Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 58
  1. #26
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558
    Good post. But, I'd close the border with Canada as well.

  2. #27
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558
    Oh, and Manny. Let's talk about the CATO Ins ute for a minute...

    Here's a blog on an interview with Jerry Taylor of the CATO Ins ute:

    I asked Jerry Taylor of CATO (who has been quite vocal in taking a non-Gaffney view of the China Unocal deal) his thoughts this morning after reading the Chevron news and he said:
    Most of the objections to the proposed deal stem from fear and loathing regarding the Chinese government. The argument seems to be that anything that promotes economic growth in China and, in turn, "feeds the beast." Now, of course it's true that China's government shows little to no respect for human rights and is one of the uglier regimes that populate the U.N.. It's at ude towards those who challenge party power in print or through civic action is savage and reprehensible. But it is on a positive trajectory. What was once a totalitarian state is now an authoritarian regime. Economic liberalization has had a lot to do with that - the emergence of capitalism and free trade has eroded the government's power and is likely to continue to do so in the future. Encouraging wealth creation and engagement in world markets will do more to encourage civil society in China than economic isolation, stagnation, and saber-rattling.

    It's also important to keep the military issue in perspective. China's economy is the size of Italy's and, depending upon how you count it, American defense spending is 5-10 times larger than defense spending in China. Since Mao's death, China has not initiated war with anyone and has shown no inclination to initiate hostilities with the United States, Japan, or any of our allies in the region save for ... Taiwan. That's the only source of tension - the possibility that the United States might initiate a war with China over some future confrontation in Taiwan. A Chinese attack on Taiwan is a real worry, but notice that in that particular case, it would be the United States acting as the aggressor in this relationship, not the Chinese. Whether the U.S. has any business risking a nuclear war over Taiwan is an open question.

    The argument that a wealthier, more prosperous China equals a more dangerous China is not necessarily true for the reasons I laid out above. Blocking China from access to markets or private economic assets would arguably incline the Chinese to think that only military muscle will allow it to secure access to markets and resources. That's not an idea we ought to encourage.

    And I'm getting sick of hearing how China is a communist country. It is communist in name only. China is laboring to enter international markets and commerce and has substantially freed its economy from state control. It is arguably more capitalist than France. Moreover, China's lack of concern for human rights or the rule of law abroad is not substantially different from France's at ude towards the same.

    Finally, the "level playing field" argument is a red herring. U.S. based companies have $105 billion of assets in China and employ 391,000 people there. Chinese firms own only $8 billion of U.S. assets and employ only 15,000 people here. Access to the Chinese economy is regulated and more difficult than it should be, but the suggestion that U.S. firms are "kept out" while we let Chinese firms into the U.S. is not founded upon fact.
    This is why you don't ever let Cato guys anywhere near foreign policy. He's got so many straw-man arguments here that he's going to have to resurrect Ray Bolger to fill them out.

    Our hostility to China's takeover of Unocal isn't based on hostility to a prosperous China. I don't know anyone who thinks this...except, well...

    It's based on China's hostility to us. I don't care if this makes China more prosperous. I do care if it's China using frankly imperialist measures to lock up half the world's natural resources, making it pre-emptively harder for us to get them, especially in a crisis.

    China hasn't gone to war with anyone because they have lacked the means and the motive. They're certainly not shy about threatening to incinerate half of the western US if we try to defend Taiwan. And, um, China attacks Taiwan, but we're the aggressor? How does he get there from here?

    If Taylor's sick of hearing about China's at ude towards human rights, he should take it up with the Chinese. French instincts on human rights aren't mine, but I'm pretty sure French correspondents for the Washington Post haven't been tossed incommunicado into the Bastille anytime recently. Major operations, like, oh, the oil industry, are substantially government-controlled. And by my count, the number of major political parties in China is "one." Perhaps he'd like to go over there and try to form another.

    Finally, US investment in China is one of the great con-games of all time. Foreigners can't outright own Chinese companies. They own assets at a minority share, and if Taylor doesn't think every vote counts, he should ask Al Gore. The government routinely demands technology transfer, and the currency isn't convertible. China knows it needs foreign direct investment, and it gets it by pointing to 1 billion Chinese and the promise of tomorrow's profits. So far, nobody's making any money over there.

    I want free trade with China. I'm well aware of, and support the idea that a growing middle class is going to demand control over their lives. That's what scared the Junkers into starting WWI, too.

