US international mideast policy--a review
Looking at the US President "Dubya" Bush's most recent speeches, if being able to talk at 120 words per minute non-stop for 40 minutes indicates presidential star quality, if being able to write out or have someone write out a speech that would take up about 12 pages in a typical paperback book indicates presidential star quality, we have then a star quality president. It must be tough to talk for 40 minutes non-stop at that speed. Come on, Prez "Dubya" Bush, and tell us, what super water do you drink before or during your speeches that enables you to talk for so long at such a speed? If you told then we could save the US economy through being able to talk for a long time at a high rate of speed like you.
I had certain first reactions to my latest review of US government policies.
There is flimsy evidence that persons of mideast origin and name, persons X Y and Z, are anything important in terms of power within the pan-islamic radical militant Islamic network. Yet the US administration, it seems on the basis of flimsy evidence, jumps to the conclusion that persons X Y and Z are important in said network.
There is flimsy evidence that persons X Y and Z, can be said to be interchangeable and synonymous with the international pan-islamic radical network. That is, there is flimsy evidence that if persons X Y or Z say something, this means that the words spoken by X Y or Z, represent the official or unofficial views of whatever international pan-islamic radical network that exists. Yet it seems, this administration assumes that persons X Y or Z are the official or unofficial spokesmen for the international pan-islamic radical network.
The Administration response to the radical pan-islamic network that it perceives to exist, appears to be inefficient in the extreme. The network is said to have an annual budget of 30 million dollars, and the administration deals with this threat that has an annual budget of 30 million dollars, by spending 300 billion dollars a year. That is a ratio of 10,000 to 1. The problem with this is that there are many foreign nations with military budgets that are 100 or 1000 times as large as the so-called Al Qaeda's annual budget; there are probably several organized crime groups with the equivalent of annual military budgets, that are 10 or 100 times as great as that of "Al Qaeda". Given the fact that it is possible and probable that there will be several hreats to the national and international security that are at least as powerful as a 30 million per year operation, this kind of extravagant response to the Al Qaeda threat seems to make little sense, because if ten new different unique Al-Qaeda equivalents were to materialize in the future, there would be no resources left to deal with them. If each of these ten new threats were dealt with the way Al-Qaeda has been dealt with, the expenditure would amount annually to at least 3 trillion dollars.
The persons the US names as leaders of "Al Qaeda" are persons of limited means from nations that militarily and economically speaking are relatively merely punky, nations that are weak in terms of defense vs weapons of mass destruction and offense using weapons of mass destruction. Yet the US reacts to them with a "We'll spend 10,000 for every 1 dollar you spend" reaction. What is the US under current policies going to do when it is confronted by real heavyweights from heavyweight countries?
Reasonably responses to phenomenon such as "Al Qaeda" or whatever international pan-islamic radical network does in reality exist, could if necessary include: pressuring of the governments that are the nations taht the private individuals who fund the network are citizens and natives of; excluding dangerous materials and persons from various areas; developing the ability to track the source of whatever attack actually were to occur; antidotes for whatever dangerous substances are unleashed; the threat of responses to attacks being such that those who would attack are dissuaded from doing so; and, aside from "Al Qaeda", the building up of the strength of the US itself. Yet the only response the US considers to be possible, is the response of aggressive raiding into foreign territories in pursuit of "Al Qaeda" leaders and supporters. The US talks as if "Al Qaeda" and the communists of yore were twins, but despite this, the US acts as if pre-emptive invasive assault is the only solution with "Al Qaeda", even though the US prides itself that the communism problem was solved without recourse to such aggressive pre-emptive invasion.
My notes re the US mideast policy:
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/vincemoon/mideast.htm
@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
I had certain first reactions to my latest review of US government policies.
There is flimsy evidence that persons of mideast origin and name, persons X Y and Z, are anything important in terms of power within the pan-islamic radical militant Islamic network. Yet the US administration, it seems on the basis of flimsy evidence, jumps to the conclusion that persons X Y and Z are important in said network.
There is flimsy evidence that persons X Y and Z, can be said to be interchangeable and synonymous with the international pan-islamic radical network. That is, there is flimsy evidence that if persons X Y or Z say something, this means that the words spoken by X Y or Z, represent the official or unofficial views of whatever international pan-islamic radical network that exists. Yet it seems, this administration assumes that persons X Y or Z are the official or unofficial spokesmen for the international pan-islamic radical network.
The Administration response to the radical pan-islamic network that it perceives to exist, appears to be inefficient in the extreme. The network is said to have an annual budget of 30 million dollars, and the administration deals with this threat that has an annual budget of 30 million dollars, by spending 300 billion dollars a year. That is a ratio of 10,000 to 1. The problem with this is that there are many foreign nations with military budgets that are 100 or 1000 times as large as the so-called Al Qaeda's annual budget; there are probably several organized crime groups with the equivalent of annual military budgets, that are 10 or 100 times as great as that of "Al Qaeda". Given the fact that it is possible and probable that there will be several hreats to the national and international security that are at least as powerful as a 30 million per year operation, this kind of extravagant response to the Al Qaeda threat seems to make little sense, because if ten new different unique Al-Qaeda equivalents were to materialize in the future, there would be no resources left to deal with them. If each of these ten new threats were dealt with the way Al-Qaeda has been dealt with, the expenditure would amount annually to at least 3 trillion dollars.
The persons the US names as leaders of "Al Qaeda" are persons of limited means from nations that militarily and economically speaking are relatively merely punky, nations that are weak in terms of defense vs weapons of mass destruction and offense using weapons of mass destruction. Yet the US reacts to them with a "We'll spend 10,000 for every 1 dollar you spend" reaction. What is the US under current policies going to do when it is confronted by real heavyweights from heavyweight countries?
Reasonably responses to phenomenon such as "Al Qaeda" or whatever international pan-islamic radical network does in reality exist, could if necessary include: pressuring of the governments that are the nations taht the private individuals who fund the network are citizens and natives of; excluding dangerous materials and persons from various areas; developing the ability to track the source of whatever attack actually were to occur; antidotes for whatever dangerous substances are unleashed; the threat of responses to attacks being such that those who would attack are dissuaded from doing so; and, aside from "Al Qaeda", the building up of the strength of the US itself. Yet the only response the US considers to be possible, is the response of aggressive raiding into foreign territories in pursuit of "Al Qaeda" leaders and supporters. The US talks as if "Al Qaeda" and the communists of yore were twins, but despite this, the US acts as if pre-emptive invasive assault is the only solution with "Al Qaeda", even though the US prides itself that the communism problem was solved without recourse to such aggressive pre-emptive invasion.
My notes re the US mideast policy:
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/vincemoon/mideast.htm
@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 2:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home