Reciprocity wrote:
Yeah, once they'd taken Indochina, Australia was sure to fall under the sickle. and then antarctica. It's a good thing we won in Vietnam.
Double lol? Economic conditions implemented by the US certainly have taken their toll on millions of vietnamese, but militarily you didn't win, surely?ATG wrote:
We did.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-04-14 00:47:12)
American consumer won the Vietnam War. The end goal of containing communism in SE Asia was pretty much met. Economic conditions on the Vietnamese? Please. I thought communists can sustain themselves.ruisleipa wrote:
Reciprocity wrote:
Yeah, once they'd taken Indochina, Australia was sure to fall under the sickle. and then antarctica. It's a good thing we won in Vietnam.Double lol? Economic conditions implemented by the US certainly have taken their toll on millions of vietnamese, but militarily you didn't win, surely?ATG wrote:
We did.
unless you guys know something the rest of the world doesn't?http://cla.calpoly.edu/~lcall/204/8-10/fall_of_saigon.jpg
Yeah right. And the goal of getting forced out of the country was pretty well met too right? riiight.Cybargs wrote:
American consumer won the Vietnam War. The end goal of containing communism in SE Asia was pretty much met. Economic conditions on the Vietnamese? Please. I thought communists can sustain themselves.
The OP is just bald statements unsupported by arguments, evidence or facts, there is nothing to argue against.FEOS wrote:
You still haven't provided an ounce of evidence against the balance argument WRT foreign policy, for either the US or UK (as the US policy is founded on the UK policy). All you've done is say "it's drivel". Not exactly a strong counterargument.
He's running a for-profit opinion centre, he'll change his tune according to his agenda and who is paying the piper.Your attempt to smear Friedman isn't exactly stellar, either. Briefing players in the defense-industrial complex doesn't mean you are a part of it--he was in academia.
For example? I see nothing in the OP connected with fact or history.Historical fact lines up pretty well with their assessment rather than your opinion.
Sure Vietnamization destroyed the country by constant bombing runs, today it's a very very good market to enter to. Trust me, Vietnam is a booming when it comes to business. One of the largest growth industries in the world. lrn2econandglobalization. Now young little vietnamese boys and girls make mickey mouse tshirts for the American consumer.ruisleipa wrote:
Yeah right. And the goal of getting forced out of the country was pretty well met too right? riiight.Cybargs wrote:
American consumer won the Vietnam War. The end goal of containing communism in SE Asia was pretty much met. Economic conditions on the Vietnamese? Please. I thought communists can sustain themselves.
As for economic conditions - lrn2histori
As far as I remember, a peace treaty was signed, which the NV then broke.ruisleipa wrote:
Yeah right. And the goal of getting forced out of the country was pretty well met too right? riiight.Cybargs wrote:
American consumer won the Vietnam War. The end goal of containing communism in SE Asia was pretty much met. Economic conditions on the Vietnamese? Please. I thought communists can sustain themselves.
As for economic conditions - lrn2histori
Bullshit. Utter bullshit. If that were true, you would be able to easily point out where their conclusions were incorrect and not substantiated by historical fact. Please do.Dilbert_X wrote:
The OP is just bald statements unsupported by arguments, evidence or facts, there is nothing to argue against.FEOS wrote:
You still haven't provided an ounce of evidence against the balance argument WRT foreign policy, for either the US or UK (as the US policy is founded on the UK policy). All you've done is say "it's drivel". Not exactly a strong counterargument.
Incorrect. He's running a for-profit enterprise, no doubt, but it's not an "opinion center". It's subscription-based, not ad-based or donor-based. If I paid the whopping $99 per year subscription fee, I'd have just as much "leverage" on Dr Friedman as anyone else who paid the subscription fee.Dilbert_X wrote:
He's running a for-profit opinion centre, he'll change his tune according to his agenda and who is paying the piper.FEOS wrote:
Your attempt to smear Friedman isn't exactly stellar, either. Briefing players in the defense-industrial complex doesn't mean you are a part of it--he was in academia.
There will be plenty of people willing to pay for 'independent research' which backs their agenda at the time and that is what STRATFOR produces.
Even the vaunted "Beeb" cites them as an authority.STRATFOR's client list is confidential, but the company's publicity list includes Fortune 500 companies and international government agencies.[3]
Currently STRATFOR's products are oriented around individual subscriptions, of which the "Premium" product is the most comprehensive in content offered. Other packages, such as "Global Vantage", are tailored to appeal to commercial or governmental customers. They feature regional and customizable intelligence whereby users are able to partake in monthly teleconferences with STRATFOR's founder, Dr. George Friedman, and have the option of e-mailing STRATFOR's analysts with a "guaranteed response within 24 hours Monday–Friday".[4] Some of STRATFOR's work remains available free to the public.[5]
Media coverage
STRATFOR has been cited by media such as CNN, Bloomberg, the Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times and the BBC as an authority on strategic and tactical intelligence issues.[6] Barron's once referred to it as "The Shadow CIA".
