[FoRK] A choice of nightmares

geege schuman geege4 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 3 12:31:52 PDT 2008

The clusterfucking war demonstrates a lot more (worse) than fiscal
irresponsibility.  Ironically, our national security has been anything but

A recent RAND research effort sheds light on this issue by investigating how
terrorist groups have ended in the past. By analyzing a comprehensive roster
of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the
authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by
local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a
settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary
reason a terrorist group ended, and few groups within this time frame
achieved victory.

These findings suggest that the U.S. approach to countering al Qa'ida has
focused far too much on the use of military force. Instead, policing and
intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts.

Yet another reason we don't need to move a war hero from the senate to the
White House.


On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Zee Roe <zero at rawbw.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> > Yeah, when people endorse and promulgate a system where people can
> > micro-manage the lives of everyone else, it should not be surprising
> > that one's own ox gets gored on occasion.
> Which is why, in its current configuration I will *never* vote for a
> repulican presidential candidate. Jeff's sticking point is the economy,
> mine happens to be individual rights and stopping the spread of
> ass-backward religious memes.  I see the republicans these days as the
> worst of both worlds -- fiscal irresponsibility by cutting taxes and
> starting wars, and the systematic destruction of individual rights in all
> three branches of government (as best they can).
> Picking sarah palin is a *big middle finger* to people like me. I was
> planning on voting for a useless third party candidate, and am now
> donating cash to Obama's election effort, just because anything that
> brings about the total annihilation of the current republican agenda can
> only be good for the country in the long term.  (Please note that I am
> *not* for the collapse of the republican party, just for its current evil
> taskmasters, who seem to be diametrically opposed to me on *everything*.)
> I appreciate Jeff's concerns, and think he has several valid points, both
> re: Barack's questionable quasi-socialist agenda, and keeping a single
> party out of power. However, I think that the last eight years -- and a
> promise of more of the same[1] -- have proven exactly how damaging a core
> cadre of media-savvy hyper-expert manipulators who also happen to have a
> fuckton of money can be.
> Feel free to try and convince me that McCain couldn't railroad his first
> judicial pick through a spineless democratic senate, or that whatever
> damage Barack may cause to the economy outweighs everything else, but at
> this point you're facing an uphill battle.
> z
> [1] No, McCain != Bush. I hate that meme. But I think in terms of things
> that matter to me, the policies he'll try and push, and the justices he's
> likely to nominate, will be at the very least remarkably similar.
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

More information about the FoRK mailing list