  3. #28
    Veteran scott's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    20,555
    I do care if it's China using frankly imperialist measures to lock up half the world's natural resources, making it pre-emptively harder for us to get them, especially in a crisis.
    Would you lay out the actions China has talken to "lock up half of the world's natural resources"? Are they buying Saudi Arabia?

    Do you really think a move to acquire Unocal, not even a major and in fact a relatively small company for an integrated, is a move by China to make it hard for us to get oil? Maybe it's a move to... oh, I don't know... secure oil for their growing economy?

    So far, nobody's making any money over there.
    You may want to check your facts.

    I want free trade with China.
    So long as China doesn't act in their own best interests?
    Last edited by scott; 07-21-2005 at 11:43 PM.

  4. #29
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    Regional groups? Are they official or acting on behalf of any government?
    Moscow, July 18 (IANS) Kyrgyzstan's newly elected President Kurmanbek Bakiyev says the US should dismantle its base in his country because the situation in neighbouring Afghanistan was slowly returning to normal.

    "The situation in Afghanistan is really different (from 2001). A president has been elected, parliamentary elections have taken place, and as the situation has changed, why not envisage this question?" Xinhua quoted Bakiyev as telling the Russian television.


    http://www.eians.com/stories/2005/07/18/18bf.shtml

    I don't know how much more plain that could be -- of course if the translation is to be trusted.

    And the "regional group" was a meetings of officials from the governments in the area including the two aforementioned countries and Russia and China, the countries that would likely move in (in the form of troops or merely influence) if we move out.
    Last edited by ChumpDumper; 07-21-2005 at 10:23 PM.

  5. #30
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    And another:

    Uzbekistan mulls future of U.S air base
    TASHKENT, Uzbekistan (AP) — Uzbekistan indicated on Thursday that it was reconsidering the future of a U.S. airbase it hosts, threatening a key support base for the U.S.-led efforts in neighboring Afghanistan.

    The move, which throws into doubt the American military presence in the Central Asian nation, follows an increasing chill in relations between Washington and the authoritarian Uzbek leader Islam Karimov.

    The Foreign Ministry said the air base at Karshi-Khanabad, which U.S forces use to support operations and supply humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, was only intended for combat operations in Afghanistan during the overthrow of the Taliban regime after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    "Any other prospects for a U.S. military presence in Uzbekistan were not considered by the Uzbek side," the ministry said in a statement.

    Uzbekistan also claimed that the United States hadn't paid takeoff and landing fees for all flights to and from the base, and had offered virtually no compensation for additional costs incurred by the Uzbek authorities for guarding the base, new infrastructure, ecological damage and inconvenience to the local population.

    "In the view of the Foreign Ministry of Uzbekistan, these considerations should be central to examining the prospects of the future presence of the U.S. military force at the Khanabad air base," the statement concluded.

    On Tuesday, a regional alliance led by China and Russia and including Uzbekistan called for the U.S. and its coalition allies in Afghanistan to set a date for withdrawing from several states in Central Asia, reflecting growing unease at America's military presence in the region.

    U.S-led military forces have been deployed at air bases in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to back up the anti-terrorist campaign in neighboring Afghanistan.

    According to the U.S military, Uzbekistan hosts at least 800 U.S. troops, while 1,200 U.S.-led troops are in Kyrgyzstan. Some 200 French air force personnel are based in Tajikistan.

    In Washington, several U.S. officials rejected the calls for a deadline.

    On Wednesday, the U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan John Ordway said coalition operations in Afghanistan "are ongoing and will be for some time to come."

    "Unfortunately, there are a number of challenges remaining in Afghanistan and the military contingents there remain essential in the struggle to provide that security and stability," Ordway told reporters in the Kazakh commercial capital Almaty.

    Uzbekistan's ties with the United States and other Western nations have sharply deteriorated since it came under international condemnation for the harsh suppression of a May uprising in the eastern city of Andijan.

    Uzbek authorities say 176 people died and deny that government troops fired on unarmed civilians but rights activists say as many as 750 may have been killed.

    Karimov put restrictions on the U.S air base — located in southern Uzbekistan about 112 miles from the Afghan border after Washington joined calls by other Western nations for an international probe into the Andijan massacre.


    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...07-uzbek_x.htm

    Two very different situations, but the point remains, it's not all sunshine and happiness wherever our troops hang their hats.

