Tennis is lethal in some parts of the world

[Skybird]

Probably: gain independence from their oil, then lock them out and then leave them alone. If then they give themselves a dictatorship, it is not our responsebility, and we can strike back if they reach for us first, without needing to have a bad consciousness.
Due to it's self-understanding, Islam's sociology always had and still has a very strong tendency towards totalitarian structures, btw. Some things simply do not play well together. Islam and democracy is such a pair.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

What would you suggest then? More dictatorships?

Let them have all the dictaors they want but the moment they try to extend their authority outside of their boundaries and threaten anyone else - WHAM! - let them have it.

That should have been the only reason why Afghanistan and Iraq should have been attacked.

You will eventually see that Islam and freedom don't really mix. Democracy's only purpose there will be to allow for the election of one Imam or tyrant versus another but nothing much else.

[Godalmighty83]

build a huge concrete dome and stick over the top of the middle east. ok eventually the buggers will get out but still at least it would give us some peace from the mindless stupidity that comes out of there.

i can see a full blown war between islam and the rest of the world before this century is out.

[Skybird]

How, when, where, who? Major parts of central-european populations will be Islamic at the end of this century. The simple mathematics of birth rates.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

How, when, where, who? Major parts of central-european populations will be Islamic at the end of this century. The simple mathematics of birth rates.

Simple solution:

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Simple solution:

I think blowing up the planet is a little extreame can't we just use some kind of death ray on the middle east or something?

[Oberon]

Awww....but I wanted to test out that Death Star I've got parked on the other side of the moon!

[Yahoshua]

If you think about it, it really doesn't matter if we successfully install a democratic parliament in Iraq so long as we have a Pro-US leader over there (the Pro-US tyrants of South America are a wonderful example). And in the end this endeaver (if successful) will serve a two-fold purpose: 1. A shield (and playground for combat weps testing) between the US and agressors in the Mid East. 2. a base of operations friendlier than Saudi Arabia, a state that will be more comfortable and more flexible with US muscle and ultimately a jumping platform to the Far-East, Russia (and most of Europe and the Caucasus), and Africa. Not to mention that Israel will most certainly appreciate the buffer zone between them and Iran.

The real worries that are coming up however are Russia, China, and the combined clout of the Europeans and NATO. Russia is beginning to flex her muscles again, and will be stepping into the world arena again with the US order of 78 million rounds of arms and supplies for the Afghani govt. (surprise surprise, we're ordering goods from the Soviets). Compared to China however, Russia doesn't hold a candle to the military abilities the Chinese currently posess with their economic strength quickly cathing up to that of the US. It still surprises me however that China and Russia were performing military exercises a few years ago, when it is known (albeit not openly) that they are mortal enemies due to the Katyinska (sp?) incident. The short-long of the incident is the little known Chino-Russian war over a river island on the Northern Border of China. The Chinese sent in an attacking force to seize the island. The Russian defenses held long enough for a Russian general to bring in artillery units and completely hammered the attacking Chinese, literally leveling a swath of land 5 miles wide and 10 miles deep into Chinese territory. The borders have been tense ever since then, but kept secret so as not to expose any weakness in the "cooperation" communist ideals to the West.

Europe, with a combined consumer clout can "impose" sanctions on US goods if they don't agree with the US decisions regarding the Mid East. They can hurt us more than we can hurt them. And to fit China in along those lines, we've set ourselves up (the US) for a perfect collapse. Since the Yen and the Dollar are so closely tied (thankyou Wal-Mart for your discounts guaranteed) all the Chinese have to do to put the US out of the arena as a player is to pull the economic plug. After all, France was Germanys' closest trading partner before the war began.

Nato fits in from the military standpoint: China is going to equal the Soviets during the cold-war era and we don't have the economic clout to match them if they pull the plug on us, and with Russia starting to revive their war-machine again, we're stretching our ow to the limit. NATO hasn't pulled any real combat operations since Bosnia/Kosovo/Somalia. And the NATO members involved are already wanting to leave Iraq to civil war, and impending factional wars with Iran to the U.S.

So if we succeed, we get a supply of oil to keep our domestic economy going and the fuel to keep our war-machine running. If the market crashes, then we'll have our own communists/Islamists (aka Repubs/Dems) to deal with here in the U.S. I have no idea what will occur when that happens, but I have my rifles and SHTF supplies to get my @$$ outta here if it does happen.

We may have been fighting a losing battle from the start, but did if we lose the battle then we really lost before it began. And it began with who we put in office before and during the Bush admin. I've heard it said you can tell when a war is coming 10 years before it happens. They were right.

[The Avon Lady]

Yahoshua (shouldn't that be Yehoshua?), I disagree with several of the particulars of your post.

