A german's point of view...

[ogpro]

Sorry... I can't even remember all of it myself. :hysterical: At least I didn't hit the character limit like in the religion thread...

Hehe...good Niky. I'm going to respond to this msg so I don't end up quoting your whole reply...

I agree with basically most of your points, except the part where you mistook my bringing up the Edsa Revolution as an example of where we need american intervention. I brought that up because I believe that a part of what swelled public support was HOPE...

I too have heard about the silent majority of moderate muslims who are supposedly shocked at the actions of their hardline comrades. The problem is, the fundamentalists are running the show. They have the same "you are with us or against us" philosophy that ironically, Bush embraces. When you have the fundamentalists in power, how do the moderates express themselves?

[oliver1013]

For me just be prepared, let them strike first (for better public support), then hit hard and relentless. Take no prisoners..Kill em all..and let God sort it out!!

[niky]

Hehe...good Niky. I'm going to respond to this msg so I don't end up quoting your whole reply...

I agree with basically most of your points, except the part where you mistook my bringing up the Edsa Revolution as an example of where we need american intervention. I brought that up because I believe that a part of what swelled public support was HOPE...

I too have heard about the silent majority of moderate muslims who are supposedly shocked at the actions of their hardline comrades. The problem is, the fundamentalists are running the show. They have the same "you are with us or against us" philosophy that ironically, Bush embraces. When you have the fundamentalists in power, how do the moderates express themselves?

Sorry about that... my brain went into steamroller mode as I analyzed the letter... (I mean: Muslim holidays bad? What the heck?)

True... one of America's greatest contributions to the world and in the advancement of democracy in the past century is the offer of hope. Hope of a better, more prosperous life through democracy and capitalism. Sad, during EDSA, that we had democracy before that, and we actually had to fight for it again.

As for how moderates are to express themselves, in a democracy, it's through the vote... although I have issues with the way the vote polarizes people in the US into the "with-us-against-us" camps. Hard for one side, too, when there are different choice espousing the same ideals (as happened in Bush's first election) they end up cannibalizing votes from one another... but when enough of the electorate knows what they want, the vote can go to the silent majority. A fact that I see as hampering America's ability to gain any true headway in Iraq, as politics is interfering with the war effort when America really needs to commit to it.

But amongst Muslims? Sad to say, the extremists will always get more media attention. Moderate Muslims, leading productive lives, forming a constructive part of their society, will never be the top of the news. The news loves controversy, scandal and strife. It's the noisiest at both ends (right and left) that get the most media, not the more sensible voices.

Islam is not a democracy, it's a religion. The moderates can't vote to shut up the extremists. It's just like Catholicism... we can't put the idea of women priests to a vote... we can't choose our Popes, it's done for us. (Sadly, Ratzinger appears much less open to change and reform than John Paul II, who helped to make the Church more relevant to the modern world)

It's nice to see, though, that there's more and more opening up of the Muslim world to the media, and more "human interest" stories about Muslim culture, and the way it is starting to embrace western ideas. Whether it can adapt fast enough, or if things will go to pot within the next few decades, well, that's a gamble.

But it's more of the Chinese dilemma... you can't attack this thing head on. You can just try all channels, diplomacy, show-of-force, cultural assimilation and dissemination and a free trade of ideas and goods, and wait for them to adapt to your world. Because the world isn't going to go the way of Islam... Islam has to adapt to the modern world. It might take the Muslim equivalent of Pope John Paul II or the Vatican II treatise, but it has to happen eventually.

[maverickjazzy]

Of particular note:

Reagan didn't end the cold war. Gorbachev did. The USSR collapsed mostly from internal economic and social pressure from decades of Cold-war militarization and posturing against the Europeans and Americans. Even the CIA, which was dedicated to bringing about the downfall of the Soviet Union, admitted surprise that the Soviets disbanded and democratized all by themselves.

