and which "Bush's war" that you meant in your statement
"As long as it was Bush's war, success still was possible."

And please quantify what would be required to make it
"possible" - especially given the current economic conditions
and the international relationships that need some mending
as a result of the previous administrations policies during
their 8 years in power.

"Possible" is a wide open term. Theoretically, ANYTHING is
POSSIBLE. Perhaps providing some quantitative, objective
probabilities for what I believe is the method of achieving
the success you believe was possible. Please be as
specific as possible and include time lines, cost in dollars
and in lives - ours and "theirs" - and troop levels and
deployment. Might want to start with a clear statement
of the objectives and then perhaps the strategies for
attaining them. Oh - and if you have any historical examples
of the successful use of these strategies that would
be nice to include.

We live in a world more like chess than checkers. Most
of the rest of the world understands that, but some of
us are certain that all we need is a checkers master
as president - despite the fact that we just tried that
- and we've already lost two rooks and a bishop, along
with most of our pawns. There ain't no King ME! in the
game in which we are involved - heavily involved.

Think four or five steps ahead and remember - the
goal is to win - in the long run. And winning doesn't
mean I WON - and - YOU LOST! - the keystone of thinking
in terms of a Zero Sum Game.

The other thing is to remember that revenge can
take a while to attain. It took Mossad a LONG time
to find and kill the 1972 Munich Olympics Terrorists.
Didn't stop terrorism - but they did kill them all
- that were still alive to kill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God

Wonder where we'd be today if Reagan hadn't Cut
and Run in Beirut after the bombing of the marine
barracks back in 1983

charlieb wrote:


We live in a world more like chess than checkers. Most
of the rest of the world understands that,


What a crock of silly horse ****! Just how is that, huh? Example?

Sure, Charlie ... and when they get in trouble playing their
chess/games, to whom have they looked to bail them out in the last 100
years?

Might makes right, Bubba ... and don't you ever forget that, or do so at
peril of your eventual demise.

How soon we ****ing forget ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Subject

Why waste time?

Lew

Swingman wrote:

Might makes right, Bubba ... and don't you ever forget that, or do so at
peril of your eventual demise.

You illustrate my checkers vs chess analogy perfectly.
A dozen or so fanatics murder (since none were combatants
they were murdered, not "killed") three thousand plus people.
"Might" did nothing to prevent those murders. It's not going
to be big muscles and lethal weapons that we should rely on,
but rather the effective use of that which evolved after muscles,
intelligence and the intelligent use of intelligence.

How soon we ****ing forget ...

Again, perhaps unintentionally, you make my point.
It's not that we ****ing forget, it's that we ****ing
don't learn the lessons of history. It's not who "wins"
a war that reduces the likelyhood of another. It's how
the post war is handled that's a good predictor of
the duration of peace afterwards. The Versaille Treaty
almost insured that Europe would have another major
and more devistating war before the century was even
half over.

I submit that the Marshall Plan did more to prevent
another world war than did SAC, and the economic
benefits of the Marshal Plan resulted in more peace
and prosperity.

But my original question has not been answered.
Please define "success" in the context of the original
statement HeyBub made.

"charlieb" wrote in message
...
Swingman wrote:

Might makes right, Bubba ... and don't you ever forget that, or do so at
peril of your eventual demise.

You illustrate my checkers vs chess analogy perfectly.
A dozen or so fanatics murder (since none were combatants
they were murdered, not "killed") three thousand plus people.
"Might" did nothing to prevent those murders. It's not going
to be big muscles and lethal weapons that we should rely on,
but rather the effective use of that which evolved after muscles,
intelligence and the intelligent use of intelligence.


Double bull**** Charlie. The reason these fanatics felt comfortable
executing their plan was that we had lost the image of invincibility. We
got our asses kicked by the war in Viet Nam, and had become a nation of
don't ask, don't tell. The feminization of our country and our culture was
visible world wide. We were an easy target because we no longer represented
a threat of retaliation. Or a threat of "don't mess with us". And... look
how we have proven that to be true. Bin Ladin headed off to Pakistan
because he knew he could. We wouldn't pursue him. He toys with us (or his
followers), because they know they can. He knew exactly how to play us
because we trained him. And... funded him. But what he was able to observe
was that we were losing our "might is right" posture, and embracing
everything that feels good, and in the end stands for nothing.

