Your War on Terror

[towards]

"China’s nuclear forces will have to modernize and increase numerically which creates an arms race", Undecided

I think the question you simply have to ask yourself is this. China had 400 nuclear warheads before NMD was ever a threat, and were already modernizing their ballistics technology. Answer this question truthfully: If NMD never existed at all do you think China would stop modernizing their nuclear arsenal? With India already developing ballistics with the capability of reaching China, would it not be in their best interests (why would they want their neighbors to catch up)? Ask yourself another question: Why would China be against developing its nuclear program? Other than cost (which obviously is becoming less and less a problem), what would be a "negative" to them having a larger arsenal? China, dont forget, is following their best interests, as well. The only argument you may be able to make is that NMD may accelerate the pace of that development, but is that development not inevitable anyway?

"The crux of the agreement for NK was the LWR, it was never a serious attempt by the US.", Undecided

The entire treaty was a sham in the first place, as the previous article I posted suggested. The U.S. delayed that development, because the CIA knew NK was developing nuclear weapons anyway. They even announced that they had nuclear weapons. How were those developed when they denied having any during the treaty? They confirmed the U.S.'s suspicions themselves, only because it allows them to threaten South Korea again. For all of those years, NK was the third largest recipient of American "bribes" behind Israel and Egypt. Was this the economic stanglehold that NK claims? If the U.S. doesn not supply them food and oil this is the act of war they speak of?

 

[Undecided]

China had 400 nuclear warheads before NMD was ever a threat, and were already modernizing their ballistics technology. Answer this question truthfully: If NMD never existed at all do you think China would stop modernizing their nuclear arsenal?

Of course she would, I never asserted that China stopped her modernization programs. But now emphasis has been placed on China to make sure it’s more, better, and stronger then before. You don’t mention (rather conveniently) that China only has 25 warheads that can attack internationally; she has only 25 ICBM’s. Now China is increasing the size and scope of her ICBM capabilities which creates the stage for a new arms race not only with the US but Russia, India, and possibly a future Japanese force.

With India already developing ballistics with the capability of reaching China, would it not be in their best interests (why would they want their neighbors to catch up)?

What would not be in their best interests? That was a incomplete sentence.

Why would China be against developing its nuclear program?

Why are you wasting my time with inane questions?

China, dont forget, is following their best interests, as well.

Of which you have not articulated…

The only argument you may be able to make is that NMD may accelerate the pace of that development, but is that development not inevitable anyway?

It’s more the precedent that is being set that is the problem. The US abandoning a crucial arms control treaty shows to China and to Russia, even NK that she is not serious about arms control. The problem this creates in the capitals of these nations is urgency, and a need to one-up the US and make the US in the long run much less safe. For China, America’s unilateralist stance, can virtually be justification for her future actions. This breeds fear not trust among states, I suggest you think outside the box.

The entire treaty was a sham in the first place, as the previous article I posted suggested. The U.S. delayed that development, because the CIA knew NK was developing nuclear weapons anyway.

That’s revisionist, yesterday night here in Canada we had a special about NK. The analyst said that the reason the US delayed the development of the LWR was because they believed that NK wouldn’t last until 2003 thus what’s the point. Its all revisionist, the status quo is that the US didn’t believe NK was breaking the treaty, until 2003.

For all of those years, NK was the third largest recipient of American "bribes" behind Israel and Egypt. Was this the economic stanglehold that NK claims?

NK in the 90’s was a different NK that exists today, you are confused.

If the U.S. doesn not supply them food and oil this is the act of war they speak of?

The US supplies of food and oil have fallen off dramatically, NK is getting desperate.

 

[towards]

"You don’t mention (rather conveniently) that China only has 25 warheads that can attack internationally; she has only 25 ICBM’s. Now China is increasing the size and scope of her ICBM capabilities which creates the stage for a new arms race not only with the US but Russia, India, and possibly a future Japanese force.", Undecided

38 actually, with almost 100 by 2010... here is the proof, a website dated for january 2004

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/wrjp164-04.html

Intercontinental ballistic technology takes decades do develop, so obviously China had plans for this years ago.