I think you'll find this to be interesting reading:

And now, the Latino Jihad
By Mark Steyn

Four years ago, The Economist ran a cover story on the winner of the Brazilian election, the socialist leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. It was an event of great hemispherical significance. Hence the headline: "The Meaning Of Lula."

The following week, a Canadian reader, Asif Niazi, wrote to the magazine: "Sir, The meaning of Lula‚ in Urdu, is penis."

No doubt. It would not surprise me to learn that the meaning of Chavez, as in Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, in Arabic is similarly situated. An awful lot of geopolitics gets lost in translation, especially when you're not keeping up.

Since 9/11, Latin America has dropped off the radar, but you don't have to know the lingo to figure out it clearly doesn't mean what it did five years ago at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City.

In April 2001 I spent a pleasant weekend on the Grand Allee inhaling the heady perfume of Surete du Quebec tear gas and dodging lumps of concrete lobbed over the security fence by the anti-glob mob. The fence itself was covered in protest bras hung there by anti-Bush feminist groups.

"VIVA" said the left cup. "CASTRO" said the right. On another, "MA MERE" (left) "IS NOT FOR SALE" (right). 48D, if you're wondering how they got four words on. I'm not much for manning the barricades and urging revolution, but it's not without its appeal when you're stuck inside the perimeter making chit-chat with the deputy trade minister of Costa Rica.

That was the point: hemispheric normality. As the Bush administration liked to note, the Americas were now a shining sea of democracy, save for the aging and irrelevant Fidel, who was the only head of government not invited to the summit. But, other than that, no more generalissimos in the presidential palace; they were republics, but no longer bananas.

When Mr. Bush arrived, he was greeted by Canada's Jean Chretien. "Bienvenue. That means welcome," said the prime minister, being a bit of a lula. But what did Bush care? He was looking south: That was the future, and they were his big amigos.

THEN SEPTEMBER 11 happened. And the amigos weren't quite so friendly, or at any rate helpful, and Mr. Bush found himself holed up with the usual pasty white blokes like Tony Blair and John Howard, back in the Anglosphere with not an enchilada in sight. And everyone was so busy boning up on Shari'a and Wahhabis and Kurds and Pushtuns that very few of us noticed that Latin America was slipping back to its old ways.

Frank Gaffney's new book War Footing is sub-titled Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World and includes, as one might expect, suggestions for the home front, the Middle East, the transnational agencies. But it's some of the other chapters that give you pause when it comes to the bigger picture - for example, he urges Washington to "Counteract the reemergence of totalitarianism in Latin America."

That doesn't sound like the fellows Condi and Colin were cooing over in Quebec. Yet, as Gaffney writes, "Many Latin American countries are imploding rather than developing. The region's most influential leaders are thugs. It is a magnet for Islamist terrorists and a breeding ground for hostile political movements. The key leader is Chavez, the billionaire dictator of Venezuela, who has declared a Latino jihad against the United States."
Chavez's revolutionary mentor is Fidel Castro and the new kid on the block has been happy to pump cash infusions into the old boy's impoverished basket-case. "Venezuela," writes Gaffney, "has more energy resources than Iraq and supplies one-fifth of the oil sold in America."


In 1999, when Chavez came to power, oil was under 10 bucks a barrel. Now it's pushing $70. And, just like the Saudis, Chavez is using his windfall in all kinds of malign ways, not merely propping up the elderly Cuban dictator but funding would-be "Chavismo" movements in Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador, Paraguay, Ecuador.

And Chavismo fans are found way beyond the hemisphere. Senor Chavez was in London last week as a guest of the mayor, Ken Livingstone. The Venezuelan President said Bush was a "madman" who should be "strapped down," and Blair was an "ally of Hitler" who should "go to hell."

WHAT ELSE does a Euroleftie need to know before rolling out the red carpet? Last year, the British MP George Galloway was in Syria to see Baby Assad and gave a pep talk to Araby's only remaining Ba'athist regime:

"What your lives would be if from the Atlantic to the Gulf we had one Arab union - all this land, 300 million people, all this oil and gas and water, occupied by a people who speak the same language, follow the same religions, listen to the same Umm Kulthum. The Arabs would be a superpower in the world... Hundreds of thousands are ready to fight the Americans in the Middle East, and in Latin America there is revolution everywhere. Fidel Castro is feeling young again. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile are all electing left-wing governments which are challenging American domination. And in Venezuela, the hero Hugo Chavez has stood against them over and over and over again."

At first glance, an Islamo-Chavismo alliance sounds like the bus-and-truck version of the Hitler-Stalin pact. But it's foolish to underestimate the damage it could do. As Gaffney points out, American taxpayers are in the onerous position of funding both sides in this war. The price of oil is $50 per barrel higher than it was on 9/11.