--

-Mike-

Do you actually believe that someone who intentionally
flys a plane in to a tall office building full of people is
at all concerned about what an "invincable" was going to
do to them in retaliation?

If fear of retaliation deters what we're facing now, let's
look at Isreal's response to the '72 Munich Olympics
Terrorist Massacre. Mossad hunted down and killed
every one directly involved - and that took 20 years.
Is Isreal safer today than they were in 1972?

Where to begin with the rest of your response to the
original question - what is your definition of "success"
in terms of either of the two current wars we're in?

Viet Nam was the result of fear of "communism" taking
precidents over history and facts. We saw the North
South conflict as a surrogate war between "communism"
and "the free world", rather than what it was - a civil
war between nationalists. The country was supposed
to have a free and democratic election in 1954 and
had that election been held, historians have agreed
that Ho Chi Mihn would have been elected president
of the reunited Viet Nam. And if that happened, France
would lose their holdings in the south - and they weren't
ready to do that. So there was no election and the
civil war began.

The driving motivation here, and in other conflicts
we've engage in, was nationalism. The Viet Namese
had driven out every "invincible power that attempted to
colonialize them - including China AND Japan, as
well as the French. OK - so the French don't produce
much of an army - but they tried to keep the south
of Viet Nam by force anyway - and also were eventually
forced to leave.

As for "the feminization of our country and our culture"
you do realize that half or so of the world's population
are females?

And "don't ask, don't tell" - the greatest conquering
army in history - Alexander's army, had a significant
number of homosexual warriors and Alexander was
probably at least bisexual if not homosexual.

In a world of established nations Might Makes Right
was true. The world has changed, and if we don't
deal with the world as it is then we better get better
at defining "success" before we we commit our
sons AND daughters, and our treasures to throwing
our weight around, thumping our chest and growling
"don't mess with us!".

"charlieb" wrote in message
...

Do you actually believe that someone who intentionally
flys a plane in to a tall office building full of people is
at all concerned about what an "invincable" was going to
do to them in retaliation?



Not after they hit the building. But, in answer to your question, yes I
certainly do believe there is a relationship between how a country is
perceived and the actions that others may take against it. I don't believe
that's the only reason for events like 911, but I certainly believe that is
a part of it.

If fear of retaliation deters what we're facing now, let's
look at Isreal's response to the '72 Munich Olympics
Terrorist Massacre. Mossad hunted down and killed
every one directly involved - and that took 20 years.
Is Isreal safer today than they were in 1972?


Good counter-point. Where I think that point loses some of its potency
though is in the fact that these two cultures have been at each other for
eons, with deeply routed philosophical and ideological warfare at the root
of it all. That said, I also believe that Isreal's willingness to strke
with force into the heart of any threat, does indeed curb behaviors of the
radicals that would otherwise enjoy the annialation of Isreal.

Where to begin with the rest of your response to the
original question - what is your definition of "success"
in terms of either of the two current wars we're in?

I guess I might leave the offering for that definition on the table for you
to suggest. I most certainly do not see the capture and elimination of
Saddam Hussein as a success. Nor do I see the successful evasion of Bin
Laden as a marker of success. Nor, the re-entrance into Afghanistan. Nor
the overwhelming peace and security that Iraq enjoys today.


Viet Nam was the result of fear of "communism" taking
precidents over history and facts.

Snip a bunch of stuff that was quite true, but not terribly relevant...
We still got our asses handed to us.


As for "the feminization of our country and our culture"
you do realize that half or so of the world's population
are females?

Sure - and I find myself enjoying that fact from time to time...


In a world of established nations Might Makes Right
was true. The world has changed, and if we don't
deal with the world as it is then we better get better
at defining "success" before we we commit our
sons AND daughters, and our treasures to throwing
our weight around, thumping our chest and growling
"don't mess with us!".

I do not at all disagree with this statement. I'm no advocate of throwing
our weight around. I am an advocate of being the big asshole on the block
that nobody dares to screw with though.

--

-Mike-

charlieb wrote:
Swingman wrote:

Might makes right, Bubba ... and don't you ever forget that, or do so at
peril of your eventual demise.

You illustrate my checkers vs chess analogy perfectly.
A dozen or so fanatics murder (since none were combatants
they were murdered, not "killed") three thousand plus people.
"Might" did nothing to prevent those murders. It's not going
to be big muscles and lethal weapons that we should rely on,
but rather the effective use of that which evolved after muscles,
intelligence and the intelligent use of intelligence.