"Why would China be against developing its nuclear program?

Why are you wasting my time with inane questions? "

I am asking you to develop a theory explaining why China would slow down its nuclear program if the U.S. decided to scrap NMD entirely. What purpose does it serve their foreign policy not to modernize as quickly as possible? Can you think of one motive?

"The US abandoning a crucial arms control treaty shows to China and to Russia, even NK that she is not serious about arms control.", Undecided

Crucial? A cold era arms treaty with the SOVIET UNION agreed upon before the U.S. had to pay for Russia's own arm reduction. How could you possibly refer to that as crucial. A useful treaty would be to develop arms control with China, who is actually dramatically increasing their nuclear arsenal rather than asking another country to clean it up for them. If the U.S. did indeed scrap NWD, China would simply demand a ridiculously high point for both America and itself to meet in number of ICBMs. In this scenario, I just cannot see how scrapping NWD would serve the U.S. at all.

"The US supplies of food and oil have fallen off dramatically, NK is getting desperate", Undecided

May I remind you that the U.S. did not cut off these supplies until NK announced that it had created a nuclear weapon.

 

[Undecided]

38 actually, with almost 100 by 2010... here is the proof, a website dated for january 2004

Oh thanks for the update…38 is still ridiculously small. The US what 846, and the Russians 859 missiles (we aren’t even talking about MIRV’s here). 100 by 2010 is still small especially for a aspiring world power.

Intercontinental ballistic technology takes decades do develop, so obviously China had plans for this years ago.

So? The point is that China has a reason to build more, and those are estimates we don’t know the real numbers until 2010. Fact remains that NMD has been around since the 80’s in many different forms so these decisions could still have been influenced by such measures. The official stance of the Chinese and Russian governments are simple and logical:

NMD= greater arms race, and greater instability.

That’s why ABM treaty happened, what makes us think that this era is really all that different?

I am asking you to develop a theory explaining why China would slow down its nuclear program if the U.S. decided to scrap NMD entirely.

It’s too late to ask that question, China now has invested large sums in her programs. China would not slow down her program, the real question is why did she increase it in the first place.

What purpose does it serve their foreign policy not to modernize as quickly as possible? Can you think of one motive?

That's not a valid question, because there is no instance here in which NMD doesn't play a factor in China's current stance on ICBM's.

Crucial? A cold era arms treaty with the SOVIET UNION agreed upon before the U.S. had to pay for Russia's own arm reduction. How could you possibly refer to that as crucial.

Let’s see although the USSR does not exist anymore, Russia does and she can still increase her missile forces dramatically if there is a real reason. The treaty was the corner stone of the Russian-US nuclear relationship, and now that is defeated, and you don’t see an issue? I’m speechless…

A useful treaty would be to develop arms control with China, who is actually dramatically increasing their nuclear arsenal rather than asking another country to clean it up for them.

A better treaty would have been to amend the SALT and ABM treaties to include China, that accomplishes two things:

- It makes China feel significant, that she is now a real power enpar with the US and the Russians.
- It does the job, China would follow the mandates of those treaties.

But now that those treaties are in the garbage in essence China can do whatever it wants unabated. That’s the problem, why would China get into a treaty with the US if the US can just as easily pull out in 30 years?

If the U.S. did indeed scrap NWD, China would simply demand a ridiculously high point for both America and itself to meet in number of ICBMs. In this scenario, I just cannot see how scrapping NWD would serve the U.S. at all.

I don’t see the point in wasting $60 billion for a system that cannot work…even if China has more ICBM’s its not like the NMD is going to do shit all against it. NMD is a waste of American funds and resources, even some in the military are angry at NMD for taking away much needed funds from real programs.

May I remind you that the U.S. did not cut off these supplies until NK announced that it had created a nuclear weapon.

Little comfort when the amount of aid is precious little, NK feels betrayed and you don’t want to get them to the point of desperation.