  6. #31
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    Meanwhile, in Okinawa:

    10,000 protest against U.S. Army exercises in Okinawa

    Wednesday, July 20, 2005 at 07:09 JST
    NAHA — Some 10,000 people staged a protest Tuesday against U.S. Army exercises using live ammunition in the town of Kin, Okinawa Prefecture.

    The protesters, including Okinawa Gov Keiichi Inamine, highlighted the danger posed by the exercises at a new combat facility at the Marine Corps' Camp Hansen, which is only 300 meters away from residential areas. (Kyodo News)


    http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&id=343918

  7. #32
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    In South Korea:

    Crowds in South Korea protest U.S. base
    BY: Associated Press, San Diego Union Tribune*
    07/12/2005

    PYONGTAEK, South Korea – Thousands of people protesting at the site of the planned new headquarters for the U.S. military in South Korea clashed yesterday with police.

    Some 7,000 demonstrators threw steel pipes and stones at about 10,000 police guarding Camp Humphreys in Pyongtaek, about 50 miles south of Seoul.

    "The government made an agreement with the United States without consensus from the residents," said one protester, Oh Jeong-sun, 56.

    The U.S. military in South Korea is now headquartered at Yongsan Garrison in Seoul, but is set to move its entire command to Pyongtaek by 2008 as part of plans to consolidate bases and reduce the number of U.S. troops. About 32,500 American troops are now deployed in South Korea.


    http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=4995

    I just want to point out I'm not advocating pulling out of these places -- just pointing out that our troops do not enjoy unanimous support in these areas.

  8. #33
    Lottery Pick
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    22
    First of all, the word is CORRELATION, not COROLATION.

    Empirically validating the connection between an interventionist foreign policy and such attacks is more critical than ever now that terrorists can more readily obtain weapons of mass destruction and seem to be more willing to use them. The extensive number of incidents of terrorism linked to U.S. foreign policy implies that the United States could substantially reduce the chance of catastrophic terrorist attacks if it lowered its military profile overseas.

    Secondly, Empirically validating, by definition, requires data (numbers). It is mathematically impossible to empirically validate anything by implying something, which is exactly what the authors are doing. The first sentence of the article indicates that data were used to validate their assumption. However, they showed no data and only stated an implication. This should be an immediate red flag. The authors of the article are persuasive in their argument, but everything they say is rendered as worthless because of this. I would be willing to bet, however, that it was intentional.

    Finally, CORRELATION does not mean causation. For example, eating too much causes you to gain weight. The size of your pants is a byproduct of that, but the size of your pants (although CORRELATED to your body weight) did not cause you to gain weight.

  9. #34
    Veteran scott's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    20,555
    Secondly, Empirically validating, by definition, requires data (numbers). It is mathematically impossible to empirically validate anything by implying something, which is exactly what the authors are doing. The first sentence of the article indicates that data were used to validate their assumption. However, they showed no data and only stated an implication. This should be an immediate red flag. The authors of the article are persuasive in their argument, but everything they say is rendered as worthless because of this. I would be willing to bet, however, that it was intentional.
    From the passage you chose to quote (I admit to not reading the original post), I don't see where they are stating that they have empirical evidence. Just that an empirical validation is important. If limit data implies something, you would then employ empirical tests to confirm or refute the validity of the implication. Maybe there is some context I am missing by not reading the full article.

    You are right that correlation does not equate to causalty, but that can be tested for as well. You can't just dismiss causalty because you have a correlation, you have to run the test (which of course requires impirical evidence). In any event, I hope we never get to the point where we have a large enough sample by which to estimate a statistically significant relationship.

  10. #35
    Veteran scott's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    20,555
    6. ** One of the most important **. Quietly (so not to piss off people like Saudi Arabia and OPEC) invest in alternative fuel sources. If we develop alternative fuels, to the point that we develop something efficient and cheap that we can share with the rest of the world, all of a sudden: 1) the global economy is no longer dependant on oil and 2) a large financial source for militant Islam (oil profit in the Middle East) goes away.
    And how do you suggest someone goes about doing that? That is about as feasible idea as some wack job tree hugger saying we should all just sit around the camp fire and talk it out.

    I take it back... it isn't that bad... but it's easier said than done. $50+ crude oil will be more effective at developing an alternative then some government mandated plan. Right now we have congress sitting around thinking how great Ethanol is, when studies show that the production and use of it creates just as much if not more pollution, and the energy spent to create ethanol is just as much, if not more, than the energy extracted from the product.

