[FREE] stratfor (fwd)

[James B. DiGriz]

auto301094 at hushmail.com wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> James wrote:
> 
> 
>>What is this, Henry Kissinger's vanity website or something? It reads
>>like one of his Nixon era State Dept. memos on Vietnam or some shit.
>>Pure felgercarb.
>>
> 
> What objective criteria do you use to tell good analysis from bad?
> 


dict.org cites Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

War War, n. OE. & AS. werre; akin to OHG. werra scandal,
    quarrel, sedition, werran to confound, mix, D. warren, G.
    wirren, verwirren, to embroil, confound, disturb, and perhaps
    to E. worse; cf. OF. werre war, F. querre, of Teutonic
    origin. Cf. Guerrilla, Warrior.
    1. A contest between nations or states, carried on by force,
       whether for defence, for revenging insults and redressing
       wrongs, for the extension of commerce, for the acquisition
       of territory, for obtaining and establishing the
       superiority and dominion of one over the other, or for any
       other purpose; armed conflict of sovereign powers;
       declared and open hostilities.

             Men will ever distinguish war from mere bloodshed.
                                                   --F. W.
                                                   Robertson.

    Note: As war is the contest of nations or states, it always
          implies that such contest is authorized by the monarch
          or the sovereign power of the nation. A war begun by
          attacking another nation, is called an offensive war,
          and such attack is aggressive. War undertaken to repel
          invasion, or the attacks of an enemy, is called
          defensive.


This is not the definition used in the analysis, which references the 
much-bandied "war on terrorism". Granted that the English language is no 
longer what it was after nearly a century of concerted corruption 
through constant misuse  by all stripes of propagandists, disinformation 
artists, and damned liars, but any analysis that supplants shoddy 
analogies and metaphor for precise usage (and I'm wondering for what 
reason) is suspect. Also granted that this is what the politicians are 
touting, with only tangential suggestions of conflict with other states.

That's just for starters. It gets worse from there. Since that's the 
major premise of the article, though, I see no point in proceeding further.

> 
> 
>>Mr. Bin Laden must be flattered no end if
>>he thinks that the U.S. reallly considers him personally, or even his
>>entire organization, that much of a menace.
>>
> 
> You mean the way some people around here are convinced that this list will
> somehow be declared a terrorist organization? Like that?
> 


Or like the way governments have got into the habit of placing 
individuals into roles formerly reserved for nations and states. They 
should be more careful about that. Sets a dangerous precedent, if you 
ask me.I don't think the idea is to acknowledge sovereign powers, 
either, incur an obligation to treat with, etc., but that's the 
inescapable conclusion. Better hope the sheep don't look up, huh?

> 
> 
>>Doubt he's that stupid, though.
>>
> 
> Probably not.
> 
> ~F.


Some people may hope he is.

jbdigriz