Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Grits on January 20, 2005, 10:56:12 PM
-
by Thomas P.M. Barnett. Anybody read it? If you haven't you need to, it explains where this country, and the world, is going with its foreign policy in the next 20-50 years. It explains why invading Iraq was a good idea (hint, its not WMD). I saw his Power Point presentaion on CSPAN last August and was just floored. Barnett is probably the most important strategic thinker in the world right now.
-
this is the same subject....I dont have time to read it but I looks real interesting.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm
Esquire, March 2003 issue
Since the end of the cold war, the United States has been trying to come up with an operating theory of the world—and a military strategy to accompany it. Now there’s a leading contender. It involves identifying the problem parts of the world and aggressively shrinking them. Since September 11, 2001, the author, a professor of warfare analysis, has been advising the Office of the Secretary of Defense and giving this briefing continually at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community. Now he gives it to you.
LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good.
When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it will not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point—the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.
That is why the public debate about this war has been so important: It forces Americans to come to terms with I believe is the new security paradigm that shapes this age, namely, Disconnectedness defines danger. Saddam Hussein’s outlaw regime is dangerously disconnected from the globalizing world, from its rule sets, its norms, and all the ties that bind countries together in mutually assured dependence.
The problem with most discussion of globalization is that too many experts treat it as a binary outcome: Either it is great and sweeping the planet, or it is horrid and failing humanity everywhere. Neither view really works, because globalization as a historical process is simply too big and too complex for such summary judgments. Instead, this new world must be defined by where globalization has truly taken root and where it has not.
Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap.
Globalization’s “ozone hole” may have been out of sight and out of mind prior to September 11, 2001, but it has been hard to miss ever since. And measuring the reach of globalization is not an academic exercise to an eighteen-year-old marine sinking tent poles on its far side. So where do we schedule the U.S. military’s next round of away games? The pattern that has emerged since the end of the cold war suggests a simple answer: in the Gap.
The reason I support going to war in Iraq is not simply that Saddam is a cutthroat Stalinist willing to kill anyone to stay in power, nor because that regime has clearly supported terrorist networks over the years. The real reason I support a war like this is that the resulting long-term military commitment will finally force America to deal with the entire Gap as a strategic threat environment.
(contd.)
-
Yes, that is core of his arguement in the Esquire article. The Pentagon's New Map lays out the entire arguement in complete detail. His Power Point presentation was a revelation for me. I, even as a Republican, a conservative, and a part of a military family, had been very uneasy with the Iraq war and its consequenses. As I watched his presentarion on CSPAN it was like I was struck by lightning, it suddenly all made sense.
His core theory that disconnection from a modernizing world causes conflict, is also a school of though in History (which I subcribe to) that has come along to refute Marxism as an analytical contruct. The idea is, modernization happens usually at controlable and even rates, but sometimes areas or groups of thought dont modernize at the same rate as the rest of the world and there must be a realignment, usually through violence or war.
-
WARNING SUPER LARGE PICTURE!
Here is a world map marked by plots of US military involvment through the last 15 years. (some of them I don't quite get but oh well)
Here he points out the "Core" and the "gap" areas.
It's a big picture so I will link to it externally (http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/images/pentagons_new_map.jpg)
pretty compelling stuff when its layed out in this fasion.
-
anyone who does not see the big picture in Iraq, lives in la la land
the question is, does America have the stomach to hold the course - Nov 04 says they do, today anyway
the media is doing everything in its power to make it another nam
-
this map could also be seen as "future attack points in 3rd world countrys, hotspots include extra oil".
wonderfull new world order.
-
Circumventing the language filter
-
Btw, who's 'lunch money' are you going to steal next?!?
-
As I have been saying all along. this concept is the logical geographic progression and the ultimate outcome must be that there is only one world ruling system. who will it be? The Chinese? Communism? fundamental mohammadism? The 19th century saw the concept of manifest destiny become a reality in north america. The 20th century saw science and technology progress geometrically. This technological advance now enables us to move ahead as our species has always done. paraphrasing the good Roosevelt, we have the "big stick" it is now time to move forward quietly, or not but certainly forward. This planet is now a very small playground. Americanism (gleefully waves old glory about his office) will be the governing system globally and my children will see it come to fruition. you may read about the final outcome in a book I occasionally read. :D
-
Originally posted by Glas
Btw, who's 'lunch money' are you going to steal next?!?