You poor misguided puppy ... stick to woodworking topics, demonstrably a
more intelligent use of your intelligence.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 10/14/2009 04:28 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
"charlieb" wrote in message

In a world of established nations Might Makes Right
was true. The world has changed, and if we don't
deal with the world as it is then we better get better
at defining "success" before we we commit our
sons AND daughters, and our treasures to throwing
our weight around, thumping our chest and growling
"don't mess with us!".

I do not at all disagree with this statement. I'm no advocate of throwing
our weight around. I am an advocate of being the big asshole on the block
that nobody dares to screw with though.

Let me say up front that I'm not from the USA. (I'm from your neighbour
up North.)

The British had one of the best armies in the world, but they were at a
loss when the American revolutionaries fought skirmishes rather than
stand in a line and go toe-to-toe.

There's a fairly obvious parallel to be drawn. Being the big asshole
only works if you have something that the asshole can damage in retaliation.

When terrorists are not affiliated with any particular nation-state the
threat of being the big asshole doesn't help much. If you go in
somewhere, they just move elsewhere. (Afganistan/Pakistan, for
instance.) In some cases going in somewhere and throwing your weight
around may actually work against you by causing resentment amongst the
locals. Invariably there will be civilian casualties, mistreatment of
locals, etc. This then makes their point for them..."look, see how
arrogant the Americans are", "they're bombing innocent children", etc.

I may be an idealist, but in my view the only way to reduce the level
conflict is by reducing the factors leading to discontent in the first
place.

9/11 was a terrible and reprehensible act. About 3000 people died.
For comparison, every year over 40000 people die in car crashes. The
goal of terrorists is to inspire terror, and they've done that. The
best response would have been to rebuild, make a monument to the lost,
and get on with living the american dream.

Chris

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.woodworking.]

well as the French. OK - so the French don't produce
much of an army.....

What was Napoleon? An insurgent?

nb

Chris Friesen wrote:
On 10/14/2009 04:28 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
"charlieb" wrote in message

In a world of established nations Might Makes Right
was true. The world has changed, and if we don't
deal with the world as it is then we better get better
at defining "success" before we we commit our
sons AND daughters, and our treasures to throwing
our weight around, thumping our chest and growling
"don't mess with us!".

I do not at all disagree with this statement. I'm no advocate of
throwing our weight around. I am an advocate of being the big
asshole on the block that nobody dares to screw with though.

Let me say up front that I'm not from the USA. (I'm from your
neighbour
up North.)

The British had one of the best armies in the world, but they were at
a loss when the American revolutionaries fought skirmishes rather than
stand in a line and go toe-to-toe.

There's a fairly obvious parallel to be drawn. Being the big asshole
only works if you have something that the asshole can damage in
retaliation.

When terrorists are not affiliated with any particular nation-state
the threat of being the big asshole doesn't help much. If you go in
somewhere, they just move elsewhere. (Afganistan/Pakistan, for
instance.) In some cases going in somewhere and throwing your weight
around may actually work against you by causing resentment amongst the
locals. Invariably there will be civilian casualties, mistreatment of
locals, etc. This then makes their point for them..."look, see how
arrogant the Americans are", "they're bombing innocent children", etc.

I may be an idealist, but in my view the only way to reduce the level
conflict is by reducing the factors leading to discontent in the first
place.

9/11 was a terrible and reprehensible act. About 3000 people died.
For comparison, every year over 40000 people die in car crashes. The
goal of terrorists is to inspire terror, and they've done that. The
best response would have been to rebuild, make a monument to the lost,
and get on with living the american dream.

Yep, should have rebuilt them exactly as they were with one
modification--put a Patriot battery on the roof of one of them.

Or put up Frank Lloyd Wright's Illinois Building.

"The Department of Homeland Security" and the like are gross overreaction.
Bush exemplifies the "for God's sake _do_ something" school of leadership,
but Obama doesn't seem to be in any hurry to undo anything that Bush did.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

Bush exemplifies the "for God's sake _do_ something" school of
leadership,
but Obama doesn't seem to be in any hurry to undo anything that Bush
did.


Surely you jest.