 

[Mr. G]

tiassa,

What has it to do with anything?

Fish in barrels.

 

[Tiassa]

Fish in barrels

And they probably think themselves fortunate compared to the ones already in the cans, don't they?

 

[Mr. G]

You tell me.

 

[Tiassa]

Source: Washington Post
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html
Title: "Sen. Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List"
Date: August 20, 2004

U.S. Sen. Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government's secret "no-fly" list.

Federal air security officials said the initial error that led to scrutiny of the Massachusetts Democrat should not have happened even though they recognize that the no-fly list is imperfect. But privately they acknowledged being embarrassed that it took the senator and his staff more than three weeks to get his name removed.

A senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects.

Source: Washington Post

The Post also reports that FBI documents obtained by the ACLU under FOIA indicate that more than 350 Americans have been delayed or denied boarding according to the no-fly list. In all of that, there have been no arrests. The ACLU has already filed suit on behalf of six Americans who have been similarly troubled by the list.

• • •​

This is your War on Terror.
____________________

• Kehaulani Goo, Sara. "Sen Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List." Washington Post, August 20, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html

 

[Tiassa]

Source: CNN.com
Link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/lewis.watchlist/
Title: "Kennedy has company on airline watch list"
Date: August 20, 2004

A second prominent lawmaker said Friday that he's been subjected to extra security at airports because his name appears on a list designed to prevent terrorists from boarding planes.

Rep. John Lewis, D - Georgia, a nine-term congressman famous for his civil rights work with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., has been stopped 35 to 40 times over the past year, his office said.

Source: CNN

According to CNN, Lewis has thus far been unable to have his name removed from the watch list, and the TSA has issued a letter that he can present to ticket agents saying he is cleared to fly. He may, however, still be subject to extra security procedures. The letter is not uncommon; other airline passengers have received similar letters from the TSA.

In one incident, security officials took "every single item" out of his luggage, she said. Another time, after he was allowed to board, security officials questioned him at his seat.

Source: CNN

• • •​

I wonder what's going through the airline employees' minds at such times:

• "I'm actually denying a member of Congress the right to board the plane ...."

Kennedy, I know, would be recognized. Lewis? He represents the Fifth District, which includes "most of Atlanta" and also the airport, so ... yeah. The guy's a nine-term representative and ... well, you'd think he'd be recognizable.

This is ... er ... yeah.
___________________________

• CNN.com. "Kennedy has company on airline watch list." August 20, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/lewis.watchlist/

See Also -

• Congressman John Lewis. See http://www.house.gov/johnlewis/index.htm

 

[Mr. G]

If Repub's are such dumb f'ks, they couldn't possibly be the IT professionals in charge of the computer data-based, no-fly watch lists.

Therefore, there must be tacit acknowledgement confirming that folks can fly more safely without Teddy than if they were in the same car.

RIP, Mary Jo.

QED

LMAO

 

[Tiassa]

If Repub's are such dumb f'ks, they couldn't possibly be the IT professionals in charge of the computer data-based, no-fly watch lists.

Let's hope not, for the sake of your argument. After all, the no-fly watch lists have been administrated as if by complete and utter ... uh, yeah--dumbfucks.

Therefore, there must be tacit acknowledgement confirming that folks can fly more safely without Teddy than if they were in the same car.

What an odd argument. Traveling by air is safer than by car any day.

 

[Mr. G]

tiassa,

What an odd argument. Traveling by air is safer than by car any day

Odd only to the patently humor-challenged.

Nature is infinitely wise to prefer you isolated at home most of the time.

You'll not be seeing the humor in that, either...no doubt.

 

[Tiassa]

Odd only to the patently humor-challenged.

Most of what passes for "humor" these days relies on the stupidity of the audience. As you are no exception, thank you.

You'll not be seeing the humor in that, either...no doubt.

Not sharing your sense of self-superiority, I admit I don't. Life is. Also, see above.

 

[Mr. G]

Most of what passes for "humor" these days relies on the stupidity of the audience.

Um, more like ignorance.