An ultra-rightist here, with too much time on his hands? Perhaps. He has some good points, but some mis-informed ones, too. Bush's push in Afghanistan severely weakened the power-base of Al-Quaeda, yes, but the invasion of Iraq just gave them a new place to set up shop, and a new breeding ground for future terrorists.

Gorbachev did not end the cold war because he was holding on to power very precariously. Maybe it's the USSR itself as the reason for their demise, their many problems which are inherent to their type of government(communism).

Ronald Reagan may not be the direct reason for the end of cold war but he sure is one of the main components. Most of media outlets and journalists acknowledges it. As Tom Clancy dedicated one of his novel to Reagan as, "the president who won the Cold War". He is one shrewd leader. He made the Soviets react to all of his foreign policies and actions, unlike his predecessors like Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson who were the ones reacting to every soviet moves. In short, he fooled the Soviets.

Case in point : Reagan was able to engaged the Soviets into the arms race very deeply, it sure is dangerous but look at the rewards, all the communist countries in eastern europe fell one by one.

He made them to match his every announcement of increases in defense spendings or technological advances in military hardware. The soviets matched every american increases on conventional weapons such as fighters, bombers, tanks, howitzers, aircraft carriers, aegis cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and their nuclear weapons. In fact the soviets can ill-afford any drastic increases on military spendings without weakening their civilian budget due to their poor economy and inefficient bureaucracy/institutions/industrial complexes. Please remember that at that time it is estimated that the US economy is three times as big as the USSR.

One of the most ingenious act of Reagan was when he announced their breakthrough Star Wars Defense Shield against any incoming intercontinental ballistic missile. The soviets believed him so much, that they were trembling in fear and requested for disarmament/decrease of nuclear weapons while increasing their conventional weapons. Imagine the soviets spent so much money on their nuclear arsenal only to be destroyed later on. When in fact this Star Wars missile system is just a pigment of imagination of some pentagon bureaucrats that was still on the planning stages.

All of this because of Reagan who's got the balls and the brains to engage the Soviets into a war they cannot win, which is matching every dollar spent by the americans on their military.

Just my 2 cents...
Peace

[jonski]

"You're thinking in Japanese! If you must think, do it in German!" - Asuka Langley Soryu (Evangelion)

[Jun aka Pekto]

Just to add to what's already been said......

The Star Wars project wasn't all a figment of the imagination. The US actually made some (airborne) prototype laser weapons which succeeded in shooting down an aerial drone. They also had a missile carried by an F-15 that had enough range to reach space and destroy an enemy satellite. I've read about those two in aerospace industry publications before Reagan came up with the Star Wars moniker.

When Reagan started to build up the US military. It was mainly to reach parity with the Soviets in several areas, like the "600-ship navy". The US had been outnumbered beforehand. He also gave the green light for military weapon systems that had been languishing under Carter such as the M1 Abrams which was regarded as an expensive "supertank" at the time. The B-1 bomber, the F-117 Nighthawk (stealth fighter). Most of all, he improved the pay and benefits for all members of the US Armed Forces.

He was regarded as a good president. But, even he had his sinister moments. Take Iran-Contra....... I can't for one moment believe that he did not know anything about the Iran-Contra affairs.

I remember wondering why Ayatollah Khomeini decided to release the American hostages in Iran at the verge of Reagan assuming office. Reagan was considered a hardliner. But I doubt that would have been enough to scare the ayatollah. One reason may have been the ayatollah's stated goal of bringing the Carter presidency down after the failed rescue attempt of the American hostages. Once Carter lost, the ayatollah was satisfied. But, something that trivial....... It just didn't add up. Something else "under the table" had to be going on.

The usual antagonistic rhetoric went on between the US and Iran. But behind the scenes, Iran, the US, and Israel were collaborating on something which turned out to be the Iran-Contra affair. When that came out, I thought Reagan's presidency will soon be over. But, he had powerful and capable allies representing him.....

