It's going to be WWIII

[Solly]

Huntington is about a big a fool as Fukuyama.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

I always wonder about this European obsession with saying the US is scared of independant Euro military. The US has always wanted Europe to build up its military. I'm not sure why some Europeans want to think we are scared of what we have been asking for?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The US has always wanted Europe to build up its military.

But not a unified military.

[Sandman]

It's not a world war. Al Qaeda are criminals, not soldiers, and should be dealt with by the security services, not the military. Having said that, I would be prepared to accept small discrete military operations against proven terrorist targets. But, by and large, a true terrorist needs no infrastructure; they use the enemy's.

Calling what is effectively the duty of the police a war is nothing more than propaganda, and invites terrible abuse of governmental powers.

[Defiant]

Now that I would like to see, Germans hand in hand with the French, how long will that last.

[Provost Harrison]

WWIII? Couldn't happen to a nicer species

[Ned]

On Saudi Arabia, so long as the government is on our side in the war on terror, there is no reason to attack Saudi Arabia.

The major divide in this thread are between those who insist that the war is only between one terrorist organization, al Qaida, and the West. They do not properly account for the fact that Wahhabi's everywhere are aggressively trying to spread their cult and are loosely allied with al Qaida. Their goals are to drive out the West and to create theocracies in Muslim countries.

They also deny that Saddam Hussein was allied with the radicals. This is critical to their thesis that Iraq was no threat to the West and that the coalition war on Iraq was unjustified.

They also do not see Iranian fundamentalism as a problem even though the Iranians began the radical movement to theocratic governments. They deny any cooperation between the two fundamentalist movements.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ned
On Saudi Arabia, so long as the government is on our side in the war on terror, there is no reason to attack Saudi Arabia.

The major divide in this thread are between those who insist that the war is only between one terrorist organization, al Qaida, and the West. They do not properly account for the fact that Wahhabi's everywhere are aggressively trying to spread their cult and are loosely allied with al Qaida. Their goals are to drive out the West and to create theocracies in Muslim countries.

They also deny that Saddam Hussein was allied with the radicals. This is critical to their thesis that Iraq was no threat to the West and that the coalition war on Iraq was unjustified.

They also do not see Iranian fundamentalism as a problem even though the Iranians began the radical movement to theocratic governments. They deny any cooperation between the two fundamentalist movements.

Exactly.

The only question I would have about that post is: Is Saudi really on our side? That question has enough undercurrent and room for debate that it could fill its own thread.

When you are in tune with what is really behind the fundamentalist movement then all you can do is shake your head at a prickbrick statement like:

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

[HershOstropoler]

You'll stop laughing when you are there.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Defiant
democratic in sense we envision it but they are growing more and more Western, "if you will", and are becoming free.

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.

Even though there are reportedly a few cases of slavery in the Sudan, I believe that most Muslims are in fact free. As in free in the original meaning, that is not a slave.

I think what is meant by the modern concept of freedom is in fact liberty. Liberty is in fact a concept entirely different from freedom. It is basicly a key element in bourgouis ideology and it means that there should be no responsibility on a person, he should be detached from any traditional constraints which might inhibit the goal of becoming a good capitalist.

This concept has been tried and tested in Egypt where it has led to even greater inequality and poverty, however that is apparently only a small price to pay for having a small corrupt westernized upperclass which can be easily controlled by western socalled interests.

Fact is that economists have not been able to make a positive connection between liberty and quality of life, or economic progress. For a developing nation it seems that the opposite is true.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Even though there are reportedly a few cases of slavery in the Sudan

Understatement of the week.

[Spiffor]

A war where East Asia, South Asia, most of Africa and Sout America are not involved or scarcely involved can't be called a World War.

Did you guys speaking about 'the world war of terrorism against the West' knew that in the only territory or Congo, there has been millions casualties in the few past years (I think I remember more than 4,000,000 casualties) ?
That's much more than your 'world war' will ever produce until a nuclear power goes amok.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
A war where East Asia, South Asia, most of Africa and Sout America are not involved or scarcely involved can't be called a World War.

Did you guys speaking about 'the world war of terrorism against the West' knew that in the only territory or Congo, there has been millions casualties in the few past years (I think I remember more than 4,000,000 casualties) ?
That's much more than your 'world war' will ever produce until a nuclear power goes amok.

Spiffor, Terrorist attacks have occurred in South America, South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, Europe, Africa, and North America. While it is true that not all of these are associated with Muslim Fundamentalist, the war is not against Muslim fundamentalist. It is a war on Terror. Muslim fundamentalist just get the most coverage because they are the best at it. To say that it is not a world war is to look at the problem through blinders. Simply because the US acted in an area where the fundamentalist are strong doesn't diminish the importance of fighting terror in other places. It is simplistic to say that the conflict is limited to a certain geographic area and that the entire world is not now engaged.

Muslim fundamentalism is a particularly dangerous basis for terrorism as it brings the fervor of religion and the promise of an afterlife into the equation. It is also one of the best financed kinds of terrorism for the same reason. It is quite logical to take the fight to the area that is breeding this kind of hatred. It is essential for the world that something change. The status quo could not continue because the fundamentalist were continuing to expand their terror base and therefore there was not a status quo. The US acted to try to do something that was huge. They are trying to change the face of the Middle East. How can anyone expect this to happen overnight? US forces will be engaged there in one way or another for a considerable length of time, but what was the alternative? IMO most all other alternatives had been tried and failed.

The Middle East is the "frontline" for sure, but to say that it is not a worldwide war on terror is just simply incorrect.

[Spiffor]

PLATO:
Well, it is true that about every country in the world devotes energy and cooperation in the fight against terrorism -save for countries that promote it. Such coordinated effort was made possible only once the Cold War was over, but it is true these efforts have begun in the wake of Sept. 11 and not before.

In this meaning, the war on terror is indeed (almost a) world war.

But it doesn't exactly fit my understanding of World War, the kind in which thousands are slaughtered every day by some rival country. The Worlwide War on Terror is of muuuuch lower intensity, and I don't see it grow neither in the ye olde slaughter, nor in the apocalytic nuclear WW3 we feared so much not long ago.

[Ned]

Tripledoc, your post regarding no correspondence between liberty (right to contract, own property, to travel, etc.) and prosperty is remarkable in its wilfull ignorance.