The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that after one hears the joke's punchline the joke is ruined for the ignorant, but not for the stupid.

Education.

Sitting Bull was ignorant; Custer was stupid.

As you are no exception, thank you.

Laughing at your own joke doesn't make you a professional comedian.

Not sharing your sense of self-superiority,...

Nor should you. You have your very own -- obviously quite well-honed -- to tuck you in at night.

Nevertheless, you're free to complain that I habitually question your public preference, or anyone else's here, to converse only with stupid people who'll willingly believe all that you, and the willing, local demographic say is gospel.

As I'm currently free to periodically interject myself into this community -- as sufficient demonstration that outside of this place there exists equally reasoned skepticism not dependent on this demographic's preferences for particular definitions of reality.

 

[Tiassa]

The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that after one hears the joke's punchline the joke is ruined for the ignorant, but not for the stupid.

People still find Seinfeld funny.

My current media-audience test is Peter Griffin; it's hard to get a read on whether or not people actually get the joke.

Sitting Bull was ignorant; Custer was stupid.

I'll smoke to that. I won't speculate Larry Verne's opinion.

Laughing at your own joke doesn't make you a professional comedian.

I agree. Getting paid to laugh at your own joke--now that makes one a professional comedian.

I may smoke dope, but not enough to make me want to get up in front of the brick wall.

Nevertheless, you're free to complain that I habitually question your public preference, or anyone else's here, to converse only with stupid people who'll willingly believe all that you, and the willing, local demographic say is gospel.

I do admit it seems strange the role of authority you'll assign folks here at Sciforums in order to have something you feel you can tear down. It would most likely be easier for you to make a point--any point--if you weren't so busy feeling left out because you refuse to join in.

As I'm currently free to periodically interject myself into this community -- as sufficient demonstration that outside of this place there exists equally reasoned skepticism not dependent on this demographic's preferences for particular definitions of reality.

I do that too; sometimes it takes until a random viewing of a post two years after the fact to realize it. At any rate, I'm curious: how is that sentence really supposed to end?

Without sarcasm, that's a hell of a pitch to leave us with no hook.

 

[Mr. G]

I may smoke dope,...

Your greatest virtue.

...but not enough to make me want to get up in front of the brick wall.

And this place is not a "brick wall" against which you've invested your "standing"?

Of course it is.

The only difference is that most here haven't paid for access to you -- thankfully releaving you of the corresponding obligation to provide equivalent value in return.

I do admit it seems strange the role of authority you'll assign folks here at Sciforums...

No strangely different an allusion to authority as the community presumes to assign to itself for being just another pedestrian gathering.

...in order to have something you feel you can tear down.

Cute. The assault of logic as emotional diatribe: Can't defend against the former, pretend it's the latter.

It would most likely be easier for you to make a point--any point--if you weren't so busy feeling left out because you refuse to join in.

Reality check: feeling left out = refusing to join in?

How about: Willfully not subscribing = not needing to "join in"?

I'm not you. I'm not most of you. I'm the diversity you only claim to enlightenedly accommodate. Grudging tolerance is the minimum value of accomodation here.
“

At any rate, I'm curious: how is that sentence really supposed to end?

With a period.

Without sarcasm, that's a hell of a pitch to leave us with no hook.

What is beauty?

 

[Tiassa]

What is truth, said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.

 

[Mr. G]

What is truth...?

Who has claim? Oink.

 

[Tiassa]

Source: MSNBC
Link: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5865710/
Title: "Bush sees war against terror that never ends"
Date: August 30, 2004

(Note: See the Today show website for a transcript of the interview.)

As he prepared to accept his party's nomination for a second term in office this week,* President Bush said the war against terrorism must be fought but that it's not likely to ever end.

"I don't think you can win it," the president said, when asked if the war on terrorism can be won. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

"I have a two-pronged strategy," he said. "On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us. ... The long-term strategy is to spread freedom and liberty."

He added later, “You cannot show weakness in this world today because the enemy will exploit that weakness. It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place.”