[oldblue]

Gorbachev did not end the cold war because he was holding on to power very precariously. Maybe it's the USSR itself as the reason for their demise, their many problems which are inherent to their type of government(communism).

Ronald Reagan may not be the direct reason for the end of cold war but he sure is one of the main components. Most of media outlets and journalists acknowledges it. As Tom Clancy dedicated one of his novel to Reagan as, "the president who won the Cold War". He is one shrewd leader. He made the Soviets react to all of his foreign policies and actions, unlike his predecessors like Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson who were the ones reacting to every soviet moves. In short, he fooled the Soviets.

Case in point : Reagan was able to engaged the Soviets into the arms race very deeply, it sure is dangerous but look at the rewards, all the communist countries in eastern europe fell one by one.

He made them to match his every announcement of increases in defense spendings or technological advances in military hardware. The soviets matched every american increases on conventional weapons such as fighters, bombers, tanks, howitzers, aircraft carriers, aegis cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and their nuclear weapons. In fact the soviets can ill-afford any drastic increases on military spendings without weakening their civilian budget due to their poor economy and inefficient bureaucracy/institutions/industrial complexes. Please remember that at that time it is estimated that the US economy is three times as big as the USSR.

One of the most ingenious act of Reagan was when he announced their breakthrough Star Wars Defense Shield against any incoming intercontinental ballistic missile. The soviets believed him so much, that they were trembling in fear and requested for disarmament/decrease of nuclear weapons while increasing their conventional weapons. Imagine the soviets spent so much money on their nuclear arsenal only to be destroyed later on. When in fact this Star Wars missile system is just a pigment of imagination of some pentagon bureaucrats that was still on the planning stages.

All of this because of Reagan who's got the balls and the brains to engage the Soviets into a war they cannot win, which is matching every dollar spent by the americans on their military.

Just my 2 cents...
Peace

diba yun star wars defense system para sa mga UFO's.

tignan nyo after Reagan's term tumigil na mga haka-haka sa aliens and close encounters of the nth kind hehehe

and shortly after, nabuwag na din ang berlin wall. all the while the two superpowers were blaming each other for spying on each other's continents. yun pala somebody up there is testing their patience hehehe

[Jun aka Pekto]

diba yun star wars defense system para sa mga UFO's.

Well, humor aside, the Star Wars project was supposed to be an advanced form of anti-ballistic missile defense.

What Reagan wanted was to make a nuclear war winable. A dangerous concept to consider because it would 've trivialized the impact of nuclear weapons and might've set off another arms race with far more dangerous weapons.

OT
Speaking of UFOs....... We were driving from Fallon to Las Vegas during the early 80's. It was summer and twilight came late (almost 10pm). We saw something in the distance that looked like a UFO. I mean it's profile didn't look like any military or civilian aircraft we've ever seen. It shook up one of my wife's cousins so much so that she had to undergo several sessions with a psychiatrist.

It turned out the USAF was testing its then secret F-117 Nighthawk (aka Stealth Fighter) east of Tonopah, NV.

If anyone remember at the time, there were model kits trying to depict what the Stealth Fighter looked like. None of them came close.

Add: China recently blew up one of its own weather satellites with a missile, making it one of the countries besides the US and Russia with that capability. I'm betting Japan is getting just a bit more nervous.....

[niky]

Don't get me wrong, it's not that Reagan wasn't an important factor... it's just that he wasn't the only factor.

Of course, coming from Jimmy Carter, yes, he was a much better one.

Gorbachev's loss of control was directly due to the reforms he initiated to try to bring the Soviet Union up to par with the west. He did have good control of the country beforehand, but as said, the mad arms race with the US nearly ruined the country, and he saw the need for reforms.

[creepy]

China recently blew up one of its own weather satellites with a missile, making it one of the countries besides the US and Russia with that capability. I'm betting Japan is getting just a bit more nervous.....

Bakit kaya magre-reklamo ang Japan?!?!?!

