Author Topic: The Pentagon's New Map  (Read 1200 times)

Offline Grits

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5332
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2005, 01:33:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nashwan
Gunslinger, I don't know much about most of that map. I do know a bit about Northern Ireland. He's listed Northern Ireland as a US "show of force", and there was nothing even remotely resembling that. If it's inaccurate about NI, how accurate is the rest of it?


Are you sure thats not a Peacekeeping dot? I cant tell which color it is.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2005, 01:39:29 PM »
Possibly it is a "peacekeeping" dot, but that's equally wrong.

The map is entitled "America's War on Terrorism", and NI doesn't fit in that description. (Not only did Americans provide some of the funding for the IRA, in the 70s Congress banned the sale of weapons to the police in NI, which continued until at least the 90s. Neither of those fall under "war on terrorism")

The description of the map says:

"The maps on these pages show all United States military responses to global crises from 1990 to 2002"

There was no US military response to NI.

Offline Grits

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5332
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #32 on: January 21, 2005, 02:00:55 PM »
Take the time to read his work instead of nit-picking with semantincs or a dot on his map. I think anyone with any semblance of an open mind will find it persuasive.

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #33 on: January 21, 2005, 02:07:26 PM »
Quote
China is connecting itself to the global economy faster than any other country right now, and as long as that continues they will not be a problem, but a partner.


We better hope so. I've talked about this directly with some guys that are in China leading some major oil company joint ventrues - particularly in the marketing aspects. Since China is moving to a more open economy how you actually market and sell product is becoming increasingly important. That is the case at home and will be the case externally.

The deals pretty much favor the Chinese players, and there were some informal comments about whether or not that would ever change. The impression, indirectly noted by the people over there (since I was a reporter and you can't trust "off the record" if you're smart), is that they seem to be interested in getting as much as they can from us in intellectually with no real sign of opening the internal markets in any substantial ways to US companies.

BTW, they need the help with marketing and merchandising. Chinese companies are starting to exhibit basic mechanical items at some of the US trade shows I go to. I'm sure the equipment is priced right, and works as good as any. But you usually see two people with marginal language skills sitting in chairs at a stock 10 X 10 booth, with poor support materials waiting for someone to walk up and talk to them. Once they get with the program, and some do already, they are going to be a massive player on the global market and not just some partner, IMO.

Charon
« Last Edit: January 21, 2005, 03:09:39 PM by Charon »

Offline lada

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1810
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #34 on: January 21, 2005, 05:27:53 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Grits
You call it American propaganda, I call it reality.




Actualy he wrote, that iranian goverment have WMD and if no, they will develop them soon.  Im sorry but there is not any real reason to belive that Iran have or trying to develop sutch things and he consider it as fact in his  theory.  Thats why i said that  he consider propaganda to be a reality.

Will try to dig what he claimed about WMD&Iraq before US invaded it.

got my point ?

Offline soda72

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5201
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #35 on: January 21, 2005, 06:06:01 PM »
watched the video link AKWabbit provided...

I agree with most of what he said.. but I didn't agree with placing the reserves in the Sys admin force.  From what I understood the Sys Adimin force would need people that are willing to do a full time commitment and I don't see reservists filling that role..
« Last Edit: January 21, 2005, 06:58:38 PM by soda72 »

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #36 on: January 21, 2005, 06:11:33 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nashwan
Possibly it is a "peacekeeping" dot, but that's equally wrong.

The map is entitled "America's War on Terrorism", and NI doesn't fit in that description. (Not only did Americans provide some of the funding for the IRA, in the 70s Congress banned the sale of weapons to the police in NI, which continued until at least the 90s. Neither of those fall under "war on terrorism")

The description of the map says:

"The maps on these pages show all United States military responses to global crises from 1990 to 2002"

There was no US military response to NI.


I whether it was US troops present there or not is irelevent IMHO even though this is centered around US involvment.

The theory is a sound one between the core and the gap.  In areas that are globaly "left behind" you are going to have terrorism and conflict.  If anything history should teach us that.

Quote
Actualy he wrote, that iranian goverment have WMD and if no, they will develop them soon. Im sorry but there is not any real reason to belive that Iran have or trying to develop sutch things and he consider it as fact in his theory. Thats why i said that he consider propaganda to be a reality.


so because of this....wich I disagree with you....you discount any other LOGIC in his theory?

Offline Grits

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5332
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #37 on: January 21, 2005, 06:13:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lada
Actualy he wrote, that iranian goverment have WMD and if no, they will develop them soon.  Im sorry but there is not any real reason to belive that Iran have or trying to develop sutch things and he consider it as fact in his  theory.  Thats why i said that  he consider propaganda to be a reality.


The Iranian government have admited they are enriching Uranium at their Natanz facility. Do you know any other use for enriched Uranium other than a bomb? Is the Iranian government speading American propaganda for us now?

He just said today on CNN that Iran is using the potential threat of WMD as a bargaining tool to get he world community to deal them in as major players in the Gulf region. He went on to say that he can not see a peaceful Middle East without Iran as an important part of that process. Seems resonable to me. He also said that the millions of free Shiites in Iraq , who are about to vote for a government of their own choosing are much more of a threat ot the Iranian regime than the Iranians are to the Iraqi's.
Quote

Will try to dig what he claimed about WMD&Iraq before US invaded it.

got my point ?


