[PluggyRug]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I know what your saying Plugs, but I've studied both WW's on various uni courses.

I see us making silly decisions towards dictators and tyrants in the vein of those well-meaning prime ministers of the 1930's.

"Peace in our time"

I often wonder if we learned our lesson.

[EyeBrock]

A lot of good young lads died to learn that lesson mate.

[sandorski]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

sandorski sandorski:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

That's not what he was telling the world in 2003 or were you too busy watching Treehouse then?

Fail.

A rather hackneyed phrase old chap. Is the word part of your intellect?

What EyeBrock said is correct, although the war in Iraq was unjustified.

What he said was not correct.

[EyeBrock]

So sandorski, do please put me right.

[Thanos]

I'm not trying to start any new wars here but I find practically all comparisons of the anti-terror war to the wars against Germany and Japan particularly ridiculous. Ditto for any comparisons to the Cold War. Terrorists are little more than gangs of armed criminals. Incredibly dangerous and deadly, yes, but they're still just gangsters. To say that they represent an existential threat to Western civilization is just not credible. Fight them as they spring up? Of course. But turn them into the next coming of Hitler armies? Total nonsense.

[EyeBrock]

Thanos, the comparisons have more merit when you look at the wimpy response to any threat to western countries outside of the US and Australia.

The actual threat is always different.

It just seems that western democracies continue to appease the bad guys.

[Thanos]

I don't see it that way at all anymore. It's more like the vast majority of Western democracies will no longer fall for any of the neo-crusader propaganda that comes out of the neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington D.C.. I never said that we shouldn't fight them as they appear, but I'll never go along again with anything that suggests an entire country and it's infrastructure (as odious as their leaders may be) must be obliterated for the sake of eliminating some ephemeral 'threat'. The "1% possibility" scenario as envisioned by people like Dick Cheney is morally grotesque and is directly responsible for the unneccessary deaths of thousands of allied soldiers and probably hundreds of thousands of civilians. If pre-emption is legitimate then the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour just went from a war crime to being perfectly justifiable because it is easily arguable that their opening shot at the Americans was merely a pre-emption of inevitable US actions against Japan in the southwest Pacific.

[commanderkai]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Thanos, the comparisons have more merit when you look at the wimpy response to any threat to western countries outside of the US and Australia.

The actual threat is always different.

It just seems that western democracies continue to appease the bad guys.

Heck, look at what the Europeans did during the 70s. Hijacking aircraft was big business for the various terrorist organizations because European governments always paid out. It's when they started pissing off Israel is when they realized business wasn't easy anymore.

[ShepherdsDog]

Thanos Thanos:

I don't see it that way at all anymore. It's more like the vast majority of Western democracies will no longer fall for any of the neo-crusader propaganda that comes out of the neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington D.C.. I never said that we shouldn't fight them as they appear, but I'll never go along again with anything that suggests an entire country and it's infrastructure (as odious as their leaders may be) must be obliterated for the sake of eliminating some ephemeral 'threat'. The "1% possibility" scenario as envisioned by people like Dick Cheney is morally grotesque and is directly responsible for the unneccessary deaths of thousands of allied soldiers and probably hundreds of thousands of civilians. If pre-emption is legitimate then the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour just went from a war crime to being perfectly justifiable because it is easily arguable that their opening shot at the Americans was merely a pre-emption of inevitable US actions against Japan in the southwest Pacific.

So you'd be OK if the US went back to officially sanctioning 'problems' being assasinated?

[Thanos]

Yup. Direct decapitation would save more lives in the long run.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Thanos Thanos:

I don't see it that way at all anymore. It's more like the vast majority of Western democracies will no longer fall for any of the neo-crusader propaganda that comes out of the neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington D.C.. I never said that we shouldn't fight them as they appear, but I'll never go along again with anything that suggests an entire country and it's infrastructure (as odious as their leaders may be) must be obliterated for the sake of eliminating some ephemeral 'threat'. The "1% possibility" scenario as envisioned by people like Dick Cheney is morally grotesque and is directly responsible for the unneccessary deaths of thousands of allied soldiers and probably hundreds of thousands of civilians. If pre-emption is legitimate then the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour just went from a war crime to being perfectly justifiable because it is easily arguable that their opening shot at the Americans was merely a pre-emption of inevitable US actions against Japan in the southwest Pacific.

So you'd be OK if the US went back to officially sanctioning 'problems' being assasinated?