Lew

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:00:18 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:

I may be an idealist, but in my view the only way to reduce the level
conflict is by reducing the factors leading to discontent in the first
place.

I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist on the issue. The "factors" of
discontent in that middle east are driven by religious fanatics who
cannot face the fact that it is that religion that's keeping them in the
middle ages while the rest of the world advances. The final stage of
that which we are beginning to see among the religious right in the US.

AFAIK, there are only three ways to deal with fanatics. Destroy them,
isolate them, or give in to them.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Blanchard writes:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:00:18 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:

I may be an idealist, but in my view the only way to reduce the level
conflict is by reducing the factors leading to discontent in the first
place.

I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist on the issue. The "factors" of
discontent in that middle east are driven by religious fanatics who
cannot face the fact that it is that religion that's keeping them in the

Do you have any scholarly cites for this, or is this just your opinion?

Do you think that global inequities[*], wide-spread unemployment, particularly
of the young; and some counter-productive western policies have no place
in the set of "factors" to which you refer?

scott
[*] read: jealousy

"charlieb" wrote in message
...
You illustrate my checkers vs chess analogy perfectly.
A dozen or so fanatics murder (since none were combatants
they were murdered, not "killed") three thousand plus people.
"Might" did nothing to prevent those murders. It's not going
to be big muscles and lethal weapons that we should rely on,
but rather the effective use of that which evolved after muscles,
intelligence and the intelligent use of intelligence.


One can not prevent any and all terrorist acts, as a absolute criteria of
success that ideal is pretty meaningless...Security or prevention will
indeed diminish those opportunities. As a aside simply locking the pilots
door would have specifically prevented 9/11 and that both private and public
individuals failed to anticipate such a obvious security breach bodes poorly
for prevention of all other creative future attacks.

I am however a bit curious as to when "effective use of that which evolved
after muscles" has ever actually worked, at least without the brawn or the
threat thereof?

It is interesting to note that following our help with the overthrow of the
Soviets in Afghanistan we backed off and meddled not .....But in the 90's we
were however the worlds largest supplier of foreign aid (foodstuffs etc.) to
Afghanistan......In response to our largess they provided safe haven to al
Queda..... and in fact the Taliban could have avoided our overthrow if they
simply had turned Osama over to us.

Again, perhaps unintentionally, you make my point.
It's not that we ****ing forget, it's that we ****ing
don't learn the lessons of history. It's not who "wins"
a war that reduces the likelyhood of another. It's how
the post war is handled that's a good predictor of
the duration of peace afterwards. The Versaille Treaty
almost insured that Europe would have another major
and more devistating war before the century was even
half over.

It may as well be worthy of note that if the WW1 treaty had been enforced
WW2 would not have happened either.....The early appeasement of Germany and
the Allies desire to avoid war at nearly any cost allowed the means. That
the West effectively disarmed did nothing to stop either Germany or Japans
imperialist desires.

I submit that the Marshall Plan did more to prevent
another world war than did SAC, and the economic
benefits of the Marshal Plan resulted in more peace
and prosperity.

As much as I'd largely agree I'd still suggest the Marshal plan without the
utter destruction of the AXIS powers would not have worked.

Rod

On 10/14/2009 04:43 PM, Rod & BJ Jacobson wrote:

As a aside simply locking the pilots
door would have specifically prevented 9/11 and that both private and public
individuals failed to anticipate such a obvious security breach bodes poorly
for prevention of all other creative future attacks.

Up until 9/11, the normal course of action was to fly to where the
hijacker wanted to go, and then stall on the ground to give time to put
together an assault on the aircraft. There was little to be risked by
letting the hijacker into the cockpit, and the alternative was them
shooting the other passengers (aka hostages) one by one.

After 9/11 the game is different. When the hijacker might want to turn
the whole plane into a flying bomb, the other passengers have nothing to
lose by attacking the hijackers, and the pilot has nothing to gain by
letting them into the cockpit. Basically, the terrorists ruined
everything for "normal" hijackers.

Chris

Chris Friesen wrote:
On 10/14/2009 04:43 PM, Rod & BJ Jacobson wrote:

As a aside simply locking the pilots
door would have specifically prevented 9/11 and that both private
and public individuals failed to anticipate such a obvious security
breach bodes poorly for prevention of all other creative future
attacks.