  11. #36
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    Baseless? I gave my thoughts. Sorry, I didn't say the Bush Doctrine sucks, so that means my points weren't valid.

    But just to satisfy your request...

    The last time we tried isolationism, the end result was the Great Depression, the rise of the Third Reich, and WWII.

    Better?

    Isolationism is a recipe for disaster in this day and age. Shut ourselves off to the rest of the world, and China runs roughshod over Asia, while militant Islam takes over Europe, Africa, and South America.

    Then we're the monkey in the middle. No thanks.

    Look, you want to win this ing thing? Then tell your liberal friends to stick all the PC bull up their ass.

    Here's how I go about it...

    1. Shut down the border with Mexico. Use the border patrol, use the Minutemen, whatever. Just from San Diego to Brownsville down.

    Not enough manpower? I am for a civil service type program where people could serve 2 years for their country protecting the homeland. General watching and monitoring the borders, with quick reaction border patrol forces to respond to any incidents.

    2. Infiltrate every Wahhabi mosque and madrassa in the US, Europe, and eventually you have to deal with Africa too.

    I'm not talking having someone there to narc on every little thing they say, but when they start talking about death to America, those types of "religious" ins utes, then it's time to infiltrate further, gather all they can about the plots, and bust every one of those involved.

    3. Europe has to put up some roadblocks to the Muslim invasion (err, immigrants). I'd venture a lot of those involved in things like London travelled continently across Europe.

    4. When push comes to shove (and I really do think that one day we could very well see a true world war - radical Islam vs. the globalized West, embrace our former adversary, Russia. We (both political parties) keep trying to play both sides with Russia.. we want them to help us with the war on terror, but we reserve the right to bemoan and criticize their actions against Chechnya.

    They want to exterminate their pests, we want to exterminate ours, let's kill some bugs.

    5. Tehran and Damascus... make it known that we know they have AQ elements in their country that they are harboring and probably conspiring with. Let them know that the day a WMD hits anywhere in the continental U.S., they are both toast.

    6. ** One of the most important **. Quietly (so not to piss off people like Saudi Arabia and OPEC) invest in alternative fuel sources. If we develop alternative fuels, to the point that we develop something efficient and cheap that we can share with the rest of the world, all of a sudden: 1) the global economy is no longer dependant on oil and 2) a large financial source for militant Islam (oil profit in the Middle East) goes away.

    There's more, but I really don't feel like sitting here all night talking about it and Manny will probably say I've done nothing to refute the original article anyway.
    Did you read the paper?

    No, you didn't. How do I know? The things you bring up are SPECIFICALLY addressed by it.

  12. #37
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    First of all, the word is CORRELATION, not COROLATION.
    I'm a horrible speller, you got me there. You 1, Me 0?

    Empirically validating the connection between an interventionist foreign policy and such attacks is more critical than ever now that terrorists can more readily obtain weapons of mass destruction and seem to be more willing to use them. The extensive number of incidents of terrorism linked to U.S. foreign policy implies that the United States could substantially reduce the chance of catastrophic terrorist attacks if it lowered its military profile overseas.

    Secondly, Empirically validating, by definition, requires data (numbers). It is mathematically impossible to empirically validate anything by implying something, which is exactly what the authors are doing. The first sentence of the article indicates that data were used to validate their assumption. However, they showed no data and only stated an implication. This should be an immediate red flag. The authors of the article are persuasive in their argument, but everything they say is rendered as worthless because of this. I would be willing to bet, however, that it was intentional.
    I suggest you read the entire thing and not merely the conclusion which I posted. There was a reason I posted a link. The entire brief is of a decent length and would have been impossible to fit in a single post (not to mention that most people aren't even reading the post I put up, much less the entire paper).

    Finally, CORRELATION does not mean causation. For example, eating too much causes you to gain weight. The size of your pants is a byproduct of that, but the size of your pants (although CORRELATED to your body weight) did not cause you to gain weight.
    No doubt, but it is safe to say that the issue that comes first is the cause of what comes next. While a larger pant size may not be the cause of gaining weight, gaining weight can be the cause of a larger pant size.

    Therefore the question becomes what came first? Extremeist Islamic terrorism or United States interventionist policy?

    But once again, follow the link and read the entire brief. I guess I'm impressed by your ability to spell, but I'd be more impressed if you express an ability to read. Feel free to follow the link.

  13. #38
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    I'll post the entire portion of the paper devoted to exactly what you stated above, TheIns ute.