The U.S. should voluntarily dismantle its own capabilities (missiles that can hit satellites, WMD) before the Americans start complaining about the weapons of other countries... (baka may magalit na nascent right-wingers sa comment ko).

[Jun aka Pekto]

Bakit kaya magre-reklamo ang Japan?!?!?!

The U.S. should voluntarily dismantle its own capabilities (missiles that can hit satellites, WMD) before the Americans start complaining about the weapons of other countries... (baka may magalit na nascent right-wingers sa comment ko).

Where've you been? The US did dismantle it's anti-satellite missile system a while back. I'm not sure if it's part of the SALT treaties or if Russia did the same. But, the US did stop deploying it's anti-satellite weapons years ago.

[empy]

i guess this is a cold war thread now :hihihi:

[creepy]

Where've you been? The US did dismantle it's anti-satellite missile system a while back. I'm not sure if it's part of the SALT treaties or if Russia did the same. But, the US did stop deploying it's anti-satellite weapons years ago.

Errr... You're kidding right?

You must still be living under a rock to actually believe that your government actually stopped developing anti-satellite weapon systems (and WMD) ...

Wake up, boy!! Magbasa ka naman minsan! Hahaha!!

Huwag ka nang magalit kung hindi lahat ng tao sa mundo gustong maghari ang mga Kano...

[Jun aka Pekto]

Errr... You're kidding right?

You must still be living under a rock to actually believe that your government actually stopped developing anti-satellite weapon systems (and WMD) ...

Wake up, boy!! Magbasa ka naman minsan! Hahaha!!

Huwag ka nang magalit kung hindi lahat ng tao sa mundo gustong maghari ang mga Kano...

Well, they did stop deployment of that particular weapon system. But, you have to separate WMD from anti-satellite/orbital weapon systems because they have a totally different focus from each other. All the major powers have WMD's whether they admit it or not.

But when it comes to anti-satellite or space-based weapons, it is an exclusive group. The US is a signatory of the treaty forbidding the militarization of outer space. As of the present, it's only the Russians who've ever deployed an actual anti-ballistic missile defense system (back in the late 60's?).

That doesn't mean the US will stop research on potential space-based weapon systems because the last thing they want to do is get caught with their pants down. As that successful Chinese test shows, there is reason for the US to at least have a working solution should the need arise.

Still, you have to make a distinction between research/experimental versus actual deployment.

You can say all you want about "Kanos" wanting to rule the world. I won't be drawn into that trap.

[oldblue]

eh yun EMP gun totoo ba talaga may ganun satellite that will bring us all back to the stone age

[oliver1013]

Meron ata nun EMP missile napanood ko sa NatGeo. Gagamitin sana sa preliminary attack sa Iraq..will cause all electronic gadgets to malfunction..Di lang tinuloy para di masira equipment ng mga journalists. Kelangan kasi nila tuloy ang reports ng journalists kasi pang propaganda.

[Jun aka Pekto]

eh yun EMP gun totoo ba talaga may ganun satellite that will bring us all back to the stone age

EMP has been touted as a potential anti-satellite weapon. EMP is already well known as a side effect of a nuclear explosion and how it could fry electronics. Of course, many military hardware such as armored vehicles and aircraft had already been hardened to withstand EMP.

I'm not sure how practical an EMP gun will be. It'll probably be very localized.
To have an effect on a worldwide scale, it'll have to be at the same magnitude as a solar flare. We've already seen the nasty effects of a solar flare on telecommunications and power grids.

[niky]

The best EMP weapon is a nuclear bomb. Detonating a huge multi-megaton bomb (say, 500 to 1000 megatonnes) in the upper atmosphere over your target country won't harm most military hardware, but it'd throw their civilian communications and power infrastructure into a state of chaos.

[GasJunkie]

having teh bomb = teh secksi





:drool:

[oldblue]

how 'bout an EMP handgun. that would be cool hehehe