Then you are more than welcome to present facts to counter their assessment. To date, you've provided exactly none.Dilbert_X wrote:
For example? I see nothing in the OP connected with fact or history.FEOS wrote:
Historical fact lines up pretty well with their assessment rather than your opinion.
If you can't be bothered to counter it with anything other than "it sucks, I don't agree", then perhaps D&ST isn't for you.Dilbert_X wrote:
Really I can't be bothered refuting line by line a STRATFOR opinion, a Fox News item or a PNAC document.
I think the problem is that the end result of the analysis isn't that Israel is evil and the lapdog of the US. Anything short of that wouldn't meet predetermined world views of certain forum members.Spark wrote:
I really don't see what the problem with the article. It makes very good, logically sound and insightful analysis, whilst constantly referring to historical events which are easily verifiable.
This is an opinion article, not an encyclopaedia entry.
Thats enough for me TBH.FEOS wrote:
Barron's once referred to it as "The Shadow CIA".
There are no supposed facts in the OP to counter, just opinion.If that were true, you would be able to easily point out where their conclusions were incorrect and not substantiated by historical fact. Please do.
Pretty sure the 'international agencies' pay a bit more than $99, the 'opinion' will be tailored to them.If I paid the whopping $99 per year subscription fee, I'd have just as much "leverage" on Dr Friedman as anyone else who paid the subscription fee.
There you have it, people paying $99 will get an abridged version of that.Other packages, such as "Global Vantage", are tailored to appeal to commercial or governmental customers.
No it isn't. There has been no significant Arab anti-americanism prior to US support for the state of Israel.The fundamental problem with the theory is that Arab anti-Americanism predates significant U.S. support for Israel.
Thats fudging the issue, for a start the US gave significant support to Israel prior to that, significantly supporting Israel in the UN in 1948 and vetoing anything remotely critical of Israel ever since. This is why the whole Arab world is fucked off with the US, its not related solely to financial aid.Until 1967, the United States gave very little aid to Israel.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-15 05:46:51)
Because you know fuck-all about what that statement means. The CIA does all-source analysis. That's what that means. STRATFOR does all-source (open-source) analysis. Fucksake, Dilbert, could you take off your fucking blinders for one fucking second and look at one fucking thing objectively for once in your life?Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats enough for me TBH.FEOS wrote:
Barron's once referred to it as "The Shadow CIA".
Actually, it was replete with historical facts, from which they developed analyses. You stated there were no facts to counter. Wrong.Dilbert_X wrote:
There are no supposed facts in the OP to counter, just opinion.If that were true, you would be able to easily point out where their conclusions were incorrect and not substantiated by historical fact. Please do.
That means those customers submit requests for information/analysis focused on certain areas. Just like happens in government with its own intelligence function. It's called an RFI (request for information) and its focused on specific questions, ie, "tailored to appeal to commercial or governmental customers".Dilbert_X wrote:
Pretty sure the 'international agencies' pay a bit more than $99, the 'opinion' will be tailored to them.If I paid the whopping $99 per year subscription fee, I'd have just as much "leverage" on Dr Friedman as anyone else who paid the subscription fee.There you have it, people paying $99 will get an abridged version of that.Other packages, such as "Global Vantage", are tailored to appeal to commercial or governmental customers.
I see you've chosen to completely ignore the rest of the article. You focus on the US recognizing Israel as the focus of Arab anti-Americanism, completely ignoring the fact that the US didn't even support Israel in the Eisenhower Administration (as was pointed out in the article), when the UK and France did (hence the point that there was little to no US support to Israel pre-1967).Dilbert_X wrote:
Lets pick one topic.No it isn't. There has been no significant Arab anti-americanism prior to US support for the state of Israel.The fundamental problem with the theory is that Arab anti-Americanism predates significant U.S. support for Israel.
Please point to Arab anti-americanism prior to US support for Israel if you can.Thats fudging the issue, for a start the US gave significant support to Israel prior to that, significantly supporting Israel in the UN in 1948 and vetoing anything remotely critical of Israel ever since. This is why the whole Arab world is fucked off with the US, its not related solely to financial aid.Until 1967, the United States gave very little aid to Israel.
Real history is interesting.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlesto … /index.php
This is why the arabs are anti-american, recognising Israel and condoning theft of arab land in spite of prior agreements and outside the UN, not some BS made up to suit revisionist historians and the Republican party.
That Stratfor chooses to ignore crystal clear historical facts and make up rubbish is simply laughable.
This is the problem with the Stratfor 'analysis', it provides a few factoids, some bogus analysis which extrapolates from those factoids and produces conclusions which have no connection with the real world but which do suit the agendas of the people writing them and the people buying them.