    Logic and Empirical Data Support the Link

    The logic behind the claim that there are other primary
    causes for terrorism against the United States needs to be
    examined. Many other Western nations are wealthy; have an
    extensive industrial and commercial presence overseas;
    export their culture along with their products and services;
    and believe in religious freedom, economic opportunity, and
    respect for the rights of the individual. Yet those nations--
    Switzerland and Australia, for example--seem to have
    much less of a problem with worldwide terrorism than does
    the United States.

    According to the U.S. State Department's Patterns of
    Global Terrorism: 1997, one-third of all terrorist attacks
    worldwide were perpetrated against U.S. targets.11 The
    percentage of terrorism targeted at the United States is
    very high considering that the United States--unlike nations
    such as Algeria, Turkey, and the United Kingdom--has no
    internal civil war or quarrels with its neighbors that spawn
    terrorism. The major difference between the United States
    and other wealthy democratic nations is that it is an inter-
    ventionist superpower. As Betts notes, the United States is
    the only nation in the world that intervenes regularly
    outside its own region.

    The motives for some terrorist attacks are not easy to
    discern. They may be protests against U.S. culture or
    overseas business presence. Two incidents in 1995--the
    deadly attack by two gunmen on a van from the U.S. consulate
    in Karachi, Pakistan, and the bombing of a "Dunkin Donuts"
    in Bogotá, Colombia--could fit into those categories. But
    with no statement of motives by the terrorists, such attacks
    could just as easily have been responses to the perceived
    foreign policies of a global superpower.

    Even if some terrorist attacks against the United
    States are a reaction to "what it is" rather than "what it
    does," the list of incidents later in this paper shows how
    many terrorist attacks can be traced back to an interventionist
    American foreign policy. A conservative approach
    was taken in cataloging those incidents. To be added to the
    list, a planned or actual attack first had to be targeted
    against U.S. citizens, property, or facilities--either at
    home or abroad. Then there had to be either an indication
    from the terrorist group that the attack was a response to
    U.S. foreign policy or strong cir stantial evidence that
    the location, timing, or target of the attack coincided with
    a specific U.S. intervention overseas.

    Although the Defense Science Board noted a historical
    correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations
    and an increase in terrorist attacks against the
    United States, the board apparently believed the conclusion
    to be so obvious that it did not publish detailed data to
    support it. Some analysts apparently remain unconvinced of
    the relationship. The data in this paper provide the empirical
    evidence.
    [/U]

  14. #39
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    These are for Chump (or Yoni, rather).

    May 13, 1990: New People's Army assassins fatally shot two
    U.S. airmen near Clark Air Base in the Philippines. The
    killings came on the eve of the U.S.-Philippine exploratory
    talks on the future of U.S. military bases in the Philippines.
    Most likely, the attack was perpetrated to protest
    the U.S. presence in the Philippines.

    June 13, 1990: An American Peace Corps worker was kidnapped
    from his home in the Philippines. The New People's
    Army was responsible. The American was released unharmed on
    August 2 even though no ransom was paid. Coming around the
    time of U.S.-Philippine exploratory talks on the future of
    military bases in the Philippines and exactly a month after
    the killing of two U.S. airmen at Clark Air Base, the attack
    was most likely a protest against the U.S. presence in the
    Philippines.

    January 2, 1991: A U.S. military helicopter was shot down
    by the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front militants
    (Marxist guerrillas) in San Miguel, El Salvador. The two
    crewmen were then killed. The crewmen were most likely
    targets because the United States provided military aid and
    advisers to the government of El Salvador.

    June 10, 1992: A U.S. Army vehicle traveling between
    Panama City and Colón, Panama, was raked with gunfire. The
    driver was killed and a passenger and a nearby civilian
    bystander were wounded. The incident was most likely related
    to the U.S. military presence in Panama and U.S. control
    of the Panama Canal Zone.

    July 1, 1993: Terrorists fired two rockets at the U.S. Air
    Force base at Yokota, Japan. The incident happened a few
    days before President Clinton arrived at the base. The
    incident most likely resulted from opposition to the U.S.
    military presence in Japan.

    · July 7, 1993: Six days later, terrorists fired four projectiles
    at the headquarters of the U.S. Air Force in Japan
    at Camp Zama, Japan. Again, the incident was most likely
    related to opposition to the U.S. military presence in
    Japan.