Up until 9/11, the normal course of action was to fly to where the
hijacker wanted to go, and then stall on the ground to give time to
put together an assault on the aircraft. There was little to be
risked by letting the hijacker into the cockpit, and the alternative
was them shooting the other passengers (aka hostages) one by one.

After 9/11 the game is different. When the hijacker might want to
turn the whole plane into a flying bomb, the other passengers have
nothing to lose by attacking the hijackers, and the pilot has nothing
to gain by letting them into the cockpit. Basically, the terrorists
ruined everything for "normal" hijackers.

And a terrorist standing in the aisle is not going to be good for much after
he has fallen the full length of a 747 cabin then had a food service cart
land on him. Airliners are not stressed for aerobatics but a skilled pilot
can nonetheless do things like that when he has nothing to lose by breaking
the airplane.

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:20:29 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Do you think that global inequities[*], wide-spread unemployment,
particularly of the young; and some counter-productive western policies
have no place in the set of "factors" to which you refer?

There are a lot of poor folks in this world - most of them don't go out
to kill all who don't share their faith. Or do the terms "jihad" and
"holy war" have no meaning to you?

Of course those young are unemployed. When your only education consists
of the Koran, you'll find it difficult to get a good job.

Most of the folks on this group consider me to be a liberal, and I mostly
am. But I'm not blind.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 10/15/2009 09:42 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

There are a lot of poor folks in this world - most of them don't go out
to kill all who don't share their faith. Or do the terms "jihad" and
"holy war" have no meaning to you?

Of course those young are unemployed. When your only education consists
of the Koran, you'll find it difficult to get a good job.

There are at least some for whom it's the other way around. They're
unemployed and disaffected and so they're easy to recruit into extremist
cults.

Chris

Scott Lurndal wrote:

I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist on the issue. The "factors" of
discontent in that middle east are driven by religious fanatics who
cannot face the fact that it is that religion that's keeping them in
the

Do you have any scholarly cites for this, or is this just your
opinion?

There's the empirical evidence. Of the 50-odd predominately Muslim countries
in the world, only two (Malaysia and Turkey) are democracies (maybe Iraq).
The rest are monarchies (Morocco), theocracies (Iran), oligarchies (Egypt),
thugocracies (Lybia), or out-and-out anarchies (Sudan, Somalia).

If you had 50 different people, from different parts of the world, speaking
different languages, with different income levels, of different ages, all
report to the emergency room with a nail in their head, would you look for a
guy with a hammer or start running some exotic tests?




Do you think that global inequities[*], wide-spread unemployment,
particularly of the young; and some counter-productive western
policies have no place
in the set of "factors" to which you refer?


Heck, the WEATHER has a place in the equation! But it's pretty obvious to
most what the main factor is.

Some things are more important than others. When Israel occupied the West
Bank, the Arab residents there were better off than their co-religionists in
almost any other Arab land. Life expectancy, sufferage, universal education,
wages, employment, incidence of crime, access to health care,
blah-blah-blah. But being governed by Jews was antithetical to the teachings
of Islam. Today, they are SPIRITUALLY better off, even though unemployment
is 70% and the other indicators are likewise in the ditch.

Look, too, and India/Pakistan. Once one colony, ruled by the British, this
territory was partitioned in 1947. Today, India is the largest democracy in
the world while Pakistan is a basket case (officially tabulated as an
"impoverished nation").

I guess the disparity for the last sixty years could be the result of
unemployment, envy, western policies, or the difference in broccoli
consumption. It could also result from something more obvious.

__ HeyBub caught in his own BULL**** - Guns on a Plane ...
alt.rec.guns - 557 posts - 59 authors



"HeyBub" speaks for Gunwhores.....Says Hitler wasn't all that bad.
misc.survivalism - 536 posts - 45 authors



(SPEWS KOOK: HeyBub) SPEWS S1869
news.admin.net-abuse.email - 24 posts - 12 authors



How is the off topic heybub NG doing?
tx.guns - 13 posts - 8 authors



(k00k alert! - 'heybub') [Media] ACLU supports spammer Jeremy ...
news.admin.net-abuse.email - 156 posts - 34 authors



Jeeze, it's contagious...I'm turning into HeyBub
tx.guns




Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Scott Lurndal wrote:

I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist on the issue. The "factors" of
discontent in that middle east are driven by religious fanatics who
cannot face the fact that it is that religion that's keeping them in
the

Do you have any scholarly cites for this, or is this just your
opinion?