Were considering a kilt rich location.
-
Europeans and some in the US may not like it, but you should read his book because that IS[/b] how its going to happen, like it or not.
-
Seriously what does he say about North Korea. Now there is a disconnected and truly dangerous regime...
-
He says that NK is bad, and is on the brink, but most importantly China will play a large role in resolving the issue. China, he thinks, is not a strategic problem for the US because they have joined the global economy, they joined the WTO and the IMF, and most importantly they are the largesy buyer of US debt. 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.
-
You do not have AIDS in USA that he mention " And then there's AIDS. " Behind some of the countries ? (Like India, Russia etc... )
Its interesting reading , i didnt read it all coz i have no time right now, but from what i read, it seems to me, that he consider some of american propaganda theories as a true. Will try to dig some of his work before Iraqi got vulched, what did he write about WMD & Iraq.
-
Here is a world map marked by plots of US military involvment through the last 15 years. (some of them I don't quite get but oh well)
Here he points out the "Core" and the "gap" areas.
What was the US "show of force" in Northern Ireland?
-
Originally posted by lada
Its interesting reading , i didnt read it all coz i have no time right now, but from what i read, it seems to me, that he consider some of american propaganda theories as a true. Will try to dig some of his work before Iraqi got vulched, what did he write about WMD & Iraq.
You call it American propaganda, I call it reality.
Before Iraq was invaded he said we should do it, but not because of WMD, he says that is a mistake. He criticizes the Bush focus on WMD and says we should have said up front the real reason we did it, to get rid of Sadam and open up the Iraqi people to the global community. He also says bringing democracy as a goal is a mistake, the only goal of our interventions should be to increase global connectivity, not bring democracy. If you look you can see that it is already happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, and West Bank, democratic elections are the byproduct of connecting people to the outside world, but they are not the goal, the goal is connectivity.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
What was the US "show of force" in Northern Ireland?
No idea. Did we send peacekeepers during the Clinton years when we were mediating the peace talks?
-
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.
-
No idea. Did we send peacekeepers during the Clinton years when we were mediating the peace talks?
No. I don't remember American "mediation" either, the peace process consisted of talks between the British and Irish governments and the various terrorist groups in NI.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
No. I don't remember American "nediation" either, the peace process consisted of talks between the British and Irish governments and the various terrorist groups in NI.
You dont remember US Senator Mitchell running the talks? From PBS's website:
The Clinton administration made the negotiations a high priority in its foreign policy. Almost four years ago, President Clinton sent former U.S. Senator George Mitchell to act as a special envoy and he personally traveled to the region at the end of 1995 to bolster the peace talks. Senator Mitchell stayed on to lead the multi-party talks.[/b]
One of the things I think we should all give Clinton more credit for than he gets.
-
Americans veiw of the world I suppose, and now we all have to jump to their tune ! Or risk becoming a tgt . mind you that is until the ice cap melts and then we are all in the poo poo. or maybe wee wee as it'll probably get very wet!
:rolleyes:
-
You have ALL been fooled!!!!
I'm building an Ark and collecting women two by two's... two Blonde ones, two Brunette ones, two Red ones, two Asian ones, two Latino ones, two Swedish ones, two Indian ones, two German ones and what the Hell two Canadian ones, hell everyone likes watching Lesbians.
(http://www.everwonder.com/david/austinpowers/swingdance.gif)
Yeah Baby!!!!
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
this map could also be seen as "future attack points in 3rd world countrys, hotspots include extra oil".
wonderfull new world order.
To a retarded person maybe
-
Originally posted by Grits
You dont remember US Senator Mitchell running the talks? From PBS's website:
The Clinton administration made the negotiations a high priority in its foreign policy. Almost four years ago, President Clinton sent former U.S. Senator George Mitchell to act as a special envoy and he personally traveled to the region at the end of 1995 to bolster the peace talks. Senator Mitchell stayed on to lead the multi-party talks.
