with your "Fortress America" foreign policy approach: It naively assumes that if we mind our own business, everybody will leave us alone. 

Just like the Japanese left China alone, right?  And then the Filipines.  And then Hawaii.  And then California. 

Maybe you're right. Maybe it would only work if you happened to be the most powerful country in the entire world.

Benko wrote: NB: we think of Islam as a religion and imagine it is the same way the people view their religion here.  it is nothing of the sort.  Islam is a religion but also a total way of life.

Coffee wrote: For example: We develop domestic energy sources (which I am in favor of... absolutely!) and then start supplying Colombia.  Which means that we divest from Venezuela, too. 

Now guess who's pissed at us?  Maduro.  And who does Maduro then blame for his country's economic floudering?  You guessed it... the USA.  Why? Because scapegoating is a tactic that has worked since biblical days.  It's always easier to blame somebody else, over there.

Pointedstick wrote:

Coffee wrote: For example: We develop domestic energy sources (which I am in favor of... absolutely!) and then start supplying Colombia.  Which means that we divest from Venezuela, too. 

Now guess who's pissed at us?  Maduro.  And who does Maduro then blame for his country's economic floudering?  You guessed it... the USA.  Why? Because scapegoating is a tactic that has worked since biblical days.  It's always easier to blame somebody else, over there.

Okay… so what? What's Venezuela gonna do to us? Why is it an issue if an impoverished petro-kleptocratic banana republic is pissed at the most powerful nation in the world? If they make any trouble, can't we smash them to splinters then?

Pointedstick wrote:

Benko wrote: NB: we think of Islam as a religion and imagine it is the same way the people view their religion here.  it is nothing of the sort.  Islam is a religion but also a total way of life.

Isn't Judaism a total way of life as well if you actually follow what the old testament says? Have you ever spent any time around any Orthodox Jews? It's all-consuming. It touches every facet of their lives.

It's a dangerous game to go judging religions for their dictates. Most of them have some pretty nasty stuff in there if you take it literally or interpret it to mean that you should violently oppress your religion's enemies. We don't have slaves today or take multiple wives, even though those are things explicitly allowed and encouraged in the Judeo-Christian holy books.

What we're dealing with here is not an inherently violent, conquest-oriented religion but a bunch of barbarians who are using their religion as a justification for violence, same as every religion has had. I mean, 1000 years ago it was the Christians!

Coffee wrote: Benko is exactly right.

We are in denial.  The fact that you seem to want to believe that it is "just a few radicals" completely ignores realty:

- The Government of Iran
- The Defacto Government of Lebanon
- Half of the Government of Saudi Arabia
- Up until a few months ago, the Government of Egypt.
- The Government of Pakistan.
- A large contingent in Iraq
- A large contingent in Afghanistan
- Indonesia (although less politicized)
- Segments of the Philiphines
Etc...

You cannot equate these to the KKK vs Catholicism and say that Islamism is a fringe group.  Islamism is the leadership of a majority of Muslim countries in the world.  And while most Muslims are preoccupied with their day to day business and are not part of the political or military machine... they are more active participants of Islamism through Islam than they are victims.

There is a tipping point in any society that allows the growth of Islamism that creates this type of activism:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07b_1368 ... TcdQmTb.01

Coffee wrote: Yes, I'm fine with that.  If they do something to threaten our national interest... absolutely.  But considering that 19 dipshits from the Saudi Penninsula were able to fly 3+1 planes into our national infrastructure with little more than box cutters... the big question is: Do you think they have box cutters in Venezuela, and could they smuggle those box cutters into the U.S.?

Do I want to wait and let them build up their will to do something like that?  No.  I'd rather have our Company boys keep Maduro occupied on his own soil.

Coffee wrote: I guess what kind of bothers me is that you can't seem to differentiate between how practitioners of Judaism and Christianity have evolved over the past 2000 years, while the Islamists have not.  You're judging Jews and Christians of the biblical era by today's standards and giving a pass to Islamists who are living today but still acting like they're in the biblical era.

Pointedstick wrote: Sure, I can agree with that. If we know for a fact that their government is training terrorists or something, then that's basically an act of war. Let's bomb the presidential palace into the stone age.

The problem with this is that it gets really complicated if you have too many "national interests". As you mentioned, it was mostly Saudis who brought down the twin towers. So let's smash Saudi Arabia! But oops, we get a lot of oil from Saudi Arabia. So, uh… let's smash Iraq and/or Iran to protect Saudi Arabia? Or something. It gets really confused as to who we should be attacking and for what reason when you don't have well-defined "bad guys" or those who would otherwise be "bad guys" happen to be vital suppliers of strategic resources.

Coffee wrote: It's not that difficult to understand, if you scratch below the surface:

The House of Saud is divided.  Part is pro-Western because they enjoy selling us oil.  The other half are basically Al-Queda. 

We can't invade Saudi Arabia because SA is the birthplace of Islam.  It would too inflame the entire Muslim world, because we are "infidels" who are not pure enough to be on Islamic soil-- even though everybody hates the Saudis anyway.  Still, we can't do it.  Way too much blowback.

So, we have to play in the inside con; The inside game: Support the pro-Western elements and get them to help us fight the anti-Western elements.  Sure, the pro-Western Saudis are sleezy, but what's the alternative?  There is none.

Coffee wrote: Going into Iraq was killing two or three birds with one stone:

1.  Establish a large base of operations in the middle of the area.  This was designed to put pressure on Iran (who are nuttier than nutter-butter and we do not want to have nukes).

Coffee wrote: Despite your assertions that all countries should be equal, I don't believe all countries should be equal with nukes.  Allowing them to have nukes gives them an unfair advantage in the region and they've already demonstrated their willingness to interfere with the affairs of their neighbors.  Being in Iraq also prevents regional players from thinking they can threaten the Saudi Gov. and allows us to be nearby if something internally happens.

Coffee wrote: 2.  It got rid of a guy who was plotting to kill one of our Presidents and was threatening our allies in the region.  Not to mention... he was just an overall bad dude.

Coffee wrote: 3.  It relieves some pressure that Israel feels.  It also prevents Israel from launching a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

RuralEngineer wrote: I promise you, Muslims do not hate us for our freedom, Hollywood, or ice cream sprinkles.

RuralEngineer wrote: Additionally, if our government had made some kind of deal that saw the Saudi's setting up military bases in the Midwest, a lot of Americans would be pissed as hell, and there's nothing holy about our corn fields.