There's the empirical evidence. Of the 50-odd predominately Muslim
countries in the world, only two (Malaysia and Turkey) are democracies
(maybe Iraq). The rest are monarchies (Morocco), theocracies (Iran),
oligarchies (Egypt), thugocracies (Lybia), or out-and-out anarchies
(Sudan, Somalia).



Really? .......... How about:

Indonesia - the worlds largest muslim population (88% of 245 million) -
democracy

Pakistan - the worlds second largest muslim population (97% of 165
million) - democracy

Your "empirical evidence" looks a little shaky to me.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:03:53 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:

Of course those young are unemployed. When your only education
consists of the Koran, you'll find it difficult to get a good job.

There are at least some for whom it's the other way around. They're
unemployed and disaffected and so they're easy to recruit into extremist
cults.

I agree there are some of those for whom the unemployment comes ahead of
the extremism. But for many (most?) it's the lack of education other
than religious that makes them unemployable.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Tom Watson wrote:

__ HeyBub caught in his own BULL**** - Guns on a Plane ...
alt.rec.guns - 557 posts - 59 authors





"HeyBub" speaks for Gunwhores.....Says Hitler wasn't all that bad.
misc.survivalism - 536 posts - 45 authors



(SPEWS KOOK: HeyBub) SPEWS S1869
news.admin.net-abuse.email - 24 posts - 12 authors



How is the off topic heybub NG doing?
tx.guns - 13 posts - 8 authors



(k00k alert! - 'heybub') [Media] ACLU supports spammer Jeremy ...
news.admin.net-abuse.email - 156 posts - 34 authors



Jeeze, it's contagious...I'm turning into HeyBub
tx.guns




Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

I have never posted anything on misc.survivalism or alt.rec.guns. Anything
bearing my name there may have been in response to a cross-post on another
group. There certainly are no original compositions on either group from me.

I have posted to tx.guns - quite a bit actually. I've also posted to
news.admin.net-abuse.email inasmuch as I'm the email administrator for our
company. SPEWS, however, went out of business about three years ago.

I appreciate your interest, I'm flattered actually. But unless you're a
single female, I'm not really interested.

diggerop wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Scott Lurndal wrote:

I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist on the issue. The "factors" of
discontent in that middle east are driven by religious fanatics who
cannot face the fact that it is that religion that's keeping them
in the

Do you have any scholarly cites for this, or is this just your
opinion?

There's the empirical evidence. Of the 50-odd predominately Muslim
countries in the world, only two (Malaysia and Turkey) are
democracies (maybe Iraq). The rest are monarchies (Morocco),
theocracies (Iran), oligarchies (Egypt), thugocracies (Lybia), or
out-and-out anarchies (Sudan, Somalia).



Really? .......... How about:

Indonesia - the worlds largest muslim population (88% of 245 million)
- democracy

Pakistan - the worlds second largest muslim population (97% of 165
million) - democracy

Your "empirical evidence" looks a little shaky to me.

I stand corrected with regard to Indonesia. Thanks for the refresher.

Pakistan is a bit more problematic. Until recently, Musharaff was both the
military chief of staff and putative president. I think the jury is still
out on that country. Irrespective of whether Pakistan is or is not currently
a democracy, the US State Department still classifies it as an "impoverished
nation."

So, then, counting Malaysia, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and Indonesia as
democracies, let me see... um, mumble-mumble, carry the three, ah, we still
end up with about, um, 12% of the Muslim countries being democracies and 88%
not.

diggerop wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Scott Lurndal wrote:

I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist on the issue. The "factors" of
discontent in that middle east are driven by religious fanatics who
cannot face the fact that it is that religion that's keeping them in
the

Do you have any scholarly cites for this, or is this just your
opinion?

There's the empirical evidence. Of the 50-odd predominately Muslim
countries in the world, only two (Malaysia and Turkey) are democracies
(maybe Iraq). The rest are monarchies (Morocco), theocracies (Iran),
oligarchies (Egypt), thugocracies (Lybia), or out-and-out anarchies
(Sudan, Somalia).