One of the things I think we should all give Clinton more credit for than he gets. [/B]
Clinton took a strong interest in the problem and played a personal part in the negotiations. George Mitchel made a huge contribution. That is why both are highly regarded in Ireland to this day.
GWB has maintained an interest too although the process is more self sustaining. Nevertheless the Whitehouse is still consulted on a regular basis.
In fact all told this is an excellent example of a positive American contribution to help solve a problem. A good model for the Israeli/Palestinian problem.
The map though is misleading in one sense as there never was any US miltary contribution to peacekeeping or whatever. The FBI did help convict one nasty terrorist by planting an informer in his organisation. The FBI continues to contribute in other ways too.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Clinton took a strong interest in the problem and played a personal part in the negotiations. George Mitchel made a huge contribution. That is why both are highly regarded in Ireland to this day.
GWB has maintained an interest too although the process is more self sustaining. Nevertheless the Whitehouse is still consulted on a regular basis.
In fact all told this is an excellent example of a positive American contribution to help solve a problem. A good model for the Israeli/Palestinian problem.
The map though is misleading in one sense as there never was any US miltary contribution to peacekeeping or whatever. The FBI did help convict one nasty terrorist by planting an informer in his organisation. The FBI continues to contribute in other ways too.
And a small part of that process has led to an economic boom for the Emerald Isle. I just read that they are predicting that they will be the worlds 3rd largest economy before too long.
-
Wow a compelling theory on WORLD events and mapped course of future terrorism and all you amerihaters can say is what about the oil....where's the WMD....what about N. Ireland....must be propaganda!
Look it's pretty simple that this is a sound theory. Were poverty and lack of modernization is: terrorism, war, and violence will follow.
Maybe this guy should have colored his map with crayons then some of you might actually see the point he's trying to make instead of imediatly disputing it because he's an American.
hold all the grudges, hate, and disconent you want.....but ignore logic and fact you will be consumed by your own narrowmindedness.
-
I remember Mitchell being asked to head the decomisioning body by the Biritish and Irish governments, along with a Canadian general and a former prime minister of Finland.
All 3 were then invited to jointly chair the all party talks.
The point is the talks were the idea of the British and Irish government, who invited 3 foreigners to chair them, because they would be seen to be impartial.
That's not "mediation". Mediation would be a good description of US efforts to bring peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
CAIN has got a very good chronology of the peace process at http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/pp9398.htm
-
Wow a compelling theory on WORLD events and mapped course of future terrorism and all you amerihaters can say is what about the oil....where's the WMD....what about N. Ireland....must be propaganda!
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?
-
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?
as I stated earlier I don't know about some of the dots. He has a combat dot on cuba but says these are just from the 90s till now. Maybe what he was referring to.....wich does make more sense....is sutained combat not nescesarily involving US troops.
-
Video (http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=barnett)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ?
-
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..
-
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.
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?
-
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
lada,
You wrote this in the "Iran" thread:
Iran will join WTO and all people around the world will be happy that they can make bussines with Iran instead of having war with Iran.
Once world will be open for iranian, they will have better tool for creating preasure on goverment.
I agree with your statement completely. This is exactly Thomas P.M. Barnett's position on Iran, and this is also his position on China. After China joined the WTO, they no longer became a threat as far as he was conerned..
You, and I agree on this, we just dont agree that the Iranians need nuclear energy for any other reason than a threat.
-
I'd just like to point out that some of that map is complete and utter BS. For example, they show peacekeeping operations in the Phillipines, East Timor, Indonesia, and Cambodia, none of which have had US troops near them (UN Troops maybe from other countries, East Timor and Cambodia both had NZ and Australian forces there in peacekeeping and mineclearing duties).
It also excludes countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand from from the "global" economy which is false as well. (hell Vietnam is making BMW's, and Malaysia assembles most NEC and Packard Bell PC's these days).
edit: he also misses unstable portions of the old soviet union.