"Looking at it another way," writes Gaffney, "Saudi Arabia - which currently exports about 10 mbd - receives an extra half billion dollars every day." Where does it go? It goes to Saudi Arabia's real principal export: ideology - the radical imams and madrassahs the Saudis fund in almost every corner of the world.

What to do? Gaffney proposes Americans switch over to FFVs (flexible fuel vehicles). He's right. The telegram has been replaced by the e-mail and the Victrola has yielded to the CD player, but aside from losing the rumble seat and adding a few cup-holders, the automobile is essentially unchanged from a century ago.

AFTER 9/11, Bush told the world: You're either with us or with the terrorists. But
an America that for no reason other than its lack of will continues to finance its enemies' ideology has clearly checked the "both of the above" box.

It's hardly surprising, then, that the other players are concluding that, if forced to make a choice, they're with the terrorists.

Muslim populations in the Caucasus and western China pose some long-term issues for Moscow and Beijing but, in the meantime, both figure the jihad's America's problem and it's in their interest to keep it that way. Hence, Russo-Chinese support for every troublemaker on the planet, from Iran's kooky president to Chavismo in America's backyard.

The meaning of Chavez in just about any language is "opportunity."
The writer is the North America correspondent for the Daily Telegraph.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I think blowing up the planet is a little extreame can't we just use some kind of death ray on the middle east or something?

A vaccine against stupidity would be of great help in fighting Islam.

Plus it would heal our societies from suffering from their own stüpid leaders as well.

[Wim Libaers]

Originally Posted by Skybird

A vaccine against stupidity would be of great help in fighting Islam.

Plus it would heal our societies from suffering from their own stüpid leaders as well.

Which means our leaders will never support anything to do that, because they're not THAT stupid.

[Yahoshua]

I've seen my name spelled with either A or E. Not that I would know the proper Hebraic grammar to know the difference.

And thanks for the article, it was an interesting read. I had completely forgotten about South America on the world arena (thx for bringing it in).

I do realize that most of my post is near-future speculation, but would you mind pointing out any inconsistincies (sp?) I may have written Avon Lady? (btw, what unit do you serve in?)

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

I've seen my name spelled with either A or E. Not that I would know the proper Hebraic grammar to know the difference.

There's a shvah punctuation under the first Hebrew letter yud. So the most accurate spelling in English would be Y'hoshua. However, it is acceptable to lengthen the "Y" pronounciation at the start of the word but that would produce a Yeh sound, not a Yah sound, which would only be possible if there was a patach or kamatz punctuation under the letter yud, which there isn't. So now you know.

I do realize that most of my post is near-future speculation, but would you mind pointing out any inconsistincies (sp?) I may have written Avon Lady?

Correct spelling: inconsistancies.

I didn't say you were inconsistant. I just disagree with some of your points.

As a quick example, while it would be nice to have a pro-US leader there (and everywhere), this is not reality. Expect such a leader to eventually get his head chopped off because the general Iraqi attitude is "thank you, now get out", which is not such a bad idea.

btw, what unit do you serve in?

Kitchen Patrol.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Yahoshua (shouldn't that be Yehoshua?), I disagree with several of the particulars of your post.

I think you'll find this to be interesting reading:

AL that article you linked is uncanny in its ability to use about 2,000 words to say almost nothing. The essence I got from it (in far fewer words) was this:

1. Latin America is no longer a collection of banana republics, while at the same time the US hold over the region has slipped considerably. My own comment: some perhaps think this a coincidence;

2. Chavez is a bad guy because he spreads money around in the region and has influence. Translation: for the US, the region's biggest parasite and which isn't even part of the region, spending money and having influence there = good; but for Venezuela, which is part of the region and has no such history, spending money and having influence = bad. My comment: shame on Venezuela for having the nerve to look out to their own geopolitical interests;

3. Chavez is a bad, bad man for actually saying what he thinks about Bush and Blair; how dare he speak his mind! Translation: Chavez hasn't learned that the civilized way to deal with rival political leaders who you don't like is to assasinate them, or, if that fails, simply bomb and invade their countries (bonus points for every ten thousand innocent civilians who are killed in the process); note this only applies to foreign leaders, for domestic rivals the civilized thing to do is to have your minions either insinuate they've fathered an illegitimate black child or that they were a coward while serving in Vietnam while you hid out in the ANG;

4. That Venezuela and certain Middle Eastern countries, as members of OPEC, might actually have a mutual self-interest which can be chaulked up to Hispanic-Islamo-Fascism since it conflicts with US energy independence, seeing as the US has no energy independence; my comment: back in the 70s, when OPEC formed and the US hit peak oil, it perhaps should have foresaw the consequences of acting as though there was an infinite supply of oil while neglecting alternative forms of energy. Of course, this would require responsible stewardship of natural resources at the expense of unrestricted corporate profiteering so never mind.

[Skybird]

Good post, scandium.