I think the "The Shadow CIA" moniker is thoroughly apt.
Last edited by FEOS (2010-04-15 08:38:02)
You have no fucking clue of the quality of the analysis the CIA does. I'm sure you'll point to Iraq and say "See?!" and that argument is shit, and has been proven to be shit repeatedly. Even--for the sake of argument--if it weren't shit, it's a single data point. The CIA does volumes of analysis every single day. The vast majority of which is spot fucking on. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Dilbert_X wrote:
The CIA does shit analysis, thats the point.
The US and many other countries recognized (as opposed to "supported") the foundation of Israel. The only problem is that many of those other countries supported Israel in the early days far more tangibly than did the US...yet you (and the Arab street/press) totally ignore that.Dilbert_X wrote:
The US supported the foundation of the state of Israel, an act which motivated the Arab nations to band together and launch a war - obviously they took it seriously.
Wikipedia wrote:
Eleven minutes after the Declaration of Independence was signed, President Truman de facto recognized the State of Israel,[12] followed by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's Iran (which had voted against the UN partition plan), Guatemala, Iceland, Nicaragua, Romania and Uruguay. The Soviet Union was the first nation to fully recognize Israel de jure on 17 May 1948, followed by Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ireland and South Africa.[citation needed] The United States extended official recognition after the first Israeli election, as President Truman promised,[13] on 31 January 1949.
It was spelled out quite clearly in the article. Suggest you take remedial reading courses if it wasn't clear enough for you.Dilbert_X wrote:
Still waiting for someone to explain why it is 'Arab anti-Americanism predates significant U.S. support for Israel.'.
Oh, its not true, hard luck.
I see nothing in the OP which supports this.The fundamental problem with the theory is that Arab anti-Americanism predates significant U.S. support for Israel.
Do you not understand what the word "significant" means?Dilbert_X wrote:
Still not seeing any anti-americanism prior to 1948.
You know, this bit.I see nothing in the OP which supports this.The fundamental problem with the theory is that Arab anti-Americanism predates significant U.S. support for Israel.
The Arabs don't see it that way, they see reneging on an agreement and siding with an enemy which has effectively declared war on them as significant. That the US was the first country to do so is significant to them.Significant US support to Israel didn't start until after the Eisenhower Administration, Dilbert (as proven via sources). Simply de facto recognizing Israel's statehood--along with a slew of other countries--and not de jure recognizing it until well after many others is far from "significant" support.
And again...the historical facts aren't with you on this.Dilbert_X wrote:
The Arabs don't see it that way, they see reneging on an agreement and siding with an enemy which has effectively declared war on them as significant. That the US was the first country to do so is significant to them.Significant US support to Israel didn't start until after the Eisenhower Administration, Dilbert (as proven via sources). Simply de facto recognizing Israel's statehood--along with a slew of other countries--and not de jure recognizing it until well after many others is far from "significant" support.
And the US thinks its just about money....
There's the problem, if Stratfor are either ignorant of this or choose to ignore it - I think the latter - then their reports are worthless.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-21 06:46:52)
Yet again, provide some examples. There was no arab anti-americanism prior to 1948, you're saying post 1948 arab anti-americanism is inexplicable which is not true.FEOS wrote:
You're totally ignoring the fact that anti-American sentiment predates the Johnson administration
Wait a minute, the article said animosity preceded any significant US act. Which is it?Sources have been provided that have shown that anti-American animosity grew among the Arab population well after the foundation and recognition of Israel.
Still waiting for a single one.I really don't need to provide more examples.
^ If agree this is BS then try thinking harder about the STRATFOR 'analysis'.DILFOR wrote:
Begin with the claim that German action against the jews generated anti-Germanism in the jewish world. This is patently unfounded. Jewish hatred of the Germans began in the 1930s-40s, well before the Germans did anything which could be considered hostile to the jews.
The first act which could be construed as anti-jewish was in 1974 when the Germans supported the Syrians in setting up a tractor factory, by sending blueprints, machine tools and suchlike. Why the jews in Israel would regard this as a hostile act is unfathomable but there you go. The clear conclusion is the jews despise success and hate freedom, having been indoctrinated in this chain of thought by communist infiltrators at the height of the US-USSR cold war.
Of course some people say the jewish holocaust is relevant, however all european countries and the USA participated in this, the germans merely took the first step, death camps were spread all across europe, it wasn't a particularly german thing. The Russians killed more jews anyway, this griping proves the irationality of their blind hatred.
Conclusions:
The jews are success-despising, freedom hating pencil-necked wieners who side with the USSR on all things.
The USA should send money, weapons and nuclear material to germany to help them continue their noble crusade against the jews.