-
Vietnam is not in the WTO, and therefore no in the functioning core, BMW's not withstanding.
I dont have my book right now, I gave it to my dad to read, but I'll get it and check the map, I think he details the map and gives reasons for each dot for you nit-pickers.
-
What do you think of his stance on China Grits?
-
He thinks the threat from China is a fiction created by parts of the Pentagon to find a "Cold War" style military enemy, so they can in return justify the old style military structure they like. Its a case of searching the world for a next giant enemy to justify fighting the last war and not looking ahead to what we will need in the furute, which is asymetrical warfare like in Iraq. He says that China is not a threat militarily because they own more of our debt than any other country, and I think he is correct. Its not in their interest to be a threat to us militarily regardless of superficial saber rattling.
-
I was under the impression we were using this map to track this administrations goals.
(http://www.strike9.com/capt_apathy/Battle+Map.JPG)
-
Thank you for introducing petty and irrelevant partisan rhetoric to an otherwise constructive thread. If you had bothered to read what Barnett says, you would know that he is very critical of the Bush administrations policy in severeal areas, and that Barnett himself is a Democrat. This is larger than Bush, or even the US, this is a global issue and like it or not, this is the plan for the future.
-
Originally posted by Grits
He thinks the threat from China is a fiction created by parts of the Pentagon to find a "Cold War" style military enemy, so they can in return justify the old style military structure they like. Its a case of searching the world for a next giant enemy to justify fighting the last war and not looking ahead to what we will need in the furute, which is asymetrical warfare like in Iraq. He says that China is not a threat militarily because they own more of our debt than any other country, and I think he is correct. Its not in their interest to be a threat to us militarily regardless of superficial saber rattling.
He also mentioned the 1, 2 , 4 problem they have which is something I wasn't aware of. Looks like they are in for some tough times supporting the older population...
-
Ah yes, I forgot about that Soda. We share a similar problem, but to a lesser degree in regard to Social Security. Barnett thinks, contrary to most folks in the US, that we absolutely NEED immigrants, most of the ones who are now illegal immigrants, to keep our age ratio in check and to be able to support our aging population. Immigrants from Mexico and Central America are going to save us by making us a younger country. Its an angle on the immigration issue I had never thought of.
-
Originally posted by Grits
Ah yes, I forgot about that Soda. We share a similar problem, but to a lesser degree in regard to Social Security. Barnett thinks, contrary to most folks in the US, that we absolutely NEED immigrants, most of the ones who are now illegal immigrants, to keep our age ratio in check and to be able to support our aging population. Immigrants from Mexico and Central America are going to save us by making us a younger country. Its an angle on the immigration issue I had never thought of.
10 million and counting abortions are the reason why America is in gentrification. We absolutely need immigrants.
-
Originally posted by Grits
Vietnam is not in the WTO, and therefore no in the functioning core, BMW's not withstanding.
I dont have my book right now, I gave it to my dad to read, but I'll get it and check the map, I think he details the map and gives reasons for each dot for you nit-pickers.
Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia are all in the WTO. What about them?
And as far as the WTO goes I would hardly consider it an economic participation measuring stick with the likes of: Angola; Cameroon; Chad; Congo; well you get the idea... its got lots off "oddball" members.
Signs of a typical armchair strategist, perhaps a good theory, but it needs more on the ground work - starved of up to date information on the goings on outside the USA. Vietnam would be a good example to hold up, now manufacturing for many western countries, a booming tourist trade, its own growing international airline servicing the broad asiapac market.
The other thing I disagree about is the Chinese thing, lots of sabre rattling for sure. But who needs who more? The Chinese have always been shrewd, and they don't always play by western rules.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia are all in the WTO. What about them?
And as far as the WTO goes I would hardly consider it an economic participation measuring stick with the likes of: Angola; Cameroon; Chad; Congo; well you get the idea... its got lots off "oddball" members.