Source: MSNBC News

You heard it here, or, rather, on NBC, and not for the first time. But this is the latest affirmation by Bush that the War on Terror is perpetual. While it's not exactly news, it seems rather ominous to raise this discussion as the GOP convention opens in New York City.

White House Chief of Staff Andy Card appeared on cable news today and described the President's remarks as referring to the statelessness of terrorism, the practicality of the fact that you cannot sit down on an aircraft carrier or in a tent in the desert and negotiate a settlement or surrender. This aspect, admittedly, does require explanation, for it doesn't seem particularly apparent:

"I don't think you can win it . . . . But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Source: MSNBC News

The notion bears a specific mark of realism: there will always be someone somewhere in the world willing to use violence to make or prove a point; there will always be people to denounce as terrorists. The War on Terrorism is much like the War on Drugs in this sense; you can't "win" it without some form of extinction. In the War on Drugs there have been plans to eradicate marijuana and opium through "biological warfare", and "chemical warfare" has been used against coca plants. In the War on Terror, though, that required extinction is essentially the human species. Evolutionarily speaking, as nature abhors a vacuum, a trimming of the ends of the human bell curve will not establish a permanent new condition; people will deviate, and fill in those low ends. The War on Terror is the actualization of a new form of "King of the Hill" long whispered among the paranoid, and, as those portions of the bell curve have been annexed into the mainstream, the new prominent voices on the fringes are even more paranoid than the generation that preceded them.

I find the difference between the president's remarks and Andy Card's explanation problematic. Card plays away from the concession to perpetual warfare, yet President Bush can always point back to the occasions that he told the American people he was taking them into a war without end.

The common phrase is "sleight of hand"; onstage it's called "misdirection".

Bush's remarks may seem at odds with his earlier stance on the issue--

The Second Calvary is now deployed in Iraq. So is the mighty Warrior Brigade from Fort Polk. This post has long been vital to the defense of America. And today, the men and women of Fort Polk are serving with skill and bravery in the war on terror. Since our nation was attacked on September the 11th, 2001, this post has trained and deployed more than 10,000 troops to fight the terrorist enemy.

The JRTC Operations Group is providing superb training for America's soldiers. And with people like you -- people like you in the fight against terror, there is no doubt that the enemy will be defeated and freedom will prevail . . . .

. . . . Our servicemen and women today follow in a great tradition of achievement and courage. You're living up to that tradition in hard missions and decisive victories. This generation of our military has been called to duty, to fight and to win the first war of the 21st century.

The struggle began on a September morning, when terrorists murdered thousands of our fellow citizens. We saw the violence and grief that terrorists can inflict. We had a glimpse of a far worse harm that the terrorists intend for us. And on behalf of this nation, I made a pledge: Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.

Life in America in many ways has returned to normal, and that's a good thing. And I want every American to know that I understand my job as your President. I have a duty to protect the American people, and my resolve is the same today as it was on the morning of September the 12th, 2001. My resolve is the same as it was on the day when I walked in the rubble of the Twin Towers. I will not relent until this threat to America is removed. And neither will you.

Source: Whitehouse.gov

--but we certainly can't call it a flip-flop. The perpetuity of such an enterprise as the War on Terror occurred to Bush well before February, '04. Some of it is bravado, some of it is politics, but the truth is that George W. Bush is very much aware of what he has done in calling down the authority of God to drag the United States into an ill-conceived, poorly-defined War on Terror.

I will not fault the president at a basic level for such rhetoric, but in all honesty we might consider whether or not is best reserved for those not holding the highest office in the land; there's only so much cheerleading an executive can do, given the pseudo-literalist bender that passes for journalism these days.° So even though it seems like a decent enough thing to tell folks in order to boost morale, Bush has certainly seeded history with stymies aplenty: his jingoistic optimism contrasts starkly with the reality he acknowledges. Politically speaking, I think Card may have fumbled in watering down the president's remarks, but I may never be able to find a transcript; it may have been Woodruff, it may have been something on another network.