Personally I find the idea FAR less reprehensible than invading the nation and potentially killing thousands of innocent civilians.

[stratos]

Thanos Thanos:

I don't see it that way at all anymore. It's more like the vast majority of Western democracies will no longer fall for any of the neo-crusader propaganda that comes out of the neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington D.C.. I never said that we shouldn't fight them as they appear, but I'll never go along again with anything that suggests an entire country and it's infrastructure (as odious as their leaders may be) must be obliterated for the sake of eliminating some ephemeral 'threat'. The "1% possibility" scenario as envisioned by people like Dick Cheney is morally grotesque and is directly responsible for the unneccessary deaths of thousands of allied soldiers and probably hundreds of thousands of civilians. If pre-emption is legitimate then the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour just went from a war crime to being perfectly justifiable because it is easily arguable that their opening shot at the Americans was merely a pre-emption of inevitable US actions against Japan in the southwest Pacific.

Shooting at planes controling the UN no fly zone, having a missel that went over 50 miles further then the cease fire called for at the end of the first Gulf war, use of bio weapons on Kurds, attempted assisination of the former president of the US. Failure to comply with UN inspections. These are just a few of the things that Iraq did prior to the invasion. What more "threats" would you have liked to have happened to justify the war. Oh please dont forget mustard and syrine gas were found after the invasion.

I also find that its kind of convient that there was a convoy heading to Iran that the US was chasing, it made it across the boarder before we could get there. A year or so later Iran has made a giant leap in nucler reactors.

[GreenTiger]

Thanos Thanos:

George W. Bush would have done and said the exact same thing. Bush, no matter how deeply flawed and incorrect his overall strategy turned out to be, always made it clear that the important difference was always between a war against Islamist terrorism and an unneccessary and unwinnable civilizational war against all Muslims. This is one of the few things that I actually miss Bush for, because apparently he was the last one on the right wing who was capable of holding back the lunatics clamouring for an endless war between civilizations. For lack of any better term, it seems that his successors and imitators are demanding nothing less than a Christian jihad.

The problem with Obama doing this is his middle name Hussein. He just should have said this is a local matter for New York City and left it at that.

[EyeBrock]

I'm not sure about a Christian Jihad. I think Crusade sounds better. Just kidding…..!

You can't even mention the 'C' word (crusade) anymore, funny how that one has dropped off in common usage eh?.

I agree with Thanos to an extent. The Loony Right are seizing things like this and whipping up anti-Muslim feeling within the neo-Nazi types in the US.

But, Muslims are doing very little to counter these arguments.

Until mainstream Islam is seen as more tolerant of others (Saudi Arabia etc.) and takes others feelings into account as in this ill-conceived mosque at ground zero, they will continue to prove the Rabid Right's points.


The same is happening in the UK.

The mainly Pakistani Muslim immigrants refuse and actively resist intergration or accommodation with the Anglo-Saxon majority in England.

This just plays into the hands of idiots like the English Defence League, National Front, BNP and all the other moronic racist far-right organisations.

It’s up to Islam to try and meet us half-way. I don’t see that happening in the near future and the racists will gain ground because of it.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

... are little more than gangs of armed criminals. Incredibly dangerous and deadly, yes, but they're still just gangsters. To say that they represent an existential threat to Western civilization is just not credible.

Exactly these words could've been said of the Nazis in 1923. They were just a gang of thugs at that point and had Weimar taken aggressive action to put them down (some 400 to 1,000 racist pigs in 1923) instead of respecting their rights how much blood could've been saved?

The lesson of 1923 (not 1938, 1939, 1940, or etc.) was that you deal with these vermin BEFORE they become a massive threat.

The failure of US policy was that after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (which could've killed about 20,000 to 40,000 people if they'd done it right) we refused to take Al Qaeda seriously and when we had opportunities to aggressively deal with these guys we did nothing. Had we pursued them in 1993 before they had coopted an entire country (Afghanistan) it would've just been a matter of putting down a fringe group. Instead we let their vile philosophy fester and gain strength while we dithered over what to do about them and while we listened to people who said that Al Qaeda really posed no threat to the USA.

Now we're caught up in doing too little, too late. I hate to say, but after Obama pulls the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan Al Qaeda will be stronger than ever.

And their next attack will make 9/11 look like a day in the park and then the war to deal with them next time will probably be on par with WW2. And that's assuming we can afford to do it at all.