He also says regardless of other things, countries that have below $3000 USD anual income per family are part of the "Gap", and those above that level become stable and relatively violence free. This overrides other criteria such as WTO or IMF membership. Will there be exeptions? Of course, its a guideline, not a set in stone rule. Interestingly, Saudi Arabia's anual incom per family has steadily fallen and not too far in the future will fall below the $3000 USD level. We are in a race against time to connect them to the world community before its too late.
Signs of a typical armchair strategist, perhaps a good theory, but it needs more on the ground work - starved of up to date information on the goings on outside the USA. Vietnam would be a good example to hold up, now manufacturing for many western countries, a booming tourist trade, its own growing international airline servicing the broad asiapac market.[/b]
He has singlehandedly changed the Pentagon's rulesets and thought processes, moreso than Rumsfeld ever could have. He must be doing something right because if you know anything about the Military they dont like change, you have to be awfully darn persuasive to get them to change their minds.
The other thing I disagree about is the Chinese thing, lots of sabre rattling for sure. But who needs who more? The Chinese have always been shrewd, and they don't always play by western rules. [/B]
They also have the fastest aging population in the world. They are aging at a rate that will not allow them to sustain continued economic growth at their current levels.
Why dont you download the streaming video of his presentation and listen to his ideas before dismissing them out of hand? He is not political, he started work on this in '98, long before Bush, long before Rumsfeld, long before 9/11.
I have yet to see anyone in this thread do anything more than pick around the edges at his ideas. IMO his core arguement is irrefutable.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I remember Mitchell being asked to head the decomisioning body by the Biritish and Irish governments, along with a Canadian general and a former prime minister of Finland.
All 3 were then invited to jointly chair the all party talks.
The point is the talks were the idea of the British and Irish government, who invited 3 foreigners to chair them, because they would be seen to be impartial.
That's not "mediation". Mediation would be a good description of US efforts to bring peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
CAIN has got a very good chronology of the peace process at http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/pp9398.htm
Nashwan I understand what you are saying but you are nitpicking. It wasn't simply '3 foreigners' chosen. You don't really have the big picture. It was important to every side that America was involved. It still is. George Mitchell played a much larger part than the chronology allows as did Clinton. It was said at one stage that a late night telephone call to US president saved the process. Mediation it may not be but an intervention of sorts it was. The US does not get full credit but it's help was crucial.
No matter what way you spin it it's a good example of what America can do if it puts it's mind to it.
The map itself is inaccurate in many ways but nevertheless it represents a general overview of American interests throughout the world. The ambitions represented there are good ones. The more liberal democracies (liberal in this case meaning free not left wing. The US is a liberal democracy) there are the better. No two liberal democracies have ever fought a war with each other. Equally and oddly enough no two countries with a McDonalds have fought each other either. If that is the pentagon's or GWB's ambition then it's a good one. Free democracies I mean not Big Macs. Iran is a democracy if not a particularly free one but it could be easily. The people seem to want it. The very last thing needed in Iran is clumsy sabre rattling by hawks in the US administration against Iran. Right now Iran does not particularly represent a threat. They are effectively enemies of the Sunni extremists in Arab countries and that includes Al Qaeda. If GWB and Condy Rice play their cards right they could have another de facto ally in the Middle East. When a McDonalds opens in Teheran then you know it's succeeded. :lol
-
lol, I didn't know that about mc'ds..... :rofl
-
Originally posted by Eagler
anyone who does not see the big picture in Iraq, lives in la la land
the question is, does America have the stomach to hold the course - Nov 04 says they do, today anyway
the media is doing everything in its power to make it another nam
It's not the problem of digestion. It's the problem of the not wide enough mouth to swallow soup from different plates on several tables at the restaurant.
The "Core - Gap" theory is just the explanatory thing. From it the wrong global strategy sprung.
The Hitler-like strategy allowing to have at the same time the main front together with one or severall lesser fronts. Such strategy works when the war effort has reached the final winning stage. But I think that the USA war effort has not reached this stage yet. So now it's better to concentrate on the problems at hand than to start a new front.
Why am I still convinced that Roosewelt's strategy was better than Hitler's ? Oh, yes !
The Allies won, and the Axis lost !
:D