    Shortly before Easter 1995: Authorities were tipped off by
    Japanese police that members of the Aum Shinrikyo (Supreme
    Truth) religious cult planned a nerve gas attack at Disneyland
    in Anaheim, California. The group planned to attack
    during a fireworks celebration when attendance at the park
    would reach maximum capacity. U.S. authorities apprehended
    members of the group at the Los Angeles airport before they
    could launch the attack. The plan also included an attack
    on petrochemical facilities in Los Angeles. Aum Shinrikyo
    had earlier used sarin nerve gas to attack the Tokyo subway
    (March 20, 1995). According to the group's belief system,
    the last years of the millennium will give rise to an Armageddon
    between Japan and the United States. Aum Shinrikyo
    believed that attacking the Tokyo subway would hasten the
    Armageddon. The group was hoping to kill tens of thousands
    of people.
    The cult chose the United States--a friendly nation--as
    Japan's adversary rather than other regional nations that
    are much more likely to be future rivals of Japan in East
    Asia-—China, Russia, and North and South Korea. That indicates
    how easily an interventionist superpower can be vilified
    by conspiratorially minded groups, even in a friendly
    nation.
    The Aum Shinrikyo cult had assets of $1.2 billion and
    the capability to produce sarin and VX gas, the agents that
    cause anthrax and botulism, and radiological weapons. The
    group is still active.

    August 18, 1995: The Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front
    claimed responsibility for a bomb explosion at an office
    building that housed the American company Fluor Daniel in
    Santiago, Chile. The group stated that the incident was
    carried out in solidarity with Cuba and in opposition to the
    American economic blockade of that island.

    November 15, 1995: An explosive device was discovered on a
    power line to a U.S. military complex in Sagmihara, Japan.
    No group claimed responsibility. The incident was most
    likely related to opposition to the U.S. military presence
    in Japan.

    February 15, 1996: Unidentified assailants fired a rocket
    at the U.S. embassy compound in Athens, Greece, causing
    minor damage to three diplomatic vehicles and surrounding
    buildings. The State Department noted that the cir stances
    of the attack suggested it was an attack by the group
    November 17. November 17 attacks U.S. targets because of
    "American imperialism-nationalism."

    May 31, 1996: In Nicaragua a gang of disgruntled former
    Contra guerrillas kidnapped an employee of the U.S. Agency
    for International Development who was assisting in preparations
    for the Nicaraguan elections. She was later released
    unharmed.

    April 3, 1998: The Greek November 17 movement claimed responsibility
    for a recent rash of attacks against U.S.
    targets. November 17's victims since 1975 include a CIA
    station chief and three other Americans. The group issued a
    statement saying the campaign was "aimed against American
    imperialism-nationalism."

  15. #40
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558
    This is for Manny:

    I checked out those dates and, guess what? The sun rose too.

    You're list wasn't comprehensive. In fact, unless you list all American "interventionist" activities with a corresponding terrorist act OR list all terrorist acts with a corresponding American "interventionist" activity, your list is just as coincidental as the sun rising on days when terrorist acts or American "interventionist" activities occur.

    I put scare quotes around "interventionist" because, depending on the country involved, they may or may not have been in favor of our foreign policy initiative there.

    So, you have to ask yourself, why are terrorists opposed to an American presence in certain countries? I keep coming back to the already expressed reason that they do not want our western cultural ideologies -- such as individual rights for all (women and minorities included) and freedom -- to blossom in their nice, neat, little totalitarian regimes they've worked so hard to usurp.

    We screwed up Afghanistan for them big time. They had their Utopia in the Taliban regime. Iran is no different.

  16. #41
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943


    Dude, you so fit everything to fit your picture of the world. I bet in your mind the Chinese and Iranians all have red eyes and talk in really scary voices, don't they?

  17. #42
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558


    Dude, you so fit everything to fit your picture of the world. I bet in your mind the Chinese and Iranians all have red eyes and talk in really scary voices, don't they?
    Uh, no.

    I particularly listed China and Iran because of recent statements by leaders in their governments or military.

    I similarly recognize there is a vast movement among both the Chinese and Iranian people to force their governments to adopt more Western cultural ideals such as freedom and individual rights. So far, the totalitarian/authoritarian regimes of both nations have successfully quashed any such efforts to gain popular momentum.
    Last edited by The Ressurrected One; 07-22-2005 at 11:19 AM.