Really? .......... How about:

Indonesia - the worlds largest muslim population (88% of 245 million) -
democracy


Marginally so. The Suartos were hardly champions of free and open
democracy. Even today, Indonesia is definitely neither tolerant nor
inclusive. Our church has a mission there. When living in Texas, we
called one of the Missionaries to be our pastor. After having one of our
board meetings with him one evening, he leaned back in his chair, smiled
and said, "you know, this is nice -- we just had a meeting here and
finished it and no one threw any bricks through the windows." Let me add
that our church body does not practice in-your-face evangelism. In
Indonesia, the default religion is the religion of peace and no open
evangelism is allowed. People who have been in car accidents there have
been declared guilty even when not really at fault because the judge has
determined, "if you weren't in our country, this accident wouldn't have
occurred".




Pakistan - the worlds second largest muslim population (97% of 165
million) - democracy

Your "empirical evidence" looks a little shaky to me.

Again, marginally democratic, most definitely not free to practice one's
faith unless it is as a member of the religion of peace. People in
Pakistan get killed when they aren't members of the religion of peace.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
diggerop wrote:


Indonesia - the worlds largest muslim population (88% of 245 million) -
democracy


Marginally so. The Suartos were hardly champions of free and open
democracy. Even today, Indonesia is definitely neither tolerant nor
inclusive. Our church has a mission there. When living in Texas, we
called one of the Missionaries to be our pastor. After having one of our
board meetings with him one evening, he leaned back in his chair, smiled
and said, "you know, this is nice -- we just had a meeting here and
finished it and no one threw any bricks through the windows." Let me add
that our church body does not practice in-your-face evangelism. In
Indonesia, the default religion is the religion of peace and no open
evangelism is allowed. People who have been in car accidents there have
been declared guilty even when not really at fault because the judge has
determined, "if you weren't in our country, this accident wouldn't have
occurred".



Interesting. I lived and worked in Indonesia for a time in the post Suharto
era.
I found the Indonesian people where I was in East Kalimantan, to be
friendly,
open and extremely tolerant. Likewise in Bali, (which is predominantly
Hindu.)
It's worth noting that Indonesia is made up of an agglomeration of very
different
cultures, brought together under one political banner, so that which applies
in one part of Indonesia cannot necessarily be applied to the nation as a
whole.
No-one cared about my religious beliefs, except to say that it was important
to have some religious belief. Atheism was viewed with suspicion.
Trying to convert someone's religious beliefs was viewed as highly
offensive, but then,
the same applies in my country today. : )

The accident scenario has more to do with their pragmatic view of justice
than
anything else. It's based on the social responsibility of a person's
capacity to pay,
not fault as we are accustomed to. Based on negotiation and it works, in a
quirky way.
In the eyes of the average Indonesian citizen, Westerners are viewed as
being wealthy
beyond belief, a proposition that had much justification.
In 1996, when I was there, I earned as much per day as the average
Indonesian earned
in a year! Per capita incomes have increased by 700% since then, yet today
is still only around A$4000 p.a. With the unequal distribution of wealth,
the average man in the
street probably has less than half of that figure in reality
So it was regarded as just, that in the event of an accident, I could easily
afford to
pay, - therefore I should. Not to do so would have been regarded as mean and
churlish.
Accepting that responsibility gained enormous respect. Doors were opened,
the path was
smoothed. Everyone was happy.

As an aside, the principle of "if you weren't there the accident wouldn't
have happened," is not
unique to Indonesia. I have personal experience of it being applied in civil
litigation over an accident
here in Australia. The starting point was that the complainant (Me) was
deemed to have 30% responsibility simply by virtue of being there. Legal
argument was then undertaken as to fault and the result was that the other
party was deemed to be completely at fault. In spite of that, I still bore
10% of the responsibility and the damages were reduced by that amount. Fair?
I didn't think so. : )

Diggerop

"J. Clarke" wrote:

And a terrorist standing in the aisle is not going to be good for much after
he has fallen the full length of a 747 cabin then had a food service cart
land on him. Airliners are not stressed for aerobatics but a skilled pilot
can nonetheless do things like that when he has nothing to lose by breaking
the airplane.

Or simple aileron rolls would do the job and the 747 is stressed for it:
http://www.svpilots.com/JJ747/B-747_LIMITS.pdf. Terrorist in a blender. Right
side, ceiling, left side, floor. Repeat as necessary.

I would suggest it will be generations before an airliner is high jacked again.
No pilot will ever yield control of the plane until it has been long enough to
forget.

-- Doug