You owe me $99
End transmission.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-26 19:56:45)
Such as? You haven't provided an example of that.Dilbert_X wrote:
Nope, first the US was negotiating with the Arabs and reneged on commitments they'd given.
Actually, the Soviet Union was the first country to officially recognize Israel. I suppose that's insignificant?Dilbert_X wrote:
Second, the US was the first country to recognise Israel - thats significant.
Right. They must've used stones and poo to fight their first couple of wars.Dilbert_X wrote:
Third other countries haven't given Israel trillions of dollars worth of free weapons.
Others have certainly supported the US's position, though.Dilbert_X wrote:
Fourth Other countries haven't blocked every UN resolution critical of Israel.
That's odd. No other countries in the world have supported those countries? Really?Dilbert_X wrote:
Fifth Other countries haven't supported other brutal, corrupt, repressive regimes besides Israel, eg Saudi Arabia, the Shah in Iran, Saddam in Iraq etc.
Its far more plausible than the arabs hating the US for no reason.
The two positions are not mutually exclusive...except in your mind.Dilbert_X wrote:
Wait a minute, the article said animosity preceded any significant US act. Which is it?Sources have been provided that have shown that anti-American animosity grew among the Arab population well after the foundation and recognition of Israel.
Then you need to read better.Dilbert_X wrote:
Still waiting for a single one.I really don't need to provide more examples.
That is nothing whatsoever like STRATFOR's analysis. You know it. Everyone here knows it. It's just you lashing out because your emotion based anti-US and anti-Israeli position doesn't have a leg to stand on in this thread. The foundation of your position doesn't exist. You can't prove a damn thing because all you've got is emotion-based opinion and the counter to your emotional position can't be disproven because it's factual.Dilbert_X wrote:
I think I could make a stack of money from this intel thing, lets try it.
Doot doot dooooot doot doootooot incoming transmission from DILFOR doot dooot doot dootoootoootoot dooot.^ If agree this is BS then try thinking harder about the STRATFOR 'analysis'.DILFOR wrote:
Begin with the claim that German action against the jews generated anti-Germanism in the jewish world. This is patently unfounded. Jewish hatred of the Germans began in the 1930s-40s, well before the Germans did anything which could be considered hostile to the jews.
The first act which could be construed as anti-jewish was in 1974 when the Germans supported the Syrians in setting up a tractor factory, by sending blueprints, machine tools and suchlike. Why the jews in Israel would regard this as a hostile act is unfathomable but there you go. The clear conclusion is the jews despise success and hate freedom, having been indoctrinated in this chain of thought by communist infiltrators at the height of the US-USSR cold war.
Of course some people say the jewish holocaust is relevant, however all european countries and the USA participated in this, the germans merely took the first step, death camps were spread all across europe, it wasn't a particularly german thing. The Russians killed more jews anyway, this griping proves the irationality of their blind hatred.
Conclusions:
The jews are success-despising, freedom hating pencil-necked wieners who side with the USSR on all things.
The USA should send money, weapons and nuclear material to germany to help them continue their noble crusade against the jews.
You owe me $99
End transmission.
You should read this, even Trumans officials were pissed.FEOS wrote:
Such as? You haven't provided an example of that.
Pretty sure it was the US actually, in fact they planned in advance to do so.FEOS wrote:
Actually, the Soviet Union was the first country to officially recognize Israel. I suppose that's insignificant?
No-one has used a veto though, except the US.FEOS wrote:
Others have certainly supported the US's position, though.
Its exactly comparable, you just can't see it because you don't accept what the whole of the rest of the world knows.FEOS wrote:
That is nothing whatsoever like STRATFOR's analysis. You know it. Everyone here knows it.
Incorrect. It was the Soviet Union. Sourcing provided earlier in the thread. They (and others) recognized Israel de jure well before the US did.Dilbert_X wrote:
You should read this, even Trumans officials were pissed.FEOS wrote:
Such as? You haven't provided an example of that.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlesto … /index.phpPretty sure it was the US actually, in fact they planned in advance to do so.FEOS wrote:
Actually, the Soviet Union was the first country to officially recognize Israel. I suppose that's insignificant?
If you look, all those vetoes are post-1967. Doesn't do much to support your theory.Dilbert_X wrote:
No-one has used a veto though, except the US.FEOS wrote:
Others have certainly supported the US's position, though.
Let's see...historical facts back up STRATFOR's position. Those facts directly contradict your position.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its exactly comparable, you just can't see it because you don't accept what the whole of the rest of the world knows.FEOS wrote:
That is nothing whatsoever like STRATFOR's analysis. You know it. Everyone here knows it.
The STRATFOR article is BS, with no evidence or reasoning to back it up. It suits some people's agenda and because it looks official they can wave it around saying 'look look, we were right all along, the arabs ARE unhinged, we must give more money to Israel.
