It's going to be WWIII

[The Mad Monk]

Actually, I was just thinking that the Cold War may well have been WWIII.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Azazel
It COULD become one. And some of the most intriguing, geopolitically, stuff could happen in europe.

Like what? I always thought Armageddon was supposed to happen in your corner of the woods....

[Az]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Like what? I always thought Armageddon was supposed to happen in your corner of the woods....

Armageddon? could be. But that's not an "interesting geopolitical developement"

[HershOstropoler]

I always saw it as the ultimate "interesting geopolitical developement".

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Azazel
It COULD become one. And some of the most intriguing, geopolitically, stuff could happen in europe.

Rumsfeld is visiting Europe today. The angle is that on the one hand he is upset with the idea of an independent European military. On the other hand he is dissatisfied with the state of the European military. Meaning that it is not capable of projecting force outside Europe to any significant degree.

Problem is I think that he wants the best of two worlds. A powerful European military and under American command. I think he will only be able to get one of them since they are mutually exclusive.

[Dinner]

Being in NATO doesn't mean under American command especially since NATO requires unanomous decisions before it will act. That means Iceland could veto action if it wants to.

The main problem with a European command is that it takes scarous resources and then divides them up into two sepporate piles instead of in one big pile. That means we will collectively spend more yet get less. France is pushing it because Chirac thinks he can dominate the European command where as he is a red headed step child in NATO's command. In the French government's opinion they feel it is better to set up a competeting system then settle for a system where France doesn't control events.

[Ned]

There seem to be two forms of radical Islam: One, the radical Shi'ites in Iran who fund Hezbollah; and two, the Sunni Wahhabis that are primarily based in Saudi Arabia and, it appears, in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden is the leader of the Wahhabi radicals. But, he also seems to be cooperating with the Iranians. The common thing that unites them is hatred of the West and a desire that all Islamic countries be ruled by the clerics as they rule in Iran.

We have intelligence that Osama bin Laden and Saddam began contacts with each other as early as 1993. There is strong evidence of cooperation between OBL and Saddam since that time. Even though Saddam was a national socialist, he began to emphasize his religion in the last decade - probably to encourage the support of OBL in Saddam's own war with the West.

Bill Clinton was aware of all this an apparently told Bush that OBL was America's greatest threat. At the time of Bush's election, al Qaida was based in Afghanistan, but had significant support in Pakistan and in Saudi Arabia. It also had the cooperation of Saddam. If Bush ever had any doubts about Clinton's advice, they were ended on 9/11.

Now, faced with the above, Bush has acted to take out Afghanistan and Iraq, and has worked diplomatically on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to end their support of radicals and of al Qaida. The strategy is still in progress, but one can see the overall plan.

The next major hurdle seems to be Iran. But that will have to wait until Iraq is solved. Hopefully, a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Iraq will inspire a pro-democratic revolution in Iran. But, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Dinner]

The Iranians have held numerous deminstrations against clerical rule but the Islamists control the Army and the radical clerics have imprisioned many people who have worked towards change in Iran.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Being in NATO doesn't mean under American command especially since NATO requires unanomous decisions before it will act. That means Iceland could veto action if it wants to.

Wrong. Belgium tried.
Not on basis of nothing, but on basis NATO constitution. The answer of USA was swift, aggrssive and insulting: not based on law, but based on blackmail and threat to whole Europe.

[PLATO]

WWIII or WWIV? What's the difference? Does anyone believe that there is not a world wide anti-western, muslim fundamentalist sponsored, terror war going on? Anyone?

The question becomes; How to respond? Do we try to diplomatically solve it? How do you do that? The only way that I can think of would be to give the fundies what they want. But would that end it? IMO, it would only inspire higher ambitions...the anti-western indoctrination is to imbedded and to many power brokers have their power based soley on this fact. No, that is not the solution. How about "pressuring" governments in the area to control it themselves? Oh, wait...we have been trying to do that for two decades and have been getting lip service and no real action. Hmm...maybe we should take the hot war to them and try to change the way of thinking that encourages violence and not dialogue. What a novel approach.