He did not claim anything that I am aware of about WMD in Iraq, other than focusing on it was a distraction, a mistake, and should not have been given as the reason for the US to invade. He thinks the whole WMD issue in Iraq is irrelevant, connecting the Middle East with the rest of the world faster than the Islamists can disconnect it  is what is relevant.

Is that clear enough for you?

Offline Grits

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5332
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #38 on: January 21, 2005, 06:52:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by oboe
Grits,

What about Perry opening up Japan to trade with the world?   Opening Japan up to global connectivity did not prevent war in that case.   In fact it may have encouraged and accelerated it.

Different time and place, I know.   I was just pondering whether he theory could explain events in the past.


Sorry oboe, I missed this post.

Yes, Historians use a different term, they use Modernization and it can encompass many other things than connectivity, but it is essentially the same thing. You can see societies  that have had violent corrections because of differential modernization all though history.

In your example, I would submit that Japan did not truely modernize until after it was forced to, and it took a world war. Pre-war they were modernizing but not at a fast enough rate, and more importantly their culture and government were vestiges of much less modern times. It was not until losing a war did they truely modernize as an entire culture.

The US and English civil wars were both the same war, fought by the same world views. In the English civil war, the Stuarts and the Royalists would not accept the modernizing culture around them and stress between them and Parliament bult up to the point that there was no other solution than war. The Monarchy was restored after the removal of Cromwell, but the society and government England were forever changed in a more modern way.

The US civil war was the same war, only removed 200 years. The north was populated and governed by the Protestants, who had the same world view as Parliamentarians, only in a more subtle way. The South, or more accurately those that held power in the South, had much the same world view as the Royalists. The stress and tensions from differential modernization built up to the point where neither side could see a way other than war, and they actually welcomed it. You have to ask yourself, "What would I beleive in so much that I would enter into a war with my own country?". The French Revolution can be seen in much the same way.

Corrections can also come about because someone or group try to take a part of the world and disconnect it, or remove it from the modernization process. Marxist revolutions usually spring from removing a government that refuses to modernize, yet they in the end refuse to connect to the rest of the world and become left behind in the modernization process and eventually collapse for the same reasons.

Osama Bin Laden, the Talaban, and the Wahabist in general want to take large chunks of the muslim world and disconnect it as quickly and permanently as possible. Our goal in the world, and this is all Barnett's idea, is to connect them faster than the Islamists can disconnect them. It is a race and it is a race we can not afford to lose.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #39 on: January 21, 2005, 07:05:51 PM »
Quote
The Iranian government have admited they are enriching Uranium at their Natanz facility. Do you know any other use for enriched Uranium other than a bomb?


Enriched uranium is used in most comercial nuclear reactors.

Offline Grits

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5332
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #40 on: January 21, 2005, 07:30:45 PM »
Iran produced 3,960,000 barrels per day in Nov '04, why do they need Uranium? Do you really believe they need nuclear power plants to generate their electricity? Dont be naive.

Offline lada

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1810
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #41 on: January 21, 2005, 07:54:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Grits
The Iranian government have admited they are enriching Uranium at their Natanz facility. Do you know any other use for enriched Uranium other than a bomb?


Is that clear enough for you?


Enritchmen uranium is normal fuel for Nuke power plant. We are using it as well.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power2.htm

So yeah..  its clear, that Enritched uranium is quite normal thing.

Anyother reason why you think that it should be used for Nuke weapon.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #42 on: January 21, 2005, 08:03:55 PM »
Quote
Iran produced 3,960,000 barrels per day in Nov '04, why do they need Uranium? Do you really believe they need nuclear power plants to generate their electricity?


No, but it would increase their oil exports.

Iran is one of the largest oil producers, but it also consumes a lot of that oil itself, around 1.5 million barrels a day. That means it's consuming as much oil as Spain, and not far off as much as the UK.

Nuclear power would enable them to export more oil, and thus earn more money.

Quote
Dont be naive.


I'm not being naive. I think they want nuclear power as an alternative to oil for electricity generation for financial reasons, but I think they also want to build nuclear weapons.

I don't think there's any real way of stopping them, either.

Offline Grits

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5332
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #43 on: January 21, 2005, 09:30:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nashwan
I'm not being naive. I think they want nuclear power as an alternative to oil for electricity generation for financial reasons, but I think they also want to build nuclear weapons.

I don't think there's any real way of stopping them, either.


OK, thats reasonable. I still disagree they want nuclear power to reduce oil consumption, they want to use it as leverage to be dealt into the game with the "big boys". Iran will play a crucial role in reshaping the region, but fortunately for us the current Theocracy will not be in power when they do, it will be the %70 under 30 years old that want to be part of the modern world who will do it.

Offline Grits

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5332
The Pentagon's New Map
« Reply #44 on: January 21, 2005, 09:36:06 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lada
Anyother reason why you think that it should be used for Nuke weapon.


Because they produce 14% of OPEC's oil output and dont need nuclear power to make electricity. I thought that should have been painfully obvious, but in hindsight I can see I should have made that clear.