Mmmm....power.....
 

Why am I against the invasion of Iraq? Because I don't trust this Administration to improve democracy and self-determination in the region. They sure as shit haven't done it in their own country (USA Patriot Act, anyone?).

To clarify: Bush is not a fascist. He is a proto-fascist. He is setting the groundwork for people after him to do whatever the hell they please, because that's what he likes to do.

But, Bush&Co. are not the only ones doing it. They are one example of a greater cultural trend. Our power structures have been centralizing for the past several decades. The rise of the power of the executive (both in the corporate and governmental senses) and the creation of massive federal bureaucracies (operational like the Armed Forces [lumping soldiers and intel all together], and supportive, like the Social Services Administration) are two more examples.

And after that slight diversion, back to the point:
If we invade, even if it isn't unilaterally, and we don't back up our promises with the creation of a TRULY liberal democracy (and NOT just a puppet regime that will kowtow to whatever we want, which, in and of itself is hard to believe), then what will the response of the Islamic world be? Is that reaction (which will be invariably REALLY bad) worth putting Hussein out of our misery?

Oh, and UT, that is a PET (Personal Entrenchment Tool) used to dig the hole you will be buried in (or so I'm told)
:)

Forcing an attack?
 

LA Times reports this little gem.


Rumsfeld's influential Defense Science Board 2002 Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism says in its classified "outbrief" -- a briefing drafted to guide other Pentagon agencies -- that the global war on terrorism "requires new strategies, postures and organization."

The board recommends creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception.

Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response" attacks by U.S. forces.

Re: Forcing an attack?
 

It's a perfectly good idea, provided you've already decided the groups involved are your enemy.

The danger, of course, is creating enemies where none exist.

or if the stimulated reactions cause preventable casualties.

That one's a tradeoff. If you can get them to react prematurely at a time and place of your choosing (or at least your knowledge) you might cause casualties now while preventing much greater casualties in the future.

This might be true, but if you know enough about them to stimulate a reaction you would think it wouldn't take that much to go about stopping them when they try to act independently. Then again I don't know that much about the intelligence community.

I would think it would be a hell of a lot easier to respond to a reaction that you've stimulated than one that was stimulated by other random stuff in the environment. Much easier to defend when you get to choose the time and circumstances of engagement.

This is all in how you look at it. Yeah it's going to be easier when you choose the time and place but then again but stimulating a reaction it's most likely going to alert the group that you are on to them. This is going to cause them to be on their guard. But I guess everyone is on their guard. On the other hand I think that if you have the ability to learn about the act tyou brought about hrough stimulus you should be able to learn about the act before it occurs no matter what causes it.

I just don't see why we should stimulate reactions. I just think this is going to bring about more terrorist acts then there would have been before.

;)