The problem with most of the anti-war posters is that they offer no VIABLE alternatives. Their solutions are eithier based on the assumption that the enemy has the same underlying belief system that we have (which they don't) or they are based on ideas that have been tried and have failed to achieve results.

It never ceases to amaze me that people want to blame war on the US. The problem is exactly as some above have described...A religious fundamentalist movement that seeks to overthrow governments in order to install theocracies.

[HershOstropoler]

"It never ceases to amaze me that people want to blame war on the US."

Osama and his folk are terrorists, not a country. The one who is trying to start WW IV is the US administration.

[Harovan]

There is a slight but significant difference between the so called war on terror (as right now in Afghanistan) and the war for whatever reason, or with whatever excuse, in Iraq. The former is at least halfway just, while the latter is simply a war of aggression. I have absolutely nothing against the commitment of my country in Afghanistan and wouldn't mind if it would even grow in the future. At the same time I am thankful for the middle finger the US have been shown concerning Iraq, even though I am not a friend of Schroeder at all or any other idiotic politician, for that matter. It should have been even more harsh than it was.

What concerns the European defense policy: I'm all for an independent European military, even though this would cause me more tax money to pay. The NATO is a relic of the cold war, should be dissolved and the US bases closed.

[laurentius]

YEaH EUropeans Rock! Americains Dont! Woohoo!

/me feels like the average G.I. Joe in Eiraq when Bush comes up with the ThanksGiving turkey

Ps. MtG its you whos the troller over Iraq with your crappy threads

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by PLATO
WWIII or WWIV? What's the difference? Does anyone believe that there is not a world wide anti-western, muslim fundamentalist sponsored, terror war going on? Anyone?

I don't believe it is worldwide. There have been no Al-quada terror attacks on Canada, Mexico, EU, China, Japan, South Africa, just to mention a few of the major players.

Russia has experienced a few, however that was not al-quada, and the Western press were quick to insinuate that it was probably the KGB, or whatever they call themselves now, who blew up those apartment blocks in Moscow.

Indeed it is fortunate that no one will ever insinuate that it was British intelligence who blew up the HCBC bank and the British consulate. But of course it is not fashionable to kick the Brits around. The Russians still serve that end.

That is not to say that there is not the possibility that it will escalate on a global scale. It is just my perception that the terrorists are targeting specific nations, for specific reasons which have to do with a specific foreign policy. Or in the case of Israel domestic policy.

It is true that there has been an escalation. 9-11 made that quite obvious. It is no longer merely *** for tat, as when the Iranians blew up the plane over Lockerbye in exchange for the downing of the Iranian airliner by an American warship. The Lybians took the fall for that one, but that was merely to squeeze them for cash.

So all in all there are too many inconsistencies in the narrative laid down by the hawks in Washington. The war on terror is a design which is meant ot specifically further the interests of a very small number of people, who, Muslim as well as Christian, have a considerable similar outlook on life.

[Defiant]

This is a world war but not in the way we envision world wars. It takes a concert of countries to attack specialized terrorist cells within their own country for the the foe cannot attack in military fashion we are used to in world wars. It is more accurate to view this as a fight against guerilla terrorists. And we are fighting a radical mutation idealology of a few.

If you look at the Middle East, only one country is democratic, Israel. What Bush has done is take a weakened country from '91 and is attempting to create a democracy out of it as a form of freedom to spread to other countries, primarily Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
Even though Qatar, Jordan and Kuwait are not democratic in sense we envision it but they are growing more and more Western, "if you will", and are becoming free.

15/19 of the highjackers in 2001 where from Saudi Arabia and they and their kind want to keep freedom from existing in their part of the world. The few want to maintain all the power and are using terrorists to achieve this goal. Now, we could have attacked Saudi Arabia but if we are going to bring western forces to Mecca we better be prepared to kill alot more Muslims than we did, that is why Saudi was not attacked, Bush is trying to achieve a democratic Middle East with the fewest casualties on both sides. A noble effort.

This is a monumental effort by Bush but it has to happen and succeed or the alternative is to attack Saudi, Syria, Iran and the like and I don't think anybody wants to see that. Lets plant the seed in Iraq and hope it spreads like wild fire, freedom has a funny way of doing that, once it is recognized.