Al Quaeda threat diminished - or not?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The US seems to have entered a phase of self-chosen isolationism.

Can you really blame it? When the entire world continually dumps all over you, you tend to not want to engage with it any more.

It's not a particularly good decision in the bigger picture, but I really can't blame the US for taking it, they've been the figurehead for the past two decades, it's taken it out of the country, so now they're stepping back to let someone else do it.

[Bubblehead1980]

The American people have noy chosen this weak foreign policy, it is our incompetent, naive, dishonest President and his goons, not us. Sure, we don't want to be the world's policeman, but should maintain strength, with the Black version of Jimmy Carter in office, we have been forced down the path of perpetual weakness.Assuming we end up with Hillary Clinton after 2016, will probably continue down the same weak path as well.

[Oberon]

Says the voice of impartiality.

[Jimbuna]

with the Black version of Jimmy Carter in office

Subscribed to.

[Wolferz]

Al Qaeda couldn't make themselves any more irrelevant than they already have. They've been turned into a political football for a rousing game of smear the queer. Used only to club the masses with fear campaigns to misdirect attention away from the robbery our elected elite are screwing us with. It's funny how politicians in America have always sought an enemy to fight against. Spreading freedom and justice with the sword like the crusaders of old.
Warmongers! Who needs them?

Hegemony chess anyone?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Can you really blame it? When the entire world continually dumps all over you, you tend to not want to engage with it any more.

I don't blame them at all. Some say it is a historic pattern that their isolationism goes off - on- off - on again. I am not sure on that, just refer to what seems to be the present. The innerpolitical changes due to the changing American culture and society, imo are as important, if not more, than an assumed historic on-off-pattern. America today compares pretty much to Rome in its final stage, I think. The process back then lasted for centuries, and it still could last for decades in fast-living today's time. Military challenges form the outside were just one factor amongst severla ones, that sealed the fate of Rome. Same for America today. The real erosion takes place within. Some say that American values and culture and way of life are so popular globally that America cannot completely fall. Well, we owe to Roman culture and laws until today, and ironically especially us modern Germans are more Roman than Germanic products of culture. But that cultural heritage did not prevent Rome from simply fading. "Fading" maybe is the best way to describe what happened, and happens again.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I don't blame them at all. Some say it is a historic pattern that their isolationism goes off - on- off - on again. I am not sure on that, just refer to what seems to be the present. The innerpolitical changes due to the changing American culture and society, imo are as important, if not more, than an assumed historic on-off-pattern. America today compares pretty much to Rome in its final stage, I think. The process back then lasted for centuries, and it still could last for decades in fast-living today's time. Military challenges form the outside were just one factor amongst severla ones, that sealed the fate of Rome. Same for America today. The real erosion takes place within. Some say that American values and culture and way of life are so popular globally that America cannot completely fall. Well, we owe to Roman culture and laws until today, and ironically especially us modern Germans are more Roman than Germanic products of culture. But that cultural heritage did not prevent Rome from simply fading. "Fading" maybe is the best way to describe what happened, and happens again.

Can't say I disagree, America does periodically withdraw from the world until, inevitably the world comes and knocks on Americas door, usually with fatal consequences for Americans.
There are some parallels to be made between America and Rome, but I don't know if I would draw a direct link and extrapolate that in to stating that America will go the same way, although certainly the coming century will see some changes occur in global spheres of power, but that is how history goes, nothing lasts forever.

[MH]

It really depends how you perceive America.
Rome was mostly about military power...all the time.
OOh yeah.... and relatively civilized and centralised culture in middle of savage tribal europe.
America is not , but had become so during ww2 and through cold war.
Cold war is over and ending the current wars of attrition may give the USA the boost in right direction.

If you judge the issue by amount of aircraft carries you may be correct yet USA may be the economical powerhouse for long to come.

[Skybird]

I think one can see in this thread that I exactly did not focus on military power, but internal factors that put this optimistic view of America into question. In the end it is a state that is as bankrupt as bankruptcy can go. The national debt exceeds the yearly GDP.

Economic powerhouse? Sounds more like a powerhouse build on quick sand. The question is how it will end: simply sinking in, and disappearing, or unleashing a huge war in a desperate effort to find relief from the financial strangling by debts.

When watching at the many historic precedents, probability speaks in favour of the second scenario.

[MH]

So will be written so will be done.
...and i suppose China with its regulated economy based on gold will emerge as the new superpower while USA must deal with invasion from Canada.

ok...nevermind me ...carry on and have fun.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The question is how it will end: simply sinking in, and disappearing, or unleashing a huge war in a desperate effort to find relief from the financial strangling by debts.

That, mein freund, is the $14 trillion question, and I don't think there's anyone on this Earth who can tell you the answer.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

That, mein freund, is the $14 trillion question, and I don't think there's anyone on this Earth who can tell you the answer.

But I can guarantee you one thing: the debts in existence today will never be payed back in compliance with the currently formulated rules. No politicians seriously intends to seriously try to pay back these stellar ammounts of debts. Not in America. Not in Europe. Not in Japan or elsewhere.

The 20th century has seen over half a hundred hyperinflations, with the German one after WWI being the most famous. And all major powers in Europe in the past 500 years have defaulted not just once, but several times. The record I think is held by Philipp IV. of Spain in the 17th century, who managed to go bankrupt FOUR times during his four decades-reign.

The vast majority of these crisis were caused by costs of wars, resulted in wars or were tried to get rid of by wars.

what it comes down to, is this: states act as if the words "debtor" and "credit" have no meaning for them at all and the moral obligation to pay back what you have lend is a demand not valid for states. States instead try to prevent banks and markets to react to the increased risks such an uncredible credfitor means: by raising the interest rates. If you commit a crime and police investigators are on your track, dismantle the police and delete according laws - it pays off to be a legislation and taxation monopolist. Problem solved.

And that will lead to nothing good, and will go on at the cost of the young people (with the not so young doing their share to maintain these circumstances, agreed - I see no innocent victims in the West's drama anymore except little children. We all are accomplices in crime).

But we can resist to play by these rules for selfish reasons, within the limits of our personal little life's meaning. That way, maybe, we become a little bit less guilty. But friends we make that way - not. More likely that we will be attacked for daring to dirty the nest with our rejection to solidarize ourselves with the immoral acting of the mobs and leaders.

[Mittelwaechter]

We can switch the "Al-Qaeda threat" to high or low to our liking.

We can asign any person, task or threat to Al-Qaeda, if we need them to show up to support more taxpayer engagement.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Can you really blame it? When the entire world continually dumps all over you, you tend to not want to engage with it any more.

Well i guess it depends on how you see this 'who dumps on who'

But even then ..
https://www.google.com/search?q=US+b...w=1402&bih=816

Isolation, looks different ..


Regarding terrorists they were and will always be a threat. The question is if all the world's good citizens have to live in fear, all of the time.
And if i look at 'Gladio' or the spanish subway bombing, the agents provocateurs of all those secret services the world over trying to justify their existence by blaming their actions on 'terrorists, i sometimes ask myself who the real terrorists are.

[MH]

The presence in europe is striking.
Relics of the time when europeans did all the whining and americans all the spending.