Nikolai Kondratiev before he was murdered by Stalin put forward
the theory that S-shaped cycles in the modern (Capitalist) world
economy marked a 50 year rise and fall cycle.
"Most cycle theorists agree, however, with the "Schumpeter-Freeman-Perez"
paradigm of five waves so far since the industrial revolution, and the
sixth one to come. These five cycles are
The Industrial Revolution--1771
The Age of Steam and Railways--1829
The Age of Steel, Electricity and Heavy Engineering--1875
The Age of Oil, the Automobile and Mass Production--1908
The Age of Information and Telecommunications--1971
According to this theory, we are currently at the turning-point of the 5th Kondratiev."
ref - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave
Immanuel Wallerstein suggests there had been three hegemonic powers in
modern history:
the United Provinces in the Netherlands (mid-17th century),
the United Kingdom (mid-19th century) and
the USA (mid-20th century).
which coincide with 3 major cycles of economic transformations and war.:
1792-1850,
1850-1896, and
1896-1940
Although this cannot be considered 'evidence' of a downturn in US
economic growth, we can see a marked downturn in GNP from post WWII
where US GNP stood at nearly half that of the worlds to the
late 1960's where it was at 26%.
ref - http://www.globalcomplexity.org/USA%20in%20Decline.htm
Originally posted by Thequ1cki think youre a dikchead for saying that, thats the stupidest question ive ever heard
Is this really a suitable term for the likes of Bin Laden?
I mean this is a guy who supposedly sent two planes into
one of the US's most significant landmarks at a time when
America was facing the possibility of the longest and most
severe recession in its history.
He handed the US the opportunity to protect their beloved
dollar and made his group international hate figures.
I think 'd**kheads' would be a better description.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomVery good, 90% there. However what you have just described is
somebody strikeing fear (trying to) on people with attacks, not all are from the middle east lol
a d**ckhead.
A terrorist strikes fear into civilians for the purpose of achieving
a political or ideological goal.
My argument is that the actions of 911 did not serve the best
interests of Al-qaeda.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckare you saying hes not a terrorist just a d**ckhead or are you saying the label terrorist is too good for him?
Very good, 90% there. However what you have just described is
a d**ckhead.
A terrorist strikes fear into civilians for the purpose of achieving
a political or ideological goal.
My argument is that the actions of 911 did not serve the best
interests of Al-qaeda.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckRubbish. The US GNP has been increasing for decades. Using "post WWII" as a benchmark is spurious; Europe was still in ruins and the Third World was still either mostly colonies or had just become independent. No one anticipated that any nation would have retain that level of economic dominance. Are you seriously suggesting that the US had a "severe recession" from WWII until the last 60's?
Nikolai Kondratiev before he was murdered by Stalin put forward
the theory that S-shaped cycles in the modern (Capitalist) world
economy marked a 50 year rise and fall cycle.
"Most cycle theorists agree, however, with the "Schumpeter-Freeman-Perez"
paradigm of five waves so far since the industrial revolution, and the
sixth one to come. These five 's where it was at 26%.
ref - http://www.globalcomplexity.org/USA%20in%20Decline.htm
Originally posted by no1marauderOBL was definately responsible for ordering 9/11. He admitted to it himself within a few weeks of the attacks. There is certainly a bravery in taking on the US when you are out-manned and out-gunned, but this bravery is superceded by the cowardice of killing innocents, and using terrorism as a means of achieving your objective. There are other strategies which can be used against a stronger force.
I'm sure OBL realized that after 9/11 the US military, the strongest in the history of the world, would make every attempt to kill or capture him. So he put himself in serious harm's way by ordering the attacks (assuming he did which seems probable). That is not the action of a "coward".
Although I do not agree with many of the US' decisions since 9/11, I can't wait for the day they find Bin Laden and string the bastard up. Anyone who calls themselves a terrorist does not deserve to live.
B.
Originally posted by BromageSo far as know and I have read all his statements, OBL has never stated he personally ordered the 9/11 attacks. His statements imply that he had advance knowledge of it and it is a reasonable position to believe that he did order it. However, the question is not free from doubt. If the US would actually try in a court of law some of the persons held who it is claimed organized the attack, then the facts would be clearer.
OBL was definately responsible for ordering 9/11. He admitted to it himself within a few weeks of the attacks. There is certainly a bravery in taking on the US when you are out-manned and out-gunned, but this bravery is superceded by the cowardice of killing innocents, and using terrorism as a means of achieving your objective. There are other strategies whi d string the bastard up. Anyone who calls themselves a terrorist does not deserve to live.
B.
I'm curious; do you consider the bomber pilots who firebombed Dresden or dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima "cowards"? Or the generals who ordered them to do so "cowards"? They knew that great numbers of innocent civilians would be killed and the purpose of the latter could certainly be considered "terroristic" (i.e. to force the Japanese to surrender by instilling a fear that other cities would be A-bombed and millions of more civilians killed if they did not). I think if you are consistent you would certainly have to answer these questions in the affirmative. Do you?
I've never heard OBL refer to himself as a "terrorist" and I doubt he ever has. I would rate the possibility of him ever being caught alive as near zero.
Originally posted by no1marauderWe can agree on that for sure. OBL is no coward, he proved that by fighting along side his soldiers. Not like Saddam for instance, found crouching in a dirt laden root cellar. OBL would probably have come out with guns blazing. Our fearless leader would probably have peed in his pants and come out crying like a little girl.
Bizarre. Bin Laden went to Afghanistan and actually was involved in battles against the Soviets, but you call him a coward.
Bush avoided military service overseas during wartime but he's not a coward like someone who actually was involved in fighting.
You have some rather odd ideas.