People need to realize that "winning" the war on terror only constitutes in any practical sense the holding of the barbarians at the gates. Only a present impossibility--e.g. utopia--can "win the war on terror". In any political discussion, sure, I'm willing to look generations into the future in order to define goals, but why start with this? We kill more of our own by proxy of our commercial and industrial needs than terrorists can kill without a full-blown nuke attack on Los Angeles via the faultlines.

Well, okay, start with something small: what kills more people in the United States, cigarettes or terrorists? What costs American society more in terms of lost labor and resources, mortality, and dollars--diet or terrorism? What is the greater threat to the prosperity of future generations of Americans? (That is, to the prosperity of our posterity?) Debt or terrorism? What is more important, profit today or health tomorrow?

Fighting terrorism can be compared to the debt in a particular sense: certain methods can have the effect of alleviating the threat of today by displacing it to a future period. Stale but relevant rhetoric from the Iraqi Bush Adventure--and, as the Taleban, Al Qaeda, and their sympathizers remind us, Afghanistan as well--suggests that American policy decisions regarding Arab and Muslim worlds (as well as other spheres of society) inspire at least as many terrorists as the War on Terror removes from operation. Our present actions are raising new legions, and somebody will have to deal with them sometime, whether by the gun or exchequer.

And the president knows this; he claims:

"To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and … harm us and bring ‘em to justice –- we're doing a good job of it.* I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaida as we knew it."

Source: MSNBC Today

And this is the only context in which we can win the War on Terrorism: by holding the barbarians at the gates. Yes, we can look decades down the road and see a conceivable end to this phase of the War on Terror, the visiting of a "Pax Americana" on the Muslim world. The president is correct when he says it can't be won. "Not losing", in this case, constitutes "victory".

This is your War on Terror. Brought to you by MSNBC's Softball, er--I mean--Today.
_____________________

Notes:

° the pseudo-literalist bender that passes for journalism these days - It seems ... seems ... easy enough to point to right-wing radio and call it even; after all, even FOX News is a symptom of that malignant lump on the fundament of journalism. But this answer would be too simple. As with sports, its easy to back a winner if that's all it's worth to a person. As with money, right is whatever makes the most money--regardless of whether it's for a diverse range of people or a limited group. With something so personal as opinions and beliefs, "journalism" has largely met the demands of its audience, a necessity in the commercial world of modern society. While there is no real liberal media bias, liberals are just as guilty, and in some cases even moreso (and, incidentally, in more clumsy a fashion) of selling out to the "money bias". For instance, while it's nice to think folks at MSNBC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times are "just doing their jobs" in hounding down the facts of the devastating Swift Boat controversy, there are also the conveniences to consider that (A) the press has just about had it with the Bush administration, anyway, and (B) it's an easy headline. More than a liberal media bias, more than the personal bias of being fed up with being spoonfed bullpucky at an alarming rate, the ease of the headline and the ratings it brings keep the story front and center. (Personal bias can only carry so far if it doesn't bring ratings.) Likewise, it is the "ease" of war headlines in general--Abu Ghraib is easier to report from Washington, D.C., than Najaf was at street level--is what keeps certain Iraq-related stories afloat. We cannot blame the right-wing gasbags and drudgemeisters when everybody prances merrily into that shadowed valley. (Ten points for anyone who can tell us what Monty Python sketch I'm thinking of at this moment; it's relevant according to an aspect most peculiar.)

Reference Links:

• Bush, George W. "President Meets with US Military Personnel at Fort Polk, Louisiana". Whitehouse.gov, February 17, 2004. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040217-5.html
• NBC et al. "Bush sees war against terror that never ends". MSNBC.com, August 30, 2004. See http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5865710/
• NBC. "Bush: 'You cannot show weakness in this world". Today, MSNBC.com, August 30, 2004. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571/

 

[Mr. G]

The power of the Left is inadequate to the challenge of eliminating the Right from existence; so as the Right is unable to rid itself of the Left.

The notion bears a specific mark of realism.

Many notions do.