  18. #43
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558
    China ready to use nuclear weapons against US over Taiwan

    Ganji Is Near Death in Iranian Prison, a Dissident Reports

    Like I said, it would be stupid NOT to prepare for a military conflict with either of these two nations.

    Manny, I think it's you that has the limited world view.

  19. #44
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    Why would the US get in a war over Taiwan? Oh thats right. Interventionist foriegn policy!

    You're so locked into your mode of thinking that you can't see outside of Americentric box.

  20. #45
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    Man, I still get the giggles when I think about you refering you yourself as a libertarian. RIGHT!

  21. #46
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558
    Why would the US get in a war over Taiwan? Oh thats right. Interventionist foriegn policy!
    It is consistent with our foreign policy to oppose the spread of communism and we've allied ourselves with the Taiwanese? It's called obligation.
    You're so locked into your mode of thinking that you can't see outside of Americentric box.
    D'okie dokie, whatever that means. Maybe you should move to Europe until the American Government attains status outside the "Americentric box;" which, by the way, I hope never occurs.

    Name one purely egalitarian nation on the face of the planet, Manny.

  22. #47
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558
    Man, I still get the giggles when I think about you refering you yourself as a libertarian. RIGHT!
    I still get the giggles when I think about how you still think I'm Yonivore.

  23. #48
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096


    I KNEW you wouldn't address the issues brought about in the paper. I knew it. But you're alreayd acknowledged as the biggest bigot in here.

    Besides, that Muslim group is just trying to keep pace with Pat Robertson. No biggie.
    What is the problem Manny? Cant you just face the fact that WE are
    facing a bunch of people who want any Christian person or Country gone?
    Opinion of the CATO ins ute is just that: an opinion. You just keep
    forgetting these same people killed almost 3000 people in this country in
    one operation alone, they killed many in Saudi Arabia and blew up five
    of our Embassies, they killed people in Germany and other countries. Quit
    living in Media Land and use your head, just once in awhile. I have told
    you before, but I will repeat it. I have lived amongest the Muslims and
    they do not, repeat, do not think as we do in any way, shape or fashion.
    They do not observe any of our customs. They are mostly formally
    uneducated and those that are tend to leave for a better life or stay in the country as
    so called leaders and consider most of their fellow citizens as beneith them. They have no excuse for what they have done and
    are doing. We, The United States of America, has no reason to apologize
    for what we have done in the past or in the future. We too have special
    interest, ourselves as a nation, and we would be absolutely stupid to
    ignore or forget those special interst.

  24. #49
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    It is consistent with our foreign policy to oppose the spread of communism and we've allied ourselves with the Taiwanese? It's called obligation.

    D'okie dokie, whatever that means. Maybe you should move to Europe until the American Government attains status outside the "Americentric box;" which, by the way, I hope never occurs.

    Name one purely egalitarian nation on the face of the planet, Manny.
    , I hope we win that cold war soon. I'm really trying to put off building my fallout shelter.

    But I guess lucky for me, Taiwan isn't recognized as a country but as a part of a country. And we're not going to intervene in a civil war which won't be occouring anytime either way.

    Tell me again, when did the US make it policy to protect Taiwan?

  25. #50
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    What is the problem Manny? Cant you just face the fact that WE are
    facing a bunch of people who want any Christian person or Country gone?
    Opinion of the CATO ins ute is just that: an opinion. You just keep
    forgetting these same people killed almost 3000 people in this country in
    one operation alone, they killed many in Saudi Arabia and blew up five
    of our Embassies, they killed people in Germany and other countries. Quit
    living in Media Land and use your head, just once in awhile. I have told
    you before, but I will repeat it. I have lived amongest the Muslims and
    they do not, repeat, do not think as we do in any way, shape or fashion.
    They do not observe any of our customs. They are mostly formally
    uneducated and those that are tend to leave for a better life or stay in the country as
    so called leaders and consider most of their fellow citizens as beneith them. They have no excuse for what they have done and
    are doing. We, The United States of America, has no reason to apologize
    for what we have done in the past or in the future. We too have special
    interest, ourselves as a nation, and we would be absolutely stupid to
    ignore or forget those special interst.
    Yes yes, I know Yonivore. The reason we're being attacked is because of our "christian" status and because they hate our freedoms. Don't let the evidence (namely other countries not named the United States with those same characteristics being attacked) get in the way of your opinions.

    Like I said, you want to twist the facts of the world situation to paint your image of the American